Trump Administration ‘Ending the Weaponization’ Against Gun Owners in 34 Rules

By The Daily Signal

The Trump administration is proposing almost three dozen new rules to scale back gun regulations that proliferated during the Biden administration.

The 34 rules placed in the Federal Register on Wednesday included reversing a 2024 Biden administration rule that attempted to force firearms dealers to run background checks on buyers at gun shows. Gun control advocates called this the “gun show loophole.”

Another change ends the 2023 Biden administration rule that restricted pistol braces. Pistol braces are attachments that allow a person holding a pistol to keep the weapon against their shoulder. The Biden administration justified the regulation by claiming the attachment turned the pistol into a barreled rifle that is subject to stronger regulation.

Earlier this week, the Senate confirmed Robert Cekada as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“ATF’s mission is to protect public safety and enforce the law—and these reforms reflect our commitment to doing that through regulations that are clear, legally sound, and narrowly tailored to that purpose,” Cekada said in a statement. “Our enforcement focus from here on out is on willful violators and criminal actors, not inadvertent compliance issues by responsible owners and licensees.”

The focus of the proposed rules, now open for public comment, is to scale back enforcement against licensed gun dealers and gun owners who make paperwork errors, and to emphasize a focus on criminals.

The Gun Owners of America, a pro–Second Amendment group, had filed several lawsuits against the federal government opposing regulations, but “that all went away with this new ATF director,” Gun Owners of America national spokesman Stephen Willeford said.

The top priorities for the Gun Owners of America were doing away with the pistol brace regulation and reversing the Biden rule that categorized anyone selling a firearm as being in the business of selling firearms.

But, he said, the changes have come later than promised, which he blamed on former Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general.

“The Trump administration told us in the first week they would undo all of the Biden administration rulings in the first week, not laws but rulings,” Willeford, co-author of “A Town Called Sutherland Springs: Faith and Heroism Through Tragedyopens in a new tab,” told the Daily Signal. “We were worried when Pam Bondi became attorney general. She was never pro-2A in Florida.”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche asserted the Trump administration is taking a different path than the prior administration.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Blanche saidopens in a new tab in a statement. “This Department of Justice is ending the weaponization of federal authority against law-abiding gun owners. We will continue to vigorously defend their rights as the Constitution demands.”

The rules include repealing existing regulations, modernizing firearms regulations, reducing burdens on gun owners and gun dealers, and providing legal clarifications.

The changes are a response to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” signed in February 2025, geared at ending “the federal government’s violation of Americans’ fundamental Second Amendment right to protect themselves, their families, and their freedoms.”

Gun control advocates are upset with the changes. Nick Wilson, senior director of public safety at the Center for American Progress, took aim at scrapping the gun show regulation.

“The Trump administration is once again prioritizing the interests of the gun industry over the safety of American families,” Wilson said in a statement Thursday. “The new proposed rule guts a key provision of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022—essentially getting rid of near-universal background checks. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche attempted to spin this as ‘the most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the history’ of ATF, but this is really an irresponsible effort to strip away lifesaving protections in order to maximize gun industry profits.”

AUTHOR

Fred Lucas

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

Democrats’ Virginia Gerrymander: Deception, Disenfranchisement!

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

Virginia voters head to the polls on April 21 to decide the future of fair elections in the Commonwealth. On the surface, the Democratic-backed constitutional amendment sounds reasonable: it claims to “restore fairness” to congressional map-drawing. In reality, it is one of the most brazen partisan power grabs in modern American politics — a deliberate attempt to rig the system, silence nearly half the electorate, and shred the independent redistricting process voters approved just six years ago. The scheme is straightforward in its cynicism.

Virginia’s current congressional map, drawn by the independent bipartisan commission created in 2020, produces a 6-5 Democratic-Republican split that roughly mirrors the state’s evenly divided electorate. Democrats now want to scrap that map and replace it with one that would deliver a grotesque 10-1 Democratic Party advantage. Four Republican seats would be effectively erased. This isn’t “fairness.” It’s the elimination of competitive districts in a state where Republicans and independents routinely cast close to half the votes.

The dishonesty begins with the ballot language itself. The question carefully avoids any mention of the actual map voters are being asked to endorse. It is a textbook push poll, written to elicit a predetermined “Yes” without revealing the radical anti-democratic outcome. Early voting is already underway, yet local registrars were instructed not to post pictures of the proposed map. Virginia Democrats, including Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who once falsely cultivated a moderate image and explicitly said that gerrymandering was damaging to our democracy, now champion the effort, pretending that they are protecting democracy.

What makes this especially galling is the hypocrisy. For years, national Democrats and their media allies have portrayed Republicans as the uniquely evil practitioners of gerrymandering. They lecture the country that only the GOP draws “outrageous” maps. Yet the very states they control tell a different story — one of systematic, decades-long exclusion of Republican voters.

Consider the Northeast alone. Massachusetts is home to roughly 35% Republican voters, yet it sends zero Republicans to Congress. Connecticut’s electorate is 42% Republican, with zero seats. Maine (46% Republican), New Hampshire (46%), Rhode Island (42%), and Vermont (32%) all deliver the same result: zero Republican representation. Hawaii (38 % Republican) and Delaware (42% Republican) follow the identical pattern. These are not flukes of geography or turnout.

They are the predictable outcomes of aggressive Democratic map-drawing that packs Republican voters into as few districts as possible or spreads them so thinly they cannot win anywhere. The same story repeats in other states. California, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, New York, and Illinois have all used sophisticated gerrymandering techniques to maximize Democratic seats far beyond what raw vote totals would justify.

Independent analysts consistently rank several of these maps among the most partisan in the nation. Yet when Democrats propose turning Virginia — a genuine swing state — into a 10-1 farce, they suddenly rediscover the language of “fairness.” The mask slipped completely when prominent Democrats stopped pretending. Rep. Donald Beyer admitted the plan “seems unfair in Virginia” but defended it anyway because it serves the national Democratic goal “to stop Donald Trump.”

State Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Dist.18, the plan’s chief architect, was even more direct. Responding to a fellow Democrat who called the scheme “extremely anti-democratic,” she declared that anyone opposing it “doesn’t share our values as Democrats. In other words, the issue was never fairness. It was grabbing political power.

This episode reveals something deeper and more troubling about today’s progressive politics: a willingness to abandon democratic norms the moment they become inconvenient. The 2020 redistricting reform passed with overwhelming bipartisan support precisely because Virginians were tired of politicians choosing their voters instead of the other way around. Democrats now propose suspending that reform for the 2026 midterms, ramming through their gerrymander, and then — they solemnly promise — restoring the independent commission afterward. The idea that newly elected Democrats would voluntarily vote themselves out of safe congressional seats is laughable on its face.

Power seized through procedural chicanery is almost never relinquished. And since Abigail Spanberger lied to Virginians about her not supporting a gerrymandering ploy, we should not believe their claims that this gerrymandering plan is only temporary. A recent Roanoke College poll shows Virginians are not fooled: 62% want to keep the bipartisan commission process. That public skepticism is heartening, but it must translate into action.

The left’s enthusiastic support for this Virginia scheme, despite its obvious hypocrisy and despite the mountain of evidence that one-party Democratic monopolies already exist across much of the country, exposes their true priorities. Principles are flexible; power is not. Moral lectures about democracy are reserved exclusively for Republicans. When Democrats hold the map-drawing pen, different rules apply. Virginia has long prided itself on political maturity and competitive districts that force candidates to appeal beyond their base. Competitive elections produce better policy and more accountable government.

Handing one party a 10-1 lock disenfranchises roughly half the state’s voters, rendering their ballots structurally meaningless in congressional races. It turns representative democracy into a managed and fake democracy — the very outcome the 2020 reform was designed to prevent. On April 21, Virginians have a chance to send a clear message that transcends party labels. Reject the lies. Reject the power grab. Reject the cynical attempt to turn Virginia into just another one-party fiefdom. Vote no on the redistricting amendment and preserve the independent process that puts voters — not politicians — in charge.

The integrity of our elections and the principle of equal representation are worth defending. Virginia’s voters have always risen to that challenge. This April 21 should be no different.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Climate Lawfare Suffers Major Defeat at the Supreme Court

By The Daily Signal

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a bizarre effort at climate lawfare, which aimed to penalize Chevron for its role in boosting the U.S. war effort against the Nazis and Imperial Japan in World War II.

The ruling is good news for sanity, but it also sets an important precedent for the Left’s ongoing climate lawfare efforts. You see, climate alarmist lawyers have sought to weaponize state laws against oil and gas companies, and the ruling in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish delivers a knockout punch to at least part of their nefarious strategy.

While the case turns on a technicality, that technicality means a great deal to the environmentalist trial lawyers seeking to make a buck and undermine the oil industry.

As Justice Clarence Thomas—a President George H.W. Bush appointee—notes in his opinion for the unanimous court, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and its fellow parishes filed no fewer than 42 state-court lawsuits in 2013 against oil and gas companies under a 1978 state law for alleged violations in the 1940s.

Many of the oil companies successfully appealed to have the cases removed from state court to federal court, because the companies had been acting under a federal officer “of or relating to any act under color of such office.” Yet lower courts had rejected Chevron’s efforts to move the case out of state court, so Thomas had to painstakingly explain that the phrase “relating to” can mean “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.”

Of course, this isn’t really about the meaning of the word “relate.” It’s all about whether judges who support the climate alarmist narrative can side with climate lawfare in the teeth of both the law’s text and common sense.

It does not make sense to use a Louisiana law to penalize an energy company in Louisiana state court for actions a previous version of that company took in service of a federal objective on the orders of the federal government.

This move from state to federal court may seem insignificant, but it is not. The oil and gas industry engages in interstate commerce, and its operations largely fall under federal law. Climate alarmist politicians in some states seek to pass laws restricting the industry’s operations, and climate alarmist lawyers seek to weaponize such laws against the industry as a whole, based on the idea that the human burning of fossil fuels is bringing about some indeterminate apocalypse.

Other Forms of Climate Lawfare

Suing oil companies for helping America defeat the Nazis is one thing, but the issue of whether state or federal law prevails in climate cases remains quite relevant, and it’s the centerpiece of another Supreme Court case.

Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor Energy, claiming that its key business model of burning fossil fuels for energy has caused concrete harm under state law. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder’s case to proceed, so Suncor appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Think about the implications of this for a second. Boulder claims that the burning of fossil fuels has caused concrete harm—even though it is unclear exactly how fossil fuels impact the global climate and most climate alarmist predictions have proven false. The city attributes specific weather harms not to God or the planet’s ecosystem but to a specific company, and then claims to know what is unknowable—how much that specific company’s efforts contributed to Boulder’s weather.

In doing so, Boulder takes upon itself the ability to regulate an industry that doesn’t just operate across state lines, but is vital to the global economic system.

But it gets worse. David Bookbinder, who served as part of the legal team representing Boulder at lower stages of litigation, described his climate lawfare efforts as “an indirect carbon tax.”

Tellingly, he added, “I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those… this is a rather, somewhat convoluted way, to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

In other words, this climate lawfare is a conscious effort to circumvent the voters.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Suncor’s case against Boulder, and the Plaquemines Parish ruling suggests the court may decide that state law is incapable of handling the regulation of a global industry.

Other Implications

Friday’s ruling also shores up America’s standing in the world. As Steven Bucci, a 30-year Army Special Forces veteran, explained last year, a ruling in favor of Plaquemines Parish would have undermined U.S. national security. State courts shouldn’t be able to second-guess federal wartime decisions, and if they could, that might lead companies to reconsider assisting in America’s defense.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court made the right decision, and it did so on the merits of the law, such that all eight justices who considered it—Justice Samuel Alito recused himself—agreed that Plaquemines Parish’s case is baseless.

Here’s hoping this represents a step toward blocking climate lawfare going forward. Suncor v. Boulder will be the real test.

Trump’s War on the Deep State Is Paying Off

By The Daily Signal

The days of peak DOGE may be over, but Trump’s quiet transformation of the federal bureaucracy continues.

The Trump administration shrank the federal workforce to its smallest number since the launch of LBJ’s Great Society. This incredible stat, little remarked upon by the media, was dredged up by X user Christian Heiens.

“Since Trump took office, over 352,000 Federal employees have been fired, resigned, or retired and were not replaced,” Heiens wrote on X. “The Federal workforce is smaller today than at any point since 1966.”

Pew Research also noted this considerable decline in the federal workforce in March.

“A total of 348,219 people quit, retired, were laid off or otherwise left federal employment last year – an 80.8% increase from 2024,” Pew wrote. “At the same time, 116,912 people started working for the federal government – a 55.6% decrease from the year before.”

Pew noted that the biggest cuts hit the Department of Education and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, celebrated this all-around good news.

A quick look at the numbers provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the figures to be correct. Since President Donald Trump retook office, his administration has done more to reduce the federal workforce than pretty much any president ever. That includes Trump 1.0.

The only larger drop-off in government personnel occurred at the end of World War II, for obvious reasons. Of course, FDR and Harry Truman were in no way small-government presidents. It was the New Deal in the 1930s that mushroomed the size of the federal government beyond anything the Founders could have imagined.

The Great Society in the 1960s grew the government even more and arguably created the far more pernicious federal leviathan that we have today.

One could argue this administration marks the first serious curtailment of that governmental transformation. Even the limited-government-minded President Ronald Reagan failed to seriously reduce the size of the federal government despite some considerable tactical victories.

This is much more significant.

Early on in Trump’s return to the White House I called this Trump’s “Dark New Deal.”

His administration isn’t just reducing the federal workforce—a gargantuan task given the level of civil service protections and inertia in its favor—he’s specifically targeting the most noxious parts of the bureaucratic perma-state. My wife Inez Stepman, a policy analyst for the Independent Women’s Forum, correctly noted this fact.

This is a historic counterrevolution against the deep state.

It’s happening because the administration is fundamentally changing how the bureaucracy functions.

Don Devine, Reagan’s “terrible swift sword of the civil service,” explained some of what’s going on in Law & Liberty.

Devine wrote in September that Trump is not just “cutting the size of government by firing good civil servants” as the media suggests. Instead, the administration appears to be “fundamentally reforming the federal bureaucracy with the legal support essential to change how government is actually administered.”

The changes came as a result of a few Supreme Court decisions, including the reinstatement of the Professional and Administrative Examination test in August, which allows the federal government to bring an element of “merit” back to civil service hiring. Several agencies, including the Department of Justice, are already reviving merit-based hiring.

It was blocked by courts since 1981 because they ruled that it caused black and Hispanic applicants to be hired at lower rates. DEI has been in our federal hiring practices for some time.

This change is happening while Trump is clearing out the Left’s patronage networks within the federal government, whereby federal bureaucrats shovel money at various left-wing nongovernmental organizations and favorable programs often right under the noses of Republican presidents.

There’s a reason Trump’s return to office was met with panic in Washington.

While this is perhaps bad for the economy in the nation’s capital, it’s a good thing for the future of limited government and an even better thing for the American people.

It’s not often that you can say that our president does anything quietly, but this rarely remarked upon revolution could pay dividends not just today, but in the decades ahead.

While the next Democrat administration will undoubtedly try to return things to how they were, this administration is laying down structural changes that will be hard to immediately undo.

When you combine that with the Supreme Court’s abandonment of the so-called Chevron doctrine, in which courts deferred to federal agencies, you can see through squinted eyes something that actually resembles republican governance.

That’s worth celebrating.

AUTHOR

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is a columnist for The Daily Signal. He is also the author of “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” Send an email to Jarrett. Jarrett on X: @JarrettStepman.

RELATED POSTS:

Trump Disinvites Nation From Board of Peace

American Optimism on Financial Security Is Increasing Under Trump, Poll Finds

Roy Pushes Terrorist Designation for Mexican Drug Cartels

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


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

Can You Imagine…

By Karen Schoen

How many Americans have to die before we realize that the policies of the last century don’t work and most are based on computer models? Our policies are based on a “What if” scenario, not the reality of finding a solution for a real world problem.

What do I mean by that? Have you noticed that almost every policy of major importance never takes place in real time? Instead, it addresses the problem with a solution that computer models are used for “What If” projections into the future. Their solutions are for later, in the future, with hypothetical problems that never seem to materialize. Why? So the end justifies the means.

New policies based on hypothetical problems, effective years in the future, are often meaningless but expensive and are filled with government overreach. When a new administration takes over, the new president is now saddled with a solution that doesn’t fit today, does not address what is happening today and is often void of science.

A perfect example of this is what happened in the EPA. I remember when I first started studying Agenda 21 and first heard about climate change. I thought how stupid these climatologists are using models with data that may not even  exist. This group of people can’t even tell you which direction a hurricane is headed because Mother Nature is unpredictable. They never take into consideration the fact that humans will adjust to a new atmosphere and create different tools to cope with it. Instead, they give us policies that say you must do this today or the planet will die in 5 years, in 10 years, in 20 years. And then when those years appear, the glaciers haven’t melted, the sea doesn’t rise and Florida is not yet under water.  Despite this, kids are taught to blame their parents for something that will never even happen!

Instead of helping, their policies destroy jobs, destroy economic growth and cause more harm than good. Nothing is more evident than:

  • Wildfires that go on every year in California that the Californians are never prepared for.
  • The logging industry destroyed, forcing Americans to buy expensive wood from Canada.  Instead of clearing the forests in America  this policy also raised the price of construction.
  • The fishing industry was closed when a model, created by NOAA on a computer, said there would be no more Red Snapper or Lobster. This resulted in loss of fishing villages and recreational charters.  No more fishing industry.  Now, look at the price of the fish that we are forced to buy from overseas mud ponds. No telling what’s in them.

When I look at our economy as a whole, I realize that the people putting these policies in place are not scientists or doctors and certainly not professionals. Most did not care about the harm their policies would bring. Were they in it for wealth and power? They do not care about the American people. They do not care about America and they certainly do not care about the future.  The bureaucrats and legislators making these laws are in it for today, for today’s power for today’s money and for today’s control. They don’t care about the future, they don’t care about the children and they certainly don’t care about America.

Fortunately, President Trump does care and attended school at a time when, I believe, science was still taught. I remember teaching science. I remember talking about breathing and how important carbon dioxide was to human life. I remember talking about the variety of seasons and how each season was important, but we must prepare for its differences. Unfortunately, the children of today have no memory of anything, except how to work their handheld devices or play games on them.

Thank you, President Trump, for getting us out of those insane UN NGO’s – that do nothing except steal our money!! Thank you, President Trump, for giving Lee Zeldon the nod to change the EPA’s insane green policies with a green failure future.

My guest this week is Sterling Burnett, from the Heartland Institute. Sterling is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.  The new EPA policies will bring sanity back to a department that has gone off the rails. To understand how these new policies, Chevron Deference Case and the Rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Repeal of Vehicle GHG Standards, help bring economic prosperity to Americans. Here is a brief summary of each.

Chevron Deference:

Chevron deference is a legal principle guiding courts on agency interpretations of statutes. It applies when a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.  Established by the Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). Courts first determine if the statute is ambiguous before deferring to the agency’s expertise. It emphasizes the role of administrative agencies in interpreting laws within their jurisdiction. Critics argue it can lead to excessive agency power and reduced judicial oversight.

As of March 2026, the most prominent and recent “new” EPA regulations (or major actions) under the current administration focus heavily on deregulation, particularly rolling back prior greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate-related rules from previous administrations. The standout development is the February 2026 final rule described by the EPA as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” Key EPA Action: Rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Repeal of Vehicle GHG Standards (Finalized February 12, 2026)

  • Rescinds the 2009 Endangerment Finding: This Obama-era determination concluded that GHG emissions (like CO₂) from motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare, providing the legal basis under Clean Air Act Section 202(a) for federal GHG regulation.
  • Repeals all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and engines (covering model years 2012–2027 and beyond).
  • Eliminates related requirements: No more obligations for manufacturers to measure, report, certify, or comply with GHG standards; removes compliance programs, credit provisions (including off-cycle credits like incentives for start-stop features), and reporting.
  • Scope and impact — Applies only to GHG emissions (does not affect standards for traditional pollutants like NOx, particulates). Aims to restore consumer choice, lower vehicle costs, and reduce regulatory burdens on the auto industry.
  • Claimed benefits — EPA estimates over $1.3 trillion in cost savings for Americans (e.g., cheaper vehicles, reduced compliance costs, lower living expenses via affordable trucks).
  • Rationale — EPA argues the Clean Air Act does not authorize GHG regulation from vehicles without clearer congressional intent, citing Supreme Court decisions (e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, Loper Bright).

It is up to us to conduct oversight to make sure the new rules are followed. This is only one piece of making America Great Again. It is up to us to help President Trump get the Save America Act done. YOUR job is to call your Senator and any other Senator that voted NO. Call them often!! Make sure they know you will not vote for them if they can’t fight to Save America.  Is America worth saving? It is up to us.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Trump Administration Announces 3 Wins and $500M Recovered in ‘War on Fraud’

By The Daily Signal

The Justice Department this week wrapped up health care fraud investigations in California, Florida, and Nevada, saying it recovered about $500 million.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, chaired by Vice President JD Vance, and the Justice Department are together “supercharging efforts to take down every fraudster and bring them to justice.”

Here are three adjudicated cases this week that ended in either a settlement, sentencing, or guilty pleas.

1. Florida Obamacare Payments

The DOJ obtained guilty pleas and a civil settlement from AP of South Florida LLC., a one-time subsidiary of AssuredPartners Inc., a national insurance firm.

AP of South Florida pleaded guilty to charges over an enrollment scheme for the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, in which it obtained $141.5 million in unwarranted subsidies, according to the Justice Department.

The DOJ alleged that the Florida company targeted low-income individuals—including people experiencing homelessness, the unemployed, and those with mental health and substance abuse problems—with cash or gift cards to enroll in Affordable Care Act plans. This caused enrollees to lose Medicaid coverage and face increased costs for treatment.

The department further alleged that AP of South Florida employees submitted false information to Florida’s Medicaid program to generate letters denying Medicaid coverage.

The Florida firm agreed to pay a $27.6 million fine, according to the Justice Department.

AP of South Florida’s former parent company, AssuredPartners Inc., a national partnership of insurance brokers, agreed to pay $107 million in a separate civil penalty to resolve fraud allegations. The national company was not charged in the criminal case, the Justice Department said.

The current owner of AssuredPartners Inc. is Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., which issued a statement noting they did not own the company at the time the federal probe commenced and that they never owned the Florida subsidiary.

“Today, the U.S. DOJ announced a settlement with APSF and AssuredPartners. The settlement is in relation to actions that occurred at an agency that was owned by APSF from February 2021 through September 2022,” the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. statement said. “This period predates Gallagher’s acquisition of AssuredPartners in August 2025.“

“Importantly, Gallagher became aware of the government’s investigation during its pre-acquisition diligence of AssuredPartners. APSF was not included in Gallagher’s acquisition of AssuredPartners, and Gallagher has never owned APSF,” the statement continued.

”The investigation and potential settlement were considered under the purchase agreement, the settlement amount was fully reserved, and settlement does not impact the purchase price Gallagher paid for AssuredPartners.”

The Daily Signal reached the phone and email contacts listed for AP of South Florida, but no one responded by publication time.

2. California Pharmacy Fraud

In the California case, three people have pleaded guilty in a Medicaid scheme involving the submission of $269.1 million in fraudulent claims.

Paul Randall, 66, of Orange, pleaded guilty this week for his role in the plot after two others—pharmacy owner Kyrollos Mekail, 37, of Moreno Valley, and nurse practitioner Patricia Anderson, 58, of West Hills—pleaded guilty in 2024 and 2025.

The DOJ charged them with crimes spanning from May 2022 to April 2023, under a business called Monte Vista Pharmacy.

Randall’s sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 3, News Channel 3 KESQ reported.

A lawyer for Randall was not listed in the Justice Department press release or news accounts of the case. The publicly listed phone number listed for a Paul Randall in Orange, California, was disconnected.

The Justice Department said the three billed Medicaid tens of millions of dollars per month for purportedly providing high-priced medications that actually contained generic ingredients. The department said Randall paid illegal kickbacks to patient marketers and to Anderson to sign prefilled prescriptions.

Under his plea agreement, Randall agreed to forfeit property obtained from the fraud, including bank account balances of more than $17 million, three vehicles, seven properties, and sports memorabilia. The government seized about $126.5 million in assets that the trio accumulated from the scheme.

3. Nevada and COVID-19 Claims

Candies Goode-McCoy, formerly of Las Vegas, was sentenced this week to 54 months in prison and three years of supervised release on fraud charges.

She pleaded guilty in February 2025 to conspiracy to defraud the government by claiming $98 million in COVID-19-related tax credits, according to the Justice Department.

Goode-McCoy was also ordered to pay the Internal Revenue Service $26 million in restitution, according to the Justice Department.

Prosecutors said that from June 2022 to September 2023, she filed more than 1,200 tax returns for her businesses and those of others, claiming tax credits and seeking refunds totaling more than $98 million.

The IRS paid out about $33 million as a result of the scheme.

There was not a publicly-listed phone number for Goode-McCoy.

AUTHOR

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. He is the author of “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Fred on X: @FredLucasWH.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump To Crack Down On Mail-In Voting With New Executive Order

By The Daily Caller

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday cracking down on mail-in voting across the country, the Daily Caller learned first.

The executive order will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a list of verified U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote in each state with the Social Security Administration’s help, according to a fact sheet shared with the Caller. The presidential action will also require that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) only send absentee ballots to those on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list. Ballots will now have specific secure envelopes, with unique barcodes for tracking, the order mandates.

States will be provided with their revised list of confirmed voters no less than 60 days before each federal election under the order.

The executive order also tells the U.S. Attorney General to prioritize investigating and prosecuting anyone accused of sending ballots to ineligible voters, the Caller learned. States that disobey the order may lose federal funds under the presidential action.

“Election integrity has always been a top priority for President Trump, and the American people sent him back to the White House because they overwhelmingly supported his commonsense election integrity agenda,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman told the Caller in a statement.

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them. Congress should also expeditiously pass President Trump’s SAVE America Act to protect elections for generations to come,” she added.

The action comes as the U.S. Senate continues to debate the SAVE America Act. Under the legislation, voters would be required to provide proof of U.S. citizenship and ID, states would be required to clean up their voter rolls and approved reasons for mail-in ballots would be restricted.

The bill was brought to the Senate floor debate on March 17.

The president previously told the Caller he was in favor of using the standing filibuster to pass the legislation. He added that the White House was working very hard to get the legislation through.

NEW: President Trump tells me he is in favor of using the standing filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. He says the White House will be trying very hard to get it through. @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/QH1hwsKnyR

— Reagan Reese (@reaganreese_) February 6, 2026

Trump has also said he will veto any other legislation until the SAVE America Act is passed.

“It must be done immediately. It supersedes everything else,” Trump wrote in a TruthSocial post.

Election integrity has become a focal for the president and his base. The Republican National Committee has built up its election integrity branch over the last few election cycles. In the 2024 election cycle, the RNC filed more than 100 election integrity lawsuits across over 20 states.

The RNC has filed several lawsuits related to regulating mail-in voting over the last year. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Watson. v. Republican National Committee, which debates whether federal law requires mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Using Talking Filibuster For Trump’s SAVE Act May Be Minefield For GOP

EXCLUSIVE: RNC Responds To 28 Bomb Threats, Nearly 500 Tips Of Suspicious Election Activity

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

Trump Needs A ‘Vicious Operator’ at The Department of Justice

By The Geller Report

Bondi was out of her depth.

After months of mounting frustration, the DOJ failed to act on explosive evidence, delivering talk instead of accountability. Promised prosecutions never materialized as critics point to a year of inertia inside the Justice Department. Whistleblowers spoke, documents piled up and still no action.

Government investigator Mike Howell says Pam Bondi, out as attorney general, wasn’t the right fit to take on the weaponizers.

By: M.D. Kittle, The Federalist, April 3, 2026;

Pam Bondi was President Donald Trump’s second choice for attorney general, and she never quite fit. Bondi often looked uncomfortable in the top prosecutor role, fumbling her way through and failing to meet the demands of a Department of Justice with a mandate to bring the criminals in the corrupt Biden administration to account.

The frustration from the MAGA movement has been mounting for many months. The president’s patience had worn threadbare with an attorney general who — for many reasons — never did deliver on one of Trump’s biggest campaign promises: justice for the people caught in the crosshairs of the left’s political lawfare campaign.

So the president gave Bondi the “Great American” sendoff on his Truth Social platform Thursday and sent his second choice AG packing.

“Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year,” Trump wrote Thursday, saluting Bondi for the DOJ’s work in bringing the nation’s murder rate to the lowest level in 125 years.

Maybe Bondi was stuck in an untenable position for what the job entailed, but her biggest problem, one government watchdog says, was her inability to run a tenacious prosecution operation that would send a clear message to the leftist lawfare crowd. Of course, she did herself no favors with the Epstein Files mess.

“I’m not saying Bondi didn’t want to do that, but it certainly didn’t happen,” Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told The Federalist Thursday afternoon in an interview on the Vicki McKenna Show. The conservative organization investigates and litigates to expose and root out corruption in government,

“Look, she got subbed in after Matt Gaetz went down and I think there was an understanding that she really wasn’t that type of lawyer or operator but she would have a cast surrounding her [so she could] be a spokesperson for the agency,” Howell said. “But over time it just became clear that there weren’t enough people who were actually committed to doing the mission and that was borne out by the lack of results.”

Gaetz, a former Republican congressman, withdrew from consideration amid a buzzsaw confirmation process.

‘Shouting from the Mountaintops’

Corrupt corporate media outlets framed Bondi as another victim of Trump’s vendettas against his political enemies. Missing from their narrative, per usual, is the fact that many of Trump’s political enemies bludgeoned the Constitution in their soft coup to cripple the president’s first term, and to do all in their power to make sure he wouldn’t win a second. They failed miserably. Trump and the Americans who voted for his return to the White House won the right to the records. And thousands of documents made public thus far have exposed Democrats and deep staters as defilers of the rule of law and the will of the people.

The frustrations of the president and those who watched the left’s sustained lawfare campaign have only grown with the DOJ’s failure to act on the damning documents and testimony of whistleblowers. Bondi, and the attorneys surrounding her, have been loathe to move swiftly, if at all.

Howell said the real victories have been few.

“In place of actual actions you have been celebrations that I think are unwarranted. Like if you look at the FBI, it’s been all ‘Mission Accomplished’ over there and the claim that it’s been rebuilt from the ground up, but that’s just not true whatsoever,” he said.

Bondi critics charge there has been too much deference paid to the old guard at the FBI and the Justice Department. The Oversight Project has been a lead investigator in the autopen scandal of the Biden years. Much evidence suggests President Joe Biden’s inner circle signed off on a glut of clemency orders — more than 4,200, smashing previous records for presidential pardons, commutations and remissions and respites. Biden’s acts of clemency covered members of his corrupt family, government crushers of individual liberties, and some very violent criminals.

The get-out-of-jail-free card winners included a career criminal “who admitted to killing someone on camera and has a long rap sheet of violent crimes,” according to the Oversight Project. Howell and his team urged Bondi and the DOJ to stop the release of the “illegitimate” clemency orders through a disqualifying use of the autopen.

“There are a lot of violent criminals whose sentences were shortened by the autopen that this DOJ continues to release,” Howell said. “It’s been happening like clockwork and we’ve been shouting from the mountains tops.”

Bondi released a statement Thursday pledging to “work tirelessly” to transition control of the AG’s office to her Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, whom Trump tapped as interim AG for the time being. She said she’s moving to “an important private sector role” where she will “continue fighting for President Trump and this Administration.”

“Leading President Trump’s historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime, and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history,” Bondi wrote on X.

Her conservative critics disagree. Democrats said “good riddance,” with a straight face accusing Bondi of leading a corrupt department while they shrugged off the cesspool of corruption at Merrick Garland’s DOJ.

‘De-weaponize’ the Government

Speculation on who will ultimately replace Bondi was running rampant Thursday. Blanche appears to be a leading candidate, although his conservative credentials have come under scrutiny. Fox News reported that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is in line for the post.

Howell said the next AG must be run by a “vicious operator” if there is any hope for accountability.

“You need somebody who is not going to care what the liberal press thinks of them, what the rank and file of these departments and angencies will think of them, and how they’ll be framed as an institutionalist,” he said. “No, you need someone who is there primarily to get the job done and roll up their sleeves.”

Continue reading.

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

What to Make of the ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Case before SCOTUS

By Family Research Council

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in what may be the most consequential case to come before the court in decades. At issue in Trump v. Barbara is an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office, over one year ago, terminating automatic birthright citizenship. While the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the president laid particular emphasis on the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing that illegal immigrants and those in the U.S. on temporary or short-term visas (such as tourism visas, student visas, H-1B work visas, etc.) are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., and neither therefore are their children.

The Argument

“When Congress used the term ‘not subject to any foreign power’ in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it rejected the British conception of allegiance. Senator Trumbull explained that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the clause means not owing allegiance to anybody else,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer explained before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens,” he added. “The Citizenship Clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here. It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance.”

The automatic granting of birthright citizenship renders U.S. citizenship effectively meaningless, the president and Sauer charged, incentivizing illegal immigration by affording the children of illegal immigrants a U.S. citizen child to “anchor” them in the U.S. The practice further poses potential national security risks and opens the U.S. to foreign and even hostile influence. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship,” Sauer observed. “It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

The Supreme Court’s most stalwart conservative jurists — namely, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — seemed inclined to agree with the Trump administration’s reasoning. Thomas, who typically asks the first question during oral arguments, suggested that the Citizenship Clause was intended as a direct response to the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that the children of black slaves were not U.S. citizens. “How does the Citizenship Clause respond specifically to Dred Scott and answers, or changes, or corrects its answer as to citizens?” Thomas asked. “I’d like you to go back [to] the beginning and be more specific about the answer.”

Sauer recounted that the Supreme Court itself had clarified that “the one pervading purpose, the main object of the Citizenship Clause, is to overrule Dred Scott and establish the citizenship of the freed slaves.” The congressional record of the time, he said, evinces “a very clear understanding that the newly freed slaves and their children have a relationship of domicile. They do not have a relationship to any foreign power.” He continued, “That reinforces our point that ‘allegiance’ is what the word ‘jurisdiction’ means. It doesn’t mean regulatory jurisdiction or sort of being subject, merely subject to the laws. They’re talking, and they’re thinking about it in those debates, about allegiance.”

Other Supreme Court justices seemed more hesitant to embrace the Trump administration’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that Sauer laid too much emphasis on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and offered “quirky” examples to prove his point. “Children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens [who] are here in the country,” he said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Democrat-appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, predictably, took issue with Sauer’s argument, countering that the historical principle upon which his argument rests was applicable to “sojourners,” those who were not domiciled in the U.S. but were temporary visitors or merely passing through. The argument would not, they suggested, be applicable to illegal immigrants, who have largely come to the U.S. to live and have no intention of returning to their home countries. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by former President Joe Biden, also seemed prepared to reject the Trump administration’s arguments. “If I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” she said, describing “allegiance” as “a matter of law.” She added, “Even though I’m a traveler, I’m just temporarily on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”

Justice Samuel Alito indicated that he would likely accept the Trump administration’s arguments, despite some lingering questions. Like others, he acknowledged that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 — “not subject to any foreign power” — was far less vague than the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. “‘Not subject to any foreign power’ is pretty straightforward,” he said in questioning American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Cecelia Wang. “A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power?” Alito asked. “What I said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who are nationals of other countries,” he observed. “If I’m correct, it’s true to a child who’s born here to Russian parents. It’s true [for] a child who’s born here to Mexican parents. They’re automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of military service. It sure seems like that makes them subject to a foreign power.”

In an appearance on “Washington Watch” Wednesday night, Ken Cuccinelli, senior fellow for Immigration Security at the Center for Renewing America and both a former Homeland Security official under the first Trump administration and the former attorney general of Virginia, summarized the arguments. “The basic principle … that the president advanced is: it is not enough to just be born in our territory,” he said. “The parents need to have allegiance and obedience to the sovereign, to use common law language,” with the “sovereign” being the U.S. “People who are here illegally cannot possibly fulfill that requirement. The citizenship clause requires not only presence in the United States, but that the person born is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Cuccinelli stressed. “What that meant in 1868 included allegiance and obedience to the sovereign. And, again, illegal aliens are illegal because they are not being obedient to the sovereign. They’re not obeying our laws.”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by Trump and frequently sides with Thomas and Alito, also expressed skepticism. He suggested that if the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause prevalent at the time of its enactment in the 1860s were to be adhered to today, then the legal status of an immigrant would likely make no difference to whether or not he could be considered domiciled in the U.S. (i.e. living in the U.S. on a permanent basis), since there were very few immigration laws on the books at the time. “So why wouldn’t we, even if we were to apply your own test, come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?” he asked. Sauer replied, “I would first cite [U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark on that point because Wong Kim Ark says you’re —” Gorsuch interrupted, “Well, I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark.”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court decision, issued in 1898, to address the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to alien parents. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals domiciled in the U.S. After a trip abroad, Wong was denied re-entry into the U.S. under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred nearly all immigration from Chinese and the naturalization of most Chinese nationals domiciled in the U.S. One of the chief disputes among the Supreme Court justices of the time was the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. The court’s majority ruled that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” ought to be interpreted “in the light of the common law” of Britain, which held that children born even to foreigners on British soil were subjects of the British king, with the exceptions of the children of foreign rulers or emissaries, children born on foreign ships, and the children of enemies or invaders.

The dissent in the case, led by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, asserted that the U.S. had broken from British common law tradition when it declared its independence and established for itself its own set of laws, its own constitution, and its own distinct government. Fuller argued that the U.S. had more readily embraced the concept of jus sanguinis, which held that a child inherited his parent’s citizenship regardless of birthplace, over the British notion of jus soli. Noting that the U.S. had signed and issued numerous treaties and statutes restricting immigration from China and barring Chinese nationals from becoming U.S. citizens, Fuller concluded that “the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the 14th Amendment overrides both treaty and statute.”

He further cited, as did Sauer, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stipulates that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” are afforded U.S. citizenship. (Emphasis added.) Fuller warned that the adoption of jus soli over jus sanguinis would result in a situation where “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

“So there were actually two separate parts of Wong Kim Ark. One was with respect to Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, who was born to two parents who were lawfully domiciled in San Francisco, engaging in commerce, not representing the Empire of China,” explained Andrew R. Arthur, resident fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, in comments to The Washington Stand. While the court ultimately ruled that Wong was a U.S. citizen, they explained, in dicta, that there are exceptions to birthright citizenship, including the children of foreign diplomats, children born on foreign ships harbored in U.S. waters, children born in U.S. territory occupied by enemies, and Indians. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, focused much of their questioning on that fourth exception. Arthur anticipated, “If there is any acceptance of Sauer’s arguments, it’s going to be in some way distinguishing those members of Indian tribes from other foreign nationals who were present in the United States, but not lawfully domiciled here.”

“Barrett asked do these Indians carry a bubble around them, so that if they leave tribal lands and they go and give birth outside of the tribal lands, are their children citizens? That indicated at least a willingness to consider Sauer’s arguments,” Arthur suggested, “because his point is temporary sojourners, which would be non-immigrants and those here unlawfully, cannot be lawfully domiciled in the United States.” The term “non-immigrants” is applied to those who come to the U.S. legally but only temporarily, such as those on work, student, or tourist visas, as opposed to those who come to the U.S. legally in order to live permanently, such as the spouses of U.S. citizens.

“I think this is the part that people really aren’t focused on because it’s probably the most complicated part of this. Many of the principles that the majority in Wong Kim Ark relied upon, in fact, they relied almost exclusively on English common law in order to interpret the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment,” Arthur observed. “You know, ideas of fealty to the king. You were born in the King’s territory, therefore you owe subjection to the king, and because you owe subjection to the king, the king owes you protection,” he continued. “These truly are feudal principles.”

Fuller, who was joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan, rejected that idea. “They’re like, ‘English common law is not what we should be using because the Founders rejected all of those English concepts when they overthrew the crown. There is no king in this country, and therefore, it’s not appropriate to use those ideas,’” Arthur recounted. “Because birthright citizenship under English common law was very expansive. Anybody born in England was considered to be an English subject.”

The End of America?

Regardless of various interpretations of how oral arguments proceeded, legal scholars agreed that the issue of birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court is of paramount importance for the U.S. and the nation’s future. “On this 250th anniversary of the birth of our nation, the issue remains salient because the whole point was that we meant to create a new polity, a new citizenry,” Arthur told TWS. “It’s an abuse of the generosity of the American legal system for people to come here and give birth, to hire a surrogate in the United States, send over eggs and plant them and have a child born here.”

“If there is a civic institution that is sacred, it is American citizenship, and yet for some reason, the extent of birthright citizenship, the breadth of birthright citizenship has largely gone unexamined,” Arthur added. “As Sauer makes clear in his briefs, we’re basically utilizing an interpretation of birthright citizenship that the Franklin Roosevelt administration simply created almost out of whole cloth. Consequently, it is appropriate to have the highest court issue a decision that clarifies for everybody how expansive birthright citizenship is.”

Cuccinelli observed, “We have vulnerabilities in our society. The president is trying to close this one. He’s obviously already closed the border, everybody knows that.” He continued, “I would not say this is a change in law the president is seeking. This is a return to the original understanding of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, and the main reason that clause needed to be put in the 14th Amendment was to overturn the horrendous Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court from 1857, part of what led to the Civil War.” Cuccinelli also observed that the British common law understanding adopted by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark could never have anticipated or provided for the modern phenomenon of mass immigration. “The whole question of mass illegal immigration is really unknown to the common law. This was not a problem in the United States in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed. And that was part of what the discussion in the oral argument today wandered around, because everyone agreed this wasn’t a problem then. So what do you do about it?”

Experts were less unanimous in their opinion of how the Supreme Court would ultimately rule in the case, although most anticipate that the ruling will be one of the last to be published in late June, so that the justices could end the term and retreat from the resulting controversy. Josh Hammer, senior counsel at the Article III Project, told TWS that he expects a majority — possibly even a 7-2 majority — to rule against the Trump administration. “John Sauer is a man who knows his legal history and, just as important, knows his audience. He answered every question tossed his way with confidence, skill, and ease. His argument about the all-important ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ 14th Amendment language and his emphasis on ‘domicile’ is correct as an original matter,” Hammer said. “Regardless, I predict the votes will not be there to sustain the argument. … But I very much hope I am wrong.”

Cuccinelli anticipated a narrower margin. “This is definitely going to be one of those opinions that isn’t going to issue until the end of June, and I think it could be a very close vote,” he said. “It is very clear that if the administration wins this, I think it will be five-four, and if you were a betting man, which I’m not at this point, you’d probably bet against the administration just going by the oral argument today.”

Arthur suggested a more complicated approach, predicting that the justices would likely find the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase sufficiently vague to pass the matter to Congress to clarify. “This is an originalist court. They don’t really care about the practicalities of any of this,” he opined. Arthur deduced that Thomas and Alito were almost certain to side with the Trump administration and that Barrett and Gorsuch were likely open to accepting Sauer’s arguments but warned that Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh were more difficult to read and could either bolster a majority decision or else take a third approach altogether.

“A lot of observers … think that the government has a tough row to hoe, and I don’t necessarily disagree with them, but I think that the key point that they’re going to make is that the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause is more vague than the ACLU argues that it is open to interpretation,” Arthur said. “I think that what they’re going to find is that it is vague and it could be interpreted, but Congress is the one to do the interpretation to make any limitations — again, subject to judicial review — not the executive branch.”

Cuccinelli pointed out that even if the Supreme Court were to rule against the Trump administration’s executive order, Congress could still act. “Then it’s in Congress’s hands. They can pass statutes just like they did with respect to the American Indians in 1924,” he said. “Only the U.S. and Canada have this foolish, self-destructive rule of territorial birth, and it can be gotten rid of by Congress.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Signs Election Integrity Order to Enforce U.S. Citizenship Requirement for Voting

Democrat Candidate Leaves Party To ‘Put Country First’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

JUNK SCIENCE SHOCK: Study Says Half of Welfare Policy Research False As Fraud Crisis Explodes Nationwide

By The Geller Report

Everything the Democrats say and do is a lie.

“It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false….”

To Cut Welfare Fraud, Target Government-Funded Academic Fraud

More than half of all the research that has ever been used to design America’s social safety net is likely untrue, a study found.

By: Leslie M. Andrews, The Federalist, March 27, 2026:

n the wake of growing revelations about massive welfare fraud, U.S. taxpayers are naturally demanding that every public worker suspected of thievery, as well as those government officials who failed to prevent it, be held to account. What began with independent journalist Nick Shirley’s December 2025 investigation of Somali‑run daycare centers in Minnesota has mushroomed into reports of billion-dollar Medicaid scams in California and New York, corruption in the federal government’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and schemes to provide phony addiction and autism treatments in multiple states.

President Donald Trump has already responded by forming a National Fraud Enforcement Division within the Department of Justice and appointing Vice President J.D. Vance to the newly created position of federal “antifraud czar.” Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services is also releasing previously unpublished data on provider claims to Medicaid, so that both the public and the press can more easily identify suspicious billing practices.

But if the goal of such efforts is not just to punish those who have already committed welfare fraud but to prevent similar crime from occurring in the future, the psychological aspects of working either in or for a contemporary American welfare program should not be overlooked. For as management experts have long argued, any employer that requires its staffers to perform a service they privately know to be largely inconsequential is effectively legitimating dishonest behavior. And as studies such as the Russell Sage Foundation’s “Administrative Burden” have documented, few organizations so relentlessly groom this moral weakness in their own workforce as the modern welfare agency.

Invalid Research

To understand why this is so true, one must appreciate the fact that more than half of all the research that has ever been used to design America’s social safety net is likely untrue — the implication of a now famous paper published in 2005 by Dr. John Ioannidis, co-director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center. After trying to duplicate the results of influential social science long considered “settled science,” he was astonished to discover that they could not be replicated — in other words, they were never valid.

Even to this day, as Ioannidis himself laments in a recent report to the Institute of Art and Ideas, the majority of published social science research is still not accurate enough to reliably achieve any practical purpose — certainly not useful enough to cure a drug addiction, reduce homelessness, decrease neighborhood crime, or combat domestic violence. The blog Retraction Watch, which exists to identify flawed scientific papers and encourage their retraction, now flags more questionable psychological and sociological findings than when it first went online in 2010.

Universities’ Agenda

Ironically, a way to provide the American welfare system with more effective therapies and procedures — and as a consequence, reduce its tendency to legitimate employee fraud — has long been known. All that has ever been needed is for the professors who conduct the underlying research to adopt tighter study controls. In other words, to have a high threshold for what they regard as a “statistically significant” finding, to pre-register their study protocols and report any mid-stream alterations, and to use large sample sizes.

But ever since the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, America’s colleges and universities have prioritized a very different agenda. As social critic Irving Kristol (1920-2009) was the first to recognize, the massive research funding that accompanied President Lyndon B. Johnson’s signature domestic program, while well intended, had the unforeseen effect of turning higher education from a seeker of truth into the chief advocate for what has come to be called “progressivism.” Namely, the belief that the best way to improve society is through large, bureaucratic programs based on government-financed studies.I

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

California: $3 Billion Pakistani Muslim Medical Fraud in 2 Years

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison (AKA Hakim Muhammad) Secretly Meeting With Somali Fraudsters Promising to “Get the Money Flowing”

Under Mandani, Antisemitic Hate Crimes Spike 182% So He Changes Reporting Method to Lower the Figure

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

The Boot of Federal Tyranny has Breached its Bonds

By Kelleigh Nelson

“… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” ― General Robert E. Lee

“Federal interference in state functions can never be justified as a permanent continuing policy… Where once the Government engages in such an enterprise, it is almost impossible to terminate its connection therewith.” —  President Calvin Coolidge 1925

“The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security.” — President James Madison


To the early American, his state government was at least on a par with the federal government in his esteem. There is a perfect example in Frank Chodorov’s book, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil.

“President Washington was about to arrive at Boston on a visit, and Governor Hancock was perturbed over a matter of protocol; would he be compromising the dignity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if he went to meet the “father of his country” on arrival, or would it be more proper that the President call at the state Capitol? The Governor finally settled the problem by pleading illness…. The sequel to that incident is worth noting. President Washington was asked to review the Massachusetts militia; he refused on the ground that the militia was the military arm of the state, not the federal government; after all, the tacit understanding in those days was that the militia might be called upon to face the federal army.”

Florida Eliminates School Vax Requirements

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo move to become the first in the United States to drop all childhood vaccine requirements for school attendance. The proposal, framed as “medical freedom,” could make Florida the first state to remove school vaccine mandates, with legislative action planned for early 2026.

Critics have warned of the plan’s potentially deadly public health consequences.

The move would scrap all required vaccine mandates for children, including those required for school attendance, such as polio, diphtheria, rubeola, rubella, pertussis, mumps and tetanus.

The state’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, a longtime vaccine skeptic, compared school vaccine mandates to slavery, calling them “immoral” intrusions on parents’ rights.  He stated that the Florida Department of Health would work with the legislature to repeal the statutes, aiming for removal by last January 2026.  “Who am I to tell you what your child should put in their body? I don’t have that right. Your body is a gift from God,” he said.

This move does not mean vaccines are eliminated for children.  Parents who decide to vaccinate their children prior to entering school are free to do so.  DeSantis and Ladapo are simply removing the state mandates and returning to parents the decision as to what, if any, vaccinations are given to their children.

Here is a chart of the injections given to a newborn up to one year.  These injections don’t include the ones the state requires to enter public schools.

Federal Court Blocks Gov. DeSantis

A March 2026 federal court ruling has temporarily blocked attempts to alter national vaccine policies, creating a roadblock for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ efforts to end mandatory vaccinations for school children.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston, a Biden appointee, halted changes to childhood vaccine schedules, limiting the administration’s ability to reduce mandated shots. Judge Murphy ruled that the administration likely violated federal procedures regarding vaccine advisory committees, blocking efforts to cut recommended childhood vaccines.

The Trump administration has said it will appeal the March 16 decision. But for DeSantis, the strike against the federal government’s effort to retrench on vaccine requirements is another blow against his own call for ending mandatory vaccines for school children.

Organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) have strongly opposed the potential rollback of school vaccine mandates, citing risks of infectious disease outbreaks.  Collier County Florida had an outbreak of 132 cases of measles.

As a child, I had measles one week and chicken pox the next. I still recall the baking soda baths and Calamine lotion.  We all went through those childhood diseases and even had parties so everyone would catch them and it would soon be over.  Today the government freaks out if a number of children get any common childhood illness.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is also against any changes to the childhood vaccine schedule.  They have filed a 90-page lawsuit against the HHS and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  They want the court to reverse the recent changes to the childhood vax schedule and not because the AAP cares one whit about the health of America’s children, but because they are locked in a battle to protect their own profits.

Always “follow the money.”

Federal and State Powers

States can pass their own laws under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law takes precedence when it conflicts with state law.

According to James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, the Constitution maintains the sovereignty of states by enumerating very few express powers to the federal government, while “those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

The U.S. Constitution creates a federal government with limited, enumerated powers primarily listed in Article I, Section 8, intended to prevent excessive central authority. Key powers include taxing, borrowing money, regulating interstate/foreign commerce, coining money, establishing post offices, and declaring war. These are distinct from state powers.

But that very same Section 8 also includes the so-called “Elastic Clause.” It authorizes Congress to write and pass any laws that are “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers. These “implied powers” have been used by Congress to create a national bank, to collect a federal income tax, to institute the draft, to pass gun control laws and to set a federal minimum wage, among others.

While founders like Jefferson argued for a strict interpretation, Hamilton’s broader view—that the government must have the means to execute its duties—prevailed, establishing implied powers as lawful.

Jefferson was right.

Unfortunately, these powers have weakened and even destroyed many of our unalienable rights listed in the first Ten Amendments of our U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution grants almost all other power and authority to the individual states, as Madison said. While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly list the powers retained by the states, the founders included a catch-all in the 10th Amendment, ratified in 1791: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Judiciary

Alexander Hamilton portrayed the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of government.  In Federalist No. 78 he starkly contrasts the courts’ significant influence in contemporary American politics. He argued that, unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary lacks “the power of the sword and the purse,” implying that it neither enforces laws nor controls resources. The judiciary’s role was interpretative, ensuring that laws conformed to the Constitution.

While Hamilton’s assertion aimed to alleviate fears of judicial overreach, many contemporary constitutional issues suggest that the judiciary now wields significantly more influence than the Founding Fathers may have allotted.

The judiciary nonsense of telling any state that they cannot make their own laws is totally unconstitutional. The Roe decision was overturned. Abortion is not one of the government’s enumerated powers and thus belongs to the states alone.  The same goes for gay marriage, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges, and slander and libel,1964 NYTs v. Sullivan.  All belong only to the states, as they are not listed in the enumerated powers of the federal government, whether the justices believed they were or not.

The One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) had a proposed 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulation from President Trump.  It was voted down, 99-1.  It’s back.  A December 2025 Executive Order seeks to block states from enforcing their own rules, which the administration claims hinder innovation.  Once again, AI is not part of the enumerated powers, despite the desire to drop it into the “commerce clause.”

States have rights equal to the federal government.

The federal government cannot directly mandate that all states require vaccinations for school entry, as this authority resides only with the individual states under their 10th Amendment “police powers”. The feds can “influence policy” through CDC recommendations, funding incentives, and even during declared public health emergencies.

The Powerful Federal Boot

Obviously, the feds overstepped their bounds with Covid.  The masking, six-feet distancing, school closings, shuttering small businesses and people, not to mention mandating “operation warp speed” injections, all were federal control on steroids marked by fear from totalitarian entities within the federal government.

Hospital protocols were opposite of what has always been prescribed for sufferers of respiratory infections. The mounting deaths from hospital protocols exacerbated the public’s terror.

Our Founding Fathers tried to protect the states.

In Graham’s “A Constitutional History of Secession,” he writes:

“In launching their new Union in 1789, the Founding Fathers of the United States renewed and strengthened their confederacy of free, sovereign, and independent States.  And in adapting the principle of the Glorious Revolution to their own situation, they reserved a constitutional right of the people in each of the several States to elect a convention of delegates in extraordinary circumstances, which, notwithstanding all other forms of law, could abolish and reform their governments under the protection of the Union, or, if circumstances warranted, could withdraw or secede from the Union, and assume their place among the nations of the earth.

“This primordial and universal right did not suddenly appear, but evolved over the course of centuries by operation of natural law made manifest in legal tradition.  While it can be misrepresented and obscured, it can never be finally extinguished by propaganda and must inevitably return in human experience.”

Peaceable and lawful revolution, belongs to Americans, and to any nation, and is a true form of seeking liberty and freedom which will be tried again and again when life becomes too encumbered and overbearing as totalitarian evil is foisted on the people of the nation.

The Unnecessary Wars

The evil of human bondage is not new.  The 430-year account of the slavery of the Jewish people (Israelites) in ancient Egypt is a central narrative in the Hebrew Bible, primarily detailed in the Book of Exodus.

The horror of enslaving any human being because of their skin color or ethnic origin was on its way out of America before Lincoln’s election in 1860.  Thousands of African blacks were sold into slavery by conquering black tribes.  The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 in the British Empire had long affected the American conscience. Cries from politicians, the American people, churches and synagogues had yielded the impetus to eliminate human bondage.

Less known in America is white slavery.  British, Irish and Scottish street urchins were sold into slavery until the 1920s, the children barely lasted a year. Others were from women’s prisons.  The book, White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America, tells part of the story.  In They Were White and They Were Slaves, Michael Hoffman II writes how millions of Slavic, English, and Irish men, women, and children were also enslaved,.

Diaries of both Northern and Southern soldiers asked why the issue of slavery was brought into the war.  It is absolutely juvenile to believe that so large and complicated an historical event as the federal government’s massively destructive and revolutionary neo-Marxist invasion and assault of America’s South was strictly about benevolence.

It was about one thing; the war was about money.  The intent of the ruling elements of the North was to keep their profitable control of Southern land and people.  When both sides’ leaders made their plans and went into battle, neither were thinking about slaves.  The dispute was over money and self-determination.  The South wanted a more limited federal government and lower tariffs—the ideals of Thomas Jefferson—when the South could not get that, they opted for independence.

The Southern states had a written guarantee that they could secede. The Constitution is silent on secession; however, the 10th Amendment clarifies states’ rights.  This is why President James Buchanan, Lincoln’s predecessor in the White House, had allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace.  The idea that “states’ rights” superseded federal law was promoted by South Carolinian John C. Calhoun, vice president in Andrew Jackson’s first term as president, one of the most experienced and powerful politicians in the country at the time.

It was the International Workingmen’s Association who wrote a letter to President Lincoln in 1864.  The letter stated, “If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.”  It was signed by men of the association including Karl Marx.  Their main objective was the elimination of private property.

The war had nothing to do with slavery or Lincoln would have freed northern slaves as he did southern slaves.  The underground railroad went to Canada, not the northern states as slaves would have been captured and returned.  The truth was known by any middle school child at the time.  The real cause of the war was a dispute over money.  Lincoln’s goal was to keep the Union intact, with or without slavery which he stated in his 1862 letter to Horace Greeley.

States were assured when they signed onto the Union that they could secede should they become unhappy with the Union.  Even New York State considered secession.

The vast majority of Southern whites did not own slaves, with only about 4.8% of them owning one or more in 1860.  That same year, the widow C. Richards, and her son P.C. Richards, were the largest black slave owners in Louisiana, owning 152 enslaved people on their sugar cane plantation.

In 1860, William Ellison was South Carolina’s largest free black slave owner. He was born a slave, but was manumitted at age 26. By 1860, he owned one of the largest cotton gin manufacturing companies in the South, owned 900 acres of land, and 63 slaves. He was also said to have made money by breeding and selling slaves.

In “Dixie’s Censored Subject Black Slaveowners,” by Robert M. Grooms, he writes, “According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.”

Slavery was not just an evil white institution.

Real numbers are estimated at between 4.2% to 7.6% of the South owned one or more slaves.

Because of Lincoln’s War, over 700,000 American lives were eliminated, 80,000 of them non-combatants, young and old, both black and white slaughtered via order of General Grant by William Tecumseh Sherman. It is estimated that the number of war dead is short by at least 13%.  Sherman went on to slaughter the Buffalo, the mainstay of Native Americans’ diets. Genocide of the Native Americans resulted. Sherman called it, “the final solution.”

Government, A Necessary Evil

Thomas Paine’s perspective that “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil” was widely shared by our Founders.

Mary Lee, wife of Robert E. Lee, attempted to pay the taxes on their Arlington, Virginia, estate in 1863. Unable to pay in person due to the Civil War, she sent her cousin, Philip R. Fendall, to Alexandria to pay the $92.07 tax. Under an 1862 law for collecting taxes in “insurrectionary” districts, payment had to be made by the landowner in person.  Thus, federal authorities rejected the payment because it was not made by the owner in person.

Due to the refusal of the payment, the federal government seized the estate and sold it at a tax sale on January 11, 1864, for $26,800 to the United States, and then used it as a cemetery which it remains today, Arlington National Cemetery.

In 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled it unconstitutional and gave the land back to Lee.  He then sold it to the federal government for $150,000 as there were already 17,000 to 20,000 graves on his land.

The property was originally a plantation owned by George Washington Parke Curtis, who dedicated his mansion (Arlington House, now managed by the National Park Service) as a memorial to his step-grandfather, George Washington.

Ten years prior to the war, Lee had inherited 10 to 12 slaves.  Mary Custis Lee aimed to equip enslaved individuals, particularly women, with literacy and practical skills to ensure they could be independent upon being freed.  She did this knowing full well it was against the law at that time.

While Mary Lee was an advocate for eventual emancipation, she did not immediately free them. She and her husband, Robert E. Lee, oversaw the transition of these enslaved people on a roughly 5-year plan of release.

Robert E. Lee was a Virginian.  He went to war to support his state’s right to secede.

The War Between the States cost more American lives than WWII.  It was a watershed event that destroyed much of what our founders granted to the states when they joined the Union.

Conclusion

Key conflicts between states and the centralized federal government have involved federal mandates, commerce clause expansion, and regulatory agency actions which states often challenge in court as violations of sovereignty.

They are right to do so.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas often views federalism as a “structural safeguard for individual liberty,” prioritizing the reserved powers of states over federal intervention.

Conservatives thank the Lord for Justice Thomas’ 1991 appointment to the high court.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: GOP’s Illegal Trucker Crackdown Gets Powerful Backer

By The Daily Caller

The most powerful union in the United States is putting its weight behind a GOP effort to crack down on a longtime trucking industry gimmick behind many horrific highway crashes.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is officially endorsing the Safety and Accountability in Freight Enforcement (SAFE) Act introduced by Republican Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman, the Daily Caller News Foundation has exclusively learned. The legislation aims to eliminate the prevalence of “chameleon carriers,” trucking companies that repeatedly reopen under new identities after being shut down.

The high-profile endorsement comes as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, responding to a wave of deadly wrecks involving illegal migrant truck drivers across the country, are aiming to completely revamp the industry.

“Chameleon carriers have gone unchecked for decades, harming and weakening America’s trucking industry,” Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien said in a statement provided to the DCNF. “These unscrupulous operators jeopardize the safety of everyone on our roadways and threaten the livelihoods of truck drivers who follow the rules.”

“The Teamsters commend Rep. Hageman for taking an aggressive stance to rein in the worst of the worst in the trucking industry, and we strongly endorse the SAFE Act,” O’Brien continued.

Chameleon carriers are typically trucking companies that rotate through Department of Transportation (DOT) registration numbers, names or ownership structure to avoid enforcement actions. After being shut down by regulators for any number of violations, these companies will simply reopen under a new name and registration number, all while using the same trucks and staff.

If passed and signed into law, the SAFE Act would establish an automation tool to detect chameleon carriers in the registration process, helping take them off American highways for good, according to Hageman’s office. The legislation would also bolster coordination between federal and state agencies to identify chameleon carriers, require a nationwide study and preserve due process by requiring human review.

“These companies game the system, ignore the law, and put American families at risk, all while punishing hardworking truckers who follow the rules,” Hageman previously stated about her legislation. “If a trucking company racks up violations or loses its license, it should not get to slap on a new name and get back on the road.”

Deadly truck crashes have plagued the industry in recent months, with many of these wrecks involving both illegal migrants working for chameleon carriers.

An illegal migrant driver allegedly killed four people after smashing his big rig into another vehicle along an Indiana highway in February, with investigators later determining his truck was part of a network of carriers operating under numerous identities. The illegal migrant trucker who rammed into Dalilah Coleman — the girl who became the inspiration for President Donald Trump’s “Dalilah Law” —  in June 2024 was employed by a chameleon carrier, according to her father.

Republican Indiana Sen. Jim Banks demanded that the DOT in February investigate the prevalence of chameleon carrier networks. Banks, who introduced Dalilah’s Law in the Senate, also runs a tip-line for insiders to report malfeasance within the trucking industry.

Dalilah’s father, Marcus Coleman, is currently championing his daughter’s namesake bill in Congress. He confirmed to the DCNF that he is meeting with Hageman on Tuesday.

AUTHOR

Jason Hopkins

Immigration Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: ICE Nabs Illegal Trucker Who Allegedly Hospitalized Pedestrian

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.

DOJ Review of Voter Rolls Uncovers Alarming Names—and It’s Only the Beginning

By The Daily Signal

The Justice Department is finding thousands of noncitizens and dead people on voter rolls as it pursues more state election records, said Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, in an interview.

“We’re finding tens of thousands of noncitizens on the voter rolls, hundreds of thousands of dead people on the voter rolls, and duplicate registrations between states,” Dhillon said on “Just the News, No Noise.”

Dhillon based her claim on a review of only 16 Republican-leaning states, such as Florida and Texas, that voluntarily complied with the Justice Department’s request for the election records.

The administration is suing 29 states for the records, seeking to ensure that states are complying with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Those laws require states to update their voter registration lists and ensure they are free of names of dead people, or people who no longer reside in jurisdictions where they are registered to vote.

This comes in light of several prosecutions of noncitizens for illegal voting.

This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the FBI announced the arrest of Mahady Sacko, an illegal alien from Mauritania, for voter fraud in Philadelphia. ICE asserted he had been illegally voting in the United States since 2008.

Sacko entered the U.S. near Miami, and an immigration judge ordered him removed. Sacko exhausted all appeals, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal on Nov. 14, 2002—over two decades ago.

In December, Joe Ceballos resigned as mayor of Coldwater, Kansas, after being arrested for voting multiple times, though he was not a citizen. The Department of Homeland Security announced removal proceedings but Ceballos, a legal permanent resident from Mexico, voted in multiple elections, according to the agency, and faced state charges.

The lawsuits contend the Justice Department has the authority to request and review election records under the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

The DOJ has sued both red and blue statesMost recently, the Justice Department sued Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and the Democrat-leaning New Jersey.

The Justice Department has also sued major Democrat-leaning states, such as California and New York, for voter rolls, as well as battleground states such as Arizona and Georgia.

“It’s really frustrating that we’re being prevented from doing our job,” Dhillon said.

The Justice Department could have a tough road ahead, noted J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group that has sued states for information on “dirty voter rolls.”

Adams is a former lawyer in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

“It’s decades-old news,” Adams told The Daily Signal of dead voters and noncitizens on voter lists. “Good luck doing anything about it.”

He noted that in cases by the foundation, both the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled states can’t be compelled to clean up voter rolls if they are already making an effort. The Supreme Court declined to hear the cases.

“It’s one thing to get data, it’s another thing to enforce cleaning up the rolls,” Adams said.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to The Daily Signal by publication time to provide more details about the number of ineligible voters found on the voter lists so far.

AUTHOR

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. He is the author of The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections. Send an email to Fred. Fred on X: @FredLucasWH.

Anti-ICE Rioters Thought They Were Above The Law — One Man Is Showing Them Otherwise

By The Daily Caller

Portland, Oregon, now has a county prosecutor throwing the book at the city’s famously raucous protesters after his predecessor neglected cases.

Most protesters arrested near Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the past six months have faced charges from Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez’s office, according to court and police records reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Vasquez’s tough approach appears to be a gift to Portland’s critics — from locals to President Donald Trump — who see a tolerance for lawlessness at the city level since 2020’s fiery Black Lives Matter riots caught national attention.

Vasquez replaced George Soros-backed leftist Mike Schmidt, who rolled out a policy in August 2020 to not prosecute several protest-related crimes. Under Trump’s second term, Portland’s city council has publicly thanked protesters for defying his “fascist agenda” while Democratic Mayor Keith Wilson’s administration imposes guidelines for city workers to protect migrants from ICE. The surge in rioting came after Trump launched mass deportation efforts that have swept through so-called sanctuary jurisdictions such as Portland.

Multnomah County “prosecuting people for everything” is having noticeable effects, with protests dwindling to less than a dozen agitators per night at the ICE building, a Portland police officer told the DCNF in mid-January, speaking anonymously to avoid reprisal. “I had one specific case the other night and they issued immediately,” the officer said. “Vasquez isn’t screwing around.”

Vasquez’s team has filed charges for at least 33, or 63%, of the 53 arrests described in Portland Police Bureau (PPB) press releases about anti-ICE protests from September to February, according to court records. The PPB documents its handling of the demonstrations, whether or not they lead to arrests, since they became so frequent under Trump.

Charges in the six-month timespan include assault, interfering with a peace officer, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass and others, leading to 11 convictions and a “no contest” plea so far, the DCNF found. Nineteen cases were dismissed by prosecutors or a court, one defendant received a dismissal by paying restitution and another was acquitted of harassment and disorderly conduct charges. One arrestee was an unnamed juvenile whose case details are not available, excluding the person from the DCNF’s analysis.

By contrast, Schmidt’s office declared in 2020 that it would automatically decline charges for riot, harassment, escape, trespass, disorderly conduct or interfering with a peace officer at demonstrations, leaving only cases of “deliberate property damage, theft or the use or threat of force against another person.”

“I have said since day one that the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office supports people’s right to protest,” Vasquez, a registered Independent whose office is nonpartisan, told the DCNF. “It is a fundamental right and one that is frequently embraced here in Portland, Oregon. What we do not support or tolerate is people committing crimes against each other or property when they gather to protest.”

Vasquez defeated Schmidt in a 2024 primary after a tough-on-crime campaign that portrayed his predecessor as overly lenient. Vasquez won the office outright because there were no other candidates.

Portland’s anti-ICE rioting shows a glimpse of how repeat offenders avoid jail in the city. Several Portland protesters detained in 2025 had prior criminal records in the state and were released from jail again, the DCNF previously reported. Additionally, police arrested three anti-ICE demonstrators twice in the same September-February period.

DEEP DIVE: I went through numerous records and found a pattern — at least 11 people arrested at Portland’s riots this year have been arrested before, and still none of them are behind bars. @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/UsidjYvof5

— Hudson Crozier 🇺🇸 (@Hudson_Crozier) October 28, 2025

“There [would] always be ten to 20 of these mentally deranged human beings down there doing their thing but it is [ineffective] to ICE,” the Portland police officer told the DCNF. “The usual people that are getting paid are keenly aware DA Vasquez is going to prosecute them.”

The cases Vasquez dropped included conservative influencer Nick Sortor, whom the PPB arrested in October on a disorderly conduct charge when he tried to take a burning American flag from protesters. Vasquez’s office defended the cops’ choice to arrest him but said that it could not prove the charge in court.

“While we work with the elected District Attorney’s office to forward them prosecutable cases, we understand that in the end, not all of them have the necessary proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” a PPB spokesperson told the DCNF. “But whomever the elected DA is does not change how we make arrests. We continue to assume our role in the criminal justice system, and the DA assumes theirs.”

Vasquez emphasized that he does not see punishing rioters as a partisan issue in comments to the DCNF.

“It does not matter to me if someone is part of the left, right or center,” he said. “If they break the law during a protest they will be prosecuted.”

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.

AUTHOR

Hudson Crozier

DCNF Crime and Extremism Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Where Are We Looting?’: Meet The Portland Leftists Who Keep Getting Arrested And Released

Antifa Blog Doxxes ICE, Incites Crime With Little Consequence

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

What Obituaries Can Teach Us

By Joan Swirsky

Plus, what they will teach us about those who are still with us.

When I was growing up in New Haven, Conn., my parents subscribed not only to our local newspaper — The New Haven Register, still extant — but also to The New York Times and the now defunct (since 1966) New York Herald Tribune.  I think I was about eight or nine years old when I was idly flipping through the Times and came across the obituary section.  From that very moment, I was hooked.

In fact, I cannot remember any classes in elementary or junior high or even senior high school that taught me as much about people and life and destiny and justice and injustice and courage and cowardice and virtue and vice and motivation and laziness and the way people cope with illness and face and fear and sometimes celebrate death.

From the famous to the infamous, from regular unsung heroes in everyday life to larger-than-life egomaniacs, from actual giants like Winston Churchill to saints like Mother Teresa to villains like Joseph Stalin, from fabulous glamor girls like Bridget Bardot to sanctimonious feminists like Betty Friedan — there was nothing more compelling and interesting to me.

As I got older, reading obituaries was like acquiring advanced degrees in history, psychology, political science, and philosophy.

No wonder I was a chronic truant!

Real Change

One of the more interesting things I learned was that over their lifetimes, many of the people I read about changed, sometimes significantly — not just in their interests or careers or marriages, but in their thinking.  Here is just a tiny sample of how a number of prominent celebrities  went politically from left to right and from right to left.  And here, for pure inspiration, is how some prominent people — among them Steve Jobs, Ulysses S. Grant, and Mark Twain — hit rock bottom but came back stronger.

Bad Fruit

Of course, most of us have never met the people we read about in obituaries, compelling as their death notices may be.  But what is even more interesting is watching — in real time — the living history being made by the people who have immense influence over our own lives, be they in politics or the media.

Interestingly enough, or maybe I should say ironically or hilariously, the idea for this article came to me when I was passing a beautiful bowl of fresh fruit in my home and spotted — ew — a rotting orange.  I quickly removed it and then washed all the fruits that touched it, just in case the rot was contagious.

And then it hit me: I’ve been watching rotting fruit in the political arena that we all observe every day.  This is the very, very, very short list:

  1. Three conservative Supreme Court justices — one of them appointed by President Trump — voted down the president’s tariff initiative, a vote that law professor Jonathan Turley says will not stop the president from using many other measures to continue his policy.
  1. Republican senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky blocked the SAVE Act — requiring proof of U.S. citizenship and voter ID — from being brought to a vote in the Senate, although a majority of Americans and 90 percent of his own constituents approve of the law.
  1. Democrat senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, during his 2010 campaign, frequently — and shamefully — led audiences to believe he had served in Vietnam.  He actually served in the Marine Corps Reserve, a stateside position.
  1. Democrat senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey was convicted in 2024 on 16 counts, including bribery and acting as an illegal foreign agent.
  1. Democrat congressman Anthony Weiner from New York resigned in 2011 and later served prison time for sending sexually explicit images to a minor.
  2. Republican former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich from Georgia paid a $300,000 penalty in 1997 for providing inaccurate information to the Ethics Committee.
  3. Republican congressman George Santos from New York pleaded guilty to felony charges of identity theft and wire fraud after being expelled from Congress following a report by the House Ethics Committee (2024).

That’s a lot of rotten fruit, the taint of which reached much farther than their own compromised lives.  But for the most part, they will be remembered, if at all — in spite of their legitimate and sometimes formidable accomplishments — as fools or common criminals.

And the Goebbels Award Goes To…

But the most rotten fruit of all, the fruit that has been contaminated with and entranced by the oldest racist virus in the world — antisemitism — is of course the former conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.  As it turns out, if he had been in my fruit bowl, I could not have washed away the possible contagion of those he touched, because it appears that all of them have revealed that they too are polluted by the same pathogen.

Carlson will be remembered as a seemingly normal talking head until the day in 2024 when he began interviewing and nodding in enthusiastic agreement with some of the world’s most obsessive and inflamed antisemites.

Not to omit his cozy relationship with Qatar, his stated desire to buy a home there, and suspicions that his (practically) daily wild-eyed rants against Jews, Israel, and Zionism are fueled by mountainous payments from that tiny but mega-wealthy country, accusations that have been consistently denied.

As writer Vanessa Berg explains,

Carlson insists he has never accepted money from Qatar. Taken literally, that may well be true. But the modern influence-economy rarely operates through crude transactions. Direct payments are unsophisticated and easily exposed. Far more effective are networks of access, prestige, hospitality, and mutual benefit. Invitations to exclusive forums, extended interviews with heads of state, sustained proximity to power, and the validation that comes with being treated as a global statesman … None of these require envelopes of cash. … Payment is only the crudest form of influence.

Not Really a Mystery

Here is a fact that even the world’s biggest skeptics cannot disagree about, which is that in the history of the world, there has never been a baby born with hate in his heart.  Never.

As a former delivery room nurse, I can tell you that no matter the circumstances of a baby’s birth, no matter the difficulty of the labor, no matter the relationship — or lack thereof — of the baby’s parents, every baby’s birth is greeted as the stupendous miracle it is and with joy all around, even if it’s only from the delivering doctor and nurses present.  And in my experience, by the amazed and also immensely relieved mother!

What comes after the delivery — even if the baby makes its debut in a field or a rainforest or in a taxi or at home or in a hospital — is logistical: feeding, burping, bathing, changing diapers, figuring out how to get everything done, including the mother’s rest time, taking a shower, eating, juggling a million things like the needs and schedules and feelings of other children and the all-important role and feelings of half the creator of this miracle, the father!

So, with all this joy and amazement and gratitude to God for this miracle of all miracles, where does the hate come from?

Hate is taught.  Usually early in life and from people who are hugely credible and influential in the young child’s life.  Is it the mother who, in spite of her nurturing instincts, has hate in her heart?  The father?  The teachers or religious leaders or coaches or friends?

As a Jesuit maxim goes, “Give me a child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man.”

The Manic Ambition of a Hater

As syndicated columnist and author Josh Hammer explains,

“Carlson, much like the villain Haman from the Book of Esther, harbors a seething hatred for the Jewish people and seeks to leverage his proximity to power to destroy them. For Haman, this desire takes the form of a pronounced decree of annihilation. For Carlson, I believe it includes an eagerness to incite antisemitic violence — maybe outright pogroms — and perhaps even a longing for a King Ferdinand– and Queen Isabella–style edict of expulsion to kick the Jews out of America. (As long as the Jews don’t go to Israel and further solidify Israel as a distinctly Jewish state, apparently — God-forbid!).”

At 56, Carlson is too old for a midlife crisis.  The bottom line is that for all his egomaniacal rants, he will be remembered as just another racist like David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, Father Charles Coughlin, all of them agonizingly long on verbiage, totally absent on empirical facts, astoundingly deficient on moral clarity.

The only positive obituary Carlson will ever get is one that he himself writes and then pays for his outlet of choice to publish.

But seasoned obituary readers like me will detect the colossal fakery in a minute!

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Nuisance Newsom Nonsense

By Beverly Newman, Ed. D.

Perhaps, the Governor needs to review the maxim to “clean up your own backyard first” because his is filled with ashes from uncontrolled fires that displaced much of his state’s citizenry and pot lots that drain the water supply.

Likewise, his state is drenched with rampant vagrancy and homelessness, antisemitism, fraudsters, environmental catastrophes, and crimes perpetuated by revolving door “consequences.”


Newsom compares Israel to ‘apartheid state,’ wants to ‘rethink’ U.S. relationship

by Ryan Mancini

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday compared Israel to an “apartheid state” while suggesting that the U.S. should “rethink” its relationship with the Jewish state after both countries carried out attacks on Iran Saturday.

Newsom, promoting his new political memoir “Young Man in a Hurry,” sat down with the hosts of “Pod Save America” for an interview in Los Angeles, where the governor was asked about how many Democrats disapprove of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “trajectory” and want to “rethink” the U.S.-Israel relationship.

“The issue of Bibi is interesting because he’s got his own domestic issues,” Newsom told Tommy Vietor, a co-host of the podcast. “He’s trying to stay out of jail. He’s got an election coming up. He’s potentially on the ropes. He’s got folks, the hard line, that want to annex the West Bank. [Journalist Thomas] Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately as sort of an apartheid state.”

The governor brought up the issue of regime change — a term thrown around before and after the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran — and said, in relation to Israel, that “they haven’t even been able to solve the Hamas question” in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on country.

Co-host Jon Favreau then asked Newsom, a 2028 presidential contender, if the U.S., “looking down the road, should consider rethinking our military support for Israel?”

“It breaks my heart, because the current leadership is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice about that consideration,” Newsom answered.

He added that the “regional war” is the opposite of what President Trump campaigned on in 2024, when he and others touted him as a candidate for peace compared to former Vice President Harris.

Newsom’s criticism of Israel comes less than two months after he said he refused to call Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, the cutoff of humanitarian aid and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian deaths a genocide. He told conservative commentator Ben Shapiro on the governor’s podcast “This is Gavin Newsom” in January that he was “crystal clear on my love for Israel.”

Continue reading.

©2026 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. James Lankford Goes For Jugular Of Over $100,000,000,000 In Blue State Unemployment Fraud

SCOOP: Is Newsom’s Office Lying About Girl Maimed By Illegal Trucker? We Have Receipts

Newsom Thinks Everyday Americans Want To Hear About His Favorite Gay Bondage Street Fair

California fraud exposed: GOP lawmaker blasts Newsom on stolen solar funds, state corruption

California’s 50,000 Pot Farms Are Sucking Rivers Dry

RELATED VIDEO: ‘California scandal bigger than Minnesota fraud’: Rep. Kevin Kiley drops bombshell on US House floor

PODCAST: Mamdani Has No Real Instinct of Good or Bad Policies

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

Based on recent analysis of Zohran Mamdani’s 2025–2026 mayoral term and campaign, the argument that he lacks a “real instinct of good or bad policy” is a central criticism from opponents who characterize his agenda as ideologically driven rather than economically sound. Critics frequently argue that his proposals—such as rent freezes, fare-free transit, and city-run grocery stores—ignore the practical, fiscal realities of New York City, prioritizing political signaling over functional governance.

Here is a breakdown of the debate surrounding Mamdani’s policy instincts!

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mamdani Denounces Trump for Joining Israel in Attack on Iran

Dems Face Political Identity Crisis That Even Midterm Elections May Not Resolve

By Family Research Council

This year’s midterm elections will likely shape the future of the Democratic Party and determine whether the Democrats continue their trend toward radical, far-left, neo-Marxist policies or return to the more center-left position the party popularized before the end of the Second World War.

In the wake of the 2024 presidential election that returned President Donald Trump to the White House, voters reported that they considered then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris “too extreme.” Her policies included open borders, unrestricted abortion promotion, gender transition procedures for children, a borderline-socialist economic agenda, and more. According to NBC News exit polls, 48% of voters classified Harris’s policies as “too extreme,” while nearly 60% of voters told Fox News that they were “concerned” that Harris’s agenda is “too extreme.”

Of the more-than-one-quarter of Americans who described their 2024 presidential vote as against a candidate, rather than for a candidate, nearly 60% said that they were voting against Harris. Such survey results — in addition to Trump’s capture of both the electoral college and popular vote — seemingly indicated that far-left Democratic Party policies like those Harris championed were unpopular with the American public — unpopular enough to cost the Democrats the White House, at any rate.

Off-year elections in 2025, however, yielded mixed messaging for Democratic strategists and policymakers. Newly-elected Virginia Governor Abigal Spanberger (D) campaigned as a moderate Democrat, decisively defeating Republican opponent and ex-Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. (Despite Spanberger’s “moderate” image, she quickly began enacting far-left policies upon taking office earlier this year.) Meanwhile, avowed socialist and pro-immigration radical Zohran Mamdani not only won the Democratic nomination for the New York City mayorship, but bested former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, running as an Independent after losing the Democratic nomination to Mamdani and became the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Socialist Katie Wilson (D) won the mayorship of Seattle, St. Paul elected a mayor who admitted to being an illegal immigrant, and Downingtown, Pa. elected an openly-transgender-identifying mayor.

Now, with midterm elections looming and the specter of 2028 not far off, the Democratic Party faces a dilemma. Some strategists are pressing to distance candidates from the radical policies that crippled Harris’s 2024 White House bid, while others point to the success of figures like Mamdani and Wilson, coupled with growing discontent over the Trump administration’s handling of affordability issues, as evidence that socialism and ultra-progressive social policies appeal to voters.

Option One: Move to the middle. Sunday and Monday, the Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way hosted its “Winning the Middle” conference in South Carolina, urging Democrats to take a more centrist approach and not nominate a socialist presidential candidate in 2028. According to Axios, Third Way President Jon Cowan called the Democrats’ far-left wing “out of touch,” warning that the party would face almost certain defeat if it were to nominate someone in the mold of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), singling out ultra-progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as a potential successor to Sanders politically.

Cowan observed that groups linked to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have “flipped zero” contentious seats in the House of Representatives since 2018, but a spokesman for Justice Democrats, the organization predominantly responsible for Ocasio-Cortez’s election, responded that progressive groups are more focused on launching primary challenges against “corporate Dems in deep-blue seats” than on targeting Republican-held congressional districts.

Option Two: Lean into the far-left. Various ultra-progressive organizations are trying to persuade Ocasio-Cortez to launch a bid for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, again according to Axios. “One big reason: They see no clear alternative. Bernie Sanders (84) is too old — and no other Sanders-like pol with national punch is emerging,” Axios conveyed. The argument being put forth centers largely on the New York-based congresswoman’s name recognition and political cachet, which proponents say would automatically give her a boost in polling and allow her to raise an estimated $100 million through online fundraising alone.

Another point of consideration is a matter of timing: if the nomination seems to be out of Ocasio-Cortez’s reach, she could potentially drop out and pivot to a high-profile Senate bid, challenging incumbent Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “There’s a window of opportunity for a left-wing nominee that may not come again for a generation,” Axios reported. “Democratic-socialist and liberal victories in New York City and elsewhere — with potentially more this fall — have changed the political playing field.”

Flanked by former Sanders campaign advisors and strategists, Ocasio-Cortez and her team are reportedly keeping a close eye on congressional primaries and races this year in order to “validate the theory that voters are hungry for a left-wing outsider in 2028.” While Ocasio-Cortez has been a Sanders ally, reports suggest that she may have no interest in a White House run and could instead be preparing a network to support another far-left candidate. Other prospective White House contenders floated by Democratic Party insiders include pseudo-socialist Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and open-borders advocate Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

If far-left, socialist-style candidates emerge victorious in high-profile congressional districts in November, or even if they defeat enough establishment-type Democrats in hotly-contested primaries, the party’s ultra-progressive wing will likely feel emboldened to run one of their own in the Democratic presidential primary for 2028.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter observed, “This internecine scuffle among the Democratic Party apparatchiks has been simmering since the party was dealt its biggest defeat in decades in 2024.” He recounted that shortly after Trump assumed office the second time, then-Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) David Hogg left the organization amidst a conflict over his commitment to primarying Democrats who were not far enough to the Left. “It’s been clear for a while that the fissure between the progressive and establishment elements in the party was going to widen into a canyon,” Carpenter said. “As the midterms and the 2028 presidential contest approach, these elements inside the Democratic Party will vie for control of the party.”

“My question is: is this simply a disagreement in party branding, or is this a legitimate disagreement in policy as well? The Democratic Party has planted its flag on the wrong side of a series of 80-20% issues, like late-term abortion, gender-transitioning minors, critical race theory, and so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives, all of which are unpopular with a majority of voters,” Carpenter posited. “My sense is that the Democratic Party is merely debating how the party should brand itself, rather than any actual moderation in policy,” he added, pointing to Spanberger as an example. “Spanberger was cautious not to confirm accusations that she is a left-wing radical during her 2025 campaign, but in just a few short months, she has governed as a left-wing radical,” Carpenter noted. “The so-called moderates in the party will still push for the same radical abortion position and the most radical pro-transgender policies as the progressive wing. The only difference is that the so-called moderates are savvy enough not to campaign on them.”

But even if Democrats manage to secure a majority in the House in the midterm elections, the party will have to maintain momentum through 2028, and Democrats are already splintering over the potential of impeaching Trump — again. According to Semafor, Democrats are considering launching an “oversight” project if they retake a House majority, targeting corporations and firms that have cooperated with the Trump administration. “The shadow of Trump’s first term will hang over Democrats’ decisions,” Semafor opined, warning that Democrats may “encounter deep internal divisions over how far to go in conducting oversight while also passing their own agenda.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), for example, has already teased the possibility of impeaching Trump, specifically citing alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which bars presidents from accepting gifts from foreign governments or U.S. taxpayers. “The cardinal, original sin of Trump was to decide that he was going to use the presidency as a profit-making enterprise in his first term, and I would say that Congress should have impeached him for receiving millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments,” Raskin claimed.

During the first Trump presidency, Raskin was the lead impeachment manager for the second impeachment of Trump, centered on the events of January 6, 2021. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top House Oversight Democrat, focused his attention on corporations partnering with the White House. “There [are] opportunities to look at not just corporations that we think are enabling some of Trump’s corruption,” he said, “but certainly corporations that are not supporting American families and not really focusing on affordability.”

Within just months of Trump’s return to the White House, some Democrats were already breaking out the articles of impeachment. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) led the charge, joined by a handful of other Democrats, but party leadership was hesitant to embrace the move. Semafor noted that Democrats are aware that they likely lack the Senate votes to convict Trump even if he’s impeached in the House. However, Democratic leaders have been less averse to the prospect of impeaching Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem.

Yet a third faction of the Democrats is less concerned with political retribution and more concerned with addressing issues like affordability. “We have to do oversight and accountability, and we have to talk about the affordability agenda, how we’re going to make life better for people if we are given the opportunity to lead, and if we’re given the opportunity to govern,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said. He warned that impeachments and investigations cost time and money; if high-profile progressives like Raskin promise impeachments, voters would undoubtedly grow impatient, demanding results that may never materialize.

Author and political commentator Philip Finkelstein suggested that Democrats appear unlikely to learn from their past mistakes. “Trump capitalized on far-left foolishness [in 2020], and he did it again in 2024. The liberal media and those in charge of the Democratic Party couldn’t — seemingly still don’t — see what the majority of Americans take to be common sense,” he opined.

Even though Joe Biden claimed victory in the 2020 election, Trump’s polling results demonstrated that his support was still strong. “Yet, four years later, the Democrats somehow saw fit to run Kamala Harris. Despite Biden’s own role in causing this disaster, the real mystery is how the establishment … thought it made sense to bypass the democratic process and nominate a gaffe-prone and unpopular vice president from California who had never won a single primary,” Finklestein observed. “The writing was always on the wall. Democrats lost, and they will keep losing national elections until they consciously choose a rebirth for their party. They need to remove from power within the party the faction that allowed Trump to paint everyone on the left as more deranged than his own unhinged brand of populism.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Courts High and Low Weigh in on Redistricting Battles

‘I’m Done For Now!’: Watch Hillary Clinton Storm Out Of Deposition When She Learns Photo Was Leaked

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

PODCAST: President Trump’s Actions This Week have Preserved what Every American Holds Dear

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

President Trump’s actions this week have preserved what every American holds dear. The existence of everyone and everything you love and cherish is safer today because our president did what every president for the last 47 years did not have the courage to do.

For 47 years the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon has horrified the world. If Iran ever obtained a nuclear weapon, they might have used it on Israel and possibly even the United States itself. If Israel were hit with a nuclear weapon, Israel and the United States would have no choice but to respond in kind. That could provoke a response from Russia, China, or both. That is what you call a worldwide nuclear war.

I don’t know about you, but that is something I surely would not want to live through. Life on Earth would be a living hell.

All those rushing to condemn this military action against the Iranian regime were silent when Iran was butchering 32,000 of its own people. How in the world could they fire on their own countrymen who were peacefully demonstrating in the streets?

President Trump didn’t start a war with Iran. He ended a 47-year conflict that began during the Jimmy Carter administration.

Iran has now attacked eight neighboring Muslim nations in the past 24 hours. Omar condemned Donald Trump at the beginning of this attack, claiming it was uncivilized because it is Ramadan. So why is she silent now? Why is she not condemning Iran if this is such a sacred holiday?

I prefer a president who puts America’s interests first—one who confronts our enemies rather than sending billions of dollars to them. American cash on pallets delivered by the American Air Force in the middle of the night.

As John Fetterman said, referring to the ayatollah, “This is one of the most evil people that ever lived, and after 37 years in Iran, he has been eliminated. I can’t imagine why Democrats, Republicans—everyone—can’t celebrate that, because tens of millions of people in Iran are absolutely celebrating.”

Do we need to apologize to Iranian citizens for the ignorant liberals who wanted to continue seeing you murdered, raped, and brutally oppressed by a radical Islamic regime? Do we need to tell them, please understand not all of us are crazy and deranged like the left? The majority of us are celebrating your chance to finally be prosperous and free at last.

Can anyone explain to me why Democrats are suddenly worried that Iranian sleeper cells will now attack the United States from within? These are the same Democrats who opened our borders to let this threat in. These are also the same Democrats who want to disarm Americans and prevent us from protecting ourselves.

We have members of Congress who share the same beliefs as the ayatollahs and the leadership regime in Iran. The enemy is also here. They need to be removed and tried for treason. It is not hard to understand why Congress wasn’t notified about these military operations when you have people like Talib, Omar, AOC, Mark Kelly, and Chuck Schumer sitting there. Their loyalty is not to America or American citizens. Their loyalty is to their native countries and to regaining power for their beloved socialist Democrat Party.

How fast do you think these individuals would have given the plans of Operation Epic Fury to our enemies?

The United States will never be taken down by an outside force. The American people need to realize the real threat is already here. There is another enemy within.
I believe the world owes Donald Trump a debt of thanks!

Thank You Mister President!

©2026 . All rights reserved.

‘It’s a Disgrace’: Vance Reveals Playbook for Combating Fraud in United States

By The Daily Signal

Vice President JD Vance announced he is withholding Medicaid reimbursements from Minnesota while the administration investigates fraud in the state.

When asked by The Daily Signal if this plan should be viewed as a playbook for fighting fraud in the rest of the country, Vance said, “I think you can, certainly.”

“There are certain things that we’re doing in Minneapolis and Minnesota that I’m not gonna be able to do in other parts of the country, because the fraud is gonna be different in each place,” he said. “But yeah, I get this basic model of saying to people, ‘Hey, you get a massive amount of money to provide a service to people.’ Did you actually provide that service?”

In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump tapped Vance to lead the “war on fraud” throughout the country.

Vance announced the first move in this war on Wednesday—withholding reimbursements for $259.5 million in Medicaid funds for Minnesota pending investigation.

“The providers on the ground in Minnesota have actually already been paid. The state has paid those providers the money,” Vance said. “What we’re doing is we are stopping the federal payments that will go to the state government until the state government takes its obligations seriously to stop the fraud that’s being perpetrated against the American taxpayer.”

Curbing fraud shouldn’t be controversial, Vance told The Daily Signal.

“The fact that it’s even controversial, that we’re asking these questions as a government goes to show how much the culture of fraud has permeated Washington, D.C.,” Vance said.

“Think about this once you heard about people who take money from autistic children. They pretend their children, or some other person’s kid is autistic, they collect a fake check, they don’t provide an ounce of services, and then the very money that’s supposed to go to needy kids isn’t there anymore to help those needy children.”

Vance shared a story about fraudsters exploiting funding meant to provide after school programs to autistic children.

“The fact that we have so normalized this, and the fact that I guarantee there will be voices in the media, there’ll be voices in the state of Minnesota who say this is hurting children,” Vance said. “No, it’s hurting fraudsters.”

“The way to protect kids is to go after those fraudsters,” Vance added, “which is what we’re doing.”

Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has 60 days to respond to Vance about the matter.

“All we need the governor and the administration of Minnesota to do is something quite simple, which is to show that before you give Medicaid funds to somebody, you’re taking seriously whether they provided the services that they say that they’re providing,” Vance said.

“And the fact that there are so many people handing out millions and billions of dollars of federal Medicaid money without even confirming that they’re doing the thing that they say that they’re doing, it’s a disgrace,” Vance said. “It’s defrauding the American taxpayer, and we’re stopping it.”

AUTHOR