Category: blaze media

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought joined “The Glenn Beck Program” on Friday morning to discuss President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.

Trump’s budget bill proposes reducing non-defense discretionary spending by $163 billion, which the White House has stated will “gut[] a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security.” The budget would increase defense spending by 13% and Department of Homeland Security appropriations by 65%.

‘We are living in a world where we don’t have the ability to have unlimited tax cuts.’

“We’re working through,” Vought told Beck, noting that the House had “basically passed” a budget with $1.5 trillion in savings and $4.5 trillion in tax relief.

“We’re right there with them, trying to get it done,” he continued. “I think it would be a big savings. We could go north of that.”

Vought stated that the administration aims to seize the “historic opportunity” to extend tax cuts and ensure the “highest reforms to mandatory spending since the 1990s.”

He hopes the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means will pass the proposed budget next week.

— (@)

Beck noted that the nation’s interest-rate debt is more considerable than the defense budget.

Vought replied, “We have $36 trillion in debt,” adding that the country is paying roughly $1.1 trillion per year in interest costs.

On Wednesday, Trump stated that the administration was “making great progress on ‘The One, Big, Beautiful Bill.'”

“Our Economy is doing well, but it’s going to BOOM in a way never seen before. We are going to do NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON SENIORS’ SOCIAL SECURITY, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and much more. It will be the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far, and it is time for Main Street to WIN,” he wrote in a post on social media.

In a separate post on Friday, he addressed the “TINY” proposed tax increases on the wealthy.

“The problem with even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, ‘Read my lips,’ the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!” he stated.

Beck questioned Vought about Trump’s statements concerning raising taxes on the rich, calling it “a little scary.”

“We should be going the other way. Shouldn’t we?” he asked.

Vought replied, “I think the president ran on a set of tax proposals that he’s been very excited about … designed towards the working class that we, from an economic standpoint, also believe are really critical to getting more and more of labor force participation out of this part of the economy.”

“We are living in a world where we don’t have the ability to have unlimited tax cuts,” he said.

Beck asked Vought whether going back to the 2019 budget would be a feasible option.

“Why can’t we just reset and say, ‘We’re going back to that budget?'” he asked.

“We’re trying to do that with the budget that you saw, that we sent out,” Vought responded. “This is essentially what that budget represents. It’s an effort to go back — non-adjusted for inflation — it goes back to 2017.”

“It’s the 35% cut for most programs when we account for maintaining infrastructure and veteran spending,” he added.

Vought told Beck that he is optimistic that the administration will secure “the largest mandatory savings ever, or adjusted for inflation, since the 1997 balance budget agreement.”

He is also confident the administration will achieve a “much smaller bureaucracy.”

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

​News, Glenn beck, Russell vought, Russ vought, Economy, Budget, Donad trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Politics 

Police have made an arrest in connection with the murder of a young woman that occurred nearly 50 years ago — and investigators were tipped off about a suspect in the cold case because of a pack of cigarettes.

On Feb. 1, 1977, police discovered the body of 24-year-old Jeanette Ralston wedged tightly in the back seat of her Volkswagen Beetle in the carport area of an apartment complex in San Jose, California.

‘Cases may grow old and be forgotten by the public. We don’t forget, and we don’t give up.’

Ralston was last seen leaving the Lion’s Den bar in San Jose with a man just before midnight the night before.

“Jeanette was at a bar with two of her friends, and they were just dancing and hanging out and having a fun night out, and she ran into the man who killed her,” Santa Clara Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker told Fox News this week.

At the time, the medical examiner concluded that her cause of death was strangulation from a long-sleeve dress shirt tied around her neck. The autopsy allegedly showed evidence of sexual assault.

The killer reportedly tried to set the Volkswagen ablaze, but it did not catch fire.

Law enforcement could not identify a suspect at the time, and the murder case went cold for decades.

But last August, investigators managed a major breakthrough in the cold case — thanks to a pack of cigarettes.

Willie Eugene Sims — now a 69-year-old from Jefferson, Ohio — was named as the suspect in Ralston’s 1977 murder.

The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement, “Sims — an army private assigned to Fort Ord at the time — was convicted in 1978 for an assault to commit murder in Monterey County. Sims moved out of state before his DNA could be entered into CODIS, the state’s DNA database.”

Investigators found Sims’ fingerprints on one of Ralston’s cigarette packs.

‘I am hopeful with Mr. Sims’ arrest, the family can hold on to hope that justice will be served and, although several years later, they can finally bring some closure to their loss.’

Earlier this year, investigators with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office’s Bureau of Investigation and the San Jose Police Department traveled to Ohio to collect a DNA sample from Sims with the assistance of Ashtabula County authorities.

Weeks ago, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office’s Crime Lab reportedly found DNA consistent with Sims on Ralston’s fingernails and the shirt used to strangle her.

“This is a case that’s been haunting all the cold-case prosecutors for literally since 2011, when [our] Cold Case Unit was established,” Baker explained. “About a year ago, we decided, ‘Hey, let’s have the fingerprints in this case checked again.’ We caught a break last summer when we sent the fingerprints out, and we got a hit, which led us to the front door of Mr. Sims’ home in Ohio.”

The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office has charged Sims with the murder of Ralston. If convicted, Sims faces a prison sentence of 25 years to life.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen stated, “Every day, forensic science grows better, and every day criminals are closer to being caught. Cases may grow old and be forgotten by the public. We don’t forget, and we don’t give up.”

“Our guiding principle at the Cold Case Unit here in Santa Clara County is we never forget. We never forget the victims. We never forget the family of those victims, and we never forget the loved ones of those victims,” Baker declared. “And we’re always going to seek justice, whether it takes 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years.”

Baker added, “I talked to Jeanette’s son. He was 6 years old when she died, and he was very appreciative of the work we did and the work that we had done in the case.”

Ashtabula County Prosecutor April Grabman stated, “I am hopeful with Mr. Sims’ arrest, the family can hold on to hope that justice will be served and, although several years later, they can finally bring some closure to their loss.”

Sims is awaiting extradition to California.

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

​Murder, Cold case, Cold case solved, Cold cases, Dna evidence, Crime, California, San jose, Ohio, Willie eugene sims 

The conclave in the Vatican has elected a new pope, Cardinal Robert Prevost of Chicago, who has taken the name Pope Leo XIV.

And while many are thrilled that the Conclave elected an American pope, others are concerned that his political ideology might lean too far to the left, as Prevost hasn’t been shy about blasting Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric.

He made this clear when he shared an American Magazine article on X titled, “Pope Francis’ letter, JD Vance’s ‘ordo amoris’ and what the Gospel asks of all of us on immigration.”

The article centers around a letter Pope Francis wrote to the bishops of the United States regarding immigration and mass deportation, which was in response to the Trump administration’s focus on the immigration crisis.

The letter from Pope Francis also criticizes JD Vance’s interpretation of “ordo amoris,” which is a theological concept the vice president used in explaining his view on immigration.

“It seems like they could have picked a super conservative, and they went, ‘We’ll pick one that wants to be political again,’” Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” comments.

“They could have picked a complete looney liberal. I mean, I’m not surprised that he’s different than a conservative on immigration,” BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden counters, though he believes that “a lot of that has to do with wanting to fill the pews in Catholic churches in the United States.”

“The majority of the people, if you go to Catholic churches here, are Hispanic. So part of it is that,” Marsden continues, adding, “It’s nice that it’s an American pope though. I’m going to take that win.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Blazetv, Cardinal robert prevost, Catholic, Catholic church, Conclave, Donald trump, Joe biden, Leo xiv, Letitia james, New pope, News, Podcast, Politics, Pope, Pope election, Pope leo xiv, Robert prevost, Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales blazetv, Sara gonzales podcast, Sara gonzales show, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales unfiltered blazetv, Sara gonzales unfiltered podcast, Sara gonzales unfiltered youtube, Sara gonzales youtube, Sara gonzalez, Sarah gonzales, Tariffs, Vatican, Video, Youtube.com 

Questioning authority has proven to be generally good in the age of modern politics and health care — but sometimes those who question take it a bridge too far.

One of them, a crunchy mom influencer known as “Rose Uncharted” on Instagram, recently deconstructed from Christianity and began sharing New Age ideas and beliefs to her 165,000 followers on the social media platform.

“This is not an attack on this individual person. I’m not trying to even focus on this one individual, but the content that she has publicly produced and published on her Instagram is a really good example of false teaching that Christians need to be really aware of, especially the demographic in my audience,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” explains.

“The Christian on the crunchy side mom that tends to question authority and question the government and push back against the arbitrary rules — all of those things are great,” she continues, noting that this can lead to being “attracted to certain forms of false teaching” and “perversions of Christianity.”

While these women believe it to be “thinking outside of the box,” Stuckey says that it’s “really just the work of the devil” and an “anti-Christ philosophy.”

“Rose Uncharted” became extremely popular during COVID for pushing back against many of the regulations that didn’t make sense and were clearly restricting our freedoms — like mask and vaccine mandates.

She’s also very vocal about taking a holistic, natural approach to medicine and birth, and she asks a lot of questions about typical Western medicine. Now, she’s begun to become vocal about deconstructing.

“Now, if you don’t know what deconstruction is, I would say it’s a very polite euphemism to describe the process that a Christian goes through when they no longer believe what the Bible teaches about a lot of things in general,” Stuckey says.

In her initial announcement that she was deconstructing, “Rose Uncharted” wrote, “Stepping out of religion feels like stepping out of a room that was never built for me in the first place. It was never about truth — it was about pledging allegiance to the Bible, not as something to seek and wrestle with, but as something already decided for you, imposed upon you, interpreted for you by men through the ages with a variety of intentions, good and bad.”

“I’ve come to believe Christianity is a corrupt and flawed man-made system designed to keep us afraid of ourselves, afraid of our own instincts, afraid of wanting more, afraid of our very own hearts,” she continued. “Now, the unknown is no longer a threat to me — it’s an invitation.”

“She’s saying that outside of religion she has been able to really find God, find God for herself,” Stuckey explains, noting that this February, the influencer made a Western versus Eastern comparison.

“I see this so much in progressive circles. The demonization of the Western lens and the Western mentality, as if Western civilization, because of Christianity, isn’t responsible for the concept of human rights,” she continues, adding, “I loathe that.”

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.

​Allie beth, Allie beth stuckey, Allie on blaze tv, Allie on the blaze, Allie stuckey, Blazetv, Christ consciousness, Christ consciousness explained, Christian podcast, Christianity, Conservative, Crtv, Deconstructing christianity, Deconstructing faith, God, Jac marino, Jac marino chen, Jesus, Jesus christ, New age, New age beliefs, News, Politics, Relatable podcast, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable with allie stuckey, Rose uncharted, Scripture, Share the arrows, Theology, Video, Youtube.com 

Former ESPN host Kate Fagan delivered a diversity and inclusion statement on her final appearance on the network.

Fagan, who previously worked on some of ESPN’s radio shows and has been a guest on others, made what was deemed to be her final appearance on “Around the Horn.”

“Around the Horn” first debuted in 2004 with Max Kellerman as host, but he was soon replaced by Tony Reali, a fan favorite statistician from ESPN’s popular program “Pardon the Interruption.”

While “Around the Horn” was seen as a sort of spiritual spinoff with Reali, the show has certainly showcased a hard left-wing bias over the years. It was also recently announced the show would be taken off the air before fall of 2025, so Reali has used the homestretch to invite back some of his favorite guests.

For the episode in question, that meant race-focused reporter Jemele Hill and reporter Justin Tinsley, who recently criticized the Philadelphia Eagles for visiting the White House.

Fagan stole the show with her remarks, however, and having last appeared on the program in 2018, she took advantage of the cameo to make one of the most radical statements possible.

‘Trans kids deserve that the same as everybody else does.’

“Being on this show has been a privilege and a platform, and I know it’s my last time on it. And I wanna say something worthy of that privilege and platform, and that is this: that trans kids deserve to play sports,” Fagan began.

“Think about what you remember from your time playing sports. Like, 99% of it is finding that jersey for the first time, your favorite number, community, joy, those high fives,” she continued.

Seemingly reading from a prepared statement, Fagan went on:

“It’s that moment when you have a great play with a teammate. It’s the feeling of belonging and it does not know gender. And trans kids deserve that the same as everybody else does.”

Fagan then directed her comments to host Reali and declared his show has been about DEI all along.

“And Tony, this space, on ‘Around the Horn,’ it’s been about diversity and inclusion, lifting up new voices because sports is joy and sports is humanity. And the more people who have that, the better. And Tony, I love you. So thanks for having me back on.”

Missing from Fagan’s rant was the fact that many young males have taken spots from, and injured, young female athletes in their pursuit of competing as a girl. At the same time, “trans kids” are obviously not banned or restricted from playing sports. If they are male, they are simply asked to play against other males. If they are female, they are free to compete against males as well, but they cannot compete against females if they are given steroids or male hormones.

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

​Fearless, Espn, Around the horn, Transgenderism, Women’s sports, Sports 

Ed Martin, the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was spit on by a presumed leftist while he was giving an interview to Newsmax.

A woman started screaming at Martin while walking her dog. She approached Martin, who was caught off guard, and said, “You are Ed Martin!” As Martin started to ask, “How are you?” the woman spat on him before storming off, video showed.

“Hope she’s ready for a nice stretch in jail,” said Newsmax host Rob Schmitt.

“Among the many reasons that I wear that great coat,” Martin quipped about the incident.

Spitting on someone can be considered simple assault, which could carry a punishment of a $1,000 fine and 180 days in jail if convicted.

Trump also announced on Thursday that his new pick to be the US attorney for DC is Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Martin has made an impact during his short tenure as the acting U.S. attorney for D.C., working to make the nation’s capital safer as crime became a problem once again in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement and riots. Martin was unable to get enough support from Senate Republicans to get confirmation to the position, resulting in anger directed at the GOP “no” votes from President Donald Trump’s base.

When Trump announced he was withdrawing Martin’s nomination, he said there will be another role for him. That role later turned out to be working at the Department of Justice as an associate deputy attorney general and pardon attorney.

“Ed Martin has done an AMAZING job as interim U.S. Attorney, and will be moving to the Department of Justice as the new Director of the Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney. In these highly important roles, Ed will make sure we finally investigate the Weaponization of our Government under the Biden Regime, and provide much needed Justice for its victims. Congratulations Ed!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Trump also announced on Thursday that his new pick to be the U.S. attorney for D.C. is Judge Jeanine Pirro, who worked as the assistant district attorney for Westchester County, New York, and a county judge before her extensive career at Fox News.

“During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime. Her establishment of the Domestic Violence Bureau in her Prosecutor’s Office was the first in the Nation. She excelled in all ways,” Trump explained.

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

​Politics, Newsmax, Ed martin 

President Donald Trump allegedly urged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) during a phone call Wednesday to raise the top tax rate, albeit at a much higher income level, and close the carried interest loophole amid Republican lawmakers’ efforts to finalize their Trump agenda bill.

The president indicated a change of mind Friday morning, however, suggesting on Truth Social that “Republicans should probably not do it.”

Last month, Trump and Johnson shot down the idea of a tax hike on the wealthiest Americans.

The president said in his April 22 interview with Time magazine, “I certainly don’t mind having a tax increase.”

‘Our party is the group that stands against that traditionally.’

“I actually love the concept,” continued Trump, “but I don’t want it to be used against me politically, because I’ve seen people lose elections for less, especially with the fake news.”

The following day, Trump came out against the idea more forcefully, telling reporters in the Oval Office that the idea of a tax hike was “very disruptive,” as it might prompt wealthy individuals to flee the country, reported Politico.

“You know, the old days, they left states. They go from one state to the other. Now with transportation so quick and so easy, they leave countries. You lose a lot of money if you do that,” said Trump.

Johnson similarly came out swinging against a tax hike on April 23, telling “The Will Cain Show” last month, “We have been working against that idea. I’m not in favor of raising the tax rates because our party is the group that stands against that traditionally.”

A number of provisions enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 are set to expire in December. Unless lawmakers extend the cuts, tax brackets will revert back to pre-TCJA levels. Accordingly the top individual, estate, and income tax bracket would return to 39.6% from the current rate of 37%.

One unnamed Republican source said to be familiar with Trump’s Wednesday call with Johnson told NBC News that the president was considering allowing the rate to revert to 39.6% “to protect Medicaid and help pay for middle- and working-class tax cuts.”

Multiple sources suggested to The Hill that while the White House advocated for allowing the top marginal income tax rate cut to expire, the administration wanted to see the 2017 cuts extended for Americans in the lower tax brackets. While the top income bracket starts this year at $626,350 per individual, the New York Times indicated the proposed restoration of the previous top rate would apply to individuals earning over $2.5 million annually.

The Hill noted that a spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee declined to comment on any policy specifics under consideration, and the White House did not return the outlet’s request for comment.

‘I’m OK if they do!’

When asked about the proposed tax income increase on the upper brackets, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told “The Hugh Hewitt Show” Thursday that he was “not excited about the proposal but I have to say there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are.”

Crapo added, “If the president weighs in in favor of it, then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration.”

Trump noted in a social media post on Friday, “The problem with even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, ‘Read my lips,’ the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election.”

“NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election!” continued Trump. “In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!”

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

​Tax hike, Tax, Republicans, Bill, Donald trump, Income, Tax cuts, Politics 

The Trump administration has launched a full-blown war on Ivy League schools refusing to comply with the law. Between the University of Pennsylvania’s Title IX violations and Harvard’s refusal to address anti-Semitism on campus, the battle against rampant academia-spawned wokeism continues to rage.

On Thursday, White House policy strategist May Mailman dropped a bombshell allegation — and it makes the goings-on at UPenn and Harvard look tame. Columbia University students were prepared for Hamas’ October 7 attack.

On a recent episode of “Blaze News: The Mandate,” May Mailman joined Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson to share the harrowing details as well as the direction she sees universities going now that Trump is in office.

Trump White House: Columbia Students TIPPED OFF About Oct. 7 Attack! | The Mandate | 5/8/25

“Columbia was the epicenter of anti-Semitism around October 7,” says Mailman.

She’s right — Columbia University was the first Ivy League school to launch significant pro-Palestinian protests during the 2023-2024 academic year. The April 2024 encampment that led to the occupation of Hamilton Hall marked the first major, widely publicized protest that catalyzed the broader movement.

Perhaps that’s because the school’s Palestinian activist groups were privy to information the rest of us weren’t.

“Before October 7, their student groups were tweeting basically to get excited for October. They knew that this attack was going to happen before it happened. That’s how much terrorism was embedded in Columbia,” says Mailman, noting that the protests were so violent, NYPD had to be called in to break up the chaos at Hamilton Hall.

Given that the university is located in a liberal city with open campus access to outsiders, including student visa holders, the anti-Semitism at Columbia is not really all that surprising.

However, hope is on the horizon, says Mailman.

“Students should not be victims of racism in their admission, in their experience on campus, and so I think that is the type of change you’re going to see — structural changes so that we don’t have these instances in the Columbia library to begin with.”

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

Want more from ‘Blaze News | The Mandate’?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Blaze news tonight, Blaze news the mandate, Jill savage, Matthew peterson, May mailman, Columbia university protest, Anti semitism, Academia, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Letitia James, the rabidly anti-Trump attorney general of New York, is now officially under criminal investigation in connection with the fraud allegations that surfaced last month.

Reports indicate that James has repeatedly falsified real estate documents dating all the way back to 1983, when she and her father apparently listed themselves as husband and wife.

‘I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.’

In 2001, James purchased a multi-unit residence in Brooklyn and then listed the residence as having only four units when previous filings listed the property as having five units. In a letter sent last month to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte claimed that James fudged the number of units to qualify for a conforming loan from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

More recently, in August 2023, James and a relative purchased a home in Norfolk, Virginia. In a specific power of attorney document related to the purchase, James stated: “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” New York law requires all statewide officeholders like James to reside in New York full-time.

According to Pulte, these misrepresentations of facts would have helped James “secure a lower mortgage rate” and mortgage-related “government assistance.” Pulte requested that the Department of Justice investigate James for possible crimes such as wire, mail, and bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Presumably in response to Pulte’s criminal referral, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Albany have now opened a criminal investigation into James. The Guardian reported on Thursday that federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Maryland have already impaneled a grand jury to consider the evidence, and the Washington Post reported that a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has likewise subpoenaed evidence for the allegations regarding the Norfolk home.

The FBI and James’ office declined a request for comment from the New York Post.

James has characterized the allegations as “baseless” and accused the Trump administration of retaliating against her for suing the Trump Organization. In that lawsuit, James leveled allegations that resemble those she now faces, accusing Trump and his associates of overvaluing properties to secure better lending terms with banks and insurance companies.

Though a New York jury sided with James in the Trump lawsuit and issued a staggering $450 million judgment, that case remains under appeal and a New York appeals court has already signaled support for overturning or at least reducing it.

‘One of those references to her being her father’s “wife” was just below her signature.’

Because of that litigation, the New York AG’s office hired an attorney to represent James, a move that indicates state taxpayers will be funding James’ legal representation even as she fights allegations that she committed mortgage fraud in a private capacity.

Moreover, the attorney the office hired, Abbe Lowell, has made a name for himself representing anti-Trump Democrats and their allies. For instance, Lowell was in the news recently for representing Hunter Biden in the weapons and tax-evasion cases against him. Biden was convicted in both cases, but his father, former President Joe Biden, pardoned Hunter in his final weeks in office even after repeatedly promising he would not do so.

In response to Pulte’s letter about James, Lowell sent his own letter to Bondi that insisted the accusations against his client were “long-disproven” and the evidence “cherry-picked.”

Lowell claimed that in 1983, when James was 24 years old and fresh out of law school, her father filled out the mortgage application “without his daughter’s involvement.” A screenshot of the document appears to show Letitia James’ signature on it, and even the Times Union noted that “one of those references to her being her father’s ‘wife’ was just below her signature.”

Letitia James, 66, has never been married.

Lowell also claimed that other city documents list James’ Brooklyn residence as having only four units and that James has used the building as a four-unit residence since she purchased it in 2001. The Times Union expressed doubt that “as the property owner, James had the ability to declare the residence would be four units instead of five for tax and financing purposes.”

In connection with the purchase of the Virginia property in 2023, Lowell claimed that two weeks before the power-of-attorney document, James wrote to the mortgage broker, “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence,” adding that it would be the primary residence of the relative with whom she made the purchase. “The broker understood this,” Lowell insisted and designated James as a “non-occupying co-borrower.”

While James and her attorney have made rejoinders against the allegations, legal scholar Jonathan Turley called the evidence against her “damning” and noted that in her ruthless pursuit of Trump, James may have unwittingly set a legal standard that she will be unable to meet.

“She insisted that these technicalities matter and that the powerful should not be given a free pass,” Turley told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on April 15. “Well, that bill has come due.”

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

​Abbe lowell, Donald trump, Fraud, Hunter biden, Letitia james, Mortgage fraud, New york, Politics 

The REAL ID Act is now in effect, and some Americans are concerned about what it means for their freedom — and after everything the country has been put through over the last five years, their fears are not unfounded.

The new rule mandates that U.S. travelers present a federally compliant ID, such as a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or passport, to board domestic flights and access certain federal facilities.

Those without compliant IDs will no longer be accepted at TSA checkpoints, potentially causing delays or denial of entry for those without proper identification. They may also face additional screening or be barred from flying.

“If you plan on traveling, we need your help to prevent delays and to prove your identity. Get a REAL ID. Starting May 7, you will need a REAL ID to travel by air or to visit federal buildings in the United States. These IDs keep our country safe because they help prevent fraud and they enhance security,” United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a statement.

“Please do your part to protect our country. Go today, and don’t delay,” she added.

According to Keith Malinak of “Pat Gray Unleashed,” Ron Paul was sounding the alarm about this decades ago, “warning us of submitting to this, and how it could be setting you up for databases of all sorts of information.”

“But I mean, they already have it,” Pat Gray counters, adding, “We’ve been desensitized to all of this now, and so I don’t know that anybody cares.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Video phone, Video, Upload, Camera phone, Free, Youtube.com, Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Keith malinak, Blaze originals, Blaze online, Real id, Kristi noem, Secretary of homeland security, Freedom 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo to senior Pentagon leaders on Thursday notifying them that the time has come to begin kicking trans-identifying service members to the curb.

In a corresponding video on X captioned, “TRANS is out at the DOD,” Hegseth said, “This is what the American people voted for.”

According to Hegseth’s memo, trans-identifying active-duty service members have until June 6 “to self-identify for voluntary separation” from the service. Trans-identifying reservists have until July 7 to do so. Those who volunteer to leave or have done so already are eligible for voluntary separation pay.

Following this “self-identification eligibility window,” all remaining transvestites with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria will be forced out.

The Pentagon indicated in February that there were 4,240 troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria, although the number of trans-identifying troops might be higher.

Chief Pentagon spokesman and senior adviser Sean Parnell indicated Thursday that “approximately 1,000 service members who have self-identified as being diagnosed with gender dysphoria will begin the voluntary separation process.”

“As the President of the United States clearly stated in Executive Order 14183, ‘Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,’ January 27, 2025, expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for Military Service,” said Hegseth’s memo. “Service by individuals with a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibiting symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is not in the best interest of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”

President Donald Trump stressed in his Jan. 27 order that the military’s policy to establish “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity” is incompatible with the accommodations sought and health constraints faced by gender-dysphoric individuals.

— (@)

Hegseth sent the memo two days after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a lesser court’s nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump’s transvestite military ban, pending the outcome of the government’s appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

‘We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind.’

The three liberal justices on the high court indicated they would have denied the Trump administration’s application for a stay in U.S. v. Shilling.

The non-straight activist outfits that initially secured the block on Trump’s transvestite ban, Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign Foundation, did not handle the news well, calling the stay a “devastating blow to transgender servicemembers.”

“The Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice,” added the LGBT outfits.

Within hours of the Supreme Court issuing a temporary victory for the administration, Hegseth said in a speech, “We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns. No more climate change obsession. No more emergency vaccine mandates. No more dudes in dresses, we’re done with that s**t. We’re focused on lethality, meritocracy, accountability standards, and readiness.”

The Pentagon’s rapid response account on X echoed Hegseth, writing Thursday evening, “No more pronouns. No more drag shows. No more dudes in dresses. NO MORE TRANS AT THE DOD.”

In addition to improving readiness, the departures may result in some savings. The New York Times reported that as of this year, the military has blown $52 million on transvestic service members’ sex-change-related medical bills since 2015, including for genital mutilations and hormone therapy.

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

​Transgender, Military, Pete hegseth, Pentagon, Trans, Trans ban, Transgender ban, Transvestite, Armed forces, Gender ideology, Supreme court, Donald trump, Trump, Politics 

Blue-state Republicans are ready for battle. Their goal is to restore the state and local tax deductions, or SALT, that allow Americans in high-tax states and localities to deduct what they pay locally from the amount of taxes they owe the federal government. Conservatives are loath to let the federal government bail out high-tax blue states and need that revenue to pass President Donald Trump’s budget through the Senate’s reconciliation process.

But the Northeast Republicans aren’t budging — yet.

The reality of DC politics is you can always count on the moderates to cave.

Republicans first passed a $10,000 cap to SALT reductions in Trump 45’s 2017 tax cuts. The move was sold as a fair and cost-effective way of paying for them, but the cap immediately enraged blue-state Republicans, whose wealthier constituents (and donors) relied on SALT.

These congressmen saw the caps as an attack on them, and they weren’t entirely wrong. In the modern American party breakdown, the Republican moderates derive their power virtually entirely through their closeness to leadership. The liberal wing of the party’s frequent attacks on the president left them isolated. Why keep bailing out blue-state budget blowouts? Why give them a hand? Conservative Washington chuckled plenty when the caps first passed.

Since then, many of these Republicans have campaigned on the promise of lifting the SALT cap to reward their wealthiest voters (read: donors). One congressman floated a $100,000 cap, as if anyone paying six figures in state and local taxes needed a break.

Busting the SALT caps is their top priority. They see returning home without a win here as a threat to their political survival. “It is a hill I am willing to stake my entire congressional career on,” New York Republican Nick LaLota vowed.

“If I vote for a cap that I can’t sell at home, I might as well just pack up my office now,” warned his fellow New Yorker, Rep. Andrew Garbarino. He’s got a point, but so do the congressional conservatives working to cover the costs of making the president’s signature tax cuts permanent.

The reality of D.C. politics is you can always count on the moderates to cave. Their relationship to leadership is their lifeline, so sinking the president’s all-important budget isn’t in the cards. They are, however, fighting a lot harder than most expected on this — and that tenacity is sure to win them concessions.

A $100,000 cap is essentially off the table, because 1) carve-outs for people that wealthy run completely against the messaging of the middle-class tax cuts and general MAGA agenda, and 2) the strict rules of reconciliation make it too difficult to afford.

In the end, the moderates will likely get something — but not everything. Every vote counts, after all — from all sides of the GOP. And while they won’t have the stomach to actually tank the bill, when forced into a corner, even a moderate Republican will make trouble. One negotiations insider told the Beltway Brief that number will probably look like a $30,000 cap — enough to tell constituents you tripled their write-off without open intraparty war.

But don’t expect it to be the end of the battle. Look for the Northeast Republicans to switch seamlessly to fighting Medicaid cuts next. But more on that in another newsletter.

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter

Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

Sports have had barriers broken many times throughout history, and without hesitation, the accomplishments have been celebrated. For some reason, transgender women, also known as biological men, have been welcomed into women’s sports both in the United States and abroad in the same manner: as a glass-breaking moment in sports lore.

As President Trump’s executive order aimed at keeping women’s sports for women — and women only — works its way throughout U.S. athletic systems, women seem to be closer than ever to getting back to fair competition.

However, once the country is on the other side, there will likely be as much denial as there has been throughout the ordeal, which to its core is a denial of reality and biological truth.

Blaze News has investigated and continues to investigate the phenomenon of men in women’s athletics and can now provide an (unfortunately) expansive list of instances where men have invaded the female divisions of sport.

Please note that some of these athletes have competed against women for multiple years, with their most recent competition listed.

United States

May 2025: Ana Caldas, a male who has gone by both the names “Hugo” and “Hannah,” won five events at a women’s swimming competition in San Antonio, Texas.

Caldas competed in the women’s 45-49 category and won the 50-yard freestyle, 100-yard freestyle, 50-yard breaststroke, 100-yard breaststroke, and the 100-yard individual medley. Caldas won three of the races by at least three seconds.

In Minnesota, also in May, a 6′ male athlete was the starting pitcher in the season opener for a women’s softball team. The 17-year-old allegedly hid his real gender from his team and was revealed through investigative journalists to have had his sex changed on his birth certificate shortly after turning 9 years old.

The male pitched a shutout with 14 strikeouts and also hit a double.

April 2025: A group of four high school girls from Oregon refused to participate against a male in track and field. The male named, “Liaa” Rose, won girls’ high jump with a jump height of 4’10” and beat 18 girls he competed against.

Sophia Carpenter said she and three other females forfeited the competition after learning they would be competing against a boy.

Rose had already won a girls’ high jump competition earlier in the month, despite having finished dead last in the boys’ division at the same tournament a year prior.

A male athlete named Annika Rose Suchoski inspired a protest after competing in a women’s fencing event in California. The 6′ 40-year-old was participating in the women’s division for the second straight year.

Suchoski made headlines in 2024 after coming in second in a women’s fencing tournament just six months after taking up the sport, the Daily Mail reported.

That same month, a woman walked off a disc golf tournament platform in Nashville, Tennessee, after learning a male athlete would be competing in the women’s division.

Abigail Wilson faked an initial throw before she revealed she was abandoning the competition in protest of Natalie Ryan, a male who believes he is female.

Also in April 2025, Stephanie Turner of the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia forfeited a match just before she was set to take on a male fencer at a women’s tournament in Maryland.

Turner was matched against Wagner College’s Redmond Sullivan, who approached the female and declared he was supported by the board of directors and was allowed to participate against women.

Turner said she knew this and forfeited anyway.

It was soon revealed that Sullivan had won two out of six competitions since entering female competitions but had only ever reached third place as a male.

March 2025: A high school male athlete won the girls’ 400-meter varsity race by more than seven seconds.

Aayden “Ada” Gallagher, an 11th-grade sprinter from McDaniel High School in Portland, also won the girls’ 200-meter race.

Gallagher won both races in 2024, as well, in addition to winning the girls’ 200-meter at the Oregon state finals in 2024.

February 2025: A male high school athlete in Maine took third place in girls’ Nordic skiing at the state championships.

The boy, named Soren Stark-Chessa, secured enough points on his own to ensure his school placed third overall.

Stark-Chessa was accused of cheating in 2023 when he placed fifth in girls’ cross-country running after having previously being ranked 172nd as a boy.

Also in February, a boy from Maine’s Greely High School won first place in girls’ pole vault at the Maine Indoor Track Meet. The 10th-grader previously competed against boys as John before competing against girls under the name Katie.

John/Katie jumped 11 feet, a height that would have placed him in 10th against the males at the same competition.

January 2025: A male basketball player dominated girls and almost outscored the entire competition on his own. Henry Hanlon scored 29 points to lead San Francisco Waldorf High School to a 59-53 victory over Jewish Community High School.

January also saw a male college athlete set facility records at Brockport’s Rust Buster, a track and field event in New York. Camden Schreiner, who goes by “Sadie,” set records by winning the women’s 200-meter dash in 24.50 seconds and the women’s 400-meter dash in 55.91 seconds. The times were also program records, according to his school, the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Schreiner made headlines in January 2024 after breaking school records for the women’s 200-meter and 300-meter sprints and placing first in the 4×400-meter relay. He earned a Liberty League Women’s Track & Field Performer of the Week award, according to KATV.

November 2024: Two female cross-country runners from Martin Luther King High School said they wore T-shirts that read “Save Girls’ Sports” on the front and “It’s Common Sense. XX ≠ XY” on the back to protest a male athlete participating in female athletics at their school.

Kaitlyn and Taylor said Taylor had been bumped from the cross-country team in order to make room for the boy, who did not have to regularly attend practices or meet eligibility requirements for the varsity team. When the girls wore the pro-women shirts, they were told by their athletics director that wearing the shirts around a transgender athlete was akin to wearing a swastika around a Jewish student.

October 2024: A Catholic high school girls’ soccer team in New Hampshire refused to play a game against a team with a boy on it. Bishop Brady High School refused to play against Kearsage Regional High School for having a male athlete, a violation of state law.

The male athlete named Maelle Jacques played goalkeeper on the girls’ soccer team and previously won the state championship for girls’ high jump in February 2024.

September 2024: In another high-profile instance, San Jose State University utilized a 6’1″ male athlete named Brayden “Blaire” Fleming to lead the women’s volleyball team to their best season in program history.

Fleming may have caused a national movement, spawning protests and forfeits from multiple teams, and even his own teammate spoke out against him.

July 2024: In what has become a rather famous story, a 17-year-old female volleyball player suffered paralysis and brain damage after getting hit in the face with the ball by a male player.

Payton McNabb had brain damage and paralysis on her right side and also had trouble walking for some time.

October 2023: Several female athletes dropped out of a women’s jiu-jitsu tournament after they were slated to compete against males who identify as female.

Two women had previously competed against a male named Cordelia Gregory, one of several men reportedly competing in women’s jiu-jitsu tournaments under the North American Grappling Association.

Toward the end of the month, NAGA officially changed its policy to remove men from women’s competitions and gave them the option to compete against other men or not compete at all.

August 2023: In an exception to the rule, a transgender athlete dropped out of a competition in women’s tennis in Wyoming, but claimed it was due to a safety risk. Brooklyn Ross (a male) began identifying as a woman around 2017 and then played college tennis starting in 2019.

Ross admitted there were no direct threats to him.

March 2023: A high school basketball coach from Massachusetts admitted to having a “secret weapon” on the girls’ team, referring to a 6’3″ male named Addie Ruter.

Ruter dominated the playoffs and was referred to as a girl despite obvious physical advantages that allowed him to garner at least five double-doubles in the playoffs.

February 2023: The varsity girls’ basketball team at a Christian high school in Vermont forfeited a match against a team with a male athlete.

Mid Vermont Christian School refused to play against Dorset in the first round of the Vermont Division IV girls’ varsity tournament after the team learned that one member of the other team is actually a male.

The team soon took the state to court after the school was banned from state-wide athletic activities as a result of the refusal to play.

May 2019: College athlete Cece Telfer won the women’s 400-meter hurdles national NCAA title.

The New Hampshire male vowed to return years later and mocked female athletes as he said he was going to take “all the records.”

International

April 2025: Two men met in the final of a women’s billiards tournament in England. Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, both males, beat four women each to reach the finals of the 32-player tournament.

Under the English Pool Association, in order for a male to play in the female category, the athlete must have “declared that her gender identity is female.”

Unsurprisingly, the two have met in competition before.

January 2025: A transgender college basketball player was captured on video flattening female athletes and was later revealed to have broken multiple women’s records in Canada.

Harriette Mackenzie, a 6’2” male basketball player in his third year in women’s athletics, knocked over at least six women in a physically dominating display.

Mackenzie held records in women’s basketball in the following categories: most single-season total rebounds (212), offensive rebounds in a season (86), rebounds per game (10.6), total free throws made in a season (90), playoff points in a single game (22), and double-doubles in a season (10).

August 2024: An Australian soccer team that featured five males won the league without losing a single match.

The team is called the Flying Bats and was described as soccer club for “self-identified women and non-binary people.”

The team scored 61 goals with just six against and amassed a 14-0 record. The team made headlines earlier in the season with a 10-0 victory in which one of the male players scored six goals.

July 2024: The Summer Olympics in Paris were rocked by two biological males competing, and winning gold, in women’s boxing.

Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu‑ting of Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) both were disqualified from competitions in 2023, but won against women in the 66 kg and the 57 kg categories at the Olympics, respectively.

Khelif, who has refused to come to terms with testing, was revealed by examiners in November 2024 to have testicles, a penis, and XY chromosomes. The medical technicians who revealed this were in agreement with the International Boxing Association and the World Boxing Organization, which had both previously claimed that Khelif was born a man.

May 2024: A British female dart thrower refused to compete against a male athlete in a tournament.

Deta Hedman refused to participate in a match against male Noa-Lynn van Leuven in the Denmark Open tournament. Van Leuven was actually the defending champion from 2023.

April 2024: A male won a professional women’s golf tournament in Australia and called it a “special” feeling.

42-year-old Breanna Gill first started playing in women’s tournaments in 2015 and began winning them in 2018.

The LPGA Tour added a rule against almost all males by the end of the year and declared that anyone who had gone through male puberty is unable to compete against women.

August 2023: A 40-year-old man set an unofficial women’s world record at a women’s powerlifting event in Western Canada.

Anne Andres, 40, won the Canadian Powerlifting Union’s 2023 Western Canadian Championship by lifting a combined score of 1,317 pounds, far more than the second-place finisher, a woman, SuJan Gil, who lifted 854 pounds.

It was reported at the time that Andres set a new Canadian women’s national record and an unofficial women’s world record.

December 2022: A transgender hockey player injured in a woman in a tournament.

The National Hockey League promoted the “Team Trans Draft Tournament,” which resulted in a player reportedly named Mason “(he/him/his),” concussing a female player. One attendee cited an “enormous difference” in player size.

March 2021: A male volleyball player was named a “pioneer” in women’s volleyball and given an award.

Tiffany Abreu, a man, was heralded as standing up to “anti-transgender hate” and was applauded for wanting to compete as a woman in the Olympics.

Lia Thomas

With honorable mention, William “Lia” Thomas cannot be forgotten. The male swimmer’s success against women was unparalleled and led him to win NCAA championship races despite being ranked 554th in the 200-meter freestyle as a man. He placed fifth in the nation against women.

Thomas was the poster child for the advantages males have over women, as well as the example most have turned to when showcasing that women have been shut down when trying to stand up for themselves.

Some swimmers were told they may have psychological problems because they had issues with competing against, or changing in the same room as, a man. Others said they were bumped into by Thomas with his genitals in the locker room.

Straight denial from governing bodies like the NCAA and even politicians did not help women in their plight.

One NCAA executive pleaded ignorance over the ordeal, while NCAA President Charlie Baker said he was simply following federal law and societal norms by letting men compete against women in their sports.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) suggested the issue wasn’t important at all when he pointed to just “10 or fewer” transgender athletes in the NCAA out of 510,000 normal athletes.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) declared in March 2025 that the issue was not an issue at all and sarcastically asked constituents to “find the little trans child” who is ruining people’s lives.

This opposition is normal for women, whether it is being told they “shouldn’t be talking” for the male athlete or being abandoned by their universities.

“People have legitimately blacklisted me for being outspoken about men in women’s sports and spaces,” said writer Natasha Biase, who writes about women’s issues. “But this isn’t because most people are genuinely passionate about trans rights. It’s because people feel like it’s the empathetic thing to say so they can avoid any type of conflict.”

“A lot of people say it’s not happening … that they are obliterating women in sports,” she added.

Former gymnast and entrepreneur Jennifer Sey agreed, saying gender ideologues and trans activists try to control language by insisting that “trans women are women.”

“They feel justified threatening me and my employees with violence.

Both women agreed that much of the sentiment is pushed by social media and educational institutions and said that some women will not stop standing up for biological reality, “no matter how loud and bullying the angry minority is.”

​Fearless, T3, Transgenderism, Women’s sports, Wokeness, Women’s rights, United states, Canada, Australia, United kingdom, Sports 

Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has become a pocket-size gospel for progressives in the age of Trump — a secular catechism of 20 rules to resist looming fascism. It’s pitched not just as a historical analysis but as an urgent survival guide, borrowed from the dark lessons of the 20th century. The message is clear: Authoritarianism is always just one election away, and Donald Trump is its orange-faced harbinger.

Such moral urgency unmoored from historical context tends to collapse into political theater, however. “On Tyranny” is not a serious book. It is an emotive pamphlet that relies less on the actual historical complexities of rising tyranny than on the reader’s willingness to conflate MAGA hats with brownshirts.

Snyder believes a tyrant is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Such historical flattening is the first and most obvious flaw in Snyder’s argument. He leans heavily on the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to suggest that Trump’s rise follows the same trajectory. But this is not serious analysis — it’s emotional manipulation. It’s one thing to warn against patterns; it’s another to flatten every populist movement into a prequel to genocide.

Snyder, a Yale historian, surely knows better. But “On Tyranny” depends on your feeling like you’re living in 1933 — whether or not such historical parallels are actually true. And they’re not.

A democratic mandate

Snyder warns against the rise of a single leader claiming to represent the will of the people and establishing a one-party state — equating the 2016 Republican sweep of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Hitler’s consolidation of the Third Reich. Such a comparison isn’t just blatantly false; it’s a cruel dismissal of the democratic will of the people for merely voting in Republican candidates.

Surely Snyder didn’t accuse Barack Obama of fascist one-party rule when he and the Democrats swept the White House and Congress in 2008. Such electoral outcomes aren’t a harbinger of fascism. No, no! That was a mandate from the American people, democratically spoken, demanding change from the status quo. Voters sent that message loud and clear in 2008 — as well as in 2016 and 2024.

Snyder’s false equivalency counts on fear rather than critical thinking — any semblance of which would entice Democrats to pause for a moment of self-reflection and listen to what the American people are saying through the electoral process. But Snyder’s one-sided alarmism silences the electoral voice — merely because it rallied behind Trump.

Civic theater

Snyder’s advice to citizens reads like a secular sermon: “Defend institutions.” “Stand out.” “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” On the surface, it sounds noble — defiant, even. But strip away the aesthetic of resistance, and what’s left is a deeply superficial understanding of civic virtue.

What exactly are we defending when we’re told to “support the press” or “protect truth”? In practice, Snyder’s rules amount to an uncritical loyalty to legacy institutions that have forfeited public trust — media outlets that gaslight, bureaucracies that bloat, and experts who contradict themselves while silencing dismissive voices.

Snyder dismisses the possibility that institutions can rot from within, that the loudest defenders of “truth” are often its gravest opponents. Instead, he offers something simpler: the feeling of resistance while catering to the institutional elites.

The real culprits

The irony of “On Tyranny” is that the tactics Snyder warns against — censorship, moral panic, political conformity — have not come from MAGA rallies but from the very institutions Snyder holds up as guardians of democracy. It wasn’t Trump who quashed dissenting speech on COVID-19 or colluded with social media companies to throttle viewpoints that didn’t conform with the government’s narrative. It was the political elite and their complicit peddlers in the mainstream media and social media companies.

Unfortunately for Snyder’s brand, tyranny doesn’t always wear a red hat. Sometimes it comes in the name of “safety,” or “science,” or “social justice.” Sometimes it cancels you over a social media post, not because you’re dangerous, but because you’re not sufficiently obedient.

If Snyder were genuinely concerned with authoritarianism in all its forms, he might have warned against this progressive impulse to control thought and punish deviation. Instead, he gives it cover — because the real threat, in his mind, is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Less performance, more courage

Snyder is right about one thing: democracies don’t die overnight. But they do die when fear replaces thought, when virtue becomes branding, and when citizens outsource their moral judgment to bureaucracies and mainstream news.

“On Tyranny” offers the illusion of courage but none of the substance. It is performance art disguised as resistance. To preserve freedom, we should defend institutions and champion truth. But that requires holding corrupt actors in such institutions accountable, whether it be within the federal government or legacy media. That was the democratic mandate communicated loud and clear in 2024, and if Snyder were genuinely concerned about defending democracy, he would listen.

​Opinion & analysis, Tyranny, Donald trump, Timothy snyder, Maga, Nazi germany, Dictatorship, Authoritarian, Stalinism, Soviet union, Totalitarianism, Lies, Institutions, Democracy 

If the U.S. Department of Education suddenly went away, what would change for local families and communities? Not much.

For starters, the Department of Education doesn’t “educate” anyone. It’s a middleman. Americans send their taxes to Washington, D.C., the bureaucracy takes a big chunk of it to pay staff and overhead, and the rest is sent to states and local communities with a bunch of red tape. Reducing that bureaucracy should save money, which means schools could actually receive more funding.

Parents are better at making decisions for their children than federal bureaucrats.

Furthermore, there’s no evidence that the federal involvement has improved education. Since the department was created in 1980, federal per-pupil spending has skyrocketed, but results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — also known as the Nation’s Report Card — have been largely stagnant.

Yet a recent Fast Company article declared that ending the Department of Education “would be disastrous for Title I schools,” with a special emphasis on Greater Johnstown Public Schools in Pennsylvania. And who is making that claim? Not surprisingly, it’s largely people who benefit from the current system, including the head of the local and state teachers’ unions, the director of the law firm that’s led efforts to increase school taxes, and the director of a policy center that has historically received substantial funding from unions.

When your only arguments are nothing more than fearmongering, you’ve ceded the debate.

Title I will remain

For better or worse, ending the Department of Education would not end Title I funding, which is supposed to help low-income students. Title I existed before the Department of Education and would likely be administered through a different department if the agency were shuttered.

As with other federal involvement, we have no evidence that Title I has been effective overall. For example, the Nation’s Report Card has for decades shown a consistent achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically-disadvantaged students.

There has been talk of changing how Title I is distributed to improve its effectiveness. One option is converting the funding to block grants that states could administer with fewer strings. This would put decision-making power closer to the students who are impacted by these decisions and enable state leaders to direct funds where they see the most need. It would be an improvement over the current Washington-based system.

Better still would be to bypass the states and convert the funding to scholarships, enabling parents to choose the educational support that their children need. Ultimately, there’s no constitutional role for the federal government when it comes to education, which makes sense given the impossibility of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., knowing what’s best for children in, say, Pennsylvania.

One of us was formerly a teacher and principal in Johnstown public schools and is now the principal of Bishop McCort Catholic School, also in Johnstown. He has dealt with Title I firsthand in both environments and seen the problems caused by the red tape and lack of flexibility with the funding. He’s confident that dismantling the Department of Education — and making any federal funds portable so parents could choose the best environment for their children — is the best way to support the students served by Title I.

Parents over bureaucracy

And that’s the bottom line when it comes to education. Parents are better at making decisions for their children than federal bureaucrats. Pennsylvania public schools spent nearly $22,000 per student in 2022-23 (the latest data available). In the Greater Johnstown School District, per-pupil spending was more than $23,000. Yet 82% of students scored below proficient in math, and 77% scored below proficient in English. Imagine what parents could do if they could direct even half of that funding to the educational option that worked better for their kids.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education will not destroy education, but it may put a dent in the public schooling bureaucracy. Despite the fearmongering of people who work in the system, less bureaucracy and more freedom for parents and students are good things.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPennsylvania and made available via RealClearWire.

​Opinion & analysis, Department of education, Public schools, Naep, Nation’s report card, Standards, Standardized test, Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Catholic schools, Test scores, Spending, Bureaucracy, Teachers unions, Title i 

If you live in Texas and have school-age children, then there’s some good news. The first Texas GOP priority bill is on its way to the governor’s desk after clearing both chambers — and it bans explicit sexual content in libraries at your children’s schools.

Currently, there are broad exemptions within Texas law that shield school officials, librarians, and other authority figures from prosecution for distributing material seen as harmful to minors, as long as their goal was to educate the children.

The bill will allow only law enforcement and judicial officers to use this defense when charged under obscenity laws.

Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” couldn’t be happier, but House Democrats do not share her high spirits.

“We’re really excited a law protecting children from sexually explicit materials is heading to the governor’s desk,” Gonzales says, adding, “The bill removes any sort of groomer’s defense that they might have in the school system.”

“And the Democrats were totally up in arms because, you know, they are now the party of illegal gang members and violent criminals and thugs and also groomers,” she continues. “These people really think that it’s the government’s job to teach children about sensitive sex matters, to teach children about all sorts of personal sensitive topics.”

Erin Zwiener is one of those angry Democrats, who cried “book banning” in response to the new rule.

“Many of the books that get targeted again and again are books that depict sex, and there is nothing I want more than for our young people to be exposed to what sexual assault can look like so they can avoid it,” Zwiener said.

“Our kids need books where they learn about sex without experiencing it in their real lives,” she added.

“I cannot even express to you how sick to my stomach these statements make me. Pretty grossed out,” Gonzales comments. “That’s cute that you want to talk about what you want for my children, not ‘our’ children. This is not collective.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Video phone, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Texas book ban, Educational content, Sexually explicit materials, Protect our children, Erin zwiener 

An illegal alien trying to escape arrest by federal officials climbed a tree and hid for 8 hours before getting captured, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

ICE said 29-year-old Raul Ical was wanted for warrants related to entering the country illegally and was found by federal agents and state troopers during a traffic stop on April 29. They said he was a passenger in the car and ran off when they tried to apprehend him.

‘I got to give it to the guy for climbing a tree really quick. That was pretty good thinking.’

Texas residents of a neighborhood on the west side of San Antonio said they were surprised to see a man scale a ladder, scramble onto a roof, and then climb into a tree at a home near Ceralvo and South Navidad streets.

Ical stayed in the tree until officers persuaded him to come down and face arrest. He is originally from Guatemala and had been removed in 2013 but returned to the U.S. illegally.

One woman told KSAT-TV that she returned from running an errand to find officers all over her neighborhood.

“I just stayed here looking at all the excitement [wondering] when he was going to come and get down,” said the woman, who wanted to remain anonymous. “This is the first time I’ve ever seen anything here around my neighborhood.”

Mike Howell, who works at a nearby business, credited Ical for his clever attempt at evasion.

“They walked around and didn’t see him and then looked up and went, ‘Oh!’ There he was in the tree,” the man said. “I got to give it to the guy for climbing a tree really quick. That was pretty good thinking.”

Howell said he watched as Ical was led away.

“It was an interesting day. That’s all I can say,” he said. “I imagine his perch was not that comfortable after about two hours or something. I’d imagine he was getting real sore.”

Video shows Ical being arrested by officials in the news report from KENS-TV on YouTube.

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

​Illegal immigrant in a tree, San antonio ice arrest, Raul ical arrest, Deportation case, Politics 

A 30-year-old male is accused of shooting a 26-year-old Philadelphia police officer amid brawls near a city high school Wednesday — and the police commissioner had harsh words for the suspect.

Dachan Seay is facing multiple counts of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, reckless endangerment, and other related offenses, Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel said the following day, WPVI-TV reported.

‘I’m asking you to say a prayer for this officer and his family, as well as everyone who puts on that uniform to protect and serve Philadelphia.’

Bethel said several fights were underway outside Overbrook High School in the area of North 59th Street and Columbia Avenue when additional officers were called in, the station said.

Shots rang out around 2:40 p.m., WPVI said. Gunfire is audible on a cellphone video the station added to its report.

The commissioner said an adult armed with a weapon got involved, after which a shot was fired into the ground, and the officer was wounded “under his vest” by the the ricochet, the station said.

The officer — hit by one shot in his stomach — was taken to Penn Presbyterian Hospital where he underwent surgery, officials told WPVI. The officer — who is new to the force, having graduating from the academy in 2024 — was recovering as of Thursday morning, officials told the station.

“I’m asking you to say a prayer for this officer and his family, as well as everyone who puts on that uniform to protect and serve Philadelphia,” Mayor Cherelle Parker told listeners during a Wednesday news conference, WPVI said.

Bethel added that the officer didn’t immediately realize he had been shot, the station said.

WPVI said the commissioner also had pointed words for the suspect: “You’re a damn adult. You’re supposed to know better. You’re supposed to be the one who has to come in here to de-escalate, not escalate.”

Sources added to the station that a teenager also was apprehended in connection with the incident.

Far-left Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner told WPVI in a statement that “while this investigation remains open, I want to stress that my office will hold this suspect justly and appropriately accountable for his outrageous actions.”

No officers fired their weapons during the incident, the station said, adding that no other injuries were reported.

Philadelphia police data indicates Wednesday’s shooting was the sixth police-involved shooting in 2025 and the second time an officer was injured in the line of duty, WPVI noted.

You can view a video report here about the shooting and its aftermath.

This story has been updated.

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

​Philadelphia, Police officer shot, Fights, Overbrook high school, Suspect arrested, Dachan seay, Crime 

When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”

That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.

Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.

The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.

That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge … the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”

The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.

Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”

Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.

What the founders, Supreme Court, and Constitution say

The constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:

1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):

“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):

“In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”

3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):

“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”

4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):

“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”

5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”

6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):

“Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”

The right to deport is an extension of the right to exclude

7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):

“The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”

8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”

9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):

“Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. … Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”

Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere

10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):

“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”

11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):

“The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. … The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):

“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”

13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):

“We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. … Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”

Due process does not guarantee entry or residency

14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):

“As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”

15. Galvan v. Press (1954):

“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government … that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded … as any aspect of our government.”

16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):

“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

Deportation is not punishment

17. Turner v. Williams (1904):

“No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. … But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”

18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893):

“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. … It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”

Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.

The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

​Opinion & analysis, Illegal immigration, Mass deportations, Due process rights of illegals, Due process, 5th amendment, Supreme court, Founders, Constitution, Judges, Federal courts, Illegal aliens 

President Donald Trump named Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor and current Fox News host, as the interim attorney general of Washington, D.C., after failing to nominate Ed Martin.

Pirro has been a stalwart Trump supporter and a host on “The Five” on Fox News. She previously worked as the Republican district attorney of Westchester County, N.Y.

‘During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime.’

The president announced the appointment via social media on Thursday.

“I am pleased to announce that Judge Jeanine Pirro will be appointed interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,” he wrote on Truth Social.

“Jeanine was Assistant District Attorney for Westchester County, New York, and then went on to serve as County Judge, and District Attorney, where she was the first woman ever to be elected to those positions,” he added. “During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime.”

The 73-year-old has been a friend to Trump for decades.

The president had capitulated to opposition in the U.S. Senate against the nomination of Martin, especially to that from Republican Sen.Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

“Most of my concerns related to January 6,” said Tillis to reporters. “Where we probably have a difference is I think anybody that breached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time. Whether it’s 30 days or three years is debatable, but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6.”

The president said in a separate post that Martin would be moved to the Department of Justice as part of three groups meant to investigate the weaponization of the government under the Biden administration.

“Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself. Congratulations Jeanine!” concluded the president on Thursday.

Pirro was condemned by both the left and the right in 2019 after she ridiculed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for wearing a hijab, which she said was against the principles of the U.S. She was suspended from appearing on Fox News for two weeks following that incident.

“We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network, and we have addressed the matter with her directly,” read a statement from Fox at the time.

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

​Jeanine pirro us attorney, Trump names pirro, Ed martin nom fails, Us attorney washington dc, Politics