Wisconsin Residents Reject ‘Minnesota Nice’ on Immigration

By The Daily Signal

Brand new polling numbers from the key battleground state of Wisconsin reveal that Midwestern patriots demand law and order and a return to national sovereignty for our country.

These results expose the constant media lies—with the expressed views of Wisconsin citizens who carefully watch the radicalism unfold right next door in Minnesota … and demand a different path.

This poll makes clear the ongoing will of regular Americans to reclaim our country. These salt-of-the-earth Americans insist that policies prioritize our own citizens and that immigration can only work in a controlled, lawful manner.

Importantly, this poll is not some propaganda “push poll.”

In fact, there is a lot in these overall Wisconsin results that should really worry the White House and the GOP into November. But on this foundational topic, the will of the people is clear, and it’s patriotic populist. See the findings in this poll conducted by TIPP Insights for the League of American Workers:

1. Cooperate with Federal Law Enforcement—by a massive +23% margin, Wisconsin voters want local and state police to fully cooperate with federal law enforcement immigration enforcement, 57% to 34%.

Clearly, most voters remain super pro-cop, as a default. In fact, even 29% of Democrat voters in Wisconsin want complete local-to-federal police cooperation. Among Hispanics, the spread is 56% to 37% in favor of cooperation, which totally debunks the newest Beltway lie that “immigration is losing Latinos.”

2. Offer Incentives to Self-Deport, Then Arrests—when the current administration policy is described to voters, they overwhelmingly approve.

Right now, every illegal migrant is offered $2,600 per family member to self-identify and leave voluntarily.

In addition, American taxpayers even pay for the flights home—and the illegal migrant becomes able to reapply later as a legal immigrant. This kind of magnanimity toward trespassers is incredible, really.

Well, Wisconsin citizens agree, by a wide margin, that illegal aliens who refuse that offer should be forcibly removed, 55% to 31%. For Hispanics, that number soars all the way to +42%, 65% to 23%. Even 28% of Kamala Harris voters agree with this humane and sensible approach, perhaps not even knowing that it’s the current policy of the Trump/Vance administration.

3. Wisconsin Does Not Want to Imitate Minnesota on Immigration—Only a scant 27% of Wisconsin voters say their state should model its immigration policies after Minnesota. Despite the recent lax immigration advocacy of some senior Catholic Church officials, the faithful in this deeply Catholic swing state disagree. This poll proved that only 28% of Catholics want to follow the lead of Minnesota on immigration.

4. Trump’s Best Issue Is Border Control—Voters remain in a foul mood overall in America. But the best issue for President Donald Trump, by a lot, is controlling the border. It represented the foundational promise of the 2024 campaign, and it was achieved with remarkable speed. Wisconsin knows it. Among men in the Badger State, Trump is at +16% approval, 55% to 39%.

So, the administration should not blink. Don’t fall for grand legacy media lies. Do not submit to the establishment Republicans who clamor for a return to decades of bipartisan failure on immigration. America is our country. It is our home. This land belongs to citizens, whether native-born or legally naturalized. Protect our home … and earn the political benefits, too.

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

AUTHOR

Steve Cortes

Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers and advisor to CatholicVote. He directs political campaigns on media, polling, and Hispanic outreach, including Trump 2016/2020 and Vance 2022 U.S. Senate. He is a former broadcaster for Fox News and CNN.

RELATED POSTS:

Lawmakers Say Trump Is Delivering on ‘Law and Order’ as Crime Plummets

Somalia’s ‘Temporary’ Protection Lasted 35 Years

In Trump’s First Year He’s Delivering on His Signature Promise

AOC Exposes the Left’s Attack on Western Culture

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


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

CALIFORNIA VOTER FRAUD: New Shirley Report Highlights Dogs Voting, Dead Voters, 125-Year-Old Registrations, 100+ Voters at One Home

By The Geller Report

Investigative journalist Nick Shirley has uncovered major irregularities in California’s voter rolls, including more than 100 people allegedly registered at a single residence, dozens registered to a mail store, voters listed as 125 years old, and even a case where dogs were reportedly registered and received ballots. He also points to deceased individuals voting.

Shirley argues that California’s lack of voter ID requirements, extended voting periods, and outdated voter rolls create conditions ripe for fraud. State officials, however, have consistently maintained that safeguards such as signature verification and post-election audits are in place, and that proven cases of voter fraud remain rare.

Nick Shirley found 108 people registered to vote in one home. A woman wanted to show how easy it was to commit voter fraud that she registered her two dogs and they voted. A woman voted in four times but she was already dead.

California is the breeding ground for voter fraud in America, as millions of people vote with no ID, month-long election processes, inaccurate voter rolls, dead people caught voting, even a dog successfully registered to vote, and voter verification is all based on your signature — not who you actually are.

In this video, I go to locations from California’s public voter rolls from the Secretary of State, and not a single location could verify the voter rolls.

  • Irregularities in voter numbers per location
  • 30+ people registered to one mail store
  • Voters inaccurately aged at 125 years old

Without any voter ID and negligence from the state government to update their voter rolls, California’s one-party state has created a complex system where fraud is inevitable in their voting process.

Schumer says Dems will fight voter ID push ‘tooth and nail’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats will oppose the GOP-backed SAVE America Act “tooth and nail,” vowing to block it in the Senate. The bill, which passed the House, would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, allow states to share voter data with federal authorities, and give DHS authority to investigate noncitizens found on voter rolls.

(Nick Shirley)

Nick Shirley has shifted to exposing VOTER FRAUD in California, and within HOURS, he found RAMPANT irregularities

30+ “voters” registered to a UPS Store, 125 year old “voters” and more

Endless Newsom corruption.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia Democrats Move to Slash Mandatory Prison Time for Rape, Manslaughter, Child Porn Crimes

Democratic Candidate Sarah Garriott Complains Iowa Leaders Are Too White, Too Christian, Too Male

NYC Mayor Jihad Mamdani Forces Israeli Company Out of New York City

TRANS DAD Robert Dorgan Shoots Wife, 3 KIDS at Crowded Rhode Island School Hockey Game as Players and Fans Scrambled to Safety

ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE: Massive BILLION Gallon Sewage Spill in Potomac River One of Largest in Nation’s History in Democrat-Run Maryland

POST ON X:

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

EPA Exonerates Carbon Dioxide

By Family Research Council

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday committed “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it, by eliminating an Obama-era verdict against carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The 2009 Endangerment Finding functioned as the bottommost block in the Left’s Jenga tower of climate regulation, and the Trump administration hopes to save U.S. taxpayers more than $1.3 trillion by knocking it clear.

“The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law,” Zeldin proclaimed, “returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans, and advancing the American Dream.”

America’s two-decade mistake of treating carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant began during the Bush administration, when left-wing activists and progressive-leaning states sued the administration for not regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act of 1963.

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which a 5-4 liberal majority determined that carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, finding that its definition includes “any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air” and “embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.” It directed the EPA to study whether carbon dioxide was worthy of regulation.

Of course, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under any common understanding of the word. A pollutant is a substance that contaminates the surrounding environment with something foreign or harmful — like an oil spill or the harmful compounds that cause acid rain. Carbon dioxide, however, is the primary product of human (and animal) respiration and the primary input to the photosynthesis of plants.

Along with water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced in any combustion reaction involving hydrocarbon-based (CHX) fuels and oxygen gas (O2) — whether in a simple fire or in cellular energy production. It is therefore the natural byproduct of any carbon-based form of energy production, whether by wood, charcoal, coal, natural gas, oil, or some other product.

However, on December 7, 2009, Obama administration EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson found that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and five other gaseous compounds) “threaten[ed] the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

This finding “led to trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry,” Zeldin lamented. “The Obama and Biden administrations used it to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish list of costly climate policies, electric vehicle mandates and other requirements that assaulted consumer choice and affordability.” Since then, the U.S. government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars propping up green energy projects that were not ready for economic prime time, leading to widespread blackouts and lost investment in impractical electric vehicles. At the same time, the endangerment finding has been used to rachet up the fuel efficiency requirements on cars, making those cars more expensive in the process.

However, the EPA cited two more recent Supreme Court decisions that it said justified its decision to rethink the law. The first was West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which struck down a Biden-era carbon tax scheme based on the Endangerment Finding on the ground that such “major questions” of policy should be decided by Congress, not an agency. In 2024, the Supreme Court issued Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the infamous Chevron test and reframed the level of deference due to agencies in rulemaking.

Following these decisions, President Trump issued a day-one executive order, “Unleashing American Energy.” In the order, Trump authorized an “immediate review of all agency actions that potentially burden the development of domestic energy resources,” which would include the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

The EPA’s decision came after an extended public comment period of 52 days, four days of virtual public hearings with testimony from more than 600 individuals, and approximately 572,000 public comments on the proposed rule. The extent of the feedback illustrates the magnitude of its consequences for American energy and business.

As a result of that review, the EPA concluded that the Clean Air Act “does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized,” and therefore “the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat ‘air pollution’ that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress.”

Notably, the EPA ran “the same types of models utilized by the previous administrations and climate change zealots” and found that, “even if the U.S. were to eliminate all GHG emissions from all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100.” The only effect such auto emissions standards would have is to make life more difficult for American consumers.

President Trump was present at the White House press conference announcing the EPA’s decision. “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers,” he said. “This determination had no basis in fact — none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world.”

Naturally, the left-wing response to the announcement was furious. NBC News memorialized the 2009 Endangerment Finding as “the legal finding that it [the EPA] has relied on for nearly two decades to limit the heat-trapping pollution that spews from vehicle tailpipes, oil refineries, and factories.” Unmentioned was the way that carbon dioxide also “spews” from human lungs with every exhalation, or the way that its “heat-trapping” quality prevents the earth from turning into the dark side of Mercury at night.

Of more substantial impact, major environmental groups have promised to challenge the decision’s legality. The Trump administration would likely have to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.

In the meantime, however, the Trump administration has smashed the rule “referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’” as Zeldin put it. It “didn’t just regulate emissions, it regulated and targeted the American dream,” he said. Even more fundamentally, the Trump administration has exonerated the essential, natural compound of carbon dioxide. As Interior Secretary Doug Burgum weighed in, “CO2 was never a pollutant.” And it should never have been regulated as one.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

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


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

Democrats to ‘Disenfranchise Voters’ With Election Integrity Opposition, GOP Says

By The Daily Signal

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday accused Democrats of being “anti-American” and wanting to “disenfranchise” American voters by “allowing noncitizens to vote.”

Their remarks come after Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, became the sole House Democrat to vote in favor of legislation that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship and voter identification before casting a ballot.

Democrats have described the voter integrity legislation, the SAVE America Act, as “voter suppression” and being “reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.” Democrats floated similar accusations about the SAVE America Act’s precursor, the SAVE Act.

“Do you know what actually disenfranchises voters? When noncitizens participate in our federal elections and counteract the votes of registered American voters,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement shared with The Daily Signal. “That’s what we have to stop.”

Johnson then pointed out Democrats’ use of identification for other political events.

“You even need an ID to attend the events of most Democrat politicians and even the Democrat National Convention,” the speaker continued. “So why would voting be any different from that? They can’t answer that question. And so, they come up with all these crazy excuses of why they can’t support.”

While Democrats in Washington are mostly in lockstep on opposing election integrity measures, public polling suggests that a large majority of Americans approve of SAVE America Act provisions.

national poll from Cygnal recently showed that 70% of American voters overall, 75% of swing voters, 69% of Hispanics, 56% of black voters, and even 46% of Democrats support voter ID.

“Voter ID is common sense and is supported by over 80% of the American public, including a majority of Democrat voters,” Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., told The Daily Signal. “If you need an ID to board a plane, open a bank account, or even to buy certain types of cold medicine, you should need an ID to vote in federal elections.”

“Anyone who opposes voter ID to safeguard the integrity of our elections is anti-American,” the representative added.

Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., told The Daily Signal that “Democrat open-border policies invited millions of unvetted illegals, costing American lives—like Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, and Jocelyn Nungaray—and draining resources from citizens. Now they threaten election integrity to silence lawful voters.”

“That’s why radical progressive Democrats are fighting tooth and nail against the SAVE America Act to ensure non-citizens can continue to vote in our elections,” Harris continued.

The legislation is now headed to the Senate, where it remains unclear if it will be brought up for a vote.

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., indicated that Senate Democrats will vote against the legislation, going so far as to say the bill is “dead on arrival.”

On Tuesday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, indicated she will vote against the bill, which has raised concerns among Republicans.

Murkowski came out against the SAVE America Act in a statement on X.

“When Democrats attempted to advance sweeping election reform legislation in 2021, Republicans were unanimous in opposition because it would have federalized elections, something we have long opposed,” Murkowski claimed. “Once again, I do not support these efforts. Not only does the U.S. Constitution clearly provide states the authority to regulate the ‘times, places, and manner’ of holding federal elections, but one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska.”

“Election Day is fast approaching. Imposing new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources,” Murkowski continued. “Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this.”

Republicans were not unanimously opposed to Democrats’ election reforms in 2021, however, because Murkowski was the only Republican to vote in favor of the overhaul. Her X post quickly gained a community note pointing out her previous voting record.

“I’ll let Lisa Murkowski go to Alaska and explain to the people of Alaska why noncitizens should vote and why you shouldn’t have voter ID,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal.

“Let Lisa Murkowski explain that and how that is remotely consistent with being a defender of our Constitution, the rule of law, or ensuring that we maintain a sovereign America.”

AUTHOR

Pedro Rodriguez

Pedro Boccalato Rodriguez-Aparicio is a journalism fellow at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Pedro.

RELATED POSTS:

California Lawmaker Files Emergency Injunction With SCOTUS Over Redistricting Map

Scott Calls for Standing Filibuster on Voter ID Bill

EXCLUSIVE: Heritage Action Makes SAVE America Act ‘Key Vote’

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


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

Democrats’ Demographic Doom Spiral Has No Exit

By The Daily Signal

President Donald Trump isn’t just deporting illegal immigrants. He’s deporting the people Democrats need to offset their demographic challenges.

The Census Bureau recently released updated population figures through June 2025. The country grew slightly, but that growth wasn’t equally distributed. Many red states, like South Carolina, Idaho, and Texas, grew significantly. In just one year, each of those states saw their population increase by more than 1%.

Blue states aren’t keeping up. California, Illinois, and New York now have fewer people than in 2020. In contrast, Florida’s population is up around 9%.

There’s an obvious and important takeaway here. Blue states implemented leftist ideas. They have high taxes and regulations that strangle construction. They have failing schools that teach students to hate America. They force female athletes to compete against boys.

The results have been so intolerable that millions of people have moved out. It’s yet another example of people fleeing socialism.

There’s a less obvious but just as important takeaway. After the decennial census, states gain or lose congressional seats based on population. Those adjustments change the Electoral College. States receive electoral votes based on how many House and Senate members they have.

The forecast from the American Redistricting Project shows Democrats losing nine seats in reliable blue states. Two swing states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, would each lose a seat. Those 11 seats would go to states that Trump won in 2024. A different projection from Jonathan Cervas at Carnegie Mellon University has solid red and lean red states gaining 13 seats.

If these projections hold, the Republican presidential candidate in 2032 could lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada and win the presidency. The Democrat candidate would have to win those swing states and either Arizona or Georgia.

Liberals could help mitigate this by having more babies. Blue states can’t make adults stay, but newborns don’t have a choice. That’s unlikely to happen. The Institute for Family Studies found that in 2023, the 10 states with the highest fertility rates were deep red states. The 10 states with the lowest fertility rates were deep blue states. Further, conservative women have more kids.

This trend is unlikely to reverse. Just 25% of women who voted for Kamala Harris said they wanted children, a recent New York Times poll found. Among Trump voters, it was 43%. Both numbers skew low because the response group includes adults 45 and older.

You can see the Left’s dilemma. People are fleeing the misery caused by its terrible policies, while its adherents reproduce at low levels.

Democrats could try better governance. Building more homes, affordable energy, and safe streets don’t have to be Republican positions.

Instead, the Left is relying on immigrants, both legal and illegal, to prop up their population numbers. The decennial census currently counts illegal immigrants within a state’s borders. No, that doesn’t make sense.

It may not continue. Missouri recently filed a lawsuit to stop this. Its legal brief contends that “Missouri and other States will be collectively robbed of eleven congressional seats and electoral votes” if illegal aliens are counted in the 2030 census. If the census stops counting illegals, it’d mostly be blue states losing House members. Texas would drop a couple of seats.

Regardless, deported illegal immigrants definitely won’t count in the census. Democrats won’t be able to offer them amnesty in the future either.

There isn’t a simple way out of this for the left. As residents flee, these blue states will likely become more heavily Democrat. That will lead to more aggressive leftist policies, which will cause more residents to leave and further reduce birth rates. These factors will move blue states even further to the left and so on.

The Democrats have entered a demographic doom spiral.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

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

AUTHOR

Victor Joecks

Victor Joecks is a columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Victor on X: @VictorJoecks.

FIERCE: AG Bondi SLAYS Democrats at Congressional Hearing

By The Geller Report

Attorney General Pam Bondi is testifying at a heated House Judiciary. And she came loaded for bear, telling clown-boy Jamie Raskin,”you don’t tell me anything you washed-up loser lawyer. You’re not even a lawyer.”

Bondi explodes at Dems on House Judiciary panel in fiery clash: ‘Washed up, loser lawyer’

By Josh Christenson, NY Post, Feb. 11, 2026:

Attorney General Pam Bondi ripped House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) as a “washed-up, loser lawyer.”

Raskin had demanded that Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) restore time to retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

“You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch — not on our time, no way,” Raskin said. “And I told you about that, attorney general, before you started.”

“You don’t tell me anything,” Bondi erupted, calling Raskin a “washed up, loser lawyer — not even a lawyer.”

Bondi then rounded on Nadler, telling him: “You said the president conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller found no evidence, none, of foreign interference in 2016. Have you apologized to President Trump?

“You all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president, and I am not going to have it. I’m not going to put up with it,” the AG continued.

“None of them asked Merrick Garland, over the last four years, one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump.”

Continue reading

BONDI: “Here we go with the theatrics!”

RASKIN: “I told you, Attorney General—“

BONDI: “You don’t tell me ANYTHING, you washed up—you’re not even a lawyer!”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): When pressed on the legal rationale for deploying National Guard troops to Chicago against the governor’s wishes, Bondi retorted, “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump”.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bondi engaged in a heated exchange over DOJ independence, telling Schiff he “would have been fired” if he had worked for her due to his role in past impeachment proceedings.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Bondi accused him of lying about his military record to win his seat.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): She accused the Senator of working with “dark money groups”.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI): Bondi responded to questions by asking Hirono if she was a “member of Antifa” because she had attended a antifa protests.

RINOs were not spared:

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELTED ARTICLES:

Just One Democrat Votes For Trump-Backed Election Integrity Bill

MORE TRANS-TERROR: Transsexual Opens Fire On Canadian High School, 10 DEAD, 25 Injured

Texas Investigating Dubai-Based Developer Over Another ‘Sharia City’

After Decades of the Muslim Gang Rape Epidemic, UK Ministry Ordered Deletion of the Crimes

UN Chief Congratulates Tehran Regime After Brutal Crackdown

Foreign-Born Member Of Congress Threatens Republicans With Prison When Democrats Regain Power

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

Dems Lock Horns with GOP over ICE, as Friday the 13th Deadline Looms

By Family Research Council

There’s probably an oddsmaker crunching the numbers as we speak. Which will thaw first — the D.C. snow drifts or the tension over Homeland Security funding? Heading into Friday’s deadline, the outlook is bleak for both. While the city is finally registering some above-freezing temperatures, the warmth hasn’t extended into the Hill’s negotiating rooms, where both sides seem more dug in than ever on the biggest flashpoint of a young 2026: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

But for those worried about another partial government shutdown, there is some reassurance. As most veteran staffers will tell you, if there’s anything more sacrosanct than the two parties’ principles in Congress, it’s recess. And with Presidents’ Day around the corner and a week-long break already built into the schedule, something will have to give. What that something is, no one is quite sure. Republicans have largely panned Democrats’ demands for ICE reforms, which include controversial ideas like removing agents’ face masks and mandating the impossible-to-get judicial warrants for immigrants’ arrests.

The White House has tried to engage Minority Leader (and chief rabble-rouser) Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a compromise, but those overtures were rejected Monday night. Together with his House counterpart, Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the men dismissed the outline as “incomplete and insufficient” in “addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.”

Republicans, on the other hand, argue that the president has already made key concessions, sending border czar Tom Homan to calm down tensions in Minnesota, draw down hundreds of agents, work more intentionally with local officials, and shift to a more targeted approach. Mandating body cameras was already in the works, thanks to the ICE portion of the One Big Beautiful Bill — as was the agency’s funding, conservatives are quick to counter, not that Schumer and company care to tell the American people that. They’re banking on voters’ ignorance, hoping they won’t notice that what Democrats would actually be shutting down is the rest of Homeland Security — TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and a million other non-ICE related things the country relies on every day.

They’re being “entirely unreasonable,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) complained of Schumer’s party. “First of all, ICE is already funded from the Big Beautiful Bill, and there was already a provision in there that would fund paying for body cameras. So, [they’re getting] their wish taken care of there,” he pointed out on “Washington Watch.” “But they’re trying to leverage and say, ‘Well, we’re not going to pay FEMA. We’re not going to pay TSA, we’re not going to pay Coast Guard, and several other agencies.’ That’s the leverage that they’re trying to wield. And I just don’t think it’s rational or reasonable, the things that they want done.” It’s unacceptable, Biggs continued before warning, “I think they’re underestimating the resolve of President Trump and the Republicans in Congress…”

His colleague, Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), is equally perplexed at the Left’s strategy. “It just doesn’t make sense. Democrats are willing to go to the wall, shut down agencies that help us as Americans — [things like] making sure that travel continues to operate smoothly, making sure after these storms that we had in the southeast and in the South that FEMA has [the ability] to be helping where they’re needed. So, to go out and say this is going to somehow affect the outcome of what ICE is doing is just not the case.” But, once again, he stressed on Monday’s “Washington Watch,” “Democrats are showing that they’re willing to fight for the illegal in this country more than they are to fight for the American citizen.”

For House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), it’s just another day in the life of the two-year migraine he inherited as leader. “I wish we didn’t have these dramatic events every week in Congress now,” he admitted on Saturday’s “This Week on Capitol Hill” with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, “but this is the reality with small margins. We have a one-vote margin in the House now, and they have just three in the Senate. So this is what you get.”

Despite the wrench Democrats are throwing into the DHS debate, Johnson refuses to let them rob Republicans of their biggest accomplishment. “We’re really grateful, really proud, that we got the 12 appropriations bills through the whole process until the very end. Eleven are now signed into law. The president did that triumphantly in a signing service at the Oval Office. … But now, we’re all tied up on the Homeland Security bill,” he sighed. “The Democrats are politically posturing over the [ICE] issue, and we’re all sort of on the edge of our seats to see what they’ll agree to.”

That said, he acknowledged, “We obviously need to have immigration enforcement that is balanced and smart and efficient and obviously complies with the Constitution. There are always ways to tweak the processes and procedures,” the Louisianan said, “and the president has shown complete good faith in wanting to ensure that that’s true. But Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate are trying to use this for political posturing. And so, I’m not sure how exactly it’s going to sort out. But the two sides are pretty far apart at the moment.”

Considering the short runway — Friday the 13th is the deadline, ironically — it would take a miracle beyond even Mike Johnson to resolve this issue by the long weekend. Recognizing the long odds, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has been trying to prep another short-term funding extension to buy Congress more time. Hill experts just can’t envision a scenario where House or Senate Democrats vote for a DHS bill “in any form,” Punchbowl warns. “It won’t get better by next week. In the Senate, Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to join with them to clear another DHS funding patch. For now, Senate Democrats are using the imminent deadline to try to prevent a loss of momentum. Which means nearly every Democratic senator is indicating they wouldn’t support another stopgap funding bill for DHS.” Where does that leave us? Even Johnson isn’t sure.

On Saturday, he was iffy on a short-term CR. “But, of course, the amount of time it takes to move something across the floor in the Senate, you have to think ahead. Leader Thune in the Senate is doing that for the Republican side. We’ll see what happens. I’ll just tell you, it probably comes down to a couple of really tough issues that the Democrats are demanding that I think would be unworkable and unsafe.” As he has in other interviews, the speaker slammed the ban on masks. “That’s a dangerous prospect, because we know that those individuals are being doxxed. I mean, it puts their own families in physical jeopardy for their safety. So we can’t do that. We have to protect our law enforcement officers.”

The other non-starter, Johnson outlined, is the Democrats’ push for a “brand new judicial warrant requirement in order to go and apprehend someone. And that’s not workable,” he argued. (As have others.) “We have tens of millions of illegals who come across the border into the country over the four years [under] the Biden administration. It would literally be an unworkable standard. It means no one, no illegal, practically, could be apprehended.” Bogging down the courts and bringing ICE arrests to a screeching halt, however, is all part of the Left’s game plan — however onerous and unworkable it may be.

As Perkins rightly pointed out, “That’s already been a part of the immigration problem … the court backlog. So this would only make the situation worse.” Absolutely, Johnson agreed, “and it would effectively allow all illegals to stay in the country, almost all of them. And that’s obviously not something that we can do. It’s not something the American people would agree to. So we’ve got to navigate through all of that this week.”

On the mask issue, which has been a point of real contention, Biggs reiterates that agents are wearing law-enforcement vests and visible ICE jackets, so people can easily distinguish them in a crowd. “But think about this too,” he offered. “Sometimes they’re going into undercover-type situations, and they’re basically saying we want everybody to be designated and out in the open.”

FRC’s president, who spent years in the police force, agreed that it wouldn’t make sense to unmask anyone in an undercover operation. But, he countered, “I do think we need to consider this … the standard we apply to federal law enforcement [and] local law enforcement. I do think there’s some room for negotiation here.” But none of this matters, he argued, if the cities’ leaders continue to condone lawlessness. As long as there’s mayhem and rioting in the streets — and a general disdain for law and order — the chaos only gets worse.

As the speaker pointed out, “If you have friction between local and state law enforcement and the feds, that creates a problem, an inherent problem, and it is going to escalate. So we’ve got to get everybody back on the same page. We’ve got to do the work that the American people elected the Trump administration to do, and that is to apprehend and remove dangerous criminals. That’s the mission, and I think they’ll get back to it.”

In the meantime, there’s no clear way out of this mess if Democrats are locked into their corner, holding the wrong budget lines hostage, and refusing to negotiate in good faith. “I don’t know anyone in Washington who sees a ready off-ramp for this debate [that would allow] this funding to go forward,” Newsmax’s James Rosen admitted to Perkins.

But Schumer might want to be careful, he cautioned. “We’ve seen the Trump White House in 2.0 make use of shutdowns and fiscal cliffs and funding disputes in a fundamentally different way than previous White Houses have. And they have used those kinds of gaps in funding and these fiscal cliff situations to punish the Democrats, to punish blue state programs through the White House Office of Management and Budget.” He paused before adding, “And they’re very savvy about it. And to some extent, ruthless. So if there is going to be a resolution, I suspect that that could potentially put the parties together a little more swiftly.”

Until Democrats get serious and come to the table, Johnson warned, “They’re playing with fire here.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Dems Distort Constitution, Demand Noem’s Removal for DHS Funding Bill

In Trump’s Hemisphere, Socialism Doesn’t Fly

From Truckers’ Licenses to the Courts, the Immigration Fight Rages On

Anarchists call for solidifying gains, expanding violent insurgency

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand colum is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.


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

Senate Republicans Have The Power To Force Democrats To Filibuster Voter ID — So Why Don’t They?

By The Daily Caller

Senate Republicans could force Democrats into a talking filibuster on voter identification, but it’s unclear if they will use the strategy to pass the bill.

The SAVE America Act, a Republican-backed election integrity measure, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote — including by mail — mandate photo ID for federal elections, direct states to verify citizenship and remove non-citizens from federal voter rolls.

Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy in a post on X, confirmed that the bill is expected to reach the House floor in February, and if passed, move to the Senate — where questions remain about whether Republicans, despite controlling both chambers, can muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Without the 60-vote threshold or Democratic support, GOP Senate leadership would be faced with potentially using one of the Senate’s oldest tools — the talking, or standing, filibuster — to advance the legislation.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee has referred to the Senate procedure as the “zombie filibuster.”

He wrote in a post on X that it is “uncharted territory” and acknowledged that it can be “time-consuming and difficult.”

The Talking Filibuster is uncharted territory for every living senator

Using will be time-consuming & difficult

Victory isn’t even guaranteed

So it’s understandable that some senators are reluctant

‼️🚨We still have to do it🚨‼️

The cost of not doing it is unacceptable https://t.co/lPZO1BL3pj pic.twitter.com/KlqHFHAVZT

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 6, 2026

Lee argues that now is the time to address the legislation, adding that the talking filibuster differs from the legislative filibuster because it does not require eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation or nominations, and therefore does “not commit” to altering Senate rules.

“This mess has got to be dealt with,” Lee told the Daily Caller.

“We might as well deal with it in the first instance. It does not commit us, it’s not nuking, it’s not changing the rules, it’s not ignoring any rules, it doesn’t require any nefarious activity, nor does it even compel us to adopt the same approach to every piece of legislation moving forward. But this is because it’s got to be dealt with at one point or another anyway. This isn’t gonna go away,” he continued.

Under a traditional talking filibuster, opposition is worn down through continuous floor speeches or enforcement of the two-speech rule, which limits each senator to two speeches on the same legislative question per legislative day. By keeping the Senate in continuous session and refusing to adjourn, the majority can prevent the minority from resetting those speech limits.

This approach shifts the burden to the minority to maintain constant floor presence and uninterrupted debate, imposing sustained physical and mental demands to preserve the filibuster.

Once all speeches are exhausted and a quorum is present, the majority leader may put the question to the chamber and proceed to a simple-majority vote. At that point, the filibuster has ended, cloture is unnecessary, and no Senate rules have been changed or overridden.

Operating entirely within existing Senate rules, this would allow Majority Leader Sen. John Thune — with a quorum present — to bring the measure to a final vote with 51 votes, as the 60-vote cloture threshold no longer applies once the filibuster has run its course.

If the Republican Senate chooses to proceed with a talking filibuster, it would require Majority Leader Thune to take an active role in calling live quorums, compelling Democrats to speak and enforcing Senate Rule 19, the “two-speech rule.”

One of the most high-profile examples of a talking filibuster came during the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when South Carolina Democratic Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke for over 24 hours in an attempt to block the legislation. He joined the Republican Party in 1964.

Since then, modern filibusters have largely relied on the threat of extended debate rather than continuous speeches, making Thurmond’s effort a rare example of the classic talking filibuster.

A common criticism of the federal voter identification bill is that, if enacted, it could pave the way for federalizing elections and encroach on state authority.

Lee has rejected that claim, dismissing it as a “paranoid fantasy” advanced by opponents of the legislation rather than a reflection of what the bill actually does.

“I mean it, it’s just, it’s not gonna happen. I mean it. I don’t, I don’t know anybody who wants to do that supposedly,” Lee told the Caller.

Another argument raised against the bill is that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) may constrain federal proof-of-citizenship requirements. Critics point to the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling interpreting the NVRA to require states to accept the federal voter registration form, which relies on an attestation of citizenship rather than documentary proof.

Under that framework, opponents of the SAVE Act argue the legislation’s mandates would need to be implemented through state-level registration systems or by amending the NVRA itself, rather than imposed through standalone federal legislation.

Lee asserts that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress clear authority to enact the SAVE America Act, particularly because federal law — not state policy — created the current constraints.

The Constitution—through Article I, Section 4—empowers Congress to pass the SAVE America Act

The NVRA—which SCOTUS has (wrongly) interpreted to prohibit states from seeking proof of citizenship when registering voters under the NVRA (even when it believes noncitizens are… https://t.co/anQJf8CzjC

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 4, 2026

He contends that Supreme Court interpretations of the National Voter Registration Act have prevented states from requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, even when there is reason to believe noncitizens may be registering.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented in the Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc. case, arguing that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the NVRA “brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States” by preventing Arizona from enforcing its own proof-of-citizenship requirement to ensure that only qualified voters (U.S. citizens) are registered.

Supporters of the SAVE America Act frame the legislation not as an intrusion on state authority, but as a necessary federal remedy to a problem created by existing federal law.

The original SAVE Act, which ensures only U.S. citizens are added to federal voter rolls and prevents noncitizens from voting in federal elections, has been stalled in the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell. 

The newest version of the legislation, sponsored by Lee and Roy, has garnered support from President Donald Trump.

He told Daily Caller White House Correspondent Reagan Reese Friday: “I would love to use [the standing filibuster]. The SAVE Act is very important. Voter ID — if you look at it, no mail-in voting, and you have to have proof of citizenship. Everybody wants it. Polls — even with Democrats — it’s polling at 82%, with Republicans at 99%. So we are going to be trying very hard.” 

The Utah Republican met with Trump in the Oval Office Thursday alongside Republican Senators Ron Johnson 0f Wisconsin and Rick Scott of Florida, telling the Caller the president “wants it done” and is “energized” and “very motivated” to see the bill passed and signed into law.

Great meeting today with @realDonaldTrump@SenRonJohnson, and @SenRickScott

We all agree: it’s time to turn to the SAVE America Act, and do whatever it takes to pass it in the Senate

Big plans unfolding soon! https://t.co/J40xFd9DO0 pic.twitter.com/sYDNriUpjq

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 6, 2026

Lee further pointed out that his legislation could be strategically leveraged by Republicans, telling the Caller he believes using a talking filibuster on the SAVE America Act would increase the party’s negotiating power.

“If we do this with SAVE America, I think it increases our negotiating power, our leverage, you might say.”

Majority Leader Thune has raised concerns that the time required for a talking filibuster could otherwise be used to advance multiple pieces of legislation.

Lee pushed back, arguing that lawmakers should be willing to devote additional time to the effort.

🚨 INFURIATING: Leader John Thune is already BACKING DOWN on the SAVE Act, saying there are “implications” to triggering a “talking filibuster”

IF YOU CAN’T EVEN PASS A BILL THAT 80% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT, YOU NEED TO RESIGN, @LeaderJohnThune

The implications of FRAUDULENT… pic.twitter.com/gqDemChFKX

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 3, 2026

“On each of those other pieces of legislation, and even if we have less full time available to do other stuff, then gosh, let’s make up for it by working longer hours, by having longer work weeks, by staying on weekends, by canceling some recesses,” Lee told the Caller.

“We are lawmakers. We were elected to make laws, and not all laws are worth enacting, but good heavens, when we’ve got this somewhat rare and extremely valuable asset and resource — if the House, the Senate majorities all unified at the same time as a Republican presidency, it is reckless not to use this, absolutely inexcusably reckless.”

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Enough! It’s Time to Pass the SAVE America Act!

‘It’s Not Insurmountable’: John Kennedy Sizes Up What’s Needed To Pass SAVE ACT

Mitch McConnell’s Hospital Stay Is Delaying The SAVE Act

Trump Slams Door Shut On Conservatives’ Effort To Attach Election Integrity Bill To Shutdown-Ending Measure

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

Only in America? The Voter ID Debate and the Fight Over the SAVE Act

By Oladigbo Oluwasogo Olalekan

he argument and counter-argument surrounding the newly introduced Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act) have once again exposed a deep divide in American politics over a matter that many consider simple common sense.

The SAVE Act is a proposed United States law that would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote.

Under the bill, citizenship could be verified through several acceptable means of identification.

These include a driver’s license that meets Real ID standards and indicates citizenship, a valid U.S. passport, an official U.S. military identification card, a valid government-issued photo ID that lists citizenship status, or any other government-issued photo ID presented alongside proof of birth or naturalization. Such proof could include a U.S. birth certificate, a naturalization certificate, or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA).

Despite these clearly outlined and reasonable provisions, the Democratic Party has largely framed the requirement to identify oneself before voting as a racist attempt that should not be allowed in the United States. This narrative is, at best, confusing and, at worst, deeply troubling.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a recent interview on MSNOW’s Morning Joe, described voter ID requirements as “Jim Crow 2.0,” arguing that they are designed to prevent people of color from voting. Sen Schumer suggested that a woman who changes her last name after marriage could be denied the right to vote, or that individuals unable to locate their birth certificates or proper identification would be disenfranchised.

Watching that interview was cringe-worthy, highlighting the extreme lengths to which some Democrats are willing to go to erase basic logic from the conversation inother to score cheap political goal.

America is one of the greatest countries in the world a nation many others look up to and seek to emulate in leadership and governance. Yet the idea of voting without identification is one practice I would never want my own country, Nigeria, to copy.

As a Proud Nigerian, Nigeria is currently preparing for the 2027 General Election, and before that, my state of origin, Osun State, will hold a gubernatorial election in August 2026. The challenges facing Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the constitutionally empowered body responsible for conducting Federal and States elections are not about whether voters should identify themselves. That question is already settled.

In the Last two days Nigerians are protesting in the Nation Capital Abuja demanding improvements such as electronic transmission of results, especially ahead of the 2027 presidential election. But no debate about whether voters should present identification because it is natural thing to do and our electoral laws captured it very well.

In fact, Nigeria operates a customized central voter Identification system known as Temporary Voters Slip (TVS) at the initial point of registration which will later turned to Permanent Voters Card (PVC), and only citizens of Nigeria of aged eighteen and above who possess Permanent Voters Card (PVC) are allowed to vote on election day.

This is why, in 2026, watching the Republican caucus in the United States Congress struggle to persuade their Democratic colleagues to pass the SAVE Act feels almost unreal.

How can a country regarded as the model of Western civilization still be debating whether identification should be required to vote?

I don’t think there is any country in the world where you will be allowed to vote without any form of Identification, I challenge anyone for a debate.

Even more puzzling is the Democrats’ position when viewed against recent history. In 2012, President Barack Obama was asked to present identification before voting despite the fact that everyone knew who he was. In 2022, President Joe Biden was also seen presenting his ID before casting his ballot during the midterm elections.

In both cases, standard procedure prevailed: identification was required.

These examples make it difficult to believe that opposition to the SAVE Act is truly about protecting voters. It suggests instead that figures such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are not acting in the genuine interest of either democracy or even their own party.

A recent poll discussed on MSNOW further underscores this point, showing that 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats support the use of identification to vote. On this issue, many politicians are clearly out of step with the people they claim to represent.

Citizenship carries benefits and responsibilities, and the right to vote and be voted for is among the most fundamental. From a practical standpoint, the idea that people could simply show up to vote without confirming their name, age, gender or identity defies reason. How opposition to the SAVE Act persists in the face of this reality is beyond imagination.

My advice is simple: the Republican caucus must not allow itself to be bullied by extreme voices that do not represent what is best for the United States of America. Senate Republican Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson should move decisively to ensure the passage of the SAVE Act without delay.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

A Leftist Anti-ICE Fantasy

By Joan Swirsky

In my meandering imagination, I was a liberal, yearning to join the anti-ICE peaceful protest in Minneapolis… 

In my meandering imagination, I was a liberal, yearning to join the anti-ICE peaceful protest in Minneapolis and trying to figure out how I would let our government know how strenuously I object to their policy of deporting illegal aliens.

I summoned up an article I had read by the esteemed Daniel Greenfield in which he spelled out in vivid detail the exact kinds of people I would be supporting, defending, and advocating for, all who had been charged with or convicted of the following crimes:

  • rapists;
  • a “child fondler”;
  • sex predators;
  • child-molesters;
  • pedophiles;
  • the sodomizer of a young girl;
  • another charged with “strongarm sodomy of a girl”;
  • criminal sexual conduct, fourth degree, of a victim 13 to 15 years old;
  • murderers;
  • muggers;
  • “lewd or lascivious acts with a minor”;
  • “sexual exploitation of a minor — prostitution”;
  • “enticement of a minor for indecent purposes”;
  • “sexual exploitation of a minor — material — film”;
  • “strongarm sodomy of a boy”;
  • “sodomy-girl-strongarm.”

“This is what Renée Good died for,” Greenfield wrote.

“Yes,” I responded to Greenfield, in my fantasy as a liberal.  “Keep them all here.  They are human beings.  They are victims of poverty, of deprived upbringings, of mean people who want to deport them.  That’s not who we are!”

How I Joined the Ranks

In my fantasy, I didn’t quite know how I would make my appearance at the anti-ICE protest.  I thought about digging out my “make peace, not war” t-shirt, but I couldn’t find it.  Then I looked for some fairly recent placards I carried quoting phrases from Antifa and BLM, but the only ones I found in my garage were yellow with age and damaged by humidity.

And then it hit me.  What better thing could I do to demonstrate my strong but peaceful intentions than to emulate Alex Pretti and bring my nine-millimeter semi-automatic Sig Sauer handgun with me, complete with two high-capacity magazines, and tuck it into my waistband?

After all, what says peaceful protest more than a loaded gun?

But uh-oh.  As writer and editor Olivia Murray points out, the P320 Sig Sauer Mr. Pretti was wielding is notorious — and has generated numerous lawsuits — for going off spontaneously, even when in a holster!

Then I asked a liberal friend and avid supporter of the anti-ICE protestors what he would do if his daughter were raped, and he knew who the rapist was.

“I’d kill him…with my bare hands!” he said with conviction.

“So you believe criminals should see justice?” I asked him.  “Like the criminals being deported?”

“That’s different,” he said.

Then I asked an even more left-wing neighbor what she would do if she looked out her second-floor window and saw a guy trying to break into her house.

“I’d call the Sixth Precinct,” she said, referring to our local police department.

“So you believe criminals should be arrested…and tried and convicted?” I asked her.  “Like the criminals they’re deporting in Minnesota?”

“That’s different,” she said.

Maybe it was the sheer hypocrisy, or was it the stupidity, or was it just simple boilerplate leftism?  Whatever it was, it snapped me out of my liberal, leftist, progressive fantasy with a start.  It was the instant that my background as a N.Y. State–certified psychotherapist, who had practiced for over 20 years, recognized the stunning irrationality — or was it the clinical insanity? — of those who have joined this protest, including the elected officials who are fomenting all the chaos and violence.

There’s Good, and There’s Stupid

Less than a month ago, when Renée Good, at a similar demonstration, decided to obstruct traffic and then drove her 4,000-pound SUV into an officer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who was rounding up illegal alien career criminals.  She was shot and killed for her attack.

The craven media tried to soften her image by calling her a poet, just as they wanted the public to know that Alex Pretti was an oh, so caring intensive-care nurse.

But why was Mr. Oh, So Caring wearing a tactical vest or failing to have a carry ID for his loaded gun, which is mandated by Minnesota law?  Didn’t he learn his lesson the week before, when he sustained a broken rib after he scuffled with federal agents at another anti-ICE protest?  Here is the video that shows a man identified as Alex Pretti attacking ICE agents and kicking out their tail lights before he is tackled.

In addition, writer Tyler Durden reports that “according to Jeanne Massey, a neighbor, Pretti was part of a ‘Signal ICE’ group chat of volunteers who organized a sophisticated operation to track ICE activity in real time and alert each other when agents were in the area.”

Tip of the Iceberg

According to writer and publisher Terry A. Hurlbut, “the State of Minnesota, alone (so far) among the fifty States, is making insurrection and rebellion against the United States.”  He suggests that the reason may be because the Trump administration discovered such massive fraud —  the president now estimates it at $100 billion — from Minnesota alone, and that is why Governor Tim Walz; Mayor Jacob Frey; and “government employees, in key positions, are actively supporting criminal behavior,” including

  1. obstruction of justice,
  2. stalking and attempted murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and even
  3. stalking and attempted murder of journalists sympathetic to the rule of law.

Washington Times columnist Don Feder reminds his readers that “every totalitarian dictatorship started with violence in the streets.  The French Revolution started with the storming the Bastille and ended in the Reign of Terror.  The Russian Revolution began by Bolsheviks storming the Winter Palace and ended in firing squads and gulags.  National Socialism started with Brownshirts brawling in the streets of Weimar Germany and ended in World War II and the Holocaust.”

Feder adds,

Don’t be fooled by the carefully planned chaos unfolding in Minneapolis.  Today’s street theater isn’t just about immigration enforcement any more than the 2025 “No Kings” protests were just about challenging President Trump’s authority, or the 2020 George Floyd riots were just about so-called police brutality.

All are part of a revolution in the making that could spell the end of democracy in America. Left-wing agitators plan to destroy constitutional government. The battle to keep U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting murderers and rapists is the latest front in a wide-ranging war.

Businessman and author Kenin M. Spivak believes that “the heated campaign against ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is really an effort to open the borders and keep them open.”

Most of the recent vitriolic opposition to ICE is a feint by unrepentant open-borders progressives. They won the first round when Joe Biden was elected president, lost the second when Donald Trump returned to office, and are back for a rematch. For most, the venom has little to do with how ICE performs its mission and everything to do with preventing the Trump administration from undoing Biden’s brazen deluge of illegal migrants.

Grown-Up Time

After witnessing this wildly out-of-control situation, the adults in the White House, led by President Trump, sent ICE acting director Tom Homan to Minnesota to take direct command of immigration enforcement, to speak directly to Gov. Walz (who my late always-diplomatic mother would call “not overburdened by brains”), and to Mayor Frey (didn’t we all know this kind of irritating rabble-rouser in school?).

As reported by Pamela Geller, the president confirmed that he and Walz spoke by phone in a “very good” conversation.”  Although the governor bashed Pres. Trump ahead of his meeting with Mr. Homan, apparently he changed his tune after they met.

But Jack Davis reported that “they met, they talked, and they did not agree.”

“President Trump has been clear,” Homan said.  “He wants American cities to be safe and secure for law-abiding residents — and they will be.”

Frey, on the other hand, said that “all he wants is for the federal government to leave his city,” adding defiantly that “Minneapolis Does Not and Will Not Enforce Federal Immigration Laws.”

Always, Always, Always Follow the Money

It costs millions upon millions of dollars to wage a revolution, an insurgency, a massive movement to undermine a government, especially the all-powerful American government.

And you can bet that most of the people participating in this anti-government, anti-law-and-order action are not millionaires or billionaires, but rather regular working-class or middle-class people who are being handsomely paid to act out their benefactors’ fury.

Who is paying for all this?  According to reporting by Cristina Laila for GatewayPundit.com, super-sleuth James O’Keefe “went undercover inside the Minnesota Mob” and learned that “an entire network of NGOs, unions, and activist groups including ‘SEIU’ [Service Employees International Union]‘Make the Road New York’, and the ‘Independent Socialist Group’ are all behind this chaos.”

Newsman Bill O’Reilly was also curious and learned that a man named Neville Roy Singham, a Chinese billionaire, has been funneling “tens of millions” of dollars into America to “radical organizations to foster rebellion and destroy the government.”

“This isn’t some organic thing,” O’Reilly adds.  “This is a foreign power!”

Moreover, writer and economist Antonio Graceffo details how the Minneapolis-based activist group Defend 612 “has mobilized tens of thousands of supporters through encrypted communication networks to disrupt federal operations” through a complex funding structure linked to “liberal foundations, shell entities, politicians, and third-party organizations, some of which ultimately trace back to billionaire George Soros.”

Defend 612, Graceffo adds, “provides anti-ICE ‘know your rights’ training, organizes and supports protests, and maintains a decentralized rapid-response network designed to interfere with ICE enforcement in real time.”

And looky here! Craigslist now advertises for protesters in California, offering $6,500–12,500 a week, depending on one’s level of chaos.

What Now?

If history is any measure, the left-wing anarchists and hired patsies aren’t going anywhere.  But neither are President Trump and his team of law-and-order advocates.

On the law-and-order side, an appeals court just sided with the Trump administration to lift Minnesota protest curbs on ICE agents.  Now it remains to be seen if the Congress will pass the legislation the president has just proposed to end sanctuary cities across the country.

But even more recently, the president has decided on a strategic pullback and has issued this statement:

I have instructed Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, that under no circumstances are we going to participate in various poorly run Democrat Cities with regard to their Protests and/or Riots unless, and until, they ask us for help. We will, however, guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.

Gotta love it…let them devolve and self-destruct on their own!

Journalist Don Feder sums the whole mess up neatly: “The battle of Minneapolis will decide whether America is governed democratically or ruled by self-appointed elites backed by goon squads.”

As for me, I can only hope that the god of mercy spares me another liberal fantasy!

©2026 . All rights reserved.

How China Sold America the Wind Turbine Scam

By John Droz, Jr.

This is a repost of a worthwhile article — this one was on Front Page.

I am sharing this as it is a story of trillions of dollars of waste, huge financial losses to citizens in “hosting” communities, scientifically documented adverse health effects to thousands of innocent citizens, enormous harmful environmental consequences, a major national security risk, etc. — with zero net benefit!

Put another way, this is a classic story of humungous adverse consequences all because politicians and community leaders did no real Critical Thinking.

In the same vein, this good piece also recently came out: Energy Wisdom is Lacking Among Public Officials… And this today…


For decades, the United States has been guided by a story about energy that presents wind power as one of the few responsible paths forward. The idea has been repeated so often that it eventually stopped sounding like a policy proposal and began to sound like a moral duty.

Wind energy was described as the answer to climate change, the way to rebuild American manufacturing, and even a strategy to strengthen national security. Once that view became popular in national politics, questioning it was treated as a refusal to accept science rather than an effort to understand the actual costs and tradeoffs.

The problem is that this story never came from a neutral scientific study. It came from a mix of international institutions, corporate lobbying efforts, and foreign governments that realized they could benefit from it. China benefited more than anyone else. What American leaders described as a clean-energy transition became, in practice, a significant transfer of industrial power to a competing nation that understood the economic opportunities far earlier than the United States did.

China’s rise in the renewable-energy market was a direct result of Western governments focusing more on climate politics than on common sense. While American and European leaders focused on emissions pledges and public messaging, China built the factories and rare-earth mining operations needed to dominate the global wind-turbine market.

Today, Chinese companies control more than 70 percent of the world’s wind-turbine supply chain and more than 80 percent of the rare-earth materials needed for turbine generators and other green-energy technologies. That dominance was built through state subsidies, centralized financing, and government direction that enabled Chinese producers to undercut American and European manufacturers, leaving most unable to compete.

This created an apparent contradiction: The United States now relies on China for the equipment that supposedly underpins American “energy independence.” Democrats rarely acknowledge this because it raises an uncomfortable question. How can a country strengthen its strategic position by depending on a foreign rival for the core parts of its energy system?

The question only grows once China’s own energy system is considered. While the United States has closed more than 300 coal plants since 2010, China has expanded coal use on a massive scale, adding roughly two new coal plants per week in recent years.

Those plants provide the power needed to run the factories that build wind turbines for export. As a result, American emissions fell on paper while global emissions continued to rise, simply shifting from one country to another.

This is the difference between symbolic climate policy and real environmental change, and for years, the United States has chosen symbolism.

A significant reason the Green Scam continues is the way climate science is communicated. Many people assume the United Nations’ climate reports are released exactly as written by scientists. In reality, draft reports are reviewed and edited by government officials before publication.

The summaries—usually the only parts the public sees—are negotiated line by line to ensure the final language supports specific policy priorities.

Science relies on open debate, repetition of results, and the ability to test conclusions, not on political negotiation. When science is filtered through policymakers before reaching the public, it becomes messaging rather than fact, and messaging cannot guide a country’s energy strategy.

This problem becomes even clearer when looking at who speaks publicly about climate science.

Many of the most visible voices do not work in climate modeling, atmospheric physics, or geophysics. Their backgrounds are often in unrelated fields, but because their views align with the dominant narrative, they are presented as experts. The scientific method requires observation and evidence. Public debates often rely on authority and repetition.

Wind energy shows what happens when climate policy is shaped by politics instead of evidence. In practice, U.S. wind turbines operate at capacity factors between 32-35 percent, meaning they produce far less energy than their maximum output most of the time.

Because wind is intermittent, states still depend on natural gas or coal to keep the grid stable. That dependence increases system-wide costs. States that built wind energy the fastest—notably California and New York—saw retail electricity prices rise far above the national average over the past decade. Taxpayers also fund new transmission lines, grid upgrades, and the costs of turbine retirement.

Wind turbines are often placed along major bird-migration pathways, leading to significant declines in bird populations, including protected species such as golden and bald eagles. Estimates from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate wind turbines kill between 500,000 and 700,000 birds in the United States each year, with some studies suggesting totals above one million.

China benefits from all of these outcomes. It exports turbines, grows its industrial power, and expands its influence in global supply chains. The United States, meanwhile, accepts higher energy costs, greater grid instability, and increased dependence on foreign manufacturing, all while believing it has taken the lead on climate issues.


I could have submitted multiple additional comments to this article (e.g., see my prior commentary on this topic), but opted to only do the following:

FYI, during all the years of robotic accolades for wind energy, there has never been a Scientific Study that has concluded that industrial wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2. Think about that!

The wind industry lobby did put forth “studies,” but they were all based on “computer simulations.”

Computer simulations have value when we don’t have sufficient empirical data. However, with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines world wide we have PLENTY of empirical data.

Despite that, there has never been a Scientific Study (i.e. using legitimate empirical data) that has concluded that industrial wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2.

Oh, one more thing… There have been MANY scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy is likely a Net Liability regarding fixing Climate Change. For example, see here.

©2026 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I offer incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time.)

CALIF-FRAUD: Almost 20% of ALL U.S. Home Health Activity Comes From Just One Place — Los Angeles

By The Geller Report

California is facing mounting calls for a sweeping audit after MASSIVE fraud was exposed — a staggering 18% of all U.S. home health activity comes from just one place: Los Angeles County.

That single county now has more hospice agencies than 36 states combined.

One doctor alone was caught fraudulently billing taxpayers $120 MILLION.

Investigators uncovered a surreal scam hub: 287 hospice providers packed into a two-mile radius — operating out of strip malls, unmarked offices, even a wrecking yard and vacant lots. No patients. No care. Just paperwork.

As one whistleblower put it: “I could fill this out from Kazakhstan and have a hospice license waiting for me.”

This isn’t incompetence.

Gavin Newsom isn’t just allowing it — he’s complicit.

How can anyone vote Democrat??

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POSTS ON X:

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

New Governor Who Ran On ‘Transparency’ Reportedly Uses Loophole To Host Secret Ritzy Dinner With Donors

By The Daily Caller

Politicians are gonna politician.

During her campaign, Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill vowed to bring “transparency and accountability” to the governor’s office. She even said she wanted to get dark money out of politics. But, of course, she appears to have already reneged on her promise after reportedly using a loophole to host a secret ritzy dinner with her deep-pocketed donors.

Sherrill recently hosted a dinner for executives, lobbyists, unionists, and anyone else who could afford a $100,000 minimum entry donation, Politico reported Sunday. Thanks to a loophole, donors could give well over $250,000, despite a state law that caps inaugural contributions at $500, and the identities of those donors will probably never see the light of day.

That’s because they were reportedly donating to Mission to Deliver NJ, a non-profit, 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization created by Sherrill’s allies to fund the inaugural parties and other related events for the governor. Those who donated over $250,000, the “Commander” tier, got four tickets to the posh pre-inaugural dinner, a spot on the group’s finance committee, and “quarterly briefings from top officials,” Politico reported.

“As a 501(c)4, you’re talking about donations that are unlimited and dark, so nobody’s even aware of who’s potentially buying influence from the new administration,” Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform for Campaign Legal Center, told Politico. “The typical New Jerseyan doesn’t know even who’s part of that select group that has helped fund the inaugural ball, but they’re going to see the potential outcomes of that when a policy favored by special interests gets more support from the governor.”

Jose Lazano, Mission to Deliver’s leader, said the group was only set up to pay for Sherrill’s inaugural ball. They are also planning events for America’s 250th anniversary and possibly the 2026 FIFA World Cup games and the tournament’s final match, which will be played at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

“There is zero intention to do anything political at all,” Lozano said in its defense. He claimed the group will not push for Sherrill’s agenda, nor has it shared any donor information with Sherrill herself.

Well, color me extremely skeptical.

Dark money might be one of the worst, if not the worst, factors that have turned American politics, at the state and federal levels, into a corrupt clown show. It has turned the ethos of one man, one vote, into one Ivy League degree and a blank check, one vote.

Sure, politicians have engaged in shady behavior since time immemorial. They have always lied, as well. But the amount of dark money sloshing around the system, especially in national politics, is unprecedented. And anytime a politician reneges on a promise, as is the case with Sherrill, I still find it annoying, even though I should know better.

AUTHOR

John Loftus

Editor at Large

RELATED ARTICLE: New Jersey Governor’s Race Could Reshape Democrats’ Entire Political Identity

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

CFACT Report Takes Down UN Assault on Plastic

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Plastics are a great equalizer.

Thanks to plastic, never before in history have the necessities of life been so plentiful and affordable.

Plastics make an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, and information technology available to all.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2030 Plastics Agenda for Business, launched in November 2025 with UNEP backing, promotes a “circular economy” through mandates and bureaucratic control.

CFACT’s report, The Next Plastics Playbook: Inside the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2030 Business Agenda by Melanie Collette, reveals it as a push for one-size-fits-all global regulation that could undermine plastics’ immense benefits.

You are almost certainly reading this on a plastic device. You’re probably wearing plastic as well.

Lightweight, corrosion-resistant plastics cut transport costs and, crucially, make essentials affordable. Plastic packaging extends food shelf life, reduces waste, and delivers staples like rice, oil, and medicine to remote or low-income areas.

Plastic is essential to our entire economy, so naturally, the UN wants in.

Plastics drive the world economy, contribute trillions in value, employ millions globally, support jobs in manufacturing and healthcare, and are essential to human well-being.

The UN plastic agenda risks stifling these advantages by favoring big corporations over smaller ones and imposing rigid rules that ignore local needs, eroding sovereignty and consumer choice.

True progress requires voluntary innovation and evidence-based, localized solutions — not centralized UN mandates.

As the climate agenda crumbles, we dare not permit a UN bureaucratic comeback under the guise of saving us from plastic.

Read the full CFACT report.

For nature and people too.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

New Analysis Cites 4 Ways CBO’s Budget Baseline Always Favors Increased Federal Spending

By Family Research Council

Four key assumptions in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analytical tool for projecting federal spending and revenue trends heavily distort its results in favor of continually increasing outlays and expanding government regulation, according to a new Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) analysis.

“The CBO baseline is important because it is used as the official benchmark against which legislative proposals are scored. The biases in the baseline allow the true costs of legislation to stay hidden from the public and members of Congress,” according to EPIC’s director of Budget Policy. Dickerson’s analysis was first delivered as part of the R Street Institute’s recent Virtual Federal Budget Reform Forum: Recommendations for Congress.

Dickerson points to four flaws in the baseline, three of which, in effect, make projected spending look much higher than it could otherwise be, and one of which makes tax revenues coming into the U.S. Treasury Department appear to be bigger than they actually are if Congress makes no changes in outlays or current law. The four flaws, according to Dickerson, include:

  • Discretionary appropriations are assumed to continue and grow with inflation each year. The result is a spending level authorized for one year for a specific program or agency which is assumed by CBO to continue throughout the 10-year period covered by the baseline.
  • Certain direct spending programs larger than $50 million are assumed to be extended beyond their statutory expiration. This means a program with an annual budget greater than $50 million is assumed by CBO to go on indefinitely until Congress acts to the contrary.
  • Entitlement programs are assumed to make all scheduled benefit payments, even if a program’s trust fundand financing are inadequate to do so. This means a program like Social Security and Medicare, which depend in great part upon trust funds — taxes paid into the system by employers, workers, and the self-employed — will continue paying full benefits using general revenues.
  • Excise taxes dedicated to a trust fund are assumed to be continued beyond their statutory expiration. Under current law, the federal government receives between $75 and $100 billion annually from excise levies on alcohol, gasoline, and tobacco products.

Together, the resulting bias “hides tens of trillions of dollars in spending in the baseline,” Dickerson contends. For example, of the $85 trillion in total spending the baseline projected for the 2025-2034 period, nearly 30%, or $25.5 trillion, is made up of spending not specifically authorized by Congress.

The EPIC analysis comes as Congress and Trump confront the reality that federal spending has increased more than 80% since 2015, zooming up from $5.01 trillion that year to $7.01 trillion in 2025. Entitlement spending on programs like Social Security and emergency spending related to the COVID-19 pandemic were the major drivers of the explosion in outlays.

The four flaws are included in CBO’s baseline budget tool due to requirements included in the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control that was adopted in the first year of the second term of then-President Ronald Reagan. Legislation introduced in the 118th Congress by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) — the No Bias in the Baseline Act — would eliminate all four of the flaws. The Virginia Republican is a member of the House Budget Committee.

Being in the center of controversy is a familiar position for CBO staffers. Most recently, House Republicans harshly criticized what they view as CBO’s chronically low projections of the positive economic impact of tax, regulation, and spending cuts at the federal level.

In its Concurrent Resolution on the 2025 Budget, for example, House Republicans noted one of the flaws pointed out by the EPIC analysis, noting that CBO “is obligated to produce an economic forecast that assumes an indefinite extension of current law, including the explosion of deficit and debt levels over the next decade. This is partly why CBO is forecasting average real Gross Domestic Policy (GDP) growth of just 2.0 percent over the next 10 years, well below the long-term trend of 3.1 percent in the United States.”

Similarly, in May 2025, when CBO released two analyses requested by House Democrats evaluating aspects of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) issued a sharply worded refutation.

“This is a smoke and mirrors tactic to try to deceive the American people into thinking that the One Big Beautiful Bill will benefit the top 10 percent at the expense of the bottom 10 percent. Ironically, the only thing Democrats are proving is that our policies are a massive success,” Arrington said.

“First, they’re not measuring economic benefits to low-income earners; they’re measuring federal resources distributed. For instance, there are fewer transfer payments to people on welfare if you prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing these programs and enact common sense work requirements to stop trapping people in dependence,” he continued.

“Second, when you allow Americans from every walk of life to keep more of their income, you lift millions out of poverty, just as we witnessed in President Trump’s first term. Democrats measure success by how many people are stuck on the welfare rolls; Republicans measure success by how many Americans are lifted off of them,” Arrington explained.

And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who is also the number three ranking GOP member of the Senate Budget Committee, told the Senate in an April 2025 floor speech during debate on the OBBB that CBO’s baseline budget analysis incorrectly evaluates tax policies.

“There’s an inherent bias in Congress’s scoring process where tax policy is treated differently than spending policy. If tax rates are scheduled to increase, like they are right now if we don’t act, preventing that tax hike is counted as a ‘cost’ in uncollected future revenue. But many spending programs are assumed to be extended beyond their expiration, so the spending just continues and continues, unabated, which the budget rules say do not have any cost,” Crapo told colleagues on the Senate floor.

Spokesmen for Senate Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chairman Arrington (did not respond to The Washington Stand’s request for comment. Also not responding were spokesmen for Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrats on the two congressional budget panels.

For all the controversy, Dickerson expressed optimism to TWS that needed changes are coming. “The CBO is an important resource for lawmakers. It can also be a source of frustration, particularly when CBO fails to be transparent about its scoring, assumptions, and biases. While Director Swagel has taken steps to improve CBO, more work remains to be done,” he said.

“There is significant interest on both sides of the aisle in addressing the shortcomings at CBO. The House Budget Committee has signaled that CBO oversight will be a major focus, including conducting regular oversight hearings and advancing the first-ever audit of CBO’s operations,” he added.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

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


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

Leftwing Radical Judge KILLS Trump Voter-ID Executive Order That Democrats Were Hell-Bent On Stopping

By The Geller Report

Election integrity is the Democrat party’s death sentence.

Where the hell is the GOP Congress? Pass the SAVE Act and impeach Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Federal judge strikes down parts of Trump executive order on citizenship verification for voter registration

A federal judge struck down portions of President Trump’s executive order on voter ID

By Jasmine Baehr, Bill Mears Fox News, January 30, 2026:

A federal judge on Friday struck down key portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at tightening citizenship verification for voter registration and absentee ballot applications, ruling the White House overstepped its constitutional authority.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, the power to set rules for federal elections.

Kollar-Kotelly blocked provisions in the executive order that would have required documentary proof of American citizenship on federal voter registration and absentee ballot forms.

“The Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote, permanently enjoining the administration from implementing the challenged provisions of the order.

Trump signed the order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” on March 25.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Infamous Anti-Trump Judge Blocks Trump Order Requiring Citizenship Proof on Voter Registration Forms

Democrats Collude With Judges To Keep Allowing Noncitizens To Vote In U.S. Elections

Corrupt Democrat Judge Blocks Trump Admin’s Proof of Citizenship Requirement to Vote

Radical Leftwing Judges’ Lawless Bans On Trump’s Clearly Legal Executive Actions Have Extremist Records

Clinton Appointed Judge BLOCKS DOGE From Reviewing Financial Transactions

POST ON X:

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

Who Is Kevin Warsh, Trump’s Nominee To Lead The Fed?

By The Daily Caller

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he is nominating Kevin Warsh to be the next Federal Reserve chairman, replacing Jerome Powell, whose term ends in May.

Warsh worked as an aide to former President George W. Bush, who later appointed him to the board of the Federal Reserve. The youngest ever Fed governor, Warsh served in that position from 2006 to 2011. He also previously worked as a mergers and acquisitions specialist at Morgan Stanley, and during his tenure as a Fed governor, served as a liaison between the central bank and Wall Street. He helped arrange the government’s bailout of insurance giant AIG.

The most important thing we need to know about Warsh’s background is where he stands on monetary policy, inflation, and interest rates. And, the fact that he was dead wrong about the housing market in the lead-up to the 2008/2009 Financial Crisis.

Throughout his career, Warsh has cultivated an image of an inflation “hawk” rather than a “dove.”

Roughly, the Fed hawks believe that keeping inflation low and prices stable is absolutely paramount to the U.S. economy. The Fed doves, on the other hand, are more loose with monetary policy, and believe that spurring economic and job growth by lowering interest rates and making money easier to borrow should take precedent over keeping inflation low. This dove policy is known as Quantitative Easing.

In the fallout from the 2008/2009 financial crisis, Warsh had sought to keep then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a dove par excellence, at arm’s length.

In November 2010, the Fed voted on Quantitative Easing 2 to buy large amounts of treasuries, lower long-term interest rates, and re-purchase mortgage-backed securities that went bust during the housing crisis. Of course, juicing the economy by creating money out of thin air runs the risk of high inflation. Warsh voted for QE2, yet days after he wrote in The Wall Street Journal that strategy should be “necessarily limited, circumscribed and subject to regular review.”

“Policies should be altered if certain objectives are satisfied, purported benefits disappoint or potential risks threaten to materialize,” he added.

Even as the financial crisis began to unfold in 2008 and the Fed moved to slash interest rates, Warsh warned that using the “hammer,” his phrase for rate-cutting, could backfire.

“If the economy were to weaken somewhat further, we should be inclined to resist expected, reflexive calls to trot out the hammer again,” he said.

But Warsh was also dead wrong in the lead-up to the crisis and the housing market’s collapse from 2007 to 2010.

“If the housing situation is beginning to stabilize, I find it hard to believe that broader anxiety about it will affect business spending or the consumer as some of these scenarios contemplate,” he said during a Fed meeting in January 2007.

In that same meeting, he predicted that economic trends pointed to “strong, balanced economic growth for 2007.” That year ended in the Great Recession.

Now, in 2026, Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have been calling for lower interest rates, leading some commentators to question the president’s pick. Why would he nominate a so-called “inflation hawk” who might support higher interest rates?

Well, Warsh has already publicly called for interest rate cuts while arguing that the Trump administration’s tariffs will not lead to higher inflation. And he has also argued that reducing the Fed’s holding of U.S. bonds would allow for rate cuts that would not trigger inflation.

In a speech in April 2025, Warsh blasted America’s “irresponsible spending,” saying that it has been on a “dangerous trajectory,” especially since COVID-19. Fed leaders like Powell, Warsh said, had encouraged government spending but “didn’t call for financial discipline at the time of sustained growth and full employment.” They also got too political, according to Warsh.

“The more the Fed opines on matters outside its remit, the more it jeopardizes its ability to ensure stable prices and full employment,” Warsh argued.

He also called for a “regime change” at the Fed during an interview with CNBC in July 2025, saying the central bank was facing a “credibility crisis.”

“It’s not just about a person, it’s about an approach to economics … I’m troubled when I see them moving the goal posts,” he said. The Fed has “done a very good job of blaming others for its mistakes,” and its decisions on inflation were made “poorly,” he added.

Only time will tell if Warsh is a hawk in the vein of Paul Volcker, the Fed chairman from 1979 to 1987, who kept interest rates high and stamped out inflation; or, if he is a mix of hawk and dove, willing to cave to pressure from Trump, Bessent, and Wall Street.

Judging by his vote on QE2 in 2010, he may be someone who wants to fight inflation in theory, but doesn’t have the Volcker-esque gumption to do it in practice. The market’s reaction, on the other hand, suggests asset holders are afraid that he will pull the trigger and raise interest rates.

Something of note:

“Warsh is married to Jane Lauder, the daughter of prominent Republican donor Ronald Lauder, who was a classmate of Trump’s at the Wharton School. Lauder donated $5 million in March to MAGA Inc., Trump’s super political action committee.”https://t.co/5JzsDMkEtJ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 30, 2026

Warsh is married to billionaire heiress Jane Lauder, the daughter of Ronald Lauder, a big GOP donor. According to Bloomberg, Lauder donated $5 million to MAGA Inc., Trump’s super PAC, in March 2025.

Make of that what you will.

AUTHOR

John Loftus

Editor at Large. Sign up for John Loftus’s weekly newsletter here! Follow John Loftus on X: @JohnCFLoftus1

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Repeating Mistakes Of The Past’: Outgoing SEC Commissioner Warns Trump Letting Wall Street Off Hook

Jerome Powell Pressed On Why Fed Isn’t Lowering Rates To Help Americans Afford Homes

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

John Thune: Senate to Vote on SAVE Act—With Photo ID Requirement

By The Geller Report

“We’ll have that vote.” “We’ll have that vote.”

Why hasn’t he held that vote? Why has he done nothing?

Passing the SAVE Act before the midterm elections this fall would be a game changer. Senate Majority Leader Thune: It includes right now a requirement that you be a citizen to register to vote, but it doesn’t include a requirement that to vote you’d be a resident. So, in other words, if you’re going to have what we call voter ID or photo ID, when somebody goes into the ballot box to vote, that’s not currently covered in the bill. So that’s being fixed and addressed. And I think the new bill that comes out, hopefully we’ll deal with that. But I mean, at some point we’ll have that vote. I’m for it. I think most of our colleagues in the Senate are, and it hasn’t had consideration in the relevant committee yet, but I know there’s a high level of interest in among members in getting a vote on SAVE Act (Breaking).

GOP leaders are pressing to force a vote. Let Democrats go on record as saying they don’t want to protect the vote. Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin: “We’re still living with the consequences of Joe Biden allowing over 10 million illegal aliens to flood into our country,” said Senator Mullin. “Under current law, individuals are only required to attest to their citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Given the heavy influx of illegal aliens who are now living in the United States, the SAVE Act is a necessary precaution to prevent ineligible voters from participating in our federal elections. I urge my colleagues to pass the SAVE Act and support stricter identification requirements for election security” (Mullin).

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

Minneapolis Mayhem, ICE Updates, and More

By Family Research Council

President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda has arrested headlines for over a year, but violent riots and a series of fatal shootings have intensified scrutiny over immigration raids in Minneapolis. Earlier this month, 37-year-old Renee Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent when she struck the agent with her vehicle after impeding enforcement operations. Just last week, 37-year-old Alex Pretti was shot and killed by U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents when he showed up armed to protest immigration enforcement operations and involved himself in a physical altercation with law enforcement. Subsequently, the president deployed Border Czar and former ICE chief Tom Homan to Minneapolis to take control of operations. Here are the latest updates.

‘Noem, Go Home?’

In the wake of the violence in Minneapolis, multiple Democratic legislators have called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign, threatening to impeach her if she does not leave of her own volition. Now, Republicans are joining Democrats in clamoring for Noem’s ouster. According to Fox News, frequent Trump critics Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have joined Democrats in calling on the president to fire Noem. “I think the President needs to look at who he has in place as the Secretary of Homeland Security. I would not support her again,” Murkowski said, referring to her vote to confirm Noem, “and I think it probably is time for her to step down.”

Tillis faulted Noem and, more broadly, the Trump administration, especially White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, for stalling a partly-bipartisan amnesty push for illegal immigrants. “I don’t know if it’s lost yet, but if it is an opportunity lost, I put it squarely on the shoulders of people like Noem and Stephen Miller,” Tillis said. Referring to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) handling of Pretti’s death, he added, “Those two people told the president, before they even had any incident report whatsoever, that the person who died was a terrorist. I mean, that is amateur hour at its worst.”

Following Pretti’s death, Noem referred to him as a “domestic terrorist” and official DHS channels, citing the handgun and multiple magazines Pretti brought with him when interfering with federal law enforcement, claimed that he sought to “massacre” federal agents. The characterization has been criticized as premature and has reportedly inspired some frustration within DHS’s ranks, particularly among ICE agents, who fear that they are being blamed for some of the more aggressive riot control tactics used by USBP.

The president has asserted that he will not ask Noem to resign, but he did reportedly question his Homeland Security Secretary in a two-hour Oval Office meeting Tuesday. According to The New York Times, Noem and her top advisor, former Trump campaign official Corey Lewandowski, met with the president, who was joined by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Communications Director Steven Cheung, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, to discuss the optics surrounding Pretti’s death and Noem’s response. The New York Times reported that no indication was given that either Noem or Lewandowski was at risk of losing their jobs.

Notably absent from the Oval Office meeting was Miller, the chief architect of Trump’s immigration policy over the past decade and one of the president’s closest and longest-serving allies. According to Axios, Noem faults Miller for DHS’s response to Pretti’s death, with the Homeland Security Secretary saying that Miller told her to label Pretti a domestic terrorist and a threat to federal law enforcement personnel. “Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen,” Axios quoted Noem as saying. Unnamed sources reported that Miller “heard ‘gun’ and knew what the narrative would be: Pretti came to ‘massacre’ cops,” but that the USBP agents involved in the shooting were quick to shut up and lawyer up, impeding the White House’s fact-finding in the matter.

However, other sources faulted USBP Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino for the miscommunication. “Bovino should be blamed,” one unnamed source told Axios, “not Stephen.” According to Miller and several other sources, Bovino and USBP quickly relayed potentially incorrect or incomplete information immediately following Pretti’s death, resulting in DHS’s controversial messaging. “The initial statement from DHS was based on reports from CBP on the ground,” Miller told the New York Post. “Additionally, the White House provided clear guidance to DHS that the extra personnel that had been sent to Minnesota for force protection should be used for conducting fugitive operations to create a physical barrier between the arrest teams and the disruptors,” he noted. “We are evaluating why the CBP team may not have been following that protocol.”

Not a Pretti Picture

More information is emerging surrounding the controversial shooting of Pretti. A preliminary DHS review of the incident found that Pretti and another rioter were physically obstructing federal agents, despite being told multiple times to move out of the way. Pretti resisted arrest and struggled with USBP agents, when one agent shouted that Pretti had a gun, a loaded Sig Sauer handgun. Shortly afterwards, at least two federal agents began firing at Pretti, discharging roughly a dozen times. It was not until after Pretti had been shot that another agent announced that he had taken Pretti’s weapon from him. USBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility Investigative Operations Directorate also confirmed that the agents involved were wearing bodycams and that footage has been collected.

While many have touted Pretti’s credentials as a Veterans Affairs nurse, CNN reported that Pretti was already “known” to federal agents due to interfering in previous operations, including a physical altercation in which his rib was broken, just a week before he continued inserting himself into law enforcement operations and was killed. According to a Fox News report, Pretti was a member of an anti-ICE organization that used complex communications and tracking networks to plan obstructions to law enforcement operations. Pretti and others were already waiting for federal agents at the site where Pretti was killed. Pretti’s ex-wife confirmed that he had also been involved in the violent riots that rocked Minneapolis in 2020, following the death of George Floyd.

The president has committed to a thorough investigation of the events surrounding Pretti’s death. “We’re doing a big investigation. I want to see the investigation. I’m going to be watching over it. I want to see it myself,” he told reporters Tuesday. “I love all of our people. I love his family, and it’s a very sad situation,” he continued, advising anti-ICE activists not to bring guns to confrontations with federal law enforcement.

Lives on the Line

Pretti’s armed altercation with federal law enforcement agents and subsequent death comes in the midst of increased violence and threats against ICE personnel and other federal agents. According to a Breitbart News analysis, recent months have seen an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents, including threats against their families, and a 1,300% increase in violent assaults against ICE agents. Breitbart quoted a voice message left on an agent’s phone as an example of the threats made against law enforcement personnel:

“I hope your wife dies. I hope your mom and dad die. I hope everything wrong that could go in your life happens. I hope you have the most miserable life. I hope you get hit by a bus. I hope you’re paralyzed, and your wife leaves you, and starts getting [expletive] by [other men] every day. You are a traitor to the American people, to the values that made our country. You should kill yourself. You’re [expletive] disgusting.”

According to the Washington Examiner, DHS is currently investigating the case of a woman who attempted multiple times to purchase firearms “to protect herself from ICE Agents, and also to kill ICE Agents.” In another instance, Virginia Commonwealth University fired a nurse for a series of social media posts advising anti-ICE activists to use paralytic drugs and poison ivy brews against ICE agents and encouraging single women to use dating apps to meet ICE agents and then poison their drinks.

DHS Assistant Secretary for Communications Tricia McLaughlin partly faulted Democrats for the rise in hostility, citing the dehumanizing rhetoric they use against federal law enforcement officers. “Comparing ICE day in and day out to the Nazi Gestapo, the Secret Police, and slave patrols has consequences,” she warned. “Every day there are more assaults, more vehicle-ramming attacks, more attempts to kill our officers.”

Twin Cities Stalemate?

After having been deployed to Minneapolis this week, Homan has already begun negotiating with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) to ensure that immigration enforcement operations can continue with as little conflict as possible, pressuring the two Democrats to end their “sanctuary” policies and cooperate with ICE. “We all agree that we need to support our law enforcement officers and get criminals off the streets. While we don’t agree on everything, these meetings were a productive starting point and I look forward to more conversations with key stakeholders in the days ahead,” Homan reported Tuesday evening of his meetings with Walz and Frey. “President Trump has been clear: he wants American cities to be safe and secure for law-abiding residents — and they will be.”

Walz is evidently considering cooperating with the Trump administration, much to the outrage of his constituents. Anti-ICE activists stormed the Minnesota state capitol building Tuesday and staged a mass protest outside Walz’s office, chanting slogans such as, “ICE out now!” and “Do your job!” The governor had met with Homan Tuesday afternoon and had spoken with Trump previously, in what the president characterized as “productive.” He later quipped, “It couldn’t have been a nicer conversation. It’s hard to believe that’s the same guy I watch on TV or the debate not doing so well, because we had a reasonable and good conversation. If you believe it, he’d like to get this over with!”

In an interview following his meeting with Homan, Walz classified the Border Czar as “a professional,” which he said was not his experience of Noem and Bovino. “The tone was different, there was a tone shift,” he said of his talk with the Trump immigration official. While insisting that he would still like to see ICE leave Minnesota altogether, Walz admitted, “It was progress. Look, I never got a call from Bovino or Noem, nothing.” However, the governor still faulted federal operations for unrest in Minneapolis, rather than his own actions and rhetoric. “They started this fire.”

Frey also spoke with Homan, but has continued to reject the administration’s requests to end “sanctuary” policies. “Surprisingly, Mayor Jacob Frey just stated that, ‘Minneapolis does not, and will not, enforce Federal Immigration Laws,’” the president reported in a Truth Social post Wednesday morning. “This is after having had a very good conversation with him. Could somebody in his inner sanctum please explain that this statement is a very serious violation of the Law, and that he is PLAYING WITH FIRE!”

Appearing on “Washington Watch” Tuesday night, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) stressed the damage done by Democrats’ anti-law enforcement rhetoric, in addition to the importance for Republicans to follow through on the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. “All the other jurisdictions around the country where ICE is doing that job, they have cooperation from local officials, so there are no problems,” Harris observed. “The problems are when you have a governor and a mayor openly telling people in Minnesota to go against the Constitution, go against the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration law,” he continued. “You have a rogue governor and a rogue mayor, that’s the problem in Minnesota.”

“Republicans were elected to the majorities with President Trump to close the border and to begin the deportation of the 10 to 12 million people who crossed the border illegally under the Biden administration. We have to get that done,” Harris emphasized. “Unless you think that the 10 to 12 million people who came in illegally under the Biden administration should be invited to stay forever, you need ICE.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

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


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

FBI Agents Search Election Hub in Fulton County, Georgia in Court-Authorized 2020 Vote Investigation

By The Geller Report

“FBI agents were seen Wednesday carrying out a search at an election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, a location that became ground zero for concerns and complaints about voter fraud beginning in 2020.”

FBI agents carried out a court-authorized search Wednesday at the Fulton County Election Hub in Georgia, a facility tied to longstanding controversy over the 2020 election. The FBI confirmed the action but declined to provide details, saying the investigation is ongoing and related to the 2020 vote. The search comes amid renewed scrutiny of Fulton County, which has been at the center of election disputes, recent DOJ efforts to access ballots, and the now-dismissed racketeering case brought by DA Fani Willis against President Trump and others.

“It’s not just that none of the 315,000 early votes for Fulton County, GA in 2020 were not signed.

They never turned over ANY zero tapes for those votes. That’s the entire beginning record of the election.

They provided 137 unsigned closing tapes, but ZERO signed or unsigned opening tapes.

They made the early votes up and this is what the recounts were supposed to match. (They didn’t.) It was all a fraud and they never produced the results that the second machine count and the hand recount were supposedly matching.”Liz Harrington

FBI agents search election hub in Fulton County, Georgia

Agents were seen entering the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center

By: Ashley Oliver, David Spunt, Fox News, January 28, 2026:

Drama unfolds over televised Georgia court hearing in election fraud case

FIRST ON FOX: FBI agents were seen Wednesday carrying out a search at an election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, a location that became ground zero for concerns and complaints about voter fraud beginning in 2020.

Agents were seen entering the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center, a new facility that state officials opened in 2023 that was designed to streamline their election processes.

It was not immediately clear what the FBI agents were investigating, but Fox News Digital is told the probe is related to the 2020 election.

The bureau said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that FBI Atlanta was executing a “court authorized law enforcement action at 5600 [Campbellton] Fairburn Rd.”

“Our investigation into this matter is ongoing so there are no details that we can provide at the moment,” the bureau said.

The Department of Justice did not provide comment.

President Donald Trump lost the election in Georgia in 2020 by a wafer-thin margin and claimed various instances of fraud had tainted the results. Those claims did not survive court scrutiny. Fulton, a suburb of Atlanta and the state’s most populous county, drew significant attention at the time.

A machine count and two recounts confirmed that former President Joe Biden had won the state, leading Trump to feud with Georgia’s leaders for years.

The DOJ sued Fulton County last month seeking access to ballots related to the 2020 election.

Trump’s grievances in Georgia were compounded when he and numerous co-conspirators were indicted by a grand jury in Fulton County Superior Court in 2023 over allegations that they engaged in a racketeering scheme involving illegally attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.

The case never made it to trial as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting it. An independent entity called the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council decided to dismiss the indictment last year, saying it would not be in the interest of the state to continue with the case…….

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fulton County Admits 315,000 Illegal 2020 Votes Were Counted

Corrupt Fulton County DA Fani Willis and Bill Barr Worked Together on the RICO Case Targeting Donald Trump

Georgia: Fulton County Plans to Illegally Accept Ballots in Democrat-Controlled Areas

Fulton County DA Fani Willis Paid Her Lover $654,000 of Taxpayer Money since January 2022 to Act as Special Prosecutor to Get Trump

“There Actually Was Meaningful Voter Fraud in Fulton County, Georgia.”

HUGE Revelation in Fulton County in Wake of FOIA Records: Report

MADNESS: Fulton County Grand Jury Recommended Charges Against Sen. Lindsey Graham, Other GOP Senators

Radical Fulton County DA Asks for October 2023 Trial For Frontrunner Trump and All 19 of His Lawyers

House Judiciary Chairman Launches Probe Into Corrupt Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Hours Before Trump is To Be Arrested

POSTS ON X:

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