JD Vance, Pope Francis and Immigration thumbnail

JD Vance, Pope Francis and Immigration

By MercatorNet – A Compass for Common Sense

On the day of his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order called “Protecting the American People against Invasion”. It was not language designed to ingratiate himself with the American people’s Catholic bishops. The president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, described the executive order as “deeply troubling” and predicted that it “will have negative consequences, many of which will harm the most vulnerable among us”.

To defend the new Administration’s initiative, Vice-President Vance, a Catholic convert, invoked his favourite theologian, the 5th century bishop and philosopher, St Augustine, whose opinion was that people who deserve our good will are ranked in a hierarchy. “Just google ‘ordo amoris’,” he tweeted in response to a critic. “Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?”

By the way, in answer to Vance’s rhetorical question, yes, there really are people who think that their duties to children in Zambia are the same as duties to their children. The leading one is the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer along with his acolytes in the “effective altruism” movement. They are nuts.

However, that’s not to say that Vance is correct. In the Vice-President’s hands, “ordo amoris” is Latin for MAGA. As his boss’s executive order put it:

Enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts their interests first and a Government that understands its sacred obligation to prioritize the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans.

And he has described immigrants in dehumanising ways which I am certain would have distressed St Augustine: “These aren’t people, these are animals”. Or “I don’t know if you call them ‘people,’ in some cases. They’re not people, in my opinion.” Or they’re “poisoning the blood of our nation”.

He has justified his plans to deport 10 or 12 million illegal immigrants by describing them all as criminals. “When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag,”he said shortly after he was elected.

So Vance is partly right and partly wrong. But the part that is right is trivial and the part that is wrong is a distortion of his Church’s teaching. Obviously, it’s right that he should feed his own kids before feeding kids in Zambia. But it’s wrong to sprinkle Latin tidbits over the executive order and to imply that it is applied Catholic social teaching. The English translation of “ordo amoris” is “charity begins at home”, not “mass deportations of animals masquerading as humans”

In any case, “ordo amoris” or ordered charity, is probably not the right frame for the knotty question of immigration, in the US or elsewhere. As Benedict XVI explained in Deus Caritas Est: “Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful.” Charity towards our neighbour is by no means irrelevant to the plight of immigrants, legal and illegal. But the first way to determine what a government’s obligations are is through the lens of the virtue of justice. If obligations to migrants are regarded only as acts of charity, they may seem simply supererogatory (google it, to quote Mr Vance). In other words, nice idea but I’m having lunch.

Trump’s plans for those mass deportations may be mostly bluster for his fans. His words are inflammatory and repulsive, but vague. They allow lots of wriggle room for reneging on his more extreme ideas.

However, he is a head of state and his words have to be taken seriously. That must be why Pope Francis has reacted so strongly to Vance’s coopting Catholic social doctrine for Trump’s ambitions. “The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality,” he wrote to American bishops this week. And he went on to say:

This is not a minor issue: an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized. The true common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all — as I have affirmed on numerous occasions — welcomes, protects, promotes and integrates the most fragile, unprotected and vulnerable.

Trump’s language about immigrants is an affront to human dignity. It’s no wonder that it has incensed the Pope.

JD Vance is an amazing person with astonishing achievements on his CV. Not the least of them is to have been rebuked by the Supreme Pontiff. A few years ago, he wasn’t even a Catholic. This week he became a theological punching bag. The Pope wrote: “The true ordo amoris (a very pointed dig at Vance) that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’, that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

Without launching into theological exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the first thing to observe is that he didn’t call the wounded Jew an “animal”. What would Trump have done?

Vance had an acerbic exchange with former British diplomat and politician Rory Stewart over “ordo amoris”. Stewart wrote: “We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love…”

To which Vance responded: “I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: the problem with Rory and people like him is that he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130. This false arrogance drives so much elite failure over the last 40 years.”

Stewart is way, way, way down there in Vance’s “ordo amoris”, so far down that perhaps he looks like the vermin to which Trump has compared immigrants. Perhaps we should just let this arrogant sneer from America’s foremost exegete of St Augustine speak for itself.


Forward this article to friends. 


AUTHOR

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is editor of Mercator

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Pope, the Border, and the Law

Israel’s Diaspora Minister to Pope: ‘Jesus lived and died as a Jew’

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Pam Bondi Vows To Prosecute FBI agents, Government Officials Who Leak Info On ICE Raids thumbnail

Pam Bondi Vows To Prosecute FBI agents, Government Officials Who Leak Info On ICE Raids

By The Daily Caller

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed on Wednesday to prosecute any FBI agents, or other members of the government, who leak information on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

White House Border Czar Tom Homan suggested on Monday that someone within the FBI may be leaking information on the raids, potentially putting officers’ lives at risk. The Daily Caller asked Bondi at her first press conference what the consequences would be for those within the FBI if they were ultimately caught leaking information about the raids.

“Has the DOJ gotten any closer to determining if these leaks are coming from within the FBI? And what will the consequences be if they can identify the leakers from the FBI?” the Daily Caller asked.

“The great men and women in law enforcement standing behind me today, they deserve, they must be protected, and anytime anyone leaks or tips off anything regarding a pending investigation that jeopardizes lives. You’re telling a bad guy what’s about to happen. It could jeopardize the lives of all the men and women in law enforcement,” Bondi began.

“We will not stand for it. We will find you. We’re going to investigate it, no matter what agency it came from. We don’t know for certain. We have an open investigation, so I can’t talk about it in detail, but we will do everything in our power to hold you accountable and it is a crime, and you will be prosecuted when we find you,” she finished.

🚨 AG Pam Bondi Addresses Concerns That Ice Raid Leaks May Be Coming from Within the FBI 🚨

Daily Caller Reporter @reaganreese_: “What will the consequences be if they [the DOJ] can identify the leakers from the FBI?”

Pam Bondi: “We will not stand for it. We will find you.… pic.twitter.com/P4EFSFwdsD

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 12, 2025

The most recent leak was reported by the Los Angeles Times, who obtained a document about ICE’s plans to target the city next with “large scale” action. Homan told Fox News host Sean Hannity that they believe the leaks are coming from inside the administration and that in addition to jail time, anyone convicted of leaking such information will lose their jobs or their pensions. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Meet The Worst Criminals ICE Arrested This Week … So Far)

Because of another leak, members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua were allegedly able to avoid apprehension by ICE agents because of the leaked information, according to a Fox News report.

The FBI is so corrupt. We will work with any and every agency to stop leaks and prosecute these crooked deep state agents to the fullest extent of the law. https://t.co/HNW1ujf0Gd

— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) February 9, 2025

“It’s only a matter of time before we walk into a place where there’s going to be a bad guy who doesn’t care. He’s going to be sitting and waiting for the officers to show up and ambush them. This is not a game,” Homan told Hannity.

At her first press conference, Bondi also announced that the Department of Justice is filing a lawsuit against New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and state Attorney General Letitia James for allegedly failing to enforce immigration laws.

“We sued Illinois, and New York didn’t listen, so now, you’re next,” Bondi said.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Intel Agencies Begin Dismantling DEI In Response To Trump’s Order

Pam Bondi Launches Legal Action Against New York

EXCLUSIVE: State AGs Call On Senate To Take Up Fentanyl Crackdown Bill

First Deportation Flights Touch Down In Venezuela In Major Victory For Trump Agenda

EXCLUSIVE: Hill Republicans Unveil Bill To ‘Back The Blue’ Injured In Line Of Duty

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Tulsi Gabbard Reveals Plans To ‘End Politicization’ Of Intel Agencies On Day One In Office thumbnail

Tulsi Gabbard Reveals Plans To ‘End Politicization’ Of Intel Agencies On Day One In Office

By The Daily Caller

President Donald Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard, will prioritize ending politicization of the Intelligence Community (IC) and restoring transparency, according to a list of priorities obtained by the Daily Caller.

The Senate confirmed Gabbard as DNI on Wednesday. Her day one priorities highlight politicization and the need for unbiased intelligence collection.

“End politicization of the IC and ensure clear mission focus to the IC on its core mission of unbiased, apolitical collection and analysis of intelligence to secure our nation” the document reads.

Facts. https://t.co/uVZ0RlwTqT

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) February 2, 2025

She assailed weaponization of the intelligence community during her confirmation hearing’s opening statement, citing Trump’s reelection as a “clear mandate” to end weaponization of the intelligence agencies.

She specifically pointed to the 51 former national security officials who signed a letter implying the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story was a “Russian information operation.” That was proven false and Trump recently revoked the officials’ security clearances.

Gabbard will also work to restore trust “through transparency and accountability,” the document said, calling the priority a “national security imperative.”

Two Republican senators who were initially hesitant to support Gabbard, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, cited the ODNI’s bloated size in their endorsements of Gabbard.

Collins said in a statement that the ODNI is too expansive and that Gabbard shares her “vision of returning the agency to its intended size.”

I will vote to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. While I continue to have concerns about certain positions she has previously taken, I appreciate her commitment to rein in the outsized scope of the agency, while still enabling the ODNI to continue its…

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 11, 2025

Gabbard will also work to “address efficiency, redundancy, and effectiveness across ODNI to ensure focus of personnel and resources is focused on our core mission of national security” on day one.

Gabbard will also prioritize assessing threats and identifying gaps in intelligence.

“Assess the global threat environment and where gaps in our intelligence exist, integrate intelligence elements, increase information-sharing, and ensure unbiased, apolitical, objective collection and analysis to support the President and policymakers’ decision-making,” the document reads.

She also plans to collaborate with Congress, specifically the Senate Intelligence Committee, on these issues. Senators expressed frustration about intelligence failures during her meetings, citing a “lack of responsiveness” to information requests, according to the document. There have been several major intelligence blunders under past DNIs, including the Afghanistan withdrawal and terrorists taking over Syria after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The document also referenced “failures to identify” the origins of COVID-19. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) said in January that it now believes the virus came from a lab in China, according to The New York Times. The agency reached this determination with “low confidence.” This typically indicates that the agency making the determination lacked sufficient credible information or had concerns or issues regarding their sources, according to the DNI’s website.

“Lt. Col. Gabbard looks forward to working with Senators and the Intelligence Committee directly on those issues,” the document concludes.

AUTHOR

Eireann Van Natta

Intelligence state reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tulsi Gabbard’s Critics Ushered In Era Of Civil Rights Abuses And Intel Failures

‘Previously Unrecognized’: FBI Confirms It Discovered 2,400 Other Records Related To JFK Assassination

Tulsi Gabbard Was Victimized By The Intel Community — Now She’s Trying To Oversee It

Senate Confirms Tulsi Gabbard As Director Of National Intelligence

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

No, Trump Does NOT Have to Abide by Mythical “Judicial Supremacy” thumbnail

No, Trump Does NOT Have to Abide by Mythical “Judicial Supremacy”

By Selwyn Duke

It’s an old story: When people are allowed to get their way for too long, when they’re never told “No!” they may get too big for their britches. They may develop a sense of entitlement and even become narcissistic. And proving that judges are no exception are a number of recent court “opinions” designed to scuttle President Trump’s agenda.

One disallows DOGE from scrutinizing Treasury Department data.

Another states that the Trump administration must unfreeze funding on grants and loans.

A different opinion puts a freeze on Trump’s buyout offer for federal employees.

And yet another ordered the administration to restore sexual devolutionary (on “gender” and “sex changes”) government web pages Trump’s team had rightly deleted. So Biden could create those pages but, somehow, the current president may not remove them. Yes, it’s insane.

There’s a little known reason, however, why the rogue judges in question could so confidently engage in such insane judicial overreach. To wit:

We long ago accepted the overreach known as “judicial supremacy.”

This brings us to the simple remedy. Trump could just paraphrase the paraphrase of Andrew Jackson and say, “The courts have made their decisions — now let the judges enforce them.”

A “Constitutional Crisis”?

Some say this is illegal, that it would create a “constitutional crisis.” A “legal analyst” and ex-federal prosecutor named Elizabeth de la Vega, for example, condescendingly stated Monday that someone taking this position should “at least read Marbury v. Madison.” That’s a deal.

Note here that Marbury was the 1803 SCOTUS opinion declaring that the judiciary must be the ultimate arbiter of laws’ and actions’ constitutionality and that, consequently, its rulings can constrain the other two governmental branches. Translation:

The courts gave the courts their trump card (and Trump card) power.

Not the Constitution — the courts themselves.

Well, that’s like me crowning myself King of America and saying, “Now I get to rule — and you have to obey me.” Are you O.K. with that?

(And while we’re at it, off with those activist judges’ heads.)

As to this, there’s a reason Thomas Jefferson said in 1819 that if the judicial-supremacy opinion is valid, “then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (act of suicide).

There’s a reason a 5th Circuit judge pressed Barack Obama’s DOJ in 2012, after Obama had spoken dismissively of the courts, to submit a memo on the administration’s position on judicial supremacy.

And there’s a reason late Justice Antonin Scalia warned in his dissent against the outrageous 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage) opinion that with “each decision…unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.”

That is, judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution. That’s why Jefferson was incredulous about it, the 5th Circuit judge was insecure about it, and Scalia warned that the Court could be told to forget about it.

It’s an extra-constitutional power the courts enjoy at the other two branches’ pleasure. The moment they decide to stop playing the sub role in this master-servant relationship, the power goes bye-bye.

Method to the Madness

Now, it’s helpful understanding why, in a world in which arrogating power to oneself or one’s corps is status quo, the other two branches do play this sub role. First, it’s a tradition, one so entrenched that pseudo-intellectuals will defend it as if it’s law. But a very significant reason was epitomized by something then-Ohio governor John Kasich said in 2015 after the Obergefell decision.

“[T]he court has ruled,” he proclaimed — “and it’s time to move on.” He seemed almost gleeful. And why not?

Kasich no longer had to take a stand on the controversial marriage issue and thus alienate part of the electorate.

And Kasich’s attitude is the norm. It’s the same reason why, I can guarantee you, many Republicans got severe agita when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. Now they actually had to legislate, as they’re supposed to, on prenatal infanticide. So what legislators — and presidents often, too — get from judicial supremacy is the luxury of, like Pontius Pilate, being able to wash their hands of a matter: “The courts have ruled! Don’t look at me!”

Apropos here, just as legislators outsource their responsibility to judges, the latter outsourced their responsibility to bureaucrats with the now overturned Chevron opinion. What judges got from this was the benefit of lightening their case loads and not having to strain their gray matter trying to settle legislative ambiguities.

Regardless, whether the decisions are made by unelected judges or unelected bureaucrats, the result is identical: You don’t have a government of, by and for the people. In fact, it’s even worse than that.

If the courts can overturn law, contravening the will of the people’s duly elected representatives, then they’ve to an extent arrogated to themselves the legislative power. If they can dictate to the president what executive actions he may or may not take, they’ve to an extent arrogated to themselves the executive power. And, of course, they enjoy their judicial power.

Now consider something James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote in The Federalist Papers, Number 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands” is “the very definition of tyranny.”

We have for ages been venturing too close to judicial tyranny. In fact, Jefferson warned that judicial supremacy would reduce us to an oligarchy — of judges.

How it’s Supposed to Work

Remember, too, that federal and state officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

They do not take an oath to uphold judges’ opinions.

This means that if I’m a president or governor and a court issues a ruling I truly believe is unconstitutional, I have a duty to ignore it. Otherwise, I’m violating my oath.

“But what of rogue legislators or presidents?” some may ask. Well, what of rogue judges (who apparently are everywhere)?

The answer is the Founders’ one: No branch can intrude into the others’ spheres. This doesn’t mean there aren’t checks and balances. If, for example, a president believes a law is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it, or takes an allegedly unconstitutional executive action, Congress can try to remove him; it can also impeach and remove renegade judges. As for House representatives themselves, the remedy is removal via the ballot box. This is why they must run for re-election every two years: Since they’re meant to be the most powerful branch (e.g., spending bills must originate in the House, and only it can file impeachment charges), they’re placed closest to the people’s reach.

Power means nothing, though, if not exercised. If congressional and executive powers are outsourced, it then can reduce us to what we’ve become: a government of, by and for judicial oligarchs.

So, no, President Trump doesn’t have to obey blatantly unconstitutional court opinions. This said, with how he’s shaking up the system and busy draining the bureaucratic swamp, it’s perhaps politically prudent to remedy the current judicial adventurism through the higher courts, as he’ll almost assuredly win on appeal. At some point, though, it will be time to drain that fetid judicial swamp and address the real constitutional crisis: the rule of judges who would be kings.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X (formerly Twitter), MeWe, Gettr, Tumblr, Instagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

VIDEO: Sorry, Liberals. DOGE Is 100% Legal. Here’s Why. thumbnail

VIDEO: Sorry, Liberals. DOGE Is 100% Legal. Here’s Why.

By Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

EDITORS NOTE: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. 

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I want to revisit the hysteria, controversy—whatever term we use—about Elon Musk and his role in the Department of Government Efficiency—or DOGE—using that term for the executive officer of Renaissance Florence. The Italian word “doge” is a meme, so to speak.

There’s a lot of controversy about Elon Musk, and let’s just dispel some of it right at the start. He is not a freelancer. He was appointed a government official. Donald Trump, by an executive order, created the Department of Government Efficiency, and he made Elon Musk the head of it, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, who now has resigned.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Elon Musk has statutory authority. This Department of Government Efficiency is not a Cabinet agency. He does not have to be approved by Congress. And it only is going to last until July 4, 2026. It’s not a permanent agency, but he has the same power, or lack of such, as the national security adviser, who does not have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

He’s more legitimate—or he has more statutory legitimacy—than earlier presidential advisers, like Harry Hopkins, who moved into the White House under the FDR administration, or Bernard Baruch, who basically ran two world wars, in terms of domestic production, under Woodrow Wilson and FDR. So, let’s just dispel the idea that he’s doing anything unusual.

As far as the executive orders that created the DOGE program and eliminated the U.S. Agency for International Development—that was perfectly legal in itself. USAID was created by John F. Kennedy in 1961 by an executive order. There was a statutory direction for the president to disperse foreign aid into a comprehensive body, but it didn’t say USAID—he could do whatever he wanted.

And so, Donald Trump has decided to end autonomous USAID and fold it into the State Department for disaster relief or poverty relief or famine relief.

But let’s get straight what Elon Musk is trying to do. He’s going through all of these agencies and finding waste and fraud. And he has executive authority to do so. The Democrats are suing on the principle that they have approved funds for some of these agencies and Donald Trump is not spending them. And they are also arguing that Elon must exist by an executive order and not a congressional statute.

And this is very ironic, to tell you the truth. If you look back at executive orders, the number of which have been issued by Democratic and Republican presidencies, you see two general terms: The two Bushes and Donald Trump are not that much different than the 16 years of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Where you see the big divide in the number of executive orders is a break between FDR and Harry Truman, and to a lesser extent, Herbert Hoover and Coolidge, and the present. And believe me, during the Roosevelt years and Truman years, that was an all-time record of executive orders, and that got Roosevelt in trouble, of course, with the Supreme Court.

As far as impounding funds, Joe Biden set the precedent. You all saw him on tape when he said, “SOB—the son of a—I went in, over there, to Ukraine and I said, ‘You’re not getting this billion dollars until you do this.’” Well, that money had been approved by Congress.

And when he became president, there was a statute that said, “Here’s the money to build the wall.”

And Joe Biden canceled the wall. That was illegal. But he came up with all these—“Oh, we have to do environmental studies, or on endangered species.” But he didn’t spend the money. All Donald Trump is doing is saying, “I don’t believe the Impoundment Control Act is legal. We’ll see what the Supreme Court—but I’m just following the precedent that Joe Biden did.” But now the shoe’s on the other foot.

And so, again, there is a statutory authority for Elon Musk to do what he does. He has the executive order justifying his agency, his 20-some employees. And more importantly—there’s another thing no one talks about—Elon Musk is a controversial figure and everybody is attacking him. And whom are they not attacking? Donald Trump.

So, while the media is trying to make a split—Time magazine had a cover of Elon Musk behind the presidential desk in the Oval Office, Donald Trump didn’t get angry about that. He said, “I didn’t even know Time magazine was still in existence.” Why? Because Elon Musk, in addition to all of these executive duties he’s doing to cut back wasteful spending, he is redirecting animus away from the president to him.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by emailing authorvdh@gmail.com. Victor on X: @VDHanson.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOGE Takes Over Washington, Literally and Figuratively

Trump’s Freeze of USAID Is a Blow to Global Leftist Empire

Ending the Taxpayer-Funded Blue Pipeline

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Trump Admin. Goes to War over Court Order Blocking DOGE from Treasury Dept. thumbnail

Trump Admin. Goes to War over Court Order Blocking DOGE from Treasury Dept.

By Family Research Council

The Trump administration is challenging a federal court order blocking the government’s efficiency agency from accessing U.S. Treasury records. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, barring the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from having “access to Treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information.”

DOGE has been tasked by President Donald Trump with investigating and auditing federal agencies and departments in order to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and fraud. Last week, the agency gained access to Treasury Department payment system records after Acting Treasury Secretary David Lebryk, a 35-year Treasury bureaucracy veteran who had been blocking DOGE’s access, was placed on leave. However, a coalition of 19 Democratic attorneys general — representing the states of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin — filed a complaint asking that DOGE continue to be denied access to the Treasury.

Engelmayer received the Democrats’ complaint and, without seeking arguments from the president and his attorneys, temporarily blocked the president “from granting to political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department access to Treasury…” The judge further ordered that Trump and his administration be “restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees” to anyone outside the Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Services and “restrained from granting access” to any such records to “all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department…” The order also demands that DOGE employees who have already been granted access to Treasury records destroy all copies they have obtained of those records.

The Trump administration was given until Tuesday evening to file a response, with the Democratic attorneys general being given until Thursday evening to file a follow-up response. However, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a response almost immediately, asking for the order to be dissolved. “On its face, the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasury — including even [Treasury] Secretary [Scott] Bessent. This is a remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch that is in direct conflict with Article II of the Constitution, and the unitary structure it provides,” the DOJ memorandum stated. It continued, “There is not and cannot be a basis for distinguishing between ‘civil servants’ and ‘political appointees.’ Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President.”

“A federal court, consistent with the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of that work from the specter of political accountability,” the DOJ explained. “No court can issue an injunction that directly severs the clear line of supervision Article II requires. Because the Order on its face draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction, it should be dissolved immediately.”

Although the agency conceded that the Trump administration is “in compliance with” the court order and its stipulations, Trump and his allies have vowed to combat the court’s overreach and even hinted at the possibility of ignoring the court’s order if it is not dissolved or adjusted in a timely manner. When asked about the court order on Sunday, Trump himself said, “We’re talking about fraud, waste, abuse, and when a president can’t look for fraud and waste and abuse, we don’t have a country anymore.” He added, “We’re very disappointed with the judges that would make such a ruling.”

Vice President J.D. Vance issued a stern statement on the subject over social media. “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal,” he observed. He concluded, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

White House deputy chief of staff and top Trump policy advisor Stephen Miller called Engelmayer “a radical left judge” in an interview Sunday. He said of the court order, “This isn’t just unconstitutional. That ruling is an assault on the very idea of democracy itself.” He continued, “Donald Trump is engaging in the most important restoration of democracy in over a century by saying that we are going to restore power to the people through their elected president and his appointed officers.”

Miller added, “That is the only way we can have true democracy in this country.” The Trump counselor continued, “But this nonsense where we have rogue, unelected, unaccountable, and previously un-fire-able bureaucrats who do whatever the hell they want with no one telling them and no one controlling them, we’re not going to let that happen anymore.”

Commenting on the controversial court order, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) declared, “The elected president of the United States should be allowed to function as such.” He continued, “No federal court should replace the president’s team with Deep State bureaucrats.”

Trump ally and Article III Project founder Mike Davis, commented, “These DC uniparty judges are shockingly insulated from Real Americans in Real America. They are arrogant and delusional enough to believe they are saving America from Trump.” He added, “Even though Trump campaigned on doing precisely what he’s doing. And won a decisive electoral mandate.” In comments published by The New York Times, Davis clarified, “President Trump is not stealing other branches’ powers.” He continued to say that Trump “is exercising his Article II powers under the Constitution. And judges who say he can’t? They’re legally wrong. The Supreme Court is going to side with Trump.”

Despite the complaints of Democrats, several department heads in the federal government have welcomed DOGE’s efforts to identify and eliminate waste and fraud. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem insisted on Sunday that she is “absolutely” comfortable with DOGE auditing DHS records. “This is essentially an audit of the federal government, which is very powerful and needs to have happened,” she said, adding that American citizens “can’t trust our government anymore” after years of waste and fraud being covered up.

Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary Pete Hegseth also welcomed DOGE audits in a Sunday interview, adding that Trump is “correct that American taxpayers deserve to know exactly how and where their money is spent.” He stated, “We welcome Elon Musk and DOGE coming into our department to help us identify additional ways in which we can streamline costs, fast-track acquisitions, cut waste, cut tail to put it to tooth.” Hegseth continued, “We know in a world where America is $37 trillion in debt, resources will not be unlimited. Every dollar we can find that isn’t being spent wisely is one we can put toward warfighters. So we welcome DOGE at DOD. We will partner with them, and it’s long overdue.”

Prior to the fracas surrounding its audit of the Treasury, DOGE has investigated several other federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump ordered almost completely shut down after the DOGE team discovered and exposed rampant waste and the funding of left-wing projects and programs across the globe. Trump announced last week that DOGE will also audit the Pentagon and the Department of Education. Shortly afterwards, DOGE chief Elon Musk announced, without elaborating further, that the Department of Education “no longer exists.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

PERKINS: Executive Orders Are Good, but Congress Must Make Them Permanent

DOJ Reverses Position on State Law Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Procedures

RELATED VIDEO: Speaker Mike Johnson: ‘Crooked judges are illegally interfering with the Executive Branch’

RELATED PODCAST:  Free Speech — A Legal Analysis with Jim Campbell

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

FBI ‘Mission Drift’ Targeted Christians, Ignored Islamist Threats: Fmr. Advisor thumbnail

FBI ‘Mission Drift’ Targeted Christians, Ignored Islamist Threats: Fmr. Advisor

By Family Research Council

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has drifted far off course, warned former FBI senior advisor Hedieh Mirahmadi Falco, a Christian convert from Islam, on “Washington Watch.” “It’s not just mission drift. It’s mission chaos. And the only way we can undo that is by putting a focus [on] these agencies to undo the harm that has been done.”

“I’ve been involved as a federal contractor for 20-plus years,” Falco explained. “We were building terrorism prevention programs to be to the ‘left of boom,’ which means we wanted to get ahead of a terrorist attack. And, in order to do that, we were developing all kinds of [tools], whether it’s countering radicalization, social cohesion, integration programs, how do we understand radicalization?”

This counter-terrorism focus continued throughout the Obama administration, she added. “Though the Obama administration called it CVE (countering violent extremism), clearly the focus was on Islamic extremism,” Falco said. “They just didn’t want to use the word and offend the community.”

But with the (surprise) election of President Trump, the FBI’s counter-terrorism work took a sharp turn. “Fast forward to 2016,” described Falco. “President Trump gets elected. He gets into the White House, and the building shuts down. I mean, our program was shut down. All of the efforts that we were focused on were shut down.” Falco didn’t know it at the time, but the FBI’s whole attention would be consumed by the fake investigation into the Russia collusion hoax, which the FBI already knew to be a plant of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“The FBI has run like a paramilitary organization and takes its marching orders from the Department of Justice [DOJ],” Falco explained. “So, when that program shift, that mission shift occurs, the leadership is responsible. … And the fine men and women of the FBI who investigate crimes, who want to fight crime, are forced to follow the directives of their superiors.”

When President Trump left the Oval Office four years later, the FBI’s retooled investigative units had to find new targets. “After that, then you see all the grants and the programs after the J6 investigation,” Falco continued. “They open all of these cases … on grandmothers and people who were strolling by the Capitol.”

The massive number in J6-related cases led to an “uptick” in “the number of … what they described now as ‘racially motivated violent extremists,’ which is basically [code for] ‘white Christians.’ Even though … a lot of them are not white, they’re basically Christians, conservatives. And so, the whole department, the agency shifted to that focus,” Falco detailed.

The FBI used this to spin its own political narrative. “They elevated the threat by saying, we have all of these open investigations against racially-motivated, violent white people,” said Falco. “So the threat is no longer Islam. The threat is Americans practicing their religious liberty engag[ing] in all kinds of activity.” Falco described how the FBI borrowed a Pyramid of Radicalization — “a model used to define Islamic terrorism” — and filled it with disconnected groups that were Christian or right-leaning. “They inserted the names of organizations like CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network] and Charlie Kirk’s organization [Turning Point USA]” and the base of the pyramid, “and then KKK and the radical violent groups at the top.”

“The funding mechanisms that we had for radicalization and identifying terrorism prevention programs were shifted to crowdsource policing, basically, in a conservative town like Miami Valley, Ohio, to basically disrupt the access to the public square,” Falco continued. “Millions of dollars went to these kinds of programs.”

“Even though they identified this as probably illegal,” she added, the federal law enforcement bureau did it anyway. “The stated purpose was to prevent them from advancing their goals and their ideas.”

Unfortunately, such a grave departure from the FBI’s mission (“to protect the American people and uphold the U.S. Constitution”) did not harm only its new targets. Concentrating so much attention on peaceful Americans meant the FBI had to divert its attention from jihadist threats.

“This wasn’t just, ‘All right, so we’re going to start harassing these Christians.’ It was shifting the resources they had away from radical Islamists to focusing on grandmas and pro-life protesters outside of abortion clinics,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “But that came at a price. To shift that focus, we have events like occurred … on New Year’s Day in New Orleans, where you had a radicalized American — through Islamic influence, kill Americans on a street in America.”

Falco confirmed this analysis. “The program that I was hired … to scale and replicate — a program I built in the private sector — was shut down. And it was designed to help field offices identify cases like that and be able to intervene before an act of violence. So that individual was reported dozens of times. … And there should have been intervention programs in place, multidisciplinary teams that would have intervened, knocked on the door, said, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’”

Instead, the FBI was too busy parsing whether Grandma Becky stepped off the sidewalk in front of an abortion center six years ago, or what those traditionalist Catholics were really saying in their Latin mass, or whether those concerned parents were about to drive their Suburban through the school board meeting.

If the FBI had its way, Americans would not even know that the New Orleans attacker was motivated by Islamist extremism. “There was a real problem within the culture of the FBI … just kind of double talking,” said Perkins. “New Orleans [was] the latest example of that [because] the first words out of the FBI’s mouth [were], ‘This was not a terrorist incident.’” That lie exploded upon impact because “social media had already identified that [ISIS] flag” in the shooter’s truck, said Falco.

The point is not to make the FBI as a whole look ridiculous. “I know there are fine men and women at the agent level who think this stuff is preposterous,” noted Falco. But “Their management is telling them that the focus is on right-wing extremism, that this Islamic threat has diminished to the point where we don’t need to be concerned about it.”

At this point, said Perkins, it’s difficult to tell whether the FBI brass “want to cover up” their improper mission drift, or “they’re just that blind that they can’t see that this is a terrorist incident.” With the advantage of hindsight, it’s easy to claim (but harder to prove) that incidents like the New Orleans terror attack were preventable. But if the FBI could have prevented any terror attacks by maintaining its attention to radical jihadist plots, this attack would likely have been one of them.

That’s why “it is so fundamentally important for us to undo what has happened at the Bureau and at the Department of Justice and at DHS [the Department of Homeland Security],” Falco urged. Hopefully, the team selected by President Trump — including U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and (still awaiting confirmation) FBI Director Kash Patel — is up to the task of cleaning up America’s federal law enforcement agencies.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: USAID: From Cold War Sentinel to Ideological Sideshow

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Administration Targets Opposition to Deportations thumbnail

Trump Administration Targets Opposition to Deportations

By Family Research Council

The Trump administration is preparing to prosecute officials and others for obstructing deportations and putting federal law enforcement agents at risk. President Donald Trump’s border czar, former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief Tom Homan, confirmed on Thursday that plans for an immigration raid on Aurora, Colorado had been leaked and vowed to find whoever had leaked the information. An ICE raid originally planned for Wednesday was meant to target members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TDA), who had taken over parts of Aurora, just outside Denver. ICE had planned to arrest over 100 TDA members but, due to the leak, only arrested 30 illegal immigrants, including only one TDA member.

“When we show up at these sites, this is a dangerous job for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol and all the DOJ agencies,” Homan stated in an interview following the leak. He continued, “To have this type of interference puts our officers at great risk — not only the officers, it puts the aliens at great risk because anything can happen when we take our eyes off the goal here, so we’re addressing it immediately today.” He told the person or persons responsible for the leak, “We’re not going to tolerate it anymore. This is not a game.” Hinting at prosecution, Homan added, “This is not a joke. This is serious business, and they need to stop, or we’re going to prosecute them through the Department of Justice.” He confirmed, “I’m addressing OPSEC today — operational security — and how the leaks are happening. We’ve identified how this operation got leaked, and I’ll deal with that today.”

A number of protestors also harassed ICE officers as they carried out the Aurora raid after Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D) suggested last year that he might organize protests to obstruct mass deportations. Homan warned city and state officials against interfering with ICE. “For any mayor or governor who doesn’t want public safety threats removed in the communities, I find it hard to believe that, but we’re going to do it with or without them,” he said. The border czar added, “If they’re not going to help, get out of the way. But don’t cross that line. Do not impede our operations. Do not knowingly conceal or harbor illegal aliens because we will seek prosecution.”

That warning has been a recurring theme of Homan’s tenure as border czar: he has previously advised mayors and governors against obstructing deportations, reiterating that prosecutions would ensue. When New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) claimed last week that he was housing an illegal immigrant, for example, Homan pledged to “look into it,” adding, “I will seek prosecution — or the Secretary [of Homeland Security] will seek prosecution. So, maybe he’s bluffing. If he’s not, we’ll deal with that.”

Homan shared Thursday that he is already working with the DOJ on possible prosecutions. “I’m working very close starting this morning with the Department of Justice in — where do they cross the line of impediment? So they may find themselves in a pair of handcuffs soon,” he said regarding those who obstruct ICE operations. Trump’s DOJ has already moved to penalize “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with the federal government.

Under newly-minted U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ has filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago and state of Illinois, specifically citing city and state ordinances and statutes barring local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. Currently, measures in place in Chicago and Illinois prohibit state, county, or city law enforcement from investigating or inquiring about the immigration or citizenship status of those accused of crimes, detaining individuals on the basis or suspicion that they may be in the country illegally, or cooperating with ICE officers. The DOJ’s lawsuit argues that such state and local laws are “designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit says that Chicago and Illinois laws “obstruct the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law and … impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe.” The lawsuit continues, “Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States.”

“For too long, leaders in Illinois and Chicago have abused their power by putting the comfort of illegal aliens over the safety and welfare of their own citizens. This ends today,” Bondi said in a statement to the New York Post. She continued, “The Department of Justice will no longer stand by as state and local leaders obstruct federal law enforcement efforts, endangering their citizens and the brave men and women in uniform.” Bondi added, “If you are a leader of a state or local jurisdiction that obstructs or impedes federal law enforcement, you will be next.”

“This lawsuit will put the spotlight on obstruction by state and local officials and their refusal to support the administration and compliance with the law. The law says people who are here illegally are not allowed to stay here, they should be deported. So we want to make sure those impediments are taken away,” a DOJ official said. He continued, “These states and localities advertise themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions. They are inviting people here who are illegal, and they’re promising to protect them from federal law enforcement. That’s inconsistent with federal law, and it’s impeding federal law enforcement efforts…” The official added, that “these laws need to be struck from the books because they’re incentivizing illegal immigration into the country.”

Previously, Homan has discussed the problems posed by “sanctuary cities” like Chicago. “Sanctuary cities are difficult to operate in. … [O]ne agent can arrest one bad guy in jail in 10 minutes. But when they release them back into the community, we’ve got to send a whole team to find him, and some of them don’t want to be found,” he explained. The border czar continued, “And it’s unsafe for the community because you’re putting a public safety threat back into the public, and that’s idiotic to begin with. It makes the job more dangerous for the agent, more dangerous for the alien, more dangerous for the community.” He added, “So, we’ve got to spend a lot of time trying to locate this person, write up an operational plan, and seek to arrest them. It’s not efficient. And so, not only is it difficult, it’s very dangerous.”

Initial deportation efforts in Chicago were personally led by Homan, who arrested illegal migrants who had been convicted of violent or predatory crimes. “This is an example of ‘sanctuary cities,’” Homan said after handcuffing a convicted sex offender and child predator from Thailand. He added, “You got an illegal alien convicted of sex crimes involving children, he’s walking the streets of Chicago.” Referencing Chicago’s “sanctuary” policies and provisions, the border czar continued, “The downfall, the problem with ‘sanctuary cities’ is where you have people like this walking the streets instead of local law enforcement working with federal agents. This is what we’re dealing with.”

Despite the efforts of Democratic leaders, a majority of Americans approve of ICE and the mass deportations spearheaded by Homan. According to an Economist/YouGov poll, 53% of American voters hold a favorable view of ICE as of the beginning of February, while only 37% hold an unfavorable view of the agency. Overall, 28% hold a “very favorable” view of ICE, compared to only 19% who hold a “very unfavorable” view.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Administration Wants to Resettle Gazans in Somalia thumbnail

Trump Administration Wants to Resettle Gazans in Somalia

By Jihad Watch

I can’t think of anything that would make Rep. Ilhan Omar madder.

Big if true, as they say.

The Trump administration is considering three potential areas for the absorption of refugee Gazans after President Donald Trump announced that the US plans to take over the Gaza Strip and relocate those currently there to rebuild the area, N12 reported on Wednesday.

According to the report, the areas being considered are Morocco, Puntland, and Somaliland.

The report noted that what these three countries share in common is a strong need for US support, as Somaliland and Puntland seek international recognition, and Morocco has an ongoing territorial dispute over Western Sahara.

Somaliland has been looking for recognition as an independent country. There were early reports that the Trump admin might recognize Somaliland. And the prospect of that is what keeps Rep. Ilhan Omar up at night.

Somalia and its various regional Islamist allies have been maneuvering hard to block efforts by Somaliland to build relationships with other countries. After heading off efforts for a deal between Somaliland and Ethiopia, the Somalis have been confronted with growing Republican support for Someliland.

The case for recognizing Somaliland is straightforward. It’s been a de facto independent country for 30 years and the idea that there is any ‘united’ Somalia as a country is mostly a myth anyway.

Puntland is more of a mixed Somali breakaway province, like Somaliland there are clan politics at work here. The Trump administration recently carried out air strikes targeting ISIS in Puntland. So there is a relationship.

Both Somaliland and Puntland combined have a population of about 10 million, so I don’t know how many Gazans they could take, but trading U.S. recognition for Gazans is interesting out-of-the-box thinking.

And I can’t think of anything that would make Rep. Ilhan Omar madder.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s National Security Advisor defends Gaza plan, says it will ‘bring entire region’ to ‘reach its own solution’

There Has Been a Sea Change in Israeli Views of the ‘Two-State Solution’

How the IDF Almost Wiped Out Hezbollah Early in the War

Hamas-linked CAIR official assaults Jewish man, screams ‘I demand jihad, I want ISIS to kill all of you’

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Ngozi Orabueze Discusses Biafran Independence with Robert Spencer

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump’s Attorney General Tackles Cartels, Border, and ‘Weaponization’ of DOJ on Day 1 thumbnail

Trump’s Attorney General Tackles Cartels, Border, and ‘Weaponization’ of DOJ on Day 1

By Family Research Council

Less than two days after being confirmed, the new U.S. attorney general is already moving to end political corruption in the justice system and support the president’s agenda. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) was confirmed Tuesday night as the new attorney general serving under President Donald Trump. According to a Fox News report, Bondi’s first day as chief of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) included issuing several directives focused on securing the border, enforcing immigration law, and promoting Trump’s policies.

One of Bondi’s first moves as attorney general was to bolster border security and target criminal cartels. According to memos issued by Bondi, the DOJ will expedite the prosecutions of cartel leaders and officers and suspend certain “bureaucratic approvals and reviews” when dealing with cartels. She has also “further empowered and elevated” to the Office of the Attorney General Joint Task Force Vulcan, an interdepartmental group focused on combating the MS-13 gang, and Joint Task Force Alpha, centered on tackling human trafficking, which has burgeoned at the southern border over the past several years. Bondi is also planning to reclassify crimes related to possession of fentanyl-manufacturing equipment, introducing more stringent and severe penalties. The new attorney general declared that the Trump administration intends to “completely eliminate” the cartels.

Bondi’s directives are also aimed to buttress Trump’s immigration agenda, including supporting mass deportations. So far, Bondi has frozen all federal funding for “sanctuary cities” and is launching investigations into governors, mayors, and other executives who are in any way obstructing deportation missions executed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She has also ordered DOJ officials to begin prosecutions where applicable. Non-government organizations (NGOs) linked to the illegal immigration crisis will also be investigated.

In order to back Trump’s presidential policies with the full force of the justice system, Bondi reminded DOJ attorneys that their responsibilities are not only “aggressively enforcing criminal laws passed by Congress, but also vigorously defending presidential policies and actions on behalf of the United States against legal challenges.” She explained, “The discretion afforded Justice Department attorneys with respect to those responsibilities does not include latitude to substitute their personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.”

Bondi continued, “When Justice Department attorneys refuse to faithfully carry out their role by, for example, refusing to advance good-faith arguments or declining to sign briefs, it undermines the constitutional order and deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers.” The attorney general added that “any Justice Department attorney who declines to sign a brief, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Justice Department’s mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination.”

Bondi also announced the creation of a “Weaponization Working Group” to investigate instances of the DOJ and the FBI being weaponized against Americans over the past four years. The group will investigate the politically-motivated prosecutions against Trump, including those carried out by former U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The group will also review January 6 prosecutions, the FBI’s targeting of American Catholics and parents attending school board meetings, and the persecution of pro-life Americans under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Following an executive order issued by Trump, Bondi will also oversee the dismantling of any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office, program, or initiative in the DOJ, especially concerning training and hiring. She insisted that the DOJ and its subsidiaries will implement “fair admission practices” and hire based “solely on merit,” as opposed to identity-based quotas. All DEI programs in the DOJ must be confirmed as eliminated by March 15. Prior to Bondi’s confirmation, FBI whistleblower and former special agent Steve Friend reported that DEI is deeply entrenched in the law enforcement agency, predicting that eliminating it might prove difficult for Bondi and Trump’s pick for FBI Director, Kash Patel.

Additional directives issued by Bondi include establishing a joint task force to investigate Hamas for the attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, and reinstating the use of the federal death penalty, including “re-evaluat[ing] instances of the prior administration electing not to seek the death penalty” and scrapping DOJ policies that are “not sufficiently in line with President Trump’s death penalty executive order.”

Bondi was confirmed in her role as U.S. attorney general by the U.S. Senate in a Tuesday night vote. She was confirmed 54 to 46, with Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) crossing the aisle and being the only Democrat to support Trump’s pick. The new AG was sworn in on Wednesday morning by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. At the swearing-in ceremony, Trump declared that Bondi is “going to restore fair, equal, and impartial justice and restore the constitutional rule of law in America.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: The shadowy ‘brokers’ helping Mexico’s cartels smuggle fentanyl chemicals from China

RELATED VIDEO: USAID’s DC office building is now being occupied by Customs and Border Protection

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

AG Pam Bondi Establishes “Weaponization Working Group” To Investigate Politicized Justice thumbnail

AG Pam Bondi Establishes “Weaponization Working Group” To Investigate Politicized Justice

By The Geller Report

Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to establish the “Weaponization Working Group,” which will review the activities of all law enforcement agencies over the past four years to identify instances of “politicized justice.”

The “Weaponization Working Group” will review politically motivated investigations including Special Counsel Jack Smith, NY DA Alvin Bragg, NY AG Leticia James, and the prosecution of J6ers.

The working group’s first reviews will include prosecutions against Trump led by:

  • Former Special Counsel Jack Smith; who was after President Donald Trump in the 2020 election case and the classified documents case – both were dismissed.
  • Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg who pursued the Hush Money case
  • And New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the civil fraud case against Trump and his family resulting in a historic and unheard of $454 Million bond being issued

The working group will also review any potential prosecutorial abuse regarding Jan. 6, 2021; the FBI’s targeting of Catholic Americans; the Justice Department’s targeting of parents at school board meetings; and abuses of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

AG Pam Bondi Halts Funding to Sanctuary Cities

President Trump Signs Executive Order Imposing Economic and Travel Sanctions On People Who Work on International Criminal Court Investigations of US Citizens or US Allies Like Israel

“Dastardly” Democrat Party of Treason Files Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Communist Party Quietly Operates Shadow Justice System In U.S. Cities thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Communist Party Quietly Operates Shadow Justice System In U.S. Cities

By The Daily Caller

China is imposing its justice system on American soil using a web of U.S.-based nonprofits linked to a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intelligence agency, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

Located throughout California, the greater Washington, D.C. area, Hawaii, and New York, the network of more than a dozen nonprofits share information with Chinese law enforcement officials, and some also host unsanctioned courtrooms in the U.S., a months-long investigation discovered. Although the Chinese government claims it appoints law enforcement officials overseas in order to more conveniently handle mundane matters like Chinese driver’s license renewal and international divorce cases, U.S. lawmakers and intelligence analysts say China’s underground courts could easily be weaponized to punish dissidents and expand communist influence abroad.

Liu Pengyu, a Chinese Embassy spokesperson, told the DCNF that “Chinese law enforcement agencies conduct foreign law enforcement cooperation strictly in accordance with international law, fully respect foreign laws and judicial sovereignty, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects in accordance with the law.”

However, the DCNF found that not only are all the identified nonprofits led by individuals working with a Chinese intelligence service called the United Front Work Department (UFWD), but some of their leaders have also explicitly discussed forced repatriation operations with Ministry of Public Security (MPS) officials in China. Furthermore, several of the individuals appointed to operate overseas Chinese courts in the U.S. also belong to the nonprofit that ran a Chinese police station in New York, which the Department of Justice (DOJ) found sought to forcibly repatriate individuals back to China.

“The Chinese government’s attempt to impose its repressive legal system on U.S. soil through the CCP’s United Front network is an unacceptable assault on U.S. sovereignty and the rule of law,” Michigan Republican Rep. John Moolenaar told the DCNF.

“These actions jeopardize the safety and freedoms of Chinese Americans and undermine the principles of justice that define our nation,” said Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on the CCP. “Congress and law enforcement must remain vigilant, hold those involved accountable, and impose costs on the CCP’s illicit United Front activities within the United States.”

‘Foot Soldiers’

Chinese law enforcement agencies tapped at least eight U.S. nonprofit leaders to serve as “overseas mediators” and “hearing officers” for underground courts on American soil, according to Chinese state media and government reports.

Overseas mediators and hearing officers remotely notarize and serve legal documents, provide a physical space to host video calls for mediation and litigation and advocate on behalf of overseas compatriots, Chinese government and state-run media reports show.

A November 2022 UFWD announcement showcased the Xinhui District court in Jiangmen, Guangdong province and its “Overseas Dispute Mediation Station.” The announcement identified the chairman of the San Francisco, California-based World Youth Congress of Jiangmen as one of the court’s “overseas mediators” and highlighted his role in settling an international divorce case through video call.

The Xinhui branch of China’s organ for legal supervision, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, likewise appointed the chairman of the San Francisco-based Kong Chow Benevolent Association as a “hearing officer” connected to its “Overseas Chinese Inspection Liaison Station” in 2022, according to the Chinese government.

The DCNF has not been able to determine if these entities have adjudicated criminal cases. Under Chinese law, most dissident speech is a criminal matter.

Zhejiang and Fujian provincial law enforcement have also established U.S. hubs.

In July 2016, a court in Lucheng District, Wenzhou, Zhejiang appointed the Wenzhou Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce as its first California “Overseas Liaison Mediation Station” and named its chairman as an “overseas mediator,” Chinese state media reported. The court had previously appointed members of the New York-based Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce and Industry as mediators in 2014, Newsweek reported.

The Changle Procuratorate in Fuzhou, Fujian recently also demonstrated similar ambitions when it unveiled an “Overseas Chinese Protection Observation Station” in September 2023 and told the honorary chairman of the New York City-based Fukien Benevolent Association of America and others they were to perform overseas procuratorial work, according to a social media post.

Meanwhile, Changle District court social media posts from 2020 and 2022 reveal it appointed three members of New York’s America Changle Association to serve as “overseas mediators.” America Changle Association leader Chen Jinping recently pleaded guilty to “conspiring to act as an illegal agent” of China connected to running an “undeclared overseas police station” in New York, according to the DOJ.

The World Youth Congress of Jiangmen, Kong Chow Benevolent Association, Wenzhou Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Fukien Benevolent Association of America and America Changle Association could not be reached for comment.

“Overseas mediators” and “hearing officers” pose a national security threat, Chinese intelligence experts told the DCNF.

“There are risks to national security because these civic organizations are exclusively pro-CCP ‘United Front’-led groups that are under the supervision of Chinese consulates, who, in turn, ultimately answer to the CCP,” Ina Mitchell, a Chinese intelligence expert, told the DCNF. “I can see them being strong-armed into spying and other illegal activity on U.S. soil in a deal brokered by a mediator assigned by the state.”

Dr. Lawrence Sellin, a national security expert, told the DCNF that despite overseas mediation stations and overseas Chinese police stations claiming to only offer benign legal services, the CCP will use them for malign purposes.

“In reality, they are means by which the CCP can monitor and, when needed, punish members of the Chinese diaspora if they deviate from the CCP agenda,” Sellin said. “That degree of control allows the CCP to enlist Chinese community members, willingly or unwillingly, as foot soldiers in the conduct of influence and espionage operations in the United States, which represents a national security threat.”

‘Dual Justice System’

The DCNF also identified two U.S. nonprofit leaders working for the MPS, according to Chinese government records.

One such individual is both a consultant for the Gaithersburg, Maryland-based Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce Greater Washington and also the co-chairman of the Azusa, California-based U.S.-Zhejiang General Chamber of Commerce.

This individual not only serves as a mediator for the Wenzhou People’s Court, but also as a Zhejiang MPS supervisor, stemming from his work founding an MPS and Chinese military contractor called Senken.

He has also frequently met with MPS officials to discuss overseas Chinese police work including during an April 2024 meeting, which the chairman of the Rosemead, California-based Sino-American Public Diplomacy Association also attended.

The honorary chairman of the New York City-based American Fujian Association of Commerce and Industry is also connected to the MPS.

A Chinese government document reveals he previously served as an officer in a CCP paramilitary organization called the People’s Armed Police (PAP).

After rising through the ranks, “the military repeatedly dispatched [him] to the U.S. to conduct protection work for overseas Chinese community organizations returning to China for inspection,” the document states.

He eventually retired from the military and joined the MPS just before moving to the U.S., according to the document.

“China has built a vast UFWD network in the U.S. that the Chinese government and Party agencies use for command and control purposes,” Scott McGregor, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police intelligence official, told the DCNF. “These organizations are the main tool in China’s ever expanding foreign infiltration strategy that now includes the installation of China’s court and policing overseas.”

“It is obvious that the next step in the evolution of China expanding its control over overseas Chinese is now the creation of a dual judicial system that China operates inside the U.S.,” McGregor warned.

The U.S.-Zhejiang General Chamber of Commerce did not respond to multiple requests for comment and the Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce Greater Washington, Sino-American Public Diplomacy Association and American Fujian Association of Commerce and Industry could not be reached.

‘No Innocent Contacts’

Leaders of at least six U.S. nonprofits have also met with MPS officials to share information and discuss strengthening cooperation between Chinese police and overseas Chinese. Many of these meetings are colorfully described as “tea parties.”

The secretary general of the Elmhurst, New York-based American Fuqing Association has attended three tea parties in the Honglu District of Fuqing, Fujian with officials from MPS and the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese (ACFROC), a UFWD arm.

An ACFROC social media post reveals he attended one February 2022 tea party where officials introduced their police station linked to Fuzhou’s “Overseas 110” network, which by June 2022 had established 38 overseas police stations, Chinese state media reported.

Attendees of the tea party also discussed measures to “persuade” certain persons in Myanmar to return to China.

“Persuasion to return” is the “use of non-traditional, often illegal, means of forcing someone to return to China against their will,” according to human rights group Safeguard Defenders.

The secretary general attended a second MPS tea party in January 2023 along with the honorary chairman of the Honolulu-based U.S. Hawaii Fujian United Association, another ACFROC social media post states.

“During last year’s tea party, the issue of fraud in northern Myanmar keeping compatriots from returning to conduct business normally in Myanmar was raised,” the secretary general said at the event. “The issue was resolved in a timely manner with the efforts of ACFROC and various cooperating departments.”

A third ACFROC social media post shows both nonprofit leaders also attended the most recent February 2024 MPS tea party, during which one ACFROC official said attendees would serve to connect MPS with overseas Chinese and globalize China’s national policies.

Leaders from the Highland Falls, New York-based Fuzhou Association of USA, New York City’s United Chinese Associations of Eastern United States, California’s U.S. Wenzhou Association and the aforementioned American Fujian Association of Commerce and Industry have also met with MPS officials in recent years, Chinese government announcements, social media posts and state media reports likewise reveal.

The Fuzhou Association of USA, United Chinese Associations of Eastern United States and U.S. Hawaii Fujian United Association could not be reached for comment and the American Fuqing Association and U.S. Wenzhou Association did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“The Communist Party believes it has the Mandate of Heaven to rule ‘tianxia,’ or ‘All Under Heaven.’ Worse, the CCP believes it has the obligation — not just the right — to do so,” author and China expert Gordon Chang told the DCNF. “Among other things, this means that every point of contact the regime maintains with our country constitutes a threat to our sovereignty and hence our national security. There are no innocent contacts. None.”

AUTHOR

Philip Lenczycki

Senior executive reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: US Gov’t Awarded Sensitive Research Grants To Scientists In Chinese Communist Party Talent Programs

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Will the Biden Pardons backfire? thumbnail

Will the Biden Pardons backfire?

By Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Before leaving office Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. issued pardons to people who have not be tried nor convicted of a crime.

Among those pardoned were:

  • His family members.
  • Members of the Democrat J6 Committee.
  • Others in his administration.

QUESTION: Will the Biden Pardons backfire?

ANSWER: Potentially, yes.

Here’s why, the

Here is a synopis of the 

Acceptance, as well as delivery, of a pardon is essential to its validity; if rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, the court has no power to force it on him. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150.

Quaere whether the President of the United States may exercise the pardoning power before conviction.

A witness may refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may have an incriminating effect, notwithstanding the President offers, and he refuses, a pardon for any offense connected with the matters in regard to which he is asked to testify.

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.

211 F. 492 reversed.

The facts, which involve the effect of a pardon of the President of the United States tendered to one who has not been convicted of a crime nor admitted the commission thereof, and also the necessity of acceptance of a pardon in order to make it effective, are stated in the opinion.

In a New Yorker column titled Are Blanket Pardons for Officials on Donald Trump’s Target List a Good Idea? Isaac Chotiner spoke with Rachel Barkow, a professor at the N.Y.U. School of Law and an expert on criminal law and mass incarceration.

Here is a pertenent excerpt:

I want to ask about another potential downside of pardoning these people, which is whether it expresses a lack of confidence in the system beyond Trump’s appointees if you do this. Trump can maybe get Kash Patel, or whoever runs the F.B.I., to go after someone, but you still need a grand-jury indictment, which I know can be very easy to get, and you still need a judge to go along with the prosecution, and you still need a jury to convict.

I would say, in some sense, the process is the punishment, and, if you are facing a federal investigation, that is a scary process. Even if everything works great and, at the end of it, you are exonerated and you’re not charged and everything is fine, you are going to spend an enormous amount of time and money and worry before that outcome takes place. It’s not nothing to find yourself the target of a federal investigation. Even if you have faith in the process, I think it’s a big deal.

In terms of the process itself, you never really know with absolute certainty what a jury will do in any given case, right? Unfortunately in America, we have had lots of innocent people convicted. We know that we have wrongfully convicted people, so the fear is always there.

When a prosecutor is threatening you with really serious charges and sentences, a lot of people just plead guilty to something that is a guaranteed lesser sentence, just to avoid that danger and risk. It may be a statement about the fact that we have an imperfect system, but we do have an imperfect system. It’s not ridiculous to me that somebody would want to spare people from having to go through that.

The Bottom Line

The Biden pardons of those who have not been convicted of a crime sets a terrible president. It can be abused by future presidents to protect those in their administration or in his or her party without evidence of a crime being committed.

Therefore for those who Biden pardoned without a crime being committed are subject to be prosecuted and punished by the Department of Justice.

Additionally, those pardoned without a crime nor a coviction of a crime are essentialy, by accepting the pardon, admitting their guilt.

©2024 All rights reserved.

The Lies Refugee Resettlers Tell About Their Lucrative Business thumbnail

The Lies Refugee Resettlers Tell About Their Lucrative Business

By Leo Hohmann

Don’t be fooled by the churchy sounding names of NGOs that resettle refugees into American cities and towns.

As President Donald Trump cracks down on illegal immigrants in the U.S., he’s also hitting the pause button on foreign refugees coming to America.

The Trump administration is canceling plans for those who have been waiting to come to the U.S., and those who just arrived are losing help they were expecting to get from government-funded nonprofits.

WLS, an ABC News affiliate in Chicago, reports that World Relief Chicagoland and other local refugee-resettlement groups were expecting about 140 refugees to arrive in Chicago this month until Trump stopped the U.S. government-approved arrivals from coming.

World Relief operates nationwide, not just in Chicago. It is an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals and one of 10 NGOs that contract directly with the U.S. State Department to resettle refugees in the U.S., a list that also includes the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops doing business as “Catholic Charities,” Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Church World Services, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

Many of the refugees being resettled by these agencies come from countries that hate us — Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Uzbekistan, etc.

These NGOs receive tens of millions of dollars each year from the federal government to distribute foreign refugees into American cities and towns. Many of them are put to work in meatpacking plants and other undesirable jobs. The Chobani yogurt plant in Boise, Idaho, has filled out roughly 30 percent of its workforce with refugee labor supplied over the years by the U.S. federal government working in partnership with the United Nations.

What we are talking about here is a legalized human-trafficking operation, the root of which starts at the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM). The IOM, under the leadership of former Biden aide Amy Pope, coordinates the flow of refugees from the Third World to the Western nations it seeks to topple.

If President Donald Trump is serious about fixing the immigration crisis in America and ending the extremely profitable human-trafficking operation known as refugee resettlement, he will pull the U.S. out of the United Nations and kick this global entity out of our country.

World Relief says close to 190 foreign refugees have arrived in Chicago alone over the past three months. While Trump is cutting off the flow of federal money the organization gets to resettle these refugees in America, its Chicago director, Peter Zigterman, says he and his staff will find a way to continue their work. He told ABC News:

“We made a commitment and have an ethical obligation to those families to ensure that they are served and cared for. And it leaves us in a position where we’re now scrambling to figure out exactly how we can do that.”

The truth is, these NGOs do what they do because it’s a lucrative business, not a ministry unto the Lord. How do I know this? Because I wrote an investigative book about how they rake in billions helping the United Nations facilitate the cultural and governmental breakdown of nations through unfettered migration. One of the things I discovered in my research was that NGOs under contract with the U.S. State Department agree not to prosletyze or share the gospel with the people they bring to the United States.

If they are truly wanting to help people, World Relief will figure out a way to do it without government money. And, just maybe, they will dare to share the gospel with Muslim refugees. This goes not just for World Relief but all of the agencies holding lucrative government contracts that contain a clause under which they agree never to share their faith with any of the refugees.

The other big issue with refugees is vetting.

The ABC News article cited above went on to say how extremely well the government vets all refugees coming into the U.S. This is, of course, a bold-faced lie, as JD Vance pointed out in his interview with CBS News on Sunday. My 2017 book Stealth Invasion exposed all of the corruption in the refugee-resettlement racket. And, because of its explosive content, Amazon banned the book. It’s still available, however, at BarnesAndNoble.com.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.

Trump DOJ Investigating Sanctuary Cities Resisting Immigration Enforcement thumbnail

Trump DOJ Investigating Sanctuary Cities Resisting Immigration Enforcement

By The Daily Caller

The Trump administration is now criminally investigating sanctuary jurisdictions and will take legal action against any city or state that is in violation of federal laws.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has established a Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group that is tasked with identifying state and local laws or policies that are “inconsistent” with federal immigration initiatives and, when necessary, challenging those laws in court, according to a Tuesday DOJ memo obtained by Bloomberg. The directive marks a dramatic escalation in the fight between the Trump administration and Democrat-led sanctuary cities opposed to immigration enforcement.

“The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives,” according to a section of the internal memo.

“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests pursuant to, for example, the President’s extensive Article II authority with respect to foreign affairs and national security, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Alien Enemies Act,” the memo continues.

The memo further stated that the U.S. attorney’s offices and litigating components within the DOJ will investigate “misconduct” by any officials that obstruct federal immigration enforcement and will seek prosecution.

The establishment of the new working group and its new directive follows sharp rhetoric by sanctuary city mayors and the passage of stricter sanctuary policy by lawmakers in Democratic strongholds.

While there is no official definition for a “sanctuary city” law or policy, the label generally describes any rule that restricts local officials from helping or otherwise cooperating with federal immigration authorities. While local and state officials are largely not required to get involved in federal immigration matters, the administration has cautioned that blatant obstruction is against the law.

Following President Donald Trump’s election victory, Los Angeles passed sanctuary legislation; San Diego County supervisors doubled down on existing sanctuary policy within their jurisdiction and Boston council members unanimously voted to reaffirm their city’s sanctuary status, among similar actions taken by left-leaning cities. The Chicago City Council earlier in January smacked down an attempt by moderate members to scale back the scope of its sanctuary policy, which would’ve allowed for cooperation only in dealing with certain criminal migrants.

Border czar Tom Homan, who is tasked with leading the Trump administration’s large-scale deportation efforts, previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he will seek prosecution against anyone unlawfully obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) mission.

“There are federal statutes on the books for knowingly concealing and harboring an illegal alien away from ICE officers,” Homan said to the DCNF. “There are statutes on the books about impeding federal law enforcement officers – they’re all felonies.”

“Now these sanctuary cities cannot assist – ok, that’s fine. They can stand aside, that’s fine, but they cannot cross that line,” he continued. “If they cross that line, we’ll be asking the attorney’s office to consider prosecution.”

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

AUTHOR

Jason Hopkins

Immigration reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ICE Arrests Irate Haitian Gang Member, Murder and Rape Suspects in Boston: ‘F–k Trump, Biden Forever!’

House Advances Laken Riley Act To President Trump’s Desk

Liberals Sue Trump Over His Immigration Agenda Hours Into Presidency

Afghan Refugee Allegedly Stabs Caseworker At Pro-Refugee Group

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘This Is Just Egregious’: Megyn Kelly Slams Biden’s Last-Minute Pardons, But Those Pardoned Can Still Face Prosecution thumbnail

‘This Is Just Egregious’: Megyn Kelly Slams Biden’s Last-Minute Pardons, But Those Pardoned Can Still Face Prosecution

By The Daily Signal

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—SiriusXM’s Megyn Kelly called out former President Joe Biden’s last-minute pardons Monday on her show, outlining how those pardoned could still face prosecution at the state level.

On Monday, Biden issued a series of pardons throughout the day, with some announced just minutes before President Donald Trump was sworn into office. On “The Megyn Kelly Show,” Kelly discussed who the pardons extended to, highlighting how Dr. Anthony Fauci’s pardon dated back to 2014.

“Let’s go to the pardons because this is just egregious. Everybody under the sun, I mean, the J6 committee members, his entire family, right? Mark Milley and Dr. Fauci. By the way, the pardons go back, especially Fauci, go back to 2014,” Kelly said. “It starts in 2014 forward. What the hell was he doing in 2014? It’s because he funded gain of function research. It’s because he was behind the problem that caused the damn pandemic.”

“But there’s a question about whether it’s valid if they don’t accept. I mean, there’s a legal debate on whether you must say I accept. I think most lawyers say, yeah, you have to say I accept it in order for it to be valid for you,” Kelly added. “So, the Fauci one is the one that has me most ticked off. Because I really do think Fauci lied repeatedly to Congress. Rand Paul certainly thinks that, and I think was preparing to go after him.”

In his statement regarding the pardons for individuals like Fauci, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and nine members of the Jan. 6 Select Committee, Biden said that they did not deserve to be “targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.”

Kelly went on to say that despite never being able to “find the smoking gun evidence” that Fauci was “was behind the COVID virus.” She said he worked on funded gain of function research. Kelly said it would be “wonderful” to get more information on Fauci’s involvement under the Trump administration. A guest jumped in to add that none of those being pardoned can plead the Fifth Amendment under oath.

“So that’s the silver lining. They all have to testify fully. They cannot plead the Fifth. By the way, it doesn’t stop any investigations whatsoever, or civil lawsuits. You know what else it doesn’t stop? Or state lawsuits. State prosecutions,” Kelly said. “You can be prosecuted by the state, a federal pardon does not—that was Trump’s problem, remember?”

“We were saying like he could pardon himself, but only for the federal crimes, not for those state prosecutions in New York or in Georgia. Well, guess what, Dr. Fauci and J6 committee members and General Milley, you’re all in the same position,” Kelly added.

In May 2024, the House Oversight Committee released a report revealing that David Morens, a former advisor to Fauci, had suggested Fauci use a private email address to conduct government business, according to emails obtained by the committee. Additionally, Fauci testified before the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in January 2024, where he was grilled by Republicans over his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During his testimony, Fauci was questioned about an audio recording from 2020 in which he discussed pushing vaccinations on Americans to the point where they would “lose their ideological bull****.” In response, Fauci clarified that he was not referring to those who objected to the COVID-19 vaccine, but Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia called out the statement.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Hailey Gomez

Hailey Gomez is a general assignment reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Hailey on X: @haileyggomez.

President Trump Revokes Security Clearance of 51 Intel Agents Who Lied About Hunter Biden’s Laptop thumbnail

President Trump Revokes Security Clearance of 51 Intel Agents Who Lied About Hunter Biden’s Laptop

By The Geller Report

Those 51 intel officials lied. They knew they were lying, and they signed and published their lies anyway. They are enemies of the state who deliberately worked to subvert the U.S. Presidential election.

“They should be prosecuted for what they did,” said Trump.

Trump revokes security clearances of former officials who signed Hunter Biden laptop letter with executive action

By Katie Bo Lillis, CNN

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday revoking the security clearance of 51 former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter arguing that emails from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden carried “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” and that of his former national security adviser John Bolton.

Many of the former officials are long retired and no longer hold active clearances — meaning that the move may have limited practical impact on their careers — but the order nevertheless suggests that Trump intends to act on threats he’s made to penalize national security and intelligence professionals whom he deems to be his enemies.

“They should be prosecuted for what they did,” Trump said of the 51 former officials who signed the letter, at a campaign rally in June.

The executive order also directs the director of national intelligence to submit a report to the White House documenting “any additional inappropriate activity that occurred within the Intelligence Community, by anyone contracted by the Intelligence Community or by anyone who held a security clearance” related to the letter, as well as any recommended disciplinary action, within 90 days.

The letter was signed by a number of top former officials from both the Obama and Bush administrations, including former director of national intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan and former acting CIA directors John McLaughlin and Michael Morell.

In the four years since the letter was written, its authors have become a key target for Republican lawmakers and Trump’s allies. GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill have made the origins of the letter a key focus point, calling up a number of signatories to testify behind closed doors and issuing several reports on the matter.

Bolton, meanwhile, has drawn Trump’s ire for a memoir about his time at the National Security Council that was deeply critical of the president and which the first Trump administration investigated for the potential inclusion of classified material. Bolton has said that the book was cleared for release after an intense pre-publication review by the US government, and the Justice Department under President Joe Biden ended the Trump-era criminal investigation into the matter.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

President Trump Frees 1,500 J6 Political Prisoners thumbnail

President Trump Frees 1,500 J6 Political Prisoners

By The Geller Report

President Trump has just signed an executive order granting full pardons to about 1,500 J6 prisoners

WATCH: President Trump has officially signed a pardon for 1,500 J6 prisoners

Promises made. Promises kept. One of the very worst mass miscarriages of justice has been reversed.

Legacy media is having a seizure.

Trump issues 1,500 pardons for Jan. 6 defendants: ‘Going to release our great hostages’

By Diana Glebova and Steven Nelson

WASHINGTON — President Trump issued pardons Monday night to hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot — staying true to his promise to grant clemency to people involved in halting the counting of Electoral College votes that day.

Trump, 78, said he issued “approximately 1,500” pardons after returning to the White House from a day of inaugural festivities, telling reporters present that “I hope they come out tonight.”

The newly sworn-in 47th president signed a document commuting 14 prison sentences and offering “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

“I will say this, they’ve been in jail for a long time already. I see murderers in this country get two years, one year and maybe no time. So they’ve already been in jail for a long time. These people have been destroyed,” Trump said in the Oval Office when asked if any beneficiaries had assaulted police.

“What they’ve done to these people is outrageous. Even people that were aggressive, and in many cases, I believe they happen to be outside agitators. But what do I know? But I think they were. I think they were outside agitators. They were outside agitators. And obviously, the FBI was involved.”

Continue reading

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is repbulished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Illegal Migrant Who Voted In Multiple Elections Slapped With Jail Time thumbnail

Illegal Migrant Who Voted In Multiple Elections Slapped With Jail Time

By The Daily Caller

An illegal migrant will serve five years in jail for assuming a false identity and voting in multiple U.S. elections, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

Angelica Maria Francisco, a 42-year-old Guatemalan national living unlawfully in the country, was sentenced to a 60-month prison sentence for stealing a U.S. citizen’s identity, using that identity to fraudulently obtain several U.S. passports and participating in the 2016 and 2020 elections, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced. Francisco was living in the Russellville, Alabama, area at the time of her arrest in 2024.

“This sentence sends a clear message that any attempts by non-U.S. citizens to vote in the Northern District of Alabama are unacceptable and will result in serious consequences,” U.S. Attorney Prim Escalona said in a prepared statement. “Maintaining the sanctity of the U.S. election system is one of the most important responsibilities of federal law enforcement.

“My office will remain vigilant in carrying out this mission and, to that end, will continue to work with our federal, state, and local partners to investigate and prosecute individuals who seek to undermine our elections,” Escalona continued.

Francisco assumed the identity of an American citizen in 2011 and used it to score a U.S. passport that same year, which enabled her to travel to and from her home country of Guatemala, according to the DOJ. Using this same false identity, she registered to vote in Alabama in 2016 and voted in the primary and general elections in 2016 and 2020.

The illegal migrant pleaded guilty to two counts of false claims of citizenship in connection to voting, one count of aggravated identity theft, five counts of use of a United States passport obtained by false statements and one count of false statements in application for a United States passport, according to the DOJ.

The sentencing showcases how noncitizens, and illegal migrants in particular, are capable of participating in U.S. elections, despite objections from liberal groups.

The Biden administration in October successfully blocked the Alabama Secretary of State from implementing a program meant to remove noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls. Earlier that month, America First Legal sued Arizona for withholding the names of around 200,000 registered voters in the state who allegedly did not provide proof of citizenship.

Just days before the 2024 presidential election, state officials in Michigan charged a Chinese national for allegedly voting in the election.

A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement was not able to provide further details about Francisco to the Daily Caller News Foundation by the time of publication for this article.

AUTHOR

Jason Hopkins

Immigration reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem Gov Suddenly Changes Her Tune On Leaving Shelter Doors Open For Illegal Migrants After Huge Drug Bust

Dem Sen Wants Kristi Noem To Just ‘Put Aside’ Concerns About Biden Admin’s Role In Losing Track Of ‘300,000’ Children

Luigi Mangione, Political Violence, and The Illusion of Progress

Our Leaders are Terrorists

RELATED VIDEOS:

DHS Secretary-designate Kristi Noem: “A nation with borders or we’re no nation at all.”

British Parliament Votes AGAINST An Inquiry Into Muslim Child Rape Gangs

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Senators Express Optimism That Trump Will Restore Pro-Life Policies at HHS thumbnail

Senators Express Optimism That Trump Will Restore Pro-Life Policies at HHS

By Family Research Council

Following four years of the Biden administration reversing the pro-life federal policies established during President Donald Trump’s first term, Republican senators are expressing confidence that the incoming Trump administration will put back in place policies that blocked federal funds from going to abortion businesses, allowed pregnancy resource centers to receive federal funds, and stopped the funding of international groups that promote abortion, among other measures.

After Trump nominated former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to serve as his secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last November, concerns arose among numerous GOP lawmakers and pro-life advocacy groups that the former Democrat-turned-Independent presidential nominee would sideline pro-life policies based on his past pro-abortion positions. During his presidential run, Kennedy has called the abortion issue “nuanced and complex” and also said that the state should not “dictate choices that the woman is making” regarding abortion. He has also previously supported (and walked back support for) three-month pro-life protections.

However, Senate Republicans like Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) say they have received personal assurances from Kennedy that he will not pursue pro-abortion policies while in office and will, in fact, enact pro-life ones. Last month, Hawley posted a series of tweets describing his conversation with Kennedy regarding the issue. “He committed to me to reinstate President Trump’s prolife policies at HHS,” Hawley wrote. “That includes reinstating the Mexico City policy & ending taxpayer funding for abortions domestically.”

The senator further noted Kennedy’s promise to have all pro-life deputies at HHS and that he “believes there are far too many abortions in the US and that we cannot be the moral leader of the free world with abortion rates so high.” Hawley also stated that Kennedy promised to reinstate “the bar on Title X funds going to organizations that promote abortion” and to “reinstate conscience protections for healthcare providers.”

During Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) confirmed that he too met with Kennedy and also received assurances from him that he would pursue pro-life policies within the federal agency.

“We had a very robust discussion,” he explained. “In fact, talking about the importance of protecting the pro-life policies in terms of regulations coming out of HHS, but importantly, restoring any policies that the Biden administration has stripped, and to … work with the secretary of State [to ensure] we are doing all we can within the executive branch to make sure these protections are in place and, frankly, expanded. And he told me that he’ll have seven [deputies in] HHS [that] would be pro-life type of leaders. And I appreciate that honesty and frankness from RFK Jr.”

The news comes amid uncertainty surrounding how pro-life Trump’s second administration will be after the president-elect oversaw watered-down pro-life language inserted into the 2024 Republican Party platform last July, which was entirely revamped and truncated from the previous GOP platform. Trump also repeatedly said on the campaign trail last year that he would leave the abortion issue to the states and that some state pro-life protections are “too tough.” The 45th president’s inconsistent rhetoric on the issue has left pro-life lawmakers and advocates wondering if he would, in fact, use his executive authority to undo the pro-abortion executive orders that President Joe Biden enacted.

Nevertheless, in an op-ed published Monday, Hawley reiterated his optimism that the president-elect will restore the pro-life policies that were reversed under Biden. The senator noted that in addition to restoring the Mexico City Policy, barring abortion businesses from receiving Title X grant money, and restoring federal funding to pregnancy resource centers, Trump’s first-term HHS also “restrict[ed] the use of human fetal tissue obtained from abortions.”

“The Biden administration gutted those rules,” Hawley concluded. “Thankfully, it’s a new day. And President Trump has the power to start protecting life again — immediately. He should use that power boldly to protect those who most need it: the innocent unborn.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.