Nebraska State Senator Dan McKeon of Amherst finds himself in hot water over an alleged indiscretion at a Lincoln party that’s got everyone talking.
This saga centers on McKeon being charged with disturbing the peace, a Class III misdemeanor, after an incident at an end-of-session gathering this spring, initially cited as public indecency before a downgrade by the Lancaster County Attorney.
The trouble reportedly started at that spring bash in Lincoln, where a legislative staffer accused McKeon of inappropriate contact, prompting a Nebraska State Patrol investigation.
The Patrol got wind of the complaint in early September, and by late October, they issued McKeon a citation for public indecency, a heftier Class II misdemeanor.
Fast forward to this week, and court documents reveal a softer charge of disturbing the peace, carrying a max of three months in jail or a $500 fine, compared to six months or $1,000 for the original accusation.
Lancaster County Attorney Pat Condon made the call to downgrade, stating that disturbing the peace fit the bill better, though he’s keeping mum on the specifics of his reasoning.
McKeon’s attorney, Perry Pirsch, isn’t shy about calling this a win, claiming it matches McKeon’s side of the story that nothing untoward happened beyond a poorly timed joke and a pat on the back.
“This is consistent with his testimony [that] he only told a bad pun and patted her on the back,” Pirsch said, adding, “There was nothing sexually charged about it or even based on gender.”
Now, Pirsch is advising McKeon to plead no contest, accepting penalties without admitting guilt, a move he says will let McKeon “put the matter behind him and focus on the upcoming legislative session.”
But don’t think this is just a courtroom drama—the Nebraska Legislature is digging into the matter with its own internal probe, while the Executive Board has already shuffled McKeon’s office space to a different spot.
The Board met recently to chew over disciplinary steps but held off on a vote until all members could weigh in, with another meeting possibly as soon as this weekend.
Adding fuel to the fire, the staffer who raised the alarm might pursue a civil lawsuit, with her attorney, Kathleen Neary, confirming they’re moving forward with administrative filings as required by law.
State bigwigs, including Governor Jim Pillen, have urged McKeon to step down since the citation hit the news, but the Republican senator, elected to the nonpartisan Legislature, is digging in his heels and refusing to budge.
Look, in a world where progressive agendas often rush to judgment, it’s worth pausing to consider if a bad joke and a misplaced pat warrant a career-ender, though no one’s excusing behavior that crosses a line of basic respect.
McKeon’s arraignment is set for Wednesday in Lancaster County Court, and while he’s got a family and 30 years of marriage on his bio, the court of public opinion—often harsher than any judge—will be watching if this incident defines his tenure or becomes a footnote in a culture overly eager to cancel.
Brace yourself, America: the housing market is buckling under pressures that some say were entirely preventable.
The latest HUD "Worst Case Housing Needs Report" for 2025 paints a grim picture of affordability for low-income families, with HUD Secretary Scott Turner pointing to unchecked immigration and open-border policies as a major culprit in driving up costs and squeezing out American households.
Released every two years since 1991, HUD’s flagship report assesses the state of affordable housing for those struggling most, tracking trends in housing stress and identifying gaps in low-cost rental supply.
This year’s findings are particularly stark, issuing a pointed warning about how increased immigration, especially of the unauthorized variety, has strained the market.
According to the report, a staggering 15 million unauthorized immigrants make up 30% of the foreign-born population in the U.S., significantly contributing to housing demand.
In states like California and New York, immigrants drove 100% of rental growth and over 50% of owner-occupied housing increases in recent years, a trend that has policymakers scratching their heads.
Nationally, the foreign-born population accounted for over 60% of rental demand growth, with two-thirds of that surge tied directly to noncitizen households.
HUD’s analysis suggests that without this migrant influx, housing inventory pressures would have been far less severe, with nearly 784,000 fewer households forming over the studied period.
Compare that to earlier reports from 2019 and 2023, where noncitizen rental demand growth was just 13%, and it’s clear something has shifted—fast.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner isn’t mincing words, placing much of the blame on past policies that failed to enforce immigration controls.
“The unchecked illegal immigration and open borders policies allowed by the Biden administration continue to put significant strain on housing, pricing out American families,” Turner declared, signaling a sharp pivot under the current leadership.
While his rhetoric is fiery, one has to wonder if pinning the crisis so squarely on immigration misses the deeper, decades-long underbuilding of homes that’s left us millions of units short.
Turner’s response includes an audit of public housing authorities to verify citizenship status, alongside scrapping mortgage programs for unauthorized migrants that were offered previously.
He’s also prioritizing American citizens for HUD housing and moving to an English-only model, while noting that HUD currently serves only one in four eligible families due to lax enforcement of rules barring federal aid to noncitizens.
Critics like Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman aren’t buying the focus, arguing, “You are worsening the housing crisis with your budget proposal,” suggesting that slashing HUD’s funding by over 50% undercuts any claim of wanting to solve the problem. Well, if you’re going to swing a hammer at policy, at least make sure it’s hitting the right nail.
President Donald Trump just flipped the script on a tech policy that’s been choking American innovation for too long.
On Monday, Trump declared that Nvidia can now ship its cutting-edge H200 AI chips to vetted customers in China and beyond, a bold move that partially undoes restrictive Biden-era rules while promising a hefty financial boost for the U.S.
Let’s rewind to 2022, when the previous administration slapped tight controls on exporting advanced AI chips like Nvidia’s A100 and H100 to China, citing national security risks. Those rules aimed to keep cutting-edge tech out of rival hands but ended up forcing U.S. companies to churn out watered-down products. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!
Trump’s latest decision isn’t just a policy tweak—it’s a lifeline for American tech giants. The H200 chips, powerhouse processors built for AI tasks like chatbots and data-center operations, will now reach approved buyers overseas.
Even better, the U.S. stands to pocket a cool 25% share from these exports, proving that national interest doesn’t have to mean shutting down global trade.
Trump didn’t mince words when slamming the old rules, saying, “The Biden Administration forced our Great Companies to spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS building ‘degraded’ products that nobody wanted, a terrible idea that slowed Innovation, and hurt the American Worker” (President Donald Trump). Well, if that isn’t a mic drop on overzealous regulation, what is?
Now, before anyone cries foul over security risks, rest assured this deal isn’t a free-for-all. Every transaction will be under strict scrutiny to protect national interests, ensuring no sensitive tech slips through the cracks.
Nvidia, for its part, is thrilled with the green light, having long pushed for better trade ties with China after years of being hamstrung by export bans.
A company spokesperson cheered the move, stating, “We applaud President Trump's decision to allow America's chip industry to compete to support high paying jobs and manufacturing in America” (Nvidia spokesperson). That’s the spirit—let’s keep American talent leading the charge, not sidelined by bureaucratic red tape.
These H200 chips aren’t just any hardware; they’re the backbone of modern AI, powering everything from machine learning to complex data tasks. While U.S. customers move ahead with even newer Blackwell and Rubin chips, this export deal keeps Nvidia competitive globally without compromising domestic advancements.
The Department of Commerce is hammering out the fine print, and similar policies will extend to other U.S. tech leaders like AMD and Intel. It’s a comprehensive strategy, not a one-off favor.
Critics might grumble about opening trade with China, but let’s face it—isolating ourselves in a global tech race is a losing bet. A monitored, profitable deal like this keeps America ahead without ceding ground to overreaching progressive policies that stifle growth.
Trump’s vision here is clear: boost American jobs and manufacturing while maintaining a firm grip on security. It’s a refreshing change from the knee-jerk restrictions of the past that seemed more about posturing than progress.
So, as the tech world watches this unfold, one thing is certain—America’s back in the driver’s seat, balancing innovation with pragmatism. This isn’t just about chips; it’s about reclaiming our edge in a world that’s too often swayed by cautious, innovation-killing agendas.
President Donald Trump has unleashed a fierce offensive against drug cartels, ordering air strikes on Caribbean drug-running boats that have left a reported 87 narcoterrorists dead.
This bold operation, spearheaded by Southern Command (SouthCom), targets Venezuelan cartels to halt fentanyl from flooding U.S. shores, while the War Department fires back at shoddy reporting with equal ferocity.
The strikes mark a decisive shift in strategy, prioritizing hard-hitting action over the softer focus SouthCom once had on issues like climate initiatives.
Under Trump’s directive, the military has designated these cartel groups as terrorist organizations, empowering the War Department to tackle the threat with unprecedented seriousness.
An asset buildup in the Caribbean, including the Ford carrier strike group, signals readiness for whatever the Commander-in-Chief orders next.
With contingencies in place for potential land operations, the administration is clearly not playing games when it comes to protecting American lives from this poison.
Amid the military success, War Department Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson didn’t hold back when addressing a recent story by The Washington Post, calling out what he sees as blatant falsehoods.
"And that Washington Post story that you mentioned was particularly egregious. They attributed a quote to the Secretary of War that he never said," Wilson stated, branding it 'scummy journalism' that readers should question.
Even The New York Times echoed criticism of the Post’s report, which falsely claimed Secretary Pete Hegseth advocated harming survivors of a targeted boat—a claim refuted by SouthCom’s top admiral.
Wilson, who leads a rapid response team to counter misleading media, has also welcomed fresh faces to Pentagon reporting after legacy outlets walked away over disputed press credential rules.
Those rules, contrary to some claims, never demanded pre-publication story reviews but merely urged compliance with laws on classified information—a reasonable ask in a world of sensitive operations.
Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports poll reveals 62% of Americans back using military force against these drug boats, showing strong public alignment with Trump’s tough stance.
"Now, SouthCom is actively engaging with these Narco terrorists, taking out 87 Narco terrorists to date and making sure that the American people are kept safe," Wilson emphasized, underscoring the mission’s core purpose.
Trump has hinted at possibly expanding this fight from sea to land, a move that could further disrupt cartel operations if enacted.
While the War Department remains focused on air strikes for now, it stands ready to pivot if the President calls for broader action, ensuring no threat to American safety goes unanswered.
In a clash of values and policy, the White House has firmly backed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary against a storm of criticism from pro-life advocates.
On December 9, the administration dismissed demands from prominent pro-life groups, like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, to oust Makary over the FDA’s handling of abortion-related medications, OSV News reported.
The controversy ignited with the FDA’s recent approval of a new generic version of mifepristone, a drug used primarily for early abortions but also in miscarriage care.
Mifepristone, first greenlit by the FDA in 2000 for early pregnancy termination, has long been a lightning rod in the culture wars.
Critics, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, slammed the FDA for what they call a dangerous disregard for safety by pushing through this latest approval.
Dannenfelser also accused Makary of stalling a promised study on the real-world effects of abortion drugs on women, a delay that Bloomberg reported on December 8.
Dannenfelser didn’t hold back, declaring, “Enough is enough,” and insisting that Makary “should be fired immediately” for failing to prioritize women’s safety.
Her frustration isn’t just with policy—it’s personal to the cause, as she argues Makary’s actions clash with the pro-life stance of President Trump and Vice President Vance.
She contends that state-level protections for the unborn are being undermined by federal overreach, a bitter pill for conservatives who champion local control.
Yet the White House isn’t budging, with spokesman Kush Desai asserting that Makary “is working diligently to ensure that Americans have the best possible, Gold Standard Science study of mifepristone.”
Desai’s defense paints Makary as a reformer, highlighting achievements like tackling artificial food ingredients and overhauling baby formula safety reviews—hardly the image of a reckless bureaucrat.
Still, one wonders if “gold standard” science is just a shiny phrase when pro-life advocates see lives at stake every day the study lags.
Adding fuel to the fire, both Makary and others faced pointed questions from pro-life congressional members after the mifepristone approval, despite earlier hints of a thorough drug review.
Meanwhile, President Trump and Vice President Vance have walked a tightrope on this issue—Trump via video and Vance in person recently addressed the March for Life, signaling support for the movement, even as Trump has said he’d veto a federal abortion ban and leave the matter to states.
Vance, during the campaign, also noted Trump’s openness to mifepristone access, a stance that grates against the hardline position of activists like Dannenfelser, leaving some to question if the administration’s heart is truly with the cause or just playing political chess.
Hold onto your hashtags, folks—President Trump’s latest immigration policy is about to make entering the U.S. a digital deep dive.
The administration has rolled out stringent new rules requiring all foreign tourists to submit five years of social media history, alongside a host of personal details, while also imposing an immigration freeze on 19 countries and halting citizenship ceremonies for those affected, the Daily Mail reported.
This isn’t just a passing tweet of an idea; it builds on a State Department directive from June that pushed for public social media profiles among travelers.
By August, the Trump team signaled plans to scour visa and green card applicants’ online presence for signs of what they call “anti-Americanism,” though clear definitions of that term remain as elusive as a viral meme.
Last week, an immigration freeze hit 19 nations, including Afghanistan, Iran, and Yemen, while restricted access was slapped on others like Cuba and Venezuela, impacting over 1.5 million with pending asylum claims.
Then, on Tuesday, Customs and Border Protection dropped the bombshell in the Federal Register, making the social media history requirement mandatory for all entrants—even from friendly allies like the United Kingdom and Germany under the visa waiver program.
Travelers must now cough up email addresses, phone numbers, and family details, as if applying for a job rather than a vacation at Disneyland.
A Department of Homeland Security memo insists on a rigorous re-vetting process, stating, “This memorandum mandates that all aliens meeting these criteria undergo a thorough re-review process, including a potential interview and, if necessary, a re-interview, to fully assess all national security and public safety threats.”
While officers are given discretion to weigh positive contributions, the lack of clear guidelines on “anti-American” views has experts worried about subjective bias creeping into decisions at the border.
Speaking of concerns, Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University, cautioned, “For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome.”
That’s a fair point—when vague standards meet high-stakes decisions, you’ve got a recipe for inconsistency, even if the intent is to protect national interests.
The policy also ties into a recent terror-related incident in Washington, D.C., involving an Afghan suspect, which the administration cites as justification for these sweeping measures.
With the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028 set to draw hundreds of thousands of international visitors, one wonders if border lines will stretch longer than the wait for a decent hot dog at these events.
Meanwhile, the public has a 60-day window to weigh in on this social media mandate, though it’s unclear if comments will sway a policy already published as “mandatory.”
For now, the message is clear: if you’re dreaming of Lady Liberty, prepare to bare your digital soul—and pray your old posts don’t raise any red flags with Uncle Sam’s gatekeepers.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Indiana’s redistricting saga just took a sharp turn as the Senate Committee on Elections voted to advance a House map that could hand Republicans two more seats in next year’s elections.
The story unfolding in the Hoosier State is a high-stakes battle over political lines, with the Senate panel’s 6-3 vote on Monday propelling a GOP-leaning map to the full Senate for a final showdown, even as doubts linger among lawmakers and public pressure mounts, The Hill reported.
This latest move comes hot on the heels of the Indiana House approving new congressional boundaries just days before the Senate committee’s decision.
The map, crafted to bolster Republican chances for additional pickups, has sparked a firestorm of debate among state senators, with several who supported it in committee now hinting they might flip their votes when it reaches the full Senate.
Skepticism is rife, and it’s not just idle chatter—Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, a Republican, admitted last month that his caucus might not have the numbers to push this through.
Yet, Bray seems determined to settle the matter, announcing that the chamber would gather on Monday to hash out a “final decision” on redistricting proposals from the House.
Adding fuel to the fire, former President Donald Trump and his allies have unleashed a fierce public campaign, urging GOP lawmakers to back the map and threatening primary challenges for those who don’t toe the line.
Some Indiana Republicans, targeted by Trump’s rhetoric, have faced serious intimidation, including swatting incidents and pipe bomb threats—a grim reminder of how heated these political battles have become.
Despite the strong-arm tactics, a handful of GOP senators remain unmoved, with some refusing to even meet with White House representatives on the issue.
The uncertainty in Indiana mirrors redistricting tensions elsewhere, as Florida Republicans signal they’re gearing up to redraw their own state map, though they’re coy on the timeline.
Meanwhile, over in Virginia, Democrats are pushing a constitutional amendment for voter approval in spring or summer 2026, which would allow mid-decade redistricting—a move that could pave the way for a heavily Democratic-leaning 10-1 map.
Back in Indiana, the question remains: will the full Senate rally behind this GOP-favored plan, or will internal doubts and external pressures derail it?
Let’s be clear—this isn’t just about lines on a map; it’s about power, representation, and the future of fair play in our electoral system, something conservatives have long championed against progressive overreach.
While the left often cries foul over redistricting as “gerrymandering,” it’s worth noting that both sides play the game when given the chance, and Republicans in Indiana are simply seizing a strategic moment—though they must tread carefully to avoid alienating their own base with heavy-handed tactics.
As Bray himself put it, the chamber would convene on Monday to make a “final decision” about any redistricting proposals from the state House—a statement that sounds decisive but leaves room for the chaos of politics to intervene.
Hold onto your hats, folks—the U.S. Supreme Court just dove headfirst into a political firestorm over campaign finance rules that could reshape how elections are funded.
On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments in a high-stakes case challenging federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, a fight backed by Vice President Vance and fellow Republicans, The Hill reported.
This isn’t just legal jargon; it’s a battle over free speech and the First Amendment, with the potential to change how much influence parties wield in campaigns.
Before even touching the meat of the campaign finance debate, the Court must decide if the case is moot since Vance hasn’t declared himself a candidate for any upcoming presidential run.
Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t mince words, probing the ambiguity of Vance’s stance with, “With respect to the vice president, what does he mean when he says, in effect, that it was way too early to decide whether or not to run?” That’s a fair question—why should the Court speculate on political tea leaves when the stakes are this high?
The case, originally filed when Vance was a senator alongside former Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio and Republican committees, has already been shot down in lower courts, and now they’re banking on the Supreme Court for a reversal.
On one side, Republican attorney Noel Francisco argued that Vance’s hesitation to declare candidacy is hardly unique, pointing out that many younger vice presidents wait until after midterms to make such calls.
Francisco pushed hard on free speech principles, insisting the Court shouldn’t ignore what’s plain to see. His argument carries weight for those of us tired of overreaching federal rules stifling political expression.
On the flip side, Roman Martinez, defending the Federal Election Commission, argued that standard legal rules under Article Three must apply, even to politicians who might dodge clear answers about their plans.
Martinez’s point is a classic progressive dodge—clinging to regulations under the guise of fairness while ignoring how they can muzzle legitimate political coordination.
Marc Elias, representing the Democratic National Committee, warned that scrapping these limits would turn parties into “mere paymasters to settle invoices from campaign vendors.” That’s a dramatic claim, but does it hold water when transparency, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, already shows billions raised in coordination with parties?
Defenders of the current restrictions, rooted in 1970s reforms, say they prevent corruption by stopping donors from funneling cash through parties to bypass individual limits—a noble goal, but one that often feels like a straitjacket on free political activity.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned why parties aren’t aligned on this issue, with Francisco suggesting different fundraising structures play a role, a polite way of saying some parties might prefer tighter control over the cash flow.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Elias on historical party alignment, only to be rebuffed with warnings of creating “bill-payer” parties if limits vanish—another scare tactic that sidesteps the core issue of speech rights.
This case, already a tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats, sits in a politically sensitive spot, with the Trump administration switching sides to back Vance, showing just how much this matters to conservatives eager to dismantle outdated barriers while still respecting the need for ethical boundaries.
Congress is finally cracking open the vault on one of the biggest mysteries of our time: where did COVID-19 really come from?
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a massive military funding bill, has tucked within its 3,100 pages a bold mandate for the Trump administration’s intelligence agencies to declassify information about the virus’s origins, zeroing in on the Wuhan Institute of Virology and China’s alleged efforts to muddy the waters.
Let’s rewind to 2019, when SARS-CoV-2 first reared its ugly head in Wuhan, China, home to a lab known for risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. The Chinese government quickly dismissed any lab leak speculation, instead peddling wild tales of the virus sprouting from a U.S. military base. Meanwhile, early theories from scientists and media pointed to a Wuhan "wet market," a narrative some now claim was pushed to sideline other possibilities.
Six years into this global mess, the Trump administration is doubling down on getting answers. Evidence from non-U.S. intelligence, including a recent German report suggesting an accidental lab release, keeps pointing to Wuhan, yet much of America’s own intel remains under lock and key.
During the prior administration, efforts to unveil the truth hit a brick wall, even with the signing of the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023. Reports suggest key findings were buried, leaving Congress and the public in the dark. It’s no wonder frustration has been brewing on Capitol Hill.
Enter the NDAA’s Section 6803, which tasks Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard with leading a sweeping review alongside all 18 U.S. spy agencies. This isn’t just a peek behind the curtain—it’s a two-pronged probe into the virus’s roots, including Wuhan’s research and funding, as well as China’s alleged obstruction of investigations.
Gabbard, who set up the Director’s Initiatives Group earlier this year to tackle declassification of public interest issues like COVID-19, is now mandated to release declassified intel publicly and provide unredacted reports to congressional committees. Her office is even interviewing whistleblowers to piece together the puzzle.
“DNI Gabbard remains committed to declassifying COVID-19 information and looks forward to continued work with Congress to share the truth about pandemic-era failures with the American people,” a spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told Just the News. Well, isn’t that a breath of fresh air in a world choked by secrecy?
Contrast that with China’s stance, which last week doubled down with, “We firmly oppose all forms of political manipulation,” clinging to a flawed 2021 WHO report influenced by Beijing. Sorry, but when you’re censoring journalists and blocking access to lab data, that’s not exactly the hallmark of transparency.
Back in 2021, U.S. intelligence assessments showed a split—some agencies leaned toward a lab origin with varying confidence, while others clung to a natural spillover theory. The FBI and Department of Energy, for instance, pointed to a lab incident, though much of this was kept hushed until recently.
Sen. Rand Paul has been relentless, subpoenaing multiple agencies for records on taxpayer-funded research and pressing Gabbard for intel tied to Wuhan and gain-of-function experiments. If there’s smoke, he’s determined to find the fire.
Then there’s the Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, which concluded that a lab leak is the most likely scenario, accusing both China and certain U.S. figures of orchestrating cover-ups. It’s a damning charge, but one that aligns with growing skepticism about early narratives.
Even the WHO, criticized for its cozy ties with China, admitted to lacking hard data on Wuhan labs and facing stonewalling from Beijing on health records. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the organization, citing its mishandling of the crisis, feels more vindicated by the day.
Let’s not forget the EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled U.S. funds to Wuhan for bat virus research, even pitching ideas for viruses eerily similar to SARS-CoV-2. When funding was denied by the Pentagon, evidence suggests the work may have continued anyway—raising eyebrows about oversight.
So here we stand, with the NDAA lighting a fire under the intelligence community to reveal what it knows. Will we finally get clarity on whether this pandemic was a tragic accident or something more sinister? One thing’s certain—Americans deserve the unvarnished truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for some in power.
Texas politics just took a sharp turn with a surprising exit and a potential new contender stirring the pot.
Former Rep. Colin Allred, once the Democrat standard-bearer for a Texas Senate seat, has stepped away from that race to pursue a congressional position in the newly drawn 33rd District, while on the same day, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D) is set to reveal if she’ll challenge Sen. John Cornyn for the Senate.
Allred’s pivot away from the Senate race comes with a stated desire to avoid a divisive Democratic primary.
“In the past few days, I’ve come to believe that a bruising Senate Democratic primary and runoff would prevent the Democratic Party from going into this critical election unified,” Allred said.
That’s a noble sentiment on paper, but let’s be honest—ducking a tough fight might just be a savvy move to secure a safer seat in a district he claims is unfairly drawn.
His new target, the 33rd District, is described by Allred as “racially gerrymandered” by political forces he opposes, yet it’s also the community of his childhood, which adds a personal layer to his campaign.
On the flip side, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, known for her sharp criticism of conservative leadership, is on the cusp of announcing whether she’ll take on Sen. Cornyn.
She’s been teasing this decision for days, recently stating she’s “closer to yes than no” on a Senate bid.
That confidence might raise eyebrows, but in a state as vast as Texas, with 30 million residents, turning bravado into votes is no small feat.
Crockett isn’t shy about her prospects, asserting, “The data says that I can win.”
While data is nice, as she herself admits, executing a campaign in a state this size is a logistical nightmare, potentially costing upwards of $100 million—a figure that could make even the most optimistic donor pause.
Her appeal, she claims, lies with key voter demographics who backed Democrats in recent out-of-state elections, positioning her as a formidable force despite skepticism from some quarters.
Both Allred and Crockett are playing high-stakes chess in a state where conservative values often dominate, and their moves could reshape the Democratic strategy against a strong Republican incumbent like Cornyn.
While Allred seeks to return to Congress in a district he knows well, Crockett’s potential Senate run could either energize her party’s base or expose the limits of a progressive agenda in a red-leaning state—either way, Texas voters are in for a show.