Senator Ted Cruz told donors at a private fundraiser that Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy would deploy his network to support a Cruz 2028 presidential campaign, according to an anonymous attendee who spoke to the Daily Mail. The claim — denied by both Cruz's office and Ruddy's team — lands just as Ruddy prepares to testify before Cruz's own Senate committee on media ownership.
The timing alone deserves attention.
Cruz chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which is holding a hearing Tuesday titled "We Interrupt This Program: Media Ownership and the Digital Age." Ruddy is a scheduled witness. The two men share a common opponent in the proposed Nexstar-Tegna merger — and if the anonymous donor's account is accurate, they may share quite a bit more.
The donor, described as someone who has contributed financially to Cruz, told the Daily Mail:
"I attended a Ted Cruz fundraiser late last year and during the fundraiser Senator Cruz mentioned that Chris Ruddy would be using Newsmax to support his candidacy when and if he runs for the Republican primary, which is expected."
Cruz spokesperson Macarena Martinez fired back without hesitation:
"Once again, anonymous sources are putting words in Senator Cruz's mouth to further their own agendas. These are obvious lies, but the media once again shows that they are ready and eager to be spun up and used at every opportunity."
She added:
"Journalists used to know how to do their jobs. Those days are clearly far behind us."
Ruddy's team issued its own denial after publication, with a spokesperson saying the Newsmax CEO "denies the 'fake news' he ever promised Senator Cruz any endorsement, and neither he nor Newsmax has made any pledge of support for any candidate in 2028."
The anonymous donor, when presented with the denial, offered a parting shot:
"I guess they don't call him lying Ted for nothing."
So what we have is a single anonymous source against two on-the-record denials. That's worth noting before anyone builds a narrative castle on this foundation.
Even if the specific claim is exaggerated or fabricated, the underlying dynamics are real — and they illuminate the early fault lines of what could be a bruising 2028 Republican primary.
Cruz has been making moves. Last week, in an episode of the Ruthless podcast first obtained by the Daily Mail, he rejected the idea of a Supreme Court appointment that President Trump had recently floated:
"My answer's not just no, it's hell no."
His reasoning was characteristically blunt:
"A principled federal judge stays out of political fights and stays out of policy fights. I want to be right in the middle of them."
That's not a man positioning himself for a lifetime of judicial temperament. That's a man who wants to run for president — again.
Then there's the leaked audio. Last month, recordings given to Axios by a Republican source captured Cruz offering a remarkably candid assessment of Vice President JD Vance:
"Tucker created JD. JD is Tucker's protégé, and they are one and the same."
That's not the kind of thing you say about someone you view as an ally. It's opposition research delivered in your own voice.
If Cruz were shopping for conservative media support, his options would be limited. A source described as close to the White House explained why Ruddy's backing — real or imagined — would matter:
"Because he's got no other conservative outlet. Everyone else is gonna be with JD."
That same source added a less flattering assessment of what Ruddy's support would actually be worth:
"Maybe the way he sees it is Ted's going to be in the primary for a month and then he'll be gone, so it's not really - it's not like he's making a long-term commitment."
The numbers bear out the skepticism. Newsmax pulls roughly one-sixth of Fox News Channel's audience. In January, Newsmax's highest-rated primetime show drew 345,000 viewers. Fox's comparable figure: 2.046 million. It's the difference between a megaphone and a bullhorn — both amplify, but one carries a lot further.
Lost in the 2028 speculation is an actual policy fight worth watching. Tuesday's hearing centers on media ownership rules in the digital age, and the Nexstar-Tegna merger sits at the heart of it.
Tegna owns 64 local television stations across 51 U.S. markets. The FCC currently prohibits broadcasters from owning stations that reach more than 39 percent of American households. An enlarged Nexstar would reach 54.5 percent — blowing past the cap.
Ruddy filed a complaint with the FCC, arguing the deal violates national ownership caps. In a November Newsmax op-ed, he wrote:
"The answer to Big Tech consolidation is not to give left-wing TV broadcasters massive consolidation and power too. We don't need anti-Trump media controlling everything."
He also took a direct shot at the administration's own FCC chairman, Brendan Carr:
"It shocks me President Trump's FCC chairman has made his main priority giving the TV broadcasters more power and control, especially over local news."
President Trump, for his part, endorsed the merger on Truth Social Saturday:
"We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks. Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar - Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level."
That puts Ruddy and Cruz on one side of a media consolidation fight and the President on the other — a notable split that makes the alleged backroom alliance all the more interesting, regardless of whether it's real.
It also places Ruddy on the same side of the merger issue as Elizabeth Warren, Maxwell Frost, and Summer Lee. Strange bedfellows don't begin to cover it.
Cruz has tangled with FCC Chairman Carr before — particularly over Carr's September move to go after ABC's broadcast license over comments made by Jimmy Kimmel. Cruz called it what he saw:
"Dangerous as hell."
"That's right out of Goodfellas."
His concern wasn't about defending ABC. It was about precedent:
"Going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat wins again – wins the White House … they will silence us. They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous."
Cruz warned that if the government got into the business of policing what the media said, "that will end up bad for conservatives." It's a consistent libertarian-conservative position on media regulation, and it explains why he'd chair a hearing designed to scrutinize ownership consolidation rather than rubber-stamp it.
Strip away the anonymous sourcing and the denials, and a clear picture still emerges. Ted Cruz is not going to the Supreme Court. He's not retiring to a podcast. He's running for president — or at minimum, keeping every door open and every relationship warm.
Whether Chris Ruddy promised anything is almost beside the point. The structural reality is that a Cruz campaign would need a media ecosystem, and the major conservative outlets are likely to coalesce around Vance. If Newsmax — even at one-sixth of Fox's audience — provides a platform, it's better than nothing.
Ruddy, meanwhile, told the Daily Mail he looks forward to Tuesday's hearing and "an open and frank discussion about the dangers of media consolidation in the television broadcast industry." He did not answer directly when asked about supporting Cruz's presidential bid.
The denials are on the record. The ambitions are obvious. And both men sit down on Tuesday in a Senate hearing room where their interests happen to align perfectly — on media ownership, at least.
Everything else is just 2028 positioning disguised as 2026 policy.
Labour backbenchers are openly calling on Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to step down — and they're using the words of his own departing chief of staff to do it.
Morgan McSweeney resigned Sunday, claiming "full responsibility" for advising Starmer to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as U.S. Ambassador. The sacrifice was supposed to stop the bleeding. It hasn't. Within hours, Labour MPs turned McSweeney's exit into a template and pointed it straight at Downing Street.
The trigger: Starmer's admission in the House of Commons this week that he knew Mandelson had maintained a relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — after Epstein served prison time for child sex offences — and appointed him anyway.
Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, told The Telegraph that one resignation wouldn't be enough:
"This will not stop with a single resignation. A true change in political direction must now come from, and be led from, the very top."
He wasn't subtle about the implication, according to Breitbart News:
"The Prime Minister must now reflect honestly on his own position and ask whether, for the good of the country and the Labour Party, he should follow McSweeney's lead."
Brian Leishman, Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, echoed the call almost word for word:
"There must be a change in political direction and that comes from the very top, so the Prime Minister must look at his own position and question whether he should follow McSweeney's lead one last time, and resign for the good of the country and the Labour Party."
The coordinated language tells you this isn't spontaneous frustration. It's organized pressure.
Then there's the anonymous Labour MP who spoke to the broadsheet and dispensed with the diplomatic phrasing entirely:
"He's a coward who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions. He is a moral gravity-well, from which neither decency, honesty or integrity can escape. A genuine disaster for this country and the Labour movement."
That same MP predicted Starmer would go down as the worst PM in Labour history. From a member of his own party. Not the opposition benches — his own side.
The scandal isn't just that Mandelson had ties to Epstein. Plenty of powerful figures did. The scandal is that Starmer knew Mandelson continued the relationship after Epstein's conviction and imprisonment — and still handed him one of Britain's most prominent diplomatic posts.
This isn't a failure of vetting. It's a failure of judgment so total that it raises the question of what, exactly, Starmer thought was acceptable. The man who spent years conducting a methodical purge of the Labour left — sidelining rivals, consolidating power — suddenly couldn't manage basic due diligence on an appointment that would define his government's relationship with Washington.
The Metropolitan Police opened an investigation this week after U.S. DOJ documents indicated Mandelson apparently provided Epstein with confidential government information during the 2008 financial crisis — information that could have been used to game the markets. A criminal investigation into a sitting ambassador, triggered by American government documents. The diplomatic implications alone are staggering.
McSweeney's resignation has all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition — sacrifice the aide, protect the principal. Downing Street moved quickly to frame this as accountability in action. A spokesman said:
"The Prime Minister recognises the need for government to address the issues highlighted by the Mandelson revelations."
And:
"Work began last week on this. The Prime Minister has instructed officials to move at pace to deliver change. He hopes to update the country as early as tomorrow."
"Move at pace to deliver change" is the kind of phrase that sounds decisive and means nothing. Starmer is expected to address the nation on Monday. What he can say that reframes "I knowingly appointed a man linked to a convicted pedophile" remains unclear.
The problem with the fall-guy strategy is that McSweeney can only absorb blame for the advice. Starmer is the one who took it. He's the Prime Minister. The appointment was his decision, made with full knowledge of the Epstein connection. No amount of staff turnover changes that sequence.
Lord Maurice Glasman, founder of the Blue Labour faction that argues for a return to working-class priorities, went further than anyone on Sky News Sunday. He said the party must "repent" of the "sin" of the "love of globalisation" and the "worship of success and money."
Then he delivered the line that will echo through Westminster for weeks:
"The Labour Party has to repent and reject New Labour as an alien body that took over the party. And this is where it leads: perversion and pedophilia."
Glasman also noted he had advised against hiring Mandelson — the longtime Labour operative and so-called "Prince of Darkness" who served as the power behind Tony Blair's throne. He described the New Labour approach associated with Mandelson as "Maoist Managerialism."
It's a striking moment. Labour's internal critics aren't just attacking a bad appointment. They're attacking the entire ideological infrastructure that produced it — the globalist, elite-networked, morally flexible project that New Labour represented and that Starmer, for all his talk of change, never actually dismantled.
Starmer spent this week trying to rally Labour against Reform UK, pitching himself as the last line of defense for the multicultural, pro-diversity globalist project. Reform has held a commanding lead in the polls over the past year. Nigel Farage's anti-mass migration movement has captured ground that Labour once considered its birthright.
The timing could not be worse. Starmer needed unity. He got a revolt. He needed moral authority. He got an Epstein scandal. He needed to project competence. His chief of staff just walked out the door.
Years of brutal internal consolidation — the purges, the sidelining, the methodical takeover of the party apparatus — were supposed to make Labour ungovernable by anyone but Starmer and his circle. Instead, they left him isolated. When the crisis hit, there was no deep bench of loyal allies willing to absorb the blow. There was McSweeney, and now McSweeney is gone.
The backbenchers calling for Starmer's head aren't political heavyweights. They don't need to be. The damage isn't in the weight of the voices — it's in the fact that they're speaking at all. A prime minister whose own MPs publicly suggest he resign over a moral failing doesn't recover by giving a Monday morning address. He recovers by being right, and Starmer was wrong on this from the beginning.
He knew. He appointed Mandelson anyway. And now his own party is telling him that one resignation wasn't enough.
President Trump proclaimed on Friday, opening the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument to commercial fishing, revoking prohibitions that had locked American fishermen out of nearly 5,000 square miles of Atlantic waters off the New England coast.
The White House branded the move part of Trump's "America First Fishing Policy" — a direct reversal of restrictions first imposed by Barack Obama in 2016 and reinstated by Joe Biden after Trump lifted them during his first term.
Three presidential terms. Three reversals. The 4,913-square-mile monument has become a regulatory ping-pong ball, and the people who actually make their living on the water have paid the price every time the pendulum swings toward Washington's environmental bureaucracy.
The White House made a straightforward argument: the fishing ban was never necessary in the first place.
"Prohibiting commercial fishing is not necessary for the proper care and management of the Monument, as many fish species are highly migratory, not unique to the area, and are already protected through existing laws, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act."
That last point matters more than environmentalists want to admit. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is one of the most successful fishery management laws in the world. It already governs catch limits, habitat protections, and sustainability standards across U.S. waters. Layering a blanket commercial fishing ban on top of it wasn't science — it was symbolism, as Breitbart reports.
Obama established the monument in 2016, describing it as a way to protect vulnerable undersea corals and ecosystems. The timing — the final year of his presidency — was characteristic of an administration that loved using executive authority to lock up natural resources on its way out the door. Biden's restoration of the ban followed the same instinct: regulate first, ask fishermen later.
The White House statement framed the proclamation in broader economic terms:
"President Trump is committed to removing unnecessary restrictions on American fishermen in order to strengthen the U.S. economy, support coastal communities, and restore fairness to an industry disadvantaged by overregulation and unfair foreign competition."
John Williams, president and owner of the Atlantic Red Crab Company in New Bedford, Massachusetts, put it plainly to the Associated Press:
"We deserve to be rewarded, not penalized. We're demonstrating that we can fish sustainably and continue to harvest on a sustainable level in perpetuity."
Williams represents the kind of working Americans who rarely get a seat at the table when Washington decides how to manage the ocean. New England's fishing communities are not abstract stakeholders in a policy debate. They are families, businesses, and towns whose economic survival depends on access to the waters their industry has worked for generations.
The conservation establishment treats commercial fishermen as the problem. The fishermen themselves — the ones who depend on healthy fish stocks for their livelihoods — understand sustainability better than most of the advocates who lobby against them from offices hundreds of miles inland.
Gib Brogan, fisheries campaign director at the environmental group Oceana, offered the predictable counter to the Associated Press:
"The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was created to provide strong protections for the wide range of marine life that live in these unique habitats."
Note what's missing from that statement: any specific claim that commercial fishing in the monument area has caused measurable ecological harm. Brogan describes why the monument was created. He doesn't demonstrate that the fishing ban achieved anything that the Magnuson-Stevens Act couldn't.
This is the pattern with environmental opposition to resource access. The argument is always about intention — what the policy was "created to" do — never about whether the restriction actually accomplished more than existing law. It's preservation by declaration, where drawing a line on a map substitutes for evidence-based management.
When the federal government closes off nearly 5,000 square miles of ocean to commercial fishing without demonstrating that existing regulations are inadequate, it isn't protecting the environment. It's choosing environmentalist aesthetics over the livelihoods of coastal Americans. The fish in that monument are highly migratory — they don't respect the boundaries Obama drew. But the fishermen who lost access to those waters felt every mile of them.
Trump announced the move on Truth Social, calling it:
"another BIG WIN for Maine, and all of New England."
He also aimed at the whiplash the industry has endured:
"In my first term, I reversed the prohibitions placed on commercial fishing, but Joe Biden, or whoever was using the AUTOPEN, foolishly reinstated them. Since Day One, I have taken historic action to end these disastrous policies."
The broader story here extends well beyond one marine monument. For decades, the progressive approach to conservation has followed a simple formula: restrict access, claim moral authority, and force the people who actually work the land and sea to prove they deserve permission to keep doing what they've always done.
It's a framework that treats American industry as guilty until proven innocent — and even then, the restrictions rarely come off. Obama imposed the ban. Trump lifted it. Biden reimposed it. The only constant was uncertainty for the fishermen caught in the middle.
The White House statement connected the proclamation to broader economic goals:
"By revoking the Obama-Biden restrictions, President Trump's proclamation supports New England's fishing communities, in turn fostering economic growth and job creation in coastal regions."
Coastal New England doesn't need another layer of federal protection from an industry that already operates under one of the world's most stringent fishery management frameworks. It needs Washington to stop treating working Americans as collateral damage in a conservation branding exercise.
The monument is open. The fishermen can fish. And the waters will be just fine — managed, as they already were, by the law.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a new executive order Friday morning that will require federal immigration authorities to obtain a judicial warrant before entering any city-owned property—a sweeping move designed to shield illegal immigrants from enforcement actions and cement the city's sanctuary status.
Mamdani announced at the city's Interfaith Breakfast, framing it as a matter of public safety and neighborliness. The order goes further than a simple warrant requirement.
The Washington Examiner reported that it directs city agencies to audit their policies related to interactions with immigration authorities, establishes a committee to respond to immigration-related situations, and orders the protection of New Yorkers' private data from federal government access.
In short, New York City is building a bureaucratic fortress around illegal immigrants and calling it compassion.
Mamdani described the executive order in soaring terms:
"This order is a sweeping reaffirmation of our commitment to our immigrant neighbors and to public safety as a whole. We will make it clear once again that ICE will not be able to enter New York City property without a judicial warrant."
He went further, casting the federal government as an intruder in the lives of ordinary New Yorkers:
"We will protect New Yorkers' private data from being unlawfully accessed by the federal government, and stand firmly against any effort to intrude on our privacy. No New Yorker should be afraid to apply for city services like child care because they are an immigrant."
Notice the sleight of hand. Mamdani conflates legal immigrants—who have nothing to fear from ICE—with those who are in the country illegally. The executive order isn't protecting "immigrants." It's protecting people who violated federal immigration law from the consequences of that violation. The language is designed to blur a distinction that matters enormously in law, even if progressive politicians pretend it doesn't.
Mamdani isn't operating in a vacuum. He is the latest in a growing line of Democratic leaders who have responded to federal immigration enforcement not by cooperating, but by actively obstructing it.
Consider the recent moves:
Read that last one again. A sitting governor wants citizens to photograph and catalog federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs. This is the kind of thing that would provoke bipartisan outrage if directed at any other category of law enforcement. Directed at ICE, it earns applause at Democratic fundraisers.
The Department of Homeland Security has been blunt about what these sanctuary policies actually produce. A DHS spokesperson previously told the Washington Examiner:
"7 of the top 10 safest cities in the United States cooperate with ICE."
That statistic alone should end the argument that sanctuary policies enhance public safety. It doesn't, because the argument was never really about safety. It's about signaling. It's about Democratic elected officials telling their progressive base that they will stand between the federal government and illegal immigrants—no matter the cost to their own communities.
The DHS spokesperson laid out the practical consequences with clarity:
"Our partnerships with state and local law enforcement are key to removing criminal illegal aliens including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists from American communities. When politicians bar local law enforcement from working with us, that is when we have to have a more visible presence so that we can find and apprehend the criminals let out of jails and back into communities."
This is the part that sanctuary city advocates never grapple with honestly. When local governments refuse to cooperate with ICE, they don't make enforcement disappear. They make it harder, more visible, and less precise. Officers who could have quietly transferred a criminal illegal immigrant from a local jail into federal custody must instead conduct operations in neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces. The very disruptions that sanctuary city proponents claim to oppose are a direct product of the policies they champion.
Mamdani's warrant requirement deserves scrutiny on its own terms. Requiring a judicial warrant for ICE to enter city property sounds reasonable until you realize what it accomplishes in practice: delay. Every hour spent obtaining a warrant is an hour a criminal illegal immigrant has to disappear into a city of eight million people. The warrant requirement isn't a safeguard—it's a stalling tactic dressed up as due process.
Federal immigration enforcement is already governed by constitutional protections. ICE agents don't operate outside the law. What Mamdani is doing is layering additional procedural obstacles on top of existing legal frameworks—not to protect anyone's rights, but to make enforcement functionally impossible on city property.
Zoom out and the pattern becomes unmistakable. Across blue states and blue cities, Democratic leaders are constructing an elaborate architecture of non-cooperation with federal immigration law. Hochul wants to dismantle 14 local partnerships in New York. Spanberger severed Virginia's agreement with a stroke of her pen. Sherrill is crowdsourcing surveillance of federal agents. And now, Mamdani is auditing every city agency to ensure no one accidentally helps ICE do its job.
This is not a series of isolated policy decisions. It is a coordinated political strategy—one that prioritizes the interests of people who are in the country illegally over the safety of citizens and legal residents who followed the rules. Every one of these leaders took an oath to uphold the law. Every one of them is now spending political capital to undermine it.
The irony is thick. These are the same leaders who insist that "no one is above the law" when the target is a political opponent. When the subject is immigration enforcement, the law suddenly becomes optional—a suggestion to be overridden by executive order whenever it conflicts with progressive orthodoxy.
Hochul's "Local Cops, Local Crimes Act" still requires passage through the state legislature, so its fate isn't sealed. But Mamdani's and Spanberger's executive orders are already in effect, and Sherrill's surveillance database is moving forward. The federal government now faces a growing bloc of states and cities that have made obstruction of immigration enforcement an official policy position.
The DHS spokesperson's warning bears repeating: when politicians refuse to cooperate, federal enforcement becomes more visible, not less. That means more agents in more neighborhoods conducting the operations that local cooperation was designed to handle quietly and efficiently. Democratic leaders have chosen confrontation over cooperation, spectacle over safety.
Mamdani told New Yorkers that no one should be afraid to apply for city services because they are an immigrant. He's right about that—legal immigrants have never had anything to fear. The people his executive order actually protects are those who broke the law to be here. He just doesn't want to say it plainly.
New York City's mayor wrapped obstruction in the language of compassion, announced it at a prayer breakfast, and dared the federal government to do something about it. The citizens of New York—the ones who pay taxes, obey laws, and expect their leaders to do the same—deserved better.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Thursday and declared that requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote is "Jim Crow 2.0." The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — a straightforward bill that would require voters to prove they are, in fact, American citizens — drew the full weight of Schumer's rhetorical arsenal. He promised it would die in the Senate.
Schumer didn't hedge. He didn't offer a narrow procedural objection. He reached for the most incendiary comparison in the Democratic playbook and wielded it against the concept of verifying citizenship at the ballot box.
Breitbart News reported his own words on the program:
"It's Jim Crow 2.0, and I called it Jim Crow 2.0, and the right wing went nuts all over the Internet. That's because they know it's true. What they're trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting."
That's the Senate Minority Leader comparing a voter ID requirement — supported by overwhelming majorities of both parties — to the systematic racial terror that defined the post-Reconstruction South. Poll taxes. Literacy tests. Grandfather clauses were designed to strip Black Americans of their constitutional rights. Schumer wants you to believe that showing a birth certificate belongs in the same sentence.
Co-host Jonathan Lemire, to his credit, put the polling squarely in front of Schumer before asking his question. He cited a new Pew Research poll showing that 95 percent of Republicans support requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. That number is expected.
The one that matters: 71 percent of Democrats support it, too.
Seven in ten members of Schumer's own party back the basic principle behind the SAVE Act. And Schumer's response was to call it Jim Crow. Not to engage with the substance. Not to propose an alternative framework. Not to acknowledge that his own voters overwhelmingly disagree with him. He invoked the ugliest chapter in American history and dared anyone to push back.
Schumer then went further, pledging total Democratic resistance in the upper chamber:
"And I said to our Republican colleagues, it will not pass the Senate. You will not get a single Democratic vote in the Senate. We're not reviving Jim Crow all over the country."
Not a single vote. Not one Democratic senator is willing to break ranks on a measure that their own base supports by a nearly three-to-one margin. That tells you everything about where the power sits inside the Democratic caucus — and it isn't with the 71 percent.
Schumer offered two scenarios to justify his opposition. Both deserve scrutiny.
"For instance, if you change — you're a woman who got married and changed your last name, you won't be able to show ID and you'll be discriminated against. If you can't find a birth certificate, or a proper ID, you'll be discriminated against. This is vicious and nasty."
A woman who changed her name after marriage can't produce identification? Americans update their identification documents after name changes millions of times a year — for bank accounts, employment verification, passports, TSA screenings, mortgage applications, and every other function of modern civic life. The idea that this same population would be uniquely paralyzed by a voting requirement strains belief.
The birth certificate objection follows the same logic. You need documentation to drive a car, board a plane, buy a firearm, open a bank account, start a job, and collect government benefits. Democrats have never called any of those requirements "Jim Crow." The standard only becomes intolerable when it applies to voting — the one civic act where verification would reveal whether the person participating is legally entitled to do so.
That's not a coincidence. It's a tell.
Jim Crow laws were designed with surgical precision to exclude a specific racial group from the democratic process while maintaining a façade of neutrality. They succeeded because enforcement was deliberately unequal — white voters were waved through while Black voters faced impossible barriers.
The SAVE Act, as described by its proponents, applies a single, universal standard: prove you are an American citizen. It does not target a race. It does not create subjective tests administered by hostile local officials. It establishes a baseline requirement that every citizen can meet and that no non-citizen should.
Schumer's comparison doesn't just fail on the merits — it cheapens the real history it invokes. The men and women who bled on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, who were murdered for registering voters in Mississippi, who endured fire hoses and attack dogs for the right to cast a ballot — their suffering is not a rhetorical device to be deployed against voter ID. Using it that way diminishes what they endured and what they won.
Strip away the Jim Crow language and the hypotheticals about married women, and the Democratic position reduces to a single operational commitment: no verification of citizenship at the ballot box. That's the line Schumer drew. That's the hill every Senate Democrat will apparently occupy.
The question voters should ask is simple: Who benefits from a system that cannot distinguish between citizens and non-citizens at the point of voting? The answer isn't complicated, and the refusal to engage with it honestly is its own kind of confession.
Every legal American voter — Black, white, Latino, Asian, rich, poor — has their vote diluted when ineligible individuals cast ballots. Election integrity isn't a partisan concept. It's the foundation that makes every other political argument possible. Without it, the entire system runs on trust with no mechanism for verification.
Schumer is betting that the phrase "Jim Crow" carries enough emotional weight to shut down that conversation before it starts. For decades, that bet paid off. The polling suggests the house edge is shrinking.
Schumer's promise of zero Democratic votes means the SAVE Act faces a narrow path in the Senate without significant procedural leverage. But the political dynamics have shifted beneath his feet. When 71 percent of your own voters support a measure you're comparing to racial segregation, you are no longer leading your coalition — you are defying it.
That gap between Democratic voters and Democratic leadership will widen every time the issue surfaces. Every time a Senate Democrat echoes Schumer's line, they'll do so knowing their own constituents disagree. The question is whether any of them has the independence to say so.
Chuck Schumer called voter ID "vicious and nasty." Seventy-one percent of Democrats called it common sense. One of those positions will hold. The other will be remembered as the moment a party leader told his own voters they were wrong — and compared them to segregationists for good measure.
Illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has hit a jaw-dropping low not seen in over half a century under President Donald Trump’s watch.
The Pew Research Center has reported that illegal crossings at the southern border have plummeted to their lowest level in more than 50 years during Fiscal Year 2025, with the Department of Homeland Security apprehending fewer than 238,000 individuals.
This figure stands in stark contrast to over 1.5 million apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2024 under President Joe Biden’s last full year in office, and even higher numbers of over two million in Fiscal Year 2023 and 2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2022. Notably, Fiscal Year 2025 includes nearly four months from the end of the Biden administration.
According to Breitbart News, supporters of Trump’s policies are hailing this as a long-overdue triumph, pointing to the administration’s laser focus on border security as the driving force behind these unprecedented numbers. The question now is whether this momentum can be sustained or if the left will find ways to undermine it.
When you zoom into the data for just the months of Fiscal Year 2025 under Trump’s leadership, the numbers are even more striking—fewer than 10,000 illegal crossings were recorded each month. Pew researchers have called this the lowest monthly level in over 25 years, a clear signal that something is finally working.
Compare that to the free-for-all we saw in prior years, where millions were pouring across the border under policies that seemed to roll out the welcome mat. It’s no secret that many on the right have long blamed the left’s obsession with open borders for those staggering totals. Now, there’s hard evidence of a dramatic turnaround.
The Pew Research Center itself noted, “The 2025 total was the lowest in any fiscal year since 1970, according to historical data from the Border Patrol.” That’s not just a statistic—it’s a gut punch to every critic who claimed Trump couldn’t deliver on his promises. This kind of result doesn’t happen by accident; it’s the product of relentless policy execution.
On Wednesday, the Trump administration dropped another bombshell, announcing that for the ninth straight month, not a single illegal alien was released into the U.S. interior. Every individual caught was processed strictly by the book, a feat the administration proudly touts as unparalleled in modern times.
They weren’t shy about taking credit either, stating, “Every individual apprehended was processed according to law — a milestone unmatched in modern border history.” That’s the kind of accountability conservatives have been demanding for decades, and it’s refreshing to see an administration finally walk the walk.
Let’s be real—under previous leadership, catch-and-release was practically a national pastime, with untold numbers vanishing into the interior never to be seen again. The left might cry about compassion, but most Americans see through that as just a fancy way of dodging responsibility. Trump’s team has flipped the script, and the results speak for themselves.
Looking back at the chaos of Fiscal Years 2022 through 2024, it’s clear the border was a sieve, with apprehensions skyrocketing past two million annually. Those numbers weren’t just a failure—they were a glaring neon sign that the system was broken under Biden’s watch.
Now, with Fiscal Year 2025’s dramatic drop to under 238,000 apprehensions, there’s a sense among Trump supporters that sanity has been restored. The administration’s no-nonsense approach seems to have deterred would-be crossers, sending a message that the days of easy entry are over.
Of course, the usual suspects on the left will likely spin this as heartless or draconian, but that’s their go-to playbook whenever common-sense policies take hold. For those who value law and order, this is a victory worth celebrating, not nitpicking.
The big question hanging over this achievement is whether the momentum can hold. With detractors in Washington always eager to push back against anything Trump does, there’s no shortage of potential roadblocks ahead.
Still, if the administration keeps racking up months with zero releases into the interior, it could set a new standard for how borders are managed. For conservatives, this isn’t just about numbers—it’s about reclaiming national sovereignty from years of woke policies that prioritized feelings over facts.
Ultimately, the historic lows at the border under Trump’s leadership are a testament to what can happen when promises are kept and priorities are straight. The challenge now is ensuring this isn’t a fleeting win but the foundation of a secure future. America’s watching, and so are those who thought they could cross without consequence.
In a tragic turn of events, a 77-year-old man, once married to former First Lady Jill Biden, has been arrested for the murder of his wife in Wilmington, Delaware.
On December 28, 2025, police responded to a domestic dispute call at a home on the 1300 block of Idlewood Road in Wilmington, Delaware. There, they found Linda Stevenson, 64, unresponsive on the living room floor, and she was pronounced dead at the scene.
After a weeks-long investigation, William Stevenson was taken into custody on Monday at the same residence and charged with first-degree murder.
Stevenson, unable to post a $500,000 cash bail, was committed to the Howard Young Correctional Institution. The cause and manner of Linda Stevenson's death have not yet been released by authorities. Reports from Fox's Philadelphia affiliate also note that Stevenson, a known local figure, once opened a popular college bar called The Stone Balloon near the University of Delaware.
Neighbors, who often saw the couple dining out together, were stunned by the grim turn of events. What could drive a man, once tied to such a public figure, to such a dark act?
"I find it horrible. I never would’ve thought that he would’ve done that," said neighbor Patti Master. Her words echo the disbelief rippling through the community.
"They went out every single night, like for dinner. He’d hold her hand, they’d go, and then all of a sudden, what the heck went on this time?" Master added. It paints a picture of a couple who, to the outside world, seemed to uphold a semblance of normalcy.
Yet, beneath the surface, something clearly went wrong, and it’s a stark reminder of how quickly domestic situations can spiral out of control. In an era where personal accountability often takes a backseat to excuses and cultural decay, this case hits hard. Conservatives have long warned that ignoring traditional structures can lead to such tragedies.
William Stevenson’s past connection to Jill Biden adds a layer of intrigue, though it’s irrelevant to the crime itself. Still, it raises eyebrows about the circles some public figures once moved in. TMZ reports confirm this past marriage, though details remain sparse.
The left might try to spin this as a broader societal failure, pushing for more government intervention or social programs. But isn’t it time we stop coddling bad behavior and start demanding individuals take responsibility for their actions? This isn’t about systemic issues; it’s about personal choices.
Neighbors described a couple who seemed to live a routine life, often heading out for dinner hand-in-hand. Yet, behind closed doors, something snapped. It’s a sobering lesson that appearances can deceive, and we must prioritize strong moral grounding over superficial harmony.
The failure to post bail and Stevenson’s current detention at Howard Young Correctional Institution signal the seriousness of the charge. First-degree murder isn’t a light accusation, and the justice system must ensure a fair but firm process. Conservatives will be watching closely to see if activist judges or lenient policies interfere.
As the investigation continues, the lack of information on Linda Stevenson’s cause of death fuels speculation. Authorities must be transparent to avoid the kind of distrust that’s already rampant in our over-politicized culture. Clarity is key to maintaining faith in the system.
For now, a community mourns, and a man faces grave charges that could define the rest of his life. This case is a grim reminder that personal failings can have devastating consequences, no matter one’s past or connections. We must refocus on values that prevent such breakdowns before they happen.
Minneapolis is ground zero for a major shift in federal immigration enforcement as body cameras become mandatory for officers on the front lines.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced on Monday that every federal immigration officer working in Minneapolis must now wear a body camera, effective immediately, following two fatal shootings involving anti-ICE agitators.
The policy comes after President Donald Trump appointed Tom Homan as the new “border czar,” replacing Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino. Noem stated the initiative will expand nationwide as funding permits, while President Trump, though seemingly unaware of the decision initially, expressed support for the measure.
According to the Daily Wire, the decision to equip officers with cameras is in response to a turbulent period in Minneapolis marked by deadly encounters. Just weeks ago, an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good after she reportedly struck him with her car, an incident the officer recorded on his phone. Days before that, another fatal shooting claimed the life of Alex Pretti, escalating tensions in the city.
Footage from an earlier incident involving Pretti, published by The News Movement, shows him damaging a federal vehicle, spitting on an officer, and gesturing defiantly before being wrestled to the ground. Agents released him, though he reportedly suffered a broken rib and appeared to have a firearm in his waistband as he walked away.
Attorney Steve Schleicher, representing Pretti’s family, reviewed the footage and commented to the Minnesota Star Tribune on the events. “A week before Alex was gunned down in the street — despite posing no threat to anyone — he was violently assaulted by a group of ICE agents,” Schleicher said. His interpretation starkly contrasts with the urgency of the situation as described in official accounts.
Tom Homan’s arrival last week as head of immigration operations in Minneapolis signals a no-nonsense approach to enforcement. Under his command, agents are now focusing on targeted arrests, prioritizing what he calls “the worst criminals first.” This shift comes as a direct response to the chaos surrounding recent violent clashes.
Supporters contend that Homan’s leadership and the introduction of body cameras are long-overdue measures to restore order and accountability. The left often paints immigration enforcement as inherently oppressive, but these steps aim to cut through the noise of woke narratives with hard evidence of what’s really happening on the ground. Transparency isn’t just a buzzword here—it’s a tool to counter endless accusations.
Secretary Noem’s announcement, made via an X post on Monday, underlines a commitment to clarity in enforcement actions. “Effective immediately, we are deploying body cameras to every officer in the field in Minneapolis,” she declared. Her swift action, taken after discussions with Homan, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott, shows a unified front.
President Trump, when questioned by Daily Wire reporter Mary Margaret Olohan, admitted he wasn’t looped in on Noem’s decision beforehand. Yet, he didn’t hesitate to endorse it, saying, “If she wants to do the camera thing, that’s ok with me.” His trust in his team to handle operational details reflects a leadership style focused on results over micromanagement.
The body camera rollout isn’t just a local fix—it’s a potential game-changer for federal law enforcement nationwide. Noem’s pledge to expand the program as funding becomes available suggests a broader vision to equip DHS agents across the country. This could silence critics who thrive on unverified claims of misconduct.
In Minneapolis, the policy arrives at a critical juncture as Congress battles over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The recent shootings have turned body cameras into a central issue, with lawmakers on both sides feeling the heat. Yet, for many on the right, this isn’t about politics—it’s about protecting agents and the public alike.
Expanding this initiative beyond Minneapolis will likely face hurdles, not least from budget constraints and bureaucratic red tape. Still, the determination to “rapidly acquire and deploy” cameras, as Noem put it, signals that the administration isn’t backing down from its promise to prioritize safety and accountability.
The tragic deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti have undeniably forced a reckoning in how immigration enforcement operates. But rather than caving to the outrage mob, the Trump administration is doubling down on practical solutions that protect both officers and communities. Body cameras aren’t a silver bullet, but they’re a step toward cutting through the fog of agenda-driven spin.
For too long, federal agents have been smeared as villains by those who’d rather dismantle borders than defend them. This policy, coupled with Homan’s targeted enforcement, could finally shift the narrative toward reality over rhetoric. It’s a chance to show that law and order isn’t a slogan—it’s a necessity.
Washington is once again held hostage by political gridlock as a partial government shutdown lingers into its third day.
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed confidence on Sunday that the partial U.S. government shutdown, which began at 12:01 a.m. Saturday will end by Tuesday. The shutdown was triggered after Senate Democrats rejected a bipartisan funding deal at the last minute, insisting on changes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies.
Johnson, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday,” emphasized the urgency of resolving the issue while noting logistical and political hurdles in securing a deal. The standoff has left key government operations unfunded, impacting services not covered by previously passed appropriations bills.
Last month, the House approved a bundle of six funding bills to sustain government operations for the fiscal year. Still, Senate Democrats balked after a fatal Border Patrol shooting in Minneapolis on Jan. 24. A compromise emerged to pass five of those bills while placing the sixth, tied to the Department of Homeland Security, on a temporary two-week track for further talks, according to the New York Post.
While Democrats have tried to point fingers at Republican policies, it’s clear their last-second demands derailed a workable bipartisan plan. This isn’t the 43-day quagmire of last year’s record-breaking shutdown, but it still stings for Americans tired of D.C. dysfunction.
Johnson didn’t mince words, pinning the blame squarely on Democrats for forcing this shutdown. “No one wanted to put that pain on the American people again. The Democrats forced it,” he said on “Meet the Press.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has rolled out a laundry list of demands, including tighter warrants, ending roving patrols, and mandating body cameras for immigration officers. Some of these, like accountability measures, might have merit, but others—like forcing agents to remove masks—seem designed to hamstring border security. Johnson called such conditions dangerous, echoing border czar Tom Homan’s firm rejection of these terms.
Johnson noted that while a few Democratic requests could be reasonable, many need serious negotiation. “Some of these conditions and requests that they’ve made are obviously reasonable and should happen,” he admitted on “Meet the Press.” But he quickly added that others are non-starters, signaling a tough road ahead.
President Trump has wisely given GOP leaders the go-ahead to negotiate, showing trust in their ability to navigate this crisis. Meanwhile, under Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, Trump has tapped Tom Homan to oversee a drawdown of federal personnel, a pragmatic move to de-escalate tensions. This kind of leadership contrasts sharply with the posturing we’re seeing from the left.
Yet, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries remains cagey, privately admitting to Johnson he can’t guarantee Democratic support for any compromise. Publicly, Jeffries plays the silent game, leaving Republicans to wonder if they’ll get the votes needed. This kind of waffling only deepens the gridlock.
With the House on recess last week, the new $1.2 trillion deal couldn’t be passed, exacerbating the funding gap. Now, Johnson faces a narrow Republican majority and likely defections, meaning dozens of Democratic votes are needed to fast-track the deal via suspension of the rules—a two-thirds majority process. Odds are that it won’t happen, forcing a slower traditional route through the House Rules Committee on Monday.
Johnson has highlighted the logistical nightmare of getting members back to Washington in time for votes. Add to that the uncertainty of Democrat cooperation, and it’s clear Republicans might have to shoulder this burden largely alone.
The House Rules Committee meeting on Monday is the next critical step, but don’t expect miracles overnight. Johnson’s resolve to push forward, even if mostly with GOP votes, shows a commitment to governing that’s sorely lacking on the other side of the aisle.
Let’s not forget Congress had already passed six of the 12 necessary appropriations bills before this fiasco unfolded. That groundwork should have prevented this shutdown, but Democratic insistence on overhauling ICE policies at the eleventh hour threw a wrench in the works. It’s hard to see this as anything but a deliberate stall tactic.
What happens if negotiations drag past Tuesday? The American people, already weary of government shutdowns, will bear the brunt of delayed services and economic ripple effects. Republicans, under Johnson’s steady hand, seem poised to prioritize a solution over political gamesmanship.
In the end, this shutdown is a test of whether common sense can prevail over ideological brinkmanship. Johnson and the GOP are ready to act responsibly, while Democrats risk overplaying their hand with demands that jeopardize border security. For the sake of the nation, let’s hope Tuesday brings resolution, not more excuses.
Tragedy struck a small Louisiana town as gunfire erupted during a festive Mardi Gras celebration, leaving five people wounded.
On Saturday, a shooting occurred shortly after the midday start of the Mardi Gras in the Country parade in Clinton, a town of about 1,300 near Baton Rouge, Louisiana’s capital. Five individuals, including a six-year-old child, were injured as panicked attendees fled for cover in the East Feliciana Parish community. East Feliciana Sheriff Jeff Travis confirmed that three individuals carrying firearms were taken into custody, though their involvement remains unclear, while the Louisiana State Police have taken over the investigation.
Governor Jeff Landry addressed the incident on X, calling it “absolutely horrific and unacceptable.” Chief Criminal Deputy Bill Cox from the sheriff’s office told The Advocate that all victims are expected to survive, though specific details about their conditions have not been released. The sheriff’s office is urging anyone with photos or video of the event to assist investigators in piecing together what happened.
The issue has sparked heated debate over public safety and the persistent scourge of gun violence in America. How does a joyous event like a Mardi Gras parade turn into a scene of chaos and fear? It’s a question many are asking as details continue to emerge from Clinton.
This incident isn’t just a local tragedy; it’s a stark reminder of a broader national problem. According to the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive, this shooting marks at least the 24th mass shooting in the U.S. this year alone, defined as an event where four or more people are wounded or killed, as The Guardian reports.
Let’s be clear: communities like Clinton deserve to celebrate their traditions without the specter of gunfire. Yet, the failure to address the root causes of such violence—whether through tougher laws or better enforcement—leaves small towns and big cities alike vulnerable. It’s a frustrating cycle that keeps repeating.
Governor Landry’s words, “absolutely horrific and unacceptable,” echo the sentiments of many who are tired of seeing innocent lives upended by violence. But words alone won’t stop the next shooter. Real action, not political posturing, is what’s needed to protect our children and families.
For years, calls for Congress to enact meaningful gun control measures have fallen on deaf ears. Lawmakers seem either unwilling or unable to tackle the issue, leaving communities to bear the consequences of inaction. It’s a bitter pill to swallow when a six-year-old becomes a victim at a parade.
Some argue that more laws won’t solve the problem, pointing to existing regulations that aren’t enforced effectively. If three people with firearms were in the area during this incident, as Sheriff Travis noted, shouldn’t we be asking how they slipped through the cracks? It’s not just about passing bills; it’s about ensuring accountability.
Clinton, a tight-knit town in the Baton Rouge metro area, isn’t the kind of place you expect to see headlines about mass shootings. Yet, here we are, grappling with the reality that nowhere seems safe from this epidemic. It’s a wake-up call for local leaders to prioritize security at public events.
The progressive push for sweeping gun bans often ignores the practical challenges of enforcement in rural areas like East Feliciana Parish. Instead of grandstanding on divisive policies, why not focus on solutions that respect law-abiding citizens while targeting actual threats? That’s the balance we’re desperate to find.
Look at the numbers: 24 mass shootings already this year, per the Gun Violence Archive. That’s not just a statistic; it’s a signal that our current approach—whether too lax or too restrictive in some eyes—isn’t working. We can’t keep dodging the hard conversations.
The investigation in Clinton continues, with state police now at the helm, and the community is left to pick up the pieces. It’s disheartening to think that a child’s memory of Mardi Gras will now be tainted by trauma. We owe it to that six-year-old to do better.
Public safety isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a human one. But when ideology trumps common sense, whether through inaction or overreach, events like this become all too common. Let’s demand practical reforms that protect without punishing the innocent.
As Clinton heals, the rest of us must reflect on how to prevent the next tragedy. The sheriff’s plea for photos and videos is a reminder that community involvement is crucial in solving these crimes. It’s time for all of us to step up—before another parade turns into a nightmare.