Federal authorities arrested and charged an illegal alien in New Jersey for voting in a federal election, the Daily Caller has learned.
Marian Charitun, a 62-year-old from Slovakia, was charged with illegally voting in a federal election as well as making false statements while applying for U.S. citizenship, according to information shared with the Caller. Charitun allegedly registered to vote in New Jersey and falsely stated that he was a U.S. citizen when doing so. He then went on to vote in the 2022 midterm elections, according to the information provided to the Caller.
Charitun also applied for U.S. citizenship and allegedly claimed he never voted in a federal election, the Caller learned. Charitun never obtained citizenship as his voting history was discovered during the application process and he was denied, an official told the Caller.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche (L) speaks during a press conference announcing annual healthcare fraud takedown results at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC on June 23, 2026. (Photo by Ken Cedeno / AFP via Getty Images)
If convicted, Charitun could face a maximum of one year in prison. The count of voting by an alien in a federal election carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison. The count of unlawfulprocurement of citizenship or naturalization carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
Thiscase wasbrought under the United States Attorney’s Office’s Election Integrity Task Force.
In May, four green card holders living in New Jersey were separately charged with illegally voting in federal elections and falsely claiming they never did such a thing while applying for U.S. citizenship, officials said.
While some studies have found that illegal aliens voting in elections is rare, others have shown that it can still impact the results of elections.
Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News on Sunday that House Republicans could put the SAVE America Act into a reconciliation bill.
“This time we’re going to try to put it on a reconciliation bill, and the reason that’s so important, Maria [Bartiromo], as you know, is it prevents the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate,” Johnson said. “The Democrats want no part of this, and remember, this is very basic stuff.”
“We’re just going to make sure you have to have proof of citizenship to register to vote and then show an ID when you turn out at the ballot box,” he added. “These are 90-10 public opinion issues, and more than 70 percent of Democrats want to do it, but not the Democrats in the House and Senate, and so we’ve got to go around them.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-07-01 17:51:272026-07-01 17:51:27EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Arrests Illegal Alien For Voting In Federal Election
Congressional conservatives are slamming the Supreme Court of the United States after it ruled to strike down a request from the president to redefine birthright citizenship.
The 6-3 decision comes after President Donald Trump’s administration argued that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applied to descendants of slaves in the 1800s, and not to the chain migration the United States has been subject to in recent decades.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurs in part in the judgment and dissents in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissent.
“Neither the Founding Fathers, nor the authors of the 14th Amendment, nor the millions of Americans who fought and died for their country through the ages intended to establish a nation whose citizenship could so easily be purchased, whether through birth tourism of China’s communist party members or an invasion of millions enabled by faithless presidents,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told the Daily Signal.
The clause in the 14th Amendment attracted controversy after U.S. births from noncitizens, especially illegal aliens, increased tremendously in recent years. The U.S. Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that in 2023 alone, between 225,000 and 250,000 births stemmed directly from illegal immigration.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, expanded on Lee’s remarks and told the Daily Signal that the “Supreme Court failed the American people.”
“The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way stands for the proposition of creating a dangerous cottage industry of traveling to our soil to manufacture United States citizenship,” Roy continued. “The Supreme Court today should have said so explicitly and ended this damaging exploitation of our laws.”
Roy has now called on Congress to “immediately do at least two things it should have done long ago,” which include “defin[ing] the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ very specifically to make clear that citizenship is tied to the citizenship of the parent, not the soil,” and “completely restrict[ing] funding from [the Department of Homeland Security] or any other agency or state that provides documentation and status to anyone not subject to the ‘jurisdiction thereof.’”
“In other words, Congress must act immediately and must not hide behind the fiction that it must amend the Constitution to fix this abuse of our laws,” Roy continued. “To do otherwise would be an abject failure of the United States Congress.”
In a statement to the Daily Signal, Rep. Keith Self added that the ruling comes as a “catastrophic defeat” to “every American citizen, our national sovereignty, and the very future of our Republic.”
Self added that “American citizenship is a sacred privilege—not a participation trophy handed out to those who violate our laws.”
“The 14th Amendment was never meant to reward illegal aliens with the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship for breaking into our country,” he continued.
The members’ remarks reflect those of the president.
Prior to the decision, President Donald Trump advocated against birthright citizenship, writing on Truth Social that “we are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., agrees with the president’s remarks, and wrote on X that the decision comes as a call to action for conservative members of Congress to pass legislation that’ll align with their views on the 14th Amendment, while preventing illegal immigration from exploiting the American immigration system.
“Congress needs to respond,” Scott wrote. “We need to make sure illegal aliens don’t come into our country and EXPLOIT our immigration system.”
“That means closing EVERY. SINGLE. LOOPHOLE,” Scott continued. “I have a bill, the SAFE KIDS Act, to combat the exploitation of U.S. surrogacy laws for birthright citizenship.”
“We also need to codify President Trump’s border actions so a future Democrat administration can’t undo them,” Scott added, calling on his colleagues to vote “on these EVERY WEEK until we provide the American people with an answer for this question.”
This story will be updated with further congressional reaction.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act is a proposed federal bill that would mandate proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Supporters argue this is a necessary step to secure elections, while critics raise concerns about the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.
Arguments around the legislation often center on the following core areas:
Key Provisions
Proof of Citizenship: Replaces the current system of self-attestation with a requirement to provide documentation, such as a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or adoption papers, when registering to vote.
Photo ID: Requires voters to present a valid photo identification at polling places.
Voter Rolls: Directs states to remove non-citizens from their voter registration lists.
Arguments for the Act
Election Integrity: Proponents argue that tying voter eligibility to strict proof of citizenship prevents non-citizens from participating in federal elections.
Public Confidence: Supporters believe these requirements build widespread trust in the accuracy and fairness of election outcomes.
Common Sense: Backers maintain that requiring a photo ID and proof of citizenship is a common-sense measure used by many other democracies worldwide.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-07-01 05:51:172026-07-01 05:51:17The SAVE America Act is More Important than Ever Before!
Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee laid out how former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s battle to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has important implications for the adoption of the SAVE America Act during an interview with the Daily Caller on Monday.
Lee, a leading advocate and sponsor of the SAVE America Act — landmark election integrity legislation supported by President Donald Trump — cited the Senate’s handling of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a historical example of how major legislation can advance even when the votes for cloture are not initially in place.
The Utah Senator explained that when the bill arrived in the Senate from the House in March 1964, supporters of the bill were still significantly short of the votes needed to invoke cloture — roughly 30 votes, though he noted even at the time the exact count was uncertain. As Lee explained, “It’s a good example because they were clearly not close to achieving cloture when it arrived.”
US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)
Drawing a parallel to his efforts to invoke the same talking filibuster to advance the SAVE America Act, Lee noted that then-President Johnson — a vocal supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — backed an aggressive floor strategy during the debate. At the time, Johnson urged Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield to keep the Senate in continuous, round-the-clock session to wear down opposition, a tactic LBJ had previously used as majority leader to advance civil rights legislation, according to a U.S. Senate historical report.
Mansfield, however, rejected the proposal.
He argued that marathon sessions would turn the Senate into “a circus or a sideshow,” warning that the sight of senators appearing in “bedroom slippers, without neckties, with hair uncombed and pajama tops sticking out” would diminish the chamber’s dignity.
Rather than forcing continuous debate, Mansfield allowed the fight over the legislation to unfold over more than 50 days, insisting on preserving the Senate’s “dignity and decorum” while keeping the bill on the floor until supporters ultimately secured enough votes to invoke cloture. In effect, grinding most other Senate business to a halt.
Rather than personally managing every moment of the floor fight, like Johnson, Mansfield delegated much of the day-to-day debate to key allies, including soon-to-be Vice President Hubert Humphrey — then still a Democrat senator for Minnesota — and Democratic California Senator Thomas Kuchel, while he coordinated the broader legislative strategy behind the scenes.
Mansfield believed the lengthy debate served an important purpose. With many senators still undecided, he viewed the Senate as a deliberative body where extended discussion could persuade Democrat lawmakers and help opponents ultimately “accept the legitimacy of the outcome,” according to the Senator.
Asked whether he sees parallels between Mansfield’s strategy and the approach the current GOP Senate should take to advance election integrity legislation, Lee said he does, though he noted there are important differences between Mansfield’s effort and the current Senate under Republican Majority Leader John Thune.
“I mean, you did have the majority leader who was saying, ‘I’m willing to do this, and that is what it takes.’ In the modern Senate, you do need the support, active involvement, and engagement by the Senate Majority Leader in order for this to work,” Lee said.
Lee went on to note that one of the “distinct privileges” of the leader is to set the chamber’s schedule, and a talking filibuster is a “significant scheduling commitment.”
Lee said that during the 1964 legislative debate, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield reinforced his commitment to ensuring passage by making it clear the chamber would remain on the bill for as long as necessary. To Lee’s understanding, Mansfield told senators, “We’re going to do this. We’re going to pass it, and we’re going to debate this for as many weeks as it takes in order to pass it. And they stayed in week in, week out.”
Noting he believes the Senate often debated on Saturdays and typically recessed on Sundays for church attendance, but otherwise remained in continuous session, he said it became increasingly clear Mansfield would not back down, “And they saw that he meant it, especially when you get into it that far. When you get weeks into it, it’s, ‘oh my gosh, he’s not messing around. This is serious.’”
With national attention focused on the Senate, supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used the prolonged floor debate to build momentum for the legislation, while opponents relied on extended debate tactics in an effort to delay or weaken the bill.
When the bill’s supporters briefly failed to produce enough senators for a quorum call, Mansfield privately admonished colleagues, reminding them that “there comes a point in time when certain procedures must, in the best interest of the Senate, be laid down.” Attendance quickly improved.
Lee, who has faced pushback from his own party for his support for this approach, responded to criticism over why the Senate should prioritize the measure even with GOP control of both the legislative and executive branches. The Senator, responding to Thune and Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s argument that Republicans lack the votes, told the Caller that cloture is just one way to break a filibuster — and when you use only that method of breaking the filibuster — after a while, you can become convinced that it’s the only way. But it’s not the only way.”
Mike, I am a co-sponsor and have repeatedly voted for this but you don’t have the votes. @LeaderJohnThune can’t change that. It is math. Try focusing on Democrats instead of Republicans. Republican on Republican attacks are hurting our chances to win the majority in November. https://t.co/pPsx67mkii
The talking filibuster employed against the Civil Rights Act only lasted roughly 54–60 working days, or up to about 75 calendar days by some counts, beginning in late March 1964 and ending with final Senate passage on June 19, 1964.
Lee cites the episode and use of the talking filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a blueprint for how sustained floor debate and prolonged pressure can still, more than six decades later, be used to advance major legislation like the SAVE America Act.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-30 16:51:302026-06-30 16:51:30EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act
Alessandra Coote was walking on a trail with her 2-year-old daughter and dog two-and-a-half years ago when a man began yelling at her and threatened to kill her dog. When the petite single mom made it back to her Utah home, she decided she needed a firearm for protection.
A few months later, while living in what she described as a “shady part of town,” a homeless man threatened her. After that encounter, she began regularly carrying a firearm under Utah’s Constitutional Carry law.
Coote, who just graduated this spring from the University of Utah, says carrying the gun has given her the confidence to feel safe in public. “It’s been life-changing,” she told RealClearInvestigations (RCI). Although she has never had to draw or fire the weapon, she has faced a threatening individual when she was armed, but stopped the attack by merely letting the man know she was carrying.
Coote is part of a growing trend of strapped Americans. A new survey of 1,000 general election voters conducted last month by McLaughlin & Associates found that almost 30 percent of respondents said they carry a firearm. More specifically, the survey found that 13.2 percent respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6 percent said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5 percent increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024. Both polls were commissioned by the group I lead, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.
Since 2021, 13 states, covering 34 percent of the U.S. population, have adopted constitutional carry laws. As a result, 29 states do not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. A little less than two-thirds of those who are carrying a concealed handgun in these states have a permit.
The survey is the latest evidence challenging claims linking firearms and violent crime. As data show both the number of firearms and the percentage of people carrying them is increasing, preliminary estimates show the U.S. murder rate is likely to hit a record low in 2025—at least 10 percent below the previous record low.
“It doesn’t surprise me that while the country is experiencing record-low murder and violent crime rates, we are also experiencing a record high number of people legally carrying concealed handguns for self-protection,” Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told RCI.
Bradford County, Fla., Sheriff Gordon Smith said lowering crime rates “isn’t rocket science.” He told RCI, “You reduce crime by putting more cops on the street, increasing arrest and conviction rates, and imposing meaningful prison sentences. But you also cut crime by empowering law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families through constitutional carry.”
Gun control groups—Everytown, Brady United, and Giffords Law Center—declined repeated requests to respond to the survey data and crime statistics.
Blacks, Hispanics & Women
The CPRC survey also found that politically engaged citizens are more likely to carry firearms. Respondents who identified as general election voters were twice as likely to have concealed handgun permits as other adults.
Blacks and Hispanics also carry at disproportionately high rates. Black people make up 11.0 percent of likely voters but account for 15.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. Hispanics are even higher, accounting for 18.8 percent of frequent carriers despite comprising only 11.0 percent of likely voters. By contrast, whites and Asians carry at rates below their shares of likely voters. Whites constitute 72 percent of likely voters but only 62.6 percent of those who carry all or most of the time, while Asians account for 4.0 percent of likely voters but just 2.0 percent of frequent carriers.
Audrey Bodiford, a 5’2” black woman living in Lansing, Michigan, told RCI she owes her life to her handgun and having a concealed handgun permit. On Valentine’s Day in 2022, she said, the over 6-foot-tall man she had been dating “kind of went crazy,” threatened to kill her, and pulled a knife on her. Fearing for her life, she shot him in self-defense.
Because she lives in what she describes as a “not good” neighborhood, this was not the only time she relied on her firearm for protection. In another incident, she said she accidentally let a door slip from her hand while trying to hold it open for a man leaving a store. The man became verbally abusive, followed her, and aggressively closed in on her. She turned slightly so he could see that she was armed. He immediately backed off, ending the confrontation. Asked if carrying has given her more confidence: “I feel more safe, definitely,” she said.
The survey found relatively small differences between men and women. While women make up 52 percent of general election voters, they comprise 45.1 percent of Americans carrying concealed weapons; men are 48 percent of the electorate and 54.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. The breakdown for Constitutional Carry states is relatively higher for women, with 47.5 percent of those carrying all/most of the time being women and 52.5 percent men. Constitutional Carry may benefit women who suddenly face threats from a stalker or former partner and often do not feel they can wait the months it takes for officials to approve a permit application.
Research shows that two groups benefit the most from carrying firearms: physically weaker individuals, such as women and the elderly, and those most likely to become crime victims, such as poor blacks living in high-crime urban areas. These groups have also experienced the largest percentage increases in concealed handgun permits over the last decade (2015–2024). During that period, permits for women increased 112 percent faster than permits for men, while permits for blacks increased 284 percent faster than permits for whites.
“A firearm dramatically increases a woman’s ability to defend herself,” Professor Carl Moody, a crime researcher at the College of William & Mary, told RCI. “Without a firearm, a woman is almost always at a significant disadvantage if attacked by a man. With a firearm, she can avoid an unfair fight with an opponent who usually has a size and strength advantage. Almost always, it is only necessary to announce or display the weapon to dissuade the attacker.”
More Guns, Fewer Violent Crimes
After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued.
In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.
Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states. The murder rate in New Jersey fell from 3.9 per 100,000 people in 2022 to 2.4 in 2024, and the preliminary numbers show it falling to as low as two per 100,000 in 2025.
A press release from New Jersey’s attorney general announced a “Historic Low in Gun Violence for 2025.” Some attribute the drop to the increase in permits. “Today, more than 58,000 law-abiding New Jerseyans can exercise their right to carry a firearm. And while some warned this would turn our streets into the Wild West, the reality has been far different,” Republican New Jersey Assemblyman Greg Myhre claimed.
An easier thing to measure is that permit holders are exceptionally law-abiding. States revoke their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths or even tens of thousandths of a percentage point. Police officers rarely commit crimes, yet concealed handgun permit holders prove even more law-abiding than cops. Permit holders are convicted for firearms offenses at just one-twelfth the rate at which police are convicted of comparable firearm-related crimes.
“The data clearly show that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest and most responsible users of firearms,” David Mustard, a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia who researches extensively on crime, told RCI. Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith confirmed that this is his experience with Constitutional Carry: “The data is clear: The vast majority of concealed carriers are among our most responsible residents, not the problem.”
Despite the fears raised by gun-control advocates, over 91 percent of street police officers support concealed handgun laws. Law enforcement professionals understand that self-defense is a key element of public safety, in part because they know they usually arrive only after criminals commit crimes. An overwhelming body of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.
This is especially true for women, who often struggle to defend themselves against much larger and stronger men, who also tend to run faster. While both men and women benefit from carrying a concealed handgun, research shows that each additional woman who carries a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by roughly three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.
“Too often, women who are being stalked or threatened are told to limit their movements, alter their routines, or rely on a piece of paper to stop someone determined to harm them,” Robyn Sandoval, the president of A Girl & A Gun, told RCI. “Women deserve better than living in fear. By learning to responsibly carry a firearm, they can gain the confidence and means to protect themselves and live their lives without fear.”
“Every day, more law-abiding citizens choose to legally carry firearms because they refuse to be victimized by criminals and thugs,” Brevard County, FL, Sheriff Wayne Ivey told RCI. “Responsible gun owners know that even the best police response times takes minutes, while violent criminals can take a life in seconds!”
AUTHOR
John R. Lott Jr.
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “Gun Control Myths” (2020), “Dumbing Down the Courts,” and “Freedomnomics.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-22 16:51:212026-06-22 16:51:21Crime Drops as More Americans Pack Heat
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is facing legal action from an unlikely source: her own brother, who has joined Spencer Pratt and thousands of other fire victims in a sweeping lawsuit against the city over its handling of the Palisades Fire.
Kenneth Bass, 78, and his wife, who lost their Malibu home in January 2025, are joining Pratt in a massive lawsuit against the city, the Department of Water and Power, and others for alleged negligence.
Among the claims is that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, which holds roughly 117 million gallons of water, was empty when the fire broke out, contributing to low water pressure in some neighborhoods as firefighters battled the blaze.
The Palisades Fire was one of the most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles’ history, with more than 6,800 structures destroyed, 12 dead, and damage estimates exceeding $30 billion, fueling ongoing questions about whether city officials were adequately prepared for a wildfire threat.
The addition of the mayor’s brother to the lawsuit creates an unusual political dynamic for Karen Bass, whose handling of the disaster has faced intense scrutiny from residents who lost homes and businesses.
Pratt, who ran for mayor largely on criticism of Bass’ response, highlighted the unlikely alliance with a comment on X about awkward family Thanksgivings.
In a comment to ABC 7, the mayor’s press secretary seemed to not be concerned.
“There’s nothing new here—Mayor Bass has spoken of her brother’s loss publicly since January of 2025. Thousands of people are plaintiffs in this action.”
The city has repeatedly defended its response to the fires, arguing that unprecedented weather conditions and extreme fire behavior created challenges for emergency responders across the region.
This morning, Pratt shared on X that Californians should expect to learn “shocking details” in the coming weeks about California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Bass’ handling of the fires.
The development adds a striking twist to the fallout from the fire: even the mayor’s own brother is seeking to hold the city accountable in court.
The case is expected to move through the courts over the coming months as plaintiffs seek to determine what role, if any, city officials, utility managers, and emergency planning decisions played in the scale of the destruction.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-16 08:51:242026-06-16 08:51:24Karen Bass’ Brother Joins Spencer Pratt in Lawsuit Against Los Angeles
The Department of Justice under President Donald Trump just took a pivotal step toward removing government-endorsed discrimination from America’s legal system and undermining the institutional apparatus of critical race theory.
Critical race theory teaches that America is systemically racist and that even racially neutral policies are truly racist if they result in better outcomes for members of one race than for members of another. That’s the exact same logic as the legal theory known as “disparate impact.”
Cornell Law School defines disparate impact as a policy or rule “that seems neutral but has a negative impact on a specific protected class of persons.”
Government should strive to adopt policies that allow all Americans to flourish, regardless of race, but Democrat administrations have applied disparate impact theory to encourage “reverse” discrimination.
For instance, the Justice Department and the Department of Education under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued guidance warning that if a school disciplines students of one race more than students of another race, that is evidence of racial discrimination, even if the school’s policy is race-neutral. It doesn’t matter if particular students cause more trouble than other students—what matters is the racial breakdown of who gets punished.
In one particularly revealing case, a woman sued the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming disparate impact from the department’s requirement that people take the driver’s license exam in English. She said the English-only requirement had a disparate impact on people who don’t speak English, even though the road signs in Alabama are in English. While lower courts found in her favor, the Supreme Court struck down her claim in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001).
Just as critical race theory teaches that American society is inherently racist against blacks and for whites, so the leftist reading of disparate impact theory finds fault with colorblind policies for their unintended consequences.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy released a memo Tuesday that restores sanity, however.
The DOJ Disparate Impact Memo
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency tasked with preventing racial discrimination in employment, requested legal advice on disparate impact theory, and the DOJ responded with a far better approach to the law.
EEOC’s current disparate impact guidelines “are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressure employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.
Gaiser explained that if employers can demonstrate that the challenged policy “rationally serves a valid business practice,” that will constitute a valid response to a discrimination claim.
“Workplace requirements and selection procedures—such as background checks, aptitude tests, and SAT scores—are presumptively job-related,” he added. “Only irrational or arbitrary practices with no plausible job-relatedness can create disparate-impact liability.”
Finally, employees suing for disparate impact “must establish both that the challenged employment practice specifically caused the alleged disparate impact and provide evidence that an equally effective alternative practice causes less disparate impact.”
These guidelines represent a return to common sense. No longer can potential employees of certain races sue for discrimination if a firm refuses to hire them for failing aptitude tests. This undermines the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement that has pressured companies to hire and promote racial minorities, arguably at the expense of more qualified candidates.
Trump’s War on DEI
This important memo represents one more step in the Trump administration’s efforts to reject the DEI movement and restore sanity.
Trump signed an executive order “restoring equality of opportunity and meritocracy” in April 2025, rejecting disparate impact liability.
The EEOC moved to close most disparate impact cases by Sept. 30, according to an internal memo.
The Office of Legal Counsel memo is not a court filing, but it does represent the legal stance of the Justice Department on the issue.
Election Integrity and Disparate Impact
The memo also comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, where the court found that legislatures violate the law when they draw congressional redistricting maps on the basis of race. Justice Samuel Alito rejected a disparate impact argument in favor of racial redistricting.
This may bode ill for leftist arguments against voter ID requirements. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down Texas’ voter ID law, finding that the law had a disparate impact on minorities.
Democrats have baselessly condemned the mere requirement of a legal ID to vote as an imposition of “Jim Crow 2.0,” claiming that it is more difficult for racial minorities to obtain a photo ID. According to the approach of the new DOJ guidance, a commonsense requirement that a person prove he is who he says he is in order to vote would not be presumptively unconstitutional due to some ridiculous claim of discrimination.
This guidance represents one more step toward restoring sanity after Democrat-led administrations imposed critical race theory via misreadings of the law.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-12 14:51:322026-06-12 14:51:32SHOT TO THE HEART OF DEI: How the Trump Admin Is Dismantling the Legal Basis for Government-Endorsed Discrimination
In a significant security lapse that has occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the government failed to track millions of illegal aliens admitted into the United States under a temporary parole because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agency that processed the migrants failed to provide identifying information to the DHS agency responsible for monitoring them. The unbelievable breach involves Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the 60,000-employee frontline border agency charged with keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the premier federal law enforcement agency of around 20,000 that preserves national security and public safety by enforcing immigration laws. In a shameful admission ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) reveals that it relies on the “honor system” to ensure parolees in the country illegally report to field offices as directed, according to a scathing federal audit.
The probe was conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, and reveals that from October 2018 through May 2025, CBP granted around 2.4 million illegal aliens humanitarian parole, many with criminal records and over half of them from Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela. The agency expanded the use of the temporary humanitarian measure to mitigate a huge increase of migrants crossing into the U.S. along the southwest border, which amounted to around 10.4 million during the period examined. A few months into the Biden presidency, CBP authorized agents to parole apprehended migrants on a case-by-case basis under certain conditions, such as limited immigration detention space, which was pervasive. A few years later the Biden administration greatly expanded access to illegal migration with a special mobile application called CBP One that rewarded nearly all applicants—97%—parole, the GAO found. “Once noncitizens are paroled at the southwest border, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for monitoring them to ensure they adhere to the conditions of their release,” the report states.
In fact, last year DHS and ICE issued guidance that emphasized the importance of ICE reviewing parole cases to determine whether further enforcement action is appropriate. The problem is the immigration enforcement agency does not have the information it needs to readily identify the illegal aliens that CBP paroled at the border. Sounds like a joke, but it is yet another example of government inefficiency, of how individual federal agencies fail to communicate even when national security, and most likely public safety, is at stake. Congressional investigators confirm that ICE ERO “is not conducting its required monitoring of all noncitizens CBP paroled at the southwest border” and that the laughable “honor system” it relies on is clearly not efficient because not all paroled migrants report at least once a year as required. In 2024 alone ICE lost track of a starling 70% of illegal immigrants paroled by CBP and it is not clear what efforts are being made to track them down in communities throughout the U.S.
The good news is that illegal immigration is at a historic low under President Trump and last spring the administration directed DHS to review cases of paroled migrants and terminate the temporary reprieve of approximately 654,000. Tracking them down remains a problem, the GAO found, because the agency that enforces the measure still does not know where the offenders are. “Although DHS and ICE guidance emphasizes the importance of ICE’s monitoring and enforcement efforts for paroled noncitizens, ICE is not well-positioned to carry out these responsibilities because it does not have readily accessible information about noncitizens’ parole status,” the report states. “According to ICE officials, while ICE obtains information from CBP on noncitizens it places in removal proceedings, this information does not include the parole status of noncitizens who should be monitored, including those whose parole was terminated by CBP through the April 2025 notices.” Congressional investigators point out that, while CBP systems have data fields that provide readily accessible information about parole status, officials at ICE’s ERO headquarters maintain its internal systems do not have those specific data fields and therefore the agency has no access to the critical information.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-11 14:51:212026-06-11 14:51:21ICE Relies on “Honor System” to Track Paroled Migrants Because CBP Doesn’t Share Data
The H-1B visa program, originally designed by the United States to attract the world’s brightest minds and bridge critical high-skilled labor gaps, has morphed into a playground for systemic manipulation. At the epicenter of this distortion is a highly sophisticated network of IT consulting firms, staff augmentation agencies, and body shops operating primarily out of India or managed by Indian-origin syndicates in the U.S. What was conceived as a pipeline for specialized talent — the software architects, researchers, and engineers capable of driving global innovation — has instead been choked by a deluge of coordinated deception, designed to monopolize a finite public resource at the expense of legitimate professionals worldwide.
The mechanics of this exploitation were laid bare during recent lottery cycles, exposing a staggering disparity between honest applicant volume and coordinated fraud. Because the annual allocation of H-1B visas is strictly capped by Congress at 65,000 caps, alongside a 20,000 master’s degree exemption, the selection process relies on a random computer lottery. For fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recorded an unprecedented, mathematical anomaly of 781,000 total registrations. Shockingly, more than 408,000 of those entries were multiple registrations submitted on behalf of the exact same individuals. A shadowy conglomerate of shell companies and interlocking IT consultancies colluded to file dozens of duplicate applications for single candidates. By artificially inflating their numbers, these bad actors drastically reduced the selection odds for independent applicants to a dismal percentage, effectively hijacking the lottery through sheer volume.
The architecture of this fraud relies on a multi-tiered system of smoke and mirrors. Rather than offering real, specialized positions at established enterprises, these fraudulent operators utilize ghost offices — empty storefronts and mail-forwarding addresses scattered across states like Texas and California — to create the illusion of local demand. These entities submit legally binding attestations to the U.S. government affirming that a specific, specialized job awaits the foreign national. In reality, these positions are entirely fabricated. A prominent case recently prosecuted by the Department of Justice involved Indian-origin executives who went so far as to falsely promise placement at prestigious institutions, like the University of California, (allegedly) utilizing fraudulent employment contracts to siphon visas for non-existent projects. Once these visas are successfully obtained through deceit, the beneficiaries are benched — held in employment limbo without legal pay — until the firm can contract them out to actual American businesses as cut-rate contractors, undercutting the domestic labor market and violating federal wage protections.
The corruption is not limited to small-scale fraudulent rings; it extends historic roots into some of the largest tech conglomerates originating from the Indian subcontinent. To bypass the stringent oversight and numerical limits of the H-1B program, massive outsourcing giants have historically weaponized alternative visa pipelines, establishing a blueprint for systematic evasion. This institutional misconduct was punctuated when Infosys paid a record-shattering $34 million civil settlement to immigration authorities following allegations of systemic visa fraud. Federal investigators discovered that the company was systematically using B-1 visitor visas — intended for short-term business meetings — to deploy foreign nationals for full-time, hands-on software development work in the United States. To pull this off, the corporation explicitly distributed internal “Dos and Don’ts” memos, coaching foreign employees to deliberately lie to U.S. consular officers, and scrub their correspondence of revealing technical words like implementation, design, or testing that would indicate they were arriving to perform actual local employment.
The damage inflicted by this institutionalized gaming of the system is vast and multifaceted. It breeds a culture of exploitation where the foreign workers themselves are trapped by predatory employers who hold absolute power over their legal status, often taking kickbacks or withholding wages. Simultaneously, it locks out genuine global talent — brilliant scientists, medical professionals, and innovators, who possess genuine job offers from premier institutions but are shut out by a lottery system stacked against them by automated fraud rings. This rampant gaming of federal regulations finally forced USCIS to dismantle its old framework, moving to a strict beneficiary-centric selection model for the fiscal year 2025 and 2026 cycles, an intervention that saw fraudulent multiple registrations plummet from over 400,000 down to fewer than 8,000.
While these tighter guardrails have begun to stem the flow of duplicate registry scams, the legacy of this deception casts a long shadow. Decades of unpunished exploitation have permanently distorted the public perception of skilled immigration, fueling valid domestic skepticism and provoking aggressive regulatory crackdowns, including sweeping executive restrictions on entry. The widespread fraud originating from India’s predatory IT shell sector has not just broken American immigration laws; it has actively betrayed the global community of honest professionals, turning a merit-based ideal into a game of corporate numbers where the only true winners are the cartels pulling the strings.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-08 22:51:242026-06-08 22:51:24The H-1B Visa Fraud Network
People talk about the California disaster, but I don’t think we fully appreciate the severity and the manifestations of it. And the best barometer to discover that is how many people are leaving. It’s estimated that somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 Californians left in ’25, ’26.
Now, the problem with that is they’re not leaving a barren state. They’re not leaving a cold Alaska. They’re leaving the most beautiful state in the country that for years under a bipartisan system of Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and to some extent Arnold Schwarzenegger, it had wonderful governance.
So, why are they leaving? Why have 11 to 12 million people, a quarter of the present population, left California?
Well, the Reason Foundation just did a comprehensive study of all the roads in all the states and ranked them according to congestion, quality of roads, bridges, everything. California was 49th, 49th in the country.
In terms of school scores, it’s down to about 40 to 41 in the nation, even though it’s 13th in the amount of money it spends. It’s got one-third of all the homeless people, maybe up to nearly a half in some studies.
It’s got a third of all the welfare recipients. Twenty-two percent of the people live below the poverty line.
Think of this. It has the highest gasoline taxes in the nation and the highest gas prices, and that’s a combination. It refuses to tap its considerable fifth-in-the-nation oil and natural gas reserves to the full extent that it could.
It shut down the timber industry. It shut down the mining industry.
So, we’re paying because of our green fanaticism on oil blends, and we’ve been driving out oil refineries, and we have these high taxes.
We’re paying $7 to $8 a gallon right now for gas. We have the highest electricity rates in the continental United States. Only Hawaii has it higher. Think of that.
We have some of the highest property crime rates in the country. San Francisco, until recently, was the highest property crime rate city per capita in the nation.
Our sales tax is among the top 10. We have the highest income taxes. Now, we know why this is the problem.
We know why, why this all happened. We haven’t had a Republican governor in nearly 20 years since Arnold Schwarzenegger left. We have no statewide offices that are Republican, no attorney general, no lieutenant governor, no state controller, nothing.
We have 52 seats in the Congress. We only have seven, you know, it’s like 12% … We only have seven Republican congressmen, and yet Donald Trump almost got 30%, 40% of the vote. So, we have less than a third of what we should be proportionally represented in Congress.
All of the state and local judges, after 20 years of governance by left-wing [officials], are left-wing themselves.
So, the judicial, the executive, and the legislative branches are all one party, supermajorities in both legislatures. No statewide officer that’s a Republican.
What do you do about it? Well, who is the iconic victim? Who has been at the center of this maelstrom for the last 30 years? One man, Gavin Newsom.
He’s never had a job outside the public sector since 1997 when Jerry Brown appointed him to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was there for eight years. Then where did he go? He went to mayor of San Francisco for eight years. Then where did he go? He went to lieutenant governor.
Then where did he go? He’s governor for six years. And why did this happen? We see all the symptoms, but why did it happen? Why did we have a monoparty state?
I think it’s pretty easy. Three things happened. No. 1: One quarter of the population, as I said, fled the country.
And these weren’t just anybody. These were the middle, upper-middle, and upper, upper-middle-class taxpayers, small businesses who couldn’t take the high taxes and the poor infrastructure.
And they left. And they left a beautiful scenic California to places, I’ll be frank, that are not so hospitable, Utah, Tennessee, Nevada.
In other words, they left California that was a paradise, and they went to places that were man-made paradises, but had none of our natural advantages. So, that was one factor.
We have the highest number of foreign-born people of any state, any state. It’s about 11 million people in California were not born in the United States.
It’s up to nearly 29% of the population. Many of them, not all, but many of them are here unlawfully. That required an enormous civic project of assimilation, acculturation, integration.
And what did we get instead from these Democrat administrations? We got DEI tribalism and ethnic chauvinism, and that manifests itself in higher crime rates, in truck drivers who are issued licenses who are not qualified to drive and pose a hazard on the freeway, to drug cartels, you name it.
San Francisco, as I said, had the highest per capita property crime rate.
And then the third tester in this sad mosaic is not just people leaving and not just people coming in unlawfully in many cases, but without sufficient preparation to be an American citizen from a different country without civic education.
We have now about $14 trillion of market capitalization in Silicon Valley, and the whole political nexus has shifted to San Francisco, where the most radical politicians the last 20 years were funded with this huge war chest by very affluent people who were never subject to the consequences of their baleful ideology.
And I’m talking about Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, some of the most powerful politicians in the state and the country, and very left-wing have moved the state from a centrist, center-right state that was well-governed under Reagan and Deukmejian and Wilson to one of the most poorly governed states in the nation that people do not want any part of.
Is there any hope? Well, we would have to do a lot of things. We would have to tell people that we’re not gonna tolerate one-third to almost 40% of the nation’s homeless people.
Maybe Spencer Pratt, if he’s elected mayor, or Steve Hilton can say, “We’re not going to put up with it. You can’t do it.
“We’re not going to issue all these general benefits for people who fornicate, inject, urinate, and defecate on our streets in a medieval fashion, and we’re going to close our borders. We’re gonna operate closely with ICE because we’re trying to stop this high crime rate, much of it from people who are here unlawfully.
“More importantly, we’re gonna have to cut the taxes and regulations or every oil refinery is gonna flee the state.”
Two big ones have just left, and that’s one reason, along with the high taxes and the prohibition on new oil and gas development, even though we’re number five in the nation on potential reserves, that we have the highest gasoline prices by far in the country.
We’re also going to have to look at voter fraud. We know that California has the most liberal, lax mail-in and early voting protocols in the country. The stories abound, the statistics are there, that there’s no way to verify who gets a ballot and how many ballots a person gets. There’s no photo ID, nothing, and that has to be radically changed.
Can we do all of these things? I don’t know. But if we continue to elect the people who are responsible, what’s gonna happen? People are going to flee, flee, flee.
And remember a final thing. There’s a very strange dynamic. The people on the left who created this mess were primarily the denizens from San Diego to Santa Rosa on the coast, about 700 or 800 miles.
Some of the wealthiest real estate in the United States, some of the wealthiest people in the United States.
This was a utopian project on homelessness, on DEI, on open borders, on lavish budgets. Gavin Newsom, remember, came in with about $214 billion budget, just six years ago. It’s $350 billion now. He raised the budget 64% in just six years.
So, they are exempt. We’re the lab rats. They are exempt from their experiment, this utopian California experiment.
And who else keeps voting these people in? The people who are exempt vote them in, and the people who are very poor from countries around the world, impoverished, they find the California entitlement and welfare system, nothing’s wrong with it.
It’s full of fraud. It’s full of mismanagement, waste, and abuse, but it is very generous.
So, you’ve got a medieval society with a very small but powerful wealthy elite that keep voting in this left-wing project, and then a large pyramid base of poor people. As I said, probably 27% not born in the United States, and then you’ve got a shrinking middle.
Add it all up and you have the mess we have today in California.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-07 20:51:212026-06-07 20:51:21California Was a Paradise, Then Newsom Happened
Since Election Day on Tuesday, Los Angeles County has begun the long, slow process of counting late-arriving and provisional ballots.
And the race for second place in the mayor’s contest is moving in a direction that should concern Spencer Pratt supporters, and anyone who thinks Los Angeles needs to move toward a more centrist, common-sense course.
Friday afternoon’s update added roughly 140,000 ballots countywide, with about 42.7% from within the city of Los Angeles.
Mayor Karen Bass remains firmly in first place with 34.98% of the vote. The real drama is the battle for the second runoff spot between Pratt and City Councilwoman Nithya Raman.
Going into this update, my estimate was that Raman needed to outperform Pratt by roughly 11 percentage points in the remaining vote to have a realistic chance of catching him.
Instead, she did much better than that.
Raman gained 23,115 votes in Friday’s update, compared to 10,711 for Pratt and 20,419 for Bass. In a single ballot drop, Raman netted 12,404 votes on Pratt.
Put another way, she received more than twice as many votes as Pratt in this batch.
The updated totals now stand at 215,868 votes for Bass, 174,260 for Pratt, and 153,588 for Raman.
Pratt still holds second place, but his lead over Raman has been cut to just 20,672 votes.
With observers estimating that 550,000 to 600,000 ballots may still remain countywide, there are likely well over 200,000 mayoral votes left to count.
Sign up for the California Morning Report newsletter California’s top news, sports and entertainment delivered to your inbox every day.
Enter your email address By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
That is more than enough for Raman to make up the difference if she keeps posting numbers like Friday’s.
The remaining vote appears to be behaving as many California election veterans expected. Late-counted ballots have historically tended to be younger, more urban, and more progressive than the Election Night vote.
Earlier in the week Pratt appeared to have a relatively comfortable path to the runoff.
Today, that path looks considerably narrower.
The ongoing count also highlights a problem with California’s election system.
Most voters expect elections to be resolved in a straightforward way: The polls close, the ballots are counted, and winners are declared.
Instead, Californians are left watching races change for days or weeks as late ballots trickle in.
To be clear, there is no evidence of fraud in the Los Angeles mayor’s race.
But when results shift dramatically after Election Night, it undermines confidence.
If Pratt ultimately falls short after leading for much of the week, this process will add insult to injury for his supporters.
And if Pratt does not make the runoff, it will say a great deal about where Los Angeles is headed.
His campaign has focused on quality of life, public safety, homelessness, and basic competence at City Hall.
In the governor’s race, Xavier Becerra appears all but certain to advance to the November runoff and has now barely moved ahead of Steve Hilton for first place.
Spencer Pratt RECEIVED 0 out of 24,000 votes in a late night LA ballot drop.
0/24,000
A guy getting around 30% support got 0 out of 24,000.
Impossible.
California no longer even hides it.
If Raman takes second and Pratt does not qualify for the general election, after days upon days of thinking he would, it will be the political equivalent of watching the Palisades burn again. If you can’t hold leaders accountable for their failures, then democracy does not exist. (California Post)
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-07 08:51:192026-06-07 08:51:19THE BIG CHEAT: Spencer Pratt Lead Collapses as Statistically Impossible Late Ballots Dumps
The Senate just voted down the SAVE America Act, blocking a measure that would have required voter ID and proof of citizenship for federal elections nationwide.
Let that sink in. Imagine, the day after Americans watched California’s primary results being dragged through yet another counting fiasco.
Republican NO votes: Tillis, Murkowski, McConnell, and Collins.
Washington keeps telling Americans to trust the system while refusing to adopt the most basic election safeguards supported by an overwhelming majority of voters. Public backing from polls showing 80%+ approval for voter ID.
That’s the real story.
The Senate voted 48-50 against waiving budget rules for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s amendment to add SAVE America Act provisions to an immigration funding bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed. The act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship like a birth certificate or passport for federal election registration, plus photo ID at polls and curbs on absentee voting. Public backing from polls showing 80%+ approval for voter ID. Sen. Mike Lee plans another attempt soon amid GOP divisions and midterm pressures.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-06 06:51:232026-06-06 06:51:23RINO TRAITORS: Senate Kills Voter ID Bill One Day After California Election Chaos
In an exclusive interview, Daily Signal legal analyst Mehek Cooke discussed with Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald why the Justice Department launched its inaugural state partnership roundtable in Ohio, how data sharing could help investigators identify fraudsters who target multiple government programs, and why other states should join the effort.
This transcript has been slightly edited for clarity.
Mehek Cooke: Assistant Attorney General McDonald, thank you so much for being here in Ohio today.
Colin McDonald: Thank you so much for having me. It’s great to be here.
Cooke: So, I was able to witness a closed-door roundtable where you’re leading a charge to detect fraud in Ohio with multiple partners and Ohio officials. Can you tell me why you started in Ohio with this?
McDonald: Well, thanks for chatting with me here. It’s so important to get the word out about the fraud efforts that we’re engaged in. We started here on the strength of some great U.S. attorneys who are here in the state of Ohio and some willing state partners who, when we came to them and said, “Hey, we have these ideas for how we can do better together, to come together as one team,” they were willing down the line to say, “Yes, we’re willing to do that and to become one team to fight for the American taxpayer and to make sure that we can stop the bleeding when it comes to the fraud.”
So, this morning’s event was a kickoff event, an inaugural event, with state and federal partners to get together in a room and say, “Hey, if we don’t solve it, no one else will.”
And so, we’ve had great reception here in Ohio. Partnerships including the sharing of data and also including the provision of prosecutors to join the Department of Justice’s Fraud Division and other agreements down the line to make sure that we can remove information silos so that we can have and sing off the same sheet of music when it comes to the data that exists out there, so that we can more quickly illuminate the fraudsters in Ohio and then bring them to justice.
Cooke: Well, thank you. It’s exciting that Ohio’s the first and shining example, but I have to share with you that people in Ohio are deeply frustrated because fraud has been rampant for decades. Why do you think it’s taken so long, and what can we do to make sure we expedite these processes?
McDonald: Yeah, fighting fraud requires resolve and focus and leadership. And I’m grateful on the federal side, under President [Donald] Trump, Vice President [JD] Vance, Acting Attorney General [Todd] Blanche. Those three men are laser-focused on solving this problem for the American people.
And so, I would say that is the biggest sea change, leadership, and the leaders in the room saying, “We’re not going to tolerate this anymore. We’re going to actually do something about it, and we’re going to put our money where our mouth is, which is we’re going to put resources behind this work so that we actually have a broad enough fraud-fighting apparatus to engage with the fraudsters so that we’re not outnumbered.”
So, we’re in that process right now of building out our squad, both in D.C. but more so nationally, to make sure that we have prosecutors out there in the districts, in the states where the fraud is happening so that we can bring bad actors to justice.
So, that would be my answer, leadership. And we have that leadership, steer, and desire and purpose. There’s a purpose behind what we’re doing, and that comes from the top.
Cooke: Well, I have to say there’s no doubt that the political will and desire to protect taxpayers is there by this administration.
I think the deeper concern is Ohio and then Columbus, Ohio. We have the second-largest Somali population, and out of that we have seen a robust operation of home health care fraud. We’re seeing other avenues of fraud in other programs as well.
And the silo approach in our states, and I’m seeing this across the country, where there’s no data sharing even amongst state agencies.
Like a Republican state in Ohio, we have the governor’s office here who’s refusing to give public records. So, we’ve asked for, at the Daily Signal, public records of just how much we’re spending for home health care services, not patient data, nothing confidential. And after five months, the Ohio Governor’s Office Department of Medicaid responded that they subcontracted this to a private operator and that I had to go to them to ask for those records.
What can you do at the DOJ so a taxpayer like me and millions of others across the state just have visibility into how the states are managing our money?
McDonald: Yeah. Well, it’s a very big problem on the federal side where we give over billions of dollars to states across the country, and then in many instances, we never see what happens with that money afterwards. And some states do good, some states do not do well at all with providing proper accounting for that money. So, it is a big problem.
And those information silos that you talk about, where the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, and the federal government is denied visibility into certain documents, we’re dealing with that in the state of Minnesota right now, and other states who are even going so far as to sue us to prevent us from having access to records that would probably very likely demonstrate fraud.
And you kind of have to ask, why would someone be trying to keep records from us to help us illuminate the fraudulent actors? It is a question I think everyone should pose.
So, what we plan to do, we mentioned this morning at the roundtable, is we are building out a prosecutor-led national fraud detection center, which breaks down those information silos and brings together data from federal agencies and also state partners so that we can bring that data together to see and identify the fraudsters who are defrauding multiple programs at the same time in many instances.
And this has never been done before, to have that cross-program visibility.
We’re going to build that. We’re in the process right now of doing that so that we can identify the very small percentage of people who rip off the United States time and time again. This will give us the ability to put a microscope on those people, and they won’t be able to hide because the data talks and it talks loudly.
And when we get everybody to give it to us and we can look at it, we are going to be able to unmask those fraudulent actors.
Cooke: Will taxpayers have access to this data once you’re able to create it nationwide?
McDonald: So, the fraud detection center will be prosecution-focused.
Cooke: So …
McDonald: It will fall in line with the standard protocols for the treatment and collection of criminal evidence. And so in that regard, no. But in the other sense, what we are trying to do is build out a robust platform for messaging to the American people.
What are we finding and who are we prosecuting?
And also, being able to use what we’re learning to go to the policymakers and share that with the policymakers to say, “Hey, these are the flaws in the system. This is how you need to do better with your security protocols to make sure that the money doesn’t go out the door in the first place.”
Because that’s better for everybody if there are systems in place that can prevent the money and capture the fraudster before they have consummated the fraud.
So, we will be as transparent as possible within the confines of what the federal rules of criminal procedure allow for us to be.
But also, we do plan to tell the American people how they are being ripped off, because the more they know, the more the public will support all the work that we’re doing and will ensure that no one can remain on the sidelines, that everyone will join the team because they’ll see that they need to get in the game.
Cooke: Well, that’s incredible because one of the big things you highlighted is not only transparency but deterrence, so that the bad guys out there know that you’re watching and that you’re exposing it, so they are less likely to commit fraud.
One of the best parts about the conference that you just led, the roundtable, was your drive to say there should be fewer prosecutions in years to come because deterrence is working. Can you comment a little bit more on that?
McDonald: Yes. The best case for a country, for a state, for a society, is in the end you have demonstrated the power of the prosecutor to be able to reach those who are committing crime.
And when you demonstrate that, if there is a crime, there is a consequence, that you will reap what you sow, and you demonstrate that the prosecutor apparatus is large enough to reach you, then people don’t commit crimes. They think twice. They realize, “I shouldn’t lie. I shouldn’t cheat. I shouldn’t steal.” Very basic things.
But where you do not have that apparatus built out, people think they can get away with it.
So, you have a lot of fraudsters who have, for many years, been enjoying the darkness and being able to steal from the American people in the dark, no visibility, and funding their very lavish lifestyles. So, they do not feel the concern that a prosecutor might be knocking on their door, or a federal agent might be knocking on their door at 6 a.m. the next morning. That’s what I want to change.
I want to change that whole dynamic such that if you’re a fraudster and you go to bed tonight, you are worried that you are going to get a knock on your door at six o’clock tomorrow morning. And if you make it to 6:30 tomorrow morning, you should say a prayer because you’ve got another day. But guess what? You’ve got to go to bed that night worried about six o’clock the next morning. That’s what I want. I want fraudsters worried about six o’clock in the morning.
Cooke: Well, I congratulate the drive and the implementation. Ohio’s the first state. What’s your message to other states about getting on board so we have a 50-state solution to fraud? And the most important part of this is, if there’s reluctance, what do you say to those states?
McDonald: I would say leave the reluctance behind. Get on board the fraud-fighting team. We have room for everyone. Our division that we’ve created is the National Fraud Enforcement Division, and we chose that word purposefully, which is that the fraud is national.
And we’ve announced in the last 64 days or so over 550 major fraud takedowns, arrests, convictions, and sentences across the entirety of the United States of America. So, we are moving quickly to build out our fraud-fighting apparatus.
We invite everyone to join us, as you’ve seen today with different members of the Ohio coalition agreeing to join us and come alongside us. That’s what we want. If we come together, we can solve this problem. If we stay in our own corners and not cooperate, it won’t work.
Cooke: Thank you so much for your leadership on this. It’s a pleasure to have you in Ohio, and I continue to see your great work across the country.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-05 18:51:202026-06-05 18:51:20DOJ FRAUD CHIEF: Fraudsters Should Fear a 6 A.M. Knock on the Door
More than a dozen state attorneys general (AGs) met with Vice President J.D. Vance at a Tuesday meeting of the Trump administration’s anti-fraud roundtable, but not one of them was a Democrat. “Democratic AGs were invited to that same meeting, and it won’t surprise you that none of them attended,” declared Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R), who plans to participate in the initiative, on “Washington Watch”. The Democratic AGs not only avoided the event, but 23 of them even signed a public letter declaring that they would not.
“This absolutely should be an issue of concern to everyone,” warned FRC’s Jody Hice. Has fighting fraud now become a partisan issue?
The excuse offered in the letter was that Democrats did not believe the meeting was a “serious” discussion, and they were not given enough advance notice. “While we would appreciate the opportunity to engage in serious discussions, the invitation was provided with less than one business day’s notice with no agenda,” the letter complained. “With appropriate notice and a genuine opportunity for engagement, we would welcome the chance to participate in a future meeting and contribute to a productive dialogue.”
This complaint is not entirely without merit. According to an unnamed official cited by CNBC, invites were originally sent out only to Republican AGs. Apparently, whoever was responsible for organizing the meeting believed that fighting fraud was a partisan issue Democrats would not care about.
However, on Friday before the holiday weekend, Vice President Vance personally insisted that invitations be sent to Democrats too.
“This should not be a partisan effort,” Vance declared before the meeting. “Everybody should care about fraud. Everybody should care about rooting out fraud. Everybody should care about saving the American taxpayers money, and importantly, everybody should care about actually protecting the programs that only work and are only properly funded.”
But Democratic AGs chose to take offense at not originally receiving an invitation, rather than reciprocating Vance’s magnanimity to intervene on their behalf.
A last-minute (or last-business-day) invitation could provide a justification for some state AGs to skip the meeting. Some, like Marshall, likely had scheduling conflicts (although very few scheduling conflicts outweigh an invitation from the White House). Some, like AGs on the West Coast, could plead that the travel burden made the trip not worth the effort — not without time to schedule other East Coast meetings.
But many of the letter’s signatories are located much closer to Washington, D.C. than the West Coast. The letter was signed by the Democratic AGs of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and even the AG of D.C. itself. Instead of spending time adjusting their schedules to fit in a quick trip to the White House, these officials instead chose to spend their time drafting a letter to declare that they would not participate and circulating it for signatures. Several Democratic AGs even organized a press conference that afternoon to counter-program the event.
These factors suggest that the short notice was not the only reason — perhaps not even the main reason — why Democratic AGs organized a collective boycott of the anti-fraud roundtable.
What other possible reasons present themselves? These elected officials could be executing the common Democratic strategy of instinctively opposing any action the Trump administration tries to take — even to the point of being uncooperative on fraud prevention. Or they could be trying to avoid the embarrassment of showing up unprepared to a meeting where their own state’s fraud failure was on the agenda. There might be other reasons, but both of these are highly plausible.
The reason is the Trump administration’s narrative and focus on combatting fraud. This began with the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) highly publicized audits of government books. Those investigations found some substantial savings, although their results did not quite live up to the hype.
Since then, however, the Trump administration has continued to root out waste, fraud, and abuse through individual government departments, which are looking carefully at their expenses.
With the help of intrepid independent journalists, this focus on fraud blew open the Minnesota welfare fraud scandal late last year, which uncovered systematic fraud by Somali immigrants running fake daycares. In just one fraud scheme, Somali immigrants stole approximately $250 million in federal welfare dollars. But nearly 100 individuals were charged across multiple schemes.
The investigation spread beyond Minnesota and beyond the Somali community. By the end of 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice had charged 265 individuals with fraud, worth an alleged $15 billion in health care alone, and they had secured 235 convictions, either through guilty pleas or trials.
Early this year, President Trump tapped Vice President Vance to head up an anti-fraud task force. That group is now looking at fraud in at least 14 state welfare programs totaling a potential $9 billion. Additionally, Vance said the task force had referred $22 billion in potentially fraudulent small business loans to the Treasury Department and deferred $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from states (like California) that had failed to sufficiently cooperate with fighting fraud.
Of course, some fraud is neither systematic nor narrative-building. Sometimes, fraud is simply a result of sinful human beings deciding it is easy to steal from the public — until they get caught. Earlier this month, a former CIA analyst with top-secret clearance was arrested for defrauding the U.S. government in a number of ways. He falsified the details of his Navy service record, claimed 744 hours of paid time off for active military service for a decade after his discharge, and scammed his agency for millions in “work-related expenses.” Federal investigators found $40 million in gold bars, $2 million in cash, and 35 luxury watches in his home.
Examples like this one show fraud for what it is: someone who seeks to enrich himself by stealing from the government. It is little different from insider trading and almost the same thing as an elected official embezzling public funds.
“This should not be a political issue,” Marshall maintained. “When someone is stealing taxpayer dollars, that should be one [thing] that both Democrats and Republicans can unite around.”
Unfortunately, some public officials seem reluctant to unite around this principle. After citizen journalists like Nick Shirley began to uncover welfare fraud in California of the scope and nature of the fraud he had uncovered in Minnesota, the U.S. DOJ in April formed a West Coast strike force in its fraud division to focus on the Westernmost states.
But California didn’t want to play along. It’s unclear whether state officials meant to save themselves the embarrassment of being shown for dupes, or whether they believe the fraud should continue because the beneficiaries are illegal immigrants (and, in some twisted version of Marxism, their theft is therefore justified).
On Wednesday, the California Assembly passed a bill to ban photographing or video-recording employees of nonprofit organizations without their consent. This seems similar to the law Kamala Harris used 10 years ago to prosecute David Daleiden for exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts. The difference is that it expands penalties.
The bill also seems suspiciously timed and targeted to suppress the type of journalism Nick Shirley and others have used to expose, for instance, daycare and at-home care nonprofits that don’t actually provide any services, but bill the government anyway. Critics of the legislation have dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
The good news is, Democratic state AGs do recognize they have a duty to combat fraud, and their letter to Vance at least acknowledges the nobility of the objective. Marshall expressed “hope” that his Democratic counterparts would come around to cooperate with the administration.
“It’s their legal responsibility, as the chief law enforcement officers of their state, to not only ensure that taxpayer money is spent appropriately, but also hold those accountable who violate the laws,” he said. “My hope is that they will see the wisdom of that. But yet we haven’t obviously seen a whole lot of action in Minnesota or in California yet.”
“We have a responsibility [to] the taxpayers of this country to root out waste, fraud, and abuse,” Marshall added. “We know what’s going on in the system. This administration has made it a priority, and we stand with them looking forward to best practices delivering results to the people across the country.”
The question is whether, in the age of Trump, even fighting fraud has become an issue divided along partisan battle lines. It should not matter whether the fraud is perpetrated by foreign nationals. What should matter is whether U.S. taxpayers are getting bilked out of billions by people leeching off the public coffers. In the eyes of the Left, though, the former question seems to get more attention than the latter.
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.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-02 16:51:252026-06-02 16:51:25Is Fighting Fraud Now Partisan?
The Founder of Election Watch Peter Bernegger explains President Trump’s new election-mail Executive Order USPS:
Most people have no idea what President Trump’s new election-mail Executive Order USPS rule actually does.
1. Plain English: it creates a chain-of-custody system for mail ballot envelopes in federal elections.
2. Not the vote, the envelope.
3. Under the proposed USPS rule, states using mail-in or absentee ballots for federal elections would have to use standardized ballot envelopes:
Official Election Mail logo
Automation-compatible design
Unique Intelligent Mail barcode
USPS review of envelope/barcode placement
4. That means the ballot envelope becomes trackable.
5. States or election mailers would also submit key data through a USPS portal:
Voter name
Voter address
Outbound envelope barcode
Return envelope barcode
Originating election office state
6. So officials can know: this ballot envelope was sent out, and this return envelope came back.
7. USPS would review outbound ballot mail before accepting it.
Is it in the right envelope?
Does it have the proper barcode?
Is it going to someone enrolled on that state’s mail-ballot participation list?
8. If not, the mailing goes back to the election mailer to fix.
9. The broader Executive Order also directs DHS + SSA to help create State Citizenship Lists using federal citizenship, naturalization, SSA, SAVE, and related data.
10. Those lists go to state election officials before federal elections.
11. Important: states still run voter registration. The federal list does not register anyone by itself.
12. Bottom line: this is not “tracking your vote.”
13. It tracks the envelope, creates a sent-vs-returned audit trail, helps flag discrepancies, preserves ballot-envelope records, and leaves states responsible for their voter rolls.
14. Chain of custody is not suppression. It is basic election accountability.
15. I used “proposed rule” because USPS has not finalized the rule yet.
16. The proposal says it applies to general, special, and runoff federal elections, not primaries or UOCAVA military/overseas ballots, and it requires unique barcodes on outbound and return envelopes.
17. The rule would require voter name/address plus outbound and return envelope barcode data through a USPS portal, with updates allowed until the last day ballots may be mailed under state law.
18. It also says USPS does not alter voter eligibility or manage state voter rolls.
19. The EO separately directs DHS/SSA to create State Citizenship Lists and directs DOJ enforcement and five-year preservation of participation records, excluding cast ballots.
20. There is one more thing it does, all I’ll say is, watch out ballot mills.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 20901 et seq.), the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.), and the Federal Government’s constitutional obligation to guarantee a republican form of Government to every State in the Union, U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 4, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law. Federal statutes explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections and impose criminal penalties for violations. (18 U.S.C. 241; 18 U.S.C. 611; 18 U.S.C. 1015; and 52 U.S.C. 20511). The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains records that, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program under 42 U.S.C. 1320b-7, can assist in verifying identity and Federal election voter eligibility.
The Federal Government has an unavoidable duty under Article II of the Constitution of the United States to enforce Federal law, which includes preventing violations of Federal criminal law and maintaining public confidence in election outcomes. To enhance election integrity via the United States Mail, additional measures are necessary. Secure ballot envelope identifiers provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without unduly burdening or infringing on the rights of eligible voters. Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.
Sec. 2. Establishment and Transmission of State Citizenship Lists and Prioritization of Investigations and Prosecutions Related to Election Fraud. (a) To the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and in coordination with the Commissioner of SSA, shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List). The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases. The State Citizenship List shall be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election, or promptly upon request by a State in connection with any special Federal election. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish procedures to (i) allow individuals to access their individual records as well as to update or correct them in advance of elections; and (ii) enable States to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications or amendments to the State Citizenship List transmitted thereto. An individual’s identification on the State Citizenship List does not indicate that the individual has been properly registered to vote in the State. State and Federal laws and State procedures must still be followed for an individual to be registered to vote. There may be State laws, not reflected in the State Citizenship List, that preclude voter registration, or the individual may choose not to be registered.
(b) For purposes of this order, an individual is “eligible to vote in a Federal election” if the individual is a citizen of the United States, 18 years of age or older by the date of the upcoming election, and otherwise qualified under the laws of his or her State. The Attorney General shall prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials or any others involved in the administration of Federal elections who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election, including under 18 U.S.C. 2(a), 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 611(a), 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1015, 52 U.S.C. 10307, and 52 U.S.C. 20511. Similarly, the Attorney General shall prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of individuals and public or private entities engaged in, or aiding and abetting, the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots to individuals who are not eligible to vote in a Federal election.
Sec. 3. United States Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots. (a) The unlawful use of the mail in connection with elections is prohibited by various Federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1708, 52 U.S.C. 10307, and 52 U.S.C. 20511.
(b) To ensure the faithful execution of Federal law, protect the integrity of the mail as a medium for transmitting Federal election ballots and establish uniform standards for mail-in or absentee ballot services implemented through the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Postmaster General is hereby directed to initiate a proposed rulemaking pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority within 60 days of the date of this order. The notice of proposed rulemaking shall include, at minimum, the following:
(i) Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that:
(A) is marked as Official Election Mail, including through designated markings provided by USPS for this purpose, such as the Official Election Mail logo, as necessary and appropriate;
(B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode, or successor USPS technology, that facilitates tracking and is consistent with the other requirements of this section; and
(C) has undergone a mail envelope design review by the USPS to ensure compliance with USPS mailing standards, including barcode placement.
(ii) Proposed provisions specifying that, no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any State may choose to notify the USPS if it intends to allow for mail-in or absentee ballots to be transmitted by the USPS. As part of that notification, any notifying State should further indicate whether it intends to submit to the USPS, no fewer than 60 days before the election, a list of voters eligible to vote in a Federal election in such State to whom the State intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS.
(iii) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.
(iv) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals (Mail-In and Absentee Participation List) who are enrolled with the USPS, pursuant to a process specified in the rulemaking directed by this subsection, for mail-in or absentee ballots provided by such State, along with unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, for mail-in or absentee ballots provided to such individuals. The preparation and transmission of each State-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List shall comply with the Privacy Act and all applicable use agreements.
(v) Proposed procedures enabling each State to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications or amendments to the State’s Mail-In and Absentee Participation List in advance of any Federal election, consistent with applicable State law.
(c) The USPS shall coordinate with the USPS Office of Inspector General and the Department of Justice for investigation of suspected unlawful use of the mail involving Federal election materials.
(d) Any final rule pursuant to this section shall be issued no later than 120 days from the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementation. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of SSA, and the Postmaster General shall coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce in effectuating all relevant aspects of the implementation of this order.
(b) The Attorney General shall enforce compliance with the applicable Federal statutes referenced herein and provide guidance to election officials, including any instrumentalities thereof; contractors; individuals involved in the administration of Federal elections; or public or private entities engaged in the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots.
(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, establish the infrastructure necessary to compile, maintain, and transmit the State Citizenship List described in section 2(a) of this order, and shall designate a point of contact within DHS to receive and process requests from individuals and State election officials regarding the relevant State Citizenship List. The Commissioner of SSA shall provide all necessary citizenship and identity data to the Secretary of Homeland Security in support of this requirement, consistent with applicable law, the Privacy Act, and all applicable use agreements.
Sec. 5. Enforcement. The Attorney General and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) with relevant authority shall take all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with Federal law, including withholding Federal funds from noncompliant States and localities where such withholding is authorized by law. Evidence of violations of existing Federal laws by State or local election officials; States or localities, including any instrumentalities thereof; contractors; individuals involved in the administration of Federal elections; or public or private entities engaged in the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots may be referred to the Department of Justice for consideration of investigation or charges under 18 U.S.C. 2(a), 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 611(a), 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1015, 52 U.S.C. 10307, and 52 U.S.C. 20511. States and localities should preserve, for a 5-year period, all records and materials — excluding ballots cast — evidencing voter participation in any Federal election (e.g., ballot envelopes, regardless of carrier).
Sec. 6. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any agency, person, or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other agencies, persons, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 31, 2026.
Related
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-02 04:51:192026-06-02 04:51:19Trump’s New Election Order Creates Mail-Ballot Chain of Custody — And Ballot Mills Are Panicking
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has been on the job for less than two months, and he’s already made himself hard to ignore.
The president’s restless base is paying attention, and his reputation, at least from the outside, is that he is more aggressive than the woman he replaced.
That read isn’t entirely wrong, insiders tell the Daily Caller. Blanche’s years of federal experience and his time as number two at DOJ have left him with his hands on a lot of projects and the institutional knowledge to actually move them.
“He knows how to uncork the bottle quickly and where the levers of power are in DOJ,” a former Justice official tells the Caller.
In less than two months, he’s indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center and former FBI Director James Comey, and signed off on a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for victims of political prosecutions.
The pace has left Trump allies impressed. But they’re quick to add context: Blanche didn’t build these cases from scratch. He inherited a loaded weapon and knew exactly how to fire it.
“Pam Bondi had to take all the slings and arrows to get where we are now. And now Todd is taking the baton, and he’s the next man up,” Mike Davis, Trump ally and founder of the Article III project, told the Caller.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi speak with the media in the Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
Trump dismissed Bondi from the Attorney General position in early April. At the time of her firing, a White House official told the Caller that there is no “bad blood” between the president and the AG, but that he was overall dissatisfied with her job performance. In short, the president wanted Bondi to be more aggressive and bring forward more prosecutions.
Bondi, who was never a federal prosecutor, faced a steep learning curve navigating the inner workings of the DOJ, the former official told the Caller. It made her transition to AG more complicated. But her tenure, insiders say, was more spent laying groundwork for the results she wouldn’t get to see through.
Blanche doesn’t have the same problem.
The Acting AG came up as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, one of the country’s most demanding federal districts, and later served as the president’s personal criminal defense attorney before entering the Trump administration as number two at the DOJ. By the time he stepped into the top job, he already knew which cases were live, which prosecutors to trust, and how to push a grand jury toward an indictment.
“The advantage of a number two rising to become the acting number one is that you know where all the balls are in the air,” a former DOJ official told the Caller. “Todd could immediately grab some of those balls and put them into play.”
Nineteen days after Bondi’s firing, Blanche called a press conference alongside FBI Director Kash Patel to announce an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The left-wing activist group had been covertly directing millions to individuals tied to white supremacist and other extremist organizations, Blanche said. The announcement was celebrated as a win for conservative organizations, many of whom were targeted by the SPLC and labeled as “hate groups.”
A few days later, Blanche’s DOJ unveiled a second indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. This one was tied to a since-deleted social media post featuring the numbers “8647,” which some interpreted as a veiled call to kill the president.
Under Bondi, the department brought an indictment against him in September over allegations that he lied and obstructed a congressional investigation during 2020 testimony. But that case was dismissed in November.
A DOJ official told the Caller the SPLC case had been in the works for some time, but that Blanche’s arrival as acting AG was what got it across the finish line. His familiarity with grand juries, prosecutors, and the mechanics of building a federal case made the difference.
“A lot of that job is knowing the justice system and how to get things across the finish line. Having that understanding, I think, is where he has found success,” the DOJ official told the Caller.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as Ellis Boyle, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina (R), and FBI Director Kash Patel listen at a press conference on April 28, 2026 at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
Still, Bondi’s DOJ played a role in helping build the case, insiders explained.
“I think Blanche is doing a good job, but I don’t think that they’ve just suddenly gotten more aggressive. I, some of this work, particularly like the SPLC, as a result of work that was clearly in progress when Bondi left,” von Spakosky added.
Davis agreed.
“[Blanche is] taking it to the next level, from a strong foundation behind the scenes, to action in public… you can’t just wave a magic wand and bring indictments or predicate investigations. That takes a lot of work. It takes months of work,” he told the Caller.
Whether Blanche gets a permanent nomination remains an open question, and it may stay that way deliberately.
“Congress takes more recess than kindergarten,” a former DOJ official told the Caller. “Why would you waste political capital trying to confirm Todd when what happens if he doesn’t get confirmed?”
Politico has reported there may be a loophole allowing Blanche to remain in the acting role beyond the standard 210-day limit. The White House, for its part, isn’t signaling any urgency to change course.
“President Trump has a great relationship with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and is very pleased with the job he’s doing so far,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the Caller.
In the meantime, Davis has a prediction for Blanche’s next move.
“I have very publicly, for four years since the Mar-a-Lago raid, called for a federal grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida to indict Obama for their conspiracy against rights — against President Trump, his top aides, and his allies,” Davis said. “I fully expect this to happen under Todd Blanche.”
CFACT has officially joined the newly formed Fix the EPA Veto Coalition, a broad alliance pressing the Trump administration to issue a strong executive order reining in the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to retroactively sabotage major energy, mining, and infrastructure projects.
At the heart of the issue is Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act — a little-known provision that gives the EPA power to veto dredge-and-fill permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, even years after projects have been approved, funded, and built. While used sparingly in the past, this authority has become a potent political weapon capable of destroying billions in investment and thousands of jobs with the stroke of a pen.
A History of Weaponized Regulation
The precedent that alarms industry most came during the Obama years, when the EPA retroactively revoked a lawfully issued permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia — four years after approval. The Biden administration later took the tactic even further, using 404(c) preemptively to kill Alaska’s massive Pebble Mine project before it could even break ground.
This regulatory whiplash creates devastating uncertainty for developers who spend years and hundreds of millions navigating the federal permitting maze, only to have the rug pulled out once they’ve finally secured approval.
Billions at Stake
The stakes could hardly be higher. Under the Trump administration, critical projects now moving forward — including the Alaska natural gas pipeline, Arctic energy development, new LNG terminals, Minnesota’s Duluth Mining Complex, and strategic critical mineral mines across the country — all remain vulnerable to future EPA vetoes.
Every year, the Army Corps of Engineers issues between 60,000 and 75,000 Section 404 permits, supporting roughly $200 billion in economic activity. The looming threat of a retroactive veto hangs like a sword over all of them.
A Clear Solution
The Fix the EPA Veto Coalition is urging the White House to issue an executive order modeled on the Reducing Permitting Uncertainty Act, legislation sponsored by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) that has twice passed the House but stalled in the Senate.
The proposed order would:
Establish clear timelines for when veto authority can be used
Prohibit retroactive and preemptive vetoes
Restore consistency and predictability to the review process
Protect projects that already hold permits or are actively moving through permitting
Melanie Collette, CFACT Senior Policy Analyst, emphasized why her organization is proud to join the fight:
“This is exactly the kind of regulatory fix CFACT exists to fight for. The 404(c) veto has been used as a political weapon to kill projects long after investors, workers, and communities have already committed. That uncertainty is a real drag on domestic energy and mineral development, and we want to see the administration close this loophole before the next administration has the chance to exploit it.”
Myron Ebell, Coalition Senior Advisor and leader of Trump’s first EPA transition team, put it more bluntly:
“Going through years of permitting only to have the permit pulled after the fact is a massive obstacle to investing in America. It’s not the kind of regulatory environment a country serious about energy dominance can afford.”
The coalition is calling on the Trump administration to act decisively and deliver the regulatory certainty American industry needs to build, produce, and lead.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-06-01 15:51:202026-06-01 15:51:20CFACT joins the Fix the EPA Veto Coalition
Stephen Miller says the scale of welfare fraud is so massive that eliminating it alone could balance the entire federal budget
“The amount that has been fleeced from us is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.”
“We could balance the federal budget if the only dollars that went out of the treasury went to individuals who were properly, lawfully, correctly eligible to receive them.”
This should infuriate EVERY taxpayer.
Vice President JD Vance tells reporters that in “just two months” the anti-fraud task force he has led for the Trump administration has “exposed billions of dollars in benefits that have been stolen from the American people.” During the roundtable, Vance claims the task force has deferred funds from fraudsters seeking small business loans and Medicaid reimbursements and recovered funds “stolen” from COVID relief programs. Vance says, “We’re protecting the American taxpayers who shouldn’t have their money stolen by fraudsters and of course we’re protecting the people who need these services.”
C-SPAN: The vice president was joined by Andrew Ferguson (the task force chair), Stephen Miller and some 15 state attorneys general. Vance: In just two months, we exposed billions of dollars in benefits that had been stolen from the American people. We referred over $22 billion in fraudulent small business loans back to the treasury for collection. We deferred more than $1.3 billion in fraudulent Medicaid reimbursements that were coming from various states, particularly California…. We recovered taxpayer funds from the $135 billion stolen after the floodgates were open in the immediate aftermath of COVID. We have found $6.3 billion in suspected fraudulent government contracts, which were mostly awarded during the last administration and that has stopped. Finally, we blocked $60 million in student aid fraud that should have gone to young people trying to get an education, but instead we’re going to fraudsters.
From The White House:This is a direct offensive against every fraudulent scheme preying on hardworking Americans — and the results are already staggering.
Red State: More from Ward Clark at Red State: So, the question is this: Why has this been allowed to go on this long? It staggers belief that there wasn’t some indication as to how bad things were before now.
Vice President JD Vance’s Anti-Fraud Task Force just dropped the HARD NUMBERS from the first 50 days.
$22 billion in fraudulent small business loans referred for collection.
$1.3 billion in bogus Medicaid payments deferred.
$6.3 billion in shady government contracts stopped.
$60 million in student aid scams blocked.
Those all don’t even include in the SIX MONTH hold on fraudulent hospice providers, recovery from the $135 billion post-COVID theft, and 450 charges, convictions, and sentences nationwide including major Medicaid busts in Minnesota, Arizona, and California.
This is REAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Watch the full roundtable to see the complete picture.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-05-28 08:51:242026-05-28 08:51:24Team Trump Says Welfare Fraud Is So Vast It Could Wipe Out The Federal Deficit
In the race for U.S. Senate in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton is dominating the polls after a surprise endorsement from President Donald Trump, plus additional support from Make America Healthy Again voters.
A SoCal Strategies poll conducted after this week’s endorsement from the president found Paxton dominating Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn by 22 points. According to the poll, Paxton leads with 57% of the vote, compared to Cornyn’s 35%. The primary runoff is set for May 26.
As attorney general, Paxton has been fighting for MAHA causes such as pesticides, forever chemicals in clothing, food dyes, and vaccines.
Secret Pesticides
This week, Paxton announced a historic settlement with a Texas-wide grocery store chain following an investigation that found it was secretly spraying pesticides on organic-labeled produce. Paxton said customers were buying organic produce at a higher price, assuming it was free of pesticides.
“This is a huge win for Texans seeking to avoid synthetic pesticides when purchasing organic produce,” Paxton said in a press release. “I commend Albertsons for reversing its course of action and signing this historic agreement to help ensure transparency for Texans by requiring its stores to stop the misting of pesticides on organic produce.”
ProduceMaxx is an Environmental Protection Agency-registered antimicrobial pesticide that contains chlorine. Paxton’s investigation found that thousands of grocery stores across the United States use it and other chemical pesticides to control bacteria and extend shelf life.
Top-Shelf Forever Chemicals
In April, Paxton issued a civil investigative demand to activewear brand Lululemon to determine if its products contain forever chemicals, and whether the company is misleading its customers.
“I will not allow any corporation to sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability,” Paxton said. “If Lululemon has violated Texas law, it will be held accountable.”
The investigation will look for specific synthetic materials and chemicals associated with endocrine disruption, infertility, and cancer.
“Americans should not have to worry if they are being deceived when trying to make healthy choices for themselves and their families,” he continued.
Challenging Vaccines
In January, Paxton launched an investigation into possible kickback schemes tied to childhood vaccine recommendations. The investigation includes sending more than 20 civil investigative demands to some of the largest medical providers in the country, including UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer.
Paxton said the investigation will examine whether pediatric medical providers, insurance companies, or vaccine manufacturers broke the law by failing to disclose financial incentives—such as doctors’ wages, bonuses, and employment—tied to recommending and administering vaccines to children.
“I will ensure that Big Pharma and Big Insurance don’t bribe medical providers to pressure parents to jab their kids with vaccines they feel aren’t safe or necessary,” Paxton said. “Any provider or entity whose medical guidance is fueled by financial incentives from an insurance company, Big Pharma, or otherwise will be exposed.”
“Alongside President Trump and [Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s] significant efforts to ensure safety when it comes to childhood vaccines, my office will fight to protect kids’ health and uphold transparency in the medical industry. Together, we will Make America Healthy Again,” he continued.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-05-25 06:51:202026-05-25 06:51:20Trump Boost Sends Paxton Soaring—and His MAHA Record Is Front and Center
Last month, we reported that Bridger Pipeline LLC has proposed a giant pipeline with a capacity in excess of 1 million barrels per day (bpd) to transport Canadian crude into the United States. Dubbed “Keystone Light” due to its similarities to the Keystone XL project that former U.S. President Joe Biden canceled in 2021, the 36-inch pipeline would span nearly 650 miles (1,050 km) from the U.S.-Canada border in Phillips County, Montana, to Guernsey, Wyoming, and cost approximately US$2 billion. And now U.S. President Donald Trump has given the go-ahead for development work on the pipeline to commence, marking yet another milestone in Canada’s ongoing drive to diversify its oil exports.
Trump signed a presidential permit on Thursday authorizing the Bridger Pipeline Expansion, with construction expected to begin in 2027 with a goal of completion by late 2028 or early 2029.
The pipeline will initially operate at ~550,000 bpd; however, Plainview Energy Analytics has noted that batching light crude oil could allow volumes to exceed typical heavy oil ceilings of 800,000 bpd for a line of this size, and deliver up to 1.13 mbpd.
While the primary stated purpose of the proposed 647-mile Bridger Pipeline expansion is to transport up to 550,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Canadian crude from the U.S.-Canada border in Montana to Guernsey, Wyoming, company maps and plans show it includes potential tie-ins for the Bakken shale oil field.
The design provides access to a significant portion of Bridger’s existing North Dakota gathering network, “This optionality positions the project for potential future expansion beyond 550,000 bpd and creates the possibility of a new competitive egress option for Bakken shippers,” Matthew Lewis, Plainview’s founder, said.
However, the project is expected to face significant opposition from environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and landowners, with a potential need for a new presidential permit for the border crossing. To wit, the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) has raised concerns regarding the inherent risk of spills and the potential environmental impact on Montana’s land and water. MEIC has highlighted the history of the owner, Bridger Pipeline LLC (a subsidiary of True Companies), specifically citing the 2015 incident where over 30,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River near Glendive, MT, contaminating the city’s water supply. It also argues the pipeline would transport environmentally destructive fuel sources, threatening wildlife habitat, local agriculture, and water quality. WildEarth Guardians and Earthjustice have expressed similar concerns.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace Canada has condemned the expansion, arguing that Canada should focus on reducing oil reliance rather than investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure. In its defense, whereas Keystone Light revives portions of the canceled Keystone XL route, it largely avoids some historical flashpoints by not crossing Native American reservations and following existing infrastructure corridors for 70% of its 650-mile route.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2026-05-08 13:51:242026-05-08 13:51:24Trump Unleashes MASSIVE PIPELINE Expansion: 500,000 Barrels a Day to Power American Energy Dominance
