Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, reported significant financial gains in 2024, with new congressional financial disclosures revealing that the couple earned between $7.8 million and $42.5 million over the course of the year.
Their total net worth could now reach as high as $413 million. This marks a substantial increase from 2023, when disclosures indicated the couple’s net worth could be as high as $370 million.
BREAKING: Pelosi did it 👑
She officially finishes 2024 up 54% and beat out Inverse Cramer for the top portfolio on Autopilot
— Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker ♟ (@PelosiTracker_) January 2, 2025
Because lawmakers are only required to disclose broad ranges for assets and income, the exact total remains uncertain. Market analytics firm Quiver Quantitative, which tracks stock transactions and estimates real-time valuations, pegged the Pelosis’ net worth at $257 million in 2024—up $26 million from the previous year. That figure does not include valuations for various other holdings, including a Napa Valley winery, a Bay Area Italian restaurant, and a stake in a political data and consulting firm.
A large portion of the couple’s financial success has come from stock trades made in Paul Pelosi’s name.
The former House Speaker has long been scrutinized for her husband’s trades, with Rep. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) even introducing legislation bearing her name aimed at banning congressional stock trading.
Dutch Bros Coffee has officially announced the relocation of its corporate headquarters from Grants Pass, Oregon, to Phoenix, Arizona. The decision follows a phased transition that began last year and now results in a complete shift of the company’s executive operations out of the Pacific Northwest.
I grew up in Grants Pass before moving to Portland almost 20 years ago. Dutch Bros began in Grants Pass and started moving its corporate presence to AZ a few years ago. Oregon had time and opportunity to retain Dutch Bros and make Oregon an appealing home for HQ but failed. pic.twitter.com/k6gbOKFS1t
The company confirmed the move this week, stating that consolidating operations in Phoenix would provide both functional and cultural benefits as Dutch Bros prepares for its next phase of national growth. “Over the past several months, we have seen the functional and cultural advantages of having more of our field support roles working together in one place,” the company said in a statement to the Portland Business Journal.
Starbucks is brewing trouble.
Long lines. Slipping experience. Flat stock.
Enter Dutch Bros: a rising fan-favorite with a stock that outpaced $SBUX last fall.
“To support the next phase of Dutch Bros’ growth, we’re relocating additional roles to our new Phoenix office and making strategic changes to the structure of several teams. Bringing more people together will allow us to better serve our customers and crews across the country. With these changes, the Phoenix office will become our official HQ.”
Dutch Bros grew from a single cart in Grants Pass to a $12 billion brand. Now, it’s leaving Oregon for a more business-friendly climate in Arizona. This is what happens when the Democrat leaders in this state refuse to acknowledge their policy failures and change course.
— Oregon Senate Republicans (@ORSenateGOP) June 12, 2025
The move comes after Dutch Bros had already spent millions relocating parts of its workforce to Arizona in 2023.
While the company framed the relocation in terms of growth and operational efficiency, elected officials and residents in Oregon are pointing to broader concerns with the state’s economic environment. “Dutch Bros has been a fixture in our community for a long time,” said Oregon State Senator Noah Robinson, a Republican representing parts of Josephine County, where Grants Pass is located.
“In general, Oregon is not a friendly business environment.”
Robinson also cited local issues such as homelessness and crime in the Grants Pass area, saying these challenges may have played a role in the company’s decision. Other Republican lawmakers echoed those concerns, blaming the state’s regulatory and tax policies for contributing to a climate that encourages companies to leave.
Dutch Bros is leaving Oregon because our state has become a hostile environment for businesses. This is happening more and more, and no one in Salem seems to care. If we don’t turn this around soon, Dutch Bros won’t be the only homegrown business that leaves. #ORPol#ORLegpic.twitter.com/ML1JiFZhq5
Dutch Bros now joins a growing list of businesses that have opted to move their headquarters or operations out of traditionally blue states in recent years. The company’s departure leaves Nike as one of Oregon’s remaining corporate heavyweights. Meanwhile, the economic impacts of losing a major employer like Dutch Bros are expected to be felt throughout the Grants Pass region, where the company has long served as a prominent local presence.
Dutch Bros, which began in Oregon in the 1990s as a small drive-thru coffee operation, has since grown into a publicly traded company with hundreds of locations across the United States. The brand is particularly well-known among younger consumers and coffee enthusiasts who favor its energetic service style and specialty drinks. While the company has not publicly cited any single factor as the cause for the relocation, the growing trend of corporate migration from high-tax, high-regulation states has drawn attention from both political analysts and business leaders.
Liberal Policies from the Oregon Democrats causes Dutch Bros Coffee To Move its HQ to Arizona!
The local media is already running cover for the Dems. Here’s why Dutch is really leaving! pic.twitter.com/mAzvcUIjBB
Arizona, by contrast, has promoted itself as a more favorable environment for business growth and expansion, boasting lower taxes and fewer regulatory hurdles. As of now, Dutch Bros has not indicated whether it plans to maintain any operations or facilities in Oregon beyond local retail locations. The company’s new headquarters in Phoenix will serve as the central hub for its executive team and support staff going forward.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is facing renewed criticism after denouncing the United States during a public appearance, where she likened current federal law enforcement actions to dictatorship and claimed the U.S. has become “one of the worst countries” in the world. Her comments were made amid President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to restore order in Los Angeles following two weeks of violent riots. During a recent appearance on a progressive talk show, Omar objected to the Trump administration’s deployment of California National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in response to riots in the city.
“I grew up in a dictatorship, and I don’t even remember ever witnessing anything like that,” she said. “To have a democracy — a beacon of hope for the world — to now be turned into one of the, you know, one of the worst countries where the military are in our streets without any regard for people’s constitutional rights, while our president is spending millions of dollars propping himself up like a failed dictator.”
Omar, who immigrated to the United States from Somalia in the 1990s and later became a U.S. citizen in 2000, has been vocal in her opposition to federal immigration enforcement and the administration’s efforts to remove violent agitators from American streets. She arrived in the country after fleeing Somalia’s civil war and initially received asylum before obtaining permanent residency.
Her latest remarks drew criticism online, especially in light of a deadly incident in her home state just days prior. Minnesota authorities had recently arrested a suspect in connection with the fatal shooting of a state lawmaker and her husband, as well as the critical wounding of another lawmaker and his wife. Despite the high-profile nature of the incident, Omar’s public focus remained on federal immigration enforcement and foreign policy, particularly her criticism of the Trump administration’s stance on Iran and Israel.
Throwback to this video.
Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar:
“I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from within the US system.”
This should be grounds for expulsion from Congress.
“It is shocking and it should be a wake-up call to all Americans to say this is not the country we were born in,” Omar added in her interview.
Her comments triggered backlash on social media, with some users calling for her removal from office and others questioning her continued residency in the U.S.
“I’ll pay for her one way ticket home to Somalia,” one user posted on X.
“And yet she’s still here,” another added, including a clown emoji.
“Deport her, problem solved,” a third user wrote.
In March, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) launched a petition calling on the Trump administration to deport Omar, citing concerns about her past immigration filings. The Department of Justice earlier this year reopened an investigation into long-standing allegations that Omar married her biological brother to assist him in avoiding deportation. The marriage, which ended in divorce, has been the subject of scrutiny for years. A source within the Minnesota Somali community previously claimed that Omar sought out a Christian pastor to officiate the ceremony due to concerns over the relationship’s nature.
While no official charges have been filed in connection to the marriage allegations, DOJ officials confirmed the matter remains under investigation. Rep. Omar’s office has not responded to inquiries regarding her recent comments or the ongoing investigation. The congresswoman has remained active on social media, where she has continued to criticize President Trump’s policies on immigration and foreign affairs.
Federal authorities are warning that individuals and organizations providing financial support for violent demonstrations, including recent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles, will face prosecution. The message was delivered in a video statement Tuesday by U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Akil Davis, and IRS Special Agent in Charge Tyler Hatcher.
In the video shared by the FBI’s Los Angeles office on X, officials emphasized that while peaceful protest is protected under U.S. law, violence and coordinated attacks against law enforcement will not be tolerated—especially when financially supported. “The right to assemble and protest peacefully is protected by the law,” Essayli said. “Unfortunately, we’ve seen individuals whose intentions are to cause damage and to assault law enforcement. For example, last week, we arrested an individual who was charged with conspiracy to commit and aiding and abetting civil disorders. These violent agitators put peaceful demonstrators at risk.”
Davis stated that federal law enforcement agencies are actively investigating “individuals and organizations who are knowingly funding or committing acts of violence against law enforcement as well as the destruction of property.” According to Hatcher, the IRS is currently tracing financial transactions to identify backers of recent riots. “Funding crime doesn’t just affect the criminals; it also disrupts entire communities,” he said. “Each dollar funneled into illegal operations fuels violence, undermines law and order, and perpetuates fear. Make no mistake, we will identify financial networks supporting these criminal activities.”
United States Attorney Bill Essayli, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Akil Davis, and IRS Special Agent in Charge Tyler Hatcher warn would-be offenders of the consequences of aiding and abetting acts of violence during civil unrest. @USAO_LosAngeles, @IRSCI_LApic.twitter.com/jf0DGWzjrt
Essayli concluded the video message with a direct warning: “Think before you act. The legal consequences for financing or aiding and abetting these crimes are harsh. They include imprisonment and fines.”
Davis also urged the public to report information about those providing financial support to violent rioters.
“If you have information about individuals and/or organizations who are providing financial support to commit acts of violence or destruction of property, contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or TIPS.FBI.GOV.”
The federal warning came on the heels of the arrest of Alejandro Theodoro Orellana, who was taken into custody last Thursday by the FBI. Orellana has been charged with Conspiracy to Commit Civil Disorders after allegedly distributing face shields to suspected rioters during the early stages of the anti-ICE unrest in Los Angeles.
ARRESTED: Alejandro Theodoro Orellana was arrested this morning by @FBILosAngeles on an allegation of Conspiracy to Commit Civil Disorders (18 USC 371) for distributing face shields to suspected rioters on Tuesday. We are moving quickly to identify and arrest those involved in… pic.twitter.com/Ase8kxupfp
— U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) June 12, 2025
According to federal prosecutors, the arrest is part of a broader operation to track and disrupt those organizing or materially supporting acts of civil disorder across the city. Federal law enforcement’s increased visibility comes amid claims from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom that law enforcement had the situation under control and that there was no need for assistance from federal resources, including the National Guard or U.S. Marines.
However, statements from Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell contradict those claims.
According to McDonnell, conditions during the unrest escalated quickly, and the protests turned violent with incidents including freeway blockages, the throwing of concrete at officers, and the burning of Waymo vehicles. The Department of Justice has not confirmed how many additional suspects are currently under investigation, but officials made clear that more arrests are expected as federal agencies work to disrupt the financial infrastructure behind violent civil unrest.
The crackdown marks a shift in how the federal government is approaching organized rioting, signaling that financial facilitators and logistical supporters will be held as accountable as those committing violence on the ground.
Comedian Bill Maher addressed recent backlash over his April dinner with President Donald Trump, responding directly to criticism from actor Sean Penn during an episode of Maher’s Club Random podcast. The exchange, which aired over the weekend, drew attention to the contrasting public behavior and political interactions of both public figures.
Maher, who has been a frequent critic of Trump on his HBO program Real Time, was hosted by the president for a private dinner that also included UFC President Dana White and musician Kid Rock. The meeting was arranged by Kid Rock and intended as a candid exchange across political lines. During the podcast, Penn stated that he would not have accepted the invitation to meet with President Trump, prompting Maher to ask, “Really? You’ll meet with [expletive] Castro and Hugo Chavez, but not the President of the United States?”
🚨NEW: Bill Maher SCOLDS Sean Penn for saying he *wouldn't* have dinner with TRUMP🚨
MAHER: "You'll meet with f*cking Castro and Hugo Chavez — but not the President of the United States?"
PENN: "Yeah … if I were, let's say, representing a cause célèbre … I would not fool… pic.twitter.com/QNP9gcLwbZ
Penn has met with several controversial international leaders over the years. In 2007, he visited Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas. In 2008, he conducted an interview with then-Cuban President Raul Castro and is also known to have met Fidel Castro during a trip to Havana. Comedian Bill Maher addressed recent backlash over his April dinner with President Donald Trump, responding directly to criticism from actor Sean Penn during an episode of Maher’s Club Random podcast.
The exchange, which aired over the weekend, drew attention to the contrasting public behavior and political interactions of both public figures. Maher, who has been a frequent critic of Trump on his HBO program Real Time, hosted the president for a private dinner that also included UFC President Dana White and musician Kid Rock. The meeting was arranged by Kid Rock and intended as a candid exchange across political lines.
During the podcast, Penn stated that he would not have accepted the invitation to meet with President Trump, prompting Maher to ask, “Really? You’ll meet with [expletive] Castro and Hugo Chavez, but not the President of the United States?”
Penn has met with several controversial international leaders over the years. In 2007, he visited Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas. In 2008, he conducted an interview with then-Cuban President Raul Castro and is also known to have met Fidel Castro during a trip to Havana. He traveled to Iraq in 2002 and to Iran in 2005. In 2016, Penn admitted to meeting and interviewing Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán while the cartel leader was a fugitive.
That interview, he later said, was an attempt to open dialogue about the war on drugs. Maher asked Penn directly during the conversation, “But you do, I hope, think I did the right thing to have dinner with him?” Penn initially responded, “Absolutely, you’re so smart,” but qualified his position by saying he wished the meeting had appeared “less successful.”
“I think that when you talked about it on the show that I would have preferred that I saw his mission or his will to have the dinner, I wish I would have seen it as less successful. Because you’re so smart on policy,” Penn said. Maher replied, “Well it was less successful because I never stopped saying all the things I’ve always said about him. It would have been successful if he had somehow seduced me into supporting him.”
Penn countered by saying he personally wouldn’t have attended the dinner and that “there would be no purpose,” while also defending his previous meetings with controversial figures, saying, “I saw good results come out of some of those things.” Maher responded, “It’s not a matter of trusting it, it’s a matter of seeing it, a matter of experiencing it, a matter of knowing it.”
He went on to compare avoiding such a meeting to someone refusing a medical test because they were afraid of what they might learn. Penn agreed with the analogy but remained skeptical of the value in engaging Trump. Maher said Trump was “gracious and measured” during the dinner and recalled that despite their long history of public disagreements — including a lawsuit Trump once filed against him — the meeting was civil and productive.
Maher noted that Trump did not ask for his support, nor did he request a public endorsement or photo. “He gave me some hats and a very generous amount of time,” Maher said.
“I never felt I had to walk on eggshells around him.”
The two reportedly discussed policy topics such as immigration, law enforcement morale, and gender participation in sports. Maher said they disagreed on certain points but that he appreciated Trump’s willingness to hear his perspective.
Maher, who has voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, said the meeting reflected his broader hope for more constructive dialogue in politics. “I wanted to represent a contingent of centrist-minded people who believe there’s got to be a better way of running this country than hating each other every minute,” he said.
Maher also revealed that he brought a printed list of nearly 60 insults Trump had previously directed at him and had the president autograph it. “He signed it with good humor,” Maher said. As for whether their civility will last, Maher expects their public back-and-forth to resume.
“We’ll probably go back to insulting each other,” he said, but emphasized that the point of the dinner was to show that dialogue remains possible. Both Maher and Trump reportedly agreed that many in their respective camps disapproved of the meeting. “The people who don’t even want us to talk? We don’t like you,” Maher said, describing a rare moment of agreement between the comedian and the president.
Twelve days ago, I had dinner with President Trump, a dinner that my friend @KidRock set up because we share the belief that there has to be something better than hurling insults from 3000 miles away. pic.twitter.com/KE2t2eyBkI
A student at Brown University delivered scathing testimony before a congressional committee, condemning the Ivy League institution for excessive administrative spending, ballooning tuition, and what he described as a betrayal of the American dream for working-class families.
Alex Shieh, a rising junior at Brown and reporter for the Brown Spectator, testified that the university has strayed far from its educational mission and has become a bloated, elitist institution increasingly out of reach for middle- and low-income Americans.
“My name is Alex Shieh, and I’m a rising junior at Brown University, one of the most exclusive institutions in the world,” Shieh began
. “But I’m not here to glorify the Ivy League. I’m here to warn you that the promise of American higher education, of opportunity through meritocracy, is under attack.”
Shieh, who described himself as a legacy student from a privileged background, said that while he can afford the $93,000-per-year price tag at Brown, many students cannot.
“My parents are doctors who can afford, afford the $93,000 a year sticker price. In other words, I’m exactly who the Ivy League was built for. But what about the kids who weren’t born on third base?”
He pointed to economic data showing that the median student at Brown comes from a family earning over $200,000 annually and that half of the student body is drawn from the top 5% of income earners.
Shieh then criticized the school’s financial management, highlighting a projected $46 million deficit despite sky-high tuition costs.
“Even while charging students the price of a luxury car, Brown is on track to run a $46 million deficit this year. Where’s all the money going? I’ll tell you where it’s going. It’s going into an empire of administrative bloat and bureaucracy.”
According to Shieh, Brown employs 3,805 full-time non-instructional staff for 7,229 undergraduate students — a ratio of more than one administrator for every two students.
“This isn’t education. This is bloat paid for on the backs of students and families who are mortgaging their futures for a shot at a better life,” he said.
Shieh highlighted specific administrative expenditures, including over $1 million in salary for Brown’s athletic director Grace Calhoun, and a household assistant assigned to University President Christina Paxson.
He claimed such spending continues while student conditions deteriorate, stating, “My dorm floods when it rains, and the burger patties in our dining hall have been replaced by an unappetizing beef mushroom blend.”
Citing national trends, Shieh added, “The number of university administrators has risen by 162% in recent decades, and it’s no coincidence that correspondingly, the cost of education has risen 181% in inflation-adjusted dollars since the 90s.”
He compared the Ivy League model to the British system: “Across the pond, a world-class education at Oxford or Cambridge can cost about half as much as an Ivy League degree, in part due to a much lower administrative burden.”
Shieh also criticized Brown’s financial aid policies, which he claimed disproportionately hurt middle-class students who are “earning too much to qualify for generous scholarships, but not enough to go to Brown without straddling themselves with significant amounts of debt.”
He called attention to Brown’s involvement in a federal antitrust lawsuit, in which the university was one of several Ivy League schools that settled allegations of colluding to suppress financial aid offers.
“Brown says it meets 100% of demonstrated need, but Brown gets to decide what that need is,” he said.
Shieh testified about the backlash he faced after launching a website called “Bloat at Brown,” which used AI to analyze the necessity of various administrative roles.
“I sent each administrative employee a Doge style email to ask them, What do you do all day?” he said.
“Instead of answering, Brown’s response was retaliation. My Social Security Number was leaked. Our website was hacked, and Associate Dean Kirsten Wolf launched a disciplinary investigation into a litany of baseless charges such as emotional harm.”
Shieh said the administration brought charges against every board member of the Brown Spectator, but “we refused to back down, and we won our hearings. There was no misconduct, only exposure, and that’s what Brown feared the most.”
He closed by urging Congress to investigate Ivy League antitrust practices and to subpoena President Paxson.
“This committee has a responsibility not just to investigate Ivy League antitrust violations, but to reclaim the American dream from those who have twisted it into a racket,” he said.
“The American dream isn’t just for the legacies the coastal elites or the children of privilege. It belongs to the kid in rural Kansas with a 4.0 GPA, the first gen student working in night shift, and the families who did everything right and still got priced out. They deserve a seat at the table.”
Shieh concluded, “They deserve a shot at making it big. Their American Dreams matter too.”
WATCH:
🔥 NEW — Alex Shieh, a student at Brown University, just TORCHED the leadership of his school for running a $46 MILLION DEFICIT while ballooning costs for students.
He even begs the @JudiciaryGOP to SUBPOENA Brown's president, Christina Paxson!
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs is facing criticism after vetoing legislation that would have blocked the Chinese government and its affiliates from acquiring land near key military and infrastructure sites in the state.
The vetoed measure, Senate Bill 1109, passed the legislature but was rejected by Hobbs on Tuesday, prompting backlash from Republican lawmakers and national security advocates.
State Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp condemned the veto, calling it a “politically motivated” move that puts Arizonans at risk.
“This is utterly insane,” Shamp said.
“Governor Hobbs is an obstructionist against safeguarding our citizens from threats.”
🚨🇺🇸🇨🇳 ARIZONA DEM GOVERNOR VETOES CHINA LAND BAN NEAR MILITARY BASES
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs just vetoed a bill preventing China from buying land near military bases, nuclear plants, and critical infrastructure, sparking outrage from security hawks.
SB 1109 sought to prohibit the People’s Republic of China from acquiring a 30% or greater ownership stake in any Arizona property.
The legislation was introduced in response to growing concerns over Chinese interests purchasing land near sensitive U.S. military installations, including Luke Air Force Base, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, and facilities owned by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).
Governor Hobbs defended her decision by arguing that the bill would not have accomplished its intended security goals.
“This bill is ineffective at counter-espionage and does not directly protect our military assets,” Hobbs stated in her veto letter.
She also criticized the legislation for lacking “clear implementation criteria,” which she said could result in “arbitrary enforcement.”
Katie Hobbs is a lunatic who should be no where near the governor's office in AZ or anywhere.
She just VETOed a bill that would restrict Chinese land ownership near military bases in Arizona. Is there even one good journalist in Arizona who will put a mic and camera in her face…
Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor Action, a policy group focused on state-level security legislation, strongly disagreed with Hobbs’ assessment.
“Governor Hobbs’s veto of SB 1109 hangs an ‘Open for the CCP’ sign on Arizona’s front door,” Lucci said.
“Allowing Communist China to buy up land near our critical assets is a national security risk, plain and simple, and Governor Hobbs is substantively and completely wrong.”
Lucci also pointed to global examples of strategic vulnerability, referencing Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian military infrastructure.
“Proximity produces peril in asymmetric warfare,” he said, reinforcing the concern that even limited foreign land ownership near critical infrastructure could pose significant risk.
The bill underwent a bipartisan amendment process prior to its passage in the legislature.
Originally, it broadly prohibited entities and individuals deemed national security risks from purchasing land in Arizona.
Lawmakers later narrowed the language to target Chinese government-linked companies and their subsidiaries, in an effort to avoid concerns of discrimination.
Despite Hobbs’ objections, the Arizona legislature retains the ability to override the veto.
It is currently unclear whether Republican lawmakers will attempt such a move or if they have sufficient support to do so.
Great question….here's another question… why does China even own land in America?
Arizona is not alone in confronting the issue of foreign land purchases near strategic U.S. sites. According to the nonprofit Committee of 100, which monitors China-related policies, at least 27 states are considering a total of 84 bills this year to limit foreign ownership of land.
So far, 22 states have passed similar laws, 17 of which were enacted in 2024.
At the federal level, Congress is also reviewing legislation designed to restrict foreign entities, particularly those affiliated with the Chinese government, from owning land near military or critical infrastructure.
As of March, seven separate bills on the matter were being considered in both chambers.
The veto of SB 1109 has now placed Arizona at the center of the national debate on how to counter foreign influence through land acquisitions.
Lawmakers and national security advocates continue to call for stricter measures to limit such purchases, arguing that real estate ownership near sensitive sites could be exploited for espionage or sabotage.
A Pride Month kickoff event scheduled for June 6 in Boise has been canceled after organizers cited lower-than-expected community turnout, despite apparent support expressed online.
The event, which was intended to mark the beginning of Pride Month and expand local LGBTQ+ programming, will not move forward as planned.
The event was separate from the annual Boise Pride Festival, which is held each September and typically draws thousands of attendees.
Organizers had hoped the June event would serve as a complementary celebration, aligning with national Pride Month festivities taking place in other cities during the summer.
🚨BREAKING: Boise, Idaho canceled their “Pride Season Kickoff” because nobody showed up. pic.twitter.com/HdDsX4HZRe
According to a statement from Boise Pride, the cancellation was attributed to a lack of early community engagement.
“We know the desire for more Pride programming is real—we hear it constantly,” the organizers said, as reported by CBS 2 News.
“However, early buy-in from the community is essential for events outside our main festival.”
The event’s cancellation has prompted a full refund for those who had already purchased tickets.
Organizers stated they plan to use the opportunity to re-evaluate and possibly relaunch the event in a future year.
“We still believe in the idea behind the Pride Season Kickoff, and we hope to revisit it in the future,” the statement continued.
Boise Pride also called for more tangible support from local residents.
“We need real-world support for these events to happen,” the group said, emphasizing that online encouragement alone is not sufficient to sustain programming outside the September festival.
The cancellation in Boise comes amid a broader national trend of scaled-back Pride events and sponsorships.
Across the country, several Pride organizations are reporting reduced funding and participation in the wake of growing political and cultural tensions surrounding LGBTQ+ issues.
New York City Pride recently announced that it had lost approximately 25 percent of its corporate sponsorships for 2024.
Corporate backing for LGBTQIA2SMNOP+ #Pride2025 events is shrinking fast! -NYC lost a quarter of its sponsorships, leaving a $750K gap -San Francisco: $200K shortfall -Columbus: $125K funding cut -Idaho’s largest Pride celebration lost $400K -Utah: down $400K
— Gays Against Groomers (@againstgrmrs) June 1, 2025
According to organizers, some sponsors cited apprehensions over the potential for political backlash, particularly following moves by the Trump administration to defund and reverse Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in federal agencies and government contracting.
Additional concern stemmed from fears of consumer pushback, similar to the response faced by Bud Light in 2023 after its controversial marketing campaign with a transgender social media personality.
That incident sparked a national boycott that affected company sales and prompted major brands to re-evaluate their involvement in Pride campaigns.
In Boise, Pride organizers stressed that the main September festival remains on schedule and will continue as planned.
They reiterated their commitment to expanding community engagement throughout the year but acknowledged that additional events will require stronger participation to be successful.
While no new date has been set for a possible future kickoff event, the group said it remains open to trying again in the future with better preparation and local involvement.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller issued a clear directive Thursday following the arrest of an illegal immigrant involved in a fatal car crash that claimed the life of a 24-year-old woman in Colorado. Miller stated on X, “The entire family will be deported.”
The incident in question occurred in July 2023, when a 16-year-old illegal immigrant from Colombia, driving without a license, struck and killed Kaitlyn Weaver while traveling at 90 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone.
Weaver, a 24-year-old U.S. citizen, died at the scene, as reported by The Western Journal.
Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed the arrest of the Colombian teenager along with his family members, all of whom are also in the country illegally.
“The minor, who was convicted of reckless driving resulting in death, was arrested along with his family who are also illegal aliens,” ICE said in a statement.
Just one week prior to the ICE action, the minor had been sentenced to probation and community service, avoiding jail time despite the fatal nature of the incident.
The sentencing drew widespread public criticism and renewed calls for immigration enforcement reform, particularly concerning criminal cases involving illegal immigrants.
The case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over illegal immigration and public safety.
Conservative leaders have pointed to it as another example of how current policies can allow those in the country unlawfully to avoid significant legal consequences, even in cases involving the death of an American citizen.
This is not the first time such a case has prompted national attention. Critics have long argued that existing immigration enforcement mechanisms fail to address individuals who have committed serious offenses while in the United States illegally.
4 time deported illegal alien who borrowed his brothers truck and drove drunk killing the mother and her son. Boulder judge released him 4 days earlier for drunk driving. https://t.co/7EjlWASovW
— Dallas Asst Border Czar (@DallasKing2022) May 29, 2025
"Ortega-Anguiano, 43, was driving drunk, high, & speeding at nearly 100mph on the 405 freeway in Orange County, when he crashed into a car being driven by 19-year-olds Anya Varfolomeev and Nicholay Osokin, killing them both as they burned alive" https://t.co/0jjqWIxGpB#FoxNews
ICE has stated that enforcement priorities include illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes or pose a threat to public safety.
Stephen Miller, a longtime advocate for stricter immigration policies, has maintained that deportation should be the standard for all illegal immigrants, especially those involved in criminal acts.
In this case, the call to remove the entire family aligns with the Trump administration’s broader approach to immigration enforcement.
Weaver’s death has become a rallying point for immigration reform advocates who argue that more robust enforcement is necessary to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
As of now, ICE has not released the names of the individuals arrested or provided a timeline for removal proceedings.
Legal challenges targeting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies continue to emerge, with funding for many of the lawsuits tracing back to organizations supported by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
Breitbart reporter John Binder has tracked the financial networks behind multiple lawsuits opposing President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
Soros-Funded Group Behind Lawsuit Blocking Trump from Deporting Violent Illegal Aliens to South Sudan
Can someone in our Gov't please do something to stop Soros please?! Why are they allowed to interfere in our gov't over and over again! I am so sick of this!
The latest legal battle involves a challenge to the Trump administration’s effort to deport violent illegal aliens to third countries, including South Sudan.
The administration began deporting individuals with final orders of removal to South Sudan earlier this year, citing the refusal of some home countries to accept individuals with criminal records.
Department of Homeland Security officials emphasized that the individuals deported had been convicted of violent crimes, including murder, rape, and child sex offenses.
“These were vicious illegal aliens,” DHS officials stated in a public release.
However, in March, the nonprofit Human Rights First joined two other organizations in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
The lawsuit challenges DHS’s authority to deport illegal aliens to countries other than their nation of origin, arguing that such actions are unlawful without sufficient notice to the individuals affected.
Human Rights First has also filed litigation seeking to preserve immigration parole programs established under Joe Biden’s administration.
According to public records cited by Binder, the Soros-backed Open Society Foundations (OSF) has contributed nearly $6.2 million to Human Rights First.
In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, appointed by former President Biden to the District of Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction temporarily halting deportations to third countries without prior notice.
Judge Murphy’s order required the DHS to provide detained individuals with “credible fear interviews” before removing them to a country that is not their place of origin.
Since the ruling, the Trump administration has deported eight individuals with final removal orders to South Sudan.
All eight had criminal convictions, including for violent offenses such as murder and sexual assault.
Judge Murphy ruled that DHS had violated his earlier injunction and ordered the department to provide additional legal steps before proceeding with further deportations to South Sudan or similar third-country destinations.
Karoline Leavitt slams US District Judge Brian Murphy during a press conference accusing him of judicial overreach for ruling that the Trump admin violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without due process. pic.twitter.com/rUagrmSdkk
Officials from South Sudan have voiced objections to receiving deportees with criminal histories, although there is no formal agreement barring the U.S. from conducting such deportations.
DHS has argued that removal to a third country is necessary in cases where an alien’s home country refuses repatriation, particularly when public safety is at risk.
The ongoing litigation underscores growing tensions between the Trump administration’s push for stricter immigration enforcement and legal challenges supported by left-leaning advocacy groups.
Many of those groups, including Human Rights First, have received substantial backing from the Soros network.
Critics of the lawsuits argue that efforts to block the removal of criminal aliens place American communities at risk and amount to judicial overreach.
The administration has signaled it will continue to pursue third-country deportation options when repatriation to an individual’s home nation is not feasible due to diplomatic or security obstacles.
The case remains active in federal court, with DHS expected to submit further documentation to comply with the judge’s orders.
Additional hearings may be scheduled as the administration continues to defend its enforcement authority.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
