Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump announced on May 8 that Judge Jeanine Pirro, best known for her role as a Fox News commentator, had been tapped to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the most influential prosecutorial positions in the country.

“I am pleased to announce that Judge Jeanine Pirro will be appointed interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. 

“Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself. Congratulations Jeanine!”

The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia is uniquely influential, as the post entails oversight of both federal and local D.C. code. It handles cases ranging from homicide to political corruption to federal fraud violations.

The announcement came after Trump withdrew the nomination of his previous pick for the job, attorney Ed Martin. That decision came after Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) announced he wouldn’t support Martin’s confirmation, making it unlikely he could be approved by the Senate.

The announcement came after Trump withdrew the nomination of his previous pick for the job, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin, due to insurmountable opposition in the Senate. Appointed in January, Martin’s term in the role expires on May 20, and he would need Senate confirmation by then to take up the post in a full capacity.

Trump cited Pirro’s extensive legal background in his post announcing her nomination.

“Jeanine was Assistant District Attorney for Westchester County, New York, and then went on to serve as County Judge, and District Attorney, where she was the first woman ever to be elected to those positions. During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime. Her establishment of the Domestic Violence Bureau in her Prosecutor’s Office was the first in the Nation.”

“She excelled in all ways,” Trump said.

Pirro previously hosted the show “Justice with Judge Jeanine” on Fox News for ten years. She is currently a co-host of “The Five,” also on Fox News.

She’s become known for her tough-on-crime attitude toward law enforcement, often speaking critically of policies on violent crime, which aligns with Trump’s plans to reduce crime in the nation’s capital.

If confirmed by the Senate, Pirro would instantly become one of the most powerful and important prosecutors in the country, rivaled only by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan.

It remains to be seen whether the Senate will be more amenable to Pirro’s nomination than they were to Martin’s.

Without Senate confirmation, the choice of a permanent replacement will fall to a panel of federal judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, led by Chief Judge James Boasberg.

Tillis tied this opposition to Martin’s legal work and advocacy related to Jan. 6 defendants arrested under President Joe Biden’s administration.

“If Mr. Martin were being put forward for any district except the district where Jan. 6 happened—the protest happened, I’d probably support him, but not in this district,” Tillis told reporters on Tuesday.

Martin, known for representing defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, defended his past advocacy in a meeting with Tillis on Monday evening. While the senator said Martin “did a good job” of explaining that some individuals were “over prosecuted,” he said “there were some—two or three hundred of them—that should have never gotten a pardon.”

The senator said he believes that anyone who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, should serve prison time.

“Whether it’s 30 days or three years is debatable,” he said, “but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building—and that’s probably where most of the friction was.”

In lieu of the position, Trump announced that he would be appointing Martin to several roles at the Department of Justice where he would oversee investigations into alleged weaponization of law enforcement against conservatives under the Biden administration.

“Ed Martin has done an AMAZING job as interim U.S. Attorney, and will be moving to the Department of Justice as the new Director of the Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“In these highly important roles, Ed will make sure we finally investigate the Weaponization of our Government under the Biden Regime, and provide much needed Justice for its victims. Congratulations Ed!”

Nintendo's first sales forecast for its highly anticipated Switch 2 console came in at 15 million units for the fiscal year ending March—falling short of Bloomberg's analyst consensus of 16.8 million. The miss may reflect growing trade uncertainty and mounting macroeconomic headwinds souring consumer sentiments. The console is slated for release in June.

Goldman gaming analysts Minami Munakata and Haruki Kubota said Nintendo executives typically provide "conservative" estimates before any new console launch. 

Here's Munakata and Kubota's first take on the weaker-than-expected sales forecast for Switch 2:

FY3/26 guidance calls for operating profits of ¥320 bn (+13.3% yoy), assuming shipments of 15 mn units for Switch 2 hardware and 45 mn units for software. This is well below GSe (¥483.6 bn) and the Bloomberg consensus (¥449.3 bn).

However, we would note that Nintendo's guidance has tended to be conservative at the time of new hardware launches, with upward revisions then following over the course of the fiscal year (as was the case when the Switch was launched).

Management also said that its 15 mn volume assumption for the Switch 2 is a level it is targeting for year one, and that there are no supply constraints. Given strong demand, with around 2.2 mn customers registering for the Switch 2 ballot sale in Japan alone via the My Nintendo Store website, we think there is ample upside potential to guidance.

The analysts continued: 

It explained that while the Switch 2 has a higher selling price than the Switch, which could present a hurdle to early adoption, the Switch 2 offers platform continuity, including backward compatibility with existing game software, which could support penetration. The company also plans to offer bundled software. Management underlined that the 15 mn unit assumption does not reflect any supply constraints. Our conversations with investors have indicated expectations for shipments of 17-18 mn units, which we consider achievable given that Nintendo has confirmed no major supply constraints and that demand appears strong based on ballot sale registrations.

Separately, Pelham Smithers, managing director at Japan equity research firm Pelham Smithers Associates, noted, "You will have a good portion who will think management is being cautious, knowing that there's little upside in being too bullish at this stage. However, you'll also have a portion that will be concerned that Nintendo may look to keep the Switch 2 in short supply through this fiscal year."

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Nathan Naidu commented on the positive pre-order trends:

Nintendo's softer-than-expected fiscal 2026 sales and profit guidance vs. consensus is in line with an historically conservative stance, which tariffs probably justify. Positive pre-order trends in Japan, the US and other key markets suggest the company might achieve the 15 million-unit sales goal earlier for its Switch 2 video-game console. The 45 million software-unit goal also seems beatable, with the strong lineup of third-party games — including Cyberpunk 2077 — and in-house ones helping activate or entice upgrades among Nintendo's 366 million users.

Two weeks ago, we commented on the numerous reports from major retailers about the Switch 2 selling out...  

Nintendo Switch 2 Frenzy: "Selling Out" Across US Retailers As Tariffs Won't Impact Pricing https://t.co/iGaSCMTxm1

Recall that the Goldman analysts are Nintendo bulls who have previously stated that Switch 2 (the successor to the Nintendo Switch) will "unlock dormant hardware and dormant users" and send "the number of active consoles to continue to renew record highs." 

Maybe Goldman and other analysts are correct—management could simply be offering conservative estimates ahead of the highly anticipated Switch 2 launch in June.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants to Libya or any other country of which they are not citizens without first giving them notice and an opportunity to claim protection under U.S. law, after reports surfaced of an imminent military flight carrying detainees to the North African nation.

Venezuelans arrive home after being deported from the United States, at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on April 3, 2025. Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, in a series of rulings issued on May 7 from the bench and in court filings, said that any effort to remove noncitizens without procedural safeguards would be a clear violation of an earlier injunction that he issued on April 18.

“If there is any doubt—the Court sees none—the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as Plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this Court’s Order,” Murphy wrote in his May 7 ruling.

Murphy’s April 18 order prohibits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out a so-called third-country removal unless the detainee is first given written notice in a language he or she understands, a chance to request a reasonable fear screening, and at least 15 days to file a motion to reopen his or her immigration case if the screening is denied. That order effectively barred DHS from deporting an illegal immigrant with final removal orders to a country that is not his or her home country without first giving the immigrant a chance to raise claims that, if sent there, he or she would face persecution, torture, or death.

The judge’s emergency ruling on May 7 came hours after the plaintiffs in the class-action case filed a request for a temporary restraining order, citing news reports and attorney declarations indicating that DHS and possibly the Department of Defense (DOD) were preparing to deport several Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals to Libya without those protections in place.

“This motion should not even be required as it blatantly defies this Court’s preliminary injunctions,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote, while describing Libya as a country “notorious for its human rights violations.”

In two electronic orders issued later on May 7, Murphy reinforced the scope of his prior injunction and indicated that deportations carried out in coordination with the DOD may also fall under the court’s scrutiny. He scheduled expedited discovery into the role of both the DHS and DOD in recent removals and requested a briefing on whether the Pentagon should be formally added to the case as a defendant.

In their emergency motion, attorneys for the plaintiffs cited a reported flight plan involving a U.S. Air Force C-17 departing from Kelly Field in Texas to Misrata Airport in Libya, along with accounts that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had allegedly instructed detainees to sign documents agreeing to removal to Libya or face what amounted to solitary confinement.

According to filings in the case, some plaintiffs had previously been granted protection from removal to their home countries under the Convention Against Torture but were later told they could be sent to third countries not included in their original orders.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case comes amid the Trump administration’s broader effort to expand its deportation program and explore new destination countries for foreign nationals ordered removed from the United States.

President Donald Trump recently questioned whether individuals who entered the United States illegally are entitled to the same due process rights as citizens.

In an interview that aired on May 4 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said that such a requirement would require having “a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” suggesting that a fast-tracking of deportations of proven illegal immigrants may be the most appropriate solution.

The president added that his administration’s lawyers “are going to obviously follow” U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Pakistan and India have long been at loggerheads over territory in the region of Kashmir and this week saw tensions explode again as India launched air strikes on Pakistan's territory Wednesday morning in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that killed 26 Indians two weeks ago.

Both countries have been at war several times and have seen mobilizations on their respective borders over countless issues, most of them territorial. 

The last border crisis in 2019 also emerged after a terror attack in Kashmir, which killed 40 and was allegedly planned by militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed. India subsequently launched airstrikes into Pakistan's territory, at the time the first such maneuvers by the Indian Air Force since the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, India is the larger nation of the two and also has a larger military budget, according to data by Stockholm Internation Peace Research Institute. 

You will find more infographics at Statista

Recently, India has grown its defense budget significantly, far outperforming Pakistan. 

Looking at per-capita defense spending, however, the two nations are closer together.

Media reports that both countries have modernized their militaries after 2019.

The minerals deal is now official and legally binding for Ukraine as on Thursday Ukraine's parliament voted in favor of ratifying the controversial resources agreement with the United States. This was a final key step in its adoption.

The Zelensky government is hoping this will more firmly secure future military assistance from Washington. The vote was unanimous: 338 Ukrainian lawmakers approved of ratifying it, and none opposed.

Via AFP

"The Ukrainian Parliament has ratified the historic Economic Partnership Agreement between Ukraine and the United States," First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced on X.

"This document is not merely a legal construct — it is the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner," Svyrydenko added.

Critics have warned that this could be a big resource grab by the United States, but since it's signing was accomplished in Washington last month, Trump administration rhetoric toward Kiev has softened. For example, Trump is no longer demanding that Ukraine quickly move toward holding new presidential and parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, Moon of Alabama has highlighted that there's still a fight on as well as confusion over some suppressed details of the deal, citing Strana, which reported (machine translation)...

A number of deputies claim that all three documents have actually been signed (or agreed upon). But they showed only one-the least important and most abstract of them, from which it is not even clear what the Foundation will do in general.

The government denies this, saying that only one document has been signed, and the rest will still be discussed.

Trump has indicated the US could just walk away from efforts to mediate peace, if neither side is a willing partner. The White House has not said whether this means it would halt arms for Ukraine's military, or intelligence-sharing. 

But the minerals deal means the US is indeed very likely to continue arming Kiev. After all, the White House now has more of an interest in protecting US 'investment' now and into the future.

Still, it is a very long-haul agreement: "Two supplements would spell out the details and would be published at a later date, officials have said about the deal which might not see a payoff for a decade or longer," France24 notes.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Historical revisionism and nostalgic nationalism typify modern-day discussions of World War II...

Trump announced that he’s “hereby renaming May 8th as Victory Day for World War II and November 11th as Victory Day for World War I”, adding that “We won both Wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance, but we never celebrate anything — That’s because we don’t have leaders anymore, that know how to do so!” He also claimed that “we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II.”

He posted this less than a week before the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which is celebrated in the West (and Ukraine since 2023) on 8 May and in Russia on 9 May, but the larger context concerns the trend of historical revisionism towards that conflict and nostalgic nationalism. World War II has taken on an almost mythological status in the West and Russia due to their brief wartime alliance, the war’s unprecedented carnage, and the way in which it shaped the world that everyone lives in today.

80% of the Wehrmacht’s casualties occurred on the Eastern Front and the USSR ultimately captured Berlin to end the war, but not before the Nazis killed 27 million Soviet citizens, all of which Russians remember on this sacred day. The West’s contribution to victory wasn’t insignificant, nor was the number of their people who were also killed by the Nazis, but the Soviets’ were still much greater.

This isn’t to downplay the West’s role and suffering but simply to remind people of the facts.

In recent years, however, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and others like Poland have led the European effort to present the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was analyzed here, as proof that the USSR shares equal responsibility with Nazi Germany for starting World War II. They then built upon this allegation to detract from the Soviets’ contribution to victory, refocus attention on their own people’s suffering, and in the Baltic States’ and Ukraine’s case, downplay large-scale local collaboration with the Nazis.

As these narratives proliferated across the West, leading countries like the US, the UK, and France then exploited them to exaggerate their contribution to victory, which led to the West as a whole developing a warped perception of exactly what happened during World War II.

Trump appears to be one of those who fell for this revisionist framing seeing as how he falsely claimed as fact that “we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II” when it was actually the USSR.

Whether he knows the truth or not, his counterfactual assertion aligns with the trend of Western politicians taking advantage of the aforesaid narratives’ proliferation across their societies to stoke nostalgic nationalism, which sometimes translates into political dividends for them. 

In Trump’s case, he wants Americans to remember their country’s military greatness that contributed to varying extents to its victory in the two World Wars, ergo his decision to rename both anniversaries accordingly.

Russians and others who know the historical facts about the Soviet Union’s unparalleled contribution to victory in World War II will understandably object to his historically revisionist claim, but it shouldn’t have surprised them given the trend of the times. 

If anything, it was surprising that it took this long for the US to finally catch up with its Western peers in this respect, but unlike them, Trump might seek to emphasize the US’ wartime alliance with the USSR in order to legitimize his envisaged “New Détente”.

In today’s environment, buying a new car has become a stretch for many households - fueling demand in the used-car market. 

But not all used vehicles are created equal, and reliability plays a major role in long-term ownership costs.

For buyers looking to avoid expensive repairs down the road, brand reputation is more important than ever.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu ranked the best used-car brands of 2025, using data from Consumer Reports.

Data & Methodology

To come up with these reliability scores, Consumer Reports asked its members to report how many problems they’ve had with their vehicles over the past 12 months.

This analysis focused only on cars from the 2015 to 2020 model year, with a sample size of over 150,000 vehicles.

From this data we can see that Japanese brands are generally the most reliable when buying used, with the lowest ranked Japanese brand being Subaru, in ninth place. Toyota and its luxury arm, Lexus, hold the top two spots, while Honda and Acura come in fourth and fifth.

Brands like Lexus and Toyota have a history of conservative redesigns, incrementally improving their entire product line rather than introducing many all-new systems. Our data consistently shows over time that cars from those brands are reliable when new, and they continue to be reliable as they age.

Steven Elek, Senior Automotive Data Analyst at Consumer Reports

Top Used-Car Picks in 2025

​Consumer Reports has released its latest list of top used-car picks, all of which offer good reliability, safety, and value across various price points. These selections are based on comprehensive road tests and owner satisfaction surveys.

For more detailed information and additional recommendations, visit the full article on Consumer Reports.

If you enjoyed this post, check out our ranking of the most reliable new-car brands based on data from J.D. Power.

As today marks the 80th anniversary of the official end of World War II in Europe, the number of people who witnessed the horrors of the war against Nazi Germany first hand is quickly dwindling. 

Speaking to contemporary witnesses is perhaps the most effective way to learn from history, but fewer and fewer are available to recount what happened 80 years ago. 

According to a recent YouGov survey, 37 percent of Americans said they knew little or nothing about World War II or the events leading up to it, showing how important it is to make sure the lessons learned in WWII outlive those who served in the conflict.

16 million Americans fought in the World War II, but today their ranks are rapidly diminishing. 

U.S. men and women who served in the conflict are now in their 90s (some are much older) with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimating that less than 70,000 are still alive today, a significant decline from the 930,000 alive in 2015 and more than two million five years before that.

As Statista's Felix Richter reports, based on the best available Veteran data at the end of FY2023, the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics used a deterministic projection model to estimate and project the veteran population for the next 30 years. Its findings show how the number of living WWII vets will rapidly decline over the coming years with the last ones expected to pass away in the early 2040s. The last American veteran of the First World War, Frank Buckles, passed away in February 2011, aged 110.

You will find more infographics at Statista

World War II was the largest and deadliest conflict in human history claiming the lives of over 50 million combatants and civilians by the time it ended in 1945. 

More than 400,000 American service members died in the conflict, making it the deadliest war in America's history as well.

Authored by Rudy Blalock via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Columbia University announced on Tuesday that it will lay off nearly 180 staff members after the Trump administration revoked more than $400 million in federal research funding, Columbia’s Office of the President said in a May 6 statement.

The main campus of Columbia University in New York City on April 12, 2025. Caitlin Ochs/Reuters

The layoffs, which represent about 20 percent of university employees who were funded by the now-terminated federal grants, come as Columbia grapples with the fallout from the U.S. Department of Education’s decision to cancel hundreds of millions in grants and contracts.

The department cited the university’s alleged failure to adequately address persistent anti-Semitism on campus as the reason for the funding withdrawal.

In a message to the Columbia community, acting President Claire Shipman, Provost Angela V. Olinto, Executive Vice President for Finance Anne Sullivan, and Executive Vice President for Research Jeannette Wing described the decision as “deeply challenging” and said it was made after a thorough review of the university’s research activity and financial outlook.

“Across the research portfolio, we have had to make difficult choices and unfortunately, today, nearly 180 of our colleagues who have been working, in whole or in part, on impacted federal grants, will receive notices of non-renewal or termination,” the statement read.

The university said it has been engaged in a two-pronged effort in response to the funding crisis. First, it is working to restore partnerships with federal agencies that support critical research. Second, it has asked deans and principal investigators to prioritize research activities and develop plans for managing projects affected by the loss of federal support.

During the review period, Columbia continued to pay salaries and stipends for those whose compensation had been covered by the terminated grants, according to the press release.

Columbia’s leadership said they are continuing discussions with federal officials in hopes of resuming activity on the canceled research awards and other projects that remain active but unpaid.

They said the financial strain is “intense,” and the university has been forced to reduce expenditures and scale back research infrastructure in some areas. Some departments are winding down activity but are prepared to reestablish capabilities if funding is restored, according to the university.

The funding revocation follows President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14188, signed on Jan. 29, which directs federal agencies to use all available legal tools to prosecute and hold accountable those accused of anti-Semitic harassment and violence on college campuses.

The Department of Education launched investigations into several universities, including Columbia, where “widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported.”

“Universities must comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.

The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which includes the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration, has been reviewing Columbia’s compliance with federal regulations, particularly under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs.

In response to the crisis, Columbia has established a Research Stabilization Fund to help mitigate future funding risks and support its scientific community. The fund will provide internal grants to scientists seeking alternate sources of funding or completing research for publication. The university will also contribute funds to support graduate students and postdoctoral fellows affected by the loss of federal training grants, according to the press release.

“We are grateful for the exceptional leadership and professionalism of our deans, chairs, and senior management who have come together to navigate this critical moment with care and integrity, while upholding and advancing Columbia’s mission, values, and the unique qualities that make this a vital, extraordinary place,” the statement said.

The university warned that further actions may be necessary in the coming months to preserve financial flexibility and invest in key areas.

From NTD News