Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy revealed that there have been about 1,500 truck drivers who do not speak English taken off the roads as part of a push to ensure foreign truck drivers are not causing accidents.

Back in 2016, the Obama administration stopped enforcing English proficiency requirements for truckers, according to a report from The Daily Signal.

But in May, Duffy issued a guidance making clear that truck drivers who cannot demonstrate a proficiency in English cannot drive.

The 1,500 drivers were taken off the roads within the first 3o days of the rules once more being enforced, according to The Daily Signal.

“Since I took action to enforce language proficiency requirements for truckers, our state partners have put roughly 1,500 unqualified drivers out of service. That’s what I call results!” Duffy posted on X.

“If you can’t read or speak our national language — ENGLISH — we won’t let your truck endanger the driving public.”

He added, “America First = Safety First.”

Since I took action to enforce language proficiency requirements for truckers, our state partners have put roughly 1,500 unqualified drivers out of service. That’s what I call results!

If you can’t read or speak our national language — ENGLISH — we won’t let your truck endanger… https://t.co/TKPcn60ic2

— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) July 30, 2025

Duffy’s concerns were far from unfounded.

In January, there was a truck driver involved in a fatal crash that had to use a language interpreter for the post-crash investigation, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Another incident from 2019 involved a truck driver who could not proficiently speak English speeding through signs that warned of steep grades and dangerous curves, all at more than 100 miles per hour.

Four people died in that crash, per the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

President Donald Trump had likewise insisted with an April executive order that the move centered on public safety.

“They should be able to read and understand traffic signs, communicate with traffic safety, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station officers,” the order said of truck drivers.

They also “need to provide feedback to their employers and customers and receive related directions in English,” a position the order called “common sense.”

“It is the policy of my Administration to support America’s truckers and safeguard our roadways by enforcing the commonsense English-language requirement for commercial motor vehicle drivers and removing needless regulatory burdens that undermine the working conditions of America’s truck drivers,” the notice added.

“This order will help ensure a safe, secure, and efficient motor carrier industry.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post ‘That’s What I Call Results!’: Trump Admin Saves Jobs, Kicks 1500 Non-English-Speaking Truckers Off the Road appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Vicky

via Wikimedia Commons

Slovenia has imposed an arms embargo on Israel, banning the export, import, and transit of weapons to and from the country.

This decision was announced by Prime Minister Robert Golob following a government session on July 31, 2025.

Slovenia claims to be the first European Union member to take such a step, citing the EU’s inability to act due to internal disagreements.

The government stated that no permits for military exports to Israel have been issued since October 2023, when the conflict in Gaza began.

Officials emphasized that the embargo is an independent measure to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Slovenia has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and increased aid deliveries to the region.

In early July 2025, Slovenia declared two Israeli ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, persona non grata, barring them from entry.

This action was based on their public statements regarding the conflict. Earlier, in June 2024, Slovenia recognized Palestinian statehood, joining countries like Ireland, Norway, and Spain in this move.

The conflict in Gaza started after the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israeli territory, which resulted in over 1,200 deaths and the taking of hostages.

Israel responded with a military operation aimed at dismantling Hamas infrastructure. Reports from Gaza’s health ministry indicate significant casualties, with ongoing international efforts to negotiate truces and provide aid.

Several other nations have taken similar diplomatic steps, including France, Britain, and Canada announcing potential recognition of a Palestinian state. Australia has also indicated that recognizing Palestinian statehood is under consideration.

Israel has criticized these declarations, arguing they could reward Hamas for its actions.

Israeli officials dismissed Slovenia’s embargo as insignificant, noting that Israel does not procure any defense materials from Slovenia.

An unnamed official stated that the country buys nothing from Slovenia, not even minor items.

Within the EU, there is growing pressure for measures against Israel, with Sweden and the Netherlands advocating for suspending parts of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

The European Commission has proposed limiting Israel’s participation in the Horizon research program, though Germany opposes such steps.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul expressed concerns about Israel’s potential diplomatic isolation during a visit to Jerusalem.

The United States remains a key ally to Israel, with President Donald Trump warning that recognizing Palestinian statehood might benefit Hamas.

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff recently met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to advance Gaza truce talks. These efforts aim to address the humanitarian crisis and secure a ceasefire.

The post Slovenia Imposes Arms Embargo on Israel, Citing Gaza Conflict appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Vicky

Biden National Bar Association

Calls to release the Epstein files have grown louder in recent weeks—from both sides of the political aisle. While it is understandable that the public demands transparency from the government, what is most surprising is that figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are now criticizing President Donald Trump for not releasing the files. 

Schumer insists that all Epstein-related documents be made public. But under President Biden’s administration, no such effort was made.

The truth is simple: if Democrats had wanted to release the Epstein files, they had four full years to do so. Yet at no point did President Biden or his Department of Justice prioritize the issue. If the release of these documents is now considered an urgent matter, where was that urgency then?

It is dishonest to pretend that former President Biden lacked the legal authority to act.

The executive branch—particularly the Department of Justice—has immense influence over whether investigative records are withheld or released. 

While not everything is directly under presidential control, the priorities of any administration are set from the top. Biden’s DOJ had full access to Epstein-related material held by federal agencies, including the FBI. 

Many of these documents could have been declassified or made public, especially those not tied to active investigations. And even when certain records are under judicial seal, the DOJ has the legal authority to file motions requesting their release, particularly when compelling public interest is at stake.

The same framework now applies to President Trump. If he decides to release all Epstein-related materials, he will face the same legal and political constraints.

The difference is that Democrats stayed largely silent while they held power—until now, when they use the Epstein files as a weapon against Trump.

So the question is obvious: Why didn’t Democrats push for the release of the Epstein files when they had the power to do so?

The answer is just as obvious: partisanship. Democrat Party leaders did not suddenly develop a moral commitment to transparency. They discovered a convenient line of attack. For four years, they said nothing. But now, when they see political advantage in the issue, they claim to be outraged.

What makes this shift even more troubling is that the Democrat Party routinely presents itself as the champion of victims, of women, and of the abused. Epstein’s crimes were monstrous. If anyone should have led a national push to expose every detail of his criminal network, it should have been those in power who claimed to represent the vulnerable. But they did not. 

Now, with Biden no longer at the center of the issue, they act as if they care.

That said, there is a legitimate debate over whether full disclosure of the Epstein files—particularly sealed grand jury material—is in the public’s best interest. Grand jury records are not evidence.

They are not the product of trial, nor have they been scrutinized through legal due process. In many cases, they consist of unverified allegations.

We’ve already seen the damage this can cause. Take Alan Dershowitz, who was never charged with a crime but was Epstein’s lawyer. His name was dragged through the media for years. Despite ultimately clearing his name, he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal battles—and his reputation will never fully recover. That kind of damage cannot be undone.

Do we want to risk subjecting dozens of others to the same treatment simply because they once interacted with Epstein?

There are serious, good-faith arguments on both sides. Transparency matters. So does justice. But so do due process and the presumption of innocence. Whatever decision is made regarding the files will carry legitimacy.

What is not acceptable, however, is the cynical use of this issue as a partisan tool. Either both administrations had the authority to act, or neither did. Democrats cannot rewrite history. They had the chance to release the Epstein files. They chose not to.

The post BIDEN COULD HAVE RELEASED THE EPSTEIN FILES… HE DIDN’T appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Vicky