This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Despite Donald Trump's landslide victory over Kamala Harris in November, it's possible he may not become president on Jan. 20 if there' still no speaker of the House who has certified the election results.
That alarm is being sounded on national TV as Mike Johnson, the current speaker of the House, is facing the threat of not being voted as speaker again this Friday.
On "Sunday Morning Futures" on the Fox News Channel, host Jason Chaffetz quoted Fox News senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram who said:
"The House absolutely, unequivocally cannot do anything until it elects a speaker, period. This also means that the House cannot certify the results of the Electoral College, making trump the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 6. What happens if the Electoral College isn't sorted out by Jan. 20? Well, President Biden is done, so he's gone. The same with Harris. Next in the presidential line of succession is the speaker of the House.
"Well, there's no speaker, so who becomes the president? If the House is still frittering away time trying to elect a speaker on Jan 20, [president pro tempore of the Senate Chuck] Grassley, likely becomes 'acting president.' I write likely because this gets into some serious, extra-constitutional turf. These are unprecedented scenarios. Strange lands never visited in the American political experience."
U.S. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the House Oversight Committee chairman, addressed the concern, saying: "No one ran against Mike Johnson. To this day, and here we are inside a week of the speaker's vote, there is still not a single declared candidate.
"But as you know, we have five Republicans that won't commit to voting for Mike Johnson, and he can only lose one or two votes. So I sure hope we don't repeat this, and I'm strongly encouraging my colleagues and go ahead and elect Mike Johnson, and let's get started on passing President Trump's agenda."
Chaffetz brought up Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, who is not necessarily fully committed to Johnson as speaker, and asked if the Republicans can stay united.
"It's a terrible challenge. We've seen it play out over the past two years," Comer noted. "It was very difficult for Kevin Mccarthy, it's been very difficult for Mike Johnson. It would be very difficult for whomever would be elected speaker of our conference.
"But at the end of the day, the difference between the 119th Congress and the 118th Congress is we'll have a Republican president, a strong Republican president who's very popular with Republican congressmen's constituents back home, and that's Donald Trump.
"I strongly encourage Donald Trump to to get on the phone with those five or six members who won't commit to voting for Mike Johnson, because all this is going to do is delay us.
"It's going to delay the certification of President Trump's election, it's going to delay the start of his first hundred days in office which is the most important time frame of his whole presidency. That's when you get the most done, historically. So I strongly encourage President Trump to get on the phone and try to get everyone united so we can work together as a team and make America great again."
Later in the broadcast, U.S. Rep. Brian Mast, the incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, said: "In the end I think Mike Johnson will be a great speaker, he's going to be known as the DOGE speaker."
"I think he's gonna do a damn good job."
The results of the November election were driven in large part by a growing sense among American's that the country is moving in the wrong direction under the current leadership, and a new federal agency report shines a light on one key metric in which that is clearly the case.
As the Associated Press reports, officials from the Biden Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed on Friday that the nation witnessed an 18.1% increase in homelessness in 2024 alone, with 770,000 individuals lacking a place to live.
The 2024 figures are alarming, particularly given that they build on a disturbing trend that was already underway during the prior year.
Breitbart noted that the aforementioned rise in homelessness over the past year comes in the wake of an additional 12% increase seen in 2023.
The outlet added that the exacerbation of the problem during Biden's time in office was not a natural or inevitable progression, given that reductions in homelessness were seen during the period between 2010 to 2017, but those stopped in recent years, leading to the largest uptick in numbers since this statistic was first measured in 2007.
As the AP explained, the official tally of 770,000 homeless individuals likely represents something of an undercount, given that it fails to include people currently residing with friends or family due to their lack of a residence of their own.
Casting further shadows on Biden's tenure when it comes to the problem of homelessness is the fact that the increase seen in 2023 included a significant share of individuals entering this unfortunate group for the first time in their lives, with Black Americans overrepresented among the unhoused.
The Associated Press indicated that the growth in homelessness during the last two years of the Biden administration was due, in part, to a lack of affordable housing stock along with natural disasters that displaced more Americans than in the recent past.
However, the HUD report also acknowledged another key driver of the increase, namely, the pressure on housing caused by an influx in immigration.
The agency noted in its assessment, “Some communities reported data to HUD that indicated that the rise in overall homelessness was a result of their work to shelter a rising number of asylum seekers coming into their communities.”
HUD added, “Migration had a particularly notable impact on family homelessness, which rose 39% from 2023-2024. In the 13 communities that reported being affected by migration, family homelessness more than doubled.”
Democrat-led cities that have touted sanctuary status were especially hard hit, with the AP noting, “Among the most concerning trends was a nearly 40% rise in family homelessness – one of the areas that was most affected by the arrival of migrants in big cities. Family homelessness more than doubled in 13 communities impacted by migrants including Denver, Chicago and New York City.
According to Robert Marbut, Jr., who once served as the executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the roughly 33% increase in the problem since Biden took office is “disgraceful,” and he suggests a renewed focus on “treatment of substance abuse and mental illness” and to reinstate job training requirements for those seeking help.
Though HUD's Adrianne Todman said upon release of the agency's report that “no American should face homelessness, and the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring every family has access to the affordable, safe and quality housing they deserve,” it is increasingly clear that the current president's policies have only succeeded in undermining that goal.
Democrats are freaking out over proposed plans by DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency, to conduct mass firings of federal workers when President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.
Virginia House Speaker Don Scott Jr., a Democrat, wrote a letter to Virginia's unemployment agency warning of the implications that massive layoffs could have as Virginia is home to a large portion of the federal workers that work in Washington D.C.
In that letter, Scott wrote to Virginia Employment Commissioner Demetrios claiming that "We should all be concerned about what these changes mean for the employees raising their families in Virginia, paying taxes in Virginia and calling Virginia home."
The letter continued saying, "Taking President-elect Trump at his word that he will immediately move to downsize the workforce and relocate agencies, we can safely assume that a large portion of our workforce that resides in the commonwealth will be negatively affected."
Democrats are concerned that DOGE purging the federal government of bloat will lead to unemployment but are unconcerned with the massive costs that maintaining a bloated federal workforce costs taxpayers.
Scott's letter attracted a quick response from Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle who blasted Scott for focusing on the wrong question.
McDougle stated, "That's the wrong question. The question should be whether we are taking dollars that Virginians are earning and paying to the federal government and whether they are being spent wisely. If the federal government is paying people to do jobs they shouldn't be doing, then that's spending taxpayer dollars unwisely."
Democrats are focused on the wrong issue and are ignoring the massive burden that the federal workforce puts on the American taxpayer.
DOGE co-leader, Vivek Ramaswamy, has been clear that the agency will be outright deleting unnecessary federal departments and trimming down workers in other departments.
Ramaswamy told Fox News, "We expect mass reductions … [and] certain agencies to be deleted outright."
These cuts could be paired with a legislative effort by Senator Joni Ernst to relocate one-third of federal workers outside the District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia area which will effectively gut D.C.
McDougle used Scott's letter to call attention to Virginia Democrats funneling massive sums towards D.C. instead of supporting Virginia's non-federal workers who actually live and work in the Commonwealth.
McDougle tore into Virginia Democrats saying, "I didn't feel our Democratic friends were as concerned with the millions of dollars going to fund Metro amid [federal workers not being required to] go into the office and having to subsidize them."
Republicans want to prioritize the livelihood of American taxpayers and the best way to do that is to cut back on government waste, much of which comes in the form of unnecessary government workers who enjoy massive salaries and extensive benefits while regular Americans foot the bill.
Cleaning out D.C.'s federal workforce will also make Virginia more competitive for Republicans in national elections as Virginia's federal workers who commute into D.C. are a large reason why Virginia is a Blue state.
President-elect Donald Trump has triggered many on the left and in the establishment media regarding his ambitious plans for U.S. expansion, and his son, Eric Trump, is loving it.
According to the Daily Mail, Eric Trump recently posted a meme that appeared to be a takeoff of a picture of an Amazon shopping cart, and the cart contained three items, including the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada.
In the image, President-elect Trump can be seen smiling down at his phone while viewing the so-called Amazon shopping cart.
The meme came in the wake of President-elect Trump threatening to seize back control of the Panama Canal, and also after doubling down on his intentions of potentially purchasing Greenland, which would be the largest U.S. expansion since the Louisiana Purchase.
In the caption of the photoshopped image, Eric Trump, the president-elect's middle son, wrote, "We are so back!"
We are so back!!! pic.twitter.com/PvybVULeAz
— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) December 24, 2024
The Daily Mail noted:
Trump first turned his ire on Canada and Mexico last month when he accused the neighboring countries of unfair trade with the U.S. and threatened they need to do more to address the border.
At the time he threatened both countries with 25 percent tariffs on all imports into the U.S. when he returns to office if they don't take action. It's a move that economists warned would raise costs on American consumers and could be economically devastating to all three countries.
The president-elect has trolled Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on several occasions since the two met earlier this month at Mar-a-Lago, with Trump making continued references about Canada becoming a U.S. state.
Trump has also said his administration will seriously look at the possibility of purchasing Greenland, citing critical national security issues and having the massive, Arctic island will be a crucial asset for the United States.
The outlet added:
At the same time, Trump has threatened the country of Panama in recent weeks with the demand that the U.S. take control of the Panama Canal.
Over the weekend, the president-elect wrote the canal in Central America which connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is 'considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America's Economy and National Security.'
Plenty of social media users reacted to Eric Trump's hilarious X post.
"Panama Canal first. Greenland second. Then we go after Canada," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "If these items are in your cart, what does the algorithm suggest for your *next* purchase?"
While Eric Trump was obviously having fun, it'll be interesting to see how his father approaches Greenland and the Panama Canal. At this point, it seems anything is possible.
President-elect Donald Trump has generated mountains of headlines regarding his Cabinet picks, and his incoming team has quite a bit to brag about.
According to the Daily Mail, Trump has picked at least a dozen billionaires to fill out his administration, who have combined net worth of a staggering $500 billion.
Not surprisingly, the outlet's piece regarding the success of Trump's selections was negative, mocking Trump for saying he'd make America wealthy again and stocking his Cabinet with people who "know what it's like to be comfortable."
The outlet then compared the net worth of Trump's incoming Cabinet to President Joe Biden's, which comes in at about $100 million, as if it's relevant, whatsoever.
The Daily Mail, obviously triggered by Trump's selection of smart, wealthy individuals, called his relationship with billionaire Elon Musk a "bromance."
The outlet acknowledged that Musk already has measurable influence on policy, as Musk reportedly helped torpedo a previous version of the congressional spending bill that was passed last week.
The Daily Mail noted:
The advisor with the biggest checkbook is also the one with the most sway, at least in the early going. SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who used his X platform to help power Trump's win and to torpedo a government funding bill, is worth more than $400 billion, according to Forbes.
The president-elect also hired a billionaire to run his Commerce Department. Howard Lutnick, the CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, will head up the ultra-important government agency.
Lutnick is worth about $1.5 billion, according to the outlet. Trump was applauded for hiring him, as he'll likely be able to undo the damage caused by President Joe Biden's lackeys.
Tiffany Trump's father-in-law, Massad Boulos, was tapped as a Senior Adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern Affairs, and while he's reportedly worth billions, his exact wealth isn't publicly known.
Trump also tapped World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, who's worth around $3 billion, was hired to run the Department of Education.
President-elect Trump also picked Charles Kushner as his U.S. ambassador to France. Charles Kushner is the father of Jared Kushner, the husband of Trump's eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump.
There are many others who have ultra-high net worths that Trump picked to lead his administration in various capacities.
While the establishment media continues to attack them, most Americans are relieved that we'll finally have smart, successful, competent people at the helm.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jihadis in Africa are on a campaign to burn churches, behead nuns and priests, terrorize Christians and worse, and "not a peep" is being heard from those "who have the power to speak out and help protect them."
That's according to a report at the Middle East Research Institute, where Executive Director Steven Stalinsky has called for action, with, "On Christmas, where is the outrage?"
"Sadly, this terrorizing and slaughter of Christians outside the West has gone almost unnoticed, with no real action even by those who have the power to speak out and help protect them," he said in a report. "These include the U.N., the African Union, the South African military, the Vatican and Pope Francis himself, even organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, or the NAACP. And not one word has been heard from Black Lives Matter, the Squad in Congress, scholars like Ta-Nehisi Coates, and many other imposters who say they care about human rights – but only do so selectively."
He explained almost every day, ISIS affiliates around sub-Saharan Africa have reported on their ongoing persecution of Christians.
"And, as happened during the time of the Caliphate under ISIS, the Christian world is sitting by and doing nothing."
He recalled a MEMRI study in 2023 titled, "ISIS in Africa (Chad, Cameroon, Niger, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Mozambique): Targeting Christians – killing, beheading, murdering priests and nuns, burning churches, health clinics, and homes – as the world is largely silent."
He noted, "The report detailed how ISIS's branches in Africa – Islamic State Central African Province (ISCAP), Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Islamic State-Mozambique (ISMP) – have been attacking and terrorizing Christians across the continent, killing civilians, destroying churches, kidnapping Christians for ransom, forcing conversions, taking slaves, and destroying symbols and signs of Christianity."
Then they are bragging, "documenting," about their work on social media.
That report went to international bodies and legislatures, as well as religious leaders and media outlets. "Yet to date there has been little to no response or action to help the Christians being targeted, and thousands more have been killed since," he said.
A "typical day" for Christians in Africa includes visits from ISIS and "being forced to pay the Jizyah poll tax imposed on non-Muslims." And "choosing between conversion to Islam or death."
Most of the attacks, including the murders of church leaders, are by ISIS, but others are by al-Qaida and others.
"These groups' documentation and dissemination of their attacks is aimed at inspiring horror and boosting their fearsome reputation. For example, on July 11, 2024, ISIS featured, in Issue 451 of its weekly Al-Naba' newsletter, an infographic detailing its major operations in the previous Hijri calendar year, July 19, 2023-July 7, 2024. Earlier, on July 1, A'maq News Agency, the ISIS media arm, released a poster tallying ISIS attacks worldwide in the first half of 2024. Both these publications featured sections celebrating the killing during those periods of nearly 2,000 [1920] Christians and burning of 30 churches in Mozambique and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC," Stalinsky explained.
In just recent days, dozens of Christians have been murdered, homes have been burned, churches destroyed.
"Sometimes, Christians are offered the option of conversion. On August 8, 2024, the pro-ISIS Hadm Al-Aswar Foundation released a poster on its Telegram channel titled 'The Only Solution for Christians,' showing an ISIS operative removing a cross from a church roof, a hand with an index finger raised in a gesture used by ISIS to indicate Islamic monotheism, and a hand appearing to be paying the jizyah – a tax placed on non-Muslims living under Islamic rule. The poster included text from an editorial titled 'Jihad in the Congo' from Al-Naba' Issue 448, in which ISIS issued an ultimatum: Christians can 'either convert to Islam, or pay jizyah, otherwise [ISIS] will continue to execute them, burn their homes and businesses, and plunder their properties,'" the MEMRI report said.
Media outlets have been used to push the ideology that it is "ISIS" that will "save" people.
One publication said, "To the Christians, their institutions, and their community organizations searching for long-term solutions that will rid them of a life surrounded by death in every direction[:] We give them the good news that the only solution is for them is to convert to Islam, or to pay the jizyah and remain submissive. Otherwise, the invasions will continue against them, as will the killings, the burning of their homes and shops, and the seizure of their money."
The terrorists also have boasted of beheading nearly 60 Christians in just two recent attacks alone.
Stalinsky reporte, "Not a day goes by without the MEMRI JTTM team documenting jihadi reports of attacks on African Christians."
A grim discovery has emerged from the desert of northern Mexico, where officials excavated twelve skeletons from eleven hidden burial sites near the township of Ascension. This discovery is a stark reminder of the rampant violence and ongoing issue of disappearances linked to the operations of Mexican cartels.
The clandestine graves were unearthed near Ascension, a town situated not far from the U.S.-Mexico border, intensifying the spotlight on cartel-related crimes, the New York Post reports.
The skeletons were discovered during an intensive three-day search carried out last week, with state authorities of Chihuahua revealing the findings on Thursday. Ascension's proximity to El Paso, Texas, also raises concerns about cross-border implications of such criminal activities.
The discovery of these graves underlines the violent tactics of Mexican cartels and other organized crime groups, notorious for utilizing hidden burial sites to dispose of victims. With an astonishing number of 120,000 people currently missing in Mexico, these graves are a grim testament to the atrocities committed by criminal entities in the region.
Forensic anthropologists, accompanied by experts from Forensic Services, spearheaded the exhumation process. They meticulously gathered evidence, including various spent shell casings, highlighting the violent circumstances surrounding these deaths. The state's prosecutor emphasized the significance of this evidence, shedding light on the possible cause of death and aiding in the identification process.
The remains and gathered materials have been transported to the Forensic Medical Service's labs in Cd. Juárez for detailed analysis. This phase aims to determine the identities of the deceased, their cause, and the timeline of their deaths. Such forensic endeavors are critical for providing closure to families of the missing, often left in limbo.
The harsh desert landscape of northern Mexico is often combed by groups of volunteer searchers - relatives resolutely seeking their missing loved ones. These community efforts highlight the desperation and dire social impacts of Mexico’s ongoing crisis of disappearances.
Among the tragically high number of the disappeared, many are believed to have been victims of cartel violence, emphasizing the need for justice and resolution. Efforts like these uncover valuable evidence that aids forensic investigations while providing a small measure of hope for the families involved.
The broader socio-political landscape is also influenced by such discoveries. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has made headlines with his proposition to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations due to their pervasive influence on drug trafficking. His declaration at a recent conference underscored the broader impacts of drug-related violence beyond Mexico's borders.
The newly unearthed graves inevitably draw attention to the Mexican government's ongoing battle against drug cartels. These grim findings serve as an alarming indicator of the scale and scope of cartel operations, stretching across borders and implicating international relationships.
Despite the sobering statistics of those missing, each forensic effort is a step towards accountability and justice. These investigations not only seek to identify those lost to violence but also aim to challenge and destabilize the power cartels exert over the region.
The reality of drug-related violence is a pressing issue, with its effects felt globally. International collaboration and shared responsibility may become key components in tackling such a multi-faceted problem. As forensic teams and authorities press on with their work, the recent discovery is a solemn reminder of the profound human tragedy lingering amidst Mexico's desert sands.
The uncovering of these clandestine graves reinforces the urgent need for strengthened measures and cooperative strategies in addressing the root causes and consequences of illegal narcotics operations. With ongoing governmental and forensic efforts, there lies hope for change and the possibility of a future where the violence of the drug trade no longer terrorizes communities.
President Joe Biden faced a wave of criticism after he vetoed the JUDGES Act, a piece of legislation intended to create 66 new federal judgeships to alleviate pressing caseloads nationwide. The decision sparked outrage from federal judiciary leaders and lawmakers, as the bill, despite initially enjoying bipartisan support, was seen as offering nomination benefits to President-elect Donald Trump.
President Biden's veto of the JUDGES Act prompted significant controversy and debate, as stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with his decision, as reported by the Hill.
Biden’s veto was announced on a Monday, halting a bill that promised to bring judicial relief across 13 U.S. states. The plan was to introduce the new judgeships in multiple stages until 2035. Among the judgeships, around 24 would fall under the nominating authority of President-elect Trump, a situation criticized by opponents who believed it rushed for the benefit of the incoming administration.
The proposal had enjoyed unanimous approval from Democrats in the Senate back in August. However, it encountered delays in the Republican-controlled House, where it wasn't put to a vote until after Trump's election win. Ultimately, the House passed it with a vote count of 236 to 173, with most Democrats opposing the measure.
President Biden, defending his decision, indicated the bill wasn't primarily addressing caseload issues and critiqued it as a hastily assembled piece of work in the waning weeks of the 118th Congress. He questioned the swiftness with which the House moved without resolving critical ambiguities in the legislation.
The JUDGES Act emerged in response to a dramatic rise in pending federal civil cases, which have increased by 346% over the past two decades. As of March, approximately 82,000 cases were awaiting attention, according to data from the federal judiciary. The Judicial Conference originally put forth the recommendation for new judgeships to Congress, leading to the introduction of the JUDGES Act.
Federal judiciary advocates had tirelessly lobbied for Biden’s endorsement of the legislation, even after the elections. Groups like the Federal Judges Association and several judicial organizations supported the bill, emphasizing the need for more judges to ensure efficient justice administration.
Among Biden’s sternest critics was Judge Robert Conrad, who expressed profound disappointment with the veto. He considered the additional judgeships crucial for maintaining functional justice delivery. Conrad strongly contested Biden's claim of the bill's haphazard construction, noting it was the result of deliberate, detailed analyses focusing on per-judge caseloads and contributions of senior and magistrate judges.
“The President’s veto marks a significant deviation from historical practices where new judgeships benefited sitting presidents,” Conrad remarked. He added that Biden's decision leaned against the legislative groundwork Biden himself supported during his Senate tenure.
Gabe Roth added to the chorus of dissatisfaction, labeling Biden's decision as an "embarrassing" conclusion to an otherwise impactful reshaping of the judiciary over the past four years. Sen. Todd Young accused Biden of engaging in partisan politics, contrasting his enthusiasm for assisting family members with due process against the backdrop of ordinary Americans awaiting judicial relief.
Biden's veto, while controversial, is grounded in his belief that the legislation needed more scrutiny and careful construction. His action underscores the complex interplay of political priorities and judicial necessities, setting a challenging precedent for future judicial reforms.
For now, the fate of the JUDGES Act remains uncertain, as the judiciary and its advocates continue to push for solutions to alleviate the federal caseload crisis, which remains a pressing concern for efficient and effective justice in America.
The Trump administration is considering a major shift in immigration enforcement by expanding a federal program that would allow local sheriffs to act as immigration agents, according to the New York Post. This move is aimed at bolstering deportations by enabling local law enforcement to assist in the identification and detention of illegal immigrants during their regular duties.
President-elect Donald Trump’s team is exploring an expansion of the 287(g) program to give local sheriffs more authority in immigration enforcement, potentially ramping up mass deportations across the U.S.
The 287(g) program, which was established in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, currently allows federal immigration agents (ICE) to partner with local law enforcement to identify and deport criminal noncitizens who are incarcerated. The program is voluntary and provides local law enforcement the authority to alert ICE about illegal immigrants in their custody or to hold them for ICE after they are arrested on separate criminal charges.
Under the Trump administration's proposal, the program could be expanded to allow local law enforcement to make immigration-related arrests during their routine duties. This expanded authority would enable local deputies to stop and detain individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without requiring them to first face a separate criminal charge. According to sources familiar with the plan, the administration is also considering reviving a task force model, which was phased out in 2012, that would enable deputies to make immigration arrests more frequently.
The task force model, which is favored by Tom Homan, the former acting director of ICE and now a key advisor in Trump's administration, would result in more frequent arrests of illegal immigrants. Homan believes that the increased visibility of such arrests could serve as a deterrent for individuals considering illegal immigration.
Sheriffs across the country have shown a willingness to cooperate with the expanded 287(g) program, provided they receive the necessary federal funding to implement it. Jonathan Thompson, the executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association, emphasized that significant financial support would be needed to house, feed, and provide healthcare for detained migrants. Thompson stated that his association would advocate for federal funds from both the president and Congress to ensure the initiative's success.
Sheriffs are not alone in supporting the proposal. Thaddeus Cleveland, the sheriff of Terrell County, Texas, also expressed his support, calling the 287(g) program a “terrific tool” that strengthens local law enforcement’s ability to secure communities. He emphasized that with expanded use, the program could increase deportations from both state and local jurisdictions, improving public safety by removing illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.
While many sheriff’s offices are willing to cooperate with ICE, some are restricted by local sanctuary laws. These laws limit or prevent local law enforcement from working with federal immigration authorities. However, under the proposed expansion, some sheriff’s offices could be exempt from these laws, especially if they already have existing agreements with ICE or are involved in emergency situations.
One of the most controversial aspects of the proposal is the possibility of financial incentives and penalties for local jurisdictions based on their cooperation with the expanded 287(g) program. Localities that participate in the program could receive increased federal funding, while those that refuse to cooperate might see funding cuts. This approach would redirect billions of dollars typically allocated to cities and nonprofits working on migrant assistance at the border to local agencies aiding in deportation efforts.
In New York, the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office has participated in the 287(g) program since October 2018. The department has made over 350 encounters with unlawfully present noncitizens. However, New York State’s sanctuary policies restrict state law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. Local sheriffs, however, may still notify ICE about arrests, though they are prohibited from holding individuals longer than necessary for criminal proceedings.
Rensselaer County's participation is limited to checking federal databases and alerting ICE about the release dates of certain inmates. The state's sanctuary laws also prohibit local law enforcement agencies like those in New York City from participating in the program, making it one of the most significant areas of resistance to the expanded use of 287(g).
Despite support from law enforcement officials like Cleveland and Thompson, the proposed expansion of 287(g) faces resistance from local officials in areas that have enacted sanctuary policies. These policies, which aim to limit local law enforcement’s involvement in federal immigration matters, have created a divide in how different jurisdictions approach cooperation with ICE.
In particular, New York’s sanctuary laws, which restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, have made the state a focal point of the debate over 287(g) expansion. While local sheriffs are allowed to cooperate with ICE on an individual basis, the state’s appeal court ruling in 2018 further limits the scope of such cooperation, specifically prohibiting the detention of individuals for ICE once they are eligible for release.
Thompson acknowledged that some sheriff’s offices in sanctuary areas might still be able to cooperate with ICE if they have pre-existing agreements. He also suggested that emergency situations could allow for exceptions.
A major concern for law enforcement agencies is the cost of implementing the expanded 287(g) program. Thompson has been vocal about the financial challenges posed by this initiative, particularly in terms of the housing, medical care, and feeding of detained migrants. He warned that the federal government must provide sufficient funding to ensure the program's effectiveness, as many local jurisdictions already struggle with their existing resources.
Cleveland echoed these concerns, noting that the resources required to enforce the expanded immigration program could be substantial. However, he believes that if properly implemented, the program could significantly help in securing communities, especially in rural areas where resources are often stretched thin.
The Trump administration has not yet responded to media inquiries regarding the specifics of the plan, leaving questions about its timeline and implementation up in the air. Despite this, local sheriffs and immigration officials remain optimistic that the expansion of 287(g) could lead to more effective immigration enforcement and greater collaboration between local law enforcement and federal agencies.
As the Trump administration moves forward with its proposal, the debate over local law enforcement’s role in immigration enforcement is likely to intensify. If implemented, the expanded 287(g) program could dramatically change how local and federal agencies cooperate on immigration issues, particularly in states with sanctuary laws. With financial incentives and penalties in play, the coming months will determine whether this ambitious plan gains traction or faces pushback from local governments concerned about its costs and implications for community relations.
Local law enforcement officials have made it clear that while they are open to assisting with immigration enforcement, funding and support from the federal government will be critical to the success of any expanded program.
Republican senator Rand Paul (Ky.) is continuing his Christmas tradition of bemoaning government waste.
The Republican's annual "Festivus Report" tallied up $1 trillion in spending on questionable projects across the federal government, as the national debt soars ever higher.
The report is named after a fictional holiday in the sitcom Seinfeld that invites celebrants to an "airing of grievances." The government's spending habits leave Paul, a fiscal conservative, with plenty to grump about each year.
This year, taxpayers spent nearly $5 million on pro-Ukrainian social media influencers and $12 million on a pickleball court in Las Vegas. $10,000 went to a climate change-themed "cabaret" involving drag queens in ice skates.
The government spent another $10 billion to maintain mostly empty office buildings and shoveled $330,000 to a liberal non-profit that tracks "disinformation," among other dubious expenditures.
Throughout his single term in office, President Biden signed several expensive spending bills that added trillions to the debt and drove inflation. Biden also worked around courts to forgive $180 billion in student loan debt, at taxpayer expense, and sent billions more to Ukraine even as a historic influx of people poured across the porous U.S. southern border.
But wasteful spending is a bi-partisan tradition, Paul noted in his report.
"Who’s to blame for our crushing national debt? Everybody," Paul writes in the new report. "This year, members of both political parties in Congress voted for massive spending bills, filled with subsidies for underperforming industries, continued military aid to Ukraine, and controversial climate initiatives. As Congress spends to reward its favored pet projects, the American taxpayers are forced to pay through high prices and crippling interest rates."
Government waste has become a hot topic as President-elect Trump prepares for a second White House term with a promise to radically cut bloat.
His Department on Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has set an ambitious target of slashing $2 trillion in spending.
The majority of federal spending goes toward the military and spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, which few politicians are willing to touch.
Paul was among 20 Republican senators who voted against a $200 billion bill to boost Social Security benefits last week. He called to offset the expense by raising the retirement age to 70, but his amendment was shot down.
“If we give new people more money, we have to take it from somewhere. We have to either borrow it or print it, but it has to come from somewhere,” Paul said.