In May of this year, a chaotic scene erupted at a New Jersey ICE detention facility, one that led to the arrest and indictment of a congresswoman from that state.
Now, despite Rep. LaMonica McIver’s attempts to have the charges against her dismissed, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper last week determined that the lawmaker must stand trial on two of the three counts, reserving judgment on whether a third count will be allowed to stand, as Breitbart reports.
The incident that gave rise to McIver’s current legal troubles unfolded on May 9, when, according to the Department of Justice, the congresswoman “forcibly impeded and interfered with federal officers as they attempted to arrest an individual outside the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility.”
Though McIver and two other members of the lower chamber appeared at the facility to “conduct a congressional oversight inspection,” their presence coincided with a demonstration in protest of the Trump administration's immigration policies.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka arrived on the scene as well, entering a secured area of the facility, and when a federal officer indicated to him that he was not permitted to be in that part of the building, a dispute ensued.
McIver and her congressional colleagues challenged the officer’s assertions and opposed Baraka’s potential removal from the facility, eventually surrounding the mayor to protect him from arrest.
According to the DOJ, “McIver slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer and also reached out and tried to restrain that officer by forcibly grabbing him. McIver also used each of her forearms to forcibly strike a second officer,” conduct that led to an indictment on three criminal counts.
In response to the indictment, McIver and her attorneys argued that the prosecution itself was unfair and that she is entitled to protection from the Constitution’s speech and debate clause, as Politico notes, which provides immunity to lawmakers from actions stemming from official duties.
Unfortunately for McIver, Judge Semper disagreed with her characterization of the case and declined to throw out two of the three counts, with a determination on the third count still in abeyance pending receipt of additional evidence.
In a 41-page opinion on McIver’s request, Semper wrote, “Defendant’s active participation in the alleged conduct removes her acts from the safe harbor of mere oversight.”
The opinion continued, “Lawfully or unlawfully, Defendant actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties.”
The trial in the case was originally slated to start last week, but the judge permitted a postponement of the proceedings, perhaps with the expectation that an appeal of this ruling will follow in short order.
Not surprisingly, McIver was frustrated by the outcome, issuing a statement that said, “I am not in this fight only for myself, and I am concerned that this decision will simply embolden the administration.”
At the time of the initial indictment, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the administration’s position clear, stating, “No one is above the law. If any person, regardless of political party, influence or status, assaults a law enforcement officer as we witnessed Congresswoman McIver do, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” and that is a sentiment with which millions surely agree. Whether a conviction ultimately results, however, only time will tell.
A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's administration has no right to levy fines or cut government funding for public academic institutions based on claims of discrimination or antisemitism, Newsmax reported. The decision came from a case brought by organizations on behalf of the University of California.
Trump fined the institution $1.2 billion and shut off its funding for research because of rampant antisemitism on campus. It was the first public university to receive such treatment that Trump had promised ot those violating civil rights.
U.S. District Judge Rita Lin reprimanded the Trump administration for this action in her ruling. She claimed she based it on "overwhelming evidence" against the administration that was "engaged in a concerted campaign to purge 'woke,' 'left,' and 'socialist' viewpoints from our country's leading universities" by punishing them this way.
"Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. It is undisputed that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California," Lin wrote.
For years, America's institutions of higher education, many of which receive government funding, have engaged in discrimination against students and propagated radical ideas. It is now against the law for colleges to admit students based on their race, and Trump has accused institutions of continuing to do so.
According to NPR, the administration also required UCLA and others to expel foreign students who act against America's interests and engage in antisemitic "disruptions or harassment" as part of his October edict. Trump agreed to accept $50 million from Brown University and $221 million from Columbia University for those violations.
It's apparent that they're not America first unless forced to be so, but Lin claimed that academia in the nation "remains committed to protecting the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the University." With Lin's permanent injunction, the Trump administration is now barred from "conditioning the grant or continuance of federal funding on the UC's agreement to any measures that would violate the rights of Plaintiffs' members under the First Amendment."
Meanwhile, university campuses are becoming hotbeds of discrimination and anti-Israel sentiment. A PBS report from September 2024 shared how students set up tents on the campus of Columbia University to support the Palestinians in the war against Israel. This move made many Jewish students feel unwelcome.
"As long as Columbia continues to invest and to benefit from Israeli apartheid, the students will continue to resist. Not only protests and encampments, the limit is the sky," said graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who acted as a spokesperson and brokered a deal with the university when it sought to appease the students.
The judge has temporarily stopped the administration from punishing radicals who use the university system to fuel leftism and anti-Americanism. Nevertheless, Trump's presidency has been all about restoring normalcy and the idea of American exceptionalism, and that was a major part of why he was elected.
Trump said as much when reflecting on his first six months in office. "Wow, time flies! Today is that Sixth Month Anniversary of my Second Term. Importantly, it’s being hailed as one of the most consequential periods of any President," Trump said in a post to his Truth Social on July 20.
"In other words, we got a lot of good and great things done, including ending numerous wars of Countries not related to us other than through Trade and/or, in certain cases, friendship. Six months is not a long time to have totally revived a major Country. One year ago our Country was DEAD, with almost no hope of revival. Today the USA is the 'hottest' and most respected Country anywhere in the World.' Happy Anniversary!!!
The left is afraid of Trump's ability to limit their insanity that is infecting college campuses. The judge may have barred Trump from imposing this particular punishment, but he momentum against the radicalism of the left has already begun to restore normalcy to the nation.
New York City's new Democratic Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said he "will reach out" to President Donald Trump to foster cooperation, Breitbart reported. The 34-year-old expressed his intention to quit playing politics and do what's best for the city, which is a refreshing change from the way the rest of his party has handled the GOP president.
Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, handily won the race to become the mayor of the Big Apple. He beat out former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent after Mamdani crushed him in the Democratic primary, and the GOP choice, Curtis Slewa.
Now that the 34-year-old is ready to get down to business, he sat down with NBC New York’s Melissa Russo and said he would take a different approach with Trump than others in his party. While the rest of the Democratic Party is fighting him tooth and nail, Mamdani reversed course and said he would be the one to reach out first.
Flanked by First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan in the interview, Mamdani promised a new approach and stated that he "will be proactive" when it comes to speaking with Trump to prevent his immigration crackdown in the city. Mamdani has spoken out about Trump's practice of sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or the National Guard into America's cities, and he believes he can dissuade Trump with his goodwill.
"I will be proactive in the work that I do, and I think that is because the responsibility I hold to 8.5 million people being their mayor," Mamdani told Russo. "It is important that you are open to working with anyone, no matter what disagreements you may have," he added. This is the kind of talk about Trump that sends Democrats into a tailspin, but Mamdani seems to be wiser.
"And, I’ve said this when it pertains to President Trump, that President Trump wants to speak about lowering the cost of living or delivering cheaper groceries like he ran on, I’m there to have that conversation. The distinction will be that previous administrations have looked to have that conversation to the benefit of themselves, in the expense of the people that we look to serve," Mamdani clarified.
Russo asked Mamdani if he would be the one to pick up the phone first, and Mamdani said he would "be reaching out to the White House" before he takes office. "This is a relationship that will be critical to the success of this city," Mamdani noted.
When the host asked what that call would entail, Mamdani said that he would tell Trump he is "here to work for the benefit of everyone that calls" New York City their place of residence. Mamdani also said he will tell Trump he's ready to cooperate with him "wherever there is a possibility for working together towards that end."
This spirit of cooperation with Trump is new for Mamdani, who is singing a different tune than he was immediately following his election to office. During his victory speech, Mamdani called out Trump as a "despot" and urged him to "turn the volume up" to hear his defiant rhetoric, the UK Guardian reported.
The president cited that speech during an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, and noted that Mamdani got off to a "bad start" with that message. "It was a very angry speech, certainly angry toward me,” Trump told the host.
"I think he should be very nice to me. You know, I’m the one that sort of has to approve a lot of things coming for him. So, he’s off to a bad start," Trump noted. Previously, Mamdani had said the president was "waging war on the First Amendment" and trampling on "constitutional rights" by pursuing illegal immigrants.
Trump told New Yorkers that the choice was now "between communism and common sense" after Mamdani, who proposed city-run grocery stores and open borders, was elected. The president has since vowed that the country is "not going communist in any way, shape or form" as long as he's in the White House.
Mamdani seems to understand what he's up against with Trump and is hopefully ready to back off from his attacks against the president. Meanwhile, Trump does not take kindly to Democrats who allow their cities to be overrun with unvetted illegal immigrants, and the two may clash over that issue, even if Mamdani is more conciliatory than others in his party.
Sen. John Fetterman said it is "absolutely troubling" after new emails surfaced where the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein mentioned President Donald Trump by name, The Hill reported. The Pennsylvania Democrat has defended Trump on other issues but is now toeing the party line that the president was somehow involved in the disgraced financier's troubling behavior.
Fetterman has been surprisingly moderate, including at times defending Trump and other Republicans. However, during a CNN interview with Dana Bash on Wednesday, Fetterman took the familiar leftist position of associating Trump with Epstein and his perverse proclivities.
Bash asked Fetterman about emails that were supposedly sent from Epstein that mentioned Trump as the "dog that hasn't barked" as his alleged crimes were coming to light. Epstein also mentioned that Trump spent "hours" with one of the women who would later be identified as one of his victims. Fetterman took the bait and ran with his criticism of Trump.
Fetterman had strong words about the new revelations found in these unearthed emails as the senator appeared in his signature black hoodie. "I have followed it, of course," the 56-year-old lawmaker.
"Yeah, it’s absolutely troubling, you know, to see that. And I think we probably need more," Fetterman said.
Fetterman pointed out that the Epstein files need to be released through the FBI and Justice Department, and that Democrats and Republicans agree on this. They have gone so far as to initiate a discharge petition that would bring the issue to the floor of the House of Representatives.
"My understanding is that now that the House is back now, they have enough to activate that discharge petition — I think that’s the technical term — and then I think everything should come out. I think, you know, enough people agree that it should just come out and just see where this goes and follow … the evidence," Fetterman continued.
Unfortunately, Epstein killed himself while in prison in 2019, so he cannot confirm these suspicious claims one way or the other. Still, his alleged accomplice and romantic partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, is serving 20 years in prison for her part in the conspiracy that facilitated his abuse of minors. She is in the process of requesting that her sentence be commuted.
The White House attempted to dismiss the claims in the emails, stating that Democrats were "selectively" releasing the documents to cause the most damage and "create a fake narrative" against Trump. "These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, according to NBC News.
However, some of the emails released Wednesday from the House Oversight Committee are damning to Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and others. Trump's name is mentioned in the emails from Epstein, including his claim that he was not thrown out of Trump's Mar-a-Lago club, as the president so often said.
"Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever," Epstein purportedly wrote. Other claims included that Clinton "never" went to Epstein's private island despite Trump's insistence that he had been.
Ironically, the sleezy financier also claimed that Trump's business practices were "dirty" and his methods underhanded. "He has no money when he buys the house. His biz model is putting his name on a real estate development and gets a fee for using his name. The hotel biz is just that," Epstein wrote in a February 2019 email.
The entire Epstein affair, including his island, has many layers, with many prominent individuals likely entangled in it. If Trump was doing something wrong, he deserves to be punished; however, it is suspect that this is only coming to light now despite years of legal pursuit from the left.
A new report reveals that two of the properties owned by New York Attorney General Letitia James have been visited by police more than two dozen times, Breitbart reported. The homes, which are part of her mortgage fraud indictment, are occupied by her beleaguered family member, who has a checkered past.
The properties involved were part of the ongoing controversy about James's alleged lies on her mortgage documents. When applying for financing on her Virginia homes, James claimed that one would be her primary residence while the other would be a second home.
Interest rates are typically higher on homes rented to others or used as vacation homes, so James potentially benefited from claiming a Virginia residence even while serving in the New York government. Meanwhile, the family members who occupied the homes James purchased have had their share of drama, including repeated visits from law enforcement, according to the New York Post.
Cops called to Letitia James’ Virginia homes two dozen times since she bought them https://t.co/o3ABDG6Bnd pic.twitter.com/Sna6VwvxUE
— New York Post (@nypost) November 11, 2025
Police were called on several occasions to the Virginia residence owned by James, which was occupied by her grandniece, Nakia Thompson. The 36-year-old, who has a criminal history, lives at the house with her three children, where she has lived since James closed on the house in August 2020.
According to police reports, there have been several calls to the house, with some even occurring on the same day. Cops have been visiting to serve warrants and subpoenas, and also for issues such as domestic violence, vandalism, and calls about suspicious persons.
The most recent activity includes six calls made in the first two weeks of October of this year. Still, Thompson has denied having any legal woes and took to Facebook to defend herself, as noted by the New York Post in a separate report about the issue.
"For all inquiring minds no I’m not in trouble havent been in years at all," she wrote. Thompson said that the charges against her, which include assaulting police, are "OLD AS HELL" and said they were "fabricated" against her.
"Very much a active mother to my children everyday, work everyday, and very much in college and about to graduate with my B.A. in Sociology with a minor in Criminal Justice," Thompson wrote. She didn't mention that in 2019, she had her kids with her when she was busted for felony larceny. "I’m doing my thing!! I walk with my head held high cause I worked hard to get where I am," Thompson wrote.
While it seems that James's family can't stay out of trouble, the attorney general has been embroiled in the mortgage fraud that she claims is a political witch hunt, ABC News reported. James pursued President Donald Trump while he was running for office in a way that many believe surpassed her call of duty, and now she is attempting to get her own case dismissed by claiming Trump is retaliating.
Ironically, James slapped Trump with a massive $500 million fine for fraud based on his company's valuation of properties to obtain bank loans. It was a controversial case, both in its allegations and the penalty imposed, and it was ultimately dismissed. However, James now believes her very real scandal is simply a political war.
"This lawsuit and AG James’s outspoken criticism of the President triggered six years of targeted attacks. President Trump and his allies have used every insulting term in their vocabulary to deride AG James and call for criminal penalties in retaliation for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her statutory duties to fulfill her obligations as New York state’s attorney general," attorneys for James wrote in a legal filing.
They said that Trump's use of words like "scum," "criminal," "crooked," and "monster" demonstrates his particular disdain for James and proves that it was personal. Many believe that James and her ilk were going after Trump for political reasons, and now that they're on the other end of it, they don't like it.
James has held herself out to be the paragon of virtue while allegedly playing games for favorable mortgage rates. Although her family's legal woes are not her fault nor her responsibility, it adds another twist to this controversy that James seems to have brought on herself.
President Donald Trump authorized two more strikes against drug cartel boats in international waters as the administration ramps up efforts to stop the flow of illicit drugs into the U.S., Breitbart reported. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the strikes on Sunday killed six men and destroyed their poisonous payload.
Trump has designated the foreign drug traffickers as terrorist organizations and has begun active strikes against these vessels before they reach American shores. The first of such strikes occurred in September, when Trump announced that this would become part of an ongoing effort to stop the cartels from Venezuela and others.
The president said in a social media post on Sept. 2 that the strikes should "serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!" Trump said on his Truth Social. Since then, these strikes have killed at least 76 narcoterrorists, CBS News reported.
Hegseth took to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday to announce the successful completion of Sunday's mission. "Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," Hegseth wrote in a caption to a video of the maneuver.
"These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the Eastern Pacific. Both strikes were conducted in international waters and 3 male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel," Hegseth continued.
"All 6 were killed. No U.S. forces were harmed," Hegseth assured the American people.
"Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people," the Secretary of War concluded. While these missions have been successful, the left has gone crazy over Trump's audacity to take such measures.
Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations.
These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and… pic.twitter.com/ocUoGzwwDO
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) November 10, 2025
While the prospect of stopping the drug trade at its source is attractive to many who like law and order, there are objections from the left about Trump's methods and his aggression toward Venezuelan gangs. Volker Turk, who is the U.N.'s head of human rights, said Monday that the strikes have "strong indications" of "extrajudicial killings" and thus deserve additional scrutiny despite having the desired effect of preventing narcotics from making it to American shores.
"I have called for investigations by the US administration first and foremost, because they need to... ask themselves the question: are these violations of international human rights law? Are they extrajudicial killings?" Volker said, echoing some lawmakers who have questioned the president's ability to order these attacks..
"I mean, there are strong indications that they are, but they need to investigate this," Turk added. Meanwhile, Turk has complained that the strikes have occurred "in circumstances that find no justification in international law." This same skepticism has also been shared by lawmakers stateside.
However, a resolution that was proposed in the Senate to check Trump's power to order these strikes failed last week in a 49-51 vote. GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to join the Democrats' unanimous vote to put a stop to the strikes, NBC News reported. Some Democratic congressional lawmakers similarly raised concerns about the strikes and Trump's supposed lack of transparency.
These military strikes are taking out the drug trade at the source, just as Trump had promised. The increase in proactive operations is somewhat concerning from a geopolitical standpoint as they may spark retaliatory attacks, but Trump has typically been dovish when it comes to using the military, so it stands to reason that his change of heart comes from a well-informed place.
Over the weekend, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) wrote in a memo that states must "undo" sending full SNAP payments to residents for the month of November.
“To the extent states sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” the Saturday memo reads. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”
The administration has only authorized partial benefits for November, and said that states might incur financial "consequences" if they pay out full benefits.
Specifically, states might forfeit the federal portion of their SNAP benefits for November as well as future payments if they don't comply with the memo.
A Rhode Island federal judge ordered Trump to pay full SNAP benefits, but U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order while the appeals process plays out.
Before the Supreme Court ruling, the USDA had ordered states to comply with the lower court ruling and pay full benefits.
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania moved on Friday to issue full benefits in accordance with the lower court order. Colorado, North Carolina, and Illinois set a timeline to do the same, and Delaware used state money to issue benefits on an emergency basis.
A court in Massachusetts blocked the memo temporarily and said that states did not have to comply. A virtual hearing is set for Monday afternoon.
The whole situation has devolved into a confusing mess, with food banks being stretched beyond their limits as people wait to hear when their benefits will come.
Of course, people should not be depending on SNAP to provide their food, but this kind of rapid shift in the system caught many people unawares.
The Senate has moved to (finally) end the shutdown with the votes of eight Democrats on Sunday, enough for cloture so the spending bill can be passed.
Hopefully, the end of the shutdown will make all of these court cases moot and people can go back to the status quo, at least until the next round at the end of January.
Republicans stuck to their guns despite not having a great election last week, and it paid off for them as Democrats had to give in without getting their ACA subsidies back.
There will be a vote on the subsidies, though, so hopefully Congress will be able to close the loophole for illegal immigrants getting them and alleviate the steep increases for everyone else.
With the ongoing government shutdown now the longest such impasse in American history, some lawmakers are attempting to ensure that members of Congress go without paychecks just as thousands of federal workers have been forced to do.
On Thursday, Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott sought unanimous consent for what he called the “No Budget, No Pay Act,” which would cause legislators’ paychecks to be halted until the shutdown concludes, but the effort was blocked by liberal Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), as the Daily Caller reports.
After Scott introduced the measure, a floor debate ensued, revealing Markey’s opposition to the proposal.
Markey noted that he had already requested a deferment of his own government pay until the shutdown ends, a declaration that prompted questions and incredulity from Scott.
“If he’s willing to defer his paycheck, why wouldn’t he allow my bill to pass that all of us should defer our paychecks until government gets open again?” Scott wondered.
The Massachusetts Democrat is not the only member of the upper chamber who has balked at the idea of missing paychecks in solidarity with federal workers across the country who have gone without salaries amid the continued funding impasse.
Sen. Ruben Gallego stated weeks ago that he simply could not afford to go without a paycheck, a sentiment with which countless government employees can relate, despite their own inability to solve the situation that keeps them unpaid.
Last week, Sen. John Kennedy also attempted to put a stop to lawmaker paychecks until the shutdown standoff concludes, trying to pass three measures via unanimous consent that would have done just that.
Democrat Patty Murray (D-WA) stood in opposition to Kennedy’s proposals, but, to the frustration of many, so did Republican Sen. Rand Paul (KY).
Kennedy delivered pointed remarks on the issue, underscoring that “folks aren’t being paid while we’re in a shutdown. Our air traffic controllers are not being paid. In fact, starting tomorrow, the airlines are going to be cancelling flights. Our staff are not being paid… Our military is only being partially paid… The only people that I can ascertain who are being paid are members of Congress.”
Opining that “it’s time that Congress set an example,” Kennedy said, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” and he urged his Senate colleagues to support the “No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act.”
Paul, however, was having none of it, and he proceeded to object to the measures proposed by Kennedy, with Murray also blocking the Louisiana Republican’s push to pass Sen. Ron Johnson’s “Shutdown Fairness Act” that would pay federal workers deemed “essential.”
The dispute over lawmaker pay during the shutdown sparked a reaction from President Donald Trump, who took to Truth Social and wrote, “It was so interesting yesterday when our Great Senator from Louisiana, John Kennedy, introduced a Bill in an attempt to withhold Members of Congress from getting paid, and Rand Paul, who never votes for anything, tried to stop it, because he wanted to be paid!”
Trump went on, “In other words, Rand wanted to pay the people who stopped Government from working! What’s going on with Rand?” surely echoing the sentiments of millions who would have liked to see Scott’s or Kennedy’s commonsense proposals pass with ease.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is favoring Vice President J.D. Vance as the logical choice to be the GOP's presidential nominee in 2028, Politico reported. Rubio supposedly admitted this to his close confidants after President Donald Trump named Vance and Rubio as the two he believed could replace him.
Both of Trump's election victories came after a remarkable struggle that remade the Republican Party in his image. The question of who can fill his shoes is a crucial one, and politicians and pundits alike are already exploring the possibilities.
Those close to the matter noted that Rubio has been deferential to Vance as the potential nominee, as Trump has named both men as possible successors. "Marco has been very clear that JD is going to be the Republican nominee if he wants to be," a source close to Rubio said.
There is a running joke about the number of jobs Trump has bestowed on Rubio, with the role of Secretary of State being the most prestigious. He is a busy man who seems content to do his duty without seeking the spotlight, which is a trait that serves him well.
This was evidenced by a July 2025 interview Rubio had on Fox News with Lara Trump on her My View program. The president's daughter-in-law asked Rubio whether he had an eye towards possibilities "outside the State Department," which gave Rubio the opportunity to champion Vance's candidacy for president.
"I think J.D. Vance would be a great nominee, if he decides he wants to do that," Rubio said. The former U.S. senator from Florida ran for president in 2016 and lost in the primary to Donald Trump, which raises the question of whether he'd consider another run. However, it seems he thinks his time has come and gone.
"I think he’s doing a great job as vice president. He’s a close friend, and I hope he intends to do it," Rubio said of Vance. A clip of this exchange was shared to X, formerly Twitter, on July 27, 2o25.
Lara Trump: You are talked about quite frequently as a possible contender in 2028. Do you have your sights set outside of the state department?
Rubio: I think J.D. Vance would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that… pic.twitter.com/BAVjNRIzQ9
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 27, 2025
The relationship between Rubio and Vance seems strong and free from rivalry, and Politico's second source said that the two men get along well. "No one expects Marco to resign from the Cabinet and start taking potshots at the sitting vice president. Beyond that, they’re friends," the source, who also wished to remain anonymous, added.
Meanwhile, another person close to the matter said that the "expectation is J.D. as [nominee] and Rubio as VP," the third anonymous source said. This potential ticket is the most popular, as Vance is the leading choice of those who voted for Trump in 2024, a Politico poll conducted from October 18 to 21 found.
Of those asked, just 2% had Rubio as their first pick while 35% chose Vance. Notably, the open-ended question posed to participants captured a complete 28% who wished to see Trump run. Meanwhile, James Blair, who served as the political director for Trump's 2024 campaign and is now his deputy chief of staff, believes that the 2026 midterms could yield the strongest candidate for the 2028 presidential run.
"If you’re a Republican that wants to run in 2028 right now, you need to focus on keeping Republicans in power for 2026. I think the number one thing everybody can do is focus on the team and helping their team and not focus on themselves," Blair told Politico. "Voters will sniff out anybody who has seemed to be sort of focused on themselves," Blair added.
Vance and Rubio were known to have a close friendship while serving in the U.S. Senate, and it's clear they maintain a solid working relationship now. Republicans will need strong name recognition and actual accomplishments, and both men bring that to the table.
President Donald Trump's Justice Department has fired as many as 70 immigration judges since his new administration began in January, Breitbart reported. While estimates differ, this comes as Trump is attempting to narrow protections for asylum-seekers left over from then-President Joe Biden.
The Justice Department said that the firings have occurred for fewer than 55 judges, but that hasn't stopped the left from decrying the move. The government agency further noted that the decision on which judges have to go is not a political one.
"DOJ doesn’t ‘target’ or ‘prioritize’ immigration judges for any personnel decision one way or the other based on prior experience. DOJ continually evaluates all immigration judges, regardless of background, on factors such as conduct, impartiality/bias, adherence to the law, productivity/performance, and professionalism," a spokesperson for the DOJ said.
"Pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, IJs (Immigration Judges) are inferior officers who are appointed and removed by the Attorney General," the spokesperson added. This means that the cuts came come if there are performance problems or there is less need for judges, and fewer immigrants gaining entry under asylum could have something to do with it.
The focus of immigration courts has shifted from asylum-seeking to deportations, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "But the way the Trump administration is approaching immigration courts reflects a really high prioritization of immigration enforcement and [the administration] has really made deportations this whole-of-government effort," Bush-Joseph said.
Meanwhile, Trump is cracking down on asylum claims and expediting the process for those in the system to close the loophole for as many as 10 million illegal immigrants who claimed asylum under Biden. Instead, they're being sent home, and the 1.1 million who have pending asylum claims will see their pleas denied.
Because they're eliminating asylum and conducting raids on illegal immigrants, the number of newcomers is expected to shrink considerably as others are simply turned away at the border. "Between explicit policy changes and implicit threats to get in line or get fired, [asylum] judges on the whole seem to be following [Trump] orders to deny, deny, deny," researcher Austin Kocher wrote.
"This is not an accident—this is a policy decision," he added. Indeed, it is.
According to the BBC, Trump has severely limited asylum claims, which were liberally permitted under Biden. Just about anyone from a nation whose economic or political condition was worse than that of the U.S., which encompasses most of the world, was given asylum under the previous regime. Trump has changed that, and of course, some are crying racism.
The Trump administration has reduced the number of refugees from 125,000 under Biden to approximately 7,500, which is expected to be the number admitted for the year. The BBC is particularly upset that the priority will go to white South Africans, which is surely an attempt to claim this is a white supremacist policy.
However, the administration said that the new criteria require the refugee status to be "justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest." This seems to track with broader immigraiton decisions based on what Trump has said about the Afrikaners, who are descendants of French and Dutch settlers, and the way they're being starved out of South Africa.
During a White House meeting in February with South Africa's ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, Trump showed the video of the situation there for the white farmers and the danger posed by their own government. Some have called it a "dog whistle," including the ambassador, but the truth is that they are being targeted in their own country and should be eligible to receive help.
There is no reason to admit so many refugees into the U.S. every year when the system is already stretched so thin. It's noble to help the less fortunate, but the policies initiated under Biden have inexplicably admitted more people than the nation can handle, and Trump is doing all he can to roll back those measures.