Washington, D.C., just got a hefty dose of federal muscle upheld by the courts.
In a decisive ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has greenlit the Trump administration’s plan to keep National Guard troops stationed in the nation’s capital through the end of February 2025.
For hardworking D.C. taxpayers, this saga means footing the bill for an extended military presence, with potential costs piling up in the millions for logistics and support. From a conservative angle, it’s a win for law and order, but let’s not ignore the financial sting to local budgets already stretched thin. We must keep a sharp eye on where every dime goes—no free passes here.
Back in September 2025, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb threw down the gauntlet, suing the Trump administration over what he called an overreach in deploying Guard troops. He argued it stepped on the city’s own law enforcement toes and pushed for a pause while the case unfolded.
The lower court initially sided with Schwalb, ordering thousands of National Guard members to pack up and head home. But the Trump team wasn’t about to roll over, appealing the decision faster than you can say “federal authority.”
Enter the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which first put a temporary hold on that lower court ruling while mulling over a longer pause. On December 17, 2025, the panel of three judges, including one Obama appointee and two Trump picks, delivered a unanimous verdict. It’s a rare bipartisan nod in a town that thrives on gridlock.
The appeals court pointed to D.C.’s peculiar status as a federal district, not a state, as a key reason why President Trump likely holds the upper hand legally. They suggested this unique setup, crafted by Congress itself, gives the president a strong case for overseeing security in the capital. It’s a punch to the gut for those pushing hyper-local control over national interests.
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee no less, noted, “The President’s order implicates a strong and distinctive interest in the protection of federal governmental functions and property within the Nation’s capital.” Well, isn’t that a refreshing bit of clarity? It’s hard to argue against safeguarding the heart of our government, even if progressive agendas cry foul over state-like autonomy.
The court didn’t stop there, though, warning that sending Guard troops to other states without consent could be a constitutional mess. Their order stated, “Deploying an out-of-state Guard to a non-consenting State to conduct law enforcement would be constitutionally troubling to our federal system of government.” A fair point—federal power has limits, and conservatives should cheer any check on overreach beyond D.C.’s borders.
This ruling isn’t the final word, as the judges themselves called it a “hurried” and preliminary assessment. They’ve paused the lower court’s order indefinitely, allowing Guard members to stay put for now, but the full legal battle is far from over.
Schwalb’s office fired back with restrained optimism, stating, “This is a preliminary ruling that does not resolve the merits. We look forward to continuing our case in both the District and appellate courts.” Good luck with that—challenging federal authority in D.C. is like bringing a slingshot to a tank fight, but we’ll see how it plays out.
For now, images of National Guard troops patrolling the National Mall and heading to the D.C. Armory remain a stark reminder of the stakes. From a right-of-center view, their presence signals a commitment to stability in turbulent times, even if it rankles those obsessed with local control over common sense.
Let’s not pretend this is all rosy—D.C. residents deserve a say in how their city is policed, and conservatives should respect that principle of self-governance. But when the capital’s safety is on the line, federal priorities must take the wheel, especially when threats to national property loom large.
The court admitted this stay is an “extraordinary remedy,” reflecting the Trump administration’s strong likelihood of winning on appeal. That’s a nod to the administration’s argument, not a blank check, and we should demand transparency on why these deployments stretch so long.
At the end of the day, this ruling keeps the Guard in D.C. through February 2025, a victory for federal authority over progressive pushback. It’s a reminder that in the nation’s capital, national security isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a necessity worth defending, even if it means ruffling a few feathers. Conservatives can stand by this, while still insisting every decision gets a hard look under the microscope.
Imagine the FBI storming a former president’s home, guns drawn, over documents they weren’t even sure warranted a raid. That’s the unsettling picture painted by newly declassified emails obtained by Fox News Digital, revealing internal doubts within the FBI about the August 2022 search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. It’s a story of bureaucratic overreach that raises serious questions about political influence in law enforcement.
This saga centers on a raid targeting Trump’s alleged retention of classified records post-presidency, where FBI hesitations were steamrolled by pressure from the Biden Justice Department, pushing forward a search many agents deemed questionable.
Months before the raid, FBI officials were already uneasy. Emails show the Washington Field Office fretting over a lack of solid evidence, with concerns that their information relied on a single, uncorroborated source that might be outdated.
One FBI official candidly admitted, “Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents,” as reported in an email to Anthony Riedlinger. If the evidence was this thin, why push forward? It smells like a fishing expedition rather than a pursuit of justice.
Alternatives were on the table, too. The FBI suggested a simple chat with Trump’s attorney to secure any sensitive materials, arguing that even if documents were declassified, they deserved protection. Yet, this reasonable path was ignored.
Instead, the Justice Department doubled down. Despite FBI reservations, DOJ officials insisted they had enough for probable cause, demanding a broad search of Trump’s residence, office, and storage areas. It’s hard not to see this as a power play, not a measured investigation.
By August 4, 2022, plans for the raid were locked in, with emails detailing the execution strategy. The FBI wanted a low-key operation, mindful of the optics, but their hands were tied by the DOJ’s aggressive stance.
One agent vented frustration in an email, stating, “We haven’t generated any new facts, but keep being given draft after draft after draft.” If no new evidence was emerging, why the relentless push? It’s a question that lingers like a bad aftertaste.
The raid itself was a spectacle. FBI agents seized boxes of documents, some potentially covered by attorney-client or executive privilege, sparking legal battles over their handling. Trump’s attorneys, barred from the searched rooms, were left to question the fairness of the process.
Adding fuel to the fire, Fox News Digital later uncovered that the Biden administration greenlit the potential use of deadly force during the operation. Agents arrived with standard weapons, ammo, handcuffs, and bolt cutters, though they were told to keep gear concealed under unmarked shirts. This level of preparedness for a document search feels like overkill, pun intended.
The raid’s fallout was immense. Trump faced 37 felony counts from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe, including charges of willful retention of national defense information and obstruction, plus three more in a later indictment—all of which he denied.
Yet, the FBI’s own “Operations Order” focused on seizing classified materials and government records as outlined in the warrant. A “Policy Statement” even noted that deadly force could be used if necessary. Does this sound like a proportionate response to paperwork disputes?
Critics might argue the DOJ was just doing its job, ensuring national security. But when internal FBI emails reveal such hesitation and suggest less invasive options, it’s tough to swallow that this was purely about protecting secrets. It looks more like a political statement.
The Mar-a-Lago raid isn’t just a legal footnote; it’s a glaring example of how federal power can be wielded with little regard for restraint or optics. If even the FBI doubted their grounds, shouldn’t that have been a red flag for the DOJ? This isn’t about woke agendas—it’s about basic fairness and accountability in government action.
Imagine the head of the FBI trumpeting a big win, only to have it crumble like a house of cards within hours.
That’s the situation facing FBI Director Kash Patel after a high-profile blunder in the tragic Brown University shootings in Rhode Island, where two lives were lost, and nine others were injured over the weekend.
Let’s rewind to the start of this mess. A horrific shooting rocked Brown University, leaving the campus in mourning with two fatalities and nine wounded in a senseless act of violence.
Enter FBI Director Kash Patel, who took to the social media platform X to announce the capture of a person of interest. He proudly detailed how the FBI, using cutting-edge geolocation tech, nabbed the individual at a hotel in Coventry, R.I. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch.
Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez confirmed that the FBI acted on a tip to locate this person. It seemed, for a fleeting moment, that justice might be near for the victims and their families.
But then, the plot twisted faster than a progressive policy flip-flop. On Sunday, authorities released the person of interest after finding no evidence tying them to the crime.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha stepped in to clarify the situation, stating the case “now points to a different direction.” That’s a polite way of saying the FBI’s big announcement was a swing and a miss. (Source: Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha)
Neronha also expressed regret over the public fallout, noting it was “unfortunate that this person’s name was leaked to the public.” It’s a fair point—dragging someone’s reputation through the mud without proof is the kind of rush-to-judgment that fuels distrust in our institutions. (Source: Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha)
Meanwhile, the real gunman remains at large. Police are still scouring for leads in a case that has left a community shaken and desperate for answers.
Patel’s social media victory lap, as reported by USA Today, now looks more like a stumble on the national stage. When the FBI’s top brass jumps the gun, it’s not just embarrassing—it erodes confidence in law enforcement at a time when trust is already on thin ice.
This isn’t about piling on Patel, who no doubt wants to solve this tragedy as much as anyone. But leadership means owning the missteps, not just the wins, and a little restraint before hitting ‘post’ could have spared some grief.
The Brown University shootings are a stark reminder of the violence plaguing our campuses, and solving them requires precision, not PR stunts. Families of the victims deserve better than false starts and empty headlines.
As the investigation continues, one can’t help but wonder if this blunder has cost valuable time. Resources spent on the wrong lead are resources not spent tracking the actual perpetrator.
Conservative values often emphasize law and order, but that means getting it right, not just making a loud statement. Patel’s intent may have been to reassure the public, but premature announcements only deepen the frustration when the truth comes out.
Until the gunman is found, Rhode Island—and the nation—waits for closure. Let’s hope the FBI refocuses on facts over fanfare, because two lives lost and nine injured demand nothing less than competence and accountability.
California’s highways are turning into deadly battlegrounds, and Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) administration is squarely in the crosshairs for a dangerous licensing fiasco.
Under Newsom’s watch, the state has become the nation’s top issuer of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) to foreign nationals, with federal regulators now linking these questionable practices to fatal accidents and threatening to slash highway funding over rampant noncompliance.
Let’s rewind to the numbers: California has handed out roughly 60,000 non-domiciled CDLs, but a Department of Transportation audit found a staggering 25% were issued improperly.
Some of these licenses, shockingly, remain valid for years despite expired immigration documents—a bureaucratic blunder that’s more than just paperwork gone wrong.
Federal authorities have pointed to these lax standards as a direct contributor to tragic crashes on American roads, a charge that’s hard to ignore when lives are on the line.
On June 27, 2025, California issued a restricted CDL to Jashanpreet Singh, a 20-year-old asylum seeker, limiting him to intrastate driving, which seemed like a cautious step at the time.
Fast forward to September 26, 2025, when Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy dropped a bombshell, notifying California of “significant compliance failures” and demanding a halt to non-domiciled CDL issuance until unexpired, non-compliant licenses are revoked or reissued under tougher federal rules.
That same day, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rolled out an emergency rule, tightening eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs by excluding asylum seekers and mandating strict immigration status checks—a clear signal that enough is enough.
But did California listen? On October 15, 2025, Singh turned 21, and the state’s DMV upgraded his license, scrapping the intrastate restriction without adhering to the new federal standards.
Just days later, on October 21, 2025, tragedy struck near Los Angeles when Singh, reportedly under the influence of drugs, crashed a semi-truck into stopped vehicles, killing three and hospitalizing two—a preventable disaster if rules had been followed.
Had California honored the emergency rule, Singh’s asylum seeker status would have disqualified him from the upgrade, potentially sparing innocent lives from this horrific outcome.
Secretary Duffy didn’t mince words on this catastrophe, stating, “It would have never happened if Gavin Newsom had followed our new rules. California broke the law, and now three people are dead, and two are hospitalized.”
Duffy’s frustration is palpable, and his additional warning resonates: “We have states that are giving out CDLs like candy… they have allowed people who should NEVER have a CDL… operating an 80,000 pound Big Rig on an American road.”
Across the nation, similar incidents—like a fatal crash in Tennessee involving a Chinese national with a New York-issued CDL who couldn’t speak English—underscore the urgent need for reform, while Texas, once the worst offender, has cracked down and dropped to fifth in problematic CDL issuances.
With Secretary Duffy threatening to withhold hundreds of millions in highway funds, California must decide whether to prioritize progressive policies over public safety—a choice that could define Newsom’s legacy as either a defender of ideology or a guardian of the roadways.
A federal judge just threw a wrench into the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement machine with a last-minute ruling that’s got everyone talking.
In a dramatic turn of events, a U.S. District Judge stepped in to block the re-detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant whose saga of wrongful deportation and prolonged detention has turned him into a lightning rod for debates over tough immigration policies.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this tangled tale. Abrego Garcia was sent packing to El Salvador in a deportation that was later deemed wrongful, only to be hauled back to the U.S. earlier this year to face federal criminal charges.
For months, he languished in a Pennsylvania detention facility, caught in a bureaucratic quagmire that critics of the administration’s hardline stance have called a travesty.
Then, on Thursday, December 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that the government had no legal basis to keep holding him, citing the lack of a proper removal order from an immigration judge. That’s a win for due process, though some might argue it’s a bit late for a man who’s already been through the wringer.
But the plot thickened faster than a pot of stew on a cold night. Barely hours after his release, a new document from an immigration judge surfaced late Thursday, raising fears among Abrego Garcia’s legal team that deportation—or re-detention—was back on the table.
By early Friday, December 12, 2025, his attorneys were back in court, pleading for an emergency order to stop what they saw as an imminent threat to his freedom. They weren’t wrong to worry—he had a mandatory check-in at the ICE Baltimore field office that very morning, a perfect opportunity for the government to snag him again.
Judge Xinis didn’t waste time, issuing a temporary restraining order on Friday morning to bar any re-detention until a full hearing can hash out the mess. It’s a temporary shield, but one that’s got the administration’s immigration hawks grinding their teeth.
Outside the ICE office in Baltimore on Friday, Abrego Garcia emerged to cheers from over a dozen supporters, a rare moment of triumph in a long battle. He spoke through a translator, declaring, “I stand before you as a free man.” Well, free for now, but let’s not pop the champagne just yet—history suggests this story’s far from over.
He didn’t stop there, adding, “I want to tell everybody who is also suffering family separation. God is with you. This is a process. Keep fighting.” It’s a heartfelt message, no doubt, but one wonders if faith and grit can stand up to a system that seems dead-set on enforcement over empathy.
His lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, wasn’t nearly as optimistic, telling reporters, “I wish I could say that this is the end of the story. But I think we’ve all been here long enough to know that, unfortunately, the government is not going to leave well enough alone.” That’s a polite way of saying the feds aren’t likely to back off without a fight, and he’s probably right.
Sandoval-Moshenberg doubled down, stating, “They’re going to keep going, and we’re going to keep going.” It’s a standoff between a migrant’s legal team and a government policy that prioritizes strict borders over individual cases, and it’s anyone’s guess who’ll blink first.
Judge Xinis herself underscored the stakes in her order, writing, “If, as Abrego Garcia suspects, Respondents will take him into custody this morning, then his liberty will be restricted once again.” That’s a sobering reminder that for all the progressive chatter about compassion, liberty hangs by a thread in cases like this, often caught in a tug-of-war between law and policy.
The Justice Department, for its part, stayed mum on the judge’s ruling, declining to comment on Friday. Perhaps they’re regrouping for the next round, because if Abrego Garcia’s journey tells us anything, it’s that this administration doesn’t shy away from doubling down on its immigration agenda.
At the heart of it all, Abrego Garcia remains a national symbol of the Trump administration’s unyielding approach to border control—a poster child for a policy that prioritizes enforcement, sometimes at the cost of due process. Whether you see him as a victim of overreach or a test case for necessary toughness, his story isn’t going away anytime soon. So, buckle up; this legal rodeo is just getting started.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) just dropped a bombshell by threatening contempt of Congress charges against Bill and Hillary Clinton over their refusal to testify in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Comer, is digging deep into the sordid crimes of Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, issuing subpoenas to the Clintons for testimony on their past ties to the disgraced financier.
Back in July 2025, the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee gave a nod via voice vote to subpoena 10 individuals, including the former president and former secretary of state, to spill what they know about Epstein’s misdeeds.
By August 2025, Comer officially sent out those subpoenas, aiming to get answers from a roster of heavy hitters, including not just the Clintons but also former Attorneys General like Merrick Garland and Bill Barr, who served under President Donald Trump.
Originally slated for October 2025, the Clintons’ depositions were pushed to Dec. 17 for Bill and Dec. 18 for Hillary after negotiations with their attorney, David Kendall, who has so far stayed mum when contacted for comment.
But as the clock ticks down, Comer isn’t playing games, warning on Dec. 12, 2025, that ignoring these summons could land the power couple in hot water with Congress.
"It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's horrific crimes," Comer stated firmly.
"Throughout that time, the former President and former Secretary of State have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the Committee staff's efforts to schedule their testimony," he added, not mincing words about their apparent foot-dragging.
Let’s be real—when a congressional committee is chasing answers about a scandal as dark as Epstein’s, stalling tactics don’t exactly scream innocence, though the Clintons deserve their day to explain.
Adding fuel to the fire, Democrats on the committee released 19 photos from Epstein’s estate just hours before Comer’s statement, showing figures like Bill Clinton alongside Donald Trump and Britain’s Prince Andrew.
These images, part of a staggering 95,000 provided to the committee, remind us just how tangled the web of Epstein’s elite connections was, raising eyebrows about who knew what and when.
Bill Clinton’s history with Epstein isn’t news—trips on the financier’s private plane post-presidency have long been documented, though a spokesperson insists he severed ties before Epstein’s 2019 arrest and knew nothing of the alleged crimes.
Epstein, who died by suicide in federal custody in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, left behind a legacy of questions that Congress is determined to answer through testimony and investigative records.
Other subpoenaed names include former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, signaling this probe isn’t just about the Clintons—it’s a sweeping effort to uncover the full scope of Epstein’s network.
If the Clintons skip their deposition dates next week or fail to reschedule for early January 2026, Comer has made it clear that contempt proceedings are on the table, and frankly, it’s hard to argue with holding powerful folks accountable, no matter their pedigree.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem just walked into a firestorm of dissent as she slipped out of a congressional hearing before the gavel dropped.
On Thursday, December 11, 2025, during a session of the House Homeland Security Committee, Noem made an early exit that sparked outrage among protesters, who didn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval with sharp words and pointed accusations.
The hearing was meant to tackle critical security matters, but Noem’s departure—hours before the scheduled end—drew immediate attention from those in attendance.
Explaining her need to leave, Noem cited pressing department business as the reason for her abrupt departure.
“I have to actually leave this hearing early because the FEMA review council is giving their report today on suggestions for changes to FEMA,” said Secretary Kristi Noem.
Now, let’s unpack that—duty calls, and overseeing a report on FEMA reforms is no small task, but couldn’t the timing have been handled with a bit more finesse to avoid the optics of dodging accountability?
As Noem made her way out, the atmosphere turned heated with protesters shouting their frustrations at her decision to leave.
“Shame!” shouted protesters as Noem left the hearing, their voices echoing a sentiment of betrayal over her early exit.
While criticism of public officials is fair game, one wonders if the message gets lost when emotions boil over into public displays that drown out constructive dialogue.
The confrontation escalated when one demonstrator took the rhetoric to an extreme, comparing Noem to historical authoritarian forces with a particularly harsh jab.
“You are the modern SS & Gestapo!” yelled a demonstrator as Noem hugged Agnes Gibboney, a woman identified as an “Angel Mom” whose son was tragically killed by an undocumented immigrant.
That kind of hyperbole might grab headlines, but it risks trivializing serious historical atrocities and distracts from legitimate policy debates—surely there’s a better way to express discontent without resorting to such charged language.
Amid the shouting, Noem’s embrace of Gibboney offered a fleeting moment of humanity in an otherwise tense scene, though it didn’t go unnoticed by her critics.
Some protesters accused Noem of using Gibboney as a symbolic shield against the backlash, a claim that casts a shadow over what could have been a genuine gesture of compassion.
While it’s impossible to know Noem’s intent, the optics of the moment highlight how every action by a public figure is scrutinized through a partisan lens—perhaps a reminder that sincerity in politics is often the first casualty of perception.
President Donald Trump has dropped a bold statement that’s sure to stir the pot, expressing his strong desire for the Supreme Court’s elder statesmen, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, to hold their ground on the bench.
Trump made clear his hope that these two conservative pillars, aged 77 and 75 respectively, will stick around to preserve the court’s current 6-3 conservative tilt, a balance he helped forge with three key appointments during his first term.
“I hope they stay ’cause I think they’re fantastic, OK?” Trump declared to Politico, doubling down on his admiration for both men.
Well, let’s unpack that quote—Trump’s not just whistling Dixie here; he’s signaling a deep investment in maintaining a court that reflects his vision, one that’s already reshaped American law in profound ways.
During his first term, Trump’s trio of appointments—Amy Coney Barrett at 53, Neil Gorsuch at 58, and Brett Kavanaugh at 60—joined Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, now 70, to solidify a conservative majority that’s been a game-changer.
These picks weren’t just names on a list; they’ve been among the most defining moves of Trump’s initial stint in office, steering the court toward landmark rulings.
Under this reshaped court, we’ve seen seismic decisions, like the reversal of long-standing abortion protections and the establishment of presidential immunity for certain official acts—rulings that have conservatives cheering and progressives gnashing their teeth.
Now, with the court currently mulling over elements of Trump’s second-term plans, including a critical decision on his ambitious tariff program, the stakes couldn’t be higher for keeping that majority intact.
Both Thomas and Alito were present at Trump’s inauguration ceremonies in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025, a subtle reminder of their enduring roles in this judicial saga.
Here’s the rub: if either Thomas or Alito steps down or passes away under a Democratic administration, the court’s balance could tip, undoing years of conservative gains in a heartbeat.
Trump’s own history proves the point—when liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed during his first term, he swiftly replaced her with Barrett, locking in a younger conservative voice for decades.
Replacing either of the senior justices now with another youthful pick would further cement that conservative edge well into the future, a prospect that’s music to the ears of those wary of progressive overreach.
Let’s be real: Trump’s not just playing nostalgia with his plea for Thomas and Alito to stay; he’s playing chess, eyeing a court that can withstand the shifting winds of political change.
His second quote to Politico, “Both of those men are fantastic,” isn’t just flattery—it’s a rallying cry to conservatives who see the judiciary as the last bastion against a creeping progressive agenda.
So, as the Supreme Court continues to weigh Trump’s latest policy ambitions, the question looms: will Thomas and Alito heed the call to stay, ensuring the conservative majority stands firm against whatever challenges come next?
Brace yourself, America: the housing market is buckling under pressures that some say were entirely preventable.
The latest HUD "Worst Case Housing Needs Report" for 2025 paints a grim picture of affordability for low-income families, with HUD Secretary Scott Turner pointing to unchecked immigration and open-border policies as a major culprit in driving up costs and squeezing out American households.
Released every two years since 1991, HUD’s flagship report assesses the state of affordable housing for those struggling most, tracking trends in housing stress and identifying gaps in low-cost rental supply.
This year’s findings are particularly stark, issuing a pointed warning about how increased immigration, especially of the unauthorized variety, has strained the market.
According to the report, a staggering 15 million unauthorized immigrants make up 30% of the foreign-born population in the U.S., significantly contributing to housing demand.
In states like California and New York, immigrants drove 100% of rental growth and over 50% of owner-occupied housing increases in recent years, a trend that has policymakers scratching their heads.
Nationally, the foreign-born population accounted for over 60% of rental demand growth, with two-thirds of that surge tied directly to noncitizen households.
HUD’s analysis suggests that without this migrant influx, housing inventory pressures would have been far less severe, with nearly 784,000 fewer households forming over the studied period.
Compare that to earlier reports from 2019 and 2023, where noncitizen rental demand growth was just 13%, and it’s clear something has shifted—fast.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner isn’t mincing words, placing much of the blame on past policies that failed to enforce immigration controls.
“The unchecked illegal immigration and open borders policies allowed by the Biden administration continue to put significant strain on housing, pricing out American families,” Turner declared, signaling a sharp pivot under the current leadership.
While his rhetoric is fiery, one has to wonder if pinning the crisis so squarely on immigration misses the deeper, decades-long underbuilding of homes that’s left us millions of units short.
Turner’s response includes an audit of public housing authorities to verify citizenship status, alongside scrapping mortgage programs for unauthorized migrants that were offered previously.
He’s also prioritizing American citizens for HUD housing and moving to an English-only model, while noting that HUD currently serves only one in four eligible families due to lax enforcement of rules barring federal aid to noncitizens.
Critics like Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman aren’t buying the focus, arguing, “You are worsening the housing crisis with your budget proposal,” suggesting that slashing HUD’s funding by over 50% undercuts any claim of wanting to solve the problem. Well, if you’re going to swing a hammer at policy, at least make sure it’s hitting the right nail.
Texas politics just took a sharp turn with a surprising exit and a potential new contender stirring the pot.
Former Rep. Colin Allred, once the Democrat standard-bearer for a Texas Senate seat, has stepped away from that race to pursue a congressional position in the newly drawn 33rd District, while on the same day, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D) is set to reveal if she’ll challenge Sen. John Cornyn for the Senate.
Allred’s pivot away from the Senate race comes with a stated desire to avoid a divisive Democratic primary.
“In the past few days, I’ve come to believe that a bruising Senate Democratic primary and runoff would prevent the Democratic Party from going into this critical election unified,” Allred said.
That’s a noble sentiment on paper, but let’s be honest—ducking a tough fight might just be a savvy move to secure a safer seat in a district he claims is unfairly drawn.
His new target, the 33rd District, is described by Allred as “racially gerrymandered” by political forces he opposes, yet it’s also the community of his childhood, which adds a personal layer to his campaign.
On the flip side, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, known for her sharp criticism of conservative leadership, is on the cusp of announcing whether she’ll take on Sen. Cornyn.
She’s been teasing this decision for days, recently stating she’s “closer to yes than no” on a Senate bid.
That confidence might raise eyebrows, but in a state as vast as Texas, with 30 million residents, turning bravado into votes is no small feat.
Crockett isn’t shy about her prospects, asserting, “The data says that I can win.”
While data is nice, as she herself admits, executing a campaign in a state this size is a logistical nightmare, potentially costing upwards of $100 million—a figure that could make even the most optimistic donor pause.
Her appeal, she claims, lies with key voter demographics who backed Democrats in recent out-of-state elections, positioning her as a formidable force despite skepticism from some quarters.
Both Allred and Crockett are playing high-stakes chess in a state where conservative values often dominate, and their moves could reshape the Democratic strategy against a strong Republican incumbent like Cornyn.
While Allred seeks to return to Congress in a district he knows well, Crockett’s potential Senate run could either energize her party’s base or expose the limits of a progressive agenda in a red-leaning state—either way, Texas voters are in for a show.