Brace yourselves -- Sen. John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s Democrat senator, took an unexpected spill that sent him straight to a Pittsburgh hospital, proving even political titans aren’t immune to a rough landing, as Breitbart reports.
Early Thursday morning, while walking near his Braddock home, Fetterman experienced a ventricular fibrillation flare-up, felt light-headed, fell, and sustained minor facial injuries, leading to his hospitalization for observation and medication adjustments.
Let’s backtrack to understand the context of this health scare.
Fetterman had just returned from Washington, D.C., after joining Senate Republicans, including Sen. Dave McCormick, to vote for reopening the government following a weeks-long shutdown driven by Democrat policies.
He was a persistent critic of the closure for 40 days, voting “YES” for the 15th time to end the disruption that left military personnel, SNAP recipients, government workers, and Capitol Police unpaid.
His “country over party” mantra stands out in a polarized era, though one has to wonder if his own party sees it as betrayal or just inconvenient optics.
Back to the incident at hand -- during that early morning walk, the heart condition flare-up caused Fetterman to lose his balance, hit the ground, and scrape up his face.
His spokesperson explained, “During an early morning walk, Senator Fetterman sustained a fall near his home in Braddock. Out of an abundance of caution, he was transported to a hospital in Pittsburgh."
The spokesperson further clarified, “Upon evaluation, it was established he had a ventricular fibrillation flare-up that led to Senator Fetterman feeling light-headed, falling to the ground and hitting his face with minor injuries." While Fetterman’s quip about his face looking worse now brings a smirk, it’s a sobering reminder that health issues don’t care about political schedules.
Fetterman didn’t hesitate to thank the EMTs, doctors, and nurses for their quick response as he remains under routine observation to fine-tune his medication.
His condition is stable, which is reassuring, though it begs the question of whether the stress of fighting shutdown chaos played a role in this episode.
On that shutdown, Fetterman stated, “After 40 days as a consistent voice against shutting our government down, I voted YES for the 15th time to REOPEN." It’s a commendable stance, even if it’s a subtle dig at his party’s refusal to budge -- kudos for not caving to progressive agendas.
Amid this health hiccup, Fetterman has been hitting the media circuit to promote his forthcoming book, Unfettered, which covers his Washington journey and recovery from clinical depression after a 2022 stroke.
Sharing such personal struggles takes guts, though one might question if the timing of this vulnerability is purely coincidental or part of a broader narrative strategy.
Regardless, wishing him a speedy recovery on both the physical and mental fronts seems only fair, especially after standing up for what he believes in against the tide of party politics.
Hold onto your hats, folks -- President Trump has just placed Paul Ingrassia, a figure recently mired in controversy, into a significant legal position at the General Services Administration (GSA), as The Hill reports.
Just weeks after withdrawing from a contentious nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel due to unearthed derogatory texts, Ingrassia has been tapped as deputy general counsel at the GSA. This agency manages federal property and government contracts.
Let’s rewind to understand the timeline. Months ago, Trump nominated Ingrassia to head the Office of Special Counsel, a role overseeing federal employee protections.
Then the storm broke when Politico revealed text messages attributed to Ingrassia that raised serious concerns. In one exchange, he reportedly suggested Martin Luther King Jr. Day deserved harsh criticism.
In another message, when challenged by Republican peers, he admitted to having a questionable “streak” in his thinking. These revelations didn’t just ruffle feathers -- they sparked a bipartisan backlash.
Senate Republicans on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee refused to support his nomination. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) bluntly stated Ingrassia was “not going to pass.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also weighed in, calling the texts “foul and disqualifying.” He questioned how such a candidate could pass any vetting process.
Facing this wall of opposition, Ingrassia eventually pulled his name from consideration for the Office of Special Counsel. He admitted on Truth Social he did “not have enough Republican votes at this time.”
One might have thought that was the end, but President Trump had other ideas. Less than a month later, on a Wednesday, Trump offered Ingrassia a new role as deputy general counsel at the GSA, confirmed by Ingrassia in an email obtained by Politico.
The GSA seems optimistic about this selection. A spokesperson told news outlets they look “forward to having Paul Ingrassia’s legal talents help advance the GSA mission and the President’s priorities.”
The White House is also standing firm. A senior official stated on Thursday, “Paul Ingrassia is a very helpful addition to GSA and will successfully execute President Trump’s America First policies.”
Now, let’s be fair: everyone deserves a chance at redemption. Perhaps Ingrassia can turn the page in this new role, though the optics of this quick pivot are hard to ignore.
Critics will likely argue this move shows disregard for the bipartisan concerns raised earlier. If both sides of the aisle found his past remarks troubling, shouldn’t that influence future appointments?
Supporters of Trump’s agenda might counter that this reflects a refusal to bow to the progressive push for cancellation over every misstep. There’s an argument that past errors shouldn’t forever bar someone from public service if they’ve acknowledged them.
Still, the GSA isn’t a minor player; it’s central to federal operations like property and procurement. Entrusting a legal role to someone with Ingrassia’s history raises valid questions about judgment—both his and the administration’s.
In a heartbreaking turn of events, a 32-year-old Chinese migrant met a grim fate while in ICE custody, raising urgent questions about the treatment of those detained by the federal government.
The story of Chaofeng Ge, found dead in a Pennsylvania detention center, has ignited a firestorm of concern over facility conditions and government transparency, as his family battles for answers through a lawsuit against ICE and Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security, as the Daily Mail reports.
Ge, who had entered the U.S. without authorization, was first intercepted by Border Patrol agents near Tecate, California, back in November 2023, charged with inadmissibility for lacking proper entry documentation.
By January 2024, Ge faced another arrest in Lower Paxton Township, Pennsylvania, accused of unauthorized access to someone else’s device, a charge to which he later pleaded guilty.
On July 31, 2024, he received a sentence of six to twelve months, with credit for time served, but his story took a darker turn just days later.
Tragically, on Aug. 5, 2024, Ge was discovered hanging in a shower stall at Moshannon Valley Processing Center at 5:20 a.m., with staff unable to revive him despite efforts ending 40 minutes later.
Official complaints paint a chilling picture: Ge was found with his hands and legs tied behind his back, a detail that fuels suspicion about how such a death could occur under supervision.
His family calls the circumstances mysterious, pointing to alleged isolation due to language barriers -- Ge spoke Mandarin, but staff reportedly made no effort to communicate or provide mental health support.
While some might scream “systemic failure” in a rush to push a progressive narrative, one must ask why basic decency couldn’t bridge a language gap in a taxpayer-funded facility.
Yanfeng Ge, Chaofeng’s brother, has taken legal action, suing ICE and DHS for stonewalling requests for records about the death, despite a Freedom of Information request filed on Sept. 9, 2024.
Yanfeng’s frustration is raw as he stated, “There is still so much left unknown about the circumstances of his death.”
That’s a fair grievance -- when a life ends in custody, shouldn’t the government prioritize clarity over bureaucratic dodging?
ICE Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin noted that “all in-custody deaths are tragic, taken seriously, and are thoroughly investigated by law enforcement,” but where’s the tangible follow-through for the Ge family?
No outreach from GEO Group, the private operator of the detention center, and no records released yet -- hard not to see this as a sidestep of accountability rather than a commitment to transparency.
While oversight is crucial, especially in facilities holding unauthorized migrants, this case begs the question: if the system can’t protect or even explain a death in custody, what’s the point of all the tough-on-borders rhetoric?
Brace yourselves, folks -- President Donald Trump’s Department of War has just unleashed a bold new mission to purge drug traffickers from our corner of the world.
Under the banner of Operation Southern Spear, the administration is ramping up military efforts to shield the U.S. from deadly narcotics by targeting so-called narco-terrorists across the Western Hemisphere, though not without stirring a hornet’s nest of criticism from both domestic opponents and foreign leaders, as the Daily Caller reports.
Let’s rewind to late October, when the Pentagon green-lit the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group to Latin America. That massive naval muscle arrived in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility just two days before the operation’s big reveal. For those not in the know, SOUTHCOM, headquartered in Miami, oversees military actions across the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.
On Oct. 10, SOUTHCOM dropped a press release announcing the formation of Joint Task Force Southern Spear, a unit designed to coordinate and boost counter-narcotics efforts across the region. This task force, reporting straight to SOUTHCOM, aims for a multinational, whole-of-government strategy to dismantle criminal networks exploiting shared borders and seas.
Fast forward to a recent Thursday evening, when the Department of War officially launched Operation Southern Spear. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth took to X to proclaim the mission’s intent, stating it seeks to remove “narco-terrorists from our Hemisphere” and secure “our Homeland from the drugs that are killing our people." While the goal resonates with many tired of drug-fueled devastation, one wonders if the heavy-handed approach risks more than it resolves.
Hegseth didn’t stop there, adding, “President Trump ordered action -- and the Department of War is delivering." That’s a clear signal this administration isn’t messing around, but deploying aircraft carriers and strike groups to “America’s neighborhood” might be less a friendly visit and more a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Action has already heated up, with recent strikes on suspected narco boats off Venezuela’s coast setting the stage for this operation. Just days before the announcement, on a Monday, U.S. forces executed their 20th lethal attack on alleged drug trafficking vessels, according to multiple reports citing unnamed Pentagon sources. That’s a lot of firepower for a problem many argue needs more than just military might.
Domestic pushback isn’t hard to find either. Earlier this month, on Nov. 6, the U.S. Senate shot down a War Powers Resolution proposed by Sens. Tim Kaine and Rand Paul that would have forced Trump to seek congressional approval for these Caribbean strikes. Falling nine votes short of breaking a filibuster, the failed measure shows even some conservatives aren’t sold on unchecked executive muscle.
Across the border, Latin American leaders are sounding alarms too. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, leading a nation widely known as the top cocaine producer, publicly cautioned Trump against ongoing attacks on cartel boats. His cryptic warning -- “don’t attack the condor” -- and follow-up that continued strikes would awaken “the American people’s jaguar” suggest deeper unrest if the U.S. persists.
Colombia’s unease isn’t isolated, as the operation’s aggressive posture rubs many in the region the wrong way. When your neighbor starts swinging a bat in the backyard, it’s hard not to flinch, even if the target is a shared nuisance. The question looms: will this mission unite or divide the hemisphere?
Adding fuel to the fire, Trump revealed last month that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro tried to barter a stake in Venezuela’s oil projects to halt U.S. military strikes on suspected narcotics boats. Trump flat-out rejected the offer, signaling no deal will deter this crackdown. It’s a firm stance, but one that might escalate tensions with a regime already on edge.
SOUTHCOM’s own words from its Oct. 10 release underscore the mission’s scope, noting the Joint Task Force’s creation reflects a “commitment to a whole-of-government, multinational approach to defeat and dismantle criminal networks." That sounds noble on paper, but coordinating across nations with conflicting interests is like herding cats -- good luck with that.
Operation Southern Spear, led by Joint Task Force Southern Spear under SOUTHCOM’s watchful eye, clearly aims to disrupt the flow of deadly drugs into the U.S. But at what cost? Military solutions to systemic issues like addiction and trafficking often hit hard but miss the root.
For many Americans weary of progressive policies that seem to coddle rather than confront crime, Trump’s decisive action might feel like a breath of fresh air. Yet, even conservatives must ask if this show of force risks alienating allies or entangling the U.S. in unintended conflicts. Balance, not bravado, might be the smarter play.
As this operation unfolds, the Western Hemisphere watches with bated breath. Will Trump’s war on narco-terrorists fortify “America’s neighborhood,” or will it spark a backlash too big to contain? Only time will tell, but one thing’s certain -- this isn’t a quiet cleanup operation.
Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden has confirmed that President Donald Trump's administration will deploy U.S. Customs and Border Protection to Charlotte, North Carolina, the Washington Times reported. McFadden was told by two officials that federal immigration enforcement would show up in North Carolina's largest city on Saturday.
Trump has already sent the National Guard and other federal agents into cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. This happened in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., after the Democrat-majority governments decided to flout federal immigration law.
Now it appears that Charlotte, which is also a Democratic-run metropolis, will become the latest to receive such treatment, though the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin would not confirm that fact when asked. "Every day, DHS enforces the laws of the nation across the country," she said Thursday.
We do not discuss future or potential operations," McLaughlin added. However, local officials are now bracing for impact as federal agents make their way to the southern city that has a population of 150,000 foreign-born people.
Trump has cited the killing of Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska as evidence that the crime problem is out of control in the city and needs to be addressed at the federal level. The 23-year-old woman was allegedly stabbed to death with a pocket knife on a Lynx Blue Line light rail in August by Decarlos Brown Jr., Fox News reported.
Brown now faces the death penalty after the man with a robust criminal record was allowed to roam the streets of the city to allegedly commit the random attack on the unsuspecting victim. This horrific attack never should have happened except that law enforcement is severely lacking.
Now, Trump has decided to use his power to clean up the illegal immigration problem, and that has outraged many in the city. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has already claimed that its hands are tied as it "has no authority to enforce federal immigration laws," but others are objecting to Trump's plans to send agents who do have that power.
Rather than banding together to eliminate the crime problem, faith leaders, activists, and officials are warning illegal immigrants of what's coming. They have taken to sharing information that could help them evade law enforcement, including a conference call organized by CharlotteEast that drew 500 participants on Wednesday.
The organization's executive director Gerg Asciutto told residents that they should network with each other and organizations that will help them through the crackdown. "The purpose of this call was to create a mutual aid network," City Councilmember-Elect JD Mazuera Arias said.
There is already a sense of foreboding and hysteria about supposed plainclothes agents infiltrating. Pro-illegal immigration groups, such as Indivisible Charlotte and the Carolina Migrant Network, are sharing tips on spotting federal agents and will teach volunteers about their rights during these interactions.
"They’re not always wearing vests that say ‘ICE,'" Indivisible Charlotte spokesman Tony Siracusa warned. He also said that residents are "not freaking out, but definitely concerned" about what's to come for the city.
Meanwhile, groups are also considering whether to plan potential "pop-up protests," but are concerned about agitators being arrested. Of course, opposition to immigration enforcement comes with the usual narrative about who will be targeted and what will happen if illegal immigrants are arrested.
Daniela Andrade, communications director at the Carolina Migrant Network, said that a local Hispanic heritage festival was canceled for fears of targeting and that others are going into hiding. "It’s the concern of family separation, of being removed from a community where many people have lived here for years," Andrade said.
Nobody wants to see people suffer or families separated, but these illegal immigration crackdowns are meant to remove criminals from city streets. While some individuals who enter the U.S. without proper documentation may be hard-working, they are also lawbreakers who have jumped the line ahead of others who followed the rules. That's not only wrong, it's also criminal.
New York City's new Democratic Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said he "will reach out" to President Donald Trump to foster cooperation, Breitbart reported. The 34-year-old expressed his intention to quit playing politics and do what's best for the city, which is a refreshing change from the way the rest of his party has handled the GOP president.
Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, handily won the race to become the mayor of the Big Apple. He beat out former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent after Mamdani crushed him in the Democratic primary, and the GOP choice, Curtis Slewa.
Now that the 34-year-old is ready to get down to business, he sat down with NBC New York’s Melissa Russo and said he would take a different approach with Trump than others in his party. While the rest of the Democratic Party is fighting him tooth and nail, Mamdani reversed course and said he would be the one to reach out first.
Flanked by First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan in the interview, Mamdani promised a new approach and stated that he "will be proactive" when it comes to speaking with Trump to prevent his immigration crackdown in the city. Mamdani has spoken out about Trump's practice of sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or the National Guard into America's cities, and he believes he can dissuade Trump with his goodwill.
"I will be proactive in the work that I do, and I think that is because the responsibility I hold to 8.5 million people being their mayor," Mamdani told Russo. "It is important that you are open to working with anyone, no matter what disagreements you may have," he added. This is the kind of talk about Trump that sends Democrats into a tailspin, but Mamdani seems to be wiser.
"And, I’ve said this when it pertains to President Trump, that President Trump wants to speak about lowering the cost of living or delivering cheaper groceries like he ran on, I’m there to have that conversation. The distinction will be that previous administrations have looked to have that conversation to the benefit of themselves, in the expense of the people that we look to serve," Mamdani clarified.
Russo asked Mamdani if he would be the one to pick up the phone first, and Mamdani said he would "be reaching out to the White House" before he takes office. "This is a relationship that will be critical to the success of this city," Mamdani noted.
When the host asked what that call would entail, Mamdani said that he would tell Trump he is "here to work for the benefit of everyone that calls" New York City their place of residence. Mamdani also said he will tell Trump he's ready to cooperate with him "wherever there is a possibility for working together towards that end."
This spirit of cooperation with Trump is new for Mamdani, who is singing a different tune than he was immediately following his election to office. During his victory speech, Mamdani called out Trump as a "despot" and urged him to "turn the volume up" to hear his defiant rhetoric, the UK Guardian reported.
The president cited that speech during an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, and noted that Mamdani got off to a "bad start" with that message. "It was a very angry speech, certainly angry toward me,” Trump told the host.
"I think he should be very nice to me. You know, I’m the one that sort of has to approve a lot of things coming for him. So, he’s off to a bad start," Trump noted. Previously, Mamdani had said the president was "waging war on the First Amendment" and trampling on "constitutional rights" by pursuing illegal immigrants.
Trump told New Yorkers that the choice was now "between communism and common sense" after Mamdani, who proposed city-run grocery stores and open borders, was elected. The president has since vowed that the country is "not going communist in any way, shape or form" as long as he's in the White House.
Mamdani seems to understand what he's up against with Trump and is hopefully ready to back off from his attacks against the president. Meanwhile, Trump does not take kindly to Democrats who allow their cities to be overrun with unvetted illegal immigrants, and the two may clash over that issue, even if Mamdani is more conciliatory than others in his party.
The Trump administration is moving to rescind the Biden-era drilling ban on 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska's Arctic region.
During a press release on Thursday, the administration announced that it would issue a final rule on Friday to rescind the ban on drilling in the area.
The rule is expected to be published in the National Register on Friday.
The petroleum reserve is a 23-million-acre property that was set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923 to serve as an emergency supply for the Navy.
However, the land has not been fully developed for drilling because of environmental reasons, as Democrat presidents have blocked it.
Biden's reason for blocking drilling there was to protect the environment, but Trump touted help for the local economy and improving national security by producing more of our own energy.
“By rescinding the 2024 rule, we are following the direction set by President Trump to unlock Alaska’s energy potential, create jobs for North Slope communities and strengthen American energy security,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a written statement.
The proposal to rescind the order happened earlier this year; Friday's action just makes the proposal permanent.
Harvard Law School estimated that the National Petroleum Reserve could produce about 590 million barrels of oil over 30 years.
It certainly wouldn't provide all of U.S. energy usage, which is currently about 20 million barrels a day.
It is a lot of oil, though, and it helps meet Trump's goal of increasing our energy independence.
As of 2023, the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, but we do import some of our oil because it is a different type than we can produce ourselves.
In addition, energy usage is expected to increase to support the adoption of AI in various areas of society.
This will include oil to power electric plants and power the grid for the foreseeable future, and Trump is being realistic about these needs.
Is Malia Obama squandering her golden ticket in Hollywood? The daughter of former President Barack Obama, once hailed as a rising star in screenwriting, now faces whispers of concern from friends over her apparent preference for the glitzy lifestyle over the grit of the industry.
Malia started strong with a notable role in the writing team for Donald Glover's "Swarm" in 2023, but her career seems to have hit a wall since then. No significant projects have emerged, and worries about her dedication are growing.
Back in her early days, Malia dove into Hollywood with a promising start. Her involvement in "Swarm" showcased potential that many believed would propel her forward. Yet, the momentum appears to have fizzled out.
Fast forward to recent reports, and the narrative has shifted. Sources speaking to Radar Online in October 2025 have expressed unease about Malia's focus, pointing to a lack of maturity and commitment.
"The problem is how much of her life she still devotes to partying and socializing, when now is the time, she should be buckling down and showing people what she's really capable of," a source told Radar Online. Let's be frank: Hollywood isn't a playground, and talent alone doesn't cut it without the hustle.
With her family's high-profile status, Malia has had doors opened that most young writers can only dream of. Instead of seizing these opportunities, she's reportedly caught up in the allure of Tinseltown's social scene.
Another insider noted: "She loves living and working in Hollywood, but it's the lifestyle she's become enamored with, not the grind and the inevitable rejection that comes with a serious writing career," as shared with Radar Online. If true, this is a wake-up call—glamour fades, but a solid portfolio endures.
Hollywood's environment itself might be the culprit, seducing Malia with its endless parties and social whirl. Friends worry she's neglecting the persistence needed to thrive in a cutthroat industry.
Her background offers a unique edge, with more experience than most her age, thanks to her family's influence. But advantage means nothing without effort, and sources suggest she's letting her chances slip.
Malia's history of enjoying the party scene isn't new. Dating back to her high school and college years, she's had a reputation for embracing the social side of life.
Michelle Obama herself has spoken about the challenges of managing her daughters' teenage antics. It was no easy task keeping their youthful indiscretions out of the tabloids while under the White House spotlight.
At the time, such behavior was chalked up to typical teenage rebellion. The expectation was that maturity would follow, but sources now question whether Malia has truly moved past that phase.
Growing up as the daughter of a president meant every misstep carried extra weight. The stakes were sky-high for Malia and her sister Sasha.
Every weekend posed a potential PR headache for their parents. Now, as an adult, Malia faces a different kind of scrutiny.
Friends and industry watchers alike wonder if she'll pivot back to her craft or continue down a path of missed opportunities. It's a crossroads moment, and the clock is ticking for her to prove her mettle in Hollywood.
A Reagan-appointed judge just walked away from a lifetime gig in protest of President Donald Trump’s approach to the justice system.
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, a senior federal judge in Massachusetts, resigned last week after nearly four decades on the bench, citing Trump’s alleged misuse of the legal system as a partisan tool.
Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, Wolf, now 78, has spent over 50 years serving in the Department of Justice and as a federal judge, building a reputation for fairness and dedication.
His decision to step down wasn’t a quiet retirement—it’s a loud statement against what he sees as Trump’s dangerous meddling in judicial matters.
Wolf didn’t mince words, accusing the president of targeting political opponents while shielding allies and donors from scrutiny, a charge that strikes at the heart of impartial justice.
“President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment,” Wolf wrote in The Atlantic, blasting what he calls an “assault on the rule of law.”
Well, that’s quite the accusation, but let’s unpack it—while conservatives may cheer Trump’s tough-on-crime stance, bending the Department of Justice to settle personal scores isn’t exactly the “law and order” we signed up for.
Wolf also took issue with Trump’s social media calls to prosecute figures like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, arguing such actions ignore the principle of evidence-based indictments.
He pointed out that even failed prosecutions can ruin lives, a sobering reminder that justice shouldn’t be a political weapon, no matter who’s wielding it.
Beyond specific cases, Wolf criticized executive orders he deems unlawful, Trump’s threats to impeach judges who rule against him, and alleged corruption within the president’s inner circle.
He warned that attacks on the judiciary have real consequences, including threats against judges, a trend that should alarm anyone who values an independent court system.
While some might see Trump’s judicial critiques as holding activist judges accountable, Wolf’s concern about escalating hostility toward the bench isn’t baseless—courts aren’t supposed to be battlegrounds.
By resigning, Wolf said he’s freeing himself from the constraints on judges’ public speech, aiming to advocate for the rule of law and support litigation against perceived threats to democracy.
“I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy,” Wolf declared, signaling he’s not done fighting.
Sure, it’s noble to stand up for principle, but one has to wonder if this move risks turning a judicial career into a partisan crusade—still, credit to Wolf for putting his money where his mouth is, even if conservatives might question his timing and target.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has unleashed a pointed critique of Senate Democrats for their role in ending a grueling 43-day government shutdown without securing key healthcare provisions.
The firebrand congresswoman didn’t mince words on Wednesday, holding not just Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) but a broader swath of Senate Democrats accountable for a deal that left Affordable Care Act tax credits on the cutting room floor.
Let’s rewind to how this unfolded: the shutdown, a 43-day slog, finally ended after a bipartisan agreement brokered by what Ocasio-Cortez called “eight Democrats who coordinated” with Republicans, according to Politico.
While the deal reopened the government, it conspicuously failed to extend those critical healthcare subsidies—a miss that has conservatives nodding in agreement with Ocasio-Cortez’s frustration, albeit for different reasons.
After all, when government overreach balloons costs for everyday Americans, shouldn’t the priority be fiscal restraint over piling on more subsidies?
Schumer, for his part, didn’t personally back or vote for this agreement, but critics argue he failed to keep his caucus in line or block the deal from moving forward.
Ocasio-Cortez made it clear she’s not just pointing fingers at one man, stating, “This problem is much bigger than Leader Schumer."
That’s a rare moment of clarity—perhaps the progressive agenda’s obsession with centralized solutions is starting to crack under the weight of its own contradictions.
She also took the Senate to task for dropping the ball on healthcare, saying, “We had a responsibility to deliver on healthcare subsidies, and the Senate failed to do that.”
Her dissatisfaction with the outcome was palpable when asked about confidence in Schumer’s leadership, to which she replied she “certainly disagreed with what just happened.”
Conservatives might smirk here—when even the left’s rising stars question their own leaders, isn’t it a sign the Democrat machine is running on fumes?
Adding fuel to the fire, at least five House Democrats have openly called for Schumer to step down as Senate leader, though no senators have echoed that sentiment yet.
Whispers of a potential primary challenge against Schumer in 2028 have bubbled up, with some House Democrats quietly backing Ocasio-Cortez for such a run, though she’s stayed mum on her plans.
This isn’t the first time she’s clashed with Schumer—earlier this year, she criticized him for supporting Republican efforts to keep the government open, showing a pattern of discord.
For now, the congresswoman’s focus seems to be on holding the Senate accountable, and while her progressive priorities may not align with conservative values, her call for responsibility in government dealings strikes a chord worth considering.