The New York Knicks have ordered Zohran Mamdani, who is the leading New York City mayoral candidate, to "cease and desist" after his campaign used the basketball team's logo in advertisements, the New York Post reported. The team made it clear that it does not support the Democratic socialist's candidacy.
The campaign used a logo similar to the basketball franchise's, with "Zohran" in the place of the Knicks' team name. The color scheme also mimicked the blue and orange logo with social media ads using the tag line, "This is our year. This is our time."
The organization said the ad was "likely to mislead the public into believing that the Campaign is affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or in some way connected with the Knicks." To make matters worse, the broadcast ad was run on Wednesday night during the Knicks' season opener.
NY Knicks issue Zohran Mamdani cease and desist over logo in campaign ad — stressing they ‘do not endorse’ https://t.co/XNQVxNcbck pic.twitter.com/x2c96oziIQ
— New York Post (@nypost) October 24, 2025
The team made it clear that Mamdani was to stop using the version of their logo to sell New Yorkers on his radical ideas. "The NY Knicks have sent NYC Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani a cease-and-desist letter for using the NY Knicks logo to promote his candidacy," the letter stated, according to Fox News.
"The Knicks want to make it clear that we do not endorse Mr. Mamdani for Mayor, and we object to his use of our copyrighted logo. We will pursue all legal remedies to enforce our rights," the legal missive added.
This comes as the team's head coach is hopeful for another NBA Finals appearance, representing the Eastern Conference. If they succeed, it will mark the first time in more than a quarter of a century that the team has reached this far since their last appearance in 1999.
The New York Knicks notched a win Wednesday night in their season opener, beating the Cleveland Cavaliers 119-111 during the matchup in Manhattan. Perhaps the team owner, John Dolan, is worried that this winning year might be overshadowed by a connection with Mamdani.
After all, it's not like Dolan is not used to leftist politics. In 2022, he donated $70,000 to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's campaign. Mamdani is the favorite to win against former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic side and "Guardian Angels" founder and political activist Curtis Sliwa for the Republicans, who will face off on Nov. 4.
There was mayoral race drama surrounding the Knicks even before the latest attempt to co-opt the Knicks' logo. According to The Hill, Mamdani slammed Cuomo for appearing courtside at Wednesday's game alongside the outgoing Democratic Mayor Eric Adams. Cuomo shared a photo at the game with Adams on his account on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday. Mamdani took it and ran with it, sharing the post labeled "Corrupting goes courtside," Mamdani said.
Corruption goes courtside. https://t.co/TaEItxMAmc
— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) October 23, 2025
Cuomo is the only candidate who has not shied away from accepting Adams' endorsement should he offer it, and it appears Mamdani is positioning himself to attack him for it. Meanwhile, Cuomo has plenty of ammo against Mandani for his radical polices and lack of experience.
"I did things. You’ve never had a job. You’ve never accomplished anything. There’s no reason to believe you merit or qualification for eight and a half million lives. You never showed up for work, and you missed eighty percent of the votes. Shame on you," Cuomo said to Mamdani.
This is an embarrassing situation for Mamdani with the logo change, but it likely won't hurt his campaign. The people of New York seem eager to usher in a communist regime that will be the proverbial final straw that breaks the struggling city's back.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that federal law enforcement officers should be subject to arrest if they break local laws that prevent illegal immigration enforcement, Breitbart reported. The California Democrat seems poised to go toe-to-toe with the Trump administration, but may be in legal trouble after making these statements.
President Donald Trump has begun to crack down on illegal immigration throughout the nation. Part of that includes sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions.
"While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. Our state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law — and if they are convicted, the President cannot pardon them," a joint statement from Pelosi and Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA) said.
This tough talk came after San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins allegedly saw federal agents "roughing people up" in Chicago and Los Angeles. "I had lead time to think about what authority I have and what I can do. This is something I felt very strongly about, and I had my office research it," Jenkins claimed.
Democrats don't care about the regular people who suffer at the hands of criminal illegal immigrants and other deviants who prowl about city streets. Instead, they're worried that these people might be treated a little roughly by law enforcement agents who aim to get them off the streets.
They want to see the agents, not the criminals, arrested, though Jenkins claimed it wouldn't come to having local officers cuffing federal agents. She said that they would use surveillance camera footage to determine if the criminals are treated too unkindly, and she would direct a judge to issue a warrant for the agent's arrest.
To really drive home that their priority is the comfort of suspected illegal immigrants, California Democrats passed a law banning government agents from wearing masks while making arrests, which would make it easier for Jenkins to pursue them. Of course, the agents were forced to do this after several attacks on ICE agents that put them and their families at risk, but Democrats seem unconcerned about that.
Meanwhile, Jenkins worries that Trump may ignore the arrest warrants altogether or challenge the move in court. "For me, this is about San Francisco and what I need to do for San Francisco," Jenkins claimed.
Others, like Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, believe this is not an overreach at all and see it as a stopgap against abuses. "As long as the ICE agents are acting legally, the state can’t prosecute them and hold them liable, even if it dislikes what they’re doing," Chemerinsky said.
Pelosi's tough talk against federal agents is not without consequences. While speaking to Fox News host Jesse Watters on Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned Pelosi and others making these threats that they could face consequences. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is among those actively opposing federal agents and their mission to clean up crime on city streets.
She created the ICE Accountability Project, a nonprofit focused on making ICE officers "unmask" while making sure to log "purported criminal actions of ICE and CBP agents." Bondi warned Lightfoot that she "will be getting a letter from us tomorrow to preserve anything she has done as well, to make sure that she’s not violating the law," she told Watters.
"It appears she is. You cannot disclose the identity of a federal agent—where they live, anything that could harm them," Bondi added. She had the same warning for Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Jenkins, and Pelosi. "We told them: ‘Preserve your emails, preserve everything you have on this topic.’ Because if you are telling people to arrest our ICE officers, our federal agents, you cannot do that. You are impeding an investigation, and we will charge them.”
🚨 BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi has just ORDERED NANCY PELOSI to “PRESERVE HER EMAILS” after she ORDERED ICE to be ARRESTED 🚨@PamBondi: “You are impeding an investigation, and we will charge you. If they think I won’t, they have not met me” 🔥 pic.twitter.com/l79LRwQNwP
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) October 24, 2025
This crusade against agents enforcing federal law has got to stop, but the Democrats believe they have a right to run roughshod over the laws of the land. Pelosi and her ilk are about to see what the Trump administration is willing to do to enforce the laws of the land and the will of the American people.
President Donald Trump said the Department of Justice "probably owes me a lot of money" for the many federal investigations against him that amounted to nothing but a hassle, Fox News reported. Sources say Trump is seeking $230 million in damages, but the president said it wasn't about the money but about principle.
There were several investigations launched against Trump, beginning with the Russia-collusion hoax during the 2016 campaign that was built on a false dossier. The FBI later raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 over the supposed mishandling of classified documents, which again was thrown out in court.
These investigations turned Trump's life upside down for years and threatened to keep him off the ballot, but they ended up being mostly baseless. Now, the New York Times claimed that Trump is seeking $230 million in compensation, which would be well within his rights.
After all, Trump spent millions on his legal defense and likely lost earning potential as his time and attention were turned toward these baseless investigations. However, when asked about it at the Oval Office by a reporter, Trump seemed genuinely unconcerned about the money and instead wanted justice.
When Trump was asked about the possibility of a lawsuit, he noted that it was certainly something to consider, given how much time and money had been wasted defending himself in these cases. "Well, I guess they probably owe me a lot of money for that," Trump told the female reporter.
The president made it clear he wasn't in it for the money. "No, I get no salary. I gave up my salary. It's a good salary. Not as much as these guys make, but that's OK. It's a lot of money, and I don't, as you know, I didn't take it in the first four years. I didn't take it these four years either," Trump pointed out.
However, he did acknowledge that the DOJ owes him. "But as far as all of the litigation, everything that's been involved, yeah, they probably owe me a lot of money," Trump said.
"But if I get money from our country, I'll do something nice with it. Like, give it to charity or give it to the White House while we restore the White House, and we're doing a great job with the White House, as you know, the ballroom is under construction," Trump added. A clip of the exchange was posted by RedWave Press to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.
Reporter: “Are you asking the Justice Department to pay you compensation for [the] federal investigations into you?”
President Trump: “Into me? I don’t get any compensation. I do it for nothing. I gave up my salary… They probably owe me a lot of money for that.”
“If I get… pic.twitter.com/w5Lgygvv3X
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) October 21, 2025
While the media was singularly focused on the financial implications, Trump just wants justice after all he's been through. "We'll see what happens. We have numerous cases having to do with the fraud of the election, the 2020 election, and because of everything that we found out, I guess they owe me a lot of money," Trump said.
"But I'm not looking for money. I'm looking for — really, I think it's got to be, it's got to be handled in a proper way… We don't want it to happen again," Trump said, once again alluding to the fact that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from under him.
"We can never let what happened in the 2020 election happen again. We just can't let that happen," Trump added.
The president went on to say that he does not know the exact figure his legal team may be seeking. "I don't know what the number is. I don't even talk to them about it," Trump said. He noted that he would be the one to decide based on the law ultimately, but Trump admitted it would be "awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself."
Since the day the results came in, the president has contended that he was robbed of his 2020 victory. Though he has never produced definitive proof of those accusations, Trump notably went on to win the 2024 presidential election handily, clinching both the popular vote and the Electoral College. He accomplished this even while the government was busy prosecuting him, and Trump deserves justice for this.
MSNBC host Jen Psaki is being called out for suggesting that Vice President JD Vance's wife, Usha, finds him "scarier" than President Donald Trump and is perhaps a hostage in her own home, Fox News reported. The former White House press secretary made this outrageous claim on the podcast I've Had It, released on Wednesday.
The title of the podcast episode, "Devil Wears MAGA with Jen Psaki," clearly conveys the viewpoint of all involved. Psaki served as the press secretary under then-President Joe Biden, where she was often forced to cover for the feeble-minded commander-in-chief and toe the Democratic Party line.
Now she has a cushy cable news gig because of it, but her unbelievable bias continues to come through in her remarks. This is especially troubling because, as a leftist woman, she is supposed to be supportive of her fellow females in the public eye, but Psaki made the most disparaging comments about Usha Vance and her relationship with her husband.
Psaki and hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie "Pumps" Sullivan pulled no punches in Tuesday's sitdown, which already had over a million views by the following day. "I think the little Manchurian candidate, JD Vance, wants to be president more than anything else," Psaki said about the vice president.
"I always wonder what's going on in the mind of his wife. Like, are you OK?" she said of Usha Vance, who has been married to JD since 2014. The couple also has three children together.
"Please blink four times. We'll come over here. We'll save you," Psaki added, implying that a woman who made a vow to her husband is somehow now a hostage.
Psaki, who arguably held the highest job in her profession as Biden's mouthpiece, then went on to disparage JD Vance's ambition. "And that he's willing to do anything to get there. And your whole iteration you just outlined, I mean, he's scarier in certain ways in some ways," Psaki went on.
"And he's young and ambitious and agile in the sense that he's a chameleon who makes himself into whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear from him," Psaki added. This remark was more than just a one-off, as it appeared in the episode's tagline.
Although the hosts heartily agreed with Psaki, many other sane Americans did not like what she had to say about the vice president's wife. "Unhinged Jen Psaki is now smearing JD Vance, suggesting that his wife, Usha, wants to leave her husband and offers to 'save' her," the LibsofTikTok account posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.
"She also thinks JD Vance is 'scarier' than Donald Trump. @MSNBC should be ashamed to pay her salary," the post added and included the clip from the show.
Amy Curtis, a writer for Town Hall, similarly expressed outrage at Psaki's comments. "Also, this is an absolutely vile thing to say. Usha Vance is happily married," Crutis pointed out in her post to X.
"She made a vow to JD, and those words mean something. It’s also an insult to women who are in actual bad marriages," Curtis concluded.
These people on the left have no limits to their depravity and will attack anyone and everyone in Trump's orbit. What Psaki said was unconscionable, and she should apologize to the Vances and to the American people for such vile remarks.
Actress Cheryl Hines said her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., suggested they pretend to be separated during the contentious 2024 presidential election, The Hill reported. Hines said Kennedy, who is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, worried that his wife would "take the heat" from the media and his opponents.
During the campaign, Kennedy initially ran to be the Democratic candidate beginning in April 2023. He was looking to unseat the incumbent then-President Joe Biden, but he received severe pushback from his own party.
By October 2023, Kennedy was running as an independent but would drop out of the race and join President Donald Trump's campaign with his agenda to make America healthy again. However, this pivot was not without its pitfalls, and one of them was how his wife would be treated.
"Some people were very upset that I was even married to Bobby. They were vocally coming at me because I’m married to Bobby. So Bobby felt like, ‘You shouldn’t be having to take that heat. So why don’t we just say we’re separated?’” Hines said in an interview with Fox News.
Hines was interviewed ahead of the November 11 release of her memoir Unscripted, where she shared about her marriage and the impact of the campaign. "What needed to happen — and what did happen — is we got closer together," Hines said.
"For a couple to say, ‘Maybe we should just say we’re not with each other anymore and our lives would be easier’ — it’s like, well, things have gotten to that point. That’s pretty dramatic and pretty extreme," the Curb Your Enthusiasm star later told Fox News.
"And that’s one of the reasons why I wanted to write the book … experiences that are very once in a lifetime," she added. It wasn't just political jousting or bad press that the couple had to worry about. In September 2023, a man with a gun pretending to be a U.S. Marshall was arrested in Los Angeles rally for Kennedy.
Given what some have called a family curse after Kennedy's father and uncle were assassianted, Hines was particularly concerned. "I was very fearful for his safety. As most people know, his uncle, John Kennedy, was assassinated. His father, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated while he was running for president," Hines recalled.
"So when Bobby ran for president, it was very stressful. For good reason. I mean, I saw somebody breaking into our house — watching him walk into the backyard — and I see the security guy coming at him with his weapon out. It’s 10:00 in the morning," she added.
The physical threats were bad enough, but Hines has also been subjected to vicious media attacks because of her marriage. Perhaps RFK Jr.'s instincts to protect his wife were spot on, considering the treatment on a recent episode of ABC's The View last week.
Co-host Sunny Hostin attempted to paint Robert Kennedy Jr. as unqualified for his spot in the HHS because he isn't a doctor, though, as Hines pointed out, neither were many of the others who have held the job. "Bobby’s background, everything I have seen him do, he has dedicated his career to suing big corporations because of toxins that are — have been affecting people’s healthcare, people’s health, I should say," Hines said of her husband.
Robert Kennedy Jr. has been at the forefront of environmental lawsuits, particularly in cases where the harmful consequences have been particularly severe. Hostin attempted to criticize Robert Kennedy Jr.'s vaccine skepticism, but Hines countered that her husband merely wants to remove harmful substances from food and medicine. "Even baby formula, we’re finding out there’s arsenic. There’s lead," Hines noted.
Being married to Robert Kennedy Jr. is no easy feat, considering the amount of hatred leveled at him from the people supposedly in his own party. He's also a member of Trump's administration, and that combination makes him and his family a target, no matter what his past politics were.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed back Sunday on ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl's comments about "No Kings" protests and the new Pentagon press rules, saying that "this is the modern Democrat party" at work spreading lies and hate.
Karl attempted to take Johnson to task for calling the "No Kings" protests "hate America rallies," saying, "Just on this notion that these are 'hate America' rallies — and you not only talked about anarchists, Antifa advocates, pro-Hamas wing — you said this is the modern Democratic Party. But I remember not that long ago what you said after the murder of Charlie Kirk when you said that we should view fellow Americans, not as our enemies, but as our fellow countrymen."
Johnson said he was trying to warn the public about the "modern Democrat party," which definitely has its "hate America" contingents.
"Look at what's happening in New York," Johnson said, referring to the mayoral candidacy of Zohran Mamdani. "They're about to elect an open socialist Marxist as the mayor of America's largest city."
The exchange followed questions about the Pentagon's new press policy, starting out with Karl characterizing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth as being "afraid to interact with journalists who cover him."
"Fear is not part of the secretary of War’s make-up, OK?" Johnson shot back.
Karl criticized Hegseth's requirement that journalists agree to certain conditions to get access, as well as the fact that he has had only two press briefings during his tenure.
Dozens of journalists turned in their badges last week rather than comply with the new requirements.
"I can’t remember, and I don’t think you can either, a secretary of Defense who has been so transparent, out in the open, talking about priorities, principles and things," Johnson said in response.
Karl then swerved to the current government shutdown, demanding to know why Congress isn't in session trying to resolve it.
"The House did its job, exactly a month ago today on September 19. We passed the clean resolution," Johnson anwswered. "The Democrats have voted 11 times, except for three Democrats in the Senate, they voted 11 times to shut down the government and cease and halt those programs," Johnson said.
At one point he circled back to the "No Kings" protests, saying, "If President Trump was a king, the government would be open right now."
While in some ways, the press seems to be getting a little fairer in regards to how they're covering Republicans including Trump, the "No Kings" protests seem to have emboldened them to show their true feelings once again.
As my mom used to say, "This too shall pass." Trump is not a king, and everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not.
Amid years of scandal and suspicion regarding his ties to the late Jeffrey Epstein, a prominent member of the British royal family has just been forced to take what is surely a most regrettable step.
As Breitbart reports, Prince Andrew, son of the late Queen Elizabeth II and brother of King Charles, has announced that he will cease use of his royal titles and honors conferred upon him, including that of the Duke of York, in the culmination of a staggering fall from grace.
In what some believe is his anticipation of new, damning revelations about his past ties to Epstein by way of a posthumous memoir from alleged victim Virginia Giuffre, Andrew issued a statement last week informing the public of what he characterized as his decision regarding his titles and honors.
“In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family,” the announcement began.
The statement continued, “I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.”
Andrew added, “With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honors which have been conferred upon me.”
The royal concluded with a defiant note, declaring, “As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
Giuffre’s upcoming book contains salacious allegations regarding her interactions with Andrew facilitated by Epstein, details that contradict the prince’s prior public denials, and suggest a far closer relationship than previously acknowledged.
According to NBC News, Andrew’s woes continue to mount, as Metropolitan Police in London are said to be “actively looking into” reports that the prince attempted to wrongfully obtain personal information about Giuffre in a bid to discredit her.
The Mail on Sunday was reportedly informed that Andrew sought assistance from his own police protection officer in probing Giuffre’s background, doing so in advance of the publication of an infamous photo showing him with his arm around the then-17-year-old girl, with Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell also seen in the shot.
“We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made,” a police spokesperson stated.
This and other revelations rumored to be imminent appear to have been the final straw regarding Andrew’s status, with the BBC reporting that the royal was under “enormous pressure” from his brother, King Charles, as well as the future king, Prince William, to abandon his titles.
Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, with whom he continues to reside, will no longer be known as the Duchess of York, though their daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, will retain their royal titles, as the New York Post explains.
For now, the disgraced pair will be permitted to remain in their home at Royal Lodge, which is subject to a long-term lease with the Crown Estate, though there have long been rumblings that King Charles – and perhaps also Prince William – would like to end that arrangement as well.
A disgraced Minnesota judge's petition to have his first name legally changed to "Judge" was denied by Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro, MPR News reported. The man, former Anoka County Judge John Dehen, retired from his position on Oct. 10 following a suspension from the Minnesota Supreme Court over misconduct.
Dehen filed for the name change in August, requesting that his given name be changed instead to Judge John Dehen. The case was assigned to Castro, who slammed the petition made "in bad faith and with the intent to mislead" the public.
"To permit a former district court judge, who has been suspended for abusing his position of authority, to regain the title he was stripped of, would make the administration of justice a practical mockery. The Applicant is not replacing his first name of John with Judge but is requesting that Judge be added before John so he can be addressed as 'Judge John Dehen,'" Castro said in his order.
"By using the name ‘Judge,’ the Applicant would be holding himself out as a judge, a position he held for 15 years, but no longer holds," Castro added. The judge also denied Dehen's request to keep the filing private, though his home address was redacted.
Last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Dehen for nine months and censured him after Dehen was accused of a "pattern" of prejudice, KSTP-TV reported. The recommended punishment from the state panel was originally a six-month suspension, but Minnesota’s high court felt his misconduct warranted a more severe penalty.
Some of the misdeeds Dehen was accused of included holding a remote hearing from the passenger seat of his moving vehicle, attempting to rehire his court reporter with double the salary he state allows, and injecting his opinions about illegal immigration to "influence his decisions" in guardianship cases for troubled youth.
"His actions wasted precious judicial resources and disrespected the rule of law and the administration of justice that he took an oath to uphold," the order from the Supreme Court charged. It also said Dehen "damaged the professional function of the Judicial Branch" and that he "exhibited little if any remorse" for doing so.
For his part, Dehen's testimony before the state panel included an admission that he had "poor judgment" when he decided to hold a hearing from his vehicle, but he would not budge on the guardianship decisions. Dehen claimed those were "merely an error of law" rather than ideological influences.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, instead finding that Dehen had weaponized his official position and that the only remedy was to censure the judge. The high court said it had a duty to "fulfill our obligation to ensure that the misconduct is not repeated again, and to deter others from similar behavior."
In 2022, Dehen was disciplined privately after making threats during proceedings in a small claims lawsuit, MinneapoliMedia reported. Later, he was accused of using immigration status and lack of English proficiency while ruling on guardianship hearings.
“Just because you’re an immigrant doesn’t mean you’re eligible for an at-risk status,” Dehen told the initial panel investigating earlier this year. In at least three cases, other judges have either overturned Judge Dehen’s findings or ordered him removed entirely from at-risk juvenile cases.
Petitions in Minnesota for guardianship assignments for at-risk youth are seldom denied. In the county Dehen was presiding, he was responsible for all of them.
“He does what he wants to do and doesn’t accept disagreement,” Eric Magnuson, the former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court who anrgued the state’s case angainst Dehen, said. That hasn’t worked out so well for Dehen after all.
Dehen seems to do whatever he wants, perhaps believing that his position as judge gives him the cover to do so. Unfortunately for him, that’s not the way it works, and the judge will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court could limit the 1965 Voting Rights Act and alter the way congressional redistricting maps are created, according to The Washington Times. The case stems from a lower court's decision to mandate that Louisiana add a second majority-Black district, based on its overall population, rather than the geographic distribution of that population.
It's always been the case that the winning political party gets to draw the districting maps, including when it is advantageous to the party in power. However, Democrats have used the 60-year-old legislation as a way to push their own version of how the maps should be drawn, and it has become a way to discriminate.
This is what happened in Louisiana, as the arbitrary factor of skin color became the method by which to redraw the maps, thanks to a lower court's decision. That scheme may now be in jeopardy with the case before the conservative-leaning high court.
Some, including Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aruinaga, argue that the Voting Rights Act is reductive when it comes to race and that at least part of it is unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing," Aguinaga argued before the Supreme Court.
Janai Nelson, an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that redrawing the maps to eliminate the new Black districts would be "a staggering" change to the way voting is made fair. "This is about race," Nelson said, arguing in favor of keeping the status quo.
"Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is laser-focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process regardless of party," she added. However, the justices have been hinting that Section 2 of the legislation may be on the chopping block, especially those appointed by President Donald Trump.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch pushed back on Nelson's assertion, noting that it sounds as if it is "sometimes acceptable for a federal district court to order a map that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race," he said. Similarly, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that Section 2 may be obsolete, or at least on its way to becoming so.
"This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time … but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint," Kavanaugh said. Democrats see it differently, of course, and Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson insisted that racial discrimination is the only way to fix racial discrimination.
"They’re so tied up with race because that’s the initial problem. That’s the beginning," Jackson said.
As per the usual arrangement, the left is doing mental gymnastics to explain how racial discrimination is actually a good thing because it suits their purposes this time around. As the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh pointed out in a post to X, formerly Twitter, Democrats are attached to the law because it has been a boon for them.
"Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again," Walsh wrote on Thursday.
"This is a huge, huge case," he added. The post included a photo of the southern states and how Democratic strongholds would be "wiped out" if the law was repealed.
Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again. This is a huge, huge case. https://t.co/oSG3isAxLA
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 16, 2025
There is no excuse for racial discrimination, even when it is ostensibly done to make things fairer for a downtrodden population. The only truly fair move is to treat people like individuals and not based on the color of their skin, but the left is simply incapable of doing so.
Several journalists chose to hand in their access badges and clear their work areas on Wednesday rather than sign onto the Department of War's new agreement on what can be shared from the Pentagon, Breitbart reported. Reporters have been given until Tuesday night to sign or leave, and several chose the latter.
Journalist Eric Daugherty shared photos of signs for major news outlets piled up near offices as reporters exited. "BREAKING: The Pentagon has just confiscated the badges of nearly every major media organization in the United States, barring their access, after they refused to sign on to Pete Hegseth's new security rules to guard sensitive information. Reporters were seen leaving," Daugherty wrote.
He quoted the Pentagon Press Agency's statement about the move. "Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America. It did this because reporters would not sign onto a new media policy over its implicit threat of criminalizing national security reporting and exposing those who sign it to potential prosecution," the Pentagon Press Association said
🚨 BREAKING: The Pentagon has just confiscated the badges of nearly every major media organization in the United States, barring their access, after they refused to sign on to Pete Hegseth's new security rules to guard sensitive information.
Reporters were seen leaving.
"Today,… pic.twitter.com/icRZWDhxaj
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 15, 2025
The credentialing agreement these journalists were asked to sign pertained to what should and shouldn't be made public as reporters are given an insiders view into the goings on at the Department of War. This is for the safety of the troops as well as the integrity of any given military action, officials said.
"The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is. This has caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country," Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth also slammed the actions of the reporters. "You would think that the Pentagon press corps, of all press corps, would be front and center across the board on wanting to give credit to the President for forging this kind of peace, and instead, what they want to talk about is a policy about them," Hegseth said.
"Maybe the policy should look like the White House or other military installations, where you have to wear a badge that identifies that you’re press, or you can’t just roam anywhere you want. It used to be, Mr. President, the press could go anywhere, pretty much anywhere, in the Pentagon, the most classified area in the world," Hegseth explained.
"If they sign on to the credentialing, they’re not going to try to get soldiers to break the law by giving them classified information. So it’s common sense stuff. Mr. President, we’re trying to make sure national security is respected, and we’re proud of the policy," Hegseth told President Donald Trump.
It appears that this change has led to a mass exodus of journalists from the Pentagon reporter pool for now. Outlets that withdrew their support included The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and CNN, while One America News said that it would sign the agreement.
The journalists claimed that such a policy exerts too much control on the press under the guise of national security. Steven Cheung, White House communications director, said that in reality "a few reporters on this wall have privately said they were bullied into participating in the walkout when they actually wanted to stay," Cheung posted to X on Wednesday.
"They were physically confronted and threatened with retaliation if they didn’t join the protest," he charged. Whether that's true or not, it appears that the "in brief" form they were asked to sign outlined the proper procedure for navigating the building that houses America's military secrets, rather than editorial decisions.
The Department of War insists that it isn't about controlling the messaging or coverage, but rather ensuring that what's being reported doesn't jeopardize the mission as members of the media are privy to official information. Journalists believe that signing onto such an agreement would expose them to potential legal or professional problems in the future.
The press is right to demand as much transparency as possible from the government. However, they weren't concerned when Trump's predecessor was in the White House, so their objections ring hollow in this pure political spectacle.