President Donald Trump's nationwide raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have drawn massive praise and criticism alike, and now other countries are starting to chime in.
According to Breitbart, the president of Mexico apparently isn't a fan of the Trump administration conducting raids on certain types of illegal immigrants, especially the "honest" and "hardworking" ones.
During her daily news conference, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum made her thoughts on the ongoing immigration raids crystal clear.
She had reportedly just met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, where the two discussed several issues involving the United States and Mexico, with the immigration raids presumably being one of those topics.
Reports indicated that during the meeting, the Mexican president reporteldy took a strong stance against Trump's immigration raids.
"We talked about defending our migrant brothers and sisters,” Sheinbaum said. “That we did not agree with the use of raids to detain people who work honestly in the United States, that this would harm not only the people, but also the United States economy itself," she reportedly said.
Breitbart noted:
Sheinbuam claimed that the meeting was conducted out of courtesy, as Landau was introducing himself in his new role under the Trump administration, and that during the conversation, they discussed strengthening the bonds between the two countries.
Notably, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had just called out Mexico's president on her apparent "promotion" of the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles and other areas.
Sheinbaum reportedly disputed Noem's claims that she had promoted the ongoing L.A. anti-ICE riots, which have caused untold millions in damage and put the general public at risk every single night.
Noem had reportedly condemned Sheinbaum's behavior in helping fuel the fire for anti-ICE protesters.
Users across social media reacted to Sheinbaum's stance on the subject.
Mexican President says Mexican Nationals who violate our Immigration Laws are not criminals...Try that in Mexico pic.twitter.com/y1zhTaUCRs
— Free_American (@alvarezzis6) June 9, 2025
"Dear Mexican President, You lie!!!! They crossed our border illegally! That makes them criminals!" one X user wrote.
Another X user accused her of being under cartel control, writing, "She lies, for the cartels."
California Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, have thrown dramatic hissy fits regarding the financial cost of sending military troops to help quell the rowdy protests and riots in Los Angeles and across the state.
However, according to Fox News, the cost of President Donald Trump providing military assistance to the area is far less than the actual cost of housing, feeding, and providing medical care for illegal immigrants.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass echoed Newsom's attack on the Trump administration for spending the resources and money needed for the troop deployment, only to be shot down by actual receipts.
Many, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, pointed out the insane cost of taking care of illegal immigrants in the state, which far outweighs the $134 million it cost to deploy troops there.
Newsom and Bass both used their X accounts to blast the Trump administration for paying for sending in the troops.
Just an absolutely shameful use of taxpayer dollars that could be used to actually HELP people. Despicable, Bass wrote on her X account.
Newsom, on his account, wrote, "$134 million that should be going to LA’s fire recovery. Shameful."
Others were quick to point out that it was a small price to pay compared to what the Democrats spend on illegals in the state of California alone, which totals billions and billions of dollars.
$134 million that should be going to LA’s fire recovery.
Shameful. https://t.co/hHY3Fs3Lhn
— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 10, 2025
"How many billions have you spent on illegals Gavin? It’s well into the hundreds of billions,"Conservative activist Robby Starbuck posted on X. "THAT money should have gone to your citizens and fire recovery but you gave it to illegals.
Social media was flooded with reactions to the posts by Bass and Newsom, with plenty of people pointing out how much they spend on illegals and how the state's money is largely mismanged.
"What about the $300B spent yearly on illegal immigrants? I'm fine with the National Guard removing them," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "That’s even worse than the time wildfires burned down your city, causing 200 billion in damage."
"Oh now you care about tax payers and their dollars," another X user pointed out.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As America faces a storm of inflation, mass layoffs and growing economic instability, a deeper and more unsettling reality is emerging, one that few in Washington are willing to confront: Over the past decade, India has skillfully weaponized the U.S. visa system, turning it into a tool for national gain and the expense of multitudes of American workers.
Backed by relentless lobbying from powerful trade groups like the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Indian multinational enterprises have flooded the American labor market with foreign workers, displacing U.S. citizens and reshaping entire industries under the guise of "partnership."
What was once sold as a diplomatic and economic alliance rooted in shared prosperity has proven to be anything but mutual. Instead, it has led to a quiet yet deliberate transfer of American jobs, wealth and technological leverage, a transfer that now stands as one of the most costly misjudgments in modern U.S. trade and labor history.
While federal officials continue to tout a "resilient economy," the reality for millions of American workers is starkly different. The Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) reports that nearly 25% of working-age Americans are "functionally unemployed," meaning they are jobless, underemployed or earning below a living wage. This figure includes more than 5.7 million people excluded from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' official count simply because they've given up actively looking for work.
"Nearly one-in-four workers are functionally unemployed," warned LISEP chairman Gene Ludwig, "and current trends show little sign of improvement."
Likewise, according to the Roosevelt Institute, long-term unemployment has surged, with over 1.7 million Americans jobless for 27 weeks or more. Economist Alí Bustamante noted a 20.4% unemployment rate in white-collar sectors such as marketing, software development and data science, fields now heavily dominated by H-1B workers, overwhelmingly from India.
A separate Oxford Economics report found that recent U.S. graduates accounted for nearly 85% of new unemployment claims since mid-2023, a devastating sign of what awaits the next generation.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve confirmed that the U.S. economy has contracted over the past six weeks and confidence among employers has sharply declined. According to ZipRecruiter's Job Seeker Index, 40% of applicants now believe suitable jobs don't exist. And for countless young Americans, promised that college would be the gateway to prosperity, those degrees now feel worthless in the very sectors they were trained to enter.
Yet, even in the face of this unraveling, the U.S. government continues to approve more than 120,000 new H-1B visas each year, injecting more foreign labor into a collapsing job market. This is no longer a policy oversight, but rather, a deliberate betrayal of American workers, sacrificed at the altar of global labor pipelines and foreign appeasement.
Policy by proxy: CII's quiet campaign to reframe U.S. labor and trade through strategic messaging
To understand India's role in shaping American employment policy, one must examine the machinery behind it: the India lobby. This powerful and meticulously coordinated network includes government-affiliated industry bodies, multinational corporations and diaspora-driven advocacy groups, all working to align U.S. policy with India's economic interests. At its core, the lobby operates around three strategic objectives: securing preferential access to the U.S. labor market, eliminating trade barriers that constrain Indian firms, and shaping favorable narratives around immigration, globalization and bilateral partnership.
Through targeted messaging, think tank influence and high-level political engagement, the India lobby has deeply influenced U.S. labor, trade and defense policies for years, at the direct expense of American workers and industries.
Groups like the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC), North American Association of Indian IT Professionals (NAAIIP), the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) have framed their efforts as a partnership, pro-globalization and pro-innovation, casting visa liberalization and labor mobility as paths to shared prosperity.
Yet their lobbying campaigns frequently warn against "Buy American" provisions or any proposed regulation that protects American labor. In their view, such policies are not safeguards, but "aggressively protectionist."
India's lobby even raised objections while supporting broader legislative proposals, like the Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, which aimed to massively expand high-skilled visa caps and eliminate green card backlogs. When that bill proposed increasing application fees for employers whose U.S. workforce was more than 50% H-1B holders, both the U.S.-India Business Council and the Confederation of Indian Industry immediately protested, claiming the measure "essentially targets Indian firms operating in the U.S." and violates the spirit of the U.S.-India strategic partnership.
Ron Somers, then-president of the U.S.-India Business Council, went further: He asserted that congressional efforts to rein in H-1B and L-1 visa abuse were "discriminatory." And when the victimhood card didn't work, thinly veiled threats followed: "The specific targeting of Indian companies could create unintended consequences, including a backlash against U.S. companies operating in India," he warned.
The H-1B visa, originally intended as a narrow solution for employers who could not find qualified U.S. workers, was repackaged by the U.S.-India Business Council as "a critical tool in strengthening bilateral trade and investment." In reality, it had become one of India's most potent economic levers: a trade strategy disguised as a talent pipeline, backed by a relentless lobbying machine willing to cry foul and "discrimination" at any attempt to put American workers first.
Meanwhile, executives at the Confederation of Indian Industry strongly opposed any proposed H-1B restrictions, framing them as "protectionist" measures that would undermine global economic recovery. Rather than acknowledging serious concerns about displacement or labor market saturation, CII promoted offshoring and cross-border labor mobility as key drivers of growth. To support this narrative, the organization routinely produced polished lobbying materials, such as the India Matters for America report, the Indian roots, American Soil study and the Roadmap to $500 billion blueprint, all strategically crafted to influence U.S. lawmakers, corporate executives and trade officials.
These documents positioned Indian labor mobility not merely as an immigration issue, but as a bilateral trade imperative, embedding workforce access into broader economic negotiations between the two countries.
The protectionism paradox: The geopolitical weaponization of the 'discrimination' narrative and why defending American jobs was branded as Anti-India
India strategically frames "protectionism" as a pejorative term to discredit any U.S. policy that prioritizes American workers or enforces immigration and trade laws, casting such measures as discriminatory or anti-global rather than lawful and necessary. But as it turns out the "protectionism" was seriously warranted all along.
For despite the India lobby's insistence that H-1B labor mobility benefits both countries, the evidence shows that systemic abuse, discrimination and visa fraud were not outliers but part of the operating model for many of the largest Indian multinationals in the U.S. These same firms claiming that protectionism would harm strategic partnerships have faced repeated allegations and federal actions for discriminating against and displacing American workers, abusing visa channels and gaming the U.S. labor system to their advantage.
Infosys, for example, paid a then-record $34 million settlement for systemic visa fraud involving the misuse of visas to circumvent H-1B regulations. The company was again investigated in 2021 over allegations of discriminatory hiring practices favoring Indian and South Asian workers. IT consulting company Cognizant likewise faced multiple lawsuits over its hiring practices, including a high-profile federal case in which it was accused of violating anti-discrimination laws by systematically favoring Indian nationals for hiring and promotion over equally or more qualified American workers.
In a landmark verdict, a U.S. jury found Cognizant guilty of discrimination, confirming that the company had, since at least 2013, unlawfully prioritized Indian workers in ways that directly harmed American employees and job applicants.
Indian tech company Wipro has also been the subject of multiple EEOC complaints and was named in a whistleblower lawsuit alleging a consistent pattern of replacing American employees with H-1B visa holders, favoring South Asian workers regardless of merit or tenure. Tech Mahindra faced similar allegations in a 2020 federal class action lawsuit that accused the company of discriminatory employment practices against non-South Asian and older American professionals, including biased terminations and hiring preferences in favor of Indian nationals.
HCL Technologies was also named in a major class action lawsuit believed to involve thousands of affected U.S. workers, alleging widespread discriminatory hiring practices. These cases, many brought by the law firm Kotchen & Low, have exposed a disturbing pattern across top-tier Indian IT companies, with Infosys, Wipro, Cognizant, Tech Mahindra and Tata Consultancy Services all accused of systematically disadvantaging qualified American workers in violation of U.S. labor and civil rights laws.
These patterns are far from isolated. They represent a coordinated and deeply entrenched strategy that has reshaped the American labor market.
Indian IT giants didn't merely displace individual U.S. workers; they systematically undercut entire sectors, including domestic staffing firms, by deploying a business model rooted in low-cost H‑1B labor and aggressive offshoring. As the Economic Policy Institute documented, firms like HCL engaged in widespread wage theft, underpaying H‑1B workers by over $95 million annually, exploiting loopholes in U.S. visa law to maximize profits while eroding American wage standards.
The fallout didn't stop with workers. American staffing companies, once the backbone of domestic talent pipelines, have either shuttered under the weight of unfair wage competition or opted to outsource themselves. This isn't just a matter of job loss; it's a slow dismantling of the broader U.S. labor ecosystem.
Even as American livelihoods were outsourced, the India lobby again reframed the narrative. Industry-backed studies circulated among U.S. policymakers claimed that "outsourcing and globalization will benefit the U.S. economy" "through cheaper services, greater efficiency and higher shareholder returns," assuring that any "pain and suffering caused by the dislocation of U.S. workers" would be more than offset by broader macroeconomic gains.
In reality, those dislocations hollowed out communities, careers and entire industries in America.
Yet through all of this, not one of the major India-based industry groups, CII, USIBC, NASSCOM or NAAIIP, has meaningfully addressed these abuses. Instead, they have portrayed any attempt to implement reforms or oversight as "discriminatory" against Indian firms, effectively shielding repeat offenders from accountability. While American workers were pushed aside, lobbyists and corporate executives were busy spinning talking points about innovation, diversity and "bilateral growth."
While clear evidence of abuse piled up, U.S. policymakers repeatedly failed to uphold their duty to protect American workers. Congressional hearings have highlighted these issues for years, yet lawmakers from both parties have refused to enact meaningful reforms or enforce existing laws. Whether motivated by political convenience, donor influence or diplomatic priorities, the outcome has been the same: American labor was sacrificed in favor of India's economic ambitions.
Perhaps the answer lies in the enormous lobbying budgets poured into Washington by Infosys, Cognizant, Tata, Wipro and HCL, together spending nearly $35 million over this period. These companies have relentlessly lobbied for looser H-1B and L-1 visa rules, the elimination of per-country green card limits and the defeat of any policy that would curb outsourcing, raise labor costs, or strengthen protections for American workers. Their well-funded campaigns have enabled the unchecked displacement of American jobs, blocking every serious effort at accountability or reform.
Visa policy as a trade weapon
India has made no secret of its strategy. As early as 2009, both the Confederation of Indian Industry and Indian ambassadors urged U.S. lawmakers to treat H-1B access as a trade concession no different than tariffs or market entry rights. During high-level meetings with U.S. Chamber of Commerce executives and members of Congress, CII consistently tied "skilled labor mobility" to broader trade negotiations.
Strengthening US-India Economic Partnerships
India's gambit was simple: Use visas as a form of leverage to gain access to American markets, technology and capital while avoiding reciprocal commitments. In 2020, Indian officials expressed optimism that the Biden administration would go soft on immigration policy.
Joe Biden Means a Lot for India
By 2021, India had become the top recipient of H-1Bs and the largest source of foreign students in the U.S., with over 100,000 Indian students attending American universities.
Strengthening US-India Economic Partnerships
While India advanced its labor-export strategy with precision, the American public was left to reconcile a glaring contradiction: On paper, the U.S. economy remained strong, still the world's top importer and exporter, with wages reportedly rising and the U.S. share of global gross national product once again increasing. But despite these markers of success, American workers felt increasingly uncertain about their futures.
The promise of prosperity no longer matched their lived reality. The job market, especially for new graduates and white-collar professionals, became saturated, offshored or automated. Confidence plummeted. The disconnect was so stark that many began gravitating toward leaders like Donald Trump and his campaign promises of "Make America Great Again" and "America First", whose rhetoric resonated with citizens who felt sidelined by trade deals and immigration policies that favored foreign interests, especially those aggressively pushed by India.
Americans voted for the America First promise
During his first administration, Trump attempted to curb the displacement of American workers by issuing executive orders focused on restoring integrity to the H-1B program and enforcing a "Hire American, Buy American" agenda, efforts aimed at protecting domestic labor from being undercut by cheap foreign imports and outsourcing schemes masquerading as skilled migration, a policy that was later revoked during the Biden administration.
Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2024 did so with clear economic anxieties in mind. Many working-class and middle-income voters felt sidelined by declining job prospects, wage stagnation and the threat of automation making his campaign promises to "make America great again" a genuine beacon of hope.
Throughout Trump's campaign, voters were drawn to the belief that "America First" and "Make America Great Again" would mean bringing more jobs back to America, that it would "end the theft of American prosperity" by both illegal and "legal" immigration. But as the campaign progressed, cracks began to appear.
By mid‑2024, Trump began softening. Speaking on a All-In podcast hosted by Silicon Valley tech investors, angel investor Jason Calacanis told Trump the U.S. needs to be able to legally retain more high-skilled workers, a major issue for the tech industry, where Trump proposed granting green cards to foreign students upon U.S. college graduation: "If you graduate from a U.S. college, you should automatically get a Green Card as part of your diploma." This marked a departure from his earlier strict stance.
That evolution sparked both praise from industry leaders like Elon Musk, who insisted America needed those skilled graduates, and sharp criticism from right-wing figures who saw it as a betrayal of working Americans. Musk, a former H‑1B holder himself, asserted that the program contributes essential talent, while populist voices warned it would undercut their economic base.
To many Trump voters who backed his anti-immigration posture, this shift felt like a broken promise. They had trusted that his rhetoric would curb offshoring, close visa loopholes and deliver real job protection. Instead, they watched as temporary relief gave way to compromises that favored strategic economic elites and left their dreams of job security unfulfilled.
Since Trump's return to the White House in January 2025, India has intensified its strategic push on multiple fronts, visa diplomacy, trade and geopolitical coordination, all clearly aimed at preserving its advantaged position in the U.S. labor market.
In the opening days of Trump's new term, India's Ministry of External Affairs swiftly reaffirmed that H‑1B visa access "benefits both countries," publicly thanking Trump and Elon Musk for their backing, including Musk's willingness to go to "war" to defend H-1B visas. As the new administration increased scrutiny on H‑1B petitions, Indian professionals pivoted toward alternative channels, L‑1, O‑1 and EB‑5 visas, driving a surge in demand of up to 50% since January 2025.
India-US Relations Set to Grow with H-1B Visa Support from Trump
In a calculated diplomatic gesture, India agreed to repatriate approximately 18,000 undocumented nationals in a move aimed at preserving legal migration pathways for its H-1B workforce. The proposal, timed to align with Trump's renewed focus on immigration enforcement, signaled India's willingness to cooperate on deportations as a means to protect its long-term labor interests.
Surprisingly, India ranks as the third-largest source of illegal immigrants in the United States, with nearly 90,000 Indian nationals arrested attempting to cross the U.S. border illegally in 2023 alone.
During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's February visit to Washington, he reaffirmed this stance at the White House, stating, "If Indians are living in the U.S. illegally, India is ready to take them back." That visit also secured trade and tariff concessions: India agreed to reduce duties on U.S. imports, including motorcycles and whiskey, and signaled openness to broader bilateral tariff dialogues, consistent with a deal framework that Trump administration officials suggested could be finalized by mid-2025.
The labor takeover: How India replaced Americans in their own economy
Today, more than five million Indians hold nonimmigrant visas to the U.S. and have a mission to issue thousands more each day.
U.S. consulates in India issued over one million nonimmigrant visas in 2024 for the second year running and piloted a domestic H‑1B renewal program now slated for expansion in 2025, a development supported by Indian-American lawmakers and celebrated in Indian media as a win for "bilateral mobility."
The U.S. mission quietly issued tens of thousands of permanent residency permits to Indian visa holders on arrival under the banner of "family reunification" Over 72% of H-1Bs go to India-born workers year after year, facilitated by lobbying groups like CII and NASSCOM, which have pushed to eliminate wage floors, oversight and limits on job portability.
Critics like Ronil Hira, a leading expert on tech labor policy, have warned that the system not only displaces Americans, but also traps Indian workers in arrangements that amount to indentured servitude, as they are completely beholden to the company that hires them.
"There is no systemic shortage of American tech workers," Hira testified before Congress. "This is about cost, not skills."
Yet, the myth persists. India's government, global consultants and Indian-American CEOs continue to cast H-1B expansion as an innovation necessity. Meanwhile, Indian companies use the system to build their own U.S. presence, extract corporate secrets and reroute R&D and contracts back to India.
In sum, India's 2025 strategy is unambiguous: It has doubled down on curated visa access, diplomatic coordination on immigration and trade and national capacity building. The result has preserved its leverage in the U.S. even as America's own labor market shows signs of decline.
When promises become policy … and policy becomes betrayal
In 2025, as artificial intelligence began replacing white-collar jobs en masse, India doubled down. Officials called for more remittances, more "global mobility" and expanded visa access through schemes like GATI, which aims to export millions more skilled Indian workers to Western nations including the U.S. as a formal economic development tool.
Despite mass layoffs across the U.S. tech and white-collar sectors, USCIS recently disclosed that 120,141 H-1B visa applications were selected for fiscal year 2025, each representing a foreign worker who could displace an American in industries already shedding jobs. Rather than acknowledging this growing concern, Indian media outlets have launched coordinated attacks on Americans who dare to speak out.
The Times of India mocked critics, stating "MAGA supporters freaked out over the 'huge' number of H-1B approvals and contended that U.S. jobs are still being stolen," downplaying the figure as insignificant.
In a nation of 1.4 billion, 120,000 may seem trivial. In the United States, however, where many citizens are struggling to find employment or reenter the job market, even one job lost to a foreign worker is one too many. Americans are rightfully alarmed when their own government permits visa-based labor imports, while their neighbors remain unemployed, their children face bleak job prospects and the American Dream continues to slip further out of reach.
A decade-long bargain that never paid off
Despite more than a decade of high-level summits, diplomatic photo ops and carefully worded declarations emphasizing "mutual prosperity," the U.S.-India economic relationship has remained deeply one-sided. What was sold as a strategic partnership, founded on the premises of "reciprocal trade," "open markets" and "shared growth," has instead operated as a conduit for India's economic advancement at America's expense.
While Indian firms enjoy unrestricted access to American markets, India continues to shield its own, limiting U.S. firms' reciprocal access to Indian markets. India maintains one of the highest average tariff rates among U.S. trade partners at 17% and continues to impose protectionist barriers on U.S. technology, media, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and digital services. India's discriminatory procurement policies still favor local suppliers and domestic firms, often under the banner of "Aatmanirbhar Bharat," or economic self-reliance.
Americans became the collateral damage
Now, as the job market softens and recession warnings loom, Americans are waking up to the harsh reality that they were never part of the equation. They were the cost. Today's employment crisis isn't accidental; it's structural, built over decades of policy favoring foreign interests, cheap labor and global integration at the expense of national stability. And at the center of it all was a visa program marketed as "high skill," but repurposed as a powerful geopolitical tool.
India played the long game. American leaders folded. And U.S. workers were left behind.
Americans deserve the truth about how this happened. The trail leads back to India, their trade groups like the Confederation of Indian Industry, foreign lobbying networks, corporate collusion and a political class that chose profits over patriotism. It's time to put America first again and to demand that America's immigration, trade and labor policies serve its people, not foreign governments.
President Donald Trump has never made a secret of his disdain for what he views as green energy boondoggles, and he recently underscored that point during a signing event at the White House.
As The Hill reports, as part of remarks made while signing measures designed to reverse California's electric vehicle mandate, Trump vowed not to approve any expansion of wind energy generation outside of emergency scenarios.
The president held little back when discussing what he sees as the highly detrimental effects of wind energy production initiatives, not just in terms of its limited viability, but also with regard to its aesthetic and environmental consequences.
He declared, “We're not going to let windmills get built because we're not going to destroy our country any further than it's already been destroyed.”
Touching on the proliferation in wind farms seen in recent years all across the country, Trump continued, “You go and look at these beautiful plans and valleys, and they're loaded up with this garbage that gets worse and worse looking with time.”
The president noted that only an exigent scenario of national proportions would be sufficient to change his mind on the subject.
“We're not going to approve windmills unless something happens that's an emergency. I guess it could happen, but we're not doing any of them,” he concluded.
Trump registered his disapproval of wind energy in extensive fashion while on the campaign trail last year, and upon taking office early this year, his new administration took some measured steps to begin curtailing its expansion.
On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order placing what was described as a temporary halt to new wind project approvals.
According to the order, onshore wind project development was only slated to be stopped until an assessment of permitting practices could be conducted by the administration.
The language of the order indicated that the assessment would assess the potentially “grave harm” wind projects may cause.
The environmental impact on communities of “defunct and idle windmills” was also a subject slated for review as part of the ordered pause.
No timeline for the aforementioned assessment was provided, and The Hill suggests that no movement on the advancement of any new wind projects appears to be imminent.
Though it remains to be seen whether the administration will hold fast to the president's pledge and prevent wind energy expansion during his term in office, there appears to be little doubt about how he feels about the idea.
Following the work of the Department of Government Efficiency to expose monumental amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, there has been some legitimate frustration among those who believe Congress is not doing enough to cut unnecessary expenditures of taxpayer dollars.
The Republican-led House just took a small but important initial step to begin making some of the DOGE cuts permanent with the passage of a bill that would slash around $9.4 billion in dubious spending from the federal budget, Fortune reported.
Of course, many Democrats hyperbolically reacted as though the relatively modest cuts would eliminate critical life-saving programs around the globe, while some Republicans argued that the cuts weren't nearly enough to get rampant federal spending under control.
On Thursday, in a 214-212 vote, the House approved a bill that would rescind approximately $9.4 billion in previously authorized federal spending, per a request from President Donald Trump's White House.
According to the Associated Press, the recession request was submitted under the Impoundment Control Act, in which a president can notify Congress of their intention not to spend certain authorized funds, at which point Congress has 45 days to decide whether to approve or deny the request.
Notably, the recession process only requires a simple majority to clear the Senate rather than the 60-vote threshold that is typically needed to pass normal spending bills.
The AP noted that the White House further indicated that this request was likely just the first, and more was to come, probably in September, near the end of the fiscal year.
In a statement posted to X, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said, "Today’s House passage of this initial rescissions package marks a critical step toward a more responsible and transparent government that puts the interests of the American taxpayers first."
"Thanks to DOGE’s work, this package eliminates $9.4 billion in unnecessary and wasteful spending at the State Department, USAID, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds politically biased media outlets like NPR and PBS," he added. "This is just one of the multiple ways Republicans are codifying President Trump’s executive orders and DOGE’s findings."
Predictably, House Democrats howled about how "cruel" and terrible the proposed cuts were and ominously warned that they could result in disasters, disease, and death around the world, according to Fortune, but many Republicans pushed back against such fearmongering.
"Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point," House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) said. "It’s about people in our country being put first."
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) explained that the cuts targeted unnecessary expenditures on things like climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and said, "Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don’t use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn’t even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble."
To be sure, the request to rescind roughly $9.4 billion in federal spending is just a fraction of the estimated $180 billion that DOGE has identified as wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive spending that should be cut from the federal budget.
That said, as both the White House and many congressional Republicans insisted, this bill passed by the House and forwarded to the Senate is merely an opening bid in a continuing effort to pare down the budget and compel the government to only spend within its means.
Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins won't tolerate his agency being run by unions and private contractors over concerns of waste and abuse, the Daily Caller reported. Collins said this during an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation published on Thursday.
President Donald Trump's administration is committed to slashing waste, abuse, and fraud in the federal government overall. Collins is more than on board with that in his own agency.
In a sit-down with the DCNF, Collins cited one of the most egregious examples of waste at the VA with outside contractors who charge millions to do simple administrative work that can be done in-house. Collins promises those days are over as he demands accountability.
Many government entities spend money on frivolous things, but Collins believes his agency took this to a whole new level and must reverse course. The secretary boasted about eliminating the diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives out of the gate.
Collins also discovered that the agency was outsourcing tasks such as creating meeting notes and PowerPoint slides to the tune of millions of dollars. It didn't make sense to Collins, and he took action right away.
"We had a department set up in the VA with employees, and yet we contracted another company to actually sort of run that department. And it’s like, okay, either we need to contract this or we need the employees," Collins reasoned.
"We don’t need both," he added, demonstrating common sense where there was none. "And so that’s the kind of stuff we’re seeing," Collins told the DCNF. The secretary stated that a private firm was hired for its "management capabilities" and to provide "oversight," but there were already in-house employees who were supposed to perform those tasks.
"It was like, you know, why are employees here at this point?" Collins added. "For folks understanding where we’re at in government right now going into an administration, it’s like going back into your room that you had been gone from for, say, a year or two, and you come back and you say, ‘why is this here?'” Collins said.
In addition to getting rid of the wasteful spending and redundancy, Collins was also concerned about quality control at the VA. He shared that the VA’s Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection has experienced "a little bit higher" numbers of complaints.
The purpose of the office is to make recommendations or take necessary action for VA staff misconduct. Tips to the office had increased under then-President Joe Biden, even though the final reports were down.
With Collins at the helm, the tips have also increased, though he said many "have been dismissed because sometimes people use it as a venting tool." Collins is also concerned about the role unionization plays in disciplining these employees, even with well-founded concerns.
Nearly 80% are protected under the public sector union, but Collins pledged to "hold people accountable" nonetheless. Under Biden, many employees who were fired over allegations of misconduct were hired back, which Collins also plans to rectify.
The VA exists to protect and care for those who served our country. Collins seems to be the first official in a long time who is interested not only in cutting waste for taxpayers but also in ensuring that they receive the best possible services.
The tumultuous landscape of Los Angeles is witnessing a dramatic upsurge in Donald Trump’s popularity, as violent riots involving illegal immigrants persist, according to The Populist Times.
Trump’s approval rating on immigration has soared, reflecting a shift in public sentiment compared to his first term.
According to CNN, the former president's stance on immigration has become a focal point. The network's data analyst, Harry Enten, highlighted this surge with confident clarity. Enten emphasized how Trump's approval on this issue has seen a marked improvement since his first term in office.
In stark contrast to his previous tenure, where his net approval on immigration was dismal at minus 21 points, Trump now enjoys a robust aggregate favorability exceeding 20 points. This positive swing signals a significant shift in the public's perception of his immigration policies.
The ongoing riots by illegal immigrants and their sympathizers have spotlighted immigration as a critical issue. Trump’s administration's actions to address this challenge, particularly through stringent deportation policies, are being met with growing approval. Enten noted that these policies find favor with 54 percent of those polled.
A crucial determinant in this approval growth is the support for deporting violent and criminal illegal aliens. This aspect of Trump's immigration strategy garners more than 90 percent approval in a range of surveys.
Public opinion appears to favor strong enforcement measures. More than half of the respondents back the use of agents to search for individuals illegally residing in the country, aligning with Trump’s agenda.
The strengthening of Trump’s popularity is juxtaposed against the criticism faced by the Democratic Party. Specific critiques have emerged targeting Democrats for allegedly supporting foreign-born criminals and backing causes that are reportedly unpopular with many Americans.
In particular, California Governor Gavin Newsom is under scrutiny. Reports suggest that he could potentially face detention and prosecution, further contributing to the contentious political climate.
Alex Villanueva, weighing in on the issue, described the Democratic Party in colorful terms. His remarks paint a divisive picture, lumping the party with “paid protests, purple hair, and pronouns”—a sharp criticism that resonates with certain voter sentiments.
Enten elaborated on CNN, “Yes, you know, if we just take a look at the baseline numbers here…” His analytical insights provide a frame to understand the shifting political tides. The fact that Trump is in "positive territory at plus one point on his net approval rating" captures a dramatic transformation.
Moreover, in analyzing the implications of these approval ratings, Enten pointed to Trump’s immigration-focused policies. "Well, Trump’s administration's program to deport those here illegally,” he stated, emphasizing the 54 percent backing that illustrates public support for his immigration measures.
Exploring public sentiment further, Enten remarked on activities like “agents searching your hometown for those that they think are here illegally.”
Such strategies maintain a majority approval, signifying robust backing for Trump's dedicated approach to tackling illegal immigration.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Denver, a progressive, leftist, Democrat enclave run by progressives, leftists and Democrats, demands that homebuilders build the structures the city prefers or pay an exorbitant extra fee.
And now it's being sued because its programs actually discourage what it purports to encourage: affordable housing.
It is the Pacific Legal Foundation that has brought the case on behalf of Denver homebuilder redT Homes, and CEO Nathan Adams.
The case challenges "Denver's permitting scheme, which forces builders to either set aside units to sell at below-market prices or pay huge fees to help create affordable housing."
A report at Complete Colorado explained, "At issue in this case is Denver's Linkage Fee ordinance, which was passed in 2022, that Adams' attorneys refer to as 'an exorbitant ransom for permission to build much-needed homes and exacerbates the problem the fee is trying to solve.'"
The report explains Denver's website demands that builders must be:
Those fees are moving, in just days, to $2.50 per square foot to $9 per square foot, depending on the type of construction.
The city claims the fees "support permanent housing and supportive services for at-risk residents, low- and moderate-income workforce rental housing and moderate-income for-sale housing.":
However, PLF said the company's expertise is in products ranging from "LiteHomes" to townhomes and apartments. And it explains Denver's agenda actually turns against solving the problem of a shortage of thousands of housing units.
"The City's regulations force home builders to pay for problems they do not create. The result: Developers have to increase the price of homes to cover the increased costs, making it harder for Denver families to buy homes," the PLF said.
"The excessive red tape has already priced redT out of some projects completely. Two of its upcoming projects may be headed down the same path: four single-family homes, which are subject to $25,000 in fees, and two duplexes, which are subject to $45,000 in fees," PLF said.
"Denver claims these fees are justified because new residents generate more housing demand. This rationale, however, misses the mark—the housing shortage stems from regulations that restrict supply by making it harder to build homes. Denver is punishing the very builders working to solve the housing crisis," according to the report.
"There's also a constitutional problem with these inclusionary zoning fees. The Supreme Court determined in a quartet of rulings that governments cannot burden homebuilders with costs for problems they do not create. Taken together, those cases established that permit conditions for new construction must be proportional and directly related to its impact. Anything above and beyond is an unconstitutional property taking," the PLF said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Saying that Israeli strikes on Iran are "nothing" compared to what is planned, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday the military operation will only intensify.
Meanwhile, Tehran canceled nuclear talks President Trump had urged it to continue, unless Iran wanted the attacks from Israel to continue.
Reuters reports that part of the most recent strikes on Iran appear to be oil and gas facilities, with Iranian state media reporting a blaze at a gas field.
Also Saturday, Israel endured its fifth round of Iranian ballistic missiles, with previous strikes having reduced some neighborhoods in the central part of the country to rubble.
Said Netanyahu in a video message: "We will hit every site and every target of the Ayatollahs' regime, and what they have felt so far is nothing compared with what they will be handed in the coming days."
Reuters reports that in Tehran, Iranian authorities said around 60 people, including 29 children, were killed in an attack on a housing complex, with more strikes reported across the country. Israel said it had attacked more than 150 targets.
Like Netanyahu, Trump has warned Iran of much worse to come. He said it was not too late to halt the Israeli campaign, but only if Tehran accepted a sharp downgrading of its nuclear program.
Many in the West hope the destabilizing of Iran will help the people there rise up against the Islamic leadership in Tehran.
"If (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front, Tehran will burn," Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Saturday.
Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone on Saturday.
"He feels, as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end," Trump wrote on social media.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Presidents discussed Iran, agreed hostilities should end
In a Truth Social post Saturday, President Trump reported that he had a one-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Beginning with niceties involving Trump's 79th birthday, the call included discussion of both the Israel-Iran conflict and Russia-Ukraine war.