Is a presidential library just a fancy bookshelf if the funds aren’t there? Former President Joe Biden is finding out the hard way, as his efforts to build a lasting legacy in Delaware are hitting a financial wall, according to a recent New York Times report.
The crux of the story is that Biden has managed to secure only a tiny portion of the money needed for his envisioned presidential library, facing stagnant donations and internal debates about merging with existing institutions, the New York Post reported.
Let’s start at the beginning: Biden’s library foundation hasn’t seen a single new donation in 2024, relying instead on a $4 million surplus from his 2021 inauguration.
Fast forward to 2025, and the foundation remains tight-lipped about current totals, admitting only that Biden is just now kicking off active fundraising efforts.
Even their projections are grim—they’ve told the IRS they expect to raise a mere $11.3 million by the end of 2027, a far cry from the $200 million goal set by aides.
Compare that to Barack Obama’s Chicago presidential center, which has already amassed a staggering $1.5 billion, or Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to raise over $950 million for his Miami library before leaving office.
Here’s where it gets sticky: some of Biden’s most steadfast supporters haven’t even been approached to contribute, while other Democratic donors are openly uninterested, either distracted by opposition to Trump or disillusioned with Biden’s tenure.
“So far, some of Mr. Biden’s most loyal contributors said they had not been contacted by anyone about giving to the library,” The New York Times reported. Talk about a cold shoulder—how do you build a legacy when your own base hasn’t gotten the memo?
Then there’s John Morgan, a prominent Democratic donor, who didn’t mince words: “The Biden staff, they ruined any type of good library for him. He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile,” he told The Times. Ouch—that’s not just a critique; it’s a funeral dirge for fundraising hopes.
With funds drying up, there’s talk of merging Biden’s library with existing institutions at the University of Delaware, potentially tapping into millions already earmarked for “Biden Hall.”
Right now, these are separate endeavors competing for the same donor pool, but many loyalists hope that combining them could streamline costs and salvage the project.
Neither the university nor the library foundation is commenting on a potential merger, leaving the idea dangling like a fiscal lifeline nobody wants to grab.
Biden himself has stayed vague, saying only that he wants the library in his home state of Delaware and prefers a smaller, less costly setup than Obama’s sprawling center.
The foundation claims delays stem from “intensive research,” including tours of other presidential libraries, but with a $200 million target looking like a pipe dream, one wonders if they’re just stalling for time.
Ultimately, Biden’s library saga feels like a metaphor for broader challenges—good intentions bogged down by poor outreach and a donor class that’s moved on. While a modest Delaware tribute could still emerge, the contrast with other presidents’ fundraising juggernauts is stark, raising questions about how history will remember this chapter.
President Donald Trump just notched a major diplomatic victory that might keep Southeast Asia from descending into turmoil.
After a brutal week of border violence between Thailand and Cambodia, Trump revealed on Friday that both nations have committed to stopping all gunfire, reinstating a peace deal he facilitated earlier this year with Malaysia’s help, Breitbart reported.
The conflict kicked off in November when a landmine explosion wounded Thai soldiers on border patrol, setting off a chain of blame and counter-blame between the two sides.
Thailand accused Cambodia of planting the deadly device, though Cambodia denied any involvement, and Trump later suggested the incident was unintentional.
That didn’t stop Thailand from launching punishing airstrikes on Cambodian targets, claiming they were safeguarding their future by diminishing their neighbor’s military power.
Cambodia shot back with accusations of Thai aggression, deploying more forces to the border while thousands of civilians on both sides abandoned their homes to escape the violence.
By last Sunday, the situation worsened as both countries traded accusations over small arms and mortar attacks across the border.
On Thursday night, heavy gunfire and shelling broke out, while Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul took the dramatic step of dissolving parliament, blaming the border crisis amid mounting domestic challenges.
Anutin’s rivals in the People’s Party scoffed at his reasoning, charging his government with evading responsibility and taunting him online with, “See you at the polling station.”
Amid the spiraling conflict, Anutin appealed to Trump for assistance, maintaining that Thailand was merely responding to provocation and demanding Cambodia withdraw troops and clear landmines as a peace prerequisite.
Trump, after discussions with leaders from both nations, called the talks constructive, zeroing in on halting what he termed a regrettable resurgence of their age-old feud.
“They have agreed to CEASE all shooting effective this evening, and go back to the original Peace Accord made with me, and them, with the help of the Great Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim,” Trump announced on Truth Social, heralding a path back to calm.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim also stepped up, advocating for restraint and dialogue as ASEAN chair, with a special meeting planned to further ease tensions.
Trump underscored the role of American economic influence in pushing for peace, noting both nations’ eagerness for stability and sustained trade with the U.S.—a reminder that shared prosperity often trumps ideological grandstanding.
While the ceasefire offers hope, the fragile balance along the border serves as a stark warning that lasting peace requires more than words—it demands trust, something in short supply after weeks of bloodshed.
Hold onto your hats, folks—former FBI agent and whistleblower Steve Friend has been booted from the bureau once more for crossing a line with threatening comments about Director Kash Patel.
This saga, steeped in controversy, centers on Friend’s recent ouster after a podcast outburst, his history of clashing with FBI brass over the January 6 Capitol attack probe, and a swift fallout with even his former allies.
Let’s rewind to the start: Friend first made waves by alleging that ex-FBI Director Chris Wray unjustly sidelined him for spotlighting flaws in the investigation of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, which saw around 1,600 defendants prosecuted.
Suspended in August 2022 and resigning by February 2023, Friend’s return to the FBI payroll in October 2025 was short-lived.
He hadn’t even cleared a background check or started duties at the Jacksonville field office before trouble brewed again.
Then came the spark—during an appearance on The Kyle Seraphin Show podcast, hosted by ex-FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, Friend peddled a conspiracy theory about Patel falsely arresting a suspect tied to the D.C. pipe bombing as a cover-up.
Worse, he veered into dangerous territory with veiled threats about “God’s wrath” aimed at someone in “executive leadership,” a clear jab at Patel with a reference to the Hindu god Vishnu.
“You better pray to Gaia or Vishnu or whatever your maker is, that real Steve Friend is never in a position to be an instrument of God’s wrath, because I will be merciful: I won’t give you a trial and a hanging,” Friend declared on the podcast.
“I’ll allow you to breathe every breath that your body will have for the rest of its natural life inside of a box, and then when it ultimately fades to black, that’s when real wrath begins,” he continued. Talk about a verbal grenade—those words didn’t just raise eyebrows; they triggered alarms at FBI headquarters.
A video snippet of this tirade, shared on X by retired FBI supervisory special agent John Nantz, caught the bureau’s attention, prompting a mandatory in-person meeting at the Jacksonville office soon after.
Friend’s remarks weren’t just reckless—they violated FBI rules against unauthorized public commentary on bureau matters, a policy he’d been warned about after rejoining the payroll.
His own legal team at Empower Oversight dropped him as a client on the day of his podcast outburst, noting he risked “further adverse administrative action by the FBI.”
This isn’t Friend’s first misstep; he previously broke protocol by speaking to outlets like the Russian network RT while still technically on the FBI roster during his suspension.
Here’s the irony: before taking the helm at the FBI, Patel was a financial and moral supporter of Friend through his foundation, backing claims of wrongful treatment under the prior administration.
Yet, upon reviewing personnel files as director, Patel reportedly had reservations about the reasons behind Friend’s initial suspension, though the FBI stays silent on specifics. It’s a bitter twist—yesterday’s ally becoming today’s target, and conservatives must wonder if Friend’s fervor outpaced his judgment in this messy fallout.
Well, folks, it seems the long arm of federal enforcement has reached into the personal life of Rep. Ilhan Omar, with the Minnesota Democrat claiming ICE agents pulled over her son for no apparent reason other than a quick glance at his heritage.
On a recent broadcast, Omar shared a troubling account of her 20-year-old son’s encounter with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, an incident unfolding against a backdrop of escalating tensions over immigration policies in Minnesota, the Daily Caller reported.
This story kicked off on a Saturday evening when Omar’s son, after a mundane stop at Target, found himself detained by ICE agents.
Thankfully, the young man had his passport handy—a habit Omar says he maintains—and was released once he proved his citizenship.
But let’s not gloss over the irony here: a U.S.-born citizen needing to carry travel documents just to shop without hassle in his own country speaks volumes about the current climate.
Omar didn’t mince words on “WCCO Sunday Morning,” hosted by Esme Murphy, where she voiced her unease about the incident and the broader ICE operations in Minneapolis.
“They are racially profiling. They are looking for young men who look Somali that they think are undocumented,” Omar stated, pointing a finger at what she sees as targeted enforcement (Ilhan Omar, “WCCO Sunday Morning”).
Now, while it’s critical to secure our borders, if ICE is indeed zeroing in on individuals based solely on appearance, that’s a slippery slope away from the principles of equal justice we hold dear.
Omar also recounted how her son often visits the Cedar Riverside area for Friday prayers and meals with friends, a neighborhood recently spotlighted for ICE presence.
Just the previous Friday, videos from Rep. Mahmoud Noor and others showed agents in that very area, prompting Omar to repeatedly check on her son’s safety.
“I kept calling my son to see if he was okay, if he had any run-ins with them and he wasn’t answering,” she shared, highlighting a mother’s worry amid these operations (Ilhan Omar, “WCCO Sunday Morning”).
It’s hard not to empathize with a parent’s concern, though one wonders if the progressive push for open-border policies has fueled the very crackdowns now causing such personal distress.
Adding fuel to the fire, Minnesota’s Somali community is under intense scrutiny following a massive welfare fraud scandal, with accusations flying that Gov. Tim Walz ignored whistleblowers, leading to a reported $1 billion in fraudulent activity.
With ICE confirming operations in the Twin Cities since early December, targeting hundreds, the atmosphere is understandably charged—though the agency stayed silent when pressed for comment by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
While border security remains a non-negotiable for many conservatives, stories like Omar’s son’s encounter remind us that enforcement must be precise, not a broad brush painting entire communities as suspect. Let’s hope ICE sharpens its focus on actual threats, not just optics, lest we alienate the very citizens we aim to protect.
Another political storm is brewing in Washington as a Democratic lawmaker takes aim at a key Trump administration figure with serious accusations.
On December 11, 2025, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill) fired off a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, demanding a probe into Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over allegations of misconduct that could lead to impeachment or resignation.
This latest clash centers on Ramirez’s claims that Noem has mishandled her role at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), engaging in what the congresswoman calls lawbreaking, misuse of taxpayer money, and ethical lapses.
Ramirez didn’t mince words during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, directly confronting Noem with a laundry list of grievances and a stark warning about her future.
“Your options are limited. Either you’re going to resign, Trump’s going to fire you, or you will be impeached,” Ramirez declared, as reported from the hearing.
Well, that’s quite the ultimatum, but let’s unpack this—accusations of this magnitude demand hard evidence, and while Ramirez is passionate, conservatives might argue she’s playing a partisan card against a secretary pushing a tough, results-driven border policy.
Among the specific charges, Ramirez points to a $200 million DHS public relations campaign, alleging it involved vendors cozy with Noem and top department brass—a claim that, if true, raises eyebrows about stewardship of public funds.
She also criticized Noem’s approval of a partisan video aired in airports during a government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, arguing it breaches the Hatch Act’s rules on political activity by federal officials.
Then there’s the $172 million purchase of two Gulfstream jets under Noem’s watch—Ramirez seems to think this is a luxury DHS can’t justify, though one might counter that secure transport for top officials isn’t exactly a frivolous expense in today’s climate.
Ramirez further alleges Noem has downplayed serious issues like the detention of U.S. citizens by ICE and misrepresented deportation outcomes, specifically citing the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
She’s also up in arms about DHS tactics, claiming excessive force through chemical weapons in Chicago despite a federal court order barring such methods—a troubling accusation if substantiated, though context on enforcement challenges is often missing from these critiques.
On the flip side, Noem’s DHS has touted significant numbers, with 2.5 million unauthorized migrants reportedly leaving the U.S. since President Trump’s second inauguration, including 600,000 ICE deportations and nearly two million self-departures aided by tools like the CBP Home app.
President Trump, for his part, has stood firmly by Noem, praising her border leadership as “fantastic” and expressing that he’s “so happy with her."
While Ramirez pushes for accountability, it’s worth noting that impeachment moves against cabinet members, though uncommon, have spiked under this administration, with other Democrats targeting figures like HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Ramirez, a vocal critic of Trump’s immigration stance, has a history of sharp rhetoric against DHS and ICE, and her latest move might be seen by conservatives as less about oversight and more about undermining a border security agenda many Americans support.
A federal judge just threw a wrench into the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement machine with a last-minute ruling that’s got everyone talking.
In a dramatic turn of events, a U.S. District Judge stepped in to block the re-detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant whose saga of wrongful deportation and prolonged detention has turned him into a lightning rod for debates over tough immigration policies.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this tangled tale. Abrego Garcia was sent packing to El Salvador in a deportation that was later deemed wrongful, only to be hauled back to the U.S. earlier this year to face federal criminal charges.
For months, he languished in a Pennsylvania detention facility, caught in a bureaucratic quagmire that critics of the administration’s hardline stance have called a travesty.
Then, on Thursday, December 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that the government had no legal basis to keep holding him, citing the lack of a proper removal order from an immigration judge. That’s a win for due process, though some might argue it’s a bit late for a man who’s already been through the wringer.
But the plot thickened faster than a pot of stew on a cold night. Barely hours after his release, a new document from an immigration judge surfaced late Thursday, raising fears among Abrego Garcia’s legal team that deportation—or re-detention—was back on the table.
By early Friday, December 12, 2025, his attorneys were back in court, pleading for an emergency order to stop what they saw as an imminent threat to his freedom. They weren’t wrong to worry—he had a mandatory check-in at the ICE Baltimore field office that very morning, a perfect opportunity for the government to snag him again.
Judge Xinis didn’t waste time, issuing a temporary restraining order on Friday morning to bar any re-detention until a full hearing can hash out the mess. It’s a temporary shield, but one that’s got the administration’s immigration hawks grinding their teeth.
Outside the ICE office in Baltimore on Friday, Abrego Garcia emerged to cheers from over a dozen supporters, a rare moment of triumph in a long battle. He spoke through a translator, declaring, “I stand before you as a free man.” Well, free for now, but let’s not pop the champagne just yet—history suggests this story’s far from over.
He didn’t stop there, adding, “I want to tell everybody who is also suffering family separation. God is with you. This is a process. Keep fighting.” It’s a heartfelt message, no doubt, but one wonders if faith and grit can stand up to a system that seems dead-set on enforcement over empathy.
His lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, wasn’t nearly as optimistic, telling reporters, “I wish I could say that this is the end of the story. But I think we’ve all been here long enough to know that, unfortunately, the government is not going to leave well enough alone.” That’s a polite way of saying the feds aren’t likely to back off without a fight, and he’s probably right.
Sandoval-Moshenberg doubled down, stating, “They’re going to keep going, and we’re going to keep going.” It’s a standoff between a migrant’s legal team and a government policy that prioritizes strict borders over individual cases, and it’s anyone’s guess who’ll blink first.
Judge Xinis herself underscored the stakes in her order, writing, “If, as Abrego Garcia suspects, Respondents will take him into custody this morning, then his liberty will be restricted once again.” That’s a sobering reminder that for all the progressive chatter about compassion, liberty hangs by a thread in cases like this, often caught in a tug-of-war between law and policy.
The Justice Department, for its part, stayed mum on the judge’s ruling, declining to comment on Friday. Perhaps they’re regrouping for the next round, because if Abrego Garcia’s journey tells us anything, it’s that this administration doesn’t shy away from doubling down on its immigration agenda.
At the heart of it all, Abrego Garcia remains a national symbol of the Trump administration’s unyielding approach to border control—a poster child for a policy that prioritizes enforcement, sometimes at the cost of due process. Whether you see him as a victim of overreach or a test case for necessary toughness, his story isn’t going away anytime soon. So, buckle up; this legal rodeo is just getting started.
Senator Ted Cruz is stirring the pot with a legal bombshell aimed at Rep. Ilhan Omar over a long-standing and controversial claim.
This story, rooted in allegations from years past, centers on accusations that Omar married her brother to skirt immigration laws, a claim recently amplified by President Donald Trump and now dissected by Cruz for its potential legal ramifications.
Let’s rewind to 2016, when whispers first emerged from a Minnesota blog during Omar’s run for state office, suggesting she wed her sibling to secure his entry into the U.S.
Born in Somalia, Omar arrived in the U.S. in 1995 after her family received asylum, later becoming a citizen in 2000.
Her marital history includes a religious union in 2002, a legal marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, a religious divorce in 2011, and subsequent marriages—all under public scrutiny due to this persistent brother-marriage rumor.
Omar has steadfastly pushed back, calling the insinuations baseless since they first surfaced.
Fast forward to today, and Senator Cruz isn’t mincing words, outlining severe consequences if the allegations hold water.
“If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,” Cruz declared on X, pointing to federal marriage fraud laws that could mean up to five years in prison and hefty fines.
He also flagged Minnesota’s incest laws, which could slap a 10-year sentence for sibling marriage, and even hinted at tax fraud risks if joint filings were made under a questionable union.
President Trump, never one to shy away from a hot-button issue, reignited this fire at a Pennsylvania rally, doubling down on the claim with characteristic bluntness.
“She married her brother to get in. Therefore, she’s here illegally,” Trump asserted to the crowd, pushing the narrative that Omar’s presence in the U.S. hinges on deceit.
While the White House echoed this via a social media post displaying part of Omar’s alleged marriage license to Elmi, one must wonder if such unproven claims risk overshadowing substantive policy debates.
Omar’s defense remains unchanged since 2016, and a 2019 New York Times fact-check noted her legal marriage to Elmi, a British citizen, ended with a religious divorce before he returned to England.
Yet, in a political climate where immigration policy is a lightning rod, these allegations—true or not—fuel a broader conservative critique of lax enforcement and questionable loopholes.
Ultimately, this saga raises tough questions about evidence, accountability, and the fine line between personal attacks and legitimate legal inquiry, leaving us all to ponder where the truth lies in this contentious clash.
Tennessee’s Supreme Court just dropped a bombshell on the state’s redistricting drama, siding with lawmakers on a contentious 2022 map fight.
The court overturned a lower ruling against the state Senate map while affirming the constitutionality of the House map, wrapping up a long legal tussle sparked by post-Census district redraws.
This saga kicked off in February 2022 when Republican-majority lawmakers in the Senate and House rolled out new district lines after the latest U.S. Census data dropped. Critics, including three plaintiffs supported by the Tennessee Democratic Party, cried foul, alleging the House plan unnecessarily split counties. They also targeted the Senate map for violating a state constitutional rule on consecutive numbering in multi-district counties like Davidson.
By April 2022, a three-judge panel slapped an injunction on the Senate map, pointing to its nonconsecutive numbering mess in Davidson County. They gave lawmakers a tight 15-day window to fix it. But quicker than a jackrabbit, the Tennessee Supreme Court swooped in, lifting that injunction just days later.
Enter Gov. Bill Lee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett, and Elections Coordinator Mark Goins, who weren’t about to let a lower court dictate terms. They pushed back with an appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, keeping the pressure on to defend the maps. It’s no surprise Hargett cheered the final ruling, saying, “Congratulations to the Attorney General’s Office in another court victory.”
Now, let’s talk about Francie Hunt, executive director of Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood, who became a central figure in this fight. Living in Davidson County’s Senate District 17—which awkwardly stretches into Wilson County—she challenged the map in 2023 over its nonconsecutive numbering. Hunt argued this setup skewed election cycles, with three of Davidson’s senators now up during gubernatorial years instead of a balanced split.
The majority opinion, however, wasn’t buying Hunt’s case. They ruled she lacked standing since living in a misnumbered district didn’t dilute her vote’s power. Justice Sarah K. Campbell put it bluntly: “Hunt’s complaint is simply that she lives in a non-consecutively numbered Senate district, while other Tennessee voters do not.”
Campbell’s words cut to the chase, arguing that Hunt’s grievance didn’t show real harm to her voting rights. It’s a tough pill for progressive activists to swallow, but the court’s logic holds—redistricting quirks don’t automatically equal voter suppression. Still, one wonders if this sets too high a bar for challenging bad maps.
Justice Holly Kirby, in a dissenting opinion, saw it differently, insisting Hunt’s rights took a hit. She argued the 3-1 election cycle stagger in Davidson County was a concrete injury. It’s a fair point—shifting voters between districts and cycles isn’t just bureaucratic trivia; it can mess with representation.
On the House side, plaintiff Gary Wygant had standing to challenge the splitting of Gibson County into two districts. But the court upheld the lower ruling, finding no proof the legislature lacked a rational basis for the division. Wygant’s claim—that voters lost a unified voice—didn’t sway the majority.
Justice Dwight Tarwater doubled down in a separate opinion, noting Wygant couldn’t show personal harm from Gibson County’s split. It’s a classic conservative take: If the harm isn’t direct, the courts won’t play nanny. A hard line, but it keeps judicial overreach in check.
Back to Hunt’s plight—history shows Davidson County’s Senate districts were also numbered out of order after the 1990 and 2000 censuses. She’s lived there since 1999 and admits she didn’t notice the issue back then. Ignorance isn’t a legal argument, though, and the court wasn’t moved by past oversights.
The ruling isn’t a total shutdown on redistricting gripes. Campbell herself noted, “Other plaintiffs—whether voters, candidates or public officials—may be able to establish standing based on different facts in future cases.” That’s a sliver of hope for those itching to fight another day.
Let’s not pretend this ends the debate—redistricting is a political chess game, and both sides will keep strategizing. For now, Tennessee’s maps stand as drawn, a win for those who value legislative authority over judicial meddling. Still, the minority’s concerns linger like a pesky fly at a picnic.
At the end of the day, this ruling reinforces a key principle: Courts aren’t here to fix every perceived unfairness in politics. If voters want change, they’ll need to push harder at the ballot box or find plaintiffs with ironclad harm. It’s a bitter lesson for some, but a necessary guardrail against endless litigation.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Rep. Nancy Mace has turned the Charleston airport into a political battleground with behavior that’s raising eyebrows across South Carolina.
The fiery Republican, locked in a heated primary race for governor against state Attorney General Alan Wilson, has sparked outrage with profanity-laden confrontations at the airport, drawing sharp criticism and fracturing party unity, the New York Post reported.
Let’s rewind to April, when Mace clashed with TSA agents over a policy disagreement, frustrated that a family member couldn’t join her through expedited security.
After initial resistance, TSA relented and allowed her family through, but Mace later claimed the agency violated its own rules by separating her from her child during the ordeal.
Fast forward to Oct. 30, and the situation escalated into a full-blown spectacle as Mace, expecting a VIP escort for her outbound flight, unleashed a torrent of expletives when it didn’t materialize.
According to an internal Charleston Airport Authority report, obtained via public records, Mace demanded special treatment, berating officers and TSA staff in a display described as nothing short of shocking.
One officer recounted Mace snapping, “I’m sick of your s–t, I’m tired of having to wait,” while allegedly calling law enforcement “f–king idiots” and touting her status as a “f–king representative” (Charleston Airport Authority report).
Even more telling, the airport wasn’t even crowded that day, as one officer noted it was “not busy at all,” making her impatience seem all the more puzzling.
A veteran TSA officer with 23 years of experience remarked that no other dignitary or VIP had ever caused such a scene, highlighting just how unprecedented this meltdown was.
Enter Alan Wilson, Mace’s rival in the Republican primary, who didn’t mince words, accusing her of acting like a “spoiled brat” who treats cops like “servants” (Wilson interview).
Wilson doubled down, arguing that public servants deserve respect, not tantrums, and suggested Mace’s behavior reeks of entitlement when she doesn’t get her way.
While Mace has dismissed the airport’s investigative report as “falsified” on CNN, offering no proof, her actions have undeniably put her campaign on shaky ground.
Adding fuel to the fire, Mace has faced credible death threats recently, with a suspect denied bond, and she’s accused Wilson of downplaying the danger she faces as a single mother.
Meanwhile, her own team is splintering—consultant Austin McCubbin resigned, accusing her of abandoning MAGA values for a more libertarian lean, a charge that stings in a state hungry for Trump’s coveted endorsement.
Both candidates are jockeying for that golden nod from the former president, with Mace dubbing herself “Trump in high heels,” but the airport drama might just clip her wings before she gets off the ground.
Hold onto your hats, folks—another Trump-appointed U.S. attorney has stepped down in Delaware, caught in the crossfire of partisan politics and Senate traditions that seem more outdated than a flip phone.
Julianne Murray, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, resigned on Friday, citing insurmountable political roadblocks and a recent court ruling against a fellow Trump appointee as her breaking point, the Washington Examiner reported.
This saga began with Murray, a former Delaware Republican Party chairwoman, taking the helm as acting attorney, only to face a wall of opposition from the state’s Democratic senators.
Senators Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester refused to return a blue slip—a quirky Senate custom that effectively gives home-state senators veto power over federal nominees—forcing Murray into a dead end.
Without that slip, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate wouldn’t even glance at her nomination, leaving her stranded in acting status with no path forward.
Murray didn’t mince words, stating, “I naively believed that I would be judged on my performance and not politics. Unfortunately, that was not the case.” Talk about a reality check—Washington’s obsession with political games over merit continues to frustrate anyone who values results over party lines.
The final straw came after a court ruling found Alina Habba, another Trump appointee, was serving unlawfully as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey, prompting Murray to stress the importance of upholding the rule of law.
She refused to let her office become a punching bag in this partisan brawl, emphasizing her dedication to the integrity of ongoing investigations.
“Stability and protecting the integrity of our investigations is my only focus. I cannot in good conscience allow my office to become a political football,” Murray declared. If only more officials prioritized duty over drama, we might actually get somewhere.
Let’s not forget the bigger picture: the blue slip tradition, which President Trump has repeatedly urged Congress to ditch, remains a stubborn thorn in the side of conservative appointments.
While Senate Republicans, led by Chairman Chuck Grassley, cling to this relic of Senate courtesy, Democrats gleefully block nominees they deem too loyal or inexperienced, leaving Trump to rely on short-term acting roles.
It’s a classic D.C. standoff—everyone digs in, and the American people are left waiting for functional leadership while courts crack down on expired acting terms.
In her resignation statement, Murray defended her record, insisting she never bowed to political pressures, and endorsed Ben Wallace as the only person she’d trust to take her place.
She also made it clear she’s not disappearing from the fight, promising to serve the Justice Department in a different capacity.
With a defiant tone, Murray hinted at more to come, saying, “The people that think they have chased me away will soon find out that they are mistaken.” That’s the spirit—don’t let the swamp drain your resolve.