In a striking blow to progressive challenges, a D.C. Circuit panel has upheld Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s controversial military transgender ban, the Hill reported.
A 2-1 ruling on Tuesday dissolved an administrative stay, clearing the path for Hegseth’s policy to exclude servicemembers whose gender identity differs from their birth-assigned sex, following years of legal battles and a Supreme Court nod in May.
The saga began with the Trump administration’s executive order, directing military leaders to restrict transgender individuals from service, citing readiness and deployability concerns.
This policy faced immediate pushback, with District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, slapping an injunction on it in March, arguing against its fairness.
However, the D.C. Circuit panel countered that the lower court failed to grant Hegseth the deference owed to military judgments, a stance bolstered by prior Supreme Court approval.
Government attorneys defending Hegseth pointed to the Mattis Policy, crafted under former Defense Secretary James Mattis, which prioritized a lethal, ready force through phased restrictions on transgender troops.
Adding weight to the argument, the Trump administration leaned on a 2021 study estimating that up to 40 percent of those diagnosed with gender dysphoria could be non-deployable due to mental health challenges within two years of diagnosis.
A 2025 literature review further noted that transgender individuals face significantly higher rates of psychiatric diagnoses, including mood and anxiety disorders, with suicide attempt rates far exceeding those of others.
While these stats are sobering, one wonders if they’re being wielded more as a shield than a sword—does readiness truly hinge on exclusion, or is this a cultural skirmish dressed in data?
In the majority opinion, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao defended the policy, stating, “The Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection.”
They added, “We doubt that the policy triggers any form of heightened scrutiny,” arguing that judicial restraint is paramount when military decisions are at stake, especially with Supreme Court precedent on their side.
Contrast that with the dissent from Judge Cornelia Pillard, who lamented, “The majority’s decision makes it all but inevitable that thousands of qualified servicemembers will lose careers they have built over decades.”
Pillard didn’t hold back, charging that the policy repays dedicated service with “detriment and derision,” a poignant jab at what she sees as a cold, calculated dismissal of loyalty.
Her words sting with truth for many, yet the counterargument remains: can the military afford to prioritize individual feelings over collective readiness, especially when data suggests real operational risks?
Ultimately, this ruling isn’t just a legal win for Hegseth; it’s a signal that the judiciary may continue to defer to military expertise over progressive ideals, leaving transgender servicemembers in a precarious spot as the policy takes hold.
President Donald Trump has dropped a bold statement that’s sure to stir the pot, expressing his strong desire for the Supreme Court’s elder statesmen, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, to hold their ground on the bench.
Trump made clear his hope that these two conservative pillars, aged 77 and 75 respectively, will stick around to preserve the court’s current 6-3 conservative tilt, a balance he helped forge with three key appointments during his first term.
“I hope they stay ’cause I think they’re fantastic, OK?” Trump declared to Politico, doubling down on his admiration for both men.
Well, let’s unpack that quote—Trump’s not just whistling Dixie here; he’s signaling a deep investment in maintaining a court that reflects his vision, one that’s already reshaped American law in profound ways.
During his first term, Trump’s trio of appointments—Amy Coney Barrett at 53, Neil Gorsuch at 58, and Brett Kavanaugh at 60—joined Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, now 70, to solidify a conservative majority that’s been a game-changer.
These picks weren’t just names on a list; they’ve been among the most defining moves of Trump’s initial stint in office, steering the court toward landmark rulings.
Under this reshaped court, we’ve seen seismic decisions, like the reversal of long-standing abortion protections and the establishment of presidential immunity for certain official acts—rulings that have conservatives cheering and progressives gnashing their teeth.
Now, with the court currently mulling over elements of Trump’s second-term plans, including a critical decision on his ambitious tariff program, the stakes couldn’t be higher for keeping that majority intact.
Both Thomas and Alito were present at Trump’s inauguration ceremonies in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025, a subtle reminder of their enduring roles in this judicial saga.
Here’s the rub: if either Thomas or Alito steps down or passes away under a Democratic administration, the court’s balance could tip, undoing years of conservative gains in a heartbeat.
Trump’s own history proves the point—when liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed during his first term, he swiftly replaced her with Barrett, locking in a younger conservative voice for decades.
Replacing either of the senior justices now with another youthful pick would further cement that conservative edge well into the future, a prospect that’s music to the ears of those wary of progressive overreach.
Let’s be real: Trump’s not just playing nostalgia with his plea for Thomas and Alito to stay; he’s playing chess, eyeing a court that can withstand the shifting winds of political change.
His second quote to Politico, “Both of those men are fantastic,” isn’t just flattery—it’s a rallying cry to conservatives who see the judiciary as the last bastion against a creeping progressive agenda.
So, as the Supreme Court continues to weigh Trump’s latest policy ambitions, the question looms: will Thomas and Alito heed the call to stay, ensuring the conservative majority stands firm against whatever challenges come next?
Border czar Tom Homan and the Department of Homeland Security are diving headfirst into a contentious investigation targeting Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar over allegations of immigration fraud.
The probe centers on claims that Omar may have married her brother in 2009 to skirt immigration laws, a serious accusation now under intense scrutiny by federal authorities, according to Newsweek.
Let’s rewind a bit—Omar first arrived in the United States in the 1990s with her family, as noted in her official Congressional biography.
Fast forward to 2009, when the allegations suggest Omar tied the knot with Ahmed Elmi, a union that critics, including President Donald Trump and his supporters, claim was a sham to facilitate immigration.
By 2017, Omar and Elmi had divorced, but the whispers of fraud didn’t fade—they grew louder, echoing through conservative circles hungry for accountability.
Here’s the kicker: no DNA evidence has surfaced to prove Elmi is indeed Omar’s brother, leaving this claim as a hot potato of speculation until hard facts emerge.
Enter Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, who’s not mincing words about getting to the bottom of this.
“We're pulling the records, we're pulling the files. We're looking at it ... I'm running that down this week,” Homan declared, signaling a no-stone-unturned approach to the investigation.
That’s the kind of grit conservatives cheer for—a government finally willing to chase down potential fraud instead of turning a blind eye to progressive darlings.
But this isn’t just about one case; Homan also revealed that DHS is conducting a sweeping review of visa fraud within Minnesota’s Somali community.
According to the department, a staggering 50% of visas in Minnesota are believed to be fraudulent, a statistic that raises eyebrows and demands urgent action.
If true, this paints a troubling picture of systemic issues that could undermine trust in our immigration processes—something no American, left or right, should tolerate.
Homan didn’t stop there, emphasizing the administration’s resolve with a nod to direct orders from the top.
“President Trump has instructed us to go down, and we're going to deep dive all of this, and we're going to hold people accountable,” Homan stated, underscoring a mission of transparency that resonates with those frustrated by bureaucratic inaction.
While the left may cry foul over perceived political targeting, it’s hard to argue against accountability when the integrity of our borders hangs in the balance. After all, rules should apply to everyone—congresswoman or not—and if Omar’s entry into the country was above board, she has nothing to fear from a thorough review. Let’s hope this investigation cuts through the noise of partisan bickering and delivers clarity, because Americans deserve to know if their immigration system is being gamed, whether by one person or an entire network.
The United States just nabbed a rogue oil tanker, a bold move that’s got international eyes popping.
In a decisive operation, the U.S. Coast Guard, backed by the Navy, seized the tanker named Skipper while it was steaming toward Cuba with a load of Venezuelan oil, according to Reuters.
This saga started roughly two weeks ago when a federal judge greenlit a warrant for the seizure, setting the stage for Wednesday’s dramatic takedown.
President Donald Trump broke the news during a White House press interaction, touting the operation as a significant win against illicit trade networks.
“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela,” Trump declared. Let’s be real—when Trump calls it “very large” and hints at more to come, you know the administration’s flexing serious muscle against shady dealings.
The tanker wasn’t just any ship; it’s got a rap sheet, previously sanctioned under the name Adisa for smuggling Iranian oil, as confirmed by UK-based maritime risk outfit Vanguard.
An unnamed U.S. official clarified the seizure wasn’t directly tied to Venezuela’s Maduro regime but rather the ship’s history with Iranian contraband. Still, carrying Venezuelan crude to Cuba’s state firm Cubametales, reportedly for sale to Asian brokers, doesn’t exactly scream innocence.
“It was seized because of its past links to smuggling illicit Iranian oil, not because of ties to the Maduro regime, although it was carrying Venezuelan oil,” the official noted. That’s a fine line to walk, but it’s clear the U.S. isn’t playing games with vessels dodging sanctions.
Adding to the intrigue, the Skipper was flying a false flag of nationality at the time of capture, a sneaky tactic straight out of a pirate playbook, per a report to the New York Times.
On the same day, Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro delivered a fiery speech, though he sidestepped mentioning the tanker incident directly. His bluster about military readiness suggests Caracas isn’t thrilled with Uncle Sam’s latest move.
Meanwhile, international oil prices ticked up modestly after the news broke, a sign markets are jittery about potential disruptions. Industry analysts are scratching their heads, waiting to confirm details about the cargo before predicting the fallout on Venezuelan crude supply.
Most of Venezuela’s oil already heads to China due to U.S. sanctions, as reported by Politico, so this seizure could tighten the screws further on an already squeezed regime. It’s a stark reminder of how geopolitics and energy markets dance a tense tango.
Let’s not pretend this is just about one ship; it’s a shot across the bow to nations and firms skirting U.S. sanctions with impunity. The progressive crowd might cry overreach, but enforcing rules against illicit trade isn’t imperialism—it’s accountability.
Cuba’s role as the intended destination raises eyebrows too, with Cubametales planning to offload the oil to Asian buyers. If the Biden-era policies couldn’t deter these backdoor deals, perhaps this seizure signals a return to hard-nosed enforcement that’s long overdue.
At the end of the day, the Skipper’s capture is a win for those who believe in playing by the rules, even if the global reaction remains to be seen. The U.S. has drawn a line in the sand—or rather, the sea—and it’s a safe bet more waves are coming.
Boom! A federal appeals court just handed the Pentagon a significant win by upholding restrictions on transgender military service for now, even as legal battles continue to unfold.
In a nutshell, the court’s decision keeps the Department of Defense’s controversial policy in place, allowing the administration to maintain its stance on military readiness standards as lawsuits progress.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth didn’t hold back in his response, praising the ruling as a critical endorsement of the administration’s focus on a battle-ready force.
Hegseth took to social media to call it a “major legal victory” for the Defense Department, framing it as a triumph of practicality over ideology.
“American Greatness. Military Lethality. Common Sense. And THE LAW,” Hegseth posted, delivering a succinct jab at progressive agendas that, in his view, cloud military priorities.
Let’s unpack that: while Hegseth’s enthusiasm resonates with those who prioritize a no-nonsense military, one wonders if the courtroom is the right arena for defining “common sense” on such personal matters.
Diving deeper, Hegseth argued that maintaining strict, uniform standards is essential for “a lethal, cohesive, deployable U.S. Military—free of ideological agendas.”
That’s a bold claim, and it’s hard to ignore the pointed dig at policies perceived as driven by cultural trends rather than combat needs—though some might ask if readiness truly hinges on this specific restriction.
The court’s ruling, meanwhile, signals a judicial deference to military expertise, suggesting that Pentagon leaders, not judges, should set the bar for service qualifications.
This decision isn’t just legal jargon—it directly affects thousands of active-duty transgender service members whose careers now hang in a state of uncertainty.
Critics of the policy have raised valid concerns, pointing out that long-serving personnel could see their dedication sidelined by rules they deem unnecessary or overly rigid.
While their frustration deserves a fair hearing, supporters of the policy argue that a singular focus on operational effectiveness must trump individual accommodations in a force built for war.
Beyond the immediate impact, the appeals court’s stance could shape how future legal challenges to military policies are handled, potentially cementing executive authority in such debates.
As the administration continues to refine military standards, this ruling fuels an ongoing national conversation about balancing inclusion with the stark demands of defense readiness.
Newsweek sought comments from both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense via email after regular hours on Wednesday, though responses remain pending as this story develops.
Is it time for America’s elder statesmen to gracefully exit stage left? Michelle Obama seems to think so, as she recently took aim at aging leaders who refuse to step aside for fresh faces and ideas.
In a pointed discussion on her IMO podcast, co-hosted with her brother Craig Robinson, the former first lady tackled the issue of generational transition—or the lack thereof—in American leadership.
Speaking with Anderson Cooper, Obama didn’t shy away from criticizing those who overstay their welcome in positions of power, suggesting society suffers when new perspectives are stifled.
Her remarks cut deep, echoing a frustration many conservatives feel about entrenched political figures who seem glued to their seats.
“People hang on too long, and they hang on beyond their usefulness or even their practicality,” Obama said on the podcast, a statement that feels like a subtle jab at certain long-serving politicians.
While she named no names, it’s hard not to wonder who she had in mind—perhaps a certain octogenarian who only recently bowed out of a major political race after intense party pressure over age and health concerns?
Obama also lamented the lack of a dignified path for senior leaders to retire, arguing that without an honorable exit, they cling to power out of necessity or pride.
“But because there's no place for our senior leaders to go with honor and dignity, I think people hold on too long,” she added, painting a picture of a cultural failure to respect and reposition our elders.
It’s a fair point—shouldn’t society create spaces for retired leaders to contribute without hogging the spotlight? Yet, one might ask if this critique applies equally to progressive icons who’ve lingered in the public eye.
Adding context to her comments, Obama notably refrained from campaigning for the sitting president at the time, who was 82, only agreeing to speak at the Democratic National Convention after he stepped aside and endorsed a younger candidate, Kamala Harris.
This president’s exit came amid public concerns over his health and age, a decision that seemed to align with Obama’s push for generational turnover—though her silence during his campaign raises eyebrows.
Could this be a veiled critique of his reluctance to step down sooner, or is it merely coincidental timing? From a conservative lens, it’s tempting to see this as a long-overdue acknowledgment of a problem many have flagged for years.
Separately, Obama stirred the pot last month in an interview with actress Tracee Ellis Ross, asserting that America—particularly its men—isn’t ready for a female president and still has “a lot of growing up to do.”
While her candor is bold, critics like ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith have pushed back, highlighting recent gubernatorial wins by Democratic women in New Jersey and Virginia as evidence that gender barriers may not be as insurmountable as claimed.
Smith also noted a past presidential candidate who garnered more popular votes than her opponent yet lost the electoral college, suggesting the issue might be less about gender and more about strategy—a perspective worth pondering, even if one questions the progressive framing of such debates.
Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett has jumped into the fray for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, igniting a political storm that’s got everyone talking.
On Monday, just before the candidate filing deadline, Crockett officially entered the Democratic primary for the 2026 Texas Senate race, a decision that’s turned the contest on its head and drawn fierce reactions from both political camps.
Having stormed into Congress in 2022 after serving in the Texas House, Crockett has carved out a name as a progressive champion, often locking horns with Republican titans like President Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
By opting for a Senate run, she’s abandoning a re-election bid for her House seat in the 30th Congressional District, a role she’s held since 2023 after taking over from Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Her move comes on the heels of former Rep. Colin Allred stepping back from the Senate race to target a newly redrawn congressional district, opening the door for new Democratic contenders.
In the Democratic primary set for March 3, 2026, Crockett will face off against state Rep. James Talarico, with a possible runoff in May if no one clinches a majority.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson couldn’t contain his amusement on Wednesday, offering a sly nod to Crockett’s candidacy during a news conference.
“Absolutely delighted that Jasmine Crockett is running for Senate in Texas. I think it’s one of the greatest things that’s happened to the Republican Party in a long, long time,” Johnson declared.
Johnson’s barely veiled smirk suggests he thinks Crockett’s progressive platform won’t sell in a state as grounded as Texas, though her 84% name recognition among Democrats, per a Change Research poll, might give him pause.
Over in the Republican camp, the 2026 Senate primary is shaping up to be a slugfest, with incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Rep. Wesley Hunt all vying for the spot.
Paxton’s legal entanglements could be a liability, and GOP infighting might just hand Democrats an unexpected advantage in the general election.
Yet Crockett’s polarizing presence—49% of Texas Democrats are firmly against her, per the same poll—could dampen her party’s hopes, even as a University of Houston and Texas Southern University survey shows her leading the primary field with 31%.
Crockett’s strategy hinges on rallying Black and Latino voters to snap the Democratic drought in statewide Texas elections, a losing streak stretching back to 1988.
Her campaign has already reshaped Democratic House races in North Texas, while her sharp tongue has driven both impressive fundraising and bipartisan criticism.
Her primary rival, James Talarico, offered a gracious welcome, saying, “We’re building a movement in Texas—fueled by record-breaking grassroots fundraising and 10,000 volunteers who are putting in the work to defeat the billionaire megadonors and puppet politicians who have taken over our state.”
The U.S. Supreme Court just waded into a legal quagmire that could decide whether a death row inmate in Alabama gets a pass based on shaky intellectual disability claims.
The case, known as Hamm v. Smith, centers on whether states like Alabama can stick to hard IQ numbers or must entertain a broader, more subjective look at a convict’s mental capacity when determining death penalty exemptions.
Let’s rewind to 1997 in Mobile County, where Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of brutally killing Durk Van Dam with a hammer, robbing him of $150, boots, and tools. Smith, now 55, has spent nearly half his life on death row, while his co-defendant, Larry Reid, took a plea deal for life in prison.
Smith’s background paints a grim picture—he was placed in learning-disabled classes, dropped out after seventh grade, and at the time of the crime, could only do math at a kindergarten level and read at a fourth-grade level. As a child, he was diagnosed with what was then termed “mental retardation.”
Fast forward to 2021, when a federal judge called Smith’s case “close” and vacated his death sentence, citing intellectual disability concerns. Alabama, however, isn’t buying it, pointing to Smith’s five IQ tests ranging from 72 to 78—none below the state’s legal threshold of 70.
The state argues that a strict IQ cutoff should settle the matter, while Smith’s legal team, led by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, pushes for a “holistic” approach that considers developmental and adaptive struggles.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard two hours of intense arguments in Hamm v. Smith, with no clear winner emerging from the fray. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, however, seemed to tilt toward Alabama’s side, showing skepticism about opening the door to endless appeals.
Justice Alito warned that siding with Smith could “create a situation where everything is up for grabs in every case,” per The Associated Press. And let’s be honest, he’s got a point—do we really want death row to become a revolving door of legal loopholes driven by progressive reinterpretations of science?
Alabama’s lawyer, Robert M. Overing, doubled down, stating, “There is no way that he can prove an IQ below 70.” That’s a bold line in the sand, but when the numbers don’t lie, why should courts play therapist instead of judge?
This case isn’t just about Smith; it’s a potential game-changer for death penalty law nationwide, especially in the 20-plus states that lean on strict IQ thresholds. Disability rights groups are sounding alarms, calling an IQ-only standard “faulty,” but one wonders if their push for broader evidence is less about justice and more about stalling rightful punishment.
The Supreme Court’s 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling banned executing the intellectually disabled, and later decisions in 2014 and 2017 urged states to look beyond IQ in tight cases—decisions Thomas and Alito dissented on, by the way. Their current stance seems consistent with a no-nonsense view that law shouldn’t bend to every new clinical fad.
Alabama’s law defines intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below, coupled with significant adaptive deficits before age 18, but the state insists Smith doesn’t qualify. Shouldn’t the law be clear-cut rather than a feelings-based guessing game?
The core issue in Hamm v. Smith is whether states must dig into factors beyond raw IQ scores, like behavior and development, or stick to hard data. With Smith’s scores consistently above the cutoff, Alabama’s position feels like common sense over courtroom overreach.
Legal experts predict the ruling, expected by early summer 2026, could reshape death penalty appeals across the country, especially in states eager to limit exemptions. If the court sides with Smith, expect a flood of challenges; if it backs Alabama, it might finally put some guardrails on endless litigation.
At the end of the day, this case balances justice for a horrific crime against the risk of undermining clear legal standards. While empathy for Smith’s struggles is understandable, the law can’t be a moving target swayed by activist agendas—it must stand firm on facts, not feelings.
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.