Border czar Tom Homan and the Department of Homeland Security are diving headfirst into a contentious investigation targeting Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar over allegations of immigration fraud.
The probe centers on claims that Omar may have married her brother in 2009 to skirt immigration laws, a serious accusation now under intense scrutiny by federal authorities, according to Newsweek.
Let’s rewind a bit—Omar first arrived in the United States in the 1990s with her family, as noted in her official Congressional biography.
Fast forward to 2009, when the allegations suggest Omar tied the knot with Ahmed Elmi, a union that critics, including President Donald Trump and his supporters, claim was a sham to facilitate immigration.
By 2017, Omar and Elmi had divorced, but the whispers of fraud didn’t fade—they grew louder, echoing through conservative circles hungry for accountability.
Here’s the kicker: no DNA evidence has surfaced to prove Elmi is indeed Omar’s brother, leaving this claim as a hot potato of speculation until hard facts emerge.
Enter Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, who’s not mincing words about getting to the bottom of this.
“We're pulling the records, we're pulling the files. We're looking at it ... I'm running that down this week,” Homan declared, signaling a no-stone-unturned approach to the investigation.
That’s the kind of grit conservatives cheer for—a government finally willing to chase down potential fraud instead of turning a blind eye to progressive darlings.
But this isn’t just about one case; Homan also revealed that DHS is conducting a sweeping review of visa fraud within Minnesota’s Somali community.
According to the department, a staggering 50% of visas in Minnesota are believed to be fraudulent, a statistic that raises eyebrows and demands urgent action.
If true, this paints a troubling picture of systemic issues that could undermine trust in our immigration processes—something no American, left or right, should tolerate.
Homan didn’t stop there, emphasizing the administration’s resolve with a nod to direct orders from the top.
“President Trump has instructed us to go down, and we're going to deep dive all of this, and we're going to hold people accountable,” Homan stated, underscoring a mission of transparency that resonates with those frustrated by bureaucratic inaction.
While the left may cry foul over perceived political targeting, it’s hard to argue against accountability when the integrity of our borders hangs in the balance. After all, rules should apply to everyone—congresswoman or not—and if Omar’s entry into the country was above board, she has nothing to fear from a thorough review. Let’s hope this investigation cuts through the noise of partisan bickering and delivers clarity, because Americans deserve to know if their immigration system is being gamed, whether by one person or an entire network.
President Donald Trump just flipped the script on a tech policy that’s been choking American innovation for too long.
On Monday, Trump declared that Nvidia can now ship its cutting-edge H200 AI chips to vetted customers in China and beyond, a bold move that partially undoes restrictive Biden-era rules while promising a hefty financial boost for the U.S.
Let’s rewind to 2022, when the previous administration slapped tight controls on exporting advanced AI chips like Nvidia’s A100 and H100 to China, citing national security risks. Those rules aimed to keep cutting-edge tech out of rival hands but ended up forcing U.S. companies to churn out watered-down products. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!
Trump’s latest decision isn’t just a policy tweak—it’s a lifeline for American tech giants. The H200 chips, powerhouse processors built for AI tasks like chatbots and data-center operations, will now reach approved buyers overseas.
Even better, the U.S. stands to pocket a cool 25% share from these exports, proving that national interest doesn’t have to mean shutting down global trade.
Trump didn’t mince words when slamming the old rules, saying, “The Biden Administration forced our Great Companies to spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS building ‘degraded’ products that nobody wanted, a terrible idea that slowed Innovation, and hurt the American Worker” (President Donald Trump). Well, if that isn’t a mic drop on overzealous regulation, what is?
Now, before anyone cries foul over security risks, rest assured this deal isn’t a free-for-all. Every transaction will be under strict scrutiny to protect national interests, ensuring no sensitive tech slips through the cracks.
Nvidia, for its part, is thrilled with the green light, having long pushed for better trade ties with China after years of being hamstrung by export bans.
A company spokesperson cheered the move, stating, “We applaud President Trump's decision to allow America's chip industry to compete to support high paying jobs and manufacturing in America” (Nvidia spokesperson). That’s the spirit—let’s keep American talent leading the charge, not sidelined by bureaucratic red tape.
These H200 chips aren’t just any hardware; they’re the backbone of modern AI, powering everything from machine learning to complex data tasks. While U.S. customers move ahead with even newer Blackwell and Rubin chips, this export deal keeps Nvidia competitive globally without compromising domestic advancements.
The Department of Commerce is hammering out the fine print, and similar policies will extend to other U.S. tech leaders like AMD and Intel. It’s a comprehensive strategy, not a one-off favor.
Critics might grumble about opening trade with China, but let’s face it—isolating ourselves in a global tech race is a losing bet. A monitored, profitable deal like this keeps America ahead without ceding ground to overreaching progressive policies that stifle growth.
Trump’s vision here is clear: boost American jobs and manufacturing while maintaining a firm grip on security. It’s a refreshing change from the knee-jerk restrictions of the past that seemed more about posturing than progress.
So, as the tech world watches this unfold, one thing is certain—America’s back in the driver’s seat, balancing innovation with pragmatism. This isn’t just about chips; it’s about reclaiming our edge in a world that’s too often swayed by cautious, innovation-killing agendas.
Congress is stepping up to ensure America doesn’t retreat from its global commitments in Europe and South Korea.
With the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) finalized by House and Senate negotiators, lawmakers are slamming the brakes on any Pentagon plans to slash U.S. troop numbers in these critical regions, locking in forces at roughly 76,000 in Europe and 28,500 on the Korean Peninsula unless strict conditions are met.
Reports had trickled out earlier this year about the Pentagon mulling over force reductions in both areas, even floating the idea of giving up the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) post at NATO—a position always held by an American general.
Adding fuel to allied concerns, the U.S. Army pulled a rotating brigade, mostly based in Romania, back home earlier this year, raising eyebrows about a possible broader drawdown on NATO’s eastern flank.
Thankfully, the NDAA, released on a recent Sunday evening, puts a hard stop to such moves, demanding that any reduction in Europe below 76,000 troops comes with a detailed assessment proving it won’t jeopardize U.S. or NATO security interests.
Over in South Korea, the bill mandates that troop levels stay above 28,500 unless the Pentagon can convince Congress that deterrence against North Korea won’t suffer, allies have been consulted, and a full national security justification is provided.
Beyond troop numbers, the legislation cements America’s grip on the SACEUR role, ensuring NATO’s top military post remains in U.S. hands, though some other senior NATO positions may be offered to European nations.
Interestingly, U.S. leaders have lately backed off from any talk of major cuts, with officials stating there are no near-term plans to downsize forces in Europe.
Still, during a meeting with European leaders last week, U.S. national security officials delivered a blunt message that Europe must gear up to shoulder more of NATO’s defense burden by 2027, according to sources familiar with the discussion.
Speaking on this shift, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson noted, “We’ve been very clear in the need for Europeans to lead in the conventional defense of Europe.”
While the commitment to NATO coordination is admirable, let’s be real—America can’t be the world’s babysitter forever, and it’s high time our allies step up without progressive excuses about shared burdens masking their own inaction.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth doubled down at the Reagan National Defense Forum, stating, “Model allies that step up, like Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favor.”
Meanwhile, the NDAA—a must-pass annual package setting the Pentagon’s budget and policy—also allocates $400 million for Ukrainian security assistance next year, with another $400 million over two years via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
One eyebrow-raising provision allows the Pentagon to reclaim undelivered equipment meant for Ukraine if it’s urgently needed for U.S. operations, a move prompted by earlier pauses in military aid shipments to Kyiv this year.
As the bill heads to a House vote this week, with hopes of landing on the president’s desk before Christmas, it’s clear Congress is sending a message: America’s global presence isn’t up for negotiation, but neither is our expectation that allies pull their weight in a world that’s anything but woke to real threats.
The U.S. Supreme Court is diving into a constitutional showdown over former President Donald Trump’s bold move to oust a Federal Trade Commission member.
This case, set for arguments on Monday, centers on Trump’s dismissal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, before her term was due to end in 2029, challenging decades of precedent on presidential power over independent agencies.
Let’s rewind to March, when Trump decided to give Slaughter the boot, along with another Democrat on the FTC, citing policy differences rather than the legally required “cause” like inefficiency or malfeasance.
A 1914 law clearly states that FTC commissioners can only be removed for specific reasons, not just because a president dislikes their stance on Big Tech or corporate mergers.
Independent agencies like the FTC, National Labor Relations Board, and others have long enjoyed tenure protections, shielding their heads from political whims— a principle upheld since the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ruling.
That precedent declared the FTC’s role more legislative and judicial than purely executive, justifying restrictions on presidential removal power, but Trump’s team argues it’s time to rethink that outdated carve-out.
The Justice Department, defending Trump’s action, leans on the “unitary executive” theory, claiming the president should have unchecked authority over the executive branch, including firing agency heads at will.
They argue the modern FTC wields massive executive power, far beyond what was envisioned in 1935, making tenure protections an unconstitutional handcuff on presidential control.
Slaughter’s legal team counters that the constitutionality of removal limits doesn’t hinge on the scope of an agency’s authority— a point worth chewing on before tossing out nearly 90 years of settled law.
Washington-based U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan blocked the dismissal in July, rejecting Trump’s claim that tenure protections infringe on his power, a decision later upheld 2-1 by the D.C. Circuit in September.
Yet, the Supreme Court, in a split decision with its liberal justices dissenting, allowed Slaughter’s removal to stand temporarily while agreeing to hear the case— a move that hints at where the 6-3 conservative majority might lean.
Critics, including Democratic senators and antimonopoly advocates, have cried foul, suggesting Trump’s firings aimed to silence dissent within the FTC against corporate giants— a charge that raises eyebrows about executive overreach.
This isn’t just about one commissioner; it’s a test of whether the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, already narrowed in recent decades, will survive or crumble under a court skeptical of bureaucratic insulation.
A related case on Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, set for arguments on January 21, shows this battle over presidential power isn’t a one-off— it’s a pattern.
With a ruling expected by June, the nation watches as the Supreme Court weighs whether to uphold congressional safeguards or hand presidents a sharper tool to shape agencies, for better or worse. Let’s hope the balance of power doesn’t tip too far from the Constitution’s intent.
President Donald Trump just scored a historic win as the first-ever recipient of the FIFA Peace Prize!
The New York Post reported that on Friday, Trump was honored for his remarkable efforts in fostering global unity during a prestigious ceremony ahead of the 2026 World Cup draw in Washington, D.C.
The award, presented by FIFA President Gianni Infantino, recognized Trump’s “exceptional and extraordinary actions” in promoting harmony worldwide, a nod to his tireless work on the international stage.
It’s a refreshing change to see a leader celebrated for bridging divides rather than pandering to divisive cultural trends. Let’s hope this sets a precedent over the usual progressive posturing.
During the event, Infantino handed Trump a gold medal, which the president proudly placed around his own neck, along with a striking gold trophy engraved with his name and depicting hands holding up the world. The symbolism couldn’t be clearer—Trump as a unifying force in a fractured era.
The FIFA Peace Prize, officially titled “FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World,” was introduced just last month as an annual honor by soccer’s global governing body.
Trump, long known to share a rapport with Infantino, was widely tipped to be the inaugural winner, despite claiming he had no official heads-up about the accolade.
“I don’t know that I’m getting it. I haven’t been officially noticed,” Trump remarked, adding a touch of humility before accepting the honor. Such candidness cuts through the polished nonsense we often hear from leaders dodging accountability.
The ceremony drew a notable crowd, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, though they stayed seated while Trump danced to a lively rendition of “YMCA.” It’s a small but telling moment—Trump’s energy stands in contrast to the stoic detachment of some counterparts.
Trump didn’t shy away from making waves, using his platform to suggest American football needs a rebrand since soccer truly embodies the term “football” globally.
“This is football – there is no question,” he declared with characteristic boldness. It’s a quirky but pointed jab at cultural disconnects that often go unchallenged.
Behind the lighthearted moments, Trump emphasized the gravity of his mission, tying the award to his broader efforts to end conflicts and protect lives. It’s a reminder that beneath the showmanship, there’s a focus on tangible results over empty virtue signaling.
Interestingly, Infantino has previously argued that Trump deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a cease-fire in Gaza, though that honor went to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado this year. Trump, for his part, remains unfazed, focusing on his record of settling multiple conflicts—eight, by his count.
Questions arose about whether accepting the FIFA Peace Prize aligns with Trump’s recent hardline stance on Venezuelan drug trafficking, including threats to strike land-based operators and noting risks to Colombian counterparts.
Trump insisted there’s no conflict, framing his actions as life-saving rather than contradictory. It’s a tough balance, but prioritizing security isn’t the same as abandoning peace.
Since early September 2025, the U.S. military has targeted numerous vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking off Venezuela and Colombia, with significant casualties reported. Critics might seize on this to question the “peace” narrative, but defending national interests against criminal networks is hardly warmongering.
Trump’s acceptance speech underscored his commitment to global stability, a stark contrast to the chaos often fueled by unchecked progressive policies. “The world is a safer place now,” he asserted with conviction. That’s the kind of leadership that cuts through the noise of endless cultural debates.
The FIFA Peace Prize isn’t just a trophy—it’s a recognition of Trump’s unapologetic approach to tackling the world’s toughest issues, from wars to crime. While some may scoff at the optics, dismissing this as mere pageantry ignores the real impact of his negotiations and resolve.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem just dropped a bombshell that’s reshaping America’s borders.
The Daily Caller reported that on Thursday, Noem unveiled a bold expansion of travel restrictions, barring entry from more than 30 countries as part of the Trump administration’s push to safeguard national security and public safety.
Earlier this year, in June, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation restricting entry from a dozen nations, including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, and Somalia, citing inadequate security protocols and heightened terrorism risks in those regions.
Other countries on that initial list, such as Haiti, Yemen, and Sudan, were flagged for similar concerns about unstable governance and vetting challenges.
The administration argued these measures were necessary to pressure foreign governments into stepping up their cooperation on security matters, ensuring travelers don’t pose a threat to American soil.
Fast forward to Noem’s latest announcement, and the list of restricted countries has ballooned to over 30, though she kept the precise figure under wraps.
“I won’t be specific on the number, but it’s over 30. And the President is continuing to evaluate countries,” Noem told host Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle.”
Well, that’s a lot of nations on the no-fly list, and while clarity is lacking, it’s clear the administration isn’t playing around when it comes to perceived risks—though some might wonder if blanket bans are the sharpest tool in the shed.
Noem didn’t mince words when explaining the rationale, pointing to governance issues in the affected countries as a core concern.
“Listen, if they don’t have a stable government there, if they don’t have a country that can sustain itself and tell us who those individuals are and help us vet them, why should we allow people from that country to come here to the United States?” she pressed on “The Ingraham Angle.”
Her point hits a nerve—why take chances on unverified travelers when the stakes are so high?—yet critics might argue this approach risks painting entire populations with too broad a brush.
The Trump administration doubled down on the urgency of these restrictions by highlighting recent violent incidents tied to individuals from high-risk areas.
One case involved Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an unauthorized migrant who entered during the prior administration and was later arrested for attacking a pro-Israel demonstration in Boulder, Colorado.
Another chilling event occurred less than two weeks before that, when 31-year-old Elias Rodriguez fatally shot two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., shouting political slogans as he was apprehended—incidents like these fuel the administration’s argument for tighter borders, though they also stoke heated debates about fairness and effectiveness.
In a bold move that’s got Washington buzzing, President Donald Trump has pardoned a Democratic congressman who dared to challenge the previous administration’s border policies.
Breitbart reported that President Trump announced a full and unconditional pardon for Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and his wife, Imelda, who faced bribery charges from the Biden Department of Justice since May 2024.
The saga began over two years before the indictment, when a search warrant was executed on the Cuellars’ home in Laredo, raising eyebrows about the timing and intent behind the investigation.
Was this a genuine pursuit of justice or a political hit job? The question lingers like a Texas summer heatwave.
The Biden DOJ accused the Cuellars of taking over half a million dollars in bribes from an energy company based in Azerbaijan, a charge that smells of overreach to many conservatives. If true, it’s serious—but why the delay in action after the initial search?
Cuellar, a South Texas Democrat, isn’t your typical progressive cheerleader, often breaking ranks to criticize policies he sees as harmful to his constituents. His vocal opposition to the Biden administration’s border approach made him a target, or so the narrative goes. And Trump seems to agree.
Posting on Truth Social, Trump didn’t mince words, blasting the indictment as a weaponized attack by a desperate administration. He even shared a heartfelt letter from Cuellar’s daughters, Christina and Catherine, pleading for clemency. It’s a rare glimpse of bipartisan empathy in a polarized age.
“For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” Trump declared on Truth Social. He pointed to Cuellar’s border policy critiques as the likely trigger for this legal ordeal. If that’s not a chilling effect on free speech, what is?
Trump went further, calling the prosecution of both Henry and Imelda Cuellar “un-American” and a sign of the radical left’s dangerous agenda. It’s a familiar refrain for those who see the DOJ as less about justice and more about settling scores.
The pardon itself was framed as a direct rebuke to such tactics, with Trump adding, “Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!” That’s the kind of flourish that resonates with supporters who view Trump as a defender against bureaucratic overreach.
Cuellar’s daughters, Christina and Catherine, didn’t hold back in their letter, suggesting their father’s independence and honesty on border security may have sparked the investigation. It’s a poignant reminder that behind every headline are real families caught in the crossfire of political games.
“We also believe that our father’s independence and honesty may have contributed to how this case began,” they wrote. “He has never been afraid to speak his mind, especially when it comes to protecting the people of South Texas and securing the border from the policies of the previous administration.”
Their words cut through the noise, painting Cuellar as a principled man rather than a partisan pawn. It’s hard not to feel a twinge of sympathy, even if one questions the bribery allegations’ merits.
This pardon isn’t just about one congressman; it’s a signal flare to those who fear speaking out against prevailing narratives. If criticizing flawed border policies can land you in legal hot water, what’s next for dissent in America?
Trump’s decision also underscores a growing conservative concern: that federal agencies are being used to silence opposition, whether Republican or Democrat. Cuellar, an unlikely ally, becomes a case study in why many on the right distrust the current system.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow just predicted that the GOP will push for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's resignation, a move that could shake up the Department of Defense.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, during her show “Deadline,” Maddow tackled a troubling report about alleged misconduct by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tied to drug boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea, forecasting that Republican lawmakers will soon call for his resignation over the escalating controversy.
Let’s unpack this with a clear head, because the progressive media machine loves to spin a narrative faster than a fidget spinner.
Maddow didn’t hold back, questioning the very foundation of the military actions in question with a tone that suggests she’s already written the obituary for Hegseth’s tenure.
She mused, “I don’t understand why we’re going to war with Venezuela, and I’m not sure the administration is even bothered to try to come up with anything, even internally coherent,” as reported on MSNBC’s “Deadline.”
While it’s fair to ask tough questions about foreign policy, Maddow’s framing seems to ignore the complex reality of drug trafficking threats—perhaps she’d prefer we send the Coast Guard with a polite “please stop” instead of decisive action?
The core of the issue, as Maddow sees it, is a report alleging impropriety in how Hegseth has overseen operations targeting suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
Her criticism implies a reckless approach, but let’s be honest—defending national security isn’t a game of patty-cake, and sometimes tough calls must be made against dangerous cartels.
Still, if the allegations hold water, conservatives must demand accountability, not because we’re swayed by MSNBC’s outrage, but because integrity in leadership isn’t negotiable.
Maddow went further, painting a picture of needless violence in the operations, as if the military is playing target practice with innocent fishermen.
She questioned, “So what are we doing there in the first place? Why are we blowing out of the water and killing people in boats with outboard motors, some of which aren’t even pointed towards the United States, let alone verified to have drugs on them?” as aired on “Deadline.”
Her rhetorical flourish might score points with the anti-military crowd, but it sidesteps the harsh truth that drug smuggling isn’t a harmless hobby—though, admittedly, transparency on targeting protocols would go a long way to ease public concern.
Perhaps the most striking part of Maddow’s segment was her bold prediction that Hegseth’s days as Secretary of Defense are numbered.
She didn’t mince words, stating on “Deadline” that this situation is “a catastrophe” and that Republican lawmakers will ultimately demand his resignation after digging into the matter.
While it’s tempting to dismiss this as left-leaning wishful thinking, conservatives should take note—if the facts reveal a failure in judgment, loyalty to principle must trump loyalty to any one figure, no matter how aligned with the cause.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is requesting a travel ban to be placed on as many as 32 nations that send criminal immigrants to the U.S., Fox News reported. The announcement came on Monday following a meeting with President Donald Trump after two National Guard members were shot last week.
"I just met with the President. I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies," Noem wrote in a post to X on Monday.
"Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS. WE DON'T WANT THEM. NOT ONE," Noem concluded.
I just met with the President.
I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign…
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) December 1, 2025
The inciting incident involved a shooting that occurred on the day before Thanksgiving in Washington, D.C. Law enforcement officials believe that two West Virginia National Guard troops, who were placed there as part of Trump's crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, were allegedly shot by Afghan immigrant Rahmanullah Lakanwal, The Hill reported.
U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from her wounds on Nov. 28, while U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, is in serious condition. Following the shooting, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) put an indefinite halt to immigration applications from Afghans.
This followed a June memo that restricted migration from 19 nations, including Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. "During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld," Trump said in the memo issued June 4.
The president recalled that in a memo on the first day of his second term, he "stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes," Trump continued. He said the government would now be "vigilant" that visas would not be issued to aliens who "intend to harm Americans or our national interests" going forward.
He and Noem had compiled a list of nations that were sending immigrants who did not align with American values. "Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals," Trump wrote. The total list of countries now banned hovers around 32, CNN reported.
Any time Trump has spoken of measures to prevent such crimes, he has received pushback from the left about it. Democrats. Rather than being outraged that people coming into the U.S. are committing crimes against people, they are worried that keeping them out of the country is the real problem.
According to the UK Guardian, this was the same reaction the first time Trump announced his plan that detractors called "reckless" and "racist" in June. Meanwhile, Trump has said that the decision was made with "foreign policy, national security, and counter-terrorism goals" in mind.
"Trump’s reckless first term travel ban all over again," California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff said at the time. "Just like before, Trump’s expanded ban on travelers from around the world will not improve our national security and will only further isolate the US from the rest of the world," Schiff claimed.
"Bigotry is not a national security strategy," he added. This has never been about bigotry and instead has been about keeping out people from adversarial nations and places where it's difficult to find information on newcomers.
America has enough crime and criminals without importing more from other nations. The left has never come up with another solution except to push for more of the same, and it's time that Republicans take the lead to prevent this from happening.
When Joe Biden let 76,000 Afghans into the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 after he disastrously pulled the U.S. military out of the country and left it under Taliban control, he didn't vet them very well.
Turns out, over 5,000 Afghan nationals who were allowed to resettle in the U.S. were flagged by the Department of Homeland Security for national security concerns, and now President Donald Trump wants them gone following the shooting of two National Guard troops by an Afghan national let in as part of that program.
Trump ended Temporary Protected Status for Afgan nationals earlier this year, but an estimated 885 of those flagged by DHS are still here, according to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
She posted about the problem on X on Sunday.
The Biden Administration created one of the worst national security crisis in American history with the abandonment of Afghanistan. Biden let into our country nearly 100,000 unvetted Afghan aliens — figuring out who they were and their intentions when they were already on… pic.twitter.com/DhWUs2E28g
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) November 30, 2025
"The Biden Administration created one of the worst national security crisis in American history with the abandonment of Afghanistan," she wrote. "Biden let into our country nearly 100,000 unvetted Afghan aliens — figuring out who they were and their intentions when they were already on American soil."
She added, "Trump has been working every day since January 20 to clean up this unmitigated national security crisis."
Trump now wants a review on the vetting protocols for foreign nationals let into the U.S. seeking asylum from 19 "high risk" countries, as well as all asylum cases approved by the Biden administration.
The review was precipitated by the alleged actions of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect arrested for shooting Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Andrew Wolfe, 24.
Beckstrom later died from her injuries, and Wolfe is still in serious condition after surgery.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ would seek the death penalty for Lakanwal.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told the New York Post that he had tried to raise the issue of unvetted Afghans for "years" but no one paid attention.
“I spent years calling attention to the weak vetting standards in Operation Allies Welcome, despite considerable pushback from the Biden administration and many of my colleagues in Congress,” Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told the Post. “Sadly, this past week’s tragedy in Washington only validates my concerns further.”
Incidents like these fit in perfectly with much of the Democrats' agenda to destabilize the U.S. by whatever means necessary so that people will think government is the answer to everything. Good for Trump for reversing the damage as much as he can.