President Donald Trump’s reluctance to back Somaliland’s independence, even after Israel’s groundbreaking recognition, is raising eyebrows among conservative taxpayers who foot the bill for foreign policy decisions.
While Israel became the first nation to officially recognize Somaliland as independent from Somalia on Dec. 26, 2025, Trump has signaled he’s not ready to follow suit, prioritizing other issues like the Gaza Strip cease-fire and reconstruction efforts.
For American taxpayers, this hesitation could mean continued financial burdens in a region where strategic opportunities, like Somaliland’s offer of a naval base near the Red Sea, are left on the table while resources are funneled elsewhere. Many on the right wonder if this is another missed chance to secure U.S. interests without deeper entanglement. After all, every dollar spent on endless overseas commitments is a dollar not spent on domestic priorities.
Somaliland, a former British protectorate, has operated as a de facto independent state since 1991, carving out a stable democracy with peaceful power transitions—unlike the chaos often seen in Somalia’s Mogadishu-based government.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made history by recognizing Somaliland’s sovereignty on Dec. 26, 2025, and even held a video call with Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi to celebrate the diplomatic milestone.
Netanyahu also told Abdullahi, “I’ll communicate to President Trump your willingness and desire to join the Abraham Accords,” signaling an intent to bring Somaliland into the fold of nations normalizing ties with Israel.
Yet Trump, who brokered a cease-fire in Gaza and now chairs a U.N.-approved Board of Peace for the region’s reconstruction, seems unmoved by Netanyahu’s advocacy, with a meeting scheduled for Dec. 29, 2025, to discuss this and other matters.
When pressed on Somaliland, Trump told The Post, “Just say, ‘No.’” That blunt dismissal suggests a lack of urgency, leaving conservatives to question whether strategic gains in the Gulf of Aden are being sidelined for less tangible wins.
Somaliland’s offers are hardly trivial—they’ve proposed land for a U.S. naval base near the Red Sea’s mouth and a port on the Gulf of Aden, a critical spot for American military and economic interests.
Gen. Dagvin Anderson of U.S. Africa Command visited Somaliland recently, sparking local hopes for a potential deal, but no firm commitments have emerged from Washington.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and Trump ally, is pushing the “Republic of Somaliland Independence Act,” backed by fellow conservatives like Reps. Tom Tiffany, Andy Ogles, and Tim Burchett—all of whom see the region’s potential.
Meanwhile, opposition comes from figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat born in Mogadishu, who staunchly defends Somalia’s territorial claims, leaving little room for compromise on Somaliland’s autonomy.
Somaliland enjoys support from Ethiopia and the UAE, but faces pushback from Egypt and Turkey, creating a complex web of alliances that the U.S. must navigate carefully.
Trump’s broader frustrations with Somalia, including his recent criticism of alleged taxpayer exploitation in Minnesota tied to Democratic policies, only add fuel to the debate over whether Somaliland deserves a closer look as a reliable partner.
For now, conservative voters and policy hawks alike are left wondering if Trump’s hesitation is a missed opportunity to counter progressive foreign policy missteps or a rare moment of restraint in a world begging for American overreach. With strategic ports and bases up for grabs, the clock is ticking. Isn’t it time to prioritize American interests over endless diplomatic dithering?
Is New York prioritizing felons over victims in its latest prison reform push? Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman certainly thinks so, as he publicly rebuked Governor Kathy Hochul for signing a bill that reserves a seat on the state corrections commission for a convicted criminal.
This controversy stems from a sweeping prison reform bill signed by Hochul last Friday, which expands the New York State Corrections Commission to include a formerly incarcerated individual while aiming to boost oversight and safety in state facilities after tragic inmate deaths.
Why should public funds support a commission seat for someone who broke the law, when victims of crime—already burdened by financial and emotional costs—could offer a firsthand perspective on justice? This feels like a slap in the face to those footing the bill for a system that seems to coddle offenders.
The reform bill wasn’t born in a vacuum—it came after horrifying incidents of inmates dying in custody. Cases like Robert Brooks, allegedly beaten by prison personnel, and Messiah Natwi, reportedly killed similarly, have fueled demands for change. Corrections officers even staged a strike earlier this year, underscoring the tension within the system.
Hochul’s administration has already rolled out measures like speeding up camera installations in prisons and mandating their use by staff. She also secured $2.5 million in this year’s budget to equip the corrections commission with more resources for oversight. But is adding a criminal’s voice to the commission the right next step?
“Every single individual who enters our prisons deserves to be safe, whether they are employed there or serving their time,” said Governor Kathy Hochul. Nice sentiment, Governor, but conservatives might argue that safety starts with supporting victims and law enforcement, not amplifying the perspective of those who violated the public trust.
Blakeman, a leading Republican candidate for governor, didn’t mince words in his critique of Hochul’s decision. “If the Commission of Correction is going to be expanded, the additional seat should go to a crime victim, not someone who broke the law,” he told the Washington Examiner. His point hits home for many who feel the system too often forgets those harmed by crime.
From a populist lens, Blakeman’s stance resonates with everyday New Yorkers tired of progressive policies that seem to sideline their concerns. Victims, after all, bear the real-world consequences of a justice system that can feel maddeningly lenient.
Prison reform advocates, like State Senator Julia Salazar, have cheered Hochul’s move, calling it a step toward transparency and reduced violence. But shouldn’t transparency start with ensuring the voices of the wronged are heard over those who did the wronging? That’s a question conservatives are asking.
Not everyone in the corrections world is on board with this reform package either. The NYS Correctional Officers Police Benevolent Association called it an overreach, arguing it unfairly paints all officers with the same brush after isolated tragedies. Their frustration is palpable—and understandable.
“The death of Robert Brooks was a profound tragedy, and meaningful reforms to ensure that never happens again must be made,” the association stated. Yet, they quickly added, broad punitive measures targeting dedicated professionals miss the mark. From a right-of-center view, this feels like another case of policy overreaction at the expense of those who keep us safe.
Hochul’s reforms, including funding for investigations and camera mandates, show she’s trying to address systemic issues. But conservatives might argue that true accountability means no one—especially not those in power—gets a pass from scrutiny. Every incident must be investigated thoroughly, no exceptions.
The debate over this corrections commission seat isn’t just about policy—it’s about values. Does New York stand with victims, or does it bend over backward for a progressive agenda that risks alienating the law-abiding majority? That’s the tension Blakeman is tapping into.
For many on the right, this is a clear-cut issue of justice being turned on its head. A commission meant to oversee safety shouldn’t be a platform for those who once endangered it. Let’s hope future reforms remember who the real stakeholders are.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just got a Christmas surprise from President Donald Trump with the permanent appointment of his acting chief of staff, Ricky Buria, despite months of fierce opposition from within the White House.
This move, confirmed by sources close to the matter, cements Buria’s role after eight months of interim service, navigating a storm of internal Pentagon clashes and White House resistance over his past political ties and ongoing conflicts.
Buria’s journey to this permanent post hasn’t been a smooth parade down Main Street.
Since stepping into the acting role eight months ago, he replaced Joe Kasper, who exited amid a wave of firings of Hegseth’s senior aides tied to a leak investigation—a mess that left several aides disputing their dismissals.
Hegseth pushed for Buria’s official title as early as spring, only to hit a brick wall with the White House presidential personnel office, which balked at the pick due to Buria’s history.
Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room—Buria’s past raises eyebrows among conservatives who value loyalty to the America First agenda.
Federal Election Commission records show he donated to a Democrat in 2023, and he previously served as a junior military aide under Biden-era Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, hardly a resume that screams MAGA devotion.
Yet, Buria, a retired Marine colonel with 20 years of service, managed to win over Hegseth and even Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, showing personal charm can sometimes outshine ideological purity.
Inside the Pentagon, Buria’s tenure has been less about camaraderie and more about cage matches with fellow Trump appointees.
He recently tried—and failed—to boot senior aide Patrick Weaver, and took a swing at firing Matt McNitt, the White House liaison to the Pentagon, who not only kept his job but snagged a temporary dual role in the White House.
By late summer, the White House was hunting for a replacement chief of staff after Buria’s clash with McNitt, signaling just how deep the fractures run in this administration’s defense team.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell tried to polish this tarnished apple, stating, “Secretary Hegseth has put together an all-star team, and we are proud of our historic accomplishments.”
With all due respect to Parnell, an “all-star team” doesn’t usually spend months bickering while critical defense priorities wait on the sidelines—conservatives expect results, not drama, from those entrusted with our nation’s security.
Ultimately, Buria updated his LinkedIn profile on Friday to reflect his new title as chief of staff, a digital victory lap after Trump granted a waiver for his brief time as a Marine colonel, but the real test is whether he can unify a fractured Pentagon without further alienating key players.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz just got blindsided by a wild question about a supposed romance with none other than progressive firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The eyebrow-raising moment came during a Monday interview with Tucker Carlson, where Gaetz was pressed on whether he ever dated the New York congresswoman, a notion he swiftly shot down, despite past bipartisan teamwork in Congress.
Let's rewind to May 2023, when Fox News host Greg Gutfeld first floated the idea of a hypothetical romance between Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez as a jest on "The Five." At the time, Gaetz was married, and Ocasio-Cortez was engaged to her fiancé, Riley Roberts. The quip seemed like harmless banter—until it resurfaced years later.
Fast forward to Monday, when Carlson, at 56, brought the rumor back to life on his web show, asking Gaetz point-blank about any romantic history with the 36-year-old democratic socialist. Gaetz, 43 and now hosting a show on One America News, didn’t mince words in his denial. It’s a reminder of how old jokes can morph into unwelcome headlines.
During their time in Congress, Gaetz—an outspoken MAGA supporter—and Ocasio-Cortez forged an unlikely partnership on bipartisan issues. They were even photographed together on the House floor on Jan. 3, 2023. But political collaboration doesn’t mean personal connection, and conservatives might smirk at how quickly the left’s narrative spins into melodrama.
Carlson wasn’t content with a simple no, pushing further with, "Did you try?" as he quizzed Gaetz on any interest in Ocasio-Cortez. Gaetz shot back with, "No, and uh, not my cup of tea," making it clear he wasn’t entertaining the idea.
From a right-of-center view, this line of questioning feels like a cheap shot, more suited to tabloid fodder than serious discourse. Yet, it’s hard to ignore how such rumors distract from policy debates that actually impact everyday Americans. Let’s keep the focus on legislative records, not soap opera plots.
Gaetz didn’t hold back on critiquing Ocasio-Cortez’s past behavior either, recalling her reaction to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol storming. He described her response as "bad performance art," suggesting it lacked the gravitas expected of a leader. A fair conservative critique might agree—public office demands composure, not theatrics.
Ocasio-Cortez herself has spoken of experiencing trauma from the Capitol events, a claim Gaetz seems to dismiss. For many on the right, such statements can appear overblown when compared to the resilience expected of public figures. Still, it’s worth noting her perspective as part of the broader story.
Gaetz’s own journey took a sharp turn in November 2024, when he resigned from Congress after President Donald Trump nominated him for attorney general. That bid collapsed when even fellow Republicans withheld support, leading Gaetz to withdraw his name. It’s a stark reminder that political loyalty isn’t always a two-way street.
Shortly after, the House Ethics Committee released a 2021 report on allegations of sex trafficking and other misconduct tied to Gaetz. While the Justice Department declined to charge him, his associate Joel Greenberg wasn’t as fortunate, earning an 11-year sentence for federal sex trafficking of a minor. Conservatives demand transparency here—no one gets a free pass, regardless of party or position.
On a brighter note, Gaetz and his wife, Ginger, welcomed a baby boy in August 2025, a personal milestone following their 2021 marriage. It’s a humanizing detail amid the political storm, and most Americans—left or right—can appreciate family joys.
Meanwhile, Gaetz continues to build his media presence on a conservative cable network, while Ocasio-Cortez remains a prominent voice for the progressive agenda. Their paths may have diverged, but their brief alliance in Congress shows that even opposites can find common ground. Let’s hope future collaborations focus on policy, not personal rumors.
Could a bold U.S.-mediated deal finally halt Russia’s nearly four-year assault on Ukraine? Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signaled openness to a national referendum on a peace framework crafted with President Donald Trump, provided Russia agrees to a 60-day ceasefire.
Russia’s invasion, launched in 2022, may edge toward resolution with this plan, which is roughly 90% complete and tackles security, economic rebuilding, and territorial disputes, though sticky issues like eastern Ukraine’s status linger.
For American taxpayers, footing the bill for endless foreign aid, this proposal could mean a hard stop to blank-check spending on Ukraine’s defense. If finalized, it might save billions in military support, redirecting funds to domestic priorities like border security or infrastructure. Conservatives have long questioned why working-class families should shoulder such financial burdens while D.C. plays global chess.
Zelensky’s readiness to put this deal to a public vote shows a rare nod to democratic accountability, something conservatives can appreciate over elitist backroom deals. But holding a referendum amid wartime chaos risks low turnout due to ongoing attacks, potentially tainting the result’s legitimacy.
The plan, a slimmed-down version of an earlier 28-point draft criticized for favoring Moscow, now includes NATO-style security guarantees and a 15-year U.S. bilateral agreement, though Ukraine pushes for a longer shield. It’s a pragmatic pivot—Ukraine would forgo full NATO membership for binding commitments from the U.S. and European allies, monitored by satellite systems. This isn’t ideal, but it’s a gritty compromise to avoid more bloodshed.
Key sticking points like control over the Donbas region—described as the toughest hurdle—could derail everything if territorial concessions aren’t sold to the Ukrainian public. Ukraine’s constitution demands a referendum for border changes, meaning the entire framework, not just bits and pieces, goes to a vote. It’s a high-stakes gamble when bombs are still falling.
A 60-day ceasefire is the linchpin, with the U.S. backing the pause while Russia reportedly wants a shorter timeline. Reciprocal troop withdrawals in eastern Ukraine, especially Donbas, are envisioned, alongside turning contested areas like parts of Donetsk into “free economic zones” under international oversight. It’s a creative fix, but will Moscow play ball?
“If the plan demands a very difficult decision on that issue, I believe the best path forward will be to put the entire 20-point plan to a referendum,” Zelensky told Axios. That’s a noble sentiment, but let’s be real—asking citizens to weigh in on life-altering territorial losses while under fire smells like a progressive pipe dream detached from battlefield reality. Conservatives know referendums aren’t therapy sessions; they’re hard accountability.
“It’s better not have a referendum than have a referendum where people cannot come and vote,” Zelensky added. Fair point—why stage a vote if half the electorate is dodging missiles? This isn’t about feel-good participation; it’s about a mandate that sticks.
The framework, codified into five documents with a possible sixth, offers security modeled on NATO’s Article 5, plus early warning tech to deter Russian aggression. Both the U.S. and Ukraine plan to ratify the security pact through their legislatures, a move that could lock in long-term stability—or at least the illusion of it.
Trump’s team, including advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, is even willing to travel to Ukraine to pitch the deal, while a video call with European leaders is set for Saturday to rally allies. After a prior White House meeting on Oct. 17, another discussion in Florida on Sunday keeps the momentum. This is Trump-style dealmaking—fast, flashy, and unapologetic.
Yet, the Kremlin’s response remains cagey, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirming Trump emissaries shared terms but refusing to predict President Vladimir Putin’s stance. Russia’s history of broken promises doesn’t inspire confidence, and conservatives aren’t naive enough to trust Moscow without ironclad enforcement.
Zelensky’s push to “finish it as quickly as possible” during the upcoming meeting reflects urgency, but haste can breed bad deals. Ukraine has secured U.S. support to maintain army strength, a win for sovereignty, but territorial compromises could fuel domestic backlash.
The plan’s vision of international forces guarding “free economic zones” like the Zaporizhzhia nuclear site sounds promising, but it’s a logistical nightmare in a war zone. Conservatives support peace, but not at the cost of Ukraine becoming a pawn in a globalist experiment—real security, not symbolic gestures, must prevail.
Ultimately, this Trump-brokered framework could be a turning point, balancing hard-nosed diplomacy with Ukraine’s survival. For American voters tired of foreign entanglements, it’s a chance to demand accountability on every dollar spent overseas. Let’s hope this deal cuts through the fog of war without sacrificing principle.
Minnesota taxpayers, Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan (D) just made a bold statement that’s raising eyebrows across the state. While appearing on a Somali-language YouTube channel in Minneapolis, she donned an Islamic garment, signaling her unwavering support for Somali migrants amid swirling controversies over fraud and welfare misuse.
Flanagan, a Democrat and member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Somali community, alongside Ali Gaashaan, founder of a now-defunct charity tied to a massive fraud case, to reassure migrants that she and Governor Tim Walz (D) have their interests at heart.
For hardworking Minnesota retirees and homeowners, this raises a red flag about accountability, especially when the financial burden of welfare fraud—highlighted by President Donald Trump’s administration as a staggering issue among some Somali migrants—falls on their shoulders through higher taxes or diverted funds. The Feeding Our Future charity, linked to a $250 million fraud scandal, was shuttered, and Gaashaan’s own group, meant to feed needy Somali children, abruptly closed shop afterward. How can taxpayers trust that oversight will be strict when gestures like this seem to gloss over the need for tough investigations?
Let’s rewind to Flanagan’s rise in politics—she’s been Governor Walz’s running mate since 2018, securing victory in two elections as a vocal progressive. At 46 years old, she’s built a reputation for controversial stances, including pushing to limit federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota.
Her background, with a bachelor’s degree in child psychology and American Indian studies from the University of Minnesota, shows a focus on cultural history, though her admitted 1.75 high school GPA has been a point of critique among skeptics. Still, her personal story isn’t the issue here—it’s the policy implications of her public actions.
During her appearance on the YouTube channel, Flanagan didn’t just show up; she draped herself in an Islamic garment, covering from hair to toe, despite not being Muslim herself. This visual statement was clearly meant to resonate with Somali migrants, who began arriving in Minnesota in the 1990s when Flanagan was already a teenager. Was this a genuine bridge-building moment or a calculated political photo op?
“Salam Alaikum. My name’s Peggy Flanagan. I am the Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota, and I’m really honored and humbled to be here with all of you today,” said Peggy Flanagan during the video.
Honored and humbled, sure, but many conservative Minnesotans are asking: Where’s that same humility when it comes to addressing the fraud scandals tied to programs meant for vulnerable communities? Gestures of friendship are fine, but they don’t erase the need for answers about where millions in taxpayer money went.
“I am incredibly clear that the Somali community is part of the fabric of the state of Minnesota,” Flanagan added. That’s a nice sentiment, but fabric gets torn when trust is broken by systemic misuse of funds, and ignoring that reality risks alienating law-abiding citizens who just want fairness.
The backdrop to this story isn’t just cultural outreach—it’s the shadow of serious allegations. President Trump’s administration has zeroed in on welfare funding theft by some Somali migrants in Minnesota, a problem that can’t be swept under the rug with symbolic attire.
Ali Gaashaan, standing next to Flanagan in the video, isn’t a neutral figure; his Volunteers for Somalia charity folded after the Feeding Our Future scandal broke, raising questions about accountability in these programs. Why align so visibly with someone tied to such controversy?
Flanagan’s defenders might argue she’s simply showing support for a community under scrutiny, but conservatives see a pattern of prioritizing optics over tough policy decisions. Minnesota deserves leaders who stand with all communities by ensuring justice, not just photo-friendly moments.
Critics aren’t denying the Somali community’s place in Minnesota, but they’re demanding balance—support shouldn’t mean a free pass on scrutiny. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar not helping struggling families, whether native-born or migrant, and that’s a legal and economic reality Flanagan must address.
While her outreach may resonate with some, it risks looking like a dismissal of the very real concerns about oversight that conservative voters hold dear. Minnesota’s future depends on leaders who can wear many hats—cultural ally and fiscal watchdog alike—without dropping the ball on either.
Boom—just when the world thought Christmas Day would be all peace and goodwill, U.S. air power rained down on ISIS hideouts in northwest Nigeria.
On that holy day, President Donald Trump ordered precision strikes on terrorist camps, with the explicit green light from Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, as a direct response to vicious attacks on Christian communities, Just The News reported.
Before the operation, Nigerian Prime Minister Yusuf Tuggar held discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ensuring alignment between the two nations. This wasn’t some rogue mission; it was a coordinated effort to dismantle terror networks. And in a world obsessed with endless bureaucracy, it’s refreshing to see decisive action.
The strikes zeroed in on ISIS strongholds in Sokoto state, a region near Nigeria’s border with Niger, as confirmed by the U.S. Africa Command. Reports indicate multiple terrorists were taken out in the operation. For once, the bad guys didn’t get to celebrate the holidays.
Trump took to social media late Thursday to break the news himself, claiming full responsibility for the order. He framed the strikes as a necessary retaliation against ISIS for targeting innocent Christians—a stance that cuts through the usual diplomatic fluff. While some might clutch their pearls over such bluntness, protecting the persecuted shouldn’t be controversial.
“Whoever is prepared to work with us to fight terrorism, we’re ready, willing and able,” said Prime Minister Tuggar, signaling Nigeria’s openness to international partnerships. That’s a pragmatic stance, not a woke lecture on cultural sensitivity. It’s about results, not feelings, and that’s a tone more leaders should adopt.
Trump’s social media post didn’t mince words, announcing he ordered the strikes in response to the terrorist group “killing innocent Christians.” In an era where leaders often hide behind vague statements, this clarity is a gut punch to those who’d rather ignore the plight of the vulnerable. It’s a reminder that evil doesn’t take a holiday.
The coordination with Nigerian authorities, as noted by the U.S. Africa Command, shows this wasn’t a unilateral cowboy move. Both nations stood shoulder to shoulder against a common enemy. That’s the kind of alliance that actually matters—not empty virtue signaling at global summits.
Now, let’s not pretend this solves every problem in the region overnight. ISIS isn’t going to pack up and leave because of one operation, no matter how successful. But it’s a start, and a signal that appeasement isn’t on the table.
Sokoto state, the focal point of the strikes, has long been a hotbed for extremist activity, making it a strategic target. Striking there sends a message: no corner is safe for those who sow chaos. It’s a shame it takes such drastic measures, but sometimes peace requires a strong hand.
The loss of life among ISIS ranks, as reported by U.S. Africa Command, is a tactical win, though the broader war on terror remains a slog. Still, every step forward counts when the alternative is letting barbarism fester unchecked. That’s not compassion; it’s cowardice.
Nigeria’s leadership, from President Tinubu to Prime Minister Tuggar, deserves credit for not bowing to the progressive chorus that often cries “imperialism” at any U.S. involvement. They saw a threat, partnered up, and acted. Imagine if more nations prioritized security over posturing.
Trump’s decision to act on Christmas Day wasn’t just symbolic—it was a deliberate stand against those who’d exploit sacred times for bloodshed. While critics might grumble about timing, the reality is that terror doesn’t respect calendars. Why should we respond?
The partnership between the U.S. and Nigeria in this operation could set a precedent for future collaborations, assuming both sides keep politics out of it. Too often, good initiatives get bogged down by ideological nonsense. Let’s hope this is the exception.
Ultimately, these strikes are a reminder that defending the defenseless isn’t a partisan issue—it’s a human one. While the chattering classes debate endlessly, real lives hang in the balance. For now, this operation offers a flicker of hope to those under the shadow of terror.
Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, has ignited a firestorm by doubting the reported record-low border crossings, hinting at data manipulation while lamenting the human toll of current policies, the New York Post reported.
This heated debate focuses on Crockett’s skepticism about the administration’s claims of unmatched border security since President Trump’s return to office this past January.
Her concerns also touch on harsh enforcement methods and tragic outcomes in custody, adding fuel to an already contentious issue.
The official numbers are eye-catching: illegal border crossings dropped to a historic low in June, with federal agents halting just over 6,000 migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border czar Tom Homan claims none of those stopped were released into the country, a point of pride for the administration.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reinforced this, stating that by November’s end, her department had seen seven consecutive months of zero releases into the U.S. interior.
Crockett isn’t convinced by the data, citing past discrepancies in jobs figures as a reason to question border stats. “I will also say that we know that this administration has not been the most honest when it comes to reporting numbers,” she told NBC News, suggesting a troubling lack of transparency.
Her criticism extends beyond numbers to policy, blasting the administration’s approach as lacking compassion.
With at least 30 migrants dying in ICE custody in 2025—up from 12 in Biden’s last full year, according to The Washington Post—Crockett’s focus on humane treatment hits a nerve, even if her data skepticism feels like a stretch.
The White House isn’t backing down, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson calling Crockett’s accusations unfounded. “This is a bizarre conspiracy theory,” Jackson shot back, insisting that “dangerous criminal unauthorized migrants are being deported thanks to President Trump’s policies.”
Noem echoed this on December 4, boasting of “the most secure border in history” and enforcement wins once thought impossible, a message that resonates with those fed up with porous borders.
Yet Crockett argues security shouldn’t trump humanity, claiming a historic number of American citizens have been caught in enforcement sweeps based on mere looks or accents—a disturbing allegation if proven.
Despite early 2025 support for Trump’s border security and deportation policies, public approval has waned, per recent RealClearPolitics polling showing 50.1% disapproval versus 46.8% approval.
This slip hints that even some conservatives may question the tactics, though the desire for a firm stance on unauthorized migration still holds strong among many supporters.
For now, the clash between Crockett’s warnings and the administration’s claims leaves Americans wrestling with cold stats versus warmer concerns about morality and trust in governance.
Tragic news has struck the reality TV world as a beloved star is gone far too soon.
Mickey Lee, a former contestant on "Big Brother," passed away at the tender age of 35 on Thursday, leaving fans and family heartbroken, according to CBS News.
Hailing from Jacksonville, Florida, and later calling Atlanta home, Lee made her mark on Season 27 of the CBS show, which aired this year.
Her family broke the devastating news on Friday through a post on her Instagram account, sharing their grief with a stunned audience.
The cause, as confirmed by her loved ones, was multiple cardiac arrests after severe flu complications—a harsh reminder of life’s unpredictability.
Earlier that week, Lee had been in critical but stable condition, giving a flicker of hope that ultimately faded.
In response to her medical crisis, her family launched a GoFundMe page to help cover expenses not met by insurance.
By Friday afternoon, the fundraiser had amassed over $32,500, showing the deep affection many held for Lee.
Yet, while this generosity warms the heart, it stings to know it couldn’t change the tragic outcome.
“Mickey captured the hearts of audiences nationwide through her appearance on Big Brother, where her authenticity, strength, and spirit left a lasting impression on fans and fellow cast members alike,” her family wrote on Instagram.
They’ve got a point—Lee’s realness cut through the often superficial world of reality TV, a breath of fresh air in a culture drowning in performative nonsense.
“Mickey’s light, legacy, and impact will never be forgotten,” her family added in their emotional statement.
Hard to disagree with that, though one can’t help but wonder if today’s hyper-divided society truly appreciates the unfiltered joy Lee represented.
Her passing slices through the petty dramas of reality TV, urging us to value those who connect without pushing some trendy narrative.
This loss is a somber call to focus on what matters—genuine human bonds over the fleeting squabbles of a woke-obsessed era.
Could a presidential pardon crack open the cell of a Colorado clerk jailed on state charges?
Tina Peters, a former Republican county clerk in Colorado, stands at the heart of a heated clash over a pardon from President Donald Trump, with her legal team fighting for her freedom while state authorities insist the pardon lacks power, Fox News reported.
Peters’ journey started with her role as a clerk, where she was convicted of official misconduct, conspiracy, and influencing a public servant under Colorado law after permitting unauthorized access to voting equipment over doubts about election integrity.
In October 2024, a Colorado judge sentenced Peters to nine years in prison, a decision that highlighted the state’s strict approach to safeguarding electoral systems.
Her conviction has cast her as a polarizing figure, admired by some as a defender of transparency but condemned by others for overstepping legal bounds.
Then, in early December 2025, President Trump entered the fray by issuing a pardon for Peters, framing her actions as a noble pursuit of fair and honest elections.
Trump voiced his support on Truth Social, declaring, “Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” a statement that resonates with conservatives frustrated by what they see as overreach against election skeptics.
Colorado officials, however, have firmly rejected the pardon’s relevance, arguing that presidential clemency doesn’t apply to state-level convictions, keeping Peters locked up amid the dispute.
Shad Murib, Colorado Democratic Party Chair, scoffed at the gesture, calling the pardon “meaningless” and asserting that Trump holds no authority to force her release, a sharp dismissal of the president’s move.
On December 23, Peters’ attorneys submitted a motion to a Colorado appellate court, demanding her release and pressing for recognition of Trump’s pardon as valid for her state convictions.
Peter Ticktin, Peters’ attorney, remains hopeful, stating, “Contrary to Colorado’s governor, we see the pardon as applicable to state charges,” a defiant challenge to the state’s narrow view of legal precedent.
The motion claims the pardon encompasses actions linked to election security, a contention that could reshape the scope of presidential mercy if upheld by the courts.
On Christmas Eve, the Colorado Court of Appeals acknowledged the motion, directing the prosecution to respond by early January without yet taking a definitive stand on the pardon’s impact.
While the legal process unfolds, Peters is expected to remain behind bars through New Year’s Day 2026, a harsh reality for those who view her as a casualty of a system resistant to scrutiny.
This ongoing battle underscores a deeper divide over election trust and governmental power, leaving Peters’ fate as a symbol of a much larger struggle between state authority and federal intervention.