This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's more important than climate change, schools, gun violence, health care and inflation.
More significant that the economy, taxes, immigration and abortion.
A higher priority than crime, morals and political divisions.
It's fighting President Donald Trump. It's holding onto Trump Derangement Syndrome.
That's the result of a polling done by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution of Democrat voters in the state.
A full 20% of the Democrats responding said "standing up to Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans" is their most important issue.
Only 17% cited inflation and 15% the economy and jobs.
Longtime Democrat focal points, climate change, abortion, immigration and such all were in single digits.
A report from Townhall said, "The poll found that among likely Georgia Democratic primary voters, 17 percent cited inflation and the cost of living as their top concerns. About 15 percent said the economy and jobs are number one. Yet, when it comes to 'standing up to Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans,' about 20 percent indicated this is their top issue."
GOP respondents in the same polling picked cost of living, 18%, as their highest priority, followed by economy 14%, immigration, 13%, crime 12%. Schools and taxes came in at the high single digit levels.
The report said, "So, despite higher prices at the grocery store and elsewhere (thanks Biden), Democratic voters in the Peach State believe the Orange Man What Is Bad™ is the most pressing issue facing them today. Yes, they are concerned about economic issues when you combine the numbers for inflation and jobs, but the fact that they are still fixated on the president shows how deeply Trump Derangement Syndrome runs among Democrats."
It continued "Imagine being more concerned about who sits in the White House than crime in your communities and the lack of quality education — issues that the president has little control over. These are issues that state and local governments are supposed to address. Yet, too many voters still think the president is the most important issue facing the country."
Social media included several opinions:
"In a new poll out of Georgia, Democrats say their 'single most important issue' is standing up to Abraham Lincoln and anti-slavery Republicans."
"I'll live under a bridge if it means standing up to Trump! That'll show him!"
"DNC convinced a certain demographic to put TDS over prosperity …and they're guzzlin it"."
Interesting to see abortion and climate change have suddenly become non-issues for liberals. Powerful, the TDS is within them."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For all the Trump administration's efforts to strengthen and revitalize the U.S. military following its disastrous, DEI-infected leadership under the Biden administration, service members are making it clear that real accountability regarding the military's highly controversial – and enormously damaging – COVID-19 shot mandate must be forthcoming for members' trust to be restored.
The many adverse effects linked to the COVID-19 shot have left service members feeling disillusioned. After all, thousands lost their careers, their rank, their pay and more, leading them to call for accountability from those who mandated and enforced the shot. Without real accountability, countless service members claim they cannot restore their trust in the military. Indeed, many members admit they will not recommend for their family or friends to join the military.
A small, independent, unscientific survey recently conducted by this reporter, just to ascertain the unvarnished views of dozens of current service members, supports this contention. Sixty-three out of 66 respondents, 95% – who were actively serving in the U.S. military – agreed that, on the heels of the tyrannical enforcement of the COVID-19 shot, including the refusal to honor religious exemption requests, accountability now is a must for them to regain trust in America's armed services.
The 2025 survey can be contrasted with a prior survey from 2023, homing in on issues such as trust in leadership as it relates to one's ability to follow their oath to the Constitution and more. Factors affecting the decrease in survey participants in 2025 compared to 2023 – some had since resigned, retired or been discharged from the military due to the COVID-19 mandate -were addressed in a prior WorldNetDaily article concerning force readiness and more.
In the 2023 survey during the Biden administration, virtually all respondents – 226 out of 229 (97%) – said they did not trust their senior leaders at the Department of Defense (general rank and flag officers) to follow their oaths to the Constitution and obey all laws. In the 2025 survey, which had a smaller number of participants, 62 out of 66 respondents (94%) shared the same sentiment of distrust towards their leaders in the recently renamed Department of War.
Similarly, in 2023, 170 of the 229 (74%) respondents reported that they do not trust their unit leaders (immediate supervisors one to two levels up) to follow their oaths to the Constitution and adhere to all laws. In comparison, the 2025 survey indicated that 46 of the 66 (70%) respondents felt the same.
The two surveys also attempted to assess whether service members believed senior leaders (general rank and flag officers) had their best interest in mind. In 2023, 227 out of 229 respondents (99%) answered "No," while in 2025, 62 out of 66 respondents (94%) gave the same response.
Similarly, when questioned about their unit leaders (immediate supervisors one to two levels up), 144 of 229 (63%) and 32 of 66 (48%) replied "No" in 2023 and 2025, respectively.
To gain some perspective, WND spoke with four survey participants who consented to share their opinions anonymously, emphasizing that their views do not represent those of the Department of War or their individual military branches.
A member of the Marine Corps said, "Leadership will fall in line with any administration's directives [to avoid putting] themselves or careers under scrutiny." He also argued that "not all commanders are created equal, as some are better than others and the level of care they have towards their troops vary." Nonetheless, he added, "even the best of them would put the preservation of their careers superior to any interest that their subordinates may have that would conflict with that."
Another service member said that, generally speaking, senior leaders close to retirement or promotion are "questionable," as many are "not willing to rock the boat in a way that could threaten their careers or promotions." Thus, regarding accountability, he said, "Senior leadership will point fingers in all directions and deflect accountability as quickly as they can."
With regard to upholding oaths to the Constitution, one Army service member told WND, "Almost all of DoD commanders demonstrated compliance in unlawfully implementing the COVID-19 mandates, and most of these commanders remain in service." In his opinion, "These commanders cater to political winds rather than the Constitution, striving first for promotions with careers measured by political compliance."
A second member of the Army agreed with the previous statement, but added, with regard to accountability over the shot mandate: "Nothing has changed, and there was no remedy from the abuse of administrative powers to injure and harm countless soldiers."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There long have been concerns that the Clinton Foundation, run by politicians Bill and Hillary Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, operated as a pay-to-play scheme, taking in "donations" from corporations and foreign countries that wanted to gain influence.
After all, Bill Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001, and Hillary Clinton was secretary of state for Barack Obama. During that time, specifically, donations surged, while after she was out of office and out of power, they plunged.
Now a new report from Just the News, which repeatedly has investigated the foundation and its cash flow, notes that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI chief Kash Patel have given to Congress "a new cache of documents showing how Bill and Hillary Clinton's foundation collected donations from foreign and domestic interests seeking influence."
The documentation now raises anew concerns that such evidence was kept from federal prosecutors who tried to investigate pay-to-play allegations against the former first family a decade ago, the report explained.
The evidence, given recently to the Senate Judiciary Committee, details multiple instances where foreigners, "and even a U.S. defense contractor," sought to "curry favor with the Clintons through donations to their family charity."
Some of the evidence previously had been cited by whistleblowers who charged it was concealed during a corruption investigation in 2015 by the U.S. attorney's office in Little Rock, Arkansas, an effort that shortly later was shut down by Obama and his Department of Justice.
"The documents will make clear that there was an effort 'to obstruct legitimate inquiries into the foundation by blocking real investigation by line-level FBI agents and DOJ field prosecutors and keeping them from following the money,' said one official directly familiar with the documents," the report said.
There had been at least three attempts to review the "pay-to-play" scandal involving the Clinton Foundation but all were ordered closed by the Obama administration.
The new evidence was described as showing how lower-level FBI agents and some prosecutors deprived the decision-makers in those investigations of information about the foundation.
The scandal even encompasses Hillary Clinton's decision to keep government secrets, while she was secretary of state, on a private email server in her home, as she was accused of doing that "so she could hide her Clinton Foundation pay-to-play," according to a report.
According to emails obtained by Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton gave preferential treatment to Clinton Foundation donors while she was secretary of state.
There was a time when the FBI was reviewing at least 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for campaign finance fraud, before the review was shut down.
Previously reported was the declassification of a government document confirming the efforts by the FBI and DOJ to block any review of Clinton Foundation behaviors.
It was Just the News that revealed the actions at the time, heading into the 2016 election, when the family foundation run by the Clintons solicited "contributions" and "donations" – totaling hundreds of millions of dollars – from various groups that had business pending before the federal bureaucracy, which Hillary Clinton ran.
The report explained Patel found a "bombshell" memo from 2017 that chronicled the "extensive political obstruction that career agents in three cities faced from their own bosses and the Obama Justice Department during the 2016 election as they probed whether Hillary Clinton engaged in a pay-to-play corruption scheme."
The government documents show Sally Yates, then deputy attorney general, ordered, "Shut it down!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Phil Weiser is Colorado's attorney general, a far-left politician in a far-left state where the governor's office, the legislature and even the state Supreme Court all are controlled by Democrats.
The state's highest court is so far into being progressives the all-Democrats there even tried to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot before being slapped down hard by the U.S. Supreme Court, just the latest in a long list of rulings against Colorado's anti-Republican and anti-Christian ideologies.
Now Weiser, who has used the public funds running his office repeatedly to attack Trump, is being called out for his "constitutionally perverse" agenda against Trump.
The commentary comes in a column by Robert G. Natelson at Complete Colorado. He's a former constitutional law professor and contributes at both the Independence Institute and the Mountain States Policy Center, and authored "The Original Constitution."
"Progressives," he concluded, "generally don't care a rodent's derriere about the Constitution's division of powers. (How many times did Weiser sue the overreaching Biden administration?) And most of Weiser's suits are constitutionally perverse: they are designed either to (1) undermine legitimate federal functions, such as immigration control, or (2) force the federal government to do things the Constitution actually does not assign to it (such as subsidizing solar power)."
He criticized that Weiser would "rather fight the duly elected president of the United States than protect Coloradans from crime," which is surging in the state.
His concern was Weiser's "troubling taxpayer-funded obsession" with Trump.
The latest scheme from Weiser is that he wants to make Colorado worse than California.
That issue is apportionment, which in Colorado is by an independent commission.
It was in 2018 voters approved a plan moving the job of drawing congressional districts from lawmakers to the commission.
"I voted against both. One reason is that I generally oppose moving political decisions away from the people's representatives and lodging them in administrative agencies. Doing so is undemocratic, and it doesn't take the politics out of the decisions. It just hides the politics from public view," Natelson wrote.
"Another reason is that lawmakers who gerrymander have to explain their conduct to the voters. An independent commission never has to do that."
He said he held doubts even then that "progressives" would keep their word if it ever became inconvenient, and Weiser's latest scheming confirms that worry.
"In Texas, reapportionment is still the prerogative of the legislature, and the legislature recently exercised that authority to create more Republican congressional districts. The legislature could defend this action as a response to the state's huge population growth and its increasingly Republican hue," he said. But in California, Democrats have abandoned their "independent" panel that already had gerrymandered districts to favor Democrats.
There, "Although Republicans garner nearly 40 percent of the vote in California, they hold only 17 percent of the state's seats in the U.S. House of Representatives," he noted.
That wasn't good enough for Democrats there, who are trying to cut that GOP representation in Congress now by half.
"Weiser has just shown that he's in the running for the Independence Institute's 'Californian of the Year Award.' He wants to pull the same stunt in Colorado."
The record on which Weiser is running already is skewed in a serious way. His "obsession" has prompted him to bring or join some 40 or more lawsuits against Trump, including:
That, of course, is only a few of the cases, "all paid for with our tax money," the commentary said.
Brace yourself for a housing policy that’s got conservatives seeing red: the Trump administration’s pitch for a 50-year mortgage.
The proposal, aimed at boosting housing affordability, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from across the Republican spectrum, with detractors arguing it traps homeowners in debt while padding the pockets of banks and lenders, the Washington Examiner reported.
This controversial idea emerged over the weekend when Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director and President Donald Trump’s housing chief, unveiled it as a potential fix for the housing crisis.
Pulte framed the extended mortgage term as part of a larger toolkit to protect “the American Dream for YOUNG PEOPLE,” suggesting it’s a bold step to help the next generation.
But let’s be honest—calling this a “dream” feels more like a bureaucratic fever dream when you dig into the numbers. A half-century of debt hardly screams opportunity.
President Trump himself drew parallels to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 30-year mortgage innovation during the New Deal, implying this could be a historic shift in housing policy.
Yet, the Republican rank-and-file aren’t buying the hype, with many slamming the plan as a betrayal of traditional homeownership values. They argue it’s less about owning a home and more about renting from a bank for five decades.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., crunched the numbers with a brutal reality check: “After paying on a home for 5 years, if the rate is 7% on a 50-year mortgage, you will have paid only 1.3% of the principal.” Talk about a slow crawl to equity—most folks will barely own a brick after half a decade.
Massie didn’t stop there, warning that such long terms likely mean tiny down payments, setting up borrowers for defaults and locking them in place with no flexibility to relocate for better jobs or schools.
Adding fuel to the fire, Chris Rossinni of the Ron Paul Institute cautioned that a 50-year mortgage “will mean the bank will own ‘your’ home for 50 years.” If that doesn’t sound like a corporate overreach dressed up as a lifeline, what does?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., echoed the sentiment, decrying a system that leaves people “in debt forever, in debt for life.” She’s not wrong to question who really wins here—homeowners or the financial giants?
Greene also pointed out that the plan seems tailored to enrich banks, lenders, and builders while saddling families with crushing interest payments that might outlast their lifetimes.
Instead of embracing endless debt, Greene floated ideas like qualifying renters with solid payment histories for mortgages and scrapping federal capital gains taxes on primary home sales. These seem like practical steps that don’t chain folks to a lender for generations.
Other conservative voices, like commentator Meghan McCain, urged a focus on raising wages or cutting costs rather than peddling long-term loans that erode fiscal responsibility. If Republicans stand for sound money management, this proposal feels like a sharp left turn.
Even cultural critics like Laura Loomer and Matt Walsh have chimed in, pressing Trump to zero in on immigration policy reforms over tinkering with mortgage terms. With so many pressing issues, is this really the hill to build a house on?
Over the weekend, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) wrote in a memo that states must "undo" sending full SNAP payments to residents for the month of November.
“To the extent states sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” the Saturday memo reads. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”
The administration has only authorized partial benefits for November, and said that states might incur financial "consequences" if they pay out full benefits.
Specifically, states might forfeit the federal portion of their SNAP benefits for November as well as future payments if they don't comply with the memo.
A Rhode Island federal judge ordered Trump to pay full SNAP benefits, but U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order while the appeals process plays out.
Before the Supreme Court ruling, the USDA had ordered states to comply with the lower court ruling and pay full benefits.
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania moved on Friday to issue full benefits in accordance with the lower court order. Colorado, North Carolina, and Illinois set a timeline to do the same, and Delaware used state money to issue benefits on an emergency basis.
A court in Massachusetts blocked the memo temporarily and said that states did not have to comply. A virtual hearing is set for Monday afternoon.
The whole situation has devolved into a confusing mess, with food banks being stretched beyond their limits as people wait to hear when their benefits will come.
Of course, people should not be depending on SNAP to provide their food, but this kind of rapid shift in the system caught many people unawares.
The Senate has moved to (finally) end the shutdown with the votes of eight Democrats on Sunday, enough for cloture so the spending bill can be passed.
Hopefully, the end of the shutdown will make all of these court cases moot and people can go back to the status quo, at least until the next round at the end of January.
Republicans stuck to their guns despite not having a great election last week, and it paid off for them as Democrats had to give in without getting their ACA subsidies back.
There will be a vote on the subsidies, though, so hopefully Congress will be able to close the loophole for illegal immigrants getting them and alleviate the steep increases for everyone else.
The Trump administration said on Monday that it would continue to seek a block of an order to pay full SNAP benefits for November in the midst of a federal government shutdown.
A Rhode Island court issued the order last week after President Donald Trump agreed to pay partial benefits to SNAP recipients using existing funding, but said that full benefits would not be paid because the funding was not yet approved by Congress.
A Boston appeals court twice ruled that it would not stay the lower court ruling while the Supreme Court considered the case.
Besides the issue of whether a court can rule that payments be made in the absence of funding by Congress, the Trump administration also argued that the ruling violated a SCOTUS decision about lower courts being able to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the order while the White House decided whether to continue to seek a block on the lower court decision.
A supplemental brief is being filed today, and plaintiffs were ordered to respond by Tuesday morning.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration also sent a memo to states that unilaterally said they would pay the full SNAP benefit amount to recipients, telling them they had to "undo" the payments.
A judge in Massachusetts quickly blocked that memo, however.
To me, it seems like a lot of to-do over nothing. When the shutdown ends, which it looks like will happen this week, full benefits will be paid.
It seems like a lot of court activity over a few days of delay, and I'm not sure why that's a hill Trump wants to die on.
The Senate finally advanced a spending bill on Sunday after working through the weekend, and the terms seem pretty favorable to Republicans, which means it will likely pass in the House as well.
The bill funds the government through January, but funds SNAP benefits through most of 2026.
It also guarantees a vote on extending ACA subsidies for an additional year, but did not approve the subsidies yet.
The end of the shutdown also seems likely to alleviate shortages at food banks and other issues stemming from a lack of payments to lower-income individuals.
President Donald Trump's tariff fight has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the arguments are already flying on both sides as the justices scrutinize whether he had the ability to impose the tariffs under his authority.
According to Fox News, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took the lead on determining whether or not Trump had the authority to impose global tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
She joined other justices, from both sides, in scrutinizing the ability for the president to use the emergency law to impose an aggressive tariff scheme on numerous countries since taking office.
Solicitor General John Sauer, during a nearly three-hour back-and-forth, argued in favor of Trump's ability to use the emergency law to impose the tariffs, pointing to language in the law that he believes allows it.
Justice Barrett pressed Sauer on his arguments, seemingly especially skeptical of the law's language regarding how Trump's lawyers interpreted it.
Fox News noted:
Solicitor General John Sauer repeatedly argued during the lengthy 2½-hour oral arguments that the emergency law Trump used to enact the tariffs for nearly every U.S. trading partner contained language about regulating imports, which Sauer said included using tariffs. The relevant statute permits the president to "regulate … nullify [and] void … importation," but it does not use the word "tariff." Barrett pressed Sauer on this point.
"Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together, ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?" Barrett asked Sauer.
Sauer apparently had a difficult time convincing Barrett.
Fox News added:
Sauer noted one other trade law that had served as a precursor to the emergency law in question, but Barrett appeared unconvinced, repeating her question as Sauer failed to offer direct responses.
As Sauer continued to try to prove his point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal justice, demanded Sauer "just answer the justice's question."
Sotomayor wasn't done there. She challenged Sauer's argument and proclaimed that, contrary to Sauer's argument, tariffs are taxes.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax," Sotomayor said. "And you want to say tariffs are not taxes. But that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
The two continued to go back and forth, offering a glimpse at how tough a fight Sauer and the Trump administration have ahead of them.
It'll be interesting to see how SCOTUS comes down on the issue, that's for sure.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., predicted the federal government shutdown would end Sunday, saying "cooler heads are prevailing" after President Donald Trump "gave us a breakthrough" on Saturday.
"I think this madness ends today," said Graham, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel. "The government will reopen today, we're not gonna talk about health care until it does."
"I think the government is gonna open today because cooler heads are prevailing on the Democratic side. Sen. [Jeanne] Shaheen, Sen. [Susan] Collins, Katie Britt and many others, I think we'll have a breakthrough today."
Graham continued: "This political terrorism Democrats have been using, shut down airports, people not getting paid, staff benefits going away, it's backfiring."
"They want us to do two things by terrorizing the country. Repeal the $1.5 trillion in savings we had from the Big Beautiful Bill making Medicaid more efficient. They want to change the prohibition against illegal getting health care that we had in that bill. And they also want us to continue for another year Obamacare which is the biggest scam on the planet.
"Under Obamacare, insurance companies' stocks have gone up about 1,000%. Your premiums have doubled. The only winner under Obamacare is insurance companies. They sign people, up, they get paid and these people don't even make claims; 190,000 people were signed up on Obamacare and didn't even know it. So it's a scam for insurance companies, it's not helping affordability, and Donald Trump gave us a breakthrough yesterday."
The breakthrough to which Graham was referring is Trump's declaration on X Saturday to have money sent directly to Americans instead of "money sucking" insurance companies attached to Obamacare.
Trump said: "I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over.
"In other words, take from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate, per Dollar spent, the worst Healthcare anywhere in the World, ObamaCare. Unrelated, we must still terminate the Filibuster!
On Sunday morning, the president followed up with additional lengthy messages about the situation, saying: "I am sorry that the American People are being terrorized by Democrats who have decided to shut the Government down to make me and other Republicans continue ObamaCare subsidies, which have been a windfall for Health Insurance Companies, and a DISASTER for the American People.
"The largest Health Insurance Companies have seen their Stock Prices soar (Some over 1000%!) since the passage of ObamaCare. Meanwhile, Americans' Premiums have more than DOUBLED, contrary to President Obama's promise. I believe that the money should go directly to THE PEOPLE to purchase better Healthcare, and create competition.
"This enrichment of Health Insurance companies must stop. It is long past time to lower Premiums, not enrich Insurance Companies. I stand ready to work with both Parties to solve this problem once the Government is open. Stop terrorizing the American People. Stop pushing failed policies!"
Trump continued: "Democrats claim to be working for 'the little guy,' and driving down your Health Insurance, but the OBAMACARE SCAM goes STRAIGHT TO THEIR BEST FRIENDS IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. THEY ARE MAKING A 'KILLING,' while Health Coverage only gets WORSE.
"If Democrats get their way again, they're in for another HUGE Payday at the expense of the American People. NO DEAL! Republicans should give money DIRECTLY to your personal HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS that I expanded in our GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lee Zeldin, President Trump's administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is warning of "far more severe, drastic" layoffs at the EPA as the federal government shutdown continues.
"It was about three weeks ago where EPA had a 4,000 staff furlough kick in, Zeldin said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
"This is the last pay period before a far more severe, drastic furlough is going to kick in at the EPA."
The administrator explained there would be "impacts for environmental protection across the board."
"The Office of Air and Radiation, we're talking Clean Air Act, we're talking about air pollution, they're gonna be operating at less than 15%," he said. "The Office of Water which is responsible for the Safe Drinking Water Act will be operating at less than 40%.
"Big impacts at the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Think Superfund, Brownfield, emergency response. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance will be down over 70%. That is enforcement and compliance of the environmental laws of this country.
"So I don't want to hear congressional Democrats in the future talking about how important it is to be dealing with Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and these other laws if right now they're talking about this environmental impact as leverage to be able to gain more power.
"We at the EPA want to be operating with a federal government that's open, employees at the office and getting paid. Unfortunately we're at a crossroads moment where congressional Democrats are choosing to use this as leverage and it's wrong."
Zeldin indicated he came into office with an employee staff size of about 16,000, and expected that number to be 12,000 by the end of this year.
Prior to his stint at the EPA, Zeldin unsuccessfully ran for governor of New York, and he was asked about the big change in New York City with last week's election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor.
"Drastically, it's a sad moment where I feel bad for the New Yorkers who tried to stop it," Zeldin responded.
"I feel bad for the former New Yorkers who have fled. But I don't feel bad for those who voted for it and others who decided to stay on the sidelines."
"The Democratic Party chose to nominate a guy who is a socialist, who is a communist, who has talked about defending the police and will absolutely set the New York City back."
"This isn't even the Democratic Party of a few years ago. The far left is tail-wagging the dog here and is taking over the Democratic Party and it's harming all of America because of it."