California has taken a bold step into the global health arena, becoming the first state to align with the World Health Organization’s network just as the U.S. steps away.
One day after the U.S. officially withdrew from the WHO—ending nearly 80 years of membership as a founding member—Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that California will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN). This makes California the first, and currently only, state to participate in this international health initiative.
The announcement followed Newsom’s trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he met with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, though a scheduled speaking event was canceled at the last moment.
The issue has sparked debate over state versus federal authority in international health policy. While Newsom frames this as a necessary move for public health, others see it as a direct challenge to national priorities. Let’s unpack what this means for California and beyond.
Newsom’s decision comes at a time when California has been carving its own path on health policy, especially since the start of the second Trump administration. The state has joined coalitions like the West Coast Health Alliance and Governors Public Health Alliance to push policies that diverge from White House directives, the Hill reported.
From Sacramento, Newsom’s office declared, “As President Trump withdraws the United States from the World Health Organization, California is stepping up under Governor Gavin Newsom.” They tout this as a way to bolster public health preparedness and rapid response. But is a single state really equipped to play on the global stage, or is this more about political posturing than practical outcomes?
The timing couldn’t be more pointed—one day after the U.S. exit from WHO became official. Critics might argue this move undermines federal authority, especially when national unity on health crises is paramount. It’s hard to ignore the optics of a state governor meeting with global leaders while the nation pulls back.
Newsom didn’t hold back in his assessment of the U.S. withdrawal, calling it a “reckless decision that will hurt all Californians and Americans.” That’s a strong charge, but many would agree that stepping away from a long-standing global health body raises serious questions about readiness for future pandemics. Still, shouldn’t states focus on domestic coordination before jumping into international networks?
This isn’t just about health—it’s about who gets to steer the ship. California’s push for global partnerships, as Newsom puts it, aims to keep the state at the forefront of preparedness. Yet, some might see this as prioritizing optics over the gritty work of aligning with federal strategies.
Newsom doubled down, stating, “California will not bear witness to the chaos this decision will bring.” That’s a dramatic framing, but it sidesteps whether state-level involvement in GOARN will actually deliver measurable benefits. Are we looking at real solutions or just a symbolic stand?
California’s solo act in joining GOARN raises bigger questions about fragmented health policy. If every state starts cutting its own deals with international bodies, where does that leave national coherence in a crisis? The risk of a patchwork approach looms large.
Newsom’s trip to Davos, while marred by a canceled speech, still allowed a high-profile meeting with the WHO chief. That kind of access might signal California’s clout, but it also fuels concerns about states overreaching their traditional roles. International diplomacy isn’t typically a governor’s domain.
Since the U.S. exit from WHO, California’s actions appear to be a deliberate counterpoint to federal policy. The state’s involvement in regional health alliances already showed a willingness to diverge, and GOARN membership takes that a step further. But divergence can look a lot like division when push comes to shove.
Supporters of Newsom might argue that California is filling a void left by federal withdrawal. That’s a fair point—health threats don’t respect borders, and someone has to step up. Yet, without federal backing, can a single state’s efforts in a global network truly move the needle?
On the flip side, the Trump administration’s decision to leave WHO reflects a broader skepticism of international bureaucracies that many Americans share. Why funnel resources and influence into bodies that may not prioritize U.S. interests? California’s move, while bold, risks ignoring that valid critique.
Ultimately, this story isn’t just about health policy—it’s about the tug-of-war between state initiative and national unity. California’s GOARN membership might be a noble gesture, but it’s a gamble that could complicate an already tense federal-state dynamic. Only time will tell if this is a step forward or a stumble into disarray.
House Republicans are reigniting a bold campaign to hold federal judges accountable for rulings that challenge President Donald Trump’s policies.
Conservative lawmakers, with renewed backing from Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are pushing impeachment efforts against judges they accuse of overstepping their authority. The focus has sharpened on U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, criticized for decisions on immigration policies and other key Trump initiatives.
Johnson signaled support during a press conference on Wednesday, while Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., confirmed the Speaker’s stance after a conversation on the House floor Thursday evening.
Supporters contend that this move is a necessary check on judicial overreach, while critics decry it as an assault on the independence of a co-equal branch of government. The debate has reignited tensions over how far Congress should go to counter court rulings that clash with executive priorities.
Efforts to impeach judges aren’t new—last year, Rep. Ogles led attempts to target U.S. District Judge John Bates and Judge Theodore Chuang over rulings against Trump’s executive orders. Those resolutions stalled, as House GOP leaders then deemed impeachment impractical compared to legislative fixes, Fox News reported.
One such alternative, a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., aimed to curb district judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. It passed the House on party lines last year but languished in the Senate. Johnson and others initially favored this approach over impeachment proceedings.
That stance shifted this week when Johnson openly endorsed pursuing impeachment, specifically naming Judge Boasberg as a target. Boasberg’s rulings, particularly on immigration policies involving deportations to countries like El Salvador, have drawn sharp Republican criticism.
Republicans have also taken issue with Boasberg’s approval of actions tied to the seizure of GOP lawmakers’ phone records in a past probe by former special counsel Jack Smith. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who spearheaded a resolution against Boasberg last year, welcomed Johnson’s recent comments. Gill noted the resolution gained two new House GOP co-sponsors this week.
“I'm thrilled to see the speaker get on board,” Gill said. “I think his leadership will be crucial in getting this passed.” His optimism reflects a growing momentum among conservatives who see this as a defining stand against judicial activism.
Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, of the House Judiciary Committee, echoed this sentiment, arguing the public demands accountability. “I think there's more of an appetite and less of a hesitation than there was earlier in the Congress,” Gooden stated. He suggested the timing is right to push forward without distractions.
Not all Republicans are fully on board with the impeachment strategy. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., expressed doubts on Thursday about whether the effort could clear the committee process before a full House vote.
House GOP Conference Vice Chair Blake Moore, R-Utah, offered cautious support for considering impeachment as a tool but emphasized Issa’s bill as a more concrete solution. He argued for moving beyond political posturing to actionable policy reforms.
Democrats and other detractors view this as an overreach that threatens the judiciary’s autonomy. They argue Congress should respect the separation of powers rather than target judges for unfavorable rulings.
On immigration rulings, particularly those involving policies to relocate migrants rather than detain them domestically, the stakes are high for Trump’s agenda. Republicans see judges like Boasberg as obstacles to enforcing border security and executive authority. The question remains whether impeachment is the right tool to address these disputes.
Supporters insist Congress has the constitutional right to act when it perceives judicial abuse, while opponents warn of a slippery slope that could undermine democratic checks. As this effort unfolds, it’s clear the clash between branches of government will only intensify. The outcome may shape how far lawmakers can go to challenge court decisions they deem out of step with national priorities.
Northeastern Syria has become a powder keg of instability, with fears mounting over potential ISIS prison breaks.
The region’s turmoil stems from Syria’s new government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, launching a rapid offensive over the weekend against the U.S.-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), ordering them to disband. This power shift has weakened the SDF, allowing Syrian forces to take control of several detention facilities previously guarded by Kurdish forces.
On Wednesday, the U.S. military began relocating about 150 ISIS detainees from Hasakah, Syria, to Iraq, with plans to move up to 7,000 of the 9,000 to 10,000 held in Syria, while security concerns grow around sites like al-Hol camp, home to 24,000 people linked to ISIS fighters.
The issue has sparked intense debate over America’s role in the region and the risk of an ISIS resurgence. While the facts are clear, the implications are anything but, as shifting alliances threaten to undo years of hard-fought progress against terrorism.
Let’s rewind to the weekend, when al-Sharaa’s forces moved decisively against the SDF, upending the fragile balance in northeastern Syria. The rapid offensive left the Kurdish forces reeling, unable to maintain their grip on key detention centers, Fox News reported.
By midweek, Syrian authorities reported a troubling breakout at al-Shaddadi prison in Hasakah, with at least 120 ISIS detainees escaping. Though many were recaptured, some remain at large, a stark reminder of the stakes involved. U.S. and regional officials aren’t mincing words about the danger these escapees pose.
Then there’s al-Hol camp, a sprawling site housing 24,000, mostly women and children tied to ISIS fighters, long flagged by Western officials as a hotbed for radicalization. Kurdish forces, citing global inaction, announced their withdrawal from overseeing the camp to redeploy against advancing Syrian troops. It’s a decision that raises eyebrows, given the extremist networks known to fester there.
The SDF’s statement on al-Hol couldn’t be more pointed: “Due to the international community's indifference towards the ISIS issue and its failure to assume its responsibilities in addressing this serious matter, our forces were compelled to withdraw from al-Hol camp and redeploy.” That’s a gut punch to global leaders who’ve dragged their feet on this crisis. If the world won’t act, why should the Kurds bear the burden alone?
Humanitarian groups have long noted that many al-Hol residents face no formal charges, yet the camp’s conditions breed despair and extremism. It’s a tragic mess, but ignoring the security threat won’t make it disappear.
On Tuesday evening, a fragile four-day ceasefire was brokered between Kurdish forces and Syrian government troops. But let’s not kid ourselves—temporary truces rarely hold when trust is this thin. The question is whether this pause buys enough time for a real solution.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is scrambling, with officials weighing the withdrawal of roughly 1,000 troops still stationed in Syria, according to The Wall Street Journal. After losing two Army soldiers to an ISIS gunman in December 2025, the cost of staying is painfully clear. Yet abandoning the region risks ceding ground to a regrouping insurgency that’s targeted prisons since losing its last stronghold in Baghouz in 2019.
U.S. envoy Tom Barrack has been blunt about priorities, saying, “The United States has no interest in a long-term military presence.” Fine, but pulling out without a plan to secure ISIS detainees or stabilize local alliances is a gamble with catastrophic odds. Washington’s focus, Barrack insists, is preventing an ISIS comeback, not playing empire.
Western governments’ cautious backing of al-Sharaa, a former militant once labeled a terrorist, is framed as pragmatic security math, not a glowing endorsement. It’s a bitter pill, but sometimes holding your nose and working with imperfect partners is the only play against a greater evil like ISIS.
The bigger picture is grim—ISIS has morphed into a decentralized insurgency, repeatedly striking at detention sites across Syria and Iraq. With local forces stretched thin and alliances fracturing, the U.S. can’t afford to look the other way while radicals plot their next move.
Barrack’s push for a permanent deal between the SDF and Syria’s new government is sensible, but it’s a tall order given the bad blood. America’s priority must be locking down these detention facilities, not chasing endless nation-building fantasies that drain our resources. If we don’t act decisively, the ghosts of ISIS’s past could haunt us for decades.
President Donald Trump’s latest standoff with Iran has thrust the fate of detained protesters into the global spotlight.
Trump claimed Iran halted mass executions of up to 800 imprisoned demonstrators due to U.S. pressure, a statement Iran’s top prosecutor, Mohammad Movahedi, rejected as false on Friday.
The U.S. president issued a stern warning on Thursday, stating a naval “armada” is heading toward Iran, signaling readiness to escalate if executions resume or the crackdown intensifies. Meanwhile, the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, equipped with advanced fighters and missiles, has moved from the South China Sea toward the Middle East, placing significant American firepower near Iranian waters.
The issue has sparked heated debate over whether U.S. pressure can influence Iran’s internal policies. While Trump insists his warnings led to a pause in planned executions, Iran’s flat denial suggests a deeper clash of narratives. This standoff raises questions about Washington’s next move if Tehran resumes its harsh measures, Fox News reported.
Movahedi didn’t mince words, declaring, “This claim is completely false, no such number exists, nor has the judiciary made any such decision.” Such defiance from a high-ranking Iranian cleric and judge underscores the regime’s insistence on sovereignty over foreign influence. But does this rejection signal a willingness to test American resolve?
Trump, for his part, has doubled down on his stance with vivid rhetoric. He told reporters, “We have an armada heading in that direction. And maybe we won't have to use it.” This mix of threat and restraint hints at a calculated strategy to keep Iran guessing.
The deployment of the Abraham Lincoln strike group, carrying F-35C stealth fighters and Tomahawk-armed escorts, isn’t just theater—it’s a clear message. With tensions already high after a brutal crackdown that left thousands dead, per activist reports, the U.S. appears poised for action. Iranian state media admits over 3,000 deaths, though human rights groups argue the toll is far graver.
This discrepancy in casualty numbers highlights Tehran’s tight grip on information, a tactic long criticized by those wary of centralized control. International scrutiny is mounting, yet Iran’s refusal to acknowledge external pressure only sharpens the divide.
A White House official noted Trump “is watching the situation in Iran very seriously and all options are on the table if the regime executes protesters.” Such statements draw a firm line, tying potential military moves to the treatment of detainees. It’s a bold gamble in a region already simmering with unrest.
The violent suppression of anti-regime protests has drawn widespread condemnation, with Movahedi previously labeling participants as “enemies of God,” a charge carrying the death penalty. Such language reveals the stark ideological rift at play. How can dialogue prevail when one side frames dissent as divine betrayal?
Trump’s earlier message to protesters, “help is on its way,” was meant to bolster their resolve amid a deadly response from security forces. Yet, with Iran dismissing U.S. influence, the risk of miscalculation looms large. Will this encouragement translate to tangible support, or remain a rhetorical flourish?
The naval buildup, described by Trump as “a big force going to Iran,” adds another layer of uncertainty. He expressed hope that conflict can be avoided, suggesting the ships are a precaution “just in case.” But in geopolitics, posturing often precedes action.
Iran’s mission to the United Nations stayed silent on the conflicting claims, leaving the public narrative to Trump and Movahedi. This silence might be strategic, avoiding further escalation while internal decisions unfold. Yet, it also cedes the stage to Washington’s version of events.
For now, Trump views the alleged cancellation of executions as “good news,” per a White House official, hoping the pause holds. But with Iran’s judiciary denying any such decision, the credibility of U.S. warnings hangs in the balance. If executions resume, will America act, or risk being seen as all bark and no bite?
The stakes couldn’t be higher as both nations test each other’s limits. With U.S. forces nearing Iranian waters and a brutal crackdown already claiming thousands of lives, the line between deterrence and disaster is razor-thin. The world watches, waiting to see if words turn to warships—or if restraint somehow prevails.
Rock music has lost a titan with the passing of Francis Buchholz, the German bassist whose thunderous riffs defined an era with Scorpions and Michael Schenker’s Temple of Rock.
Francis Buchholz, aged 71, died on Thursday following a private battle with cancer, as confirmed by his wife, Hella, in a social media post. His family announced the news on Friday, noting that he passed away peacefully, surrounded by loved ones. Born in Hanover on February 19, 1954, Buchholz was a key member of Scorpions during their most successful years and later toured with Michael Schenker in 2012 as part of Temple of Rock.
The news has left fans and fellow musicians mourning the loss of a foundational figure in rock history. Buchholz’s basslines powered iconic Scorpions hits like “Rock You Like a Hurricane” and “Wind of Change.” His family expressed gratitude for the global support from fans over the years.
The story of Buchholz’s rise is one of raw talent meeting relentless drive. Discovering rock at 11, he picked up the bass at 15 while still in high school, eventually joining Dawn Road in the early 1970s alongside Uli Jon Roth and others, The Sun reported. That group merged with Scorpions, where Buchholz became a cornerstone with Klaus Meine and Rudolf Schenker.
His contributions spanned every Scorpions album from 1974’s “Fly to the Rainbow” to 1990’s “Crazy World.” That era cemented the band’s legacy, with Buchholz’s bass work as the heartbeat of their sound. A photo from a 1991 performance in Belgium captures him alongside Meine, a snapshot of their electric chemistry.
Yet, the silence of his strings now echoes louder than ever. The outpouring of tributes, including from former bandmate Uli Jon Roth, underscores the personal and professional impact Buchholz had. Roth wrote, “Very saddening! We were friends.”
The issue of his passing has sparked reflection on how even legends face quiet, personal struggles. Buchholz fought cancer away from the spotlight, with his family by his side through every challenge. His loved ones noted, “Throughout his fight with cancer, we stayed by his side, facing every challenge as a family.”
That kind of grit resonates with those who value family above all, in an age where personal battles are often splashed across tabloids. It’s a reminder that strength isn’t just in the music but in the bonds that endure behind the scenes.
His family’s statement about fan support also hits hard. They said, “You gave him the world, and he gave you his music in return.” That mutual respect between artist and audience feels rarer in today’s hyper-commercialized entertainment world.
Let’s be honest—modern music often prioritizes flash over substance, with auto-tuned pop dominating charts while true craftsmanship gets sidelined. Buchholz’s era with Scorpions was different; it was about real instruments, real emotion, and real connection. His bass wasn’t just background noise—it drove songs that became anthems for generations.
Contrast that with today’s obsession with viral trends over lasting art. The progressive push for sanitized, market-driven content often drowns out the raw energy Buchholz brought to every note. His work reminds us why authenticity in music still matters.
His family captured this sentiment perfectly, stating that though “the strings have gone silent,” his soul lingers in every tune and life he touched. That’s not just poetry; it’s a call to remember what music can mean beyond fleeting fame.
Buchholz’s journey—from a kid in Hanover to a global rock icon—stands as a testament to talent and perseverance, values that seem underappreciated in a culture chasing quick fixes. His time with Michael Schenker’s Temple of Rock in 2012 showed he never lost that fire, even later in his career.
Now, as fans mourn, there’s a broader lesson here about resisting the disposable nature of today’s entertainment. Buchholz’s music wasn’t a TikTok clip; it was a legacy built on sweat and soul, something worth preserving against the tide of fleeting trends.
So, turn up “Still Loving You” one more time and remember a man who played with heart. His family and friends, including Hella, carry forward his memory, as should we all. In a world loud with noise, Buchholz’s silent strings still speak volumes.
Seven House Democrats just crossed party lines to push forward a funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that keeps U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operational.
On Thursday, the House advanced a DHS appropriations bill by a vote of 220-207 during a committee markup, securing funding for ICE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through September 30.
The measure faced fierce opposition from progressive Democrats, with House Democratic leaders like Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar publicly opposing it due to concerns over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Despite a narrow 218-213 Republican majority, seven Democrats—Tom Suozzi (New York), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (North Carolina), Laura Gillen (New York), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), and Marie Glusenkamp Perez (Washington)—voted in favor.
The debate has ignited strong opinions on both sides of the aisle. While some see this as a pragmatic move to keep essential services running, others view it as a betrayal of core values amid heightened scrutiny of DHS enforcement tactics.
Before the vote, Democratic leaders faced pressure from rank-and-file members to resist funding ICE, citing aggressive immigration enforcement actions, Newsweek reported. Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, warned that a short-term continuing resolution would hand Trump more control over DHS spending.
Some Democrats also cautioned that letting DHS funding lapse could cripple disaster relief efforts and agencies like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), while ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would likely keep operating using funds from last year’s Republican-backed tax and immigration law. That legislation allocated tens of billions—$30 billion for ICE operations and $45 billion for detention facilities—ensuring border enforcement stays funded.
The approved bill keeps ICE’s annual congressional appropriation, typically around $10 billion, roughly the same as last year. It also limits DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s ability to redirect funds unilaterally and mandates monthly reports on spending from Trump’s law, alongside $20 million for body cameras for ICE and CBP officers.
During floor debates, several Democrats lambasted ICE’s methods, alleging overreach in enforcement. Representative Betty McCollum (Minnesota) highlighted cases of racial profiling and detentions in her state, painting a troubling picture of federal overreach.
McCollum stated, “Masked federal agents are seizing parents, yes, in front of terrified children.” Her words aim to shock, but they sidestep the broader reality that ICE’s mission, however imperfectly executed, targets unauthorized migration—a persistent challenge lawmakers on all sides have failed to solve with lasting reform.
Henry Cuellar (Texas), one of the seven Democrats who voted yes, admitted, “It’s not everything we wanted.” He’s right—compromise rarely is—but with Republicans holding the House, Senate, and White House, expecting sweeping oversight changes seems more like wishful thinking than strategy.
The broader context shows a House grappling with a $1.2 trillion package of four spending bills to avert another government shutdown after last fall’s record 43-day closure. Three other measures funding the Defense Department, Education, Transportation, and Health and Human Services passed with bipartisan support, while the DHS bill remains contentious.
The Senate now has until January 30 to act on these bills and prevent a partial shutdown. Meanwhile, a late addition to the DHS package—repealing senators’ ability to sue over cellphone data collection tied to Jack Smith’s January 6 investigation—was unanimously blocked by the House.
Critics of the DHS bill argue it fuels an overly harsh immigration stance, but supporters point out that funding ICE doesn’t mean endorsing every tactic. Disaster relief and airport security hang in the balance—hardly issues to gamble with over ideological purity.
Representative Thomas Massie (Kentucky) was the sole Republican to vote against the measure, a curious outlier in an otherwise party-line split. His dissent underscores that even among conservatives, DHS funding isn’t a monolith—some prioritize fiscal restraint over border enforcement boosts.
Ultimately, the seven Democrats who broke ranks may face backlash from their base, but their votes reflect a tough reality: governing often means choosing between imperfect options. With ICE and CBP able to tap into prior allocations, defunding them entirely was never a realistic outcome. The real fight lies in oversight and ensuring enforcement doesn’t trample on basic decency—an uphill battle, but one worth waging.
New York City's latest political clash pits Mayor Zohran Mamdani against Comptroller Mark Levine over a contentious financial decision involving pension fund investments.
A dispute has erupted between Mayor Zohran Mamdani and City Comptroller Mark Levine regarding whether the city’s pension funds, which hold over $294 billion in assets as of June, should invest in Israeli government bonds.
The tension escalated this week with public statements from both officials, just weeks after they assumed office on January 1. Levine, the city’s financial overseer, plans to resume investments in these bonds, while Mamdani has openly rejected the idea during a press conference on Wednesday.
The disagreement marks a reversal of dynamics from the prior administration, where former Mayor Eric Adams supported such investments, while then-Comptroller Brad Lander opted against reinvesting after the bonds matured.
New York City has held Israeli bonds since the 1970s, with holdings valued at over $39 million when Lander took office in January 2022. This issue has now become a focal point of contention between the current mayor and comptroller.
Levine, a Jewish centrist who often engages warmly with Jewish community events, defends the bonds as a sound financial choice, the Times of Israel reported. He’s pointed out that the city has benefited from these investments for decades, with returns around 5%—sometimes outpacing comparable U.S. Treasury bonds. It’s hard to argue with numbers that suggest a solid track record.
“Israeli bonds had been part of the portfolio for decades,” Levine stated, emphasizing historical precedent. That’s a fair point—why abandon something that’s worked for so long? Yet, the counterargument looms large when ideology overshadows pragmatism.
Mamdani, often described as a far-left anti-Zionist, isn’t budging. “I don’t think we should purchase Israel bonds,” he declared at his Wednesday press conference. His reasoning hinges on a policy of neutrality toward sovereign debt, but many see this as a thinly veiled alignment with activist causes.
Levine’s role as comptroller, overseeing a staff of 800 and managing audits, contracts, and pension funds, positions him as a counterweight to the mayor. Yet, he’s dismissed any notion that Mamdani could override his decisions on this matter. The power dynamic here is worth watching as both navigate their early days in office.
Under the previous administration, Adams and Lander clashed repeatedly over this very issue, with Adams accusing Lander of unfairly targeting Israel. Lander, who is Jewish and politically left of Adams, denied any bias, noting the city held over $300 million in other Israeli assets. That context suggests the bonds are a small, symbolic piece of a much larger portfolio.
Anti-Zionist activist groups have already protested Levine’s intention to reinvest, amplifying the public discord. Meanwhile, on his first day, Mamdani revoked an executive order by Adams that barred city agencies from boycotting Israel, signaling a sharp policy shift. Such moves raise questions about whether governance will prioritize ideology over unity.
The city’s pension funds are governed by boards of trustees, including the comptroller, mayoral appointees, and labor representatives. While the mayor lacks direct control over investment decisions, influence through appointees could play a role on certain boards. Still, Levine seems confident his authority holds firm.
Levine inherited a daunting $12.6 billion budget gap for this year and next, a challenge that looms over any policy debate. As Mamdani pushes reforms like free buses and child care, fiscal decisions like bond investments could become lightning rods for broader disagreements. Every dollar counts in a strained budget.
Both Mamdani and Levine have expressed willingness to collaborate on other issues, and Levine even endorsed Mamdani during the primary. That’s a silver lining, suggesting this rift might not derail all cooperation. Still, the fault line is clear and likely to deepen without compromise.
The Israel bond debate is a microcosm of a larger struggle over how much personal belief should shape public policy. While Levine’s argument for financial pragmatism resonates, Mamdani’s stance reflects a growing push among some leaders to align investments with progressive values. The question remains whether such alignment serves the city’s diverse taxpayers.
Navigating this dispute will test both leaders’ ability to prioritize New Yorkers’ needs over ideological battles. With pension funds at stake, the outcome could ripple beyond this single decision, shaping how the city balances profit with principle. Let’s hope pragmatism doesn’t get lost in the political shuffle.
After months of gridlock, the House has finally pushed through its last batch of 2026 funding bills, marking a pivotal moment for congressional leadership.
On Thursday, the House passed its final set of appropriations for 2026, a significant step for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in restoring regular order to government funding. A three-bill minibus package covering Defense, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and related agencies sailed through with a 341-88 vote.
Separately, a contentious Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill passed narrowly at 220-207, despite strong Democratic opposition fueled by recent tensions over an ICE officer’s fatal shooting of Minneapolis woman Renee Good.
The debate over these bills has sparked sharp divisions, particularly around the DHS measure. While the broader funding package moves Congress closer to full-year appropriations, the DHS bill has become a lightning rod for deeper frustrations, the Hill reported.
Let’s start with the big picture: funding the government is Congress’s core duty, yet it’s been a mess for years, with stopgap measures and shutdowns like the historic 43-day closure earlier this fiscal year. The House, combining these four bills with a two-bill minibus passed last week, is now headed to the Senate next week before a Jan. 30 deadline, feels like a rare win for process over politics. Still, the road to get here—through November’s short-term fix and December’s holiday crunch—shows how fragile this progress is.
Now, about that DHS bill: Democrats are up in arms, and not without cause, after the tragic death of Renee Good at the hands of an ICE officer. Liberals demanded stricter oversight of ICE, arguing the agency operates without enough accountability. While the bill does cut $115 million from ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, reduce 5,500 detention beds, and slash $1.8 billion from Border Patrol, many on the left say it’s not nearly enough.
House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) captured the frustration, stating, “It’s clear that more must be done.” She’s not wrong to point out lingering issues, but expecting sweeping ICE reform in a single funding bill during a divided Congress might be a pipe dream. The reality is, only seven Democrats crossed the aisle to support it, showing how deep the partisan split runs.
On the flip side, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hailed the votes as “the most significant sign of progress in these halls in years.” That’s a bold claim when hard-line conservatives are grumbling about so-called “community funding project” earmarks and programs they deem wasteful. If anything, Johnson’s win is more about grit than unity, pushing through new funding levels instead of another continuing resolution.
Look at the DHS reforms—strengthened oversight through the Office of the Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties sounds good on paper. But when push comes to shove, will these changes rein in the kind of tragic incidents that took Renee Good’s life? Skeptics on both sides have their doubts, and for good reason.
Then there’s the last-minute amendment to repeal a law letting senators sue for $500,000 over unnotified phone record subpoenas—a jab at the Senate after Republican senators slipped it into a prior shutdown-ending bill. It’s a petty but unanimous addition, showing even in victory, the House can’t resist a partisan poke. Expect the Senate to feel the heat when it returns.
Hard-line conservatives aren’t thrilled either, bristling at what they see as unnecessary spending in these bills. Their push to extend old funding levels was overruled by Johnson and appropriators like Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who deserve credit for grinding through months of negotiations. Still, the discontent signals future battles over fiscal restraint.
The DHS bill, for all its flaws, keeps billions flowing to critical security operations—a necessity in uncertain times. Cutting Border Patrol funding by $1.8 billion might please progressive critics, but it risks stretching an already thin line at a time when border security remains a top concern for many Americans. Balance, not ideology, should guide these decisions.
Stepping back, this isn’t just about DHS or earmarks; it’s about whether Congress can do its job without the constant threat of shutdowns. The fiscal year started with the longest government shutdown in history, and lawmakers barely squeezed through the remaining nine bills this month amid holiday distractions and other debates. That’s not a sustainable model.
For taxpayers tired of Washington’s dysfunction, seeing all 12 appropriations bills near the finish line offers a glimmer of hope. Yet, with the Senate still to weigh in and partisan wounds fresh over DHS, this could be less a turning point and more a brief ceasefire. The real test is whether this momentum holds.
Johnson’s focus on a committee-led process over backroom omnibus deals is a nod to transparency, something long overdue. But when lives like Renee Good’s are lost, and trust in agencies like ICE hangs by a thread, funding bills alone won’t heal the divide. Congress must dig deeper for solutions, not just dollars.
The FBI has made a striking arrest in Minnesota, nabbing a social media activist who dared authorities to come after him following a disruptive protest at a local church.
On Thursday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested William Kelly, known online as “DaWokeFarmer” on TikTok, in connection with a January 18 incident at Cities Church in St. Paul. Kelly faces charges of conspiracy to deprive rights and violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
The charges stem from a protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that interrupted a church service, leaving parishioners unsettled.
Two other individuals, Nekima Levy Armstrong, accused of organizing the event, and Chauntyll Louisa Allen, who participated, were also arrested by FBI agents for their roles in the same disruption. Video footage captured the protestors entering the church, where they alleged a senior church official was tied to ICE operations. Kelly’s arrest follows his public taunts directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi on social media in the days after the event.
The issue has sparked intense debate over the balance between free expression and the right to worship without interference. Many see this as a clash between progressive activism and the sanctity of religious spaces, Breitbart reported.
Let’s rewind to January 18, when a group of anti-ICE protestors stormed into Cities Church mid-service. Their claim? That a top church figure was doubling as an ICE agent, a serious accusation that fueled their disruption.
Kelly didn’t shy away from the spotlight after the incident, taking to social media with fiery rhetoric. He declared, “Yesterday, I went into a church with Nikema Armstrong, and I protested these white supremacists.” That kind of language only pours fuel on an already heated situation, ignoring the distress caused to those simply trying to pray.
His online bravado didn’t stop there. Kelly went as far as challenging Attorney General Pam Bondi directly, saying, “Come and get me Pam Bondi, you traitorous bitch.” Such provocative words raise questions about whether he sought accountability or just craved attention, but they certainly got the FBI’s notice.
Critics of the protest argue that while concerns about immigration enforcement deserve discussion, invading a house of worship crosses a clear line. Churches are places of refuge, not battlegrounds for political stunts.
This kind of activism risks alienating even those who might sympathize with the underlying cause. Supporters of Kelly might claim they’re shining a light on perceived injustices tied to ICE policies. Yet, one has to wonder if their methods undermine whatever message they hoped to send.
Immigration policy remains a deeply divisive issue, and allegations of church officials having ties to federal enforcement agencies, if true, would understandably stir emotions. But without verified evidence presented in a proper forum, such claims during a protest can feel more like slander than advocacy.
The FACE Act, under which Kelly is charged, was originally designed to protect access to reproductive health clinics but has been applied to religious facilities as well. Its use here signals that the federal government takes interruptions of worship seriously, regardless of the political motivations behind them.
What’s clear is that the St. Paul incident isn’t just about one protest or one activist. It’s a microcosm of broader tensions over how far activism can go before it infringes on others’ fundamental rights.
Kelly’s arrest, alongside Armstrong and Allen, sends a message that the FBI isn’t playing around when it comes to protecting places of worship. Some might cheer this as a stand for law and order.
Others might see it as stifling dissent. Either way, the fallout from this case could shape how future protests are conducted near sensitive locations.
If you’re going to challenge authority, perhaps it’s wiser to pick a venue that doesn’t disrupt the innocent. The courtroom, not the church pew, might be the better stage for these battles.
In a contentious House vote Thursday evening, a proposal to strip $1.3 billion in earmarks from a government funding package was soundly defeated, revealing deep divisions among Republicans over taxpayer dollars tied to controversial programs.
The House of Representatives rejected an amendment by South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman with a vote of 291 to 136. The amendment targeted earmarks in the Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) bill, which included funding for entities linked to sex-change procedures for minors and late-term abortions.
While 136 GOP lawmakers supported Norman’s measure, 76 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against it, and nine Republicans, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, did not cast a vote despite attending the session.
The broader funding package, which passed the House with a 341-88 vote, now moves to the Senate, where conservatives may challenge specific allocations. Notable earmarks include $2 million for Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego for pediatric mental health services and $3 million for Hennepin Healthcare System in Minnesota for a substance use disorder clinic. Critics have pointed out that both facilities are associated with gender transition treatments for children.
The vote has ignited a firestorm of debate among fiscal conservatives who view these earmarks as a betrayal of core principles. Many argue that taxpayer money should not support programs or institutions pushing agendas they see as out of step with traditional values, the Daily Caller reported.
“These earmarks are against every conservative value that is known,” Norman declared on the House floor before the vote. Such a stark warning from a fellow Republican should have rallied the party, yet over 70 GOP members turned a deaf ear, siding with Democrats to keep the funding intact.
Heritage Action, a prominent conservative group, didn’t mince words in its critique of the GOP’s actions. “In demanding earmarks of their own, Republicans have opened the door to Democrats to direct taxpayer funds to entities engaged in practices that most GOP voters find abhorrent,” the group stated in a release. This hypocrisy stings, as it exposes a willingness to play the same political games conservatives often decry.
One earmark drawing intense scrutiny is the $2 million allocated to Rady Children’s Hospital, the sole pediatric medical center in San Diego County. The hospital runs a Center for Gender-Affirming Care, offering various sex-change procedures, as reported by the nonprofit Do No Harm. Analysts from the Economic Policy Innovation Center caution that these mental health funds could indirectly bolster such treatments.
Similarly, the $3 million for Minnesota’s Hennepin Healthcare System raises eyebrows due to its pediatric clinic providing puberty blockers and hormone therapies to minors. While the earmark is designated for a substance use disorder clinic, critics fear a fungible funding effect, where dollars freed up elsewhere could support controversial practices.
Even smaller allocations, like the $375,000 for arts education at Jacob’s Pillow in Massachusetts, requested by Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, have drawn ire for the organization’s heavy emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion principles. For many, this signals yet another instance of federal funds propping up progressive priorities over practical needs.
The split within the Republican conference is glaring, with top appropriator Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma voting against Norman’s amendment. This division isn’t just a numbers game; it’s a philosophical rift over whether earmarks, often seen as political pork, have any place in a party claiming fiscal restraint.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, has touted the return to regular order in passing appropriations bills ahead of the Jan. 30 funding deadline. He’s framed this as a victory over past Democratic-led budgets, promising a shift to spending levels aligned with previous Republican administrations. Yet, the earmark controversy undercuts this narrative of disciplined governance.
Norman, undeterred by the defeat, has long fought against earmarks, reintroducing legislation in January to ban them permanently in funding bills. His persistence highlights a growing frustration with Washington’s habit of tucking pet projects into must-pass legislation, a practice he believes undermines accountability.
As the funding package heads to the Senate, conservative members there may seize the opportunity to push back on these earmarks. The stakes are high, as public trust in how taxpayer money is spent hangs in the balance.
For many voters, this isn’t just about dollars and cents; it’s about the values reflected in government spending. The House vote reveals a party wrestling with its identity—caught between pragmatic deal-making and principled stands.
Until the Senate weighs in, the debate over these earmarks will simmer, a reminder of the tightrope Republicans walk in balancing governance with ideology. The outcome could shape how the party defines fiscal responsibility in the months ahead.