Category: blaze media

Vice President JD Vance said that the U.S. is ahead of the Chinese in developing artificial intelligence but that the race to maintain American dominance is going to be critical in the coming years.

Vance made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on his radio show Thursday. Beck asked Vance whether the U.S. was ahead of China in the AI race, and the vice president explained how the administration is working to keep America on top.

‘We don’t want to meet on the battlefield of the future, and we have the muskets, and the Chinese have the M-16s. I think AI is a critical part of staying ahead of the Chinese.’

“I think that we’re ahead, Glenn, but no one who says we’re way ahead should be believed,” said Vance.

“In artificial intelligence, six months is a lifetime, 12 months is a generation,” he added. “We’re probably 12 months, maybe two years ahead of where the Chinese are when it comes to critical hardware, when it comes to necessary infrastructure, when it comes to the engineering talent. But that is not very far ahead at all.”

The vice president said the Trump administration is focused on policies that will develop the next generation of scientists in the field, as well as end over-regulation on energy infrastructure.

“If we allow the Chinese to catch up, we may never, ever have an edge on China in this space again,” Vance continued.

“I think a lot of people [believe] artificial intelligence is a chatbot. It’s something that maybe helps the college student write a paper. No, no, no. The artificial intelligence that I am worried about, Glenn, is the kind of intelligence that helps them develop next-generation weapons, that helps their rockets and missiles hit their targets 99% more accurate than the weapons that aren’t using artificial intelligence,” he explained.

“There are just massive defense technology implications of this,” he added.

RELATED: Trump’s AI vision: End Biden’s tyranny, restore fairness in tech

Photo by DAN KITWOODNICHOLAS KAMM/POOL/AFP/AFP via Getty Images

Vance then made an analogy to the Revolutionary War, suggesting that the outcome likely would have changed if the British army had modern weapons and the colonists fought with muskets.

“We don’t want to meet on the battlefield of the future, and we have the muskets, and the Chinese have the M-16s. I think AI is a critical part of staying ahead of the Chinese,” Vance said.

“It’s full pedal to the metal, Glenn. We have to constantly be innovating and stay ahead of the game,” he concluded. “We can’t follow the European lead of regulating. We want America to innovate, and that’s what we’re doing.”

Here’s the video of the conversation:

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Artificial intelligence, Jd vance on ai, Trump on ai dominance, China vs us on ai, Politics 

While President Donald Trump greenlit a flurry of executive orders in the first 100 days of his second term, Congress has been struggling to keep up.

In the first few months of his presidency, only five bills from Congress have made it to Trump’s desk and been signed into law. Meanwhile, Louisiana Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s “big, beautiful bill” has been the focal point of Capitol Hill drama with promises to codify the MAGA mandate Trump was overwhelmingly elected for.

Although the mandate is reflected in certain provisions in the bill, Vice President JD Vance himself said that Congress needs to do more to codify DOGE cuts and rein in spending.

‘We’re going to have to do it and get serious about it.’

“I will say the big, beautiful bill text just came out last week,” Vance told Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Program” Thursday. “That’s going to change a lot from now until then. We’ve already had conversations with House leadership that we want to see some more significant efforts to rein in spending here.”

“The president also believes, Glenn, and he’s right about that, that if you cut the trade deficit or you raise revenue through tariffs, that you actually go a long way to making the country on a more sustainable fiscal pathway as well,” Vance added. “But you’re right. You can’t do it without cutting domestic spending.”

Up until this point, the United States has racked up over $36 trillion in national debt. Despite the desire from certain Republicans to actually control spending, Johnson’s bill is expected to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the deficit through fiscal year 2034.

“We’re going to have to do it and get serious about it,” Vance told Beck. “We’re making that as clear to congressional leaders as possible. But look, knock on wood here, I think that once we get the final package out of the House and the Senate, we’re going to have something that’s serious on budget-cutting.”

RELATED: Exclusive: Why Chip Roy can’t support the ‘big, beautiful bill’: ‘The swamp does what the swamp does’

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Vance noted that one of the easiest ways to chip away at the nation’s mounting debt is to begin by eliminating mismanaged spending and fraudulent benefits.

“What no one talks enough about, and when I talk to Elon, and I talk to the DOGE folks, where they think they’re going to get the most cuts is in taking people, illegal aliens and other people, who are defrauding the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security system,” Vance added.

“Think about two people, right? A guy who’s paid into Social Security for 40 years. Obviously we want that guy to get his Social Security benefits,” Vance told Beck. “You compare that person to an illegal alien who’s engaged in Medicaid fraud. Obviously we don’t want that person to get their benefits.”

RELATED: Big, beautiful bill advances after 18-hour markup marathon while SALT talks go south

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Medicaid reform has been a hot-button issue as reconciliation talks escalate. In its current state, the bill amended work requirements so that ineligible recipients would have a harder time defrauding the Medicaid system, protecting vulnerable people the service was intended for. Although this is a step in the right direction, some Republicans say it doesn’t go far enough and have pointed out that the changes won’t be enforced until 2029, after Trump has left office.

“I think Democrats are going to fight us on this, but this is such an important point,” Vance added. “We cannot allow people to defraud the Medicare and Medicaid system, or it’s going to bankrupt this country. It’s also just fundamentally unfair.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Jd vance, Glenn beck, Glenn beck program, Donald trump, Trump administration, Maga mandate, Doge, House republicans, Senate republicans, Mike johnson, John thune, Reconciliation, Big beautiful bill, National debt, Federal deficit, Government spending, Congress, Social security, Medicaid, Fraud waste and abuse, Doge cuts, Spending cuts, Politics 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Between high-profile hearings featuring members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet and the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s reconciliation markup lasting over 26 hours, it was another busy Wednesday on Capitol Hill as Republicans face criticism that they have not acted quickly enough to make Trump’s executive orders permanent.

In the basement of the Capitol building, the Republican Study Committee hosted border czar Tom Homan and Education Secretary Linda McMahon to hear what they need from GOP members in order to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises. Talking to the RSC was important for these two Trump officials because it is the largest House GOP caucus, boasting 189 members.

‘I met with the Republican Study Committee and thanked them for their strong support of this administration’s efforts to take our country back.’

A source familiar with the Wednesday meeting said Homan emphasized the importance of ensuring federal immigration agencies are properly funded in order to combat the invasion of illegal aliens who were allowed to freely enter this country under the Biden-Harris administration. While illegal alien apprehension and deportation numbers are higher now than they were under the previous administration, agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are operating under Biden-era budgets and atrophy.

“Americans should be worried about [Trump’s agenda]. Executive orders are nice, but legislation, writing it into statute, that is what our Founders intended … to right the ship from the last four years,” RSC Chairman Rep. August Pfluger (Texas) said in response to frustration from GOP voters. “We’re taking it seriously. My organization of 189 members wants to see it, pass it into law.”

Pfluger said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wants it to be done by the book, meaning it has to go through the full committee-to-floor process. “It’s not fast,” Pfluger admitted. “This is not a fast process, unfortunately. It does take some time. But we are going to keep pushing on them to make sure we do see movement.”

“We hear you,” Pfluger said, addressing GOP voters. “The [RSC] has taken action. We have highlighted multiple bills that would put into effect, codify what the executive orders are that President Trump has moved with. … We want to move swiftly. We want to move aggressively. The system needs to play out, but we’re urging the leadership … to move these bills through.”

Homan gave his seal of approval to the RSC working through that process to capitalize on Trump’s successes.

“We are ramping deportations every day while restoring law and order in our communities. These achievements would not be possible without the strong leadership of President Trump and the brave men and women of Border Patrol and ICE. I met with the Republican Study Committee and thanked them for their strong support of this administration’s efforts to take our country back — neither they, the president, nor I will rest until the threats against American communities and citizens are eradicated,” Homan told Blaze Media.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics 

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was
indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law. Dugan — who could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on Thursday.

Dugan’s attorneys appear to think that the U.S. Supreme Court has provided her with the means to dodge accountability.

They
noted in a Wednesday motion to dismiss the indictment obtained by Axios that “the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.”

Here, attorneys cited the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024,
ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

This is the ruling that prompted apoplexy among Democrats, demands for conservative justices to be impeached, and accusations that the high court was “consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.”

RELATED: Despite Democrat hysteria, Wisconsin judge accused of thwarting ICE faces 6 years in prison after grand jury indictment

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Dugan’s attorneys noted that even if “Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” adding that “judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally.”

‘Unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.’

The apparent suggestion is that the following actions, which the
indictment accuses her of taking, were official acts:

Confronting members of an ICE task force and “falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.”;
Directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge’s office;
Addressing the illegal alien’s criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge’s office;
“Directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door”; and
Advising Flores-Ruiz’s lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.

In
Trump v. United States, the high court wrote:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.

Dugan’s attorneys further argued on the basis of this specific assertion by the high court that the Wisconsin judge’s “subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity.”

RELATED: Dems condemn Trump admin over arrest of judge who allegedly helped illegal alien escape: ‘A red line’

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

“The government’s prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional,” wrote the attorneys. “Judge Dugan reserves her right to seek other relief, including by other motions before and at trial. But the immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her.”

When asked about the use of the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Blaze News, “I don’t think the analogy is appropriate in this case,” adding, “the dispute is going to be whether she acted in her capacity as a judge.”

“The government’s response is going to be, ‘What you did has nothing to do with judicial decision-making, the management of your court room. You went out; you interfered with federal law enforcement; you came back in, and ushered people out of the courtroom in a way to obstruct justice that had nothing to do with your so-called management in the courtroom,'” continued Fitton. “‘This was a crime that was being committed in a courtroom, not by a judge, but by … a person acting as a citizen, not as a judge.'”

Fitton suggested further that the Trump DOJ would likely appeal a ruling in Dugan’s favor, in part due to the administration’s “seriousness about protecting their agents and the public from these illegal alien criminals” and the possible emboldening impact such a ruling might have on other activist judges.

“It doesn’t matter what line of work you are in. If you break the law, we will follow the facts, and we will prosecute you,” Attorney General Pam Bondi
said of the case last month.

Dugan,
relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, is next expected in court on July 9. Her trial is reportedly set for July 21.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan’s case. That’s likely good news for Dugan, as the Democratic lawmaker turned Clinton appointee has
made no secret of his animus toward President Donald Trump and Republicans.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Hannah dugan, Milwaukee county, Judge, Activist judge, Federal, Crime, Illegal alien, Dugan, Trump, Ice, Immigration, Illegal, Undocumented, Court, Politics 

The National Football League canceled an upcoming diversity-related event but still reaffirmed its commitment to progressive ideology.

Since 2022, the NFL’s accelerator program has been connecting team executives and owners with coaching talent from select ethnicities to fulfill its goal of interviewing non-white male candidates for coaching and front-office vacancies.

‘The NFL strives to be a unifying force, and we are confident the next evolution of our efforts will take us one step closer to that goal.’

The last accelerator event took place in December 2024 when the NFL held its annual Women’s Forum.

The diversity-centric hiring events are meant to supplement the NFL’s Rooney Rule, a practice the league began in 2003. The rule requires teams to conduct in-person interviews with at least two external and “diverse” candidates for general manager, coaching, and coordinator positions. Diverse candidates are meant to include “minority and/or female” applicants.

Now, the NFL has canceled its latest accelerator event and said its next one will take place in May 2026.

RELATED: ‘They look a certain way’: Comedian DL Hughley accuses black Philadelphia Eagles players of not caring about black people

Jonathan Beane, NFL SVP and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer in 2024, Las Vegas, Nevada. Photo by Greg Doherty/Getty Images

Fans should not get too excited over the cancelation of the DEI-centric job fair, though. According to NBC Sports, the NFL issued a lengthy diversity statement reaffirming its commitment to race-based policies and programs.

“We believe diversity of thought and background is essential to our success, and it’s reflected in the policies, programs, and partnerships that help us attract, develop, and retain top talent at every level on and off the field,” NFL Chief Administrator Officer Dasha Smith said in a statement.

The NFL executive boasted about several programs, including its December meeting and women’s forum. Smith said that not only did the league advance 40 women in their career paths, but also the NFL is hard at work developing candidates through other events, such as a three-day program at the NFL Combine.

RELATED: ‘We’re doing the right thing’: NFL to continue diversity initiatives, including forcing interviews with ‘minority candidates’

Photo by Derick E. Hingle/Getty Images

Smith also said the league is looking to “reimagine” the accelerator program — and then made what was certainly a strange, diversity-backed statement about matching it with the ethnicities of football fans.

“We’re steadfast in our commitment to strengthen our talent pipeline and create an environment that reflects the diversity of our fan base,” he said. “The NFL strives to be a unifying force, and we are confident the next evolution of our efforts will take us one step closer to that goal.”

Drawing from this statement, the NFL seems insistent on continuously forcing an increase in non-white male employees and even goes as far as training people in jobs for which they would not otherwise be qualified so that diversity numbers increase.

At the same time, the league said it would not be changing the Rooney Rule, nor would it amend any other efforts that promote DEI.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, Nfl, Diversity, Diversity equity inclusion, Dei, Woke, Affirmative action, Sports, Politics 

Dear Mr. President:

I want to draw a parallel between two worlds that don’t seem connected but are. I’m not sure if you follow long-distance running. Perhaps you should.

Is it hubris, or fear, or something else entirely that keeps us clinging with white knuckles to our positions of power — refusing to pass the torch until God breaks our fingers?

Last month, on Patriots’ Day, Des Linden crossed the finish line of her 12th Boston Marathon, triumphantly concluding a professional career that has cemented her legend status on Boylston Street.

It was there in 2018 that she made history, becoming the first American woman in 33 years to win, doing so under punishing conditions that overwhelmed many of the sport’s top contenders.

That year, she famously slowed down mid-race to help fellow runner Shalane Flanagan rejoin the pack, only to kick ahead of Mamitu Daska and Gladys Chesir on the Newton Hills to claim victory. Linden capitalized on persistence, grit, and her competitors’ fatigue.

‘That was a really good day’

Linden’s career spans decades at the highest level of competition, including two Olympic appearances (London 2012 and Rio 2016), a personal best of 2:22:38, and countless top American finishes at many of her 24 major marathons.

Just before lining up at the start of the 2025 event, she shocked fans by announcing her retirement from marathoning at age 41.

Though her 2025 time of 2:26:19 marked her fastest event performance since 2017, she knew it was time to hang up her Brooks Hyperions.

“I was happy with the time I ran, I was happy with how I ran … and it was also just kind of perfect,” she said on “Nobody Asked Us,” her podcast with fellow distance runner Kara Goucher. “It’s just not competitive. That was a really good day, and it’s just not competitive.”

“There’s a level of dignity to it,” she continued. “I don’t want to just limp through these races or be there just to be there. I want to do it well, and if I can’t do it well, I need to move on.”

Aging ungracefully

Dignity is a waning virtue in American politics. Our ruling class is aging, ungracefully, in public.

Dianne Feinstein, a once formidable senator, was wheeled daily into the Capitol in her final months, visibly confused, voting only when prompted by staff, and at one point attempting to give a speech when directed simply to say “aye.”

Mitch McConnell, twice in one year, froze silently mid-sentence at press conferences — eyes locked, hands clenched — and was escorted away like a man forgetting where, or who, he was.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, chose not to step down when President Obama could have appointed her successor — clinging to her seat until her death in 2020, which opened the door for you, Mr. President, to replace her with conservative Amy Coney Barrett, reshaping the Supreme Court for a generation.

And, of course, Biden’s presidency was marked as much by gaffes and confusion as by ill-fated policy. He tripped repeatedly up the steps of Air Force One, wandered away from press events unsure of where to exit, and at times struggled to finish coherent sentences during major addresses.

In one widely circulated moment, he mistook the president of Egypt for the president of Mexico. At international summits, he appeared disengaged, sometimes gazing blankly while other leaders spoke and sometimes falling asleep. His handlers often cut his mic or shuffled him away mid-question. What’s more, he was selfishly propped up by his party and his family to run for a second term.

White-knuckle leadership

Is it hubris, or fear, or something else entirely that keeps us clinging with white knuckles to our positions of power — refusing to pass the torch until God breaks our fingers, through infirmity, humiliation, or death, to take it from us? I don’t know.

What’s certain is that we have a choice — one with the power to shape our legacies and reveal the true motivations of our hearts.

Our first president understood this better than most, as articulated in his farewell letter to the nation. George Washington’s resignation after two terms — at the height of his ability and at the age of 64 — was a deliberate decision, modeling restraint, humility, and faith in the next generation.

“In a country whose institutions are essentially free, the voluntary relinquishment of power is as necessary as the wise exercise of it,” he said in his 1796 address.

And then, reflecting on his service: “Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors.”

“I shall carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that,” he continued, “the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.”

That joke isn’t funny any more

At first, I smiled and rolled my eyes at your mention of a third term. In April 2018, during a White House event, you quipped, “Should we go back to 16 years? Should we do that? Congressman, can we do that?”

The crowd laughed; it was a joke, we thought. You’re a stand-up comedian, I explained to fretting leftist friends, whose apoplectic reactions no doubt egged us all on — a brawler with a flair for provocation, not a man mounting a serious challenge to constitutional norms.

Then came the merchandise — “Trump 2028” hats — and the repeated musings: “After that, we’ll go for a third term,” you said at a rally in Nevada. By 2025, the line between jest and intent had blurred. When pressed on the matter in a March 30 interview with Kristen Welker, you replied, “No, no, I’m not joking.”

Good Trump, bad Trump

Herein lies the bind of the Trump supporter: trapped in an exhausting game of “good Trump, bad Trump” — squaring your achievements and impulses, downplaying your unconstitutional suggestions, all while hoping your next move isn’t one we truly can’t defend.

And then, during an exclusive “Meet the Press” interview last week, you offered your clearest indication yet that you’d leave office after two terms, without attempting to extend your stay. “I’ll be an eight-year president; I’ll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important,” you told moderator Kristen Welker.

Some conservatives in my circle breathed a sigh of relief. Others still wait with bated breath, not sure what to believe. Stances have shifted before. For many on the right, your unpredictability is part of your strength: a negotiating tactic, a strategic ambiguity. However, when it comes to the peaceful transition of power — a foundational tenet of American conservatism — unpredictable rhetoric doesn’t inspire confidence.

A broken clock

That’s why, though I’m loath to admit it, a May 6 New York Times editorial raises a valid concern. “Trump’s Third-Term Jokes Deserve a Serious Response” argues that this kind of rhetoric doesn’t just amuse or provoke — it reinforces your critics’ worst fears. “He has a history, after all, of using seemingly outlandish speculation to push ideas he genuinely favors — such as overturning an election result — into mainstream discourse,” the editorial board writes. They continue:

He tests boundaries to see which limits are actually enforced. Even when he backs away from a provocation, he often succeeds in raising doubts about those limits. His behavior is consistent with a president who indeed wants to serve a third term, if not more, and who keeps raising the idea in the hope of getting Americans comfortable with it.

Those who watched January 6 unfold or listened to your musings about “stolen elections,” even in jest, fear that uncertainty and volatility may once again destabilize faith in our political process. In a climate rife with cynicism, some conservatives aren’t just asking what you’ll do — they’re wondering whether your word, this time, will be final.

Going out on top

In an Instagram post on race day, Des Linden took her final bow. “People say you should go out on top, and that’s what I’m doing — because getting to race my final professional marathon in Boston is indeed going out on top. I’m ready to leave it all out on the course one last time,” she wrote. “See you on Boylston.”

Mr. President, please keep your promise — for the sake of the Republican Party that you’ve reshaped for the better, for the young conservatives you’ve energized, for the party’s dignity and your own. Run the three-year race set before you, and then go out on top.

​Des linden, Retirement, Donald trump, Term limits, Third term, Boston marathon, Politics, Meet the press, Culture, Grace bydalek, Troll patrol 

A New Jersey couple is facing federal charges over jaw-dropping accusations of sex trafficking, forced labor, and exploiting vulnerable church members under the guise of divine will.

Treva Edwards, 60, and Christine Edwards, 63, were arrested May 7. The couple were indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit forced labor. Treva Edwards also was hit with charges of forced labor and sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.

Treva Edwards reportedly subjected one alleged female victim to repeated physical and sexual assaults and impregnated her, after which he ordered her to get an abortion, according to the indictment.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey said in a statement that the husband and wife were the “founders and pastors of a church they named ‘Jesus Is Lord by the Holy Ghost,’ which they operated out of a multi-unit apartment building in Orange, New Jersey, and where they conspired to coax and coerce vulnerable victims to work with no pay.”

Alina Habba, interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey — previously an attorney for President Donald Trump — delivered a stern warning to those contemplating committing human trafficking crimes.

“These charges are an example of my office’s tireless commitment to combatting human trafficking in our community,” Habba proclaimed. “If you engage in human trafficking, we will find you, and we will prosecute you. We are committed to working alongside our partners to ensure that those who target the most vulnerable are brought to justice.”

RELATED: Porn has transformed into horror

Giles Clarke/Getty Images

Between 2011 and 2020, the suspects allegedly preyed on individuals struggling with financial issues, personal problems, or poor family relationships. The couple allegedly urged these individuals to join the church to find salvation.

According to the 10-page indictment, “Treva Edwards allegedly told Victim 1, Victim 2, and others that he was a prophet who could communicate directly with God. According to the indictment, he told members that ‘disobeying him would result in spiritual retribution from God, as well as physical, emotional, and financial harm.'”

The suspects allegedly manipulated church members into carrying out grueling labor by telling them that the work was to be done to serve God.

The defendants reportedly compelled the church members to sign contracts to guarantee they would do the assigned work. Christine Edwards reportedly procured the labor contracts through her employment at a New Jersey property management company.

RELATED: 8 arrested on rape, sex trafficking charges in case of 14-year-old girl suffering ’25 days of hell’

Some of the labor forced on the church members included “cleaning and gutting commercial and residential properties, shoveling snow, removing bulk trash, moving furniture, cleaning raw sewage, and exterminating rodent infestations,” the indictment states.

The couple allegedly threatened the church members that if they failed to do the work, they would “lose favor with God.”

Authorities said the couple monitored church members and even regulated when they ate and slept. The pastor and his wife allegedly instructed some members that they were prohibited from leaving the church property, and some were convinced to not talk to non-members because they were allegedly “evil” or “possessed by the devil.”

The couple reportedly kept any money the church members earned.

Treva Edwards reportedly discouraged some of the alleged victims from seeking medical treatment and instead told them God would heal them as long as they were in “good standing” with the church.

RELATED: Feds dismantle huge human smuggling ring that funneled 20,000 Guatemalan aliens into US, leaders face death penalty

According to the indictment, Christine Edwards told members of the Jesus Is Lord by the Holy Ghost church that a “successful labor job was evidence of God’s will.”

The United States Attorney’s Office stated, “Treva Edwards spread fear among the victims through verbal and emotional abuse and threats of reputational harm, homelessness, hunger, spiritual retribution, punishments, and more hard labor to gain their obedience and compel them to perform unpaid labor.”

Treva Edwards reportedly subjected one alleged female victim to repeated physical and sexual assaults and impregnated her, after which he ordered her to get an abortion, according to the indictment.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said, “The Department of Justice will not tolerate the exploitation of vulnerable individuals under the guise of faith. These charges reflect our unwavering focus on protecting victims and prosecuting those who commit such heinous crimes.”

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Special Agent in Charge Ricky J. Patel of Homeland Security Investigations Newark Division said, “Treva and Christine Edwards turned a source of hope into a tool of fear by allegedly exploiting religious faith to manipulate victims and expose them to sexual violence and forced labor conditions.”

Blaze News reached out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for comment on the disturbing case but did not receive an immediate response.

As Blaze News exclusively reported earlier this month, the nonprofit organization Safe House Project launched an innovative anti-trafficking app to empower users to safely, anonymously, and effectively report instances of suspected human trafficking.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey interviewed a former witch who got wrapped up in the dark world of sex cults.

Jac Marino Chen told Stuckey on the “Relatable” podcast that she got involved with cults that practiced “sex magic.”

“It was there that Jesus Christ met me in that darkness and saved me,” she told Stuckey.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Sex trafficking, Human trafficking, Sex cult, Cults, Forced labor, Donald trump, Alina habba, Harmeet dhillon, Crime, New jersey, Federal indictments 

City people moving to the country: This one’s for you. Country people, you know all this and a lot more already, so be sure to correct anything I get wrong with a comment; thank you in advance.

After spending all of my life living in cities and towns, I’ve got two winters of rural living under my belt. My house in Vermont is only a few miles outside the capital (itself a mere village of 8,000), so it’s situated conveniently for supply runs. But I live past where the pavement turns to dirt and the water, sewer, and natural gas lines end.

What to do for light? Kerosene lamps. No, not candles. No, not rechargeable LED lights. No, not battery-powered flashlights. Kerosene lamps.

It’s not “off grid,” but the situation shares some of the same features, and you need to attend to some of the same preparation.

Being prepared is especially important in winter, but it will help in summer, too.

The philosophy to keep in mind: Preparing should aim for low tech, not high tech. Kerosene lamps and lanterns, not “solar rechargeable LED lights,” for example. (Where are you going to recharge them? What happens when the computerized chip doesn’t work right?)

Aim for manual, simple devices, not high-tech “survival gadgets.”

If you live in a sparsely populated area in the country with hard winters, you are going to lose power several times in winter. And you’re going to be among the last houses to have it restored because power companies prioritize areas with the most people. In Vermont, I’ve gone two or three days without electricity each winter.

How much of your day will be affected by this, and how do you prepare for it? Since my stove is electric, I can’t cook on it without juice. But wait — no running water, either. Why? Because the water comes from a well, and an electric pump brings it into the house.

It’s one thing to have no internet and lights but entirely another to have nothing to flush the toilet with.

Water

Stock up drinkable water jugs, lots of them, for cooking and drinking. Only for cooking and drinking. You’re going to use “gray water” for other things.

Have a rain barrel to catch water to use for flushing toilets and cleaning. Have buckets on hand. Fill them up.

Fill up your bathtub with water when a storm threatens.

This year, I resorted to melting snow in a stock pot on a portable camp stove.

I’m considering adding a hand pump to my drilled well next year. Do you remember the episode of “Little House on the Prairie” when Pa installed a water pump in Ma’s sink for the first time? Yep, that kind of pump. They’re a great backup for getting water out of the ground when the electric pump is off.

Husband your water wisely. Use your drinking water only for drinking and cooking, not for washing yourself or your dishes. Use “gray water” — the stuff in the rain barrel, the water stored in your tub — for washing dishes, flushing toilets, and other utility purposes.

Be prepared to give yourself sponge baths with a modest amount of water.

Light

What to do for light? Kerosene lamps. No, not candles. No, not rechargeable LED lights. No, not battery-powered flashlights. Kerosene lamps.

Why? Admittedly, I’m partisan as I collect and refurbish kerosene lamps and regularly run them for heat and light. But they’re superior to other backup lighting. Much brighter than candles, and they don’t need batteries (you just have to keep a stock of kerosene on hand). Also, they’re beautiful.

Some guidelines:

Buy only clear, undyed kerosene at either the gas station or hardware store. Never use anything but this. Do not use “lamp oil.” It’s liquid wax, burns dim, eats wicks, and stinks. Kerosene does not stink in a lamp if it’s clean and undyed.Simple flat wick oil lamps, antique or modern, are foolproof.Those wanting more heat and light should get an antique “center draft” lamp with a big, round wick that puts out substantial light and heat. A good bet is a Rayo-brand lamp, easily found on eBay.No, you don’t have to worry about “fumes” or “carbon monoxide.” This is modern hysteria; you’re not afraid of your gas stove, so you don’t have to fear your lamp. Your ancestors who used these weren’t dying of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Heat

If you already have an expensive heating system in place, I get that you’re not going to change that out.

When I moved into this house, I had the “blessing” of starting from scratch as the downstairs had been flooded. If you’re in a similar position, I strongly advise installing something that requires no electricity.

I mean no electricity at all. Not for igniting, not for running. If it needs juice to put out heat, it’s too modern and complicated to be a good basic choice in the country.

I chose a propane-fired “fireplace stove.” It’s a beautiful cast iron piece enameled in red with a glass front; it looks like a late-19th-century wood stove. The operation is entirely mechanical, even the wall-mounted thermostat. It has its own igniter but can be lit with a match if necessary. It maintains a standing pilot light.

Whatever you choose, I recommend a basic model that ignites and fires without electricity. If this means you have to buy a vintage furnace in good or refurbished condition, then yes, that is a better choice.

Good emergency supplies of heat are portable kerosene or propane heaters. Be sure to keep a supply of fuel on hand.

Cooking and eating

If you have an electric kitchen stove, you’ll need a backup. I love my two-burner Coleman propane camping stove. It’s compact and folds up neatly for storage. That the burners put out serious heat is a bonus. Keep extra propane cylinders on hand.

Of course, you’ll also need to have nonperishable food on hand. Vegetables and grains aren’t going to get you through alone; don’t forget meat and fat. Canned goods are your friend in this situation, especially canned meat.

People’s minds seem to go toward “buy lots of dried beans and rice,” and I don’t know why. These are not the high-quality proteins you can get from meat (and they don’t have necessary fat), and they take more water and energy to cook.

I suggest laying in:

Canned chicken breast and tunaCanned corned beefCanned Spam-type meat

Be sure to keep some bacon grease or lard on hand. It doesn’t need refrigeration and can cook just about anything, adding necessary animal fat and calories.

Transportation

Don’t forget about your car. It’s always a good idea to keep your gas tank full during winter.

If you go off the road, you’ll be glad you have the engine to keep you warm. But it’s also a great backup for charging your phone so you can stay in communication while the power is out and the roads are bad.

Obviously, this isn’t a guide to true homesteading or living off the grid, but it can help you get through a few days or weeks of living in the sticks without power and running water. If you’re an old hand at this and have wisdom to pass along, please share it in the comments.

​How to, Winter, Prepping, Power outage, Lifestyle, Kerosene lamps, Heating, Diy, Josh slocum, Intervention 

As reconciliation talks ramp up, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is doing what he can to reel in Republican defectors.

Johnson can afford to lose only three Republican votes and still get reconciliation out the door, which is shaping up to be a tall task as more and more Republicans take issue with different aspects of the “big, beautiful bill.” Among them is Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who outlined his grievances in an exclusive interview with Blaze News.

‘I didn’t come here to perpetuate a broken system. I understand that we have a thin majority, but we should deliver.’

“Reconciliation is all about balancing our current priorities to make sure that our spending and our tax policy results in something that could be remotely described as deficit-neutral or reducing the deficit,” Roy told Blaze News. “So that’s kind of the first, you know, measure of whether you’re going to do something successfully or not.”

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

RELATED: Big, beautiful bill advances after 18-hour markup marathon while SALT talks go south

As Roy noted, codifying President Donald Trump’s campaign promises is the unofficial measure of success on the Hill. While Trump himself has greenlit 151 executive orders as of this writing, only five bills from Congress have actually been signed into law.

“We need to deliver on the tax policy that President Trump ran on, and that would extend what he did in 2017,” Roy added. “We need to deliver on spending restraint. We need to deliver on the priorities that the American people sent us here to deliver on.”

“The problem is the swamp does what the swamp does,” Roy told Blaze News.

Although reconciliation covers some of the MAGA mandate, Roy says it is still too flawed in its current state for him to throw his support behind the bill.

‘It’s a broken system, and this bill doesn’t make it better,’ Roy added. ‘It frankly, arguably, makes it worse.’

“The problem is we’ve got a flawed bill. That’s the bottom line,” Roy added. “It has some good tax policy and some not-so-good tax policy. Some of it is not extended as it should be. We’ve got some good spending restraint and some bad spending policy.”

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

RELATED: SALT sellouts: GOP dumps red-state voters for New York Democrats

Roy used the proposed Medicaid reforms as a case study. One tool Republicans have used to trim down Medicaid costs and uproot fraud has been to enforce work requirements so that fewer people are able to take advantage of the system, allowing vulnerable and disabled people Medicaid was intended for to have access to the resources they need.

But as Roy pointed out, these so-called reforms have flaws of their own.

“They put the work requirements in, and they said, ‘Oh, we’ve got work requirements,’ but they don’t take place until 2029, after the Trump presidency,” Roy told Blaze News. “They have waivers to the work requirements even when they kick in in 2029. They do not address all the ridiculous federal funding of certain states at the expense of other states.”

“It’s a broken system, and this bill doesn’t make it better,” Roy added. “It frankly, arguably, makes it worse.”

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

RELATED: House Republicans to hike up Harvard endowment tax in reconciliation

Roy said that unless the bill was significantly amended to rein in spending and actually reform Medicaid, he wouldn’t be able to support it.

“It has to be amended,” Roy told Blaze News. “I’m not going to be able to support it as it’s currently drafted, and those amendments are going to need to be, you know, relatively significant.”

“I didn’t come here to perpetuate a broken system,” Roy added. “I understand that we have a thin majority, but we should deliver.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Chip roy, Mike johnson, Donald trump, House republicans, Big beautiful bill, Reconciliation, The swamp, Tax cuts and jobs act, Tax cuts, Spending cuts, Doge cuts, Maga mandate, National debt, Salt caucus, Salt cap, Medicaid, Medicaid reform, Medicaid cuts, Politics 

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Robert Bork Jr. attacked Gail Slater, President Trump’s new assistant attorney general for antitrust.

I remember watching with sadness and dismay in 1987 as Mr. Bork’s father, the late Judge Robert Bork, endured a malicious and unfair confirmation process that ended with the Senate rejecting his nomination to the Supreme Court. Now, to my regret, his son has “borked” Slater in much the same way.

The heart of Trump’s America First antitrust agenda: Protect markets before they grow too big to regulate. Break up monopolies so Washington doesn’t have to control them.

Rather than engaging with Slater’s actual record, Bork resorted to baseless claims. He suggested her antitrust philosophy boils down to a simplistic belief that “big is bad, little is good.” That isn’t her philosophy, she’s never said that, and it’s dishonest to imply otherwise.

The Trump administration’s antitrust team isn’t capitulating to monopolies. It’s doing the opposite — charting a course that breaks from the status quo of the last four years of Joe Biden and eight years under President Obama.

Monopolies rightly understood

Bork claims that Gail Slater and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson “discarded the consumer welfare standard,” the long-standing antitrust principle that limits government action to cases where consumers suffer harm. But Bork sets up a straw man. Slater never said anything of the sort — not in her speech, not even by implication.

In fact, Slater made her position clear: She supports “respecting the original public meaning of the statutory text and the binding nature of Supreme Court and other relevant precedent.” That’s not a rejection of the consumer welfare standard.

Bork also misrepresented Slater’s concern over monopolistic control by tech platforms. He mocked her for saying these companies “control not just the prices of their services, but the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication.” Bork scoffed: “What prices? Facebook, Instagram, Google, LinkedIn, and YouTube don’t charge consumers a penny.”

RELATED: YouTube deserves its own antitrust scrutiny

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Image

Slater might have spelled out more clearly how these platforms profit through exploitative practices and suppress conservative voices through debanking, shadow-banning, and viewpoint discrimination. But her time was limited. Bork’s refusal to acknowledge the damage done to conservatives by monopolies that dominate the flow of information is not just blind — it’s disgraceful.

I, for one, applaud a Justice Department finally willing to confront monopolies not just over dollars, but over speech. Americans deserve protection whether the cost of control impinges upon their wallets or their freedom.

This isn’t Biden 2.0

Calling Slater a continuation of Biden’s antitrust policy is the coup de grâce of Bork Jr.’s “borking” campaign. The claim doesn’t hold up. From day one, Slater made clear her intention to restore objectivity and restraint to antitrust enforcement — anchored in law, not ideology. Biden’s FTC and Justice Department had weaponized antitrust, targeting deals that posed no real threat to consumers, often on laughably flimsy grounds.

Bork, in another op-ed, pointed to the Biden administration’s lawsuit against Visa over razor-thin fees as an example of legitimate enforcement. But Visa wasn’t harming consumers. The lawsuit looked more like an effort to strong-arm a private firm into acting as another weapon in the administration’s anti-conservative arsenal — just as it had done with major banks and social media platforms.

The Biden administration even blocked the merger of Spirit and JetBlue, smaller carriers that offered real competition to the Big Four airlines. The move led to bankruptcy, obviously hurting consumers. Had Democrats won last November, the Big Four likely would have been expected to repay the favor politically.

But those were Biden’s decisions — not Slater’s. She has already made clear she intends to reverse course. She’s not in office to weaponize antitrust law. Her aim is to enforce the law and uphold precedent.

In an April interview with Sohrab Ahmari, Slater didn’t mince words: “If you’re doing a merger that’s benign, we’ll just get out of the way.” In her first public address on April 21, she pledged to give economists a stronger role in enforcement and criticized regulation that “saps economic opportunity by stifling rather than promoting competition.”

That doesn’t sound like central planning. It sounds like a welcome return to sanity.

Deregulation by prevention

So why is Bork trying to paint her as Chairman Mao? Probably because Slater understands what many in D.C.’s think-tank class still miss: Big Business isn’t always Big Government’s victim. More often, they work together. Corporate giants gain dominance, then lobby for regulations that kneecap smaller competitors.

Bureaucrats play along because it’s easier to deal with one entrenched firm than a dozen fast-moving upstarts. That’s not capitalism — it’s cartel economics. And for once, a president is pushing back.

Slater has made it clear that monopolies don’t just crush competition — they endanger core American freedoms. She watched Big Tech silence dissent during the 2020 election. Her response? Use antitrust to reduce the need for government, not expand it.

That’s the heart of Trump’s America First antitrust agenda: Protect markets before they grow too big to regulate. Break up monopolies so Washington doesn’t have to control them. Call it what it is — deregulation by prevention. It’s the opposite of socialism. In truth, restoring power to the people, not the government, is exactly what the founders envisioned. Just read the 10th Amendment.

A seismic shift

FTC Commissioner Mark Meador, a Trump appointee, points out that “consumer welfare” doesn’t just mean cheap products. It also means protecting Americans from economic overlords who silence dissent, distort democracy, and punish disfavored speech. Sound familiar?

Meador rightly rejects the progressive notion that “bigness” is always bad. But he also rejects Bork-style libertarianism that shrugs at monopolies unless they raise prices. That view ignores what consumer welfare really demands — fair markets, not just cheap goods.

The 2024 election wasn’t just a political win for Trump. It marked a seismic shift in what the Republican Party stands for.

Democrats now serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and multinational conglomerates. Trump’s GOP champions the working American — the factory worker, the tradesman, the small business owner.

Too often, well-meaning but outdated Republicans cry “socialism” when anyone dares challenge corporate power. But they’re not defending capitalism. They’re defending a rigged system. And voters finally noticed.

Trump wasn’t sent back to Washington to coddle monopolies or rubber-stamp mergers. He was sent to drain the swamp — including the one where corporate lobbyists and bureaucrats make backroom deals to preserve their government-aided monopoly grip. If that makes the old guard nervous, they can always file a complaint — with one of their apps.

​Opinion & analysis, Antitrust, Justice department, Gail slater, Robert bork jr., Wall street journal, Joe biden, Consumer protection, Spirit airlines, Jetblue, Merger, Monopoly, Big tech, Democrats, Big business, Big government, Economy, Prices 

There may be hurdles in front of Pete Rose’s possible induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, even though Major League Baseball recently reinstated the legendary player.

Rose had been banned from baseball — and Hall of Fame eligibility — because he gambled on MLB games, but commissioner Robert D. Manfred Jr. declared earlier this week that permanent ineligibility “ends upon the passing of the disciplined individual.”

‘They take violations very seriously. Joe Jackson fixed games. OK? Pete Rose bet on games as a manager of one team. That doesn’t go away.’

The decision affected 17 individuals — all of them players except for William Cox, a former owner of the Philadelphia Phillies, who was banned for betting on his team’s games.

The most famous examples among the 17 are “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, who died in 1951, and Rose, who died in 2024. Jackson was banned due to his part in the infamous Black Sox scandal of 1919, while Rose was shut out in 1989.

RELATED: Pete Rose reinstated as eligible for Hall of Fame — but new rule will revive MLB’s darkest era

While much of the commotion has surrounded the possibly of Rose being enshrined into the Hall of Fame after decades, it would not exactly be a walk in the park to get the former Cincinnati Red and Phillies phenom on a plaque.

The problems start to emerge when factoring in that Rose’s eligibility period originally was from 1992 to 2006, according to the Associated Press.

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has been accused of blocking Pete Rose’s eligibility.Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Fortune Media

Rose garnered 41 write-in votes in 1992 and was written in on 243 more ballots over the next 15 years, but those votes did not count.

What’s more, now that the ban has been lifted, both Rose and Jackson are eligible only for the Hall of Fame’s Classic Baseball Era — and that requires a rigorous process prior to enshrinement in Cooperstown.

Jane Forbes Clark, who chairs the Hall of Fame board, told ESPN the first step will be a 10-person Historical Overview Committee that selects eight ballot candidates to present to the Classic Baseball Era Committee.

Who is on the committees?

While the identities of current members of the Historical Overview Committee are not known, they are assumed to be veteran members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

Longtime sports broadcaster Tony Kornheiser knows how that goes.

“The baseball writers who are members put you in the Hall of Fame. Those baseball writers, as we know well, are guardians of the game,” Kornheiser said on his show, “Pardon the Interruption.”

RELATED: March Madness money: How the NCAA makes a billion dollars every year

Kornheiser added, “They take violations very seriously. Joe Jackson fixed games. OK? Pete Rose bet on games as a manager of one team. That doesn’t go away.”

‘Shoeless’ Joe JacksonPhoto by Sporting News via Getty Images/Sporting News via Getty Images via Getty Images

If Rose and Jackson pass muster with the Historical Overview Committee, their names would be sent to the Classic Baseball Era Committee to vote at its next meeting.

Members of the Classic Baseball Era Committee presently include Hall of Fame players — icons such as Paul Molitor and Ozzie Smith, per ESPN. Jackson and Rose would need 12 votes from the 16-person Classic Baseball Era Committee to get into the Hall of Fame.

Another hurdle is the fact that it would take years for this process to play out. The Classic Baseball Era Committee, according to Clark, does not meet until December 2027. At that point, an entirely new committee could be in place — and who knows how they would view Rose and Jackson.

‘It essentially comes down to whether the committees think gambling is worse than using human-growth hormones or steroids.’

Given that the MLB writers have excluded from the Hall of Fame some of the most successful players of all time — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, and Alex Rodriguez, for example — potential inductions of players like Jackson and Rose may come down to where committee members draw their ethical lines.

“It essentially comes down to whether the committees think gambling is worse than using human-growth hormones or steroids,” said Dave Shrigley, a writer and editor for Rebel News.

Shrigley told Blaze News, “Steroids weren’t exactly banned by the league, so not only is there an ethical question, but there’s also the question as to what is actually a ban-worthy offense.”

Commissioner Manfred slightly touched on this topic in 2020 when he said Rose “violated what is sort of Rule One in baseball,” adding that the MLB would continue “to abide by [its] own rules.”

Some have criticized Manfred in the past for stonewalling Rose’s possible induction, including in 2015 when he denied Rose’s application for reinstatement.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, Mlb, Pete rose, Hall of fame, Baseball, Sports, Shoeless joe jackson, Major league baseball, Reinstatement 

On May 9, President Trump rolled out a self-deportation plan, formally dubbed “Project Homecoming,” that offers illegal immigrants a $1,000 stipend and a free flight to leave the country voluntarily.

The program also relegated the CBP One app to the ash heap of history. Altered by the Biden administration in 2023, the app’s expansion was pitched as an easy way to allow migrants in Central and Northern Mexico to schedule asylum appointments at U.S. border ports of entry. However, it was used as a loophole to usher in illegal immigrants, as it enabled “catch and release.”

But those days are over under President Donald Trump.

CBP One has been replaced with an app called CBP Home, which encourages and helps facilitate self-deportation. It allows illegal immigrants to sign up for self-deportation and notify the Department of Homeland Security of their departure, thus helping the agency keep track of who is leaving the country.

Another added benefit is that self-deporters may be eligible to apply for legal re-entry after a 10-year waiting period, provided they meet other immigration requirements. Those who are forced to leave, however, face much sterner consequences — an extended waiting period or even a lifetime ban.

Some critics of the program argue that it wastes taxpayer dollars, but they’re either part of the radical left that champions illegal immigration or they’re just not looking at the numbers.

Because the truth is it’s another stroke of Trump brilliance.

Mark Levin breaks it down.

“Project Homecoming” naysayers are claiming it’s “a waste of money,” but they’re wrong, Levin argues. “It’s cost-effective” because “going through the process of deporting people is much more expensive” — on average “about $17,000 a person.”

This self-deportation method, however, costs “about $4,000 or $4,500” per person and demands “less manpower,” meaning millions of taxpayer dollars will be saved in the long run.

And it’s working. Already thousands of illegal immigrants have self-deported under the “Project Homecoming” program, with many more thousands on the horizon.

To hear more of Levin’s analysis, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Levintv, Mark levin, Donald trump, Mass deportations, Self deportations, Cbp one, Cbp home app, Project homecoming, Asylum, Illegal immigration, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Rep. Shri Thanedar, a 70-year-old Michigan Democrat drowning in primary challenges,
introduced seven articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump late last month, citing “a sweeping abuse of power, flagrant violations of the Constitution, and acts of tyranny that undermine American democracy and threaten the rule of law.”

On Tuesday, he
implored his colleagues to support his articles of impeachment, stressing, “It’s never the wrong time to stand up for our Constitution.” Thanedar’s fellow Democrats appear, however, to have convinced him it was actually a bad time.

Thanedar was set to call up the resolution for floor consideration on Wednesday, but backed down at the last moment in an apparent effort to spare himself further embarrassment.

“This week, Democrats ousted their DNC ‘leader,’ opposed the largest tax cut in history, and were exposed for actively covering up Joe Biden’s four-year cognitive decline. Now, Democrats have turned their sights to threatening impeachment. We are witnessing the collapse of the Democrat Party before our eyes,” White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told Blaze News. “Not a single one of these efforts will help the American people. The contrast could not be more clear: President Trump is fighting for historic tax relief for the American people, Democrats are fighting themselves.”

Earlier in the day, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California
said, “This is not the right approach we should be taking,” and in recent weeks, multiple Democrats asked for their names to be removed from his resolution.

RELATED: 3 Democrats ask to be removed from resolution to impeach Trump

Photo (left): Spencer Platt/Getty Images; Photo (center): Eric Lee for The Washington Post via Getty Images; Photo (right): Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) suggested that Democrats lacked the power necessary to successfully see the impeachment through,
reported the Associated Press.

Congressional Democrats’ approval ratings have plumbed record lows in recent weeks.
According to a YouGov poll for the Economist conducted earlier this month, 54% of Americans viewed Democrats in an unfavorable light; only 33% rated them favorably.

‘There’s no support for an impeachment resolution.’

“As I tried to explain to him, having been around the track a couple of times on this, it’s not enough to be right,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told the Associated Press. “[Impeachment] as a constitutional matter is a mixed question of law and politics.”

Aguilar noted that Thanedar’s proposal was “not ripe and not timely.”

“There’s no support for an impeachment resolution. There have been no hearings on compiling a record for which impeachment can be based. And this is just a procedure that’s meaningless at this point,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) told the Associated Press. “The sponsor is out of sync with the mood and the trajectory of House Democrats.”

Multiple sources
told Axios that Rep. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.) was applauded in a closed-door House Democrat meeting Wednesday when he called Thanedar’s impeachment push “idiotic” and “horrible.”

According to Politico, several Democratic representatives, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Greg Casar (Texas), Brad Schneider (Ill.), and Raskin, were seen speaking privately to Thanedar on the floor before his reversal. Schneider reportedly impressed upon Thanedar the need to focus instead on Republicans’ megabill.

“In the 15 days since I filed seven articles of impeachment against President Trump, he has committed more impeachable offenses, most dangerously accepting a $400 million private jet from Qatar, which even Republican members of Congress have called wrong,” Thanedar
said in a statement on Wednesday. “So after talking with many colleagues, I have decided not to force a vote on impeachment today.”

The India-born Democrat, whose challengers include a candidate
backed by Squad member Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), noted further that he will add to his articles of impeachment and “continue to rally the support of both Democrats and Republicans to defend the Constitution with me.”

Thanedar’s withdrawn resolution claimed that Trump created an “unlawful office” by establishing the Department of Government Efficiency and accused the president of “tyrannical overreach”; “usurpation of appropriations power”; “abuse of trade powers and international aggression”; “violation of First Amendment rights”; bribery and corruption; and “obstruction of justice and abuse of executive power.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Shri thanedar, Impeachment, Donald trump, Trump, Congress, Democrats, Democratic, Leftism, Thanedar, Politics 

For more than a century, one trend has defined American politics: the relentless expansion of federal power. The Founders built a limited framework of law and order to protect liberty and promote a flourishing society. That framework has morphed into a sprawling leviathan that reaches into nearly every aspect of American life. Each crisis, often of the government’s own making, brings the same answer: more bureaucracy, more spending, more control.

Generations of Americans have paid the price to support a self-described “problem-solving” class that fails to solve anything — and demands even more to fix the failures it created. Under President Trump, however, the country finally has a leader who sees bureaucracy not as the solution but as the root of the problem.

The choice is clear: a government that serves the people — or an unaccountable leviathan that consumes them.

In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal exploited economic collapse to justify a sweeping expansion of federal agencies. Lawmakers used the crisis to transform the relationship between government and the free market.

By the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society pushed federal overreach farther, binding millions of Americans to Washington through government handouts. Decades later, after 9/11, George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act, giving federal agencies unprecedented access to Americans’ private lives — all in the name of national security.

Today, the federal government reaches into your doctor’s office, your child’s classroom, and even your kitchen appliances — often without a single vote in Congress.

This unchecked sprawl, always justified by its own failures, has saddled taxpayers with $37 trillion in debt, a crushing weight that future generations must carry.

Enter Donald Trump.

In fewer than 100 days, Trump removed 126,000 federal workers and targeted another 100,000 positions for elimination. He gutted USAID — a bloated redistribution agency infamous for funding “Sesame Street” in Iraq — cutting more than 99% of its workforce. The IRS shed 3,600 auditors, directly rejecting President Biden’s plan to hire 87,000 new agents through the Inflation Reduction Act.

RELATED: Why voters are done compromising with the ‘America Last’ elite

Sarah Rice/Bloomberg via Getty Images

For the first time in years, an American president has moved decisively to dismantle the administrative state — rejecting Washington’s bipartisan instinct to grow government and funnel more power to unelected bureaucrats.

No one should be surprised that Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal government have sparked outrage from Democrats, who now portray federal workers as the new victim class. Their narrative paints Trump and Republicans as “cruel” and “heartless.”

But here’s the truth.

While more than
60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, Washington’s bureaucratic elite dominate six of the 10 richest counties in the country — all clustered around the nation’s capital.

During the 2008 financial crisis, 8.6 million Americans lost their jobs — 5.5% of the national workforce. Yet Washington barely flinched, shedding just 1.1% of its taxpayer-funded positions. While global economies collapsed, the D.C. bureaucracy grew, kept afloat by billion-dollar federal contracts. Politicians demanded more money for “problem solvers” to solve the problems they created. After all the “assistance” and bailouts, average Americans were left with just one thing:
nearly $1 trillion in new debt.

Trump’s war on the administrative state doesn’t stem from cruelty — it reflects a long-overdue reckoning with bloated federal power. His success represents a win for working Americans. While Trump has made historic gains against the bureaucracy, many of his reforms remain tied up in court, blocked by forces determined to preserve the status quo.

If real change is the goal, Congress must do more than applaud. Lawmakers must codify Trump’s actions and pass his proposed spending cuts. The choice is clear: a government that serves the people — or an unaccountable leviathan that consumes them.

​Opinion & analysis, Congress, Donald trump, Department of government efficiency, Doge, Deficit, Debt, New deal, Franklin delano roosevelt, Great society, Lyndon johnson, Big government, Bureaucracy, Administrative state, Victims, Bailouts 

Lots of people are wondering whether Pope Leo XIV is a reformer in the same vein as Pope Francis or more of a traditionalist like Francis’ two predecessors. It depends on the issue, but to those who think he is a clone of Francis, they are wrong. Importantly, he is not an ideologue.

It is striking to see some celebrating what they claim is a “woke” pope, while others are bemoaning that he is one. Neither is right.

The left exists for one thing — power — and leftists are masters at deceiving people.

Beware: All the alarms going off are false.

An article published at Alternet is cheering “Our New Woke Pope.” Why? Because he criticized Vice President JD Vance for saying love should begin with loving your family, then others.

Then-Cardinal Robert Prevost, an Augustinian priest, said on X that “J.D. Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.”

It is absurd to conclude from this that the new pontiff is a “woke” pope. Vance was saying love must be set in proper order, and many Catholic theologians agree. No matter, theological disputes are common in all religious circles, but standing alone they do not make anyone “woke.” This is simply a childish way to politicize matters.

Then we have right-wing commentator Laura Loomer. She is branding our new pope “woke” and a “Marxist.” She is badly educated.

To show how crazy those on the extreme left and right are, consider what the Nation is saying. It is a left-wing publication that championed Stalin, the genocidal maniac. Those at the outlet are raising the flag for Pope Leo XIV because they see in him what Pope Leo XIII stood for during his pontificate.

Those at the Nation are right to say our new pope identifies with Leo XIII, but wrong to say that the late 19th and early 20th-century pope was a social justice warrior in the left-wing tradition. They are heralding him for his “sharp critiques of capitalism.” Maybe if they actually read the 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” they wouldn’t sound so silly.

Pope Leo XIII wrote this encyclical eight years after Marx’s death in 1883. He foresaw the horrors that Marx’s ideology would deliver. He said that “ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.” He also made the case for private property, which is hardly an expression of socialism.

Orthodox Catholics will be happy to learn that Pope Leo XIV is strongly pro-life. He is opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. He is also pro-marriage and the family, properly understood.

He has criticized in no uncertain terms the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.” This is great news for practicing Catholics — the ones in the pews who actually pay the bills — but not for dissidents. He has also condemned gender ideology being taught in the schools of Peru. “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.” As such, he opposes the exploitation of sexually confused young people.

On immigration, Leo is much more in the liberal camp. He is opposed to the Trump policies and has even criticized the president of El Salvador for his crackdown on illegal immigration. How the heads of state are supposed to deal with those who are crashing their borders, causing misery for its citizens, is something he may have to address.

Is Pope Leo XIV a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? He’s a Republican, having pulled the GOP lever in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections. But apparently he did not vote in the 2016 general election and chose to vote by absentee ballot in 2024. It appears he is more of a Bush Republican than a Trump Republican. But he is certainly not a “woke” or “Marxist” activist.

If some progressives who wanted Francis II are not expressing dismay in public, don’t be fooled. It is because they want to have entrée with the new pope. The left exists for one thing — power — and leftists are masters at deceiving people.

It looks like practicing Catholics will have in Pope Leo XIV someone they can rally around.

This essay was adapted from an article originally published by the Catholic League.

​Pope leo xiv, Christianity, Catholic church, Woke, Liberal agenda, Faith 

Every Republican ran for office last year promising to slash the record spending levels that fueled Biden-era inflation. Yet, every GOP proposal now adds to the deficit. Republicans can’t agree on a single major program to cut. At the very least, one might expect them to eliminate federal subsidies that prop up blue-state Medicaid schemes and high-tax policies. Instead, they plan to burn their political capital shielding those same states from the consequences of their choices.

Forget “inflation” or “invasion.” The buzzword in Washington this month is “SALT.” Lifting the cap on the state and local tax deduction is the message GOP leaders chose to go with. Brilliant!

Blue-state Republicans should export red-state policies, not act as lobbyists for high-tax regimes.

Salt may season food, but in tax policy, SALT leaves a bitter taste. Before Trump’s 2017 tax reforms, taxpayers could deduct unlimited state and local taxes from their federal burden, with some restrictions for the wealthy under the old Alternative Minimum Tax. This allowed blue-state politicians to raise state income and property taxes knowing Washington would offset the pain through greater deficit spending. Trump’s bill capped SALT deductions at $10,000 and lowered federal rates across the board.

Now, a bloc of blue-state Republicans has hijacked the budget reconciliation process to push what amounts to an unlimited national subsidy for high-tax states. With existing tax cuts and Trump’s new priorities already straining the budget, these Republicans want to burn $1 trillion over 10 years to spare New York and California politicians from a taxpayer revolt.

After rounds of internal negotiation, House leaders offered a compromise: Raise the SALT cap to $30,000 for families earning less than $400,000. The SALT caucus rejected the offer. “A higher SALT cap isn’t a luxury. It’s a matter of fairness,” declared New York Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, and Mike Lawler. Fairness? They want the rest of the country to go deeper into debt to prop up New York’s failed policies.

zimmytws via iStock/Getty Images

RELATED: The last march of the moderates

Blue-state Republicans should export red-state policies, not act as lobbyists for high-tax regimes. Their job is to pressure local Democrats to cut taxes — or to help conservative voters move out. Instead, they keep fueling blue-state profligacy and shielding the very politicians who caused the mess.

Worse still, these lukewarm Republicans want to spend over $1 trillion on blue-state tax breaks instead of using that money for broad-based tax cuts that would actually boost growth. They’ve even floated raising the cap to $62,000 for individuals and $124,000 for families, with no income limits. Most of those benefits would go to households earning over half a million dollars. For comparison, the Tax Foundation reports the average American pays about $13,890 in federal income taxes. Yet, these Republicans want to let wealthy blue-staters deduct nearly 10 times that amount.

And what of Donald Trump — the be-all and end-all of the Republican Party? He pressures the Freedom Caucus to drop its demands to end blue-state Medicaid grift, but he says nothing about the SALT holdouts. Instead, he endorsed Stefanik and Lawler for re-election.

Trump left New York for Florida to escape New York’s oppressive tax regime. So why back politicians who insist on making the rest of the country pay for it?

If Trump won’t rein in these RINOs, Republicans will head into the midterms without a message — and they’ll need smelling salts to revive a self-immolated mandate.

​Opinion & analysis, Republicans, Rinos, Taxes, Spending, State and local tax deduction, Salt, New york, Elise stefanik, Andrew garbarino, Nick lalota, Mike lawler, Democrats, Donald trump, Tax foundation, Freedom caucus, Endorsements 

Joe Allen is quite the jack of all trades. He’s an author, a researcher, an arena rigger, an editor for Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” and one of the world’s foremost thought leaders in the intersection of AI, transhumanism, and spirituality.

It’s the latter role Nicole Shanahan is most interested in.

“What is your definition of transhumanism?” she asked him on a recent episode of “Back to the People.”

It’s “the drive or the quest to use science and technology to go beyond the human,” Allen said.

It’s a merging of human and machine, in other words, and while it sounds like dystopian fiction, the concept is entirely real, and it’s happening right now.

We don’t have cyborgs yet, but given the fact that transhumanism has snaked its way into the reproductive world, which is booming today thanks to America’s fertility crisis, it’s likely only a matter of time before they walk among us.

Nicole points to transhumanist companies that are currently manufacturing human eggs in a lab “without any input from a female ovary” and then fertilizing them with either “real sperm or synthetic sperm, which can also be grown.” In other words, pseudo-human beings are being created by machines in laboratories.

Trying to stop this, she says, is “impossible” — as is halting the development of organoids or the implantation of brain chips.

“That leaves us with the fact that the transhumanist cyborg machine human is going to exist,” she says frankly, calling it a new attempt at the age-old ploy to steal the human soul.

“Now is the time that we have this very narrow window to create a fork for the future of humanity,” she tells Allen.

As terrifying as sharing the world with transhumanist creations is, Allen says there are two pieces of good news: One, the “god-like” AI we’ve been told is coming down the pike is likely a “sales pitch” that overexaggerates the actual product. Yes, humans will regard these technologies as “digital deities,” and yes, “they [will] have real power,” but they likely aren’t as superhuman as we’ve been told.

Secondly, “if we believe that we are intended to be more human than machine, and if we believe that there are realms far beyond this one to which we’re accountable, then we’re going to fight for it, and it’s going to be across the world,” says Allen.

“It’s going to be a massive fight,” but “you have to have faith in the human spirit, the human soul, and the God that is within and above and moving through it.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole’s compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Back to the people, Nicole shanahan, Joe allen, Steve bannon, Transhumanism, Blazetv, Lab grown humans, Blaze media 

President Donald Trump issued a consequential executive order that undermines the power of the federal government to prosecute Americans for obscure rules passed by unelected agencies.

The order, entitled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations,” was issued Friday and limits the federal government from prosecuting Americans for violating regulations without ill intent.

‘It will be of little avail to the people that laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.’

“The United States is drastically overregulated. The Code of Federal Regulations contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages — far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand. Worse, many carry potential criminal penalties for violations,” reads the order.

The order calls for federal agencies to make a list of regulations that carry a criminal penalty and make it public within 365 days. It also disfavors prosecutions where there is no evidence of bad intent against the accused, in favor of prosecutions against those who knowingly violated regulations.

The order was praised by those in favor of limiting the power of the federal government, including attorney Laura Powell of Californians for Good Governance.

“The federal regulatory code, spanning 175,000 pages, contains countless criminal offenses — literally countless, as no one knows the exact number,” she explained.

“This lack of clarity violates the due process requirement of fair notice,” she added. “Many offenses are strict liability, meaning you can be convicted even if you were unaware your actions were illegal. This has empowered the administrative state to function as an unaccountable fourth branch, bypassing Congress’s legislative authority.”

RELATED: Florida follows DOGE’s lead with sweeping regulatory cuts

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Powell added, “This is a step in the right direction for people who value freedom and the rule of law.”

Steven Nekhaila, the chair of the Libertarian Party, praised the order but said it should only be the beginning of an effort to disentangle the federal regulatory code.

“President Trump’s recent executive order addressing the over-criminalization of federal regulations is a commendable step toward restoring individual liberties and curbing governmental overreach,” wrote Nekhaila.

“However, this executive action should be the beginning, not the end, of efforts to dismantle the labyrinth of federal regulations that infringe upon personal freedoms,” he added. “We urge continued vigilance and action to ensure that laws serve to protect rights rather than punish inadvertent noncompliance.”

The Heritage Foundation noted that James Madison had warned about overcriminalization when he wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people that laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Trump overcriminalization order, Executive order on regulation, Federal regulations, Trump vs regulations, Politics 

Nationwide injunctions — once unknown in American legal tradition — have exploded in popularity, driven by single federal district court judges eager to block policies enacted by the political branches. Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents of both parties have raised alarms about the trend.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett have criticized these injunctions in written opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan have raised similar concerns in public comments. In the 2018 Trump v. Hawaii decision, Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious.” Speaking at a Ninth Circuit judicial conference, Kagan reportedly remarked, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

Solicitors general from both parties have also objected. Joe Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, warned last year that nationwide injunctions cause “substantial disruption” to executive functions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris earlier this year called them an “epidemic.”

The Supreme Court will now decide whether these bipartisan objections reflect genuine constitutional concerns — or partisan convenience. Take Mary McCord, for example. A former Obama White House official and adviser to the January 6 Committee, she co-signed the respondents’ brief defending the nationwide injunctions in this case. But would she have supported them when courts used them against her own administration?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA, Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey. At issue is the Trump administration’s “modest request” to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. These injunctions blocked enforcement of the president’s day one executive order on birthright citizenship, even before courts ruled on the legal merits.

(Full disclosure: I submitted a brief in the case on behalf of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, urging the court to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment — one that excludes both temporary visitors and illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.)

The case against universal injunctions follows directly from the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 limits judicial power to “cases or controversies,” designed to resolve disputes between parties, not to dictate national policy. Nationwide injunctions go well beyond the plaintiffs and defendants involved.

Article III, Section 1 vests judicial authority in the Supreme Court and “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” District courts possess geographically defined jurisdictions. A single federal judge in, say, Maryland or Washington state was never meant to issue rulings that bind the entire country.

Nationwide injunctions routinely disrupt government operations. Different district courts can issue conflicting injunctions, creating legal chaos and making compliance virtually impossible. That’s exactly what happened in 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug. Just hours later, Judge Thomas Rice in the Eastern District of Washington issued a competing order — this one prohibiting the FDA from altering its approval of the same drug in half the country.

RELATED: Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained

designer491 via iStock/Getty Images

These injunctions also fuel rampant forum-shopping. Predictably, left-leaning jurisdictions like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state produced most of the nationwide injunctions during the Trump presidency — just as Texas courts served that role under Obama and Biden. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan have both warned about this manipulation. Members of Congress, legal scholars, the American Bar Association, and even the Judicial Conference of the United States have proposed random judge assignments for cases that could result in nationwide injunctions.

Such reforms might reduce forum-shopping, but they do not fix the underlying constitutional defects.

If the court agrees with the Department of Justice and narrows the injunctions to the actual parties in the case, it must still define who counts as a party. Will that include only the named plaintiffs? Or will it extend to entire state populations listed as plaintiffs — or worse, activist groups claiming to represent all their members?

If the court accepts either of the latter definitions, it effectively reauthorizes nationwide injunctions under a different name. That outcome seems unlikely. The court will likely stop short of endorsing such a sweeping expansion of lower-court power and instead point to the existing class-action mechanism already embedded in federal rules.

Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people. The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, Supreme court, Federal courts, Unelected, Nationwide injunction, Executive orders, Constitution, Article iii, Mifepristone, Texas, Matthew kacsmaryk, Thomas rice, Fda, Department of justice, Elections 

The Trump administration has insisted on remaining on the wrong side of the abortion debate time and time again — this time with its defense of allowing the abortion pill to be accessible online and via mail.

The administration argues that Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri, who are suing over expanded access rules, lack legal standing, and, therefore, the case should be dismissed by the federal court in Texas.

These three states are challenging the FDA’s 2016 action that allows abortion pills to be used for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy rather than the previous seven, while the Department of Justice argues that this is outside the statute of limitations.

“What a battle for the Trump administration to fight,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” says, shocked. “It sure seems like the Trump administration wants to, no matter what, make sure that the abortion pill is accessed.”

However, as Stuckey has explained many times in the past, the abortion pill is an incredibly dangerous pill — and not just for the babies it kills.

“There is no requirement that you see a doctor that can verify actually how far along you are. What if you think you’re eight weeks, but you’re really 18 weeks? Well, you are, as a woman taking this pill, not only going to kill your child, but you yourself will likely die,” she says.

And a new study from the Foundation for the Restoration of America, released at the end of April, shows that the abortion pill is much more dangerous than the FDA claims. According to the study, roughly 11.2% of over 150,000 women experience a “serious adverse event” after taking the chemical abortion pill mifepristone.

Those “serious adverse events” include hemorrhaging, needing a blood transfusion, an emergency room visit, and even deadly conditions like sepsis.

“Remember, they are not taking these pills in an abortion clinic, they’re not taking them in the hospital, they’re taking them in their bathroom,” Stuckey says. “No medical supervision whatsoever.”

The rate of these serious side effects shown in this research is about 22 times higher than what the FDA put on the label for the brand name drug Mifeprex in 2023 — as they previously cited clinical studies that showed that less than .5% of women suffered serious complications.

“If you had any other drug that was kind of similar in terms of the magnitude of what this thing does, anywhere north of 2%, and they’d shut it down,” Doug Truax, founder of the Foundation for the Restoration of America, said.

“He’s absolutely right about that,” Stuckey comments, adding, “People say it’s safe and effective. Yeah, it’s effective at killing a person.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Video phone, Upload, Free, Video, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Abortion, The abortion pill, Dangers of the abortion pill, Foundation for the restoration of america, Doug truax