In a striking turn of events, Attorney General Pam Bondi has found herself at the center of a heated debate over free speech after comments made on a popular podcast sparked widespread criticism, The Hill reported.
The controversy erupted after Bondi discussed the boundaries of free speech and hate speech on "The Katie Miller Podcast," leading to sharp rebukes from civil liberties advocates and conservative figures alike, followed by a detailed clarification on social media.
On Monday, an episode of "The Katie Miller Podcast," hosted by Katie Miller, wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, featured Bondi as a guest.
During the discussion, Bondi addressed the distinction between free speech and hate speech, particularly referencing an incident involving someone named Charlie.
She remarked, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…”
Bondi also stated on the podcast, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Her words quickly drew attention, igniting criticism from various quarters who argued that her stance contradicted established legal protections.
The Foundation for Individual Rights, a civil liberties group, responded on X that day, declaring, “There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.”
Prominent media figures also weighed in, with Fox News’s Brit Hume noting, “Someone needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment.”
Megyn Kelly speculated on X that Bondi might have intended to focus on those planning violence, stating, “I am guessing, given the statements by Stephen Miller yesterday about targeting violent cells, she means those who actually plan violence.”
Other commentators, including Erick Erickson, Rod Dreher, and Mike Cernovich, criticized Bondi’s remarks, with some suggesting she retract her statements or even step down.
On Tuesday, Bondi addressed the backlash with a lengthy post on X, aiming to clarify her position on the issue.
She wrote, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”
Bondi added, “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”
She further emphasized, “Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent, but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.”
The Supreme Court of Georgia has permanently barred Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis from pursuing her botched "election interference" case against President Trump.
The president celebrated the court's 4-3 ruling, which upheld a decision that disqualified Willis over her affair with another prosecutor.
“What Fani Willis did to innocent people, patriots that love our country, what she did to them by indicting them and destroying them, she should be put in jail,” Trump said.
A judge initially allowed Willis to remain on the case as long as her lover, Nathan Wade, stepped aside. But the appeals court disqualified Willis in December, finding an "appearance of impropriety."
Willis appealed, arguing that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest was not enough to disqualify her. But Trump's attorneys argued that she needed to be taken off the case to "purge the taint of impropriety."
"Willis' misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of President Trump was egregious and she deserved nothing less than disqualification," Steve Sadow, Trump's attorney in the Georgia case, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court's ruling is another blow to the failed effort by Democrats to prosecute Trump, who overcame four criminal cases to win the presidency in a historic comeback last year.
The Georgia case was the most ambitious of four, charging Trump and 18 others in a sweeping conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
In a stroke of branding genius, Trump turned his mugshot in Fulton County into a symbol of defiance.
The case began to unravel after Willis was caught having an affair with Wade, whom she hired to lead the case. Wade was paid handsomely for his work despite little experience as a prosecutor.
The lovers defended their relationship in court, with Willis claiming she reimbursed Wade in cash for extravagant trips they took together.
While another prosecutor could take Willis' place, few expect the sprawling case to move forward, especially now that Trump is back in the White House. 14 others are still facing charges.
“I hope that whoever is assigned to handle the case will have the courage to do what the evidence and the law demand,” Willis said in a statement.
In the wake of the epic victory, Trump called for Willis to be prosecuted for weaponizing her office.
"She should be put in jail; she's a criminal; Fani Willis is a criminal," Trump told reporters.
Tyler Robinson confessed to his gay lover that he murdered Charlie Kirk and provided indications of a motive, according to newly released texts.
The shocking messages were provided to police by Robinson's transgender boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, the New York Post reported. Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder, exposing him to the death penalty, and a slew of other charges stemming from his efforts to cover up the crime.
"You weren’t the one who did it right???” wrote Twiggs.
“I am, I’m sorry,” Robinson responded.
Twiggs is cooperating with police, and he has not been accused of wrongdoing, although his failure to alert the authorities has raised questions.
“There is generally no duty to report a crime,” former prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The New York Post. “Now, obviously, people can be charged as co-conspirators, accessories, principals, aiders and abetters. But just knowing that a crime has been committed — even murder — is not sufficient to hold someone criminally liable.”
In the immediate aftermath of the September 10 assassination, Robinson told his lover and roommate to look for an incriminating note under his desk.
Twiggs located the note, which reads, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”
In the messages, Twiggs expressed shock and asked why Robinson did it - to which he responded that he "had enough of his [Kirk's] hatred" and "some hate can't be negotiated out."
Robinson also told Twiggs that engravings he left on the bullet casings, including anti-fascist inscriptions, were "mostly a big meme."
He fretted about being unable to recover his rifle, which he had discarded in a wooded area, and questioned what he would tell his "die-hard MAGA" father, who reached out to ask about the gun.
“my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. he’s calling me rn, not answering," Robinson wrote.
Robinson ended his text confession by telling Twiggs to delete the chats, hire a lawyer, and "stay silent."
In addition to murder, Robinson has been charged with obstruction, witness tampering, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, and commission of a violent offense in the presence of children.
The obstruction charges come from Robinson discarding his clothing and the rifle, which he abandoned at the scene wrapped in a towel.
The FBI is looking into whether anyone had advance knowledge of the attack, which has laid bare the radical left's troubling embrace of political violence.
Many on the left have tried to paint Robinson as right-wing, without evidence.
While police have not identified an exact motive, Robinson's twisted belief that Kirk deserved to be killed for "spreading hate" plainly echoes the radical left, which has glorified the horrific murder in the same terms.
According to charging documents, Robinson's mother told police that her son had moved to the left and became "more pro-gay and pro-trans" over the past year. She said his relationship with a male led to discussions within the family and particularly between Robinson and his conservative father who, the mother said, have "very different" views.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr shared President Trump's stunned reaction to finding out that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell.
Barr was the head of the Justice Department when Epstein, who was facing sex trafficking charges, died at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York.
"I called [the president] up and said, ‘You better brace for this,’ and I told him words to that effect, and I told him about it and told him we were going to be investigating it very vigorously,” Barr told the House Oversight Committee.
“He had the same reaction I did, which was, ‘How the hell did that happen, he’s in federal custody?"
Barr's comments come from a recent deposition with the House Oversight Committee, which launched a new probe into Epstein after attorney general Pam Bondi controversially moved to close the case this summer.
Democrats have insinuated that Trump is covering up the truth about Epstein, who was once friends with Trump.
Barr told the Oversight Committee that he had two conversations about Epstein with Trump, and in one of those talks, Trump had said "something to the effect that he had broken off with Epstein long ago and that he had actually pushed him out of Mar-a-Lago."
They also conversed in the immediate aftermath of Epstein's suicide. Trump told Barr, at the time, that he believed Epstein's death would cause "conspiracy theories."
At the time, Barr had said that a "perfect storm of screw-ups" allowed Epstein to take his own life. The sheer number of things that went wrong - from cameras not working, to Epstein being taken off suicide watch and not being checked on properly - led many to speculate that foul play was involved.
Barr spent much of his interview with the House Oversight Committee rebutting those theories and explaining why, in his view, Epstein "absolutely" killed himself.
Only one camera was recording on the night Epstein died, and it does not provide a complete view of the stairs leading to Epstein's cell block. Barr conceded that the video has a "blind spot," but he said it still would have been impossible for anyone to enter the cell undetected.
"It was my judgment, from what I saw on the camera and what I looked at, I didn’t think it was possible for someone to get up to the tier and open the door without being picked up in the camera,” he said.
An intruder would have had to pass through two sets of doors, one of which was opened by a remote control. The second "heavy, steel door" required a key and would have made a loud noise, Barr said.
A plan to kill Epstein would have required a high level of coordination between "two dozen" people acting in a very short time window, Barr speculated.
"And all these people were in different groups -- you know, the people who were repairing the cameras, the people who, you know, were responsible for opening and closing the door, the people who were responsible for putting in a new cellmate, things like that. For all that to be coordinated, it would've required, I think, as I say, maybe two dozen people."
Sen. John Fetterman called on fellow Democrats to stop comparing their political opponents to Hitler in the wake of Charlie Kirk's brutal assassination, Breitbart reported. The Pennsylvania Democrat said that this is a "dangerous time right now" after the Turning Point USA founder was shot in the neck last week.
Fetterman was speaking to host Bret Baier on Fox News's Special Reports on Tuesday, along with his Republican counterpart, Sen. Dave McCormick, when he called out the left for its Hitler comparisons. Both lawmakers expressed grief over Kirk's death and the impact it will have on his family.
Breaking with others in his party, Fetterman warned about continuing the damaging insults Democrats have trotted out against their political opponents. He believes it could "incite somebody to say, 'well, now I feel like I have to stop, to stop that and take them out,'" Fetterman warned.
Baier said he brought the pair of Pennsylvania senators on the air to facilitate a discussion between opposing political parties in the wake of the tragedy. Fetterman agreed that it was a necessary move. "Well, I mean, we thought it was just a great idea. I think it's an important idea right now," Fetterman said.
"I mean, the trauma after the Charlie Kirk assassination, and now, as things continue now, it's like, I feel like it's important that people can witness, you know, a Democrat and a Republican having a conversation after this. It's absolutely horrific, and it's entirely necessary to allow people to grieve for that. I mean, everyone's seen the video," Fetterman said, referring to the horrifically graphic video of Kirk's assassination.
McCormick noted that the incident on Sept. 10 came after "dangerous rhetoric, like fascist and Nazism and authoritarianism, and the end of democracy" that the left has been warning about became of means of granting "permission" for such a heinous act. "That takes us down a path where the inevitable next step is violence, and that's what we see," McCormick said. Fetterman agreed.
"Exactly, this idea, it's like, do not ever, ever, ever compare anyone to Hitler. If not, go online and you can read up on exactly what he's responsible for, 75 to 80 million lives lost in World War II, and you don't compare him to anyone. And if you do, then you will incite somebody to say, well, now I feel like I have to stop, to stop that and take them out," Fetterman warned.
The hoodie-bedecked lawmaker said that the public has "forgotten that the President took a shot to the head" and wondered how much worse it would have been if President Donald Trump had met the same bloody fate as Kirk with the nation watching. "This is such a dangerous time right now..." Fetterman said. "You don't need this opportunity to share your opinions on it. Just, again, it's appalling and allow folks enough space to grieve," he added.
Fetterman was adamant that "we have to just absolutely turn the heat down" on divisive political language. "The man hasn't even been buried yet. And it's like, that's why we wanted to have a conversation that we have to find a way to work together," Fetterman said. While he is correct, others in his party have taken it further to blame Kirk's opinions for his death, implying in many ways that he had it coming.
It's not just the politicians who would benefit from the political capital of such views, but rather everyday people who have taken to the internet to cheer for the death of a young husband and father of two. Many are losing their jobs over these hideous remarks, which now have the establishment media decrying "cancel culture" instead of examining their own part in creating this problem, Fox News reported.
One of those pundits was CNN's Brian Stelter, who claimed there was a "coordinated conservative campaign to try to get people fired" as a "new form of cancel culture." Stelter warned that these supposedly "politically motivated firings" will create a "tense" climate, though he wouldn't blame the people making the horrible remarks.
"There are hundreds of examples of people being fired from their jobs. Most of the people were not public figures; they were anonymous until a few days ago when this conservative campaign organized online, targeting people that it says are attacking Kirk, bashing Kirk, blaming Kirk for his own death." Notably, Stelter conceded that he finds some of their remarks "personally grotesque" and condemned the worst of them.
Kirk's death has been a wake-up call about the state of political discourse in America, especially what's coming from those on the left. It's time to bring down the temperature, but anyone playing the "both sides" argument is letting the left off the hook for their abhorrent behavior.
Actress Ellen DeGeneres is facing a lawsuit that accuses her of "negligent conduct" leading to the plaintiff's "serious personal injuries" in a 2023 car crash, Fox News reported. The plaintiff claims DeGeneres "t-boned" her after allegedly running through a four-way stop sign in Santa Barbara County.
The woman who filed the complaint stated that she was driving her Tesla on October 16, 2023, on Evans Avenue, en route to the intersection with Ortega Hill Road, when the accident occurred. She was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the crash but says she was injured after DeGeneres ran into her car after making no attempt to stop.
"This intersection is controlled by stop signs in all directions. Plaintiff stopped for her stop sign," the complaint said, noting that the plaintiff "made sure there were no other vehicles at the intersection and it was her way to proceed." Unfortunately, DeGeneres allegedly did not stop.
"As she was proceeding straight through the intersection, suddenly and without any warning, plaintiff's vehicle was t-boned from the right by the vehicle driven by Ellen DeGeneres," causing the plaintiff's injuries. "Ellen DeGeneres entered the intersection without stopping at the stop sign," the complaint alleges.
An attorney for the plaintiff claimed the former talk show host's "negligent conduct fell below the standard of care of a reasonable person in that defendants negligently caused, or contributed to causing plaintiff's vehicle to be collided with by the defendants' vehicle," suggesting a disregard for the safety of others. "Defendants and their conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's multiple serious personal injuries and damages stemming therefrom," the attorney further alleged.
The damages include "loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and anxiety," as well as actual damages for medical expenses, hospital bills, lost wages, loss of future earnings, and other general damages. While this is a legal threshold, it could also be seen as a reflection on DeGeneres's overall character.
Although anyone can be accused of causing injuries in an auto accident, the circumstances fit with longstanding allegations about DeGeneres's terrible behavior and her blatant disregard for the wellbeing of others. After years on air playing the nice woman, it came to light in 2020 that DeGeneres was actually a tyrant on the set, targeting male employees for her ire when they spoke to her wife, Portia de Rossi.
Staffers said those who crossed DeGeneres would feel the "Ellen gaze" and thought of her as "a queen searching for her next execution." A former cameraman for the show said of DeGeneres that, "She was terrifying."
At the time, DeGeneres attempted to save her reputation by making an on-air apology, but the damage had been done. With her career and reputation in tatters, DeGeneres moved to the U.K. with de Rossi in 2024, citing President Donald Trump's election to a second term as a reason to flee the U.S.
At the time, DeGeneres blamed her hasty exit on Trump's election, though by then her career was over and her relevance greatly diminished. The 67-year-old has presented her move as an opportunity that gave her a new lease on life. Shortly after the move, DeGeneres made a schmaltzy post honoring de Rossi on Instagram.
On Dec. 1, 2024, DeGeneres wrote, "20 years ago today we began this relationship, not realizing what a long, beautiful adventure this would be. You are the best thing that ever happened in my life. You take care of me. You help me see the good in everything," she said of de Rossi.
"You help to guide me and pick me up when I feel off or down. You are a beautiful soul that I am so very grateful to have as a partner to navigate this crazy life with. My wife. My best friend. The love of my life. Thank you for being you and loving me. So happy we get to travel and explore the world together in the next 20 years, and looking forward to our first snowy Christmas," DeGeneres gushed. Nobody stateside has missed the pair.
View this post on Instagram
DeGeneres has earned her terrible reputation through her own actions while running a talk show. It will remain to be seen whether she will be held responsible for the car crash and the injuries it caused, but the allegations are enough to add to the existing mountain of evidence that DeGeneres is indeed not a very nice person.
The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the assassination of conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk following his killing last week.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) celebrated the passage of the resolution in a post on X by saying, "The United States Senate has unanimously passed my resolution condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk and praising his outstanding legacy. This is just a flag, planted on a hill. What matters is where we carry it next."
The resolution “condemns” Kirk’s assassination “in the strongest possible terms," even as many in the Democrat Party have been openly celebrating Kirk's death due to his prominent status as a right-wing activist.
The resolution also “extends its deepest condolences and sympathies” to Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two children.
Kirk's family witnessed his assassination and has had to endure extreme abuse from monstrous leftists openly and proudly celebrating the assassination of someone who believed very strongly in open dialogue to resolve issues instead of resorting to violence.
For those on the left celebrating Kirk's death, seeing every single Democrat Senator condemn them must have been shocking.
No Democrat Senator was brave enough to stand against this resolution, and it makes sense considering the reaction of the public to Kirk's assassination. News of Kirk's shooting quickly raced around the nation and shocked Americans of all political persuasions, especially centrists.
Despite attempts to frame Kirk as a radical right-wing figure, the truth is that he was an activist who believed in civil discourse on college campuses and advocated for free speech.
Kirk's appearances on college campuses converted college students by the hundreds as he used discourse, not violence, to push his beliefs. Leftists have claimed that Kirk was a hateful figure, even as many of them celebrate Kirk being killed in front of his two young daughters.
The aftermath of Kirk's death has been eye-opening for many regular Americans, even those who generally consider themselves liberals. Not since MLK Jr.'s assassination has the nation been more shocked and outraged.
While it was safe to assume the shooter had leftist political motivations in shooting Kirk, it wasn't until a few days after that it was confirmed that Kirk's shooter was a radical leftist.
The shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was "deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology" despite growing up in a strongly conservative household. High school friends stated he adopted leftist ideas, and Robinson was also dating a trans individual.
Furthermore, the bullets alluded to anti-fascist ideology, and one bullet had been engraved with "Hey fascist! Catch!" It's undeniable that Robinson was a radical leftist who bought into the lies that Kirk was a fascist and threw away his life in a political crusade.
The left is undoubtedly responsible for this tragedy, and anyone celebrating Kirk's assassination has no place in American society. Some leftists are already finding this out the hard way.
In a surprising turn of events, The Daily Beast has issued a public apology to first lady Melania Trump and retracted a controversial article linking her to a modeling agent associated with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News reported.
This development follows the outlet's admission that the story, based on claims by journalist Michael Wolff, failed to meet its editorial standards, prompting both the removal of the article and related podcast content after legal pressure from Trump's team.
The saga began when The Daily Beast published an article alleging that Melania Trump was introduced to Donald Trump through a modeling agent connected to Jeffrey Epstein, a disgraced financier who died in 2019.
The story drew from an interview with Michael Wolff, conducted by Joanna Coles for The Daily Beast Podcast, where Wolff discussed alleged ties between the Trumps and Epstein.
Wolff claimed during the interview that Melania was deeply involved in a relationship with Epstein through the modeling world, though he later distanced himself from the published piece.
In July, after the article's release, Melania Trump's legal team sent a letter disputing the headline and overall narrative presented in the story.
Responding to the legal threat, The Daily Beast initially pulled the article from its platforms in July, signaling early concerns about its content.
On a subsequent Monday, the outlet issued a formal apology to Melania Trump, which she then shared on the social media platform X.
In its statement, The Daily Beast acknowledged, "The Daily Beast recently published a story headlined 'Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author’ based on an interview with Michael Wolff."
Continuing its apology, the outlet added, "Upon reflection, we have determined that the article did not meet our standards and has therefore been removed from our platforms."
Additionally, The Daily Beast removed a segment of a podcast episode titled "Trump’s Epstein Scandal Can’t Stop Won’t Stop," which also referenced the first lady, as noted in their response to her attorneys.
The apology further highlighted that Melania Trump considers her bestselling book, "Melania," to be the definitive account of her personal story, a point included in the outlet's statement.
Michael Wolff, the journalist at the center of the claims, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the retracted allegations.
Back in July, Wolff told Fox News Digital that he had no involvement in the writing of the article itself, despite his interview being the basis for its content.
Wolff’s reporting style has faced scrutiny in the past, with his credibility questioned within the journalism community, including over past works like his 2018 book "Fire and Fury," where multiple individuals in Donald Trump’s circle denied quotes attributed to them, and an insinuation about then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who called it "disgusting" and "highly offensive," sparked significant controversy.
President Trump is suing the New York Times for defamation, demanding $15 billion in damages over the "degenerate" newspaper's reporting on his life and political career.
The lawsuit names the paper and Peter Baker, Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig, and Michael Schmidt as defendants, as well as Penguin Random House, the publisher of Buettner and Craig's book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.
"Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual 'mouthpiece' for the Radical Left Democrat Party," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The lawsuit is just Trump's latest strike against the left-wing legacy media, after he previously settled eight-figure lawsuits with CBS News and ABC.
The New York Times dismissed Trump's lawsuit as a meritless intimidation tactic.
Trump accuses the New York Times of trying to maliciously damage his reputation and weaken his chances of victory in the 2024 presidential election.
The lawsuit cites three articles and Lucky Loser, which were all published "at the height of election season to inflict maximum electoral damage against President Trump."
According to the lawsuit, the Times and its reporters falsely credited the producers of The Apprentice with making Trump a star and propelling him to the White House.
"Thanks solely to President Trump’s sui generis charisma and unique business acumen, 'The Apprentice' generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and remained on television for over thirteen years, with nearly 200 episodes. ‘The Apprentice’ represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular brilliance, which captured the zeitgeist of our time," the lawsuit states.
Trump's lawsuit says the Times and its reporters "baselessly hate President Trump in a deranged way," also pointing to the newspaper's blistering attack on Trump in its front-page endorsement of Kamala Harris last fall.
The Times has long been a leading enemy of Trump and an influential source of left-wing disinformation. One of the defendants in Trump's lawsuit, Michael Schmidt, won a Pulitzer Prize for a 2017 article that triggered Robert Mueller's baseless "Russian collusion" probe. Schmidt's article was based on leaked memos from former FBI director James Comey, who admitted to leaking the memos to trigger an investigation into Trump.
Trump's lawsuit against the Times cites an October 2024 article from Schmidt that painted Trump as an aspiring dictator.
Inflammatory rhetoric against the right is being called out after the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk by a radical leftist who hates "fascists."
One of the defendants in Trump's lawsuit against the Times, chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, suggested that Kirk somehow provoked his attacker by getting people "riled up" with his words.
The New York Times’ Peter Baker says Charlie Kirk intentionally tried to get people “riled up” over issues “about race, about gender, about affirmative action and Islam”
He says that Kirk being assassinated turned him into “a symbol of the of the toxic culture that we’re in” pic.twitter.com/JjIpq5oAne
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 14, 2025
The House of Representatives voted to pass a bill aimed at deterring illegal immigration, over the objections of nearly every Democrat.
The "Stop Illegal Entry" act passed 226-197, with only 11 Democrats crossing the aisle to support the commonsense measure, led by Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Ok.)
As reported by Fox News, if signed into law, the bill would require a 5-year minimum prison sentence for illegal aliens who commit felonies after entering the United States.
Long Island Democrat Laura Gillen (Ny.) called the Stop Illegal Entry Act "common sense," but few in her party seem to agree. She was one of only 11 Democrats who voted for the bill.
The legislation is a direct response to the Biden administration's disastrous immigration policies, which brought millions of illegal aliens into the United States, including dangerous criminals who raped and killed Americans.
"Americans overwhelmingly agree that violent criminals without legal status have no place in our country and should be held accountable to the full extent of our nation’s immigration laws," Gillen said.
"The previous administration’s inaction on the border led to a full-blown crisis that drained taxpayers’ wallets and made our communities less safe."
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Tx.), Don Davis (Nc.), Jared Golden (Me.), Vicente Gonzalez (Tx.), Adam Gray (D-Ca.). Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mi.), Frank Mrvan (D-In.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wa.), Tom Suozzi, (D-Ny.), and Gabe Vasquez (D-Nm.) also voted yes.
Democrats have broadly opposed President Trump's mass immigration crackdown, accusing the president of breaking his pledge to target the "worst of the worst" by rounding up people without criminal records.
But the Stop Illegal Entry Act strengthens penalties for criminal aliens, establishing a five-year minimum sentence for illegal aliens who commit felonies.
The bill also strengthens deterrence more broadly by increasing the maximum punishment for illegal re-entry from two years to up to 10 years.
President Trump has already said he will sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.
“By targeting repeat offenders and imposing harsh penalties on violent felons who re-enter after deportation, this bill defends the rule of law and sends an unmistakable message: if you break our laws, there will be severe consequences,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) “Criminal illegal aliens have no place in this country, and House Republicans are committed to uphold the integrity of our laws.”
This bill is as moderate as it gets on immigration. It would keep out dangerous foreigners who have no place in America and send a clear message to anyone seeking to enter illegally to think twice.
But it's hardly news that Democrats don't want to stop illegal immigration. That's the only reasonable interpretation of this vote.