News

Byron Donalds Calls Out Senate Dems Blocking Proof of Citizenship Vote
News

Byron Donalds Calls Out Senate Dems Blocking Proof of Citizenship Vote

/

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds is calling out both Senate Democrats and the Republican-controlled Senate for blocking the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation that would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote in federal elections.

The SAVE Act passed the House of Representatives in April by a narrow 216–208 vote. Republicans were unified in support, joined by four Democrats: Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, and Marie Perez of Washington. Despite House passage, the bill has not advanced in the Senate.

The legislation would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require documentary proof of citizenship for participation in federal elections.

Under current law, voters are not required to present proof of citizenship, such as a U.S. passport or a REAL ID, when voting for president, the U.S. House, or the U.S. Senate.

According to the bill text, states would be prohibited from processing voter registrations unless applicants provide proof of citizenship.

Acceptable documentation would include a REAL ID–compliant driver’s license, a U.S. passport, or a certified birth certificate paired with a government-issued photo ID.

The bill would also require states to actively remove noncitizens from voter rolls using federal databases, including the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system and Social Security Administration verification tools.

The SAVE Act would mandate that states establish voter eligibility verification programs within 30 days of enactment.

Federal agencies would be required to provide citizenship data to state election officials within 24 hours of a request at no cost.

The legislation also includes criminal penalties for election officials found to have knowingly registered noncitizens.

The Department of Homeland Security would be tasked with investigating and potentially deporting any noncitizen found to be unlawfully registered to vote.

Senate Democrats have publicly opposed the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor in April that no Democrat would support the SAVE Act and described it as a threat to the Democratic Party’s future.

Schumer labeled the legislation “voter suppression” and compared it to Jim Crow laws.

“The kind of legislation, the kind of executive orders, which are so jaundiced, so slanted on the side of one party, are the antithesis of democracy,” Schumer said.

He continued, “On the other, Republicans in Congress are pushing the SAVE Act, one of the most destructive, dangerous voter suppression bills in recent memory. It is very reminiscent of Jim Crow.”

Schumer added, “They want to not only restore Jim Crow in the south, they want to have Jim Crow spread from one end of this country to the other. It will not happen. It will not happen. Let me be clear. I will not let this noxious bill, the Save Act, become law. Every Senate Democrat, every single one of us is united against it. They need 60 votes. The SAVE Act is dead on arrival.”

Utah Sen. Mike Lee weighed in publicly, posting on X that, “The SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register and vote in federal elections, passed the House in April. The Senate should send it to President Trump’s desk for signature ASAP. Do you agree?”

Donalds responded by criticizing the Senate’s failure to act and pressing for immediate passage. “The SAVE Act ensures ONLY US CITIZENS can vote in US elections,” Donalds said.

He added, “LAST YEAR: @HouseGOP PASSED The SAVE Act, but Senate Dems blocked us. 264 DAYS AGO: @HouseGOP PASSED The SAVE Act again, but it’s held-up in the Senate. I agree with @SenMikeLee—It’s time to PASS THE SAVE ACT NOW!”

Elon Musk responded to the exchange by writing, “This is essential.”

Donalds later called for eliminating the filibuster to advance the legislation.

“Eliminate the Filibuster. Pass The Save Act. Put the AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST. ONLY US CITIZENS should be able to vote in US elections,” he said.

Last month, President Donald Trump again urged Republicans to terminate the filibuster to move election-related legislation forward as negotiations continued over reopening the government.

“The Democrats are cracking like dogs on the Shutdown because they are deathly afraid that I am making progress with the Republicans on TERMINATING THE FILIBUSTER!” Trump said in a statement. “Whether we make a Deal or not, THE REPUBLICANS MUST ‘BLOW UP’ THE FILIBUSTER, AND APPROVE HUNDREDS OF LONG SOUGHT, BUT NEVER GOTTEN, POLICY WINS LIKE, AS JUST A SMALL EXAMPLE, VOTER ID (IDENTIFICATION). Only a LOSER would not agree to doing this!”

In a later post, Trump again wrote, “TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!”

The President has repeatedly called on Senate Republicans to invoke the nuclear option to pass voter ID requirements and other election measures, arguing that Democrats will eventually do the same.

“I wouldn’t have been in favor of that a long time ago, but you know, the Democrats are going to do that,” Trump said.

“So why aren’t we doing it?”

 

‘JD Vance Is Pulling Off Something Historic’: CNN’s Data Guru Harry Enten
News

‘JD Vance Is Pulling Off Something Historic’: CNN’s Data Guru Harry Enten

/

With the 2028 presidential election still 34 months away, early polling and prediction market data are already offering a glimpse into how the next Republican primary race could take shape.

According to recent analysis highlighted on CNN, Vice President J.D. Vance has emerged as the clear early favorite for the Republican presidential nomination, posting numbers that have surprised even veteran political analysts.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten said Monday that he was struck by how strongly Vance performed in a recent poll of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters when compared with other potential contenders, including former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nimarata “Nikki” Haley, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and several sitting and former elected officials.

Enten pointed to prediction market data showing Vance far ahead of the rest of the field.

On Polymarket, Vance’s odds of becoming the Republican presidential nominee in 2028 stand at 54 percent.

The next closest contender on the platform, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is listed at 9 percent.

Similar results appear across other platforms. PredictIt reflects comparable confidence in Vance’s position, while the federally regulated prediction market Kalshi places Vance’s odds at 48 percent, with Rubio again trailing at 10 percent.

“JD Vance is like Mario Andretti, and Marco Rubio and the rest of the field are like going around in go-karts at this point,” Enten said.

“That’s really what we are looking at. JD Vance is the clear, heavy favorite at this time.”

Enten said the early dominance shown in prediction markets is supported by polling data rather than speculation.

He cited a University of New Hampshire poll conducted in October that surveyed voters planning to participate in the 2028 Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire.

According to the poll, 51 percent of respondents said they would vote for Vance.

Haley was a distant second at 9 percent, followed by Gabbard at 8 percent.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders received 5 percent support, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky drew 4 percent.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy each received 3 percent support.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary and has previously run for president, failed to reach 1 percent in the poll.

Cruz was among the candidates defeated by President Donald Trump during the 2016 and 2024 Republican primary contests.

“Take a look here! JD Vance at 51%!” Enten said while reviewing the poll results.

“The next closest is Nikki Haley, who’s at 9 — who’s at 9! I mean, what is that? That’s 42 points ahead of the pack.”

Enten added that the significance of New Hampshire’s early primary status helps explain why Vance’s numbers have translated so strongly into prediction market confidence.

“There’s a reason why he’s such a heavy favorite in the prediction market so far, because if you win the GOP primary in New Hampshire, chances are, you’re going to be the Republican nominee for president,” he said.

When asked whether such a commanding early lead was unusual, Enten said it was historically rare.

“I looked back. Hitting 50% plus in the early New Hampshire polls for a non-sitting president — JD Vance is the only one,” he said.

“JD Vance is pulling off something historic at this time.”

Historically, recent vice presidents who have sought the presidency have fared well in their party primaries.

The last five sitting vice presidents who ran for president ultimately secured their party’s nomination.

Additional signs of Vance’s early strength emerged earlier this month at Turning Point USA’s annual AmericaFest, where a straw poll was conducted. Widowed CEO Erika Kirk publicly endorsed Vance during the event.

Blake Neff, a producer for “The Charlie Kirk Show,” said Vance won the AmericaFest straw poll by a larger margin than President Trump won a similar poll ahead of the 2024 election.

Neff noted that while 82.6 percent of respondents previously supported Trump as the GOP nominee, 84.2 percent said they wanted Vance to be the Republican nominee in 2028.

The same University of New Hampshire poll that showed Vance with majority support among Republican voters also suggested a more fragmented contest on the Democratic side.

Among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, 19 percent said they would support former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. California Gov. Gavin Newsom followed at 15 percent, with New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 14 percent.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris received 11 percent support, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont drew 8 percent, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker registered 6 percent.

While the 2028 election remains years away, early polling and market indicators suggest that the Republican field is already coalescing around Vance in a way rarely seen this early in the cycle.

Another Patriots Player Charged as Christian Barmore Faces Domestic Assault Case
News

Another Patriots Player Charged as Christian Barmore Faces Domestic Assault Case

/

New England Patriots defensive tackle Christian Barmore is facing a criminal charge following an alleged domestic incident, according to court documents filed in Massachusetts, marking the second legal issue involving a Patriots player to surface in recent days.

Records from Attleborough District Court show that Barmore has been charged with one count of assault and battery on a family or household member.

The charge stems from an alleged incident that occurred on August 8 involving a woman with whom Barmore was in a relationship.

According to the court filing, the woman told authorities that she and Barmore became involved in an argument inside his room over the temperature setting and over food.

She alleged that the disagreement escalated as she attempted to leave the room.

The woman claimed that Barmore snatched her phone out of her hands as she was trying to exit.

She further alleged that she attempted to scream for help but was unable to do so.

According to the filing, she stated that Barmore “grabbed her before she could and threw her to the floor.”

The complaint states that the woman alleged additional physical contact as she tried to get up.

She told investigators that Barmore grabbed her shirt “in the area of the neck,” before eventually letting her up.

The woman also claimed that the alleged incident occurred in front of the couple’s two-year-old child.

Following the alleged altercation, the woman told authorities that she and her child arranged transportation through a car service provided to Patriots players and traveled to Delaware.

According to the filing, she did not immediately press charges, stating that she feared retaliation. She instead waited until September to report the incident.

Court documents indicate that the woman later reversed course.

In an email dated December 4, she informed authorities that she would not press charges.

Despite that communication, a criminal complaint was later issued.

“The criminal complaint was issued on Dec. 16, and Barmore is scheduled to be arraigned on Feb. 3, 2026, five days before Super Bowl LX,” WCBV reported.

The New England Patriots acknowledged the pending case in a statement issued following reports of the charge.

“The New England Patriots are aware of reports regarding a pending February arraignment involving Christian Barmore, which stems from an alleged domestic incident that occurred in August,” the team said.

“The Patriots were made aware at the time of the incident and informed the NFL in a timely manner. The matter remains part of an ongoing legal process. We will respect that process, continue to monitor the situation closely, as we have over the past few months, and cooperate fully with the league. We will have no further comment at this time.”

Barmore, a former Alabama standout, has been a key part of the Patriots’ defensive line since being selected in the second round of the 2021 NFL Draft.

The pending legal case places additional scrutiny on the organization at a time when it is already dealing with another off-field issue involving a high-profile player.

News of the charge against Barmore became public one day after reports emerged that Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs is also facing assault charges.

According to those reports, Diggs is accused of slapping and choking his personal chef during an alleged dispute over payment.

The two cases are unrelated, but the timing has drawn attention to the Patriots’ locker room as the NFL continues to emphasize its personal conduct policy.

Both matters are subject to ongoing legal proceedings, and the league has not announced whether disciplinary action will be taken while the cases move through the courts.

Barmore is expected to appear in Attleborough District Court for his arraignment on February 3, 2026.

Until then, the charge remains pending, and no trial date has been announced.

Protests Rock Iran as Economy Craters and Anger Boils Over
News

Protests Rock Iran as Economy Craters and Anger Boils Over

/

Iran ground to a near standstill on Wednesday as businesses, universities, and government offices closed across much of the country under a government-ordered shutdown amid escalating protests tied to a deepening political and economic crisis.

Video footage circulating online and shared by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) showed intense clashes between protesters and security forces in multiple cities, including Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, and Tehran.

The videos depicted crowded streets where demonstrators confronted security personnel while chanting anti-regime slogans.

In several clips, protesters could be heard shouting, “Death to the Dictator” and “Proud Arakis, support, support,” as scenes of chaos unfolded.

The footage included sounds of screaming and what appeared to be gunfire, with demonstrators throwing objects at security forces.

Additional videos released by MEK showed crowds chanting, “Death to Khamenei!” and “Shame on you, shame on you!” as unrest appeared to spread across the country.

Much of the protest activity centered on bazaar-led demonstrations, particularly in Tehran, where merchants reportedly shut down operations in coordination with broader strikes.

Some of the most dramatic confrontations were reported in the city of Fasa, located in south-central Iran.

Video circulating online showed demonstrators hurling objects at the gates of a government complex and violently shaking them until the gates opened.

Opposition groups reported that protesters stormed the governor’s office, prompting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces to open fire, according to Reuters.

Military helicopters were seen flying over Fasa, apparently as a show of force aimed at intimidating residents and preventing the unrest from spreading to surrounding areas.

In western Iran, footage from Kermanshah showed bazaar merchants confronting security forces while chanting, “Dishonorable, dishonorable,” as tensions flared between civilians and authorities.

The one-day shutdown affected 21 of Iran’s 31 provinces, including the capital Tehran, as President Masoud Pezeshkian moved to contain mounting public anger fueled by soaring inflation, currency instability, and declining living standards.

The shutdown marked one of the most extensive nationwide closures in recent years.

Demonstrations, strikes, and clashes with security forces continued for a fourth consecutive day in cities across the country, signaling that the unrest showed little sign of subsiding.

The protests unfolded against a backdrop of economic hardship that has intensified pressure on Iran’s leadership.

The unrest has also coincided with a series of high-level leadership changes that have added to political and economic uncertainty.

On Wednesday, Pezeshkian appointed Abdolnaser Hemmati, a former economy minister, as the new head of Iran’s central bank following the resignation of Mohammad Reza Farzin.

State media quoted the president as acknowledging the challenges facing the new central bank chief.

According to IRNA, Pezeshkian said the role was “extremely difficult and complex,” warning that Hemmati would face intense pressure and criticism amid ongoing economic turmoil.

Separately, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced the appointment of IRGC Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi as deputy commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards, a move that came as security forces remained heavily engaged in responding to nationwide unrest.

Iran has faced repeated waves of protests in recent years driven by economic grievances, political dissatisfaction, and anger over corruption and governance.

Wednesday’s shutdown and the scale of the demonstrations marked a significant escalation as authorities attempted to regain control while protesters continued to challenge the government in streets and marketplaces across the country.

Politico Propagandist Suggests Somalis Use Lethal Force Against Reporters Exposing Fraud
News

Politico Propagandist Suggests Somalis Use Lethal Force Against Reporters Exposing Fraud

/

Rob Schmitt and Sebastian Gorka criticized a Politico article and its promotion on social media during a discussion that also featured video from a former Department of Homeland Security whistleblower, arguing that the reporting normalized violence while downplaying what they described as large-scale fraud involving taxpayer funds and potential links to terrorism.

Schmitt opened the exchange by citing a post from a Senior Legal Affairs reporter for Politico, which referenced Stand Your Ground laws in the context of journalists investigating alleged Somali-run scam operations in Minneapolis.

“This is the Senior Legal Affairs reporter for Politico posting on x at some point, the amateur effort to knock on doors of home daycares intersects with robust Stand Your Ground laws,” Schmitt said.

“What is being exposed right now is so dangerous for the left, for the Democrat Party, for the people that this fake reporter supports, that he’s essentially hoping that one of these Somali refugees running one of these scam operations in Minneapolis, I guess, shoots reporters that are going to knock on the door.”

Gorka responded by rejecting the comparison drawn in the article and accusing the outlet of distorting self-defense laws.

“Yeah, I’m going to have to take your word for it. Rob that’s an actual real quote from one of these fake news outlets, the idea that you’re conflating what a burglar breaking into your house and being allowed to use deadly force against that burglar, as opposed to a young reporter who is getting to the bottom of billions of dollars of built taxpayer funding,” Gorka said.

He went on to argue that the real wrongdoing lay with those allegedly misusing public funds.

“If there are any burglars in this story, it’s not the young, fearless journalist; it’s the Somali community members who are stealing your taxpayer funds, my taxpayers’ funds, and had signs for their learning centers where they can’t even spell the word learn grammatically correctly,” Gorka said.

Schmitt returned to the Politico reporter’s role, questioning the intent behind the reporting and its political implications.

“This is a Senior Legal Affairs reporter for Politico? And does anything indicate better that the threat that this reporting, that this story has on all the institutions that this he claims to be a reporter, he’s not a reporter. He’s not a reporter. He’s a propagandist for the left in this country, for the Democrat Party,” Schmitt said.

He added that the exposure of alleged fraud threatened broader support for government programs.

“Who is going to want to vote for more government and for bigger safety nets when they see that all of our money is just being lit on fire and just dumped into refugees coming here and scamming us out of billions of dollars?” Schmitt asked.

Gorka argued that the language used in the article amounted to a call to violence.

“Well, look, I think there’s two things that need to be said. Number one, that article that quote, unquote legal expert is doing what the left always does, which is normalizing violence,” Gorka said.

“That’s a dog whistle talking about, stand your ground, legal authorities, that’s about the use of deadly force.”

He framed the issue as one that should concern Americans regardless of politics.

“There can’t be anybody in America who who agrees with what we’re witnessing in these reports,” Gorka said.

“If you’re just a normal human being and you go, hang on a second, this is just wrong. This is my money.”

Schmitt then introduced video from a former Minnesota DHS whistleblower, noting past warnings about the misuse of funds.

“You’re talking about counterterrorism reports for the last month of Somali fraud funds being sent to Al Shabaab,” Schmitt said.

“You have a former Minnesota DHS whistleblower that said, seven years ago, talking about this same issue.”

In the clip, the whistleblower described concerns investigators had following terrorist attacks overseas.

“Every time there was a terrorist attack, Paris, San Bernardino, France, Paris, even the Syrian war, we would as investigators, We would get together the day after the attack, and we would think we would ponder amongst ourselves, how much Minnesota taxpayer dollars was being used to fund that war, that attack, what bought that gun? Where that money come from?” the whistleblower said.

Reacting to the clip, Schmitt called the statement alarming.

“That’s an unbelievable statement from seven years ago, and it makes you realize just how much of this money could have been going to these places,” he said, asking how authorities planned to determine where the funds ended up.

Gorka responded by citing current enforcement efforts and recent arrests. “I’ll quote, I think it was on a news program earlier today on Newsmax, where I saw the Secretary Noem at DHS state, unequivocally, this is going to be one of the largest investigations at DHS,” Gorka said, referring to investigations into alleged fraud involving immigrants and taxpayer funds.

He also referenced a recent case. “Recent arrest in Texas of somebody who has now been charged with material support to ISIS for trying to wire $38 to ISIS,” Gorka said, adding that the broader concern involved “potentially millions of dollars leaving America from those fraudulent entities to fund terrorist organizations abroad.”

“So we have only just begun,” Gorka said.

“We are on the case, and people will face justice.”

WATCH:

Obama Admin Helped Overthrow Ukraine’s Democracy, Took Control of Intel Services: Mike Benz
News

Obama Admin Helped Overthrow Ukraine’s Democracy, Took Control of Intel Services: Mike Benz

/

Jack Posobiec and Mike Benz argued in a recent exchange that the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine was not an organic popular uprising but a U.S.-backed color revolution that illegally removed the country’s democratically elected president and placed Ukraine under direct Western intelligence influence.

The discussion focused on the removal of President Viktor Yanukovich, who was elected in 2010, and the subsequent installation of a new Ukrainian government following mass protests in Kyiv’s Maidan Square. Posobiec framed the events as a coordinated effort involving U.S. political figures, intelligence agencies, and allied interests hostile to Russia.

“You’re walking through how this Maidan revolution really was a George Floyd style US government-backed color revolution that saw elements of John McCain and Democrats and George Soros all working together to again,” Posobiec said.

“And I just want to be very clear about this. I mean, very, very clear about this to everybody out there that whether or not you liked or supported Vijanikovich, the previous president of Ukraine. He was a democratically elected president of the country. He was elected by the people of Ukraine, and there was no legal process to remove him from power.”

Posobiec continued by asserting that Yanukovich was forced out through U.S. intervention rather than constitutional means.

“He was ousted, he was forced to step down and flee the country by elements of the US government, all in the name of democracy,” he said.

Posobiec linked the events to broader U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, citing what he described as open hostility toward Russia from then-President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Just that basic understanding that the US government under Obama, at the time, working with Hillary, was targeted and openly stating their hostility towards Russia,” Posobiec said.

He added that this context raised questions about subsequent Russian actions.

“Then when you see the response from Russia, you have to really ask yourselves, was this unprovoked, or perhaps, was there something that caused them to react this way?”

Turning to the aftermath of the Maidan uprising, Posobiec questioned the role of U.S. intelligence in shaping Ukraine’s future governance.

“So the Maidan revolution takes place, the US government gets their hooks in US intelligence bends. What happens next in Ukraine?” he asked.

Benz responded by pointing to reporting from The New York Times that he said detailed how Ukraine’s post-Maidan leadership and intelligence apparatus were directly influenced by U.S. and British officials.

According to Benz, the selection of Ukraine’s new leadership occurred immediately after Yanukovich’s removal.

“Well, so on the topic of the intelligence state, the New York Times actually published that the very night of the very morning after the Maidan Square toppled Viktor Yanukovich and installed Yat Sen Yook in Ukraine,” Benz said.

He claimed that the new leader was chosen through Western intervention rather than by Ukrainian voters.

“He was not elected the new head of state was literally selected in a joint phone call by Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt, who, in very explicit terms, picked the next president of Ukraine, not the Ukrainian people,” Benz said.

Benz described a subsequent New York Times report that examined the rebuilding of Ukraine’s intelligence services after the change in government.

He said the article detailed how Western intelligence agencies moved quickly to take control of Ukraine’s security infrastructure following the overthrow.

“But the very next day, the New York Times, as it as they published in a piece, I believe it was last year or two years ago, they published a reconstruction of Ukraine’s intelligence state,” Benz said.

He explained that the report described the condition of Ukraine’s intelligence headquarters immediately after the events in Kyiv.

“What they said is that the new head of Ukrainian intelligence walked into the building of Ukraine’s Intelligence Center, the day after the coup was complete, and the lights were off, and documents were scattered everywhere,” Benz said.

According to Benz, the newly installed intelligence chief’s first actions involved direct coordination with Western intelligence services.

“And the first thing he did is he placed two phone calls, one to the chief the CIA chief of station, and one to the MI6 chief of station in Ukraine,” Benz said.

Benz concluded that a joint intelligence partnership was established immediately following Yanukovich’s removal.

“And a three-way partnership was struck the very day after the coup to rebuild Ukraine’s intelligence state from the ground up as a three-way partnership between Ukraine, the CIA, and MI6,” he said.

“So not only did the Obama administration and the British government overthrow the democratically elected Government of Ukraine,” Benz added, “but then they immediately took control through the CIA and MI6 of the intelligence services in Ukraine from the ground up.”

WATCH:

X Used in Real Time to Fight Civil Rights Violations with Harmeet Dhillon at the Helm
News

X Used in Real Time to Fight Civil Rights Violations with Harmeet Dhillon at the Helm

/

Attorney Kurt Schlichter and Justice Department official Harmeet Dhillon discussed what they described as a shift in how the Department of Justice responds to emerging issues, particularly those first exposed through social media, pointing to faster investigations and direct action based on online reporting rather than traditional media cycles.

Schlichter said he has been struck by how quickly the DOJ now reacts when an issue gains attention online, calling the approach a significant departure from past practices.

“I’ve been so impressed at how how responsive you are in your division to things that are happening, kind of in the social media world, things that have become visible and kind of erupt,” Schlichter said.

He cited situations in which online reporting quickly prompted federal scrutiny.

“It becomes a thing on social media, and then suddenly the DOJ, is there, going, Yes, we’re aware of this. Now we’re investigating. That’s kind of revolutionary to be that responsive,” he said.

Dhillon agreed and said the shift reflects a willingness by some officials to engage directly with information sources outside traditional media channels.

“Well, I think that’s correct. I mean, there are couple of reasons for that,” she said.

Dhillon argued that many in the legal profession are reluctant to engage online.

“First of all, lawyers are kind of Fuddy duddies about using the internet and being engaged,” she said.

Dhillon noted that she and Schlichter are unusual in combining legal careers with an active social media presence.

“You know, you and I are among the few on the right who have been both successful lawyers and also very actively engaged on social media,” she said.

She explained that her online activity predates her DOJ role. “I have a big social media following from before I joined the DOJ, about 1.5 million plus followers online.”

According to Dhillon, social media provides real-time information that legacy outlets no longer deliver efficiently.

“I do find it a very valuable tool, because you have to keep up,” she said.

“Today, I don’t actually watch television very much. I’m not, you know, I don’t have the TV on in the background, because TV is like 12 to 24, hours behind what’s really happening.”

Dhillon said independent online journalists now drive many of the most important leads. “When the modern day journalist heroes, who are the Nick Shirley’s, and you know the Matt Taibbi and some of these others who you know right or left, they’re the ones who are getting the leads and sharing the stories in real time,” she said. “Those are the ones I pay attention to.”

She added that online accounts can also surface issues involving public institutions.

“Where we get our attention on something, or libs of Tiktok is also a great source for some of our issues involving schools or employment,” Dhillon said.

Dhillon acknowledged that opening investigations based on online information has drawn criticism but defended the practice.

“We do open up investigations based on internet leads, and I am proud of that,” she said.

“I got mocked a little bit by prior pearl clutching DOJ officials and even some former Republican members of Congress.”

She rejected the idea that online engagement is unserious. “I think it’s quote, unquote not serious to be online and engaging with the public. Well, I think it is serious,” Dhillon said.

“I think it is a public calling and a duty.”

Dhillon pointed to a specific case where online reporting led to immediate results without litigation.

“Sometimes simply tweeting about something or writing a letter stops it dead in its tracks,” she said.

“I stopped a ridiculous DEI program in Asheville, North Carolina by reading about it online, responding to a internet journalist whistleblower, sending a letter, and boom, no shots fired in court because they simply stopped what they were doing.”

She said that outcome illustrates what citizens should expect from federal officials.

“That is really effectiveness in action, and that’s what people should expect from their government officials,” Dhillon said.

WATCH:

Ex-Investigator Says Minnesota Fraud Was Buried from the Top Despite Warrants
News

Ex-Investigator Says Minnesota Fraud Was Buried from the Top Despite Warrants

/

A former federal investigator is raising serious questions about Minnesota’s handling of fraud investigations, alleging that state leadership intervened to halt cases that had already advanced to the point of search warrants and extensive evidence collection.

Speaking during a News Nation segment, Jeremy Christenson said investigations he worked on disappeared without prosecutions, despite what he described as substantial investigative progress.

The host pressed Christenson on how cases he investigated could simply vanish.

“You said these cases, you investigated them. Nothing happened. They went into thin air. No prosecutions. How do you think this played out? What happened here?” the host asked.

Christenson said the investigations were never federal prosecutions, despite his role as a federal agent, and emphasized that control rested with the state.

“Well, like I said, I was assigned to a state task force. Let me be clear, this wasn’t a federal task force. This was run by the state of Minnesota Department of Human Services, and so they ran it,” he said.

According to Christenson, the decision to stop the cases came from higher levels within state government.

“And my personal belief is that the the powers to be higher up in the state of Minnesota just didn’t want the case to move forward, and therefore it just went away,” he said.

Christenson said the level of investigative activity made the outcome difficult to explain.

“I mean, we don’t go out and serve search warrants. Do collect tons of evidence, do surveillance, do all this? I mean, search warrants are your last line investigation when you’re getting ready to go forward with charges,” he said.

He detailed the scope of the work that had already been completed.

“We had served multiple warrants, I mean, just immense amount of documents and so forth. We seized and and then all of a sudden, the task force just went away. That just does not make any sense,” Christenson said.

He reiterated that the cases were meant to be handled locally, not federally.

“And again, we declare it during this time, this was a local case, and a local prosecution was not a federal case, even though I was assigned as a federal agent to the task force,” he said.

The host asked whether the failure occurred at the local or state level.

“So do you think the safeguard broke down at the local level or the state level,” the host asked.

“Yes, absolutely,” Christenson replied.

“There’s no question in my mind that the powers to be higher up within the state of Minnesota shut this down. No question in my mind whatsoever.”

The host followed up by asking why state officials would stop the investigation rather than address the issue earlier.

“Why do you think that is why do you think they’ve been they did that instead of investigation now getting worse and opening up years later?” the host asked.

Christenson said there was no legitimate justification for disbanding the task force and suggested consequences for those involved.

“Because they the there was no reason to disband that task force,” he said.

“I’m confident the person that was in charge of that task force was actually chastise.”

He added that speaking out may have come at a professional cost.

“I think if that person ever comes forward, they may have some enlightening experiences working for the state, because that my understanding was that things didn’t go well for that person’s career, based on this case,” Christenson said.

The discussion turned to comments made by Gov. Tim Walz, who said he had spent years cracking down on fraud.

“Governor Tim Walz responded today. He said he spent years cracking down on fraud. Of course, he’s referring cases to law enforcement, shutting down high risk programs. You just laughed. Tell me what you think came of his investigations,” the host said.

Christenson said he has little confidence in state-led efforts and instead pointed to federal involvement.

“That investigation, my only saving grace right now is that HSI stepping in and doing this investigation, the state’s not capable of doing this,” he said.

He questioned the state’s ability to handle the matter fairly.

“They don’t have the integrity to complete investigation fair and impartial,” Christenson said.

Christenson expressed confidence in federal investigators now involved.

“I have a tremendous confidence in my HSI colleagues that are now actively working with this,” he said.

“I think we’re hopefully get some resolution with this, because I trust my HSI colleagues, as long as they get the good support from the US Attorney’s Office.”

He concluded by drawing a stark contrast between federal and state outcomes.

“I think we might see some resolution on the federal side with this, under the state side, I absolutely see no resolution with the state Minnesota,” Christenson said.

“They don’t have the for with all to handle investigation like this and to be fair and impartial.”

WATCH:

‘People Will Be in Handcuffs’: Karoline Leavitt Unloads on Tim Walz Over Minnesota Fraud
News

‘People Will Be in Handcuffs’: Karoline Leavitt Unloads on Tim Walz Over Minnesota Fraud

/

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration has significantly intensified federal enforcement actions in Minnesota, citing what she described as years of fraud allowed to persist under Gov. Tim Walz’s leadership.

Leavitt said the administration’s actions span multiple federal agencies and include criminal investigations, funding cutoffs, and immigration enforcement.

“Governor Walz is completely incompetent. He always has been, and President Trump has long called him out for his incompetence and his poor leadership in the great state of Minnesota,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt credited independent journalist Nick Shirley with bringing national attention to the issue, saying his reporting played a key role in accelerating federal involvement. “I want to commend Nick Shirley for his incredible video in real journalism that went viral this past week,” she said.

“He epitomizes what New Media looks like and that’s exactly why we, at the White House, under President Trump’s direction, have embraced new media journalists like Nick Shirley.”

According to Leavitt, Shirley’s work has been recognized directly by the administration.

“We’ve welcomed them in to the White House press pool. We invited Nick Shirley to brief the President of the United States at an Antifa roundtable earlier this year,” she said.

Leavitt said the alleged fraud in Minnesota has been under scrutiny by the Trump administration since the beginning of the president’s term, but that recent reporting led to a surge in federal resources.

“This fraud in Governor Waltz’s state in Minnesota is something the Trump administration has been working on since day one,” she said.

“And since Nick Shirley’s journalism really brought this issue further to light, we have surged resources across the board to the state.”

She emphasized that enforcement actions are ongoing and escalating.

“So I want your audience to understand this is a top priority for the administration,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt said the Department of Justice is actively pursuing criminal cases.

“The Department of Justice, as we speak, is continuing to execute search warrants and subpoenas,” she said.

“People will be in handcuffs as a result of the fraud that Governor Walz has allowed to occur for the for many, many years.”

She also detailed Department of Homeland Security operations currently underway in Minnesota.

“The Department of Homeland Security is conducting door to door investigations on the ground at potential fraud sites,” Leavitt said.

“And they’re also, of course, conducting continued deportations of illegal aliens in Minnesota’s communities.”

Leavitt said the administration is also prepared to use additional legal tools when warranted.

“We’re also not afraid to use denaturalization,” she said.

“That’s a tool at the President and the Secretary of State’s disposal, and it’s one this administration has previously used before.”

She said financial pressure is being applied through federal funding restrictions.

“I know the Health and Human Services Department has also announced we are cutting off all childcare funding to the state of Minnesota until we get to the bottom of this fraud,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt added that multiple agencies are reviewing state benefit programs. “The Department of Labor is investigating their unemployment insurance program,” she said.

“The Department of USDA Agriculture Secretary Rollins, weeks ago, sent a letter to Governor Walz, demanding he turn over every single name of SNAP recipients on the books in Minnesota.”

According to Leavitt, those actions prompted legal pushback from the state.

“And the Minnesota Attorney General actually sued the Trump administration for that,” she said.

WATCH:

One Year Later: The Results of Gavin Newsom’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Hike Are In
News

One Year Later: The Results of Gavin Newsom’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Hike Are In

/

Reason Magazine reporter Bess Byers outlined the economic consequences of California’s fast food minimum wage law while highlighting comments from Gov. Gavin Newsom defending exemptions built into the legislation.

The law, known as AB 1228, raised wages for fast food workers and created a new regulatory structure, but Byers said the results have included job losses, restaurant closures, and higher prices.

“What happens when the minimum wage goes up? Well, California is getting an experiment in that right now. Just ask Gavin Newsom,” Byers said.

She explained that the law was pitched as a way to ensure fast food employees were paid fairly but quickly produced unintended consequences.

“California wanted to make sure fast food employees earn their fair share, and that’s when 557,000 workers across 30,000 restaurants got an economic reality check,” she said.

Byers said AB 1228 imposed a government-mandated pay increase that moved hourly wages from $16.21 to $20 over three years.

“AB 1228, implemented a government mandated pay raise for all fast food workers from 1621 to $20 per hour,” she said.

The law also includes ongoing increases and a new regulatory body.

“The bill requires annual wage increases of 3.5% and creates a special fast food Council within the government,” Byers said.

According to Byers, that council has broad authority for several years.

“This council holds the power to set fast food wages until January 1, 2029 when the Council and its authority allegedly end, because government programs always end,” she said.

Byers also pointed to a long list of exemptions that shielded certain businesses from the wage mandate.

“If you’re worried about this impacting your favorite restaurant? Well, casual dining restaurants, buffets, smaller fast food chains, donut shops, snack shops, grocery stores, concession stands, most delis, restaurants within a grocery establishment, restaurants connected to an airport, hotel, Event Center, theme park, museum or gambling establishment and Panera Bread are all exempt from the law,” she said.

She described one exemption as unusually specific and said it was pushed by Newsom.

“Apparently, there’s this weirdly specific exemption for restaurants that sell bread as a standalone menu item if it weighs at least half a pound after cooling and Gavin Newsom pushed for that,” Byers said.

Byers said the exemption benefited Panera Bread and its major franchise owner.

“You see, Gavin Newsom went to high school with Greg Flynn. Greg Flynn owns the Flynn Restaurant Group. They own 2300 chain restaurants across the US and other second largest Panera franchisee in the world,” she said. Byers noted Flynn’s political support.

“Flynn has donated more than $220,000 to Newsom’s campaign since 2017 and 100 grand of that was to defeat the recall. So for some totally unknown reason, he really wants this guy in office,” she said.

When questioned about the exemption, Newsom defended it as part of legislative negotiations.

“I mean, that’s part of the sausage making. That was part of 257 the original bill, and there was part of the negotiation. It’s the nature of negotiation,” Newsom said.

Byers said the economic effects of the law became clear after it took effect. She cited comments made after passage of the bill.

“After the bill passed, assembly member Chris Holden said: ‘the rest of the country is watching what’s happening in California.’ And yeah, that’s an understatement,” she said.

She detailed business closures and layoffs following implementation of the law.

“One year after implementing the so called FAST Act, we are finally seeing its effects, and they are exactly what you would expect,” Byers said.

“Rubio’s coastal grill closed 48 locations across the state. MOD Pizza closed five and Pizza Hut laid off all 1200 delivery drivers,” she said.

Byers said the employment data showed significant losses. “In total, fast food employment decreased by 2.7% which cost California 18,000 jobs,” she said.

She added that remaining workers also felt the impact.

“Restaurants replaced employees with digital kiosks, and those who did keep their jobs saw their hours decrease by almost two months per year,” she said.

According to Byers, even mainstream outlets have acknowledged the negative effects.

“AB, 1228, is such a disaster, even CNN admits it’s debatable,” she said. She contrasted California’s experience with the rest of the country.

“Job numbers at the same time as Gavin Newsom’s California lost fast food jobs, the sector has grown in the rest of the nation,” she said.

Byers concluded that consumers have also borne the cost. “To be fair, though, Newsom is responsible for some exceptional growth,” she said.

“Fast food prices are up more than 13% since the law took effect.”

WATCH:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Reason Magazine (@reasonmagazine)


Scroll to Top