President Donald Trump has ignited a firestorm with his unapologetic comments about the late Hollywood icon Rob Reiner, proving once again that he’s not one to shy away from a fight, even in the face of tragedy.
Following Reiner’s death, Trump took to TruthSocial to blast the director as “deranged” and afflicted with what he calls “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” while also facing sharp criticism from both allies and opponents for politicizing a deeply personal loss.
The controversy erupted after news broke of the tragic deaths of Rob Reiner and his wife Michele, reportedly at the hands of their own troubled son.
Trump didn’t hold back on TruthSocial, tying the couple’s passing to what he dubbed a “mind-crippling disease” of obsessive anti-Trump sentiment.
“[Reiner] was deranged by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS),” Trump posted, doubling down on a term he’s long used to jab at critics. That’s classic Trump—never one to sugarcoat, though some might argue the timing couldn’t be worse.
The director, a vocal critic of Trump during his lifetime, was often outspoken about his political disagreements, which likely fueled the president’s sharp response.
Yet, the backlash was swift and surprisingly bipartisan, with even staunch Trump supporters expressing unease.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., known for her loyalty to the MAGA movement, publicly distanced herself from the remarks, urging respect for the family’s grief over political point-scoring. Her stance shows even the base has limits when it comes to mixing tragedy with talking points.
Similarly, Rep. Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., emphasized compassion, stating, “Reiner and his wife were murdered by their troubled son.” That stark reminder of the violent nature of their deaths cuts through any attempt to spin this as just another culture war skirmish.
Other Republican lawmakers, like Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Mike Lawler of New York joined the chorus of disapproval, calling for prayer rather than politicking.
Even pro-Trump influencer Sage Steele weighed in, labeling the comments as insensitive given the heartbreaking circumstances. It’s a rare moment when even the loudest cheerleaders in the conservative sphere say, “Not this time.”
Trump’s reference to the “Russia Hoax” in his critique of Reiner added another layer of contention, harking back to old battles over election interference claims that still rile up both sides.
Critics argue that Trump’s insistence on framing Reiner’s life—and now death—through the lens of personal vendettas misses the mark on decorum. While his supporters might cheer the no-holds-barred style, others see it as a needless jab at a grieving family.
Still, Trump’s approach reflects a broader push against what many conservatives view as Hollywood’s overreach into political activism, a trend they feel Reiner epitomized. It’s a fair critique of cultural elites, but one wonders if there’s a better moment to make it.
Ultimately, this episode highlights the delicate balance public figures must navigate when personal tragedy intersects with political rivalry, leaving many to question where the line should be drawn. The Reiner family deserves peace, not a social media storm, and perhaps even the fiercest warriors in the culture wars might agree it’s time to holster the rhetoric—at least for now.
Imagine a national leader stepping up to address heartbreaking tragedies, only to kick things off with football cheers and consumer gripes. That’s exactly what unfolded when U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) held a press conference on Sunday, drawing sharp rebuke for his apparent lack of priority on two devastating mass shootings from the day before.
On Saturday, two horrific mass shootings shook communities in Rhode Island and Australia, only for Schumer’s response the following day to ignite a firestorm of criticism over his tone and timing.
The first tragedy struck on Saturday evening at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, where a shooting on campus claimed lives, with two victims specifically named in reports. A vigil was held that same night at Lippitt Memorial Park, as the community mourned the loss.
Simultaneously, a second massacre unfolded at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, during an annual Chanukah celebration, where a father-son duo of gunmen killed 15 people, including a 10-year-old girl. More than two dozen others remain hospitalized, and a memorial now stands outside the Bondi Pavilion as a somber tribute to the victims.
Fast forward to Sunday, when Schumer took to the podium for a press conference meant to address these grave events. Instead, he opened with casual chatter about a football victory and consumer complaints about a delivery service.
“First of course, as I always say, no matter what, go Bills, they beat the Patriots today, it's a big deal,” Schumer declared, seemingly oblivious to the weight of the moment. If ever there was a time to skip the sports banter, surely this was it.
Schumer then pivoted to grumbling about Instacart’s business practices before finally touching on the tragedies. The delayed focus felt like a misstep to many, especially given the scale of loss in both incidents.
On social media platform X, the backlash was swift and unsparing. “How can Chuck Schumer begin a speech about the Bondi Beach mass shooting with a Bills chant? So callous,” wrote user @KathleenWood730, capturing a sentiment echoed widely online.
Critics also pointed to Schumer’s background, noting his Jewish heritage and questioning why his initial remarks didn’t reflect deeper empathy for the victims of the Bondi Beach attack, which targeted a Jewish celebration. While it’s fair to expect leaders to connect on a personal level during such crises, the criticism risks overshadowing the broader issue of his misplaced priorities.
Eventually, Schumer did address the shootings, urging stronger measures to curb gun violence. “We must do more to stop gun violence,” he insisted, a call that resonates with many but arrived too late in his remarks for some.
The order of his comments—football, consumer issues, then tragedy—left a bitter taste for observers who expect leaders to lead with compassion in times of crisis. It’s not about political correctness; it’s about basic human decency when lives are shattered.
Commentators on X didn’t hold back, with some labeling the approach as out of touch. While Schumer’s intent may not have been to dismiss the tragedies, the perception of insensitivity is a lesson in how optics matter as much as policy in public life.
Meanwhile, communities in Providence and Sydney continue to grieve, with vigils and memorials serving as painful reminders of the lives lost. These events demand undivided attention from leaders, not a sidetrack into sports or shopping apps.
Schumer’s misstep isn’t just a political fumble; it’s a missed opportunity to unite a hurting public with words of solace before policy pitches. Conservatives often critique the left for prioritizing narrative over substance, but here, a simple reordering of topics could have spared him this backlash.
As the nation and world process these twin tragedies, the call for meaningful dialogue on gun control remains critical. Yet, if leaders can’t strike the right tone from the outset, they risk alienating even those who might agree with their solutions. Let’s hope this serves as a wake-up call for prioritizing humanity over headlines.
Hold onto your wallets, folks—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., known for her fiery critiques of wealth and privilege, has some explaining to do about a nearly $50,000 campaign spending spree in Puerto Rico.
Reports surfaced last week revealing that AOC’s campaign dropped a hefty sum on luxury hotels, high-end dining, and a venue rental during a trip earlier this year, Fox News reported.
This lavish expenditure happened while she attended a Bad Bunny concert in San Juan, raising eyebrows among even her staunchest defenders.
The details, uncovered by Fox News Digital through AOC’s latest campaign filings, paint a picture of extravagance that’s tough to reconcile with her public rhetoric.
Over $15,000 went to two upscale hotels in San Juan during the time of Bad Bunny’s “Residency” tour at El Choli Coliseo de Puerto Rico.
That tour, a star-studded event running from August through September, was just part of the backdrop for her campaign’s spending.
Additionally, her campaign shelled out more than $10,500 on meals and catering services in the same reporting period, covering July through September.
During this trip, AOC was spotted in social media videos visiting a housing development in Puerto Rico, speaking out against gentrification—a cause in line with her platform.
Yet, footage from August 10 also shows her enjoying box seats at Bad Bunny’s concert, dancing alongside Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y.
While it’s fine to unwind, using campaign funds for such opulence raises questions about whether this aligns with the image of a fighter for the working class.
Conservative voices were quick to highlight the apparent contradiction, with some labeling it a clear case of double standards.
“AOC rails nonstop against ‘the rich,’ yet drops tens of thousands in campaign cash on luxury hotels, upscale catering, and elite venues on a Puerto Rico trip,” said GOP Florida congressional hopeful Michael Carbonara.
Carbonara’s critique reflects a broader frustration among those who feel progressive leaders often dodge scrutiny for enjoying the perks they publicly condemn.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer also weighed in, noting, “This is not new for her, she's a hypocrite.”
Spicer referenced AOC’s past appearance at the MET Gala in a designer dress emblazoned with “Tax The Rich,” suggesting a pattern of embracing luxury while criticizing it—a sharp but fair observation about political optics.
Buckle up, folks—Marjorie Taylor Greene is storming back to ABC's "The View" just days after she'll bid farewell to Congress.
Greene, the firebrand Republican from Georgia, is set to appear on the show on January 7, a mere two days after leaving her congressional seat, as part of an ongoing media blitz that’s raised eyebrows and sparked debate, Fox News reported.
This isn’t Greene’s first rodeo with the ladies of "The View"—she popped in last month and, surprisingly, kept things cordial. Even liberal host Joy Behar seemed taken aback by Greene’s sharp jabs at former President Donald Trump, tossing out a half-joking suggestion that she flip to the Democratic side. Well, that’s a plot twist no one saw coming.
Greene’s response to Behar was a firm no, thank you. "I’m not a Democrat. I think both parties have failed," she declared, doubling down on her frustration with the political machine (as cited on "The View").
Once a staunch Trump supporter, Greene has morphed into one of his loudest detractors over the past year. Her critiques have zeroed in on issues like the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, healthcare policies, and foreign policy missteps. It’s a stunning reversal for someone who once carried the MAGA banner with pride.
The tension with Trump isn’t just rhetoric—it’s personal. Days before Greene announced her exit from Congress, Trump yanked his endorsement, branding her with harsh words on social media. This public fallout has only fueled speculation about what’s really driving her departure.
Speaking of her exit, Greene didn’t hold back when she announced her decision to leave Washington. She pointed fingers at what she called a corrupt "Political Industrial Complex" that pits Americans against each other for power. It’s a bleak view of politics that many on the right might quietly nod to, even if they don’t say it out loud.
In her exit statement, Greene painted a grim picture of the system. "Americans are used by the Political Industrial Complex of both political parties, election cycle after election cycle, in order to elect whichever side can convince Americans to hate the other side more," she said (as cited in her exit announcement). That’s a gut punch to the establishment, and it’s hard to argue she’s entirely off base.
Her media tour kicked into high gear after this announcement, with a notable stop on "60 Minutes" last week—her first major interview since revealing her plans. Trump wasn’t thrilled, blasting the network and its ownership for giving her airtime. It’s clear the rift between them isn’t mending anytime soon.
Adding to the drama, whispers circulated that Trump discouraged Greene from eyeing a Senate run in Georgia, citing polls showing a likely loss to Sen. Jon Ossoff. Greene has flatly denied these claims, insisting her decisions are her own. Still, the rumor mill keeps churning, doesn’t it?
Her growing disillusionment with politics isn’t just about Trump—it’s about the whole game. She’s openly criticized both parties for failing the average American, a sentiment that resonates with many who feel left behind by Washington’s endless bickering.
Greene’s upcoming "The View" appearance is sure to stir the pot further. Will she double down on her critiques, or pivot to a new message now that she’s free from congressional constraints? One thing’s certain—expect fireworks.
As conservatives, it’s tough to watch a once-reliable voice for the movement break ranks, but Greene’s frustration with the system isn’t hard to understand. The political elite on both sides often seem more interested in power plays than in fixing real problems. Her exit feels like a protest as much as a retreat.
Yet, there’s a risk here—Greene’s sharp tongue could alienate allies who still see Trump as the standard-bearer for conservative values. Her critiques are bold, but they might leave her without a clear base of support. Where does she go from here?
Whatever happens on January 7, Greene’s return to "The View" will be a moment to watch. She’s a lightning rod, no doubt, but her willingness to call out flaws in the system—even if it’s messy—might just strike a chord with Americans tired of the status quo. Let’s see if she can channel that frustration into something constructive.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Rep. Ilhan Omar is sounding the alarm over a troubling encounter between her son and ICE agents in Minnesota.
This past weekend, Omar’s U.S.-born son was stopped by federal agents outside a Target store, an incident that has sparked fierce debate over racial profiling amid a broader immigration enforcement surge in the state, Fox News reported.
Let’s rewind to earlier this month when President Donald Trump stirred the pot with sharp criticism of Omar and Somali communities in Minnesota, calling her “very bad for our country” as reported to journalists.
Fast forward to Friday, when ICE announced a sweeping operation called Metro Surge, nabbing over 400 unauthorized migrants in Minnesota, with the agency claiming the focus was on serious offenders like violent criminals.
Trump doubled down that day, defending ICE’s actions in the state while continuing his verbal barrage against Omar and certain migrant groups, which many see as fanning the flames of division.
Then came Saturday, when Omar’s son found himself in ICE’s crosshairs during a routine stop at a store, only released after flashing his passport to prove his citizenship.
Omar didn’t hold back, accusing ICE of targeting “young men who look Somali,” as she told WCCO-TV in an interview the following day.
That’s a serious charge, and while concerns about profiling deserve a fair hearing, one has to wonder if every stop is a conspiracy or if enforcement is just doing its tough, thankless job.
Omar also revealed her son carries his passport out of fear of being mistaken for an unauthorized migrant, a precaution that speaks volumes about the tension in some communities right now.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz jumped into the fray, backing Omar’s claims by stating, “This isn’t a targeted operation to find violent criminals, it’s racial profiling,” in a pointed critique of ICE’s methods.
Walz’s take raises eyebrows—sure, profiling is a real concern, but dismissing an operation that netted hundreds of lawbreakers as mere bias seems a tad convenient for the progressive playbook.
Walz also noted that Omar’s son was fully compliant during the stop, and he’s penned a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanding a rethink of these enforcement tactics after reports of U.S. citizens being detained.
The Department of Homeland Security isn’t taking this lying down, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asserting that only Americans “who assault and obstruct law enforcement have been arrested” in response to Walz’s concerns.
That’s a stark rebuttal, suggesting the feds aren’t randomly harassing folks but reacting to specific behavior—though the optics of stopping citizens going about their day still stinks of overreach to many.
Walz’s letter also flagged broader issues, pointing to eroded trust between Minnesota communities and federal authorities, alongside worries about due process violations during these high-profile sweeps.
Is the FBI’s leadership on shaky ground, or just shaking things up?
Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is reportedly mulling over his next steps at the bureau, with sources indicating a decision could come in the coming weeks, though nothing is set in stone, Fox News reported.
According to insiders speaking to Fox News Digital, Bongino hasn’t finalized any plans about his tenure.
Rumors of his potential exit have swirled, but claims that his office stands empty have been firmly denied by those close to the matter.
Still, the possibility of a departure looms large, and it’s hard not to wonder if the mounting pressure on his leadership is a factor.
Bongino, alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, has faced a barrage of criticism in recent weeks over their approach to running the bureau.
Earlier this month, a group of active and retired FBI personnel issued a scathing report, painting the agency as lacking direction under the current duo.
Not content to let that stand, a separate internal 115-page document, as reported by New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, doubled down on the critique of Bongino and Patel’s performance since taking the helm.
But let’s not pretend these reports are gospel—could there be an agenda behind the timing of these leaks?
Bongino didn’t mince words when addressing Devine’s reporting, accusing her of bias and pushing a narrative against their reforms.
“You can always count on Miranda for a timed hit piece when the Director and I make big changes,” Bongino posted on X, adding, “Miranda prefers the old-guard. I don’t. Full steam ahead.”
That’s a spicy jab, and it’s clear Bongino isn’t about to let detractors slow down his vision for a retooled FBI.
In response to broader criticism, Bongino has staunchly defended the changes he and Patel have implemented, arguing they’ve brought much-needed accountability.
“When the director and I moved forward with these reforms, we expected some noise from the small circle of disgruntled former agents still loyal to the old Comey–Wray model,” Bongino told Fox News.
That’s a fair point—change always ruffles feathers, especially when it challenges entrenched bureaucratic habits. But are these reforms truly delivering, or is this just bravado in the face of a PR storm?
House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is turning up the heat on Bill and Hillary Clinton over their ties to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
The crux of this saga is that the former president and former secretary of state have been subpoenaed to give depositions in a federal investigation into the nefarious activities of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, with Comer warning that ignoring the summons could lead to contempt of Congress charges.
Let’s rewind to August, when these subpoenas first landed on the Clintons’ doorstep, as reported by Breitbart News, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown.
Fast forward to July, when Breitbart News also noted Bill Clinton’s admission in his latest book, “Citizen: My Life After the White House,” that he took trips on Epstein’s infamous private plane, dubbed the Lolita Express, supposedly for his nonprofit work with the Clinton Global Initiative.
Adding fuel to the fire, records show Epstein made at least 17 visits to the White House shortly after Clinton’s 1993 inauguration—an eyebrow-raising statistic for anyone concerned about elite accountability.
By November, Comer had had enough, sending a stern letter to the Clintons’ attorney demanding their in-person appearance for depositions tied to this disturbing probe.
Yet, according to Comer, the Clintons have spent over four months dodging and delaying efforts to schedule their testimony—hardly the transparency one might expect from public figures of their stature.
“It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes,” Comer stated in a recent press release.
“Throughout that time, the former President and former Secretary of State have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the Committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,” he added, and frankly, it’s tough to argue with his frustration when accountability seems so elusive.
Comer isn’t alone in this fight; other heavyweights like former Attorney General William Barr, ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former FBI Director James Comey have also been subpoenaed in connection with the Epstein investigation.
Now, with depositions scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday following Comer’s Friday press release, the clock is ticking for the Clintons to show up or face serious consequences.
A spokesperson for Comer didn’t mince words, telling Fox News, “We communicated to the Clintons’ attorney today that they must appear next week or provide a date in early January to appear for their depositions or we will begin contempt of Congress proceedings.”
The same spokesperson drove the point home, adding, “They’ve been dragging their feet for over four months. Time’s up.”
If the Clintons fail to comply next week or lock in a date for early January, Comer has made it crystal clear that the Oversight Committee will initiate contempt proceedings—a move that could finally force some answers in this murky affair.
California’s highways are turning into deadly battlegrounds, and Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) administration is squarely in the crosshairs for a dangerous licensing fiasco.
Under Newsom’s watch, the state has become the nation’s top issuer of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) to foreign nationals, with federal regulators now linking these questionable practices to fatal accidents and threatening to slash highway funding over rampant noncompliance.
Let’s rewind to the numbers: California has handed out roughly 60,000 non-domiciled CDLs, but a Department of Transportation audit found a staggering 25% were issued improperly.
Some of these licenses, shockingly, remain valid for years despite expired immigration documents—a bureaucratic blunder that’s more than just paperwork gone wrong.
Federal authorities have pointed to these lax standards as a direct contributor to tragic crashes on American roads, a charge that’s hard to ignore when lives are on the line.
On June 27, 2025, California issued a restricted CDL to Jashanpreet Singh, a 20-year-old asylum seeker, limiting him to intrastate driving, which seemed like a cautious step at the time.
Fast forward to September 26, 2025, when Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy dropped a bombshell, notifying California of “significant compliance failures” and demanding a halt to non-domiciled CDL issuance until unexpired, non-compliant licenses are revoked or reissued under tougher federal rules.
That same day, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rolled out an emergency rule, tightening eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs by excluding asylum seekers and mandating strict immigration status checks—a clear signal that enough is enough.
But did California listen? On October 15, 2025, Singh turned 21, and the state’s DMV upgraded his license, scrapping the intrastate restriction without adhering to the new federal standards.
Just days later, on October 21, 2025, tragedy struck near Los Angeles when Singh, reportedly under the influence of drugs, crashed a semi-truck into stopped vehicles, killing three and hospitalizing two—a preventable disaster if rules had been followed.
Had California honored the emergency rule, Singh’s asylum seeker status would have disqualified him from the upgrade, potentially sparing innocent lives from this horrific outcome.
Secretary Duffy didn’t mince words on this catastrophe, stating, “It would have never happened if Gavin Newsom had followed our new rules. California broke the law, and now three people are dead, and two are hospitalized.”
Duffy’s frustration is palpable, and his additional warning resonates: “We have states that are giving out CDLs like candy… they have allowed people who should NEVER have a CDL… operating an 80,000 pound Big Rig on an American road.”
Across the nation, similar incidents—like a fatal crash in Tennessee involving a Chinese national with a New York-issued CDL who couldn’t speak English—underscore the urgent need for reform, while Texas, once the worst offender, has cracked down and dropped to fifth in problematic CDL issuances.
With Secretary Duffy threatening to withhold hundreds of millions in highway funds, California must decide whether to prioritize progressive policies over public safety—a choice that could define Newsom’s legacy as either a defender of ideology or a guardian of the roadways.
President Trump’s bold move to send National Guard troops into American cities has ignited a firestorm of debate, with a top general openly contradicting the commander in chief’s rationale.
The crux of the controversy lies in Trump’s deployment of thousands of National Guard members to urban centers like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., citing an internal threat, while Gen. Gregory Guillot, head of U.S. Northern Command, disputes the existence of such a danger during a Senate hearing.
Back in late September, Trump declared the need to combat an “enemy within,” framing it as a justification for military presence in cities struggling with crime and unrest.
By Sept. 30, speaking in Quantico, Va., the president doubled down, suggesting that Democratic-led cities could serve as training zones for military operations—a proposal that raised eyebrows across the political spectrum.
Fast forward to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where Gen. Guillot threw cold water on the narrative, stating, “I do not have any indications of an enemy within.”
Guillot’s words aren’t just a polite disagreement; they challenge the very foundation of Trump’s orders, especially since the general confirmed he hasn’t been directed to address any such internal threat.
Meanwhile, the deployments themselves—over 4,000 troops sent to Los Angeles alone during earlier immigration protests—have hit significant snags, with federal judges in California stepping in to halt actions there and limit operations in Chicago, Portland, and Memphis.
The California ruling, which demands control of the state’s National Guard be returned to the governor, is on hold until Monday, but the White House is gearing up for an appeal.
Republican lawmakers, like Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, argue these moves are “not only appropriate, but essential,” pointing to escalating crime and local failures as the real culprits behind urban chaos.
Democrats, however, see a darker motive, accusing the administration of overreach and trampling on state rights by turning soldiers into pawns in a political game.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan voiced alarm, warning that the rhetoric of using cities as “training grounds” undermines trust in the military’s apolitical role.
Adding to the tension, tragedy struck on Nov. 26 when two West Virginia National Guard members were shot in Washington, D.C., resulting in the death of Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and leaving Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe is recovering from injuries.
This incident only fuels Democratic fears about the risks of placing troops in volatile urban settings, with some senators raising hypothetical concerns about soldiers at polling locations—a scenario that, while not current, chills the spine of constitutional purists.
Charles Young, the Pentagon’s No. 2 lawyer, dodged specifics on such hypotheticals but noted the president’s authority to deploy troops in emergencies, while denying reports of military lawyers being sidelined for raising objections.
Ultimately, this clash isn’t just about troops on the streets of Portland or Memphis; it’s about the balance of power, the role of our military, and whether Trump’s vision of order justifies bending norms. While conservative instincts lean toward law and order, even the staunchest patriot must ask if this approach risks turning protectors into political tools. Let’s hope cooler heads—and clearer evidence—prevail before more guardsmen are caught in the crossfire.
Federal agents just swept through Minnesota with a mission to clean house, arresting over 400 unauthorized migrants with criminal records in a bold operation.
In a stunning crackdown dubbed Operation Metro Surge, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targeted some of the most dangerous offenders among unauthorized migrants, prompted by what officials call lenient state and local sanctuary policies.
Among those apprehended were individuals convicted of heinous acts—think pedophilia, rape, and violent assaults—who had somehow slipped through the cracks of Minnesota’s justice system.
The DHS made it clear: this operation wasn’t just a random raid; it was a direct response to sanctuary policies that, in their view, have tied law enforcement’s hands.
Take Ban Du La Sein, a 47-year-old from Burma, convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct with force in Nobles County, who’s had a removal order since 2014 but remained in the state.
Then there’s Por Moua, a 50-year-old from Laos, with a rap sheet including first-degree great bodily harm and sexual crimes against a child, lingering under a removal order since 2000.
Other names on the list are just as troubling—Vannaleut Keomany, a 59-year-old from Laos, convicted of two counts of rape in Ohio, and Sing Radsmikham, also from Laos, guilty of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct in Roseau County.
From Somalia, Liban Ali Osman, 43, convicted of robbery, and Tou Vang, 42, from Laos, found guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a child under 13, were also nabbed.
The list goes on with Javier Bulmaro Turrubiartes from Mexico, convicted of soliciting children for sexual conduct, and Angel Edwin Quiquintuna Capuz from Ecuador, tied to robbery and assaulting a police officer.
DHS didn’t hold back in pointing fingers, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stating, “ICE law enforcement officers have arrested more than 400 illegal aliens, including pedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs since Operation Metro Surge began.”
Let’s unpack that—while the operation’s success is undeniable, it begs the question: why were these individuals, with final removal orders dating back decades, still walking Minnesota’s streets?
McLaughlin also aimed at state leadership, saying, “Tim Walz and Jacob Frey failed to protect the people of Minnesota. They let these monsters and child predators roam free.”
She didn’t stop there, adding, “Thanks to our brave law enforcement, Minnesota is safer with these thugs off its streets.” While her words sting, they highlight a real frustration with policies that seem to prioritize ideology over public safety.
With DHS rolling out an interactive database to track criminal alien removals under the Trump administration, transparency is clearly the goal—perhaps a subtle jab at Minnesota’s leadership to step up or step aside.