An Iranian holds pictures of late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his son, current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, during a demonstration following the announcement of a two-week ceasefire at Enghelab Square in Tehran, Iran, 08 April 2026. ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH/EPA/Shutterstock Iran watch: Don’t Trust the Mullahs “The two sides” in the US-Iran ceasefire “seem to have a dramatically different sense of what they just agreed upon,” frets National Review’s Jim Geraghty. Iran made a slate of “unrealistic demands” on uranium enrichment, control of Hormuz and sanctions relief; “a U.S. concession to just about any of them would represent a dreadful setback to American national security interests.” Remember, too: “The Iranian regime has broken just about every treaty it has ever signed.” “Trump may well believe that he can agree to a terrible deal with the Iranian regime and convince the American public that it is a great victory.” But “I wouldn’t count on that happening, either.”
Zohran Mamdani’s administration has been busily “reviewing every single city service . . . through the lens of racial equity,” observes Howard Husock at The Free Press, and the city’s new “racial equity plan” calls for “drastic, race-related intervention in the city’s housing market.” Alas, it “overlooks the fact that New York already has more public, subsidized, and otherwise non-market housing than any other American city,” and that’s “made for a deeply constipated housing market.” Team Mamdani doesn’t “understand how development has worked throughout the city’s history,” when “private builders put up hundreds of thousands of brownstones, row houses, and bungalows.” Indeed, the mayor’s “equity” report “steamrolls” history “to advance a counterproductive and discriminatory agenda.” That should rightly attract “the attention of the Trump Justice Department.”
Everyone recalls “little Liam Ramos, the 5-year-old migrant child pictured in ICE custody wearing a sky blue bunny hat,” who, along with his father, was “taken to an ICE detention center,” writes Batya Ungar-Sargon on her Substack page. To the “liberal media, they are now heroes,” and “a judge ordered them released,” claiming “they had a pending asylum case.” Yet last month, “an immigration court ruled their asylum invalid and ordered the Ramos family” deported. Liam’s mom Erika Ramos admitted “they aren’t asylum seekers.” It’s all just the latest in “a long list of liberal media hoaxes surrounding the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.” “Liam’s parents are economic migrants who broke the law to come here. They need to go home.”
“Jeffrey Epstein is not the only sexual predator who was embraced by Democrats,” huffs Liz Peek at Fox News: There’s also “farmworkers union leader Cesar Chavez.” Groups across the United States “are tearing down statues of Chavez,” canceling “celebrations of the late labor leader” and renaming “schools that honored him.” “The speed with which progressive groups have tossed the Latino icon overboard is stunning,” which suggests “they knew.” Indeed, the lack of pushback on The New York Times’ allegations “about the horrific sexual abuse of girls as young as 13” and that he “routinely sexually abused other young women” are signs they’ve long been aware of the “allegations of sexual misconduct.” Democrats “pretend to care about women,” but their views on Chavez prove them “profoundly hypocritical” on that.
In “a strikingly one-sided,” 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court “ruled against a Colorado law that prohibits mental health professionals from providing ‘conversion therapy’ to minors,” cheers Reason’s Damon Root. In the majority ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the appeals court “failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.” He ordered the court to reexamine the Colorado law “under the far tougher strict scrutiny test, rather than the more lenient rational-basis test that it used” earlier. Even the Supremes’ liberal wing mostly agreed, with Justice Elana Kagan finding the ban “as applied to talk therapy” clashes with the First Amendment, “because it regulates speech based on viewpoint.” As Chiles v. Salazar shows, “even the most contentious issues do not always raise equally difficult legal questions for the Supreme Court to answer.”
