In a stunning move that’s got Washington buzzing, President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar and his wife, Imelda, who faced serious charges of bribery and acting as foreign agents.
Announced on social media Wednesday morning, this decision wiped clean allegations that the couple accepted $600,000 in bribes from a Mexican bank and an Azerbaijani oil and gas company, charges that could have landed them in prison for life.
The saga began back in December 2014, according to the Department of Justice, when the alleged scheme to funnel money through shell companies reportedly owned by Imelda kicked off.
By November 2021, the DOJ claimed the Cuellars had used these funds for everything from credit card bills to a jaw-dropping $12,000 gown, with their daughters allegedly helping to set up the laundering operations.
The feds even raided Cuellar’s home in January 2022, digging into his ties with Azerbaijani businessmen, while accusing him of pushing their interests in Congress through speeches and aid bill provisions.
Cuellar, 70, and Imelda, 69, stared down a potential 204-year sentence if convicted, a penalty that would’ve effectively buried them for life over these alleged misdeeds.
Enter Trump, who didn’t mince words when he called out the prosecution as a witch hunt, pointing fingers at Democrats for targeting Cuellar over his sharp criticism of Biden’s border policies.
“For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” Trump declared on Truth Social, framing the case as a blatant abuse of power.
Trump’s pardon wasn’t just a legal lifeline; it was a public jab at what he sees as a progressive agenda run amok, accusing Democrats of trying to crush dissent within their own ranks.
Cuellar, for his part, didn’t hesitate to express relief, taking to X to thank Trump for stepping in and clearing the cloud hanging over his family.
“This pardon gives us a clean slate. The noise is gone. The work remains,” Cuellar stated on X, signaling his intent to refocus on serving South Texas.
While some might raise eyebrows at a Republican president bailing out a Democrat, Trump’s message was personal and pointed: “Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!”
Critics will likely argue this pardon sidesteps accountability, especially given the DOJ’s claim that Cuellar leveraged his office to benefit foreign entities, a charge that cuts deep into public trust.
Yet, from a conservative lens, Trump’s move shines a light on what many see as selective prosecution by a justice system too eager to punish those who challenge the left’s border policy failures—hardly a surprise in today’s polarized climate.
Whether you view this as justice served or dodged, one thing is clear: Cuellar’s story isn’t over, and South Texas will be watching to see if he truly meets the remaining work “head on” as promised.
Brace yourselves—Senate Democrats are coming for Paul Ingrassia’s job at the General Services Administration (GSA) with the kind of zeal usually reserved for a tax audit.
A group of Senate Democrats has loudly demanded Ingrassia’s swift exit from his role as deputy general counsel at the GSA, pointing to a trail of controversies that refuse to stay buried.
This drama has been simmering for months, starting with Ingrassia’s stalled nomination to head the Office of Special Counsel over serious doubts about his qualifications.
Back in July, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hit pause on Ingrassia’s confirmation, citing his thin legal resume and troubling connections to online extremist circles.
The plot thickened by October when leaked text messages, allegedly sent by Ingrassia, dropped like a bombshell, revealing deeply unsettling content.
These texts reportedly included lines like a self-described “Nazi streak” and a call to “eviscerate” federal holidays such as Juneteenth, which didn’t exactly scream unity.
Republican senators, including Rick Scott of Florida, James Lankford of Oklahoma, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, quickly distanced themselves, pulling their support faster than a magician yanks a tablecloth.
With bipartisan backing crumbling, Ingrassia had no choice but to withdraw his bid to lead the Office of Special Counsel, effectively shelving that ambition.
Yet, by November, he resurfaced in a new position as deputy general counsel at the GSA, following a role as White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security.
That’s when Senate Democrats, including Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, decided enough was enough.
They fired off a pointed letter to GSA acting Administrator Michael Rigas and Office of Presidential Personnel Director Dan Scavino, insisting on Ingrassia’s prompt removal.
“We demand the immediate removal of Paul Ingrassia from the General Services Administration,” the senators declared, framing his continued role as a breach of public trust.
They doubled down, stating, “His appointment betrays the trust of every American, including those who Mr. Ingrassia has so brazenly disparaged.” While their indignation is loud, it’s worth asking if this is genuine concern or just another chapter in the progressive cancel crusade.
Make no mistake—those leaked messages, if true, are a terrible optic for anyone in government service, and conservatives should demand accountability just as fiercely as anyone else. But the rush to exile Ingrassia feels like a familiar tactic to score points rather than solve problems.
At the end of the day, the administration faces a tough call: keep Ingrassia and risk further erosion of trust, or cut ties to signal that divisive rhetoric has no place in public service. It’s a tightrope walk, but one that must prioritize the integrity of government over political gamesmanship.
President Donald Trump just dropped a political bombshell by granting a full pardon to a Democratic congressman, proving once again that truth can be stranger than fiction.
In a stunning turn of events, Representative Henry Cuellar, a moderate Democrat from South Texas, and his wife, Imelda, received a "full and unconditional" pardon from Trump, following their indictment by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice for alleged bribery involving $600,000 from foreign entities.
Cuellar’s troubles began when he was indicted in May 2024, a move that raised eyebrows given his outspoken criticism of Biden’s border policies.
Long before the legal storm hit, Cuellar had been a vocal thorn in the side of the Biden administration, publicly challenging their approach to border security over 150 times on national media.
He warned early on that border issues would be a political flashpoint, urging the president to find a practical solution rather than sticking to progressive talking points.
The timing of the indictment—just 40 days before a primary race where $20 million was spent against him—smelled fishy to many, including Cuellar, who noted he had legal and ethics opinions backing his actions.
Enter Trump, who didn’t hesitate to call out what he saw as weaponized justice by the Biden administration against a member of their own party.
In his pardon statement, Trump declared, "For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents," framing Cuellar’s case as a prime example of political targeting.
Let’s be real—when a president targets a critic in his own party over policy disagreements, it’s not justice; it’s a power play dressed up in legal jargon.
Cuellar didn’t hold back his relief, stating, “I’m certainly very thankful to the president, and also very thankful to God. It was a very difficult time for my family, my daughters, my wife, a very difficult time, but we came through this.”
That raw gratitude cuts through the political noise, reminding us that behind every headline are real families weathering storms that most of us can’t imagine.
Despite the lifeline from Trump, Cuellar made it crystal clear he’s not jumping ship from the Democratic Party, insisting he’ll remain a conservative “blue dog” while still open to working across the aisle.
Interestingly, Cuellar revealed that members of Trump’s team have already reached out to collaborate on future initiatives, signaling a potential bridge between party lines.
While some might scoff at a Democrat cozying up to Trump’s camp, isn’t this the kind of bipartisanship we’ve been begging for, especially on issues like border security that affect every American?
Cuellar’s story isn’t just about a pardon; it’s a stark reminder that political vendettas can backfire, and sometimes, the most unexpected alliances can emerge from the ashes of partisan warfare.
Ever wonder who Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth would trust with his children in a pinch?
In a lively discussion on "The Katie Miller Podcast," posted this past Tuesday, Hegseth offered a candid take on which Trump administration figures he’d call for babysitting duty—and who he’d rather skip.
Appearing alongside his wife, Jen, Hegseth fielded a playful question from host Katie Miller about which Cabinet members or administration officials he’d trust to watch his kids.
The Defense Secretary didn’t hold back with a humorous jab, saying, “Oh, I mean, not your husband or Marco,” with a grin, referring to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which drew chuckles from both his wife and the host.
Let’s be real—while the quip was lighthearted, it hints at a deeper dynamic within the administration, where personal trust and professional respect don’t always align. One has to wonder if such offhand remarks might ripple through the halls of power.
Turning serious, Hegseth named those he would entrust with his children, pointing to Vice President Vance and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, a former Fox News colleague, as reliable choices.
He also gave a nod to several women in President Trump’s Cabinet, singling out Brooke Rollins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
“Brooke Rollins or Pam. Tulsi’s incredible,” Hegseth added, offering high praise for Gabbard in particular.
It’s refreshing to see a leader like Hegseth balance humor with genuine admiration for colleagues, especially in an era where progressive agendas often push for divisive narratives over unity.
The babysitting topic came up during the podcast’s “Cabinet Confidential” segment, a recurring bit where administration figures face personal and quirky questions.
Host Katie Miller noted she’d posed the same question to Vice President Vance on an earlier episode, where he named Kelly Loeffler, administrator of the Small Business Administration, as someone he’d trust with his own kids.
This kind of candid exchange offers a rare glimpse into the personal rapport—or lack thereof—among top officials, reminding us that even in politics, trust is a deeply human issue.
Yet, Hegseth’s lighthearted comments arrive amid heavier scrutiny over his leadership as Defense Secretary, particularly concerning military strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean earlier this year.
Despite allegations of war crimes tied to those operations, Hegseth has steadfastly defended the military’s actions, maintaining that the orders were necessary under the circumstances.
While some critics on the left might seize on his podcast quips to paint him as flippant, it’s worth noting that a man under such pressure deserves a moment to show his human side—babysitting banter and all.
In a world obsessed with quick fixes, Erika Kirk, widow of conservative titan Charlie Kirk, dropped a truth bomb at a high-profile summit, rejecting the tired narrative that guns are the root of violence.
At The New York Times DealBook Summit on Wednesday, held at Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City, Erika, now CEO of Turning Point USA, spoke candidly about her husband’s assassination and the deeper issues plaguing society.
Fox News reported that Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist, was originally slated to speak at this prestigious event, which has hosted heavyweights like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. His tragic assassination left Erika to step into the spotlight, facing tough questions with unwavering resolve.
Interviewed by journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin, Erika didn’t shy away from the elephant in the room—gun violence in America. Sorkin pressed her on how she views the issue after such a personal loss, expecting perhaps a softened stance.
“He was a real believer, as you know, in the Second Amendment, and I'm curious how you think today about gun violence in America, given what happened to him,” Sorkin asked. Nice try, Andrew, but Erika wasn’t about to let progressive talking points frame her grief—she doubled down on her support for constitutional rights.
Far from blaming firearms, Erika pointed to a deeper malaise, arguing that violence stems from human and mental health crises, not just tools. This isn’t the surface-level drivel we’re used to hearing; it’s a call to look beyond the weapon to the wounded soul wielding it.
Erika’s words cut through the noise of shallow policy debates with surgical precision. “That's not a gun problem. That's a human, deeply human problem,” she insisted, highlighting a cultural failure to address mental health and moral decay.
She’s onto something—college counselors, as she noted, consistently report mental health struggles like anxiety and depression as top issues for students. If we’re serious about stopping violence, shouldn’t we start there instead of obsessing over inanimate objects?
Charlie himself understood this, often stressing to students the importance of brain health, proper rest, and self-care, according to Erika. His message wasn’t just political; it was profoundly personal, a blueprint for living well in a chaotic world.
In the wake of her husband’s murder, Erika made a bold move—she purged social media and news apps from her phone. She’s not hiding; she’s protecting her sanity, letting others filter the online vitriol while she focuses on what matters.
This echoes Charlie’s own habits, who, despite recognizing social media’s power for good and evil, made a weekly ritual of unplugging. Every Friday night, he’d stash his phone in a junk drawer, embracing family time and rest with a hearty “Shabbat Shalom.”
It’s a lesson for our always-on culture—Charlie knew life was bigger than endless notifications or petty online spats. If only more of us could ditch the digital leash for a weekend, we might rediscover what’s truly sacred.
Erika’s resolve to carry forward Charlie’s legacy is evident in how she speaks of his intentional balance between work and family.
He wasn’t just a public figure; he was a dad, a husband, a man who knew when to step away from the world’s clamor.
While the left might push for simplistic solutions to complex tragedies, Erika’s perspective forces us to grapple with uncomfortable truths about our society’s mental and spiritual state.
Her voice at the summit wasn’t just a widow’s lament—it was a rallying cry for deeper reflection.
Violence isn’t solved by stripping rights or slapping on Band-Aids; it’s addressed by healing broken hearts and minds, as Erika so powerfully reminded us. Let’s hope her words resonate beyond the halls of Jazz at Lincoln Center and spark a long-overdue conversation.
In a bold move that’s got Washington buzzing, President Donald Trump has pardoned a Democratic congressman who dared to challenge the previous administration’s border policies.
Breitbart reported that President Trump announced a full and unconditional pardon for Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and his wife, Imelda, who faced bribery charges from the Biden Department of Justice since May 2024.
The saga began over two years before the indictment, when a search warrant was executed on the Cuellars’ home in Laredo, raising eyebrows about the timing and intent behind the investigation.
Was this a genuine pursuit of justice or a political hit job? The question lingers like a Texas summer heatwave.
The Biden DOJ accused the Cuellars of taking over half a million dollars in bribes from an energy company based in Azerbaijan, a charge that smells of overreach to many conservatives. If true, it’s serious—but why the delay in action after the initial search?
Cuellar, a South Texas Democrat, isn’t your typical progressive cheerleader, often breaking ranks to criticize policies he sees as harmful to his constituents. His vocal opposition to the Biden administration’s border approach made him a target, or so the narrative goes. And Trump seems to agree.
Posting on Truth Social, Trump didn’t mince words, blasting the indictment as a weaponized attack by a desperate administration. He even shared a heartfelt letter from Cuellar’s daughters, Christina and Catherine, pleading for clemency. It’s a rare glimpse of bipartisan empathy in a polarized age.
“For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” Trump declared on Truth Social. He pointed to Cuellar’s border policy critiques as the likely trigger for this legal ordeal. If that’s not a chilling effect on free speech, what is?
Trump went further, calling the prosecution of both Henry and Imelda Cuellar “un-American” and a sign of the radical left’s dangerous agenda. It’s a familiar refrain for those who see the DOJ as less about justice and more about settling scores.
The pardon itself was framed as a direct rebuke to such tactics, with Trump adding, “Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!” That’s the kind of flourish that resonates with supporters who view Trump as a defender against bureaucratic overreach.
Cuellar’s daughters, Christina and Catherine, didn’t hold back in their letter, suggesting their father’s independence and honesty on border security may have sparked the investigation. It’s a poignant reminder that behind every headline are real families caught in the crossfire of political games.
“We also believe that our father’s independence and honesty may have contributed to how this case began,” they wrote. “He has never been afraid to speak his mind, especially when it comes to protecting the people of South Texas and securing the border from the policies of the previous administration.”
Their words cut through the noise, painting Cuellar as a principled man rather than a partisan pawn. It’s hard not to feel a twinge of sympathy, even if one questions the bribery allegations’ merits.
This pardon isn’t just about one congressman; it’s a signal flare to those who fear speaking out against prevailing narratives. If criticizing flawed border policies can land you in legal hot water, what’s next for dissent in America?
Trump’s decision also underscores a growing conservative concern: that federal agencies are being used to silence opposition, whether Republican or Democrat. Cuellar, an unlikely ally, becomes a case study in why many on the right distrust the current system.
A suspected terrorist tied to ISIS-K has been nabbed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) right here on American soil, courtesy of a resettlement program that’s raising serious eyebrows.
Breitbart reported that this arrest of Jaan Shah Safi, an Afghan national, in Waynesboro, Virginia, on Wednesday, shines a glaring spotlight on the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome, a program that resettled tens of thousands of Afghans with what critics call dangerously lax vetting.
Safi first set foot in the U.S. on Sept. 8, 2021, arriving in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as part of this resettlement effort.
ICE officials have confirmed that Safi allegedly provided support to both the Islamic State of Iraq and the notorious ISIS-K, a group known for its ruthless extremism.
Adding to the alarm, reports indicate Safi supplied weapons to his father, a militia commander in Afghanistan, painting a troubling picture of his connections before arriving stateside.
After entering the U.S., Safi applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), but that lifeline was cut short when DHS Secretary Kristi Noem terminated TPS for Afghans, leaving him classified as an unauthorized migrant.
Speaking on the arrest, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem didn’t hold back, stating, “Today, our heroic ICE officers arrested Jaan Shah Safi, a terrorist who provided material support to ISIS-K.”
Her words cut to the core of a broader concern: how did someone with such alleged ties slip through the cracks of a program meant to offer refuge, not risk?
Noem further criticized the resettlement operation, saying, “The Biden administration brought this terrorist into the U.S. under the disastrous Operation Allies Welcome program.”
She pointed out that Safi’s arrest occurred not far from Washington, D.C., where another Afghan resettled through the same program, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, allegedly ambushed and shot two National Guardsmen last month.
Tragically, Sarah Beckstrom succumbed to her injuries, while Andrew Wolfe remains in serious condition, a stark reminder of the potential consequences of inadequate screening.
Adding fuel to the fire, yet another Afghan national, Mohammad Dawood Alokozay, resettled under the same initiative, was arrested on Nov. 25 in Fort Worth, Texas, after allegedly posting a video on TikTok hinting at plans for a terrorist attack in the area.
These incidents, taken together, paint a damning portrait of a policy that, while perhaps well-intentioned, has left gaping holes in national security, according to critics like Noem who argue for a complete overhaul.
With nearly 190,000 Afghan nationals admitted under Operation Allies Welcome, as Noem noted, the scale of unvetted entries is staggering—identities and intentions often verified only after they’ve already settled in American communities.
It’s a sobering wake-up call: good intentions must be matched with ironclad safeguards, or the price paid could be far too high for our nation to bear.
President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue salute to America’s bravest warriors with a stroke of his pen.
On Monday, Trump signed the Medal of Honor Act, H.R. 695, boosting the monthly pension for the nation’s highest military award recipients from roughly $1,406 to a far more respectable $5,625.
This isn’t just pocket change—it’s a nearly fourfold increase, taking the annual payout from about $16,880 to $67,500 for the 61 living recipients among over 3,515 honored since 1863.
Let’s be real: in a world obsessed with handing out participation trophies, it’s refreshing to see actual heroes get their due.
These Medal of Honor recipients, who’ve risked everything for our freedoms, have been scraping by on pensions that started at a measly $10 a month back in 1916, per the Army and Navy Medal of Honor Roll.
Even after bumps to $100 in 1961 and $1,000 in 2002, it’s been a slow climb—hardly matching the sacrifice of those who’ve earned this rare distinction.
Credit where it’s due: Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, who’s retiring soon, championed this cause with the Medal of Honor Act, proving not all politicians are out of touch.
“Medal of Honor recipients truly embody the best of our nation,” Nehls declared. Well said, but let’s hope this isn’t just lip service—actions like this bill speak louder than any speech.
“My bill, the Medal of Honor Act, eases their financial burden by increasing their special pension — ensuring they know that America is grateful for all they’ve done to serve our country and defend our freedoms,” Nehls added. It’s a solid step, though one wonders why it took so long to value valor over virtue-signaling pet projects.
Trump didn’t stop at one bill on Monday; he also signed the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, tackling substance abuse and mental health programs under the Department of Health and Human Services.
But let’s keep the spotlight on our heroes—Trump’s approval of the Medal of Honor Act is a rare bipartisan win in a swamp of endless bickering. It’s a reminder that some things, like honoring sacrifice, should transcend petty politics.
While progressive agendas often prioritize trendy causes, this move cuts through the noise to focus on those who’ve bled for the flag, not just waved it.
Think about it: only 61 living souls bear the weight of the Medal of Honor, a legacy stretching back over 160 years. That’s a tiny fraction of the thousands who’ve served, yet their impact is immeasurable.
This pension hike isn’t charity; it’s a debt we’ve owed for decades, finally paid with interest. In an era where government spending often feels like a black hole, here’s a cause conservatives and patriots can rally behind without hesitation.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow just predicted that the GOP will push for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's resignation, a move that could shake up the Department of Defense.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, during her show “Deadline,” Maddow tackled a troubling report about alleged misconduct by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tied to drug boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea, forecasting that Republican lawmakers will soon call for his resignation over the escalating controversy.
Let’s unpack this with a clear head, because the progressive media machine loves to spin a narrative faster than a fidget spinner.
Maddow didn’t hold back, questioning the very foundation of the military actions in question with a tone that suggests she’s already written the obituary for Hegseth’s tenure.
She mused, “I don’t understand why we’re going to war with Venezuela, and I’m not sure the administration is even bothered to try to come up with anything, even internally coherent,” as reported on MSNBC’s “Deadline.”
While it’s fair to ask tough questions about foreign policy, Maddow’s framing seems to ignore the complex reality of drug trafficking threats—perhaps she’d prefer we send the Coast Guard with a polite “please stop” instead of decisive action?
The core of the issue, as Maddow sees it, is a report alleging impropriety in how Hegseth has overseen operations targeting suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
Her criticism implies a reckless approach, but let’s be honest—defending national security isn’t a game of patty-cake, and sometimes tough calls must be made against dangerous cartels.
Still, if the allegations hold water, conservatives must demand accountability, not because we’re swayed by MSNBC’s outrage, but because integrity in leadership isn’t negotiable.
Maddow went further, painting a picture of needless violence in the operations, as if the military is playing target practice with innocent fishermen.
She questioned, “So what are we doing there in the first place? Why are we blowing out of the water and killing people in boats with outboard motors, some of which aren’t even pointed towards the United States, let alone verified to have drugs on them?” as aired on “Deadline.”
Her rhetorical flourish might score points with the anti-military crowd, but it sidesteps the harsh truth that drug smuggling isn’t a harmless hobby—though, admittedly, transparency on targeting protocols would go a long way to ease public concern.
Perhaps the most striking part of Maddow’s segment was her bold prediction that Hegseth’s days as Secretary of Defense are numbered.
She didn’t mince words, stating on “Deadline” that this situation is “a catastrophe” and that Republican lawmakers will ultimately demand his resignation after digging into the matter.
While it’s tempting to dismiss this as left-leaning wishful thinking, conservatives should take note—if the facts reveal a failure in judgment, loyalty to principle must trump loyalty to any one figure, no matter how aligned with the cause.
In a move that’s got Massachusetts politicos buzzing, Rep. Ayanna Pressley has decided to sidestep a high-profile Senate challenge and stick to her House seat.
Pressley announced on Tuesday she won’t be gunning for Sen. Ed Markey’s Senate spot, choosing instead to run for reelection in Massachusetts’s 7th Congressional District, The Hill reported.
Her decision, shared in a public statement, came after much speculation about a potential clash in the Democratic primary against Markey, a progressive heavyweight.
Pressley didn’t shy away from personal reasons, emphasizing her daughter’s senior year of high school as a key factor in staying put.
“I do want to be able to sit around the dinner table and be there for my daughter’s dance performances when I can,” she told The Boston Globe. Call it heartwarming, but in a political climate where every move is scrutinized, it’s a reminder that even the most ambitious sometimes prioritize home over headlines.
She also hinted at unfinished business in the House, suggesting her district needs her now more than ever amid national tensions.
While passing on this Senate run, Pressley made it clear she’s not ruling out a future bid for higher office.
“I’m not closing the door to a Senate run down the line,” she confided to The Boston Globe. That’s a classic political hedge—keeping options open while dodging the immediate fight.
Her statement about being “deeply humbled” by encouragement to run for Senate reads like a polite nod to supporters, though it’s hard not to wonder if she’s just biding her time.
With Pressley out, the Democratic primary for Markey’s seat still promises drama, as Rep. Seth Moulton emerges as the leading challenger.
Moulton, at 47, is pushing a narrative of generational change, pointing to Markey’s age—79, soon to be 80—as a reason for fresh blood in the Senate.
His campaign’s focus on Markey’s half-century in Congress as out of touch with today’s crises raises eyebrows, especially when younger Democrats echo similar calls against entrenched incumbents.
Markey, who fended off a primary challenge from Joe Kennedy III in 2020, isn’t backing down, even as some Democratic colleagues opt for retirement.
The broader trend of younger party members questioning the effectiveness of veteran lawmakers, especially in countering conservative policies, adds fuel to Moulton’s argument, though it risks fracturing party unity.
Pressley’s choice to stay in the House might just be the smartest play—avoiding an awkward progressive showdown while keeping her powder dry for another day.