Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution on the House floor seeking to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver after she was charged with assaulting law enforcement officers, Breitbart reported. The New Jersey Democrat took part in a riot at a detention center for illegal immigrants earlier this month.
On Wednesday, Mace filed the resolution citing McIver's conduct at the detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. She shared the news in a post to X, formerly Twitter, the same day.
"BREAKING: We just filed an Official Resolution to Expel Lamonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives," Mace captioned an image of the resolution. "No one is above the law. Assault is a crime. The American people deserve better," she added.
🚨 BREAKING: We just filed an Official Resolution to Expel Lamonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives.
đź“Ł No one is above the law. Assault is a crime. The American people deserve better. pic.twitter.com/3JkOqGNkur
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 21, 2025
On Monday, the Justice Department announced charges against McIver stemming from her "assaulting, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement" during a May 9 protest at Delaney Hall. She and two other members of Congress claimed to be there in an official capacity.
President Donald Trump is cracking down on illegal immigration, so this was an opportune time to make a show of opposition to it, which they claimed was mere oversight. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was also in attendance and was arrested but had charges dropped.
McIver was involved in an altercation in which she allegedly "slammed her forearm into the body of a uniformed agent while trying to "restrain the agent by forcibly grabbing him." She also attempted to thwart the officers' ability to handcuff Baraka and allegedly "pushed an ICE officer and used her forearms to forcibly strike the agent."
Mace believes the country absolutely cannot stand for this from an elected official. "In a time when public trust in government is at a historic low, the House must act decisively," Mace announced.
"The charges are serious. And the public deserves to know that criminal conduct in the halls of Congress has consequences," Mace added.
Although this didn't directly involve the president, it was his policies that McIver and others were ultimately protesting against. The Hill reported that Trump wholeheartedly agreed with the charges against McIver and her ilk.
“Oh, give me a break. Did you see her? She was out of control," Trump said to reporters about the incident. "The days of woke are over. That woman — I have no idea who she is," Trump went on.
"That woman was out of control. She was shoving federal agents — she was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We’re going to have law and order," he added.
The president expressed exactly what the rest of America has been thinking about this incident. These people are elected officials and should be held to a higher standard, especially considering all of the caterwauling they did about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.
Based on reports of the incident, the charges against McIver are absolutely warranted, as is a public censure and expulsion from Congress, if that's what it comes to. This nonsense won't stop until they're all held accountable, and that's exactly what Mace is doing.
The Trump administration has moved to block Harvard from enrolling international students, marking a dramatic escalation in the federal government's crackdown on America's oldest university.
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said a statement from Kristi Noem, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
The move was almost immediately blocked by a federal judge after Harvard sued and pledged to keep its campus "open to the world."
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) suspended Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, blocking students on F- and J- visas from enrolling at Harvard for the 2025-2026 academic year. The revocation also forces existing students on those visas to transfer to other schools in order to stay in the United States legally.
The Department of Homeland Security cited Harvard's alleged failure to control anti-Semitism on its campus, accusing the university of refusing to satisfy a request for information about criminal conduct by foreign students.
Additionally, the government cited Harvard's "racist DEI practices," and collaborations with Chinese researchers that raised national security concerns.
House Republicans are also probing Harvard for its alleged partnerships with Chinese military researchers, as well as Harvard's role in hosting a Chinese paramilitary group involved in the alleged genocide of the Uighurs.
The Trump administration's move sent a chill through higher education, as international students typically pay full tuition, making them a key source of revenue at many colleges.
"It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments," Noem said. "Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused."
The Trump administration's move caused turmoil for international students just a few days before graduation. Harvard quickly sued, and on Friday a federal judge in Boston, Allison Burroughs, blocked the federal government.
About a quarter of Harvard's students are foreign, with many hailing from China. Harvard cites its global connections as one of its strengths. As the university wrote in its lawsuit, "Without international students, Harvard is not Harvard."
"With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission," the lawsuit states.
Harvard president Alan Garber condemned the government's action as the latest in a series of efforts to strip Harvard of its autonomy.
"We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action. It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams," Garber said in a statement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For years, the United States has been told of a critical labor shortage, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, which necessitated expanded foreign hiring. U.S. policymakers, corporations and academic institutions have promoted the narrative that India possessed a surplus of skilled talent essential to meet projected labor shortages in the United States. This claim, that America lacked sufficient STEM professionals and technical workers, served as the foundation and justification for expanding visa programs, outsourcing high-value jobs and embedding long-term foreign labor pipelines into the U.S. economy.
This narrative reshaped U.S. immigration and economic policy, positioning India as both a partner and a labor supplier. Under the banner of cooperation, American companies invested heavily in Indian operations, while visa programs such as H-1B, STEM OPT and L-1 became the backbone of a pipeline that now delivers hundreds of thousands of Indian workers into U.S. companies annually. India remains the top recipient of these work authorizations. Not only is the India government spending considerable amounts lobbying for more visas they are joined by the same companies expanding operations offshore, deepening dependence on foreign labor while reducing opportunities for Americans.
What has received far less attention is the full scope of this arrangement utilizing the U.S. visas and the documented strategy that underpins it. According to India's own national planning documents, this is not merely an outcome of globalization or educational exchange, it is a deliberate economic program designed to export surplus labor to high-wage markets like the United States.
India's youth strategy: a pipeline, not a partnership
India's government has long framed its young population not as a domestic challenge, but as a global opportunity to exploit. Through its central policy think tank, the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), Indian leadership developed a comprehensive strategy to export its workforce as a competitive asset to the world. This strategy was formalized in two key policy blueprints India's Three-Year Action Agenda (2017–2020) and the Three-Year Action Plan which identified labor mobility as a national economic priority. India projected that by 2020, it would have the world's youngest population and by 2030, the largest working-age population at 962 million. Indian policymakers described this shift as a "demographic dividend" and positioned the surplus workforce as a solution to "reduce global skill shortages," particularly in aging Western nations.
India positioned its youth population as a solution to global labor shortages, promoting it as a workforce resource for aging nations like the United States, where the average worker age is 40. With a national average age of just 29 by 2020, India declared itself the world's youngest country and sought to leverage that demographic position into global labor market influence. Indian planning documents openly describe a vision to become the "global hub for skilled workforce" a role not designed to meet internal needs, but to supply talent to foreign economies.
This demographic ambition closely parallels hiring trends in the United States, especially in the tech sector. According to a 2023 report by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, workers aged 25 to 39 now make up over 40.8% of the U.S. tech workforce, compared to 33.1% across the broader U.S. labor force. As younger workers dominate, older American professionals are being pushed out. Nearly 20% of discrimination complaints in the tech industry are now age-related, according to the EEOC, with many older Americans alleging exclusion and retaliation based on age.
India has capitalized on this shift. By using programs like H-1B, L-1, H-4 EAD and STEM OPT, India has not only supplied cheaper labor, but has strategically leveraged its youth to displace older American workers. As UC Davis professor Norm Matloff has documented, age is a central issue in the H-1B program. The majority of H-1B visa holders are under the age of 30 and employers benefit from hiring younger workers who are not only paid less, but also reduce long-term benefit and healthcare costs. Legally, this practice is enabled through the Department of Labor's four-tier wage structure, which assigns wage levels based on experience. In practice, that means younger workers often from India are slotted into lower wage tiers, creating a system that bypasses older, experienced Americans through a lawful proxy for age-based preference.
This alignment between India's demographic strategy and America's legal framework has created a pipeline where India's youngest workers are fast-tracked into high-value U.S. jobs, while older American professionals are systematically sidelined.
India's message to the global economy has remained consistent: Western countries face labor shortages and India has a surplus workforce ready to fill them. But beneath this message lies a far-reaching plan, supported by national skilling schemes, credentialing programs and government-to-government agreements. These policies are not designed to benefit American workers. They are designed to shift labor value jobs, wages and long-term opportunity away from the United States and toward India.
What began as a demographic talking point has evolved into a comprehensive labor export model. The results are playing out across America's economy today. And they are not the result of partnership. They are the product of strategy.
According to U.S. trade data, the majority of American services sold to foreign consumers are no longer being exported directly from the U.S., but are now delivered through foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational enterprises, totaling over $2.1 trillion in services in 2022 alone. That figure represents real offshoring, jobs, technologies and capital being delivered from India within the United States. Meanwhile, U.S. imports of services from foreign MNEs, many with ties to Indian outsourcing giants, totaled over $1.5 trillion, showing just how embedded foreign labor supply chains have become in America's service economy.
India's skill gap: Exporting engineers it admitted were unemployable
The strategy was further formalized under the National Skill Development Mission, launched in 2015 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi who declared his ambition to "make India the Skill Capital of the World." The mission's objectives were clear: create institutional convergence, accelerate training and fast-track overseas employment placements. One major component of this mission was overseas employment, which was established to channel millions of Indian workers into international labor markets through coordinated government and industry efforts.
The Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE) acknowledged that only 2.3% of India's workforce had received formal skill training. This figure stands in stark contrast to 52% in the United States, 68% in the United Kingdom and over 90% in South Korea. In addition to this low training penetration, the Indian government raised concerns over the quality of its education infrastructure. Even acknowledging that a significant portion of engineering graduates lacked the necessary skills to actually be employed as engineers.
The foundation of this strategy was laid in India's National Skill Development Policy which formalized the use of short-term, modular training programs to issue credentials on a mass scale. Tools such as Recognition of Prior Learning enabled individuals to receive government certifications based on informal work experience rather than formal education or rigorous testing. U.S. employers and agencies later interpreted these credentials as equivalent to legitimate degrees or skill qualifications.
Private Skill Knowledge Providers were authorized to operate with limited oversight, creating a decentralized, loosely regulated skilling ecosystem. Certifications issued through public-private training centers were bundled into portfolios marketed as academic equivalencies and served as the basis for international employment pipelines including the H-1B visa, STEM OPT and employment-based green cards.
Through these mechanisms, India engineered a labor export system that no longer relied on educational excellence, but on credential scalability. With the support of U.S. companies and minimal scrutiny from immigration authorities, these certifications became tools of economic migration into the highest-value jobs in the American economy. The NSDC and MSDE, operating with government mandate, coordinated directly with foreign employers and international partners to match Indian trainees with overseas placements.
This model reveals a critical truth often obscured by policy rhetoric: India never possessed a truly skilled workforce on a global standard. What it had and continues to have is a massive, underemployed population largely lacking formal education, technical training, or industry-ready credentials. Rather than address this deficit through structural reform, India developed a credentialing system designed to convert informal labor into exportable assets.
Indian government documents repeatedly acknowledge that large portions of the population consumed more of the country's GDP than they contributed, placing strain on national productivity. Utilizing their "demographic dividend," India repositioned their surplus labor as a global commodity. Their ambition to become the "global talent hub" was never grounded in skill excellence,it was built on repackaging unemployment as opportunity and offloading the economic burden onto the United States labor market.
America's immigration system repurposed: Visas, investments and the erosion of U.S. technology jobs
Let the following models illustrate the measurable success of India's labor export strategy. They show a clear pattern: as India steadily increased its share of U.S. employment-based visas, particularly the very visa programs its government lobbies for most aggressively, such as H-1B, L-1, H-4 EAD and STEM OPT, American industries began shifting in parallel. Beginning in 2009, India's share of these visa categories steadily grew, eventually dominating them. At the same time, U.S.-based multinational companies significantly scaled up operations in India, increased foreign direct investment and expanded offshore hiring, particularly through Indian multinational firms contracted to deliver outsourced labor services.
Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances by Visa Class and by Nationality
Changes in Host Country Employment for U.S. Multinational Enterprises,
This correlation is not coincidental. As visa approvals for Indian nationals surged, so too did the number of American jobs relocated overseas. These trends were accompanied by rising employment in India, rapid expansion of Indian outsourcing firms and increasing dependency on offshore labor models. Meanwhile, U.S. workers faced mounting job insecurity, wage stagnation and waves of layoffs, particularly in the tech and engineering sectors most impacted by these shifts.
These practices have contributed to a quiet displacement of American professionals. While framed as meeting demand, the pipeline has come to dominate sectors like IT, engineering, pharmaceuticals and consulting, fields where wage depression, age discrimination and outsourcing have grown alongside foreign labor market access. American workers find themselves navigating an employment system increasingly built around imported labor, foreign certification networks and bilateral workforce agreements that few voters or legislators have ever seen.
India's vision to become the world's "Skill Capital" is not rhetorical. It is a multi-agency operation backed by state policy, foreign investment and diplomatic engagement. Its goals are clearly stated and its implementation is ongoing. What remains to be seen is whether the United States will continue to treat this as partnership, or begin to recognize it as a strategic labor realignment with serious consequences for Americans.
From policy to profit: The results of India's engineered labor takeover
The evidence is now clear. India's labor export strategy, marketed under the guise of cooperation and global talent sharing, was never simply about filling gaps or meeting temporary needs. It was a deliberate, long-term campaign to embed Indian labor into the foundation of the U.S. workforce through policy influence, credential manipulation and immigration program domination. And now, the outcomes of that campaign are no longer theoretical, they are measurable.
India has successfully positioned itself as a global destination for job creation, not just by generating domestic employment, but by absorbing jobs that were once part of the American economy. The same multinational corporations that lobbied for more work visas, citing talent shortages, have simultaneously offshored entire departments to India, facilitated by both U.S. and Indian MNEs. These corporations built offices, training centers and R&D hubs across Indian cities while scaling back hiring at home.
India's domination of the U.S. immigration system was not the end goal. It was the vehicle. What followed was a transfer of opportunity, wage growth and middle-class economic security from the United States to India. The result is an American labor market now structurally dependent on foreign-supplied labor and an Indian economy strengthened by the very visa programs and corporate relationships that were originally promoted as mutually beneficial.
The numbers don't lie. India has not only produced more jobs for its own people, but it has done so by systematically capturing and redirecting jobs, investment and workforce opportunity once meant for Americans. This is not the result of chance, but of strategy. And unless the U.S. confronts the scope of this manipulation and reclaims control of its labor and immigration systems, the trajectory will continue, more American jobs lost, more foreign systems embedded and a generation of U.S. workers left behind.
In a recent appearance, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) shared insights into his investigative work alongside the Department of Justice in a quest for legal accountability.
During an episode of “The Alex Marlow Show” on Wednesday, James Comer discussed his investigative efforts and the critical distinction between his role and the prosecutorial function of the Department of Justice.
The Republican from Kentucky appeared on the podcast hosted by Alex Marlow, the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart. This platform, available on multiple streaming services like YouTube and Spotify, served as a medium for Comer to delineate his role in investigations. He highlighted his inability to prosecute, a power vested in the Department of Justice and legal figures like Pam Bondi.
Throughout the conversation, Comer reiterated the natural limitations inherent in his position. As a congressman, his duties center on gathering and organizing information. While he can direct investigations, the next procedural steps—such as formal charges—rest not in his hands but in those of the DOJ.
Despite these constraints, Comer expressed a readiness to cooperate with prosecutorial authorities. He underscored a shared objective of seeking justice through appropriate legal venues, emphasizing the importance of collaboration in achieving comprehensive legal processes.
Comer’s dialogue veered into hypothetical scenarios where prosecutorial power at his disposal might have swiftly led to different outcomes. These reflections underline the looming challenges and frustrations that investigators face when legal jurisdictions split responsibilities.
During the discussion, James Comer explicitly mentioned Pam Bondi's and the Department of Justice's roles as critical allies in the path to prosecution. Bondi and the DOJ possess the necessary legal capacities that Comer lacks, highlighting an essential division of labor in high-stakes investigations.
"I can't prosecute," Comer affirmed during the discourse, revealing his yearning for more direct legal intervention. His comments suggest a deep-seated belief that, had he wielded prosecutorial influence, the case outcomes against certain targets, potentially high-profile individuals, might differ significantly.
This distinction in capabilities frames the broader dialogue on legal justice mechanisms, wherein investigative diligence must interface with judicial proceedings to accomplish tangible legal actions.
The podcast appearance allowed Frazer to communicate these investigative challenges to a wider audience. By appearing on a platform like “The Alex Marlow Show,” both the podcast's reach and its editorial focus facilitated engagement with these nuanced topics.
A broader audience had the opportunity to appreciate the intricacies involved in investigations, from fact-finding to collaboration with legal authorities. For listeners, this discourse provides a glimpse into the complexities of holding individuals accountable within a structured legal framework.
Furthermore, Comer's comments might resonate particularly with listeners attuned to procedural justice, raising questions about the efficiencies and potential reforms necessary in prosecutorial practices.
While Comer focused on operational limitations, indirect implications point toward potential discussions on legislative reforms. These discussions may center around the efficacy and roles of congressional versus judicial authorities in prosecuting crimes.
The challenge lies in balancing investigatory thoroughness with prosecutorial precision, potentially prompting future dialogues on minimizing such a divide for streamlined justice.
In conclusion, Comer's appearance shines a light on the critical distinctions and requisite collaborations between investigative and prosecutorial branches in legal prosecutions. This nuanced take provides a deeper understanding of how investigations necessitate coordination with legal powers to effectively uphold justice.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former U.S. Rep. George Santos was only charged when he was expelled from the House.
He later was convicted, but that removal precedent stands.
And now Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, has filed a resolution to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., over the federal charges she now is facing in court.
In a statement, Mace explained that the charges are for McIver's "assault on federal law enforcement officers and unlawful interference at a federal immigration detention facility in New Jersey."
McIver, "didn't just break the law, she attacked the very people who defend it," Mace explained.
"Attacking Homeland Security and ICE agents isn't just disgraceful, it's assault. If any other American did what she did, they'd be in handcuffs. McIver thinks being a member of Congress puts her above the law. It doesn't."
The DOJ has brought charges against McIver under laws that criminalize "forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers.
McIver has claimed that her confrontation with federal officers was part of her "oversight" of the federal government as a member of Congress, so she's immune to any charges.
But constitutional expert Jonathan Turley noted that argument probably won't actually make it into the courtroom, as the claim is ridiculous.
Further, he said it will be hard for McIver to avoid a conviction based on the bodycam footage of the confrontation that already is available.
"Members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country – not to obstruct them," Mace said. "This isn't a matter of partisan politics. It's about whether we're going to hold Members of Congress to the same legal standards as every other American."
Mace cites the precedent the House established in 2023 when Santos was charged, but not convicted, when he was removed.
WND reported a day earlier when Turley opined that the case was just a symptom, more or less, of a bigger agenda by the Democrats.
He explained the "new defense" being used by Democrats, from city council to Congress, is that "their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government."
"The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path," he said.
He said officials were able to subdue the incursion quickly.
But the messaging from McIver was that she could do what for other citizens would be "trespass and assault" because of her "legislative oversight" privileges as a member of Congress.
Her comments were a reprise of what other Democrats already have demanded.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared 'You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we're going to have a problem,'" the report noted.
And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., "ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver."
He said, "It's a red line. They know better than to go down that road."
The ACLU insisted that politicians "have every right to exercise their legally authorized oversight responsibilities for expanded immigration detention in New Jersey."
Turley explained Worcester City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj, in a video shoving and obstructing ICE officers, also claimed to be protecting a constituent.
"Even judges are claiming the same license. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a federal arrest of an illegal immigrant who appeared in her courtroom. Dugan heard about agents waiting outside in the hallway to arrest the man and went outside to confront the agents. She told them to speak to the Chief Judge and that they needed a different warrant. The agents complied and the Chief Judge confirmed that they could conduct the arrest. In the interim, however, Dugan led the man out a non-public door and facilitated his escape."
The fault in making the "oversight" claim is that the law does not allow even members of Congress to have unauthorized access to secure federal facilities. Members of Congress can subpoena the executive branch, or get a court order, but they "do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency."
He explained Jeffries cited the crossing of a "red line."
The "red line" actually crossed, however, is the one "separating political expression and criminal conduct," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday "nuked" a reporter who came with an assumption, asked Leavitt to respond and was corrected, then doubled down.
It was Yamiche Alcindor of NBC, formerly of PBS, which is involved in its own scandal at the congressional level now facing defunding demands from members who object to the institution taking tax money and then delivering leftist and biased reporting.
Alcindor cited footage of white crosses representing white farmers murdered in the white genocide being allowed by the government in South Africa, and referenced the "burial sites." It was part of a video President Trump showed during an Oval Office meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa Wednesday.
Trump talked about the footage when confronting Ramaphosa about alleged genocide of white farmers in South Africa.
One item also documented in the video was widespread South African chants of "kill the farmer."
The crosses actually represent the lives of white farmers whose land was confiscated by the government and then who were murdered in racial violence.
Alcinder said President Donald Trump described how the image showed a thousand burial sites.
"We know that that's not true and the video wasn't showing that," she said, adding that Trump said the video "was showing a burial site, and it is unsubstantiated that that's true."
Leavitt explained multiple times that the image shows crosses representing the white farmers who have been murdered.
"Crosses are representing their lives, and the fact they are now dead, and their government did nothing about it," she said.
Alcindor immediately change course, suddenly asking, "Who at the White House" is responsible for protocols to prevent "unsubstantiated information" from being used.
Leavitt explained that one of the reporting organizations at the briefing, the AP, actually used the image and described it this way: "Each cross marks a white farmer who has been killed."
Leavitt concluded that it was a "ridiculous" line of questioning.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Members of Congress are discussing whether they'll use their power of subpoena to compel testimony from officials, and former officials, of ActBlue.
That's a massive online fundraising scheme used by Democrats in recent years to raise billions of dollars.
One problem is that there have been accusations that some of the money has come in, illegally, from overseas sources. Further, there have been complaints of single donors, sometimes seniors on fixed incomes, donating thousands of times over the course of a year adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, suggesting it operates as a money laundering scheme.
A report from Just the News now explains that three committee chiefs are threatening to issue subpoenas after officials for ActBlue refused to testify voluntarily in the congressional investigation that is started.
The publication said it obtained evidence that the witnesses "initially agreed to voluntary, transcribed interviews," but then suddenly that backed out.
That happened when President Donald Trump asked the Department of Justice to investigate them, the report said.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., confirmed in the report the problem.
"As we have explained, the Committees are examining allegations that ActBlue, a leading political fundraising organization, allowed bad actors, including foreign actors, to exploit the company's online platform to make fraudulent political donations," the three wrote to witnesses.
That could end up being "criminal conduct," they said.
The flip-flops, the report said, involved former chief revenue officer Peter Slutsky.
A lawyer representing him first said an interview was possible, then "changed course."
Similar suggestions appear in letters to nearly all the witnesses who got letters, the report said.
"The relevant precedent is clear that the mere existence of state or federal law enforcement investigations has no bearing on Congress's oversight power," the committee chiefs explained. "As such, an Executive Branch investigation into matters related to oversight by the Committees is not a legitimate basis on which you may decline our request."
The committees allowed the witnesses until May 29 to schedule an appearance, or be faced with a subpoena.
The same members of Congress had raised their concerns when Joe Biden still was in the White House, pointing out that there were concerns that "U.S. adversaries may have donated through the platform."
There was no response.
At the time, they demanded access to "Suspicious Activity Reports" related to money passing through ActBlue.
Steil also has pushing for the Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations (SHIELD) Act to set bars to foreign money being injected into American politics.
ActBlue has denied any wrongdoing.
WND previously reported that a congressional committee already has written to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi explaining that its investigation shows that the security measures used by ActBlue are weak.
Earlier, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chief of the House Oversight Committee, explained, "We're investigating ActBlue the same way we investigated the Bidens. … We're starting with the suspicious activity reports — bank violations that flag financial crimes. And let me tell you, the evidence is overwhelming."
Several attorneys general from states also have begun investigating.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Treasury has announced that it will end the production of pennies for use in America's cash markets, following President Donald Trump's call for that move on the money-losing process.
It costs more than 2 cents for the government to make each penny.
The end of production will mean that cash transactions will have to be rounded up or down to the nearest nickel's worth, while online purchases and card purchases still will be able to be defined by the penny.
A report from the Daily Express said the penny has been in production for 200 years, but now is being phased out.
But, the report said, the penny phaseout likely will mean a surge in the demand for nickels, which also lose the government money, costing 14 cents for production of each coin.
The report explained, "The move to cease penny production follows years of bipartisan efforts to ban the coins. Former President Barack Obama criticized the penny during his time in the White House. In a social media post this February, President Trump called on the Treasury to stop producing pennies, labeling them 'wasteful.'"
He said, "For far too long, the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. Let's rip the waste out of our great nation's budget, even if it's a penny at a time."
Treasury explained in a statement that the round-up or round-down process now will be needed for cash transactions.
Reports confirmed the final order of blank templates needed to make pennies was placed this month.
After that, minting will stop and the final pennies will be moved into circulation.
Further, the problems created by the demands of state sales taxes, which sometimes must be rounded to the "nearest cent." will have to be addressed.
The government predicts millions of dollars will be saved by ending the penny production.
After weeks of talks, the House passed the "big beautiful bill" that is at the center of the president's plan in a close vote just before 7 a.m.
Early in the morning on May 22, the House of Representatives passed a bill to carry out President Donald Trump's executive and economic agenda. This ended weeks of talks and uncertainty in the House Republican conference, as The Daily Caller reported.
The House barely passed the bill by a vote of 215-214, largely along party lines. The vote happened just before 7 a.m., after the lower house had been debating all night.
The bill is now on its way to the Senate, where changes are likely to be made. If there are any disagreements, they will have to be worked out in a meeting before going to Trump's desk.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) applauded the bill after it made it through the lower chamber of Congress, saying: “It’s a great day to be an American. It’s great to be a Republican.”
Johnson said he believes the law is a strong reflection of the conservative party's principles, including fiscal discipline, personal liberty, and limited government.
The speaker said that he had doubts about the party's ability to come together on the bill.
“I give glory to God,” he said. “There’s a lot of prayer that brought this together.”
Some Republicans were less than positive about the bill, however, and declined to support the legislation over spending concerns.
“It’s a debt bomb,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told reporters about the recently passed legislation.
Two Republicans from Ohio, Massie and Warren Davidson, voted against the measure. The House Freedom Caucus chair, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), did not cast a vote.
Those holdouts plus the close margins in the House caused the long-term debates over the bill.
Trump offered his thanks for the bill’s passage, calling the package “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation” in the country’s history.
“Now, it’s time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!” he wrote on Truth Social.
House members finally returned to work at approximately 11:00 p.m. on Wednesday following a 21-hour hearing in the House Rules Committee. That marathon cleared the package for a vote on the floor.
In the evening of May 21, Republican leaders released an addition to the megabill that was made to address concerns from moderates and fiscal conservatives in the Republican conference.
A recent Senate report has raised questions about the transparency of the Biden administration's handling of COVID-19 vaccine side effects, sparking concerns among lawmakers and the public.
According to the Daily Wire, the report reveals that the administration was informed of side effects linked to the COVID-19 vaccines early in 2021, but the information was not shared with the public until months later.
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations unveiled findings indicating that the administration knew by February 2021 about the potential risk of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, it wasn't until June of that year that these health risks were communicated to the public.
U.S. officials were reportedly warned about these concerns by CDC official Lauri Markowitz. According to the report, Markowitz communicated confidential details in late February 2021 regarding nearly 1,000 death reports following vaccination, noting cardiovascular causes in certain cases.
Additionally, Israeli health officials informed the CDC that they were observing a significant number of myocarditis cases following the administration of the Pfizer vaccine, underscoring the seriousness of the issue.
The delay in reporting these side effects has been attributed to concerns among U.S. officials about potential vaccine hesitancy that could have arisen had these risks been publicized promptly.
Sen. Ron Johnson, who chaired the committee behind the report, has been a vocal critic of the administration's handling of the issue. Johnson emphasized that health agencies had internally recognized a safety concern regarding myocarditis but opted not to make this information public at the time.
According to Johnson, "The federal government was very well aware of the myocarditis signal, particularly in young men, as early as February [2021]." He contended that the delay violated the principle of informed consent, which he views as inviolable.
Johnson also spotlighted the administration's efforts to distribute talking points that minimized these risks to major health officials, thereby underscoring what he describes as an intentional "cover-up."
Among the revelations, Johnson's report highlights that vital records and documents were withheld, delaying both public and congressional access to essential information. This lack of transparency reportedly persisted under the new administration.
The White House only revised COVID-19 vaccine labels to include myocarditis warnings in late June 2021. This revision was prompted by the increased attention the issue received, although stakeholders argue it came too late for those who could have benefited from the information earlier.
The report spans over 2,400 pages, with much of the documentation acquired via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These documents articulate the nuanced exchanges and considerations within U.S. health agencies during the period in question.
The next steps involve a Senate hearing led by Johnson, where the findings of the report will be discussed further. Johnson aims to bring greater awareness and accountability to what he considers a significant breach of trust in public health communication.
Furthermore, Johnson has publicly criticized federal health agencies for their failure to ensure informed consent by not openly communicating potential risks to the public in a timely manner.