The case of flight attendants Marli Brown and Lacey Smith is a cautionary tale for corporate America about what happens when ideological conformity takes precedence over religious liberty.

In February 2021, Alaska Airlines announced its support for the Equality Act on the company’s internal communications platform, Alaska’s World. The airline invited employees to comment, promoting the forum as a place where “our differences make us better when we support and respect each other, allowing each of us to be who we are.”

Companies have a legitimate interest in maintaining productive workplaces. They do not have the right to demand ideological uniformity on disputed questions.

Brown and Smith took the company at its word.

Both raised concerns about the proposed legislation rooted in their Christian faith. Brown warned that the Equality Act would “endanger the Church” and “eliminate conscience protections.” Smith asked: “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”

Alaska Airlines investigated and fired both women on the same day, citing violations of its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

In other words, the airline treated modest and widely held religious concerns about pending federal legislation as fireable harassment — in a forum the company itself created for open discussion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected that reasoning.

The court noted that Brown’s post “on its face reflected the expression of religious belief” and that both Alaska Airlines and the flight attendants’ union understood it that way.

Internal company emails revealed the attitude behind the terminations. One employee in Alaska Airlines’ legal department wrote, “Employees actually do not have the right to believe that LGBTQ rights are ‘immoral.’” A vice president replied, “I 100% agree.”

That exchange goes to the heart of the case.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of religion. The law defines religion broadly to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.”

Employers cannot escape that command by relabeling disfavored religious beliefs as harassment.

RELATED: MLB’s Pride police strike out against Christian players

Blaze Media Illustration

Yet some corporations increasingly treat religious objections to progressive social policies as inherently discriminatory. That turns civil rights law on its head. Protections meant to guard employees against religious discrimination become tools for punishing the religious convictions themselves.

The facts here are especially striking because Alaska Airlines created the very forum in which Brown and Smith spoke.

The company encouraged employees to share their views and promised a “safe space culture where employees feel empowered to have open and critical dialogue.” Alaska Airlines also acknowledged internally that the issue raised religious freedom concerns.

The company knew religious objections were likely. Then it fired the employees who expressed them.

Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, put the problem plainly: “Alaska created a forum for employee discussion on controversial issues, then fired Brown after she made religious objections of the kind Alaska anticipated.”

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Alaska Airlines’ stated reasons for the firing pretextual and determine that the company “used the cover of its employee policies to fire Brown because of her religious beliefs.”

The union’s conduct adds another troubling layer.

The Association of Flight Attendants was supposed to represent Brown and Smith. Instead, union officials criticized and mocked their religious concerns.

The union president texted Alaska Airlines executives, “I wish fewer people would struggle so much with unifying their faith with inclusivity.” The court found that remark could reasonably be interpreted as disparaging religious belief.

Another union representative suggested that someone should “put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well.”

Those are not the words of neutral representatives. They reveal contempt for religious belief — precisely the kind of animus Title VII forbids.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision draws an important line.

Employers may protect employees from genuine harassment. But they must distinguish between expression intended to demean co-workers and an employee’s opposition to company policy or advocacy on a contested public issue.

RELATED: Trump 2.0 puts religious liberty back on offense

Joebelanger/Getty Images

Brown and Smith did not threaten or demean anyone. They raised concerns about legislation affecting religious liberty.

Companies have a legitimate interest in maintaining productive workplaces. They do not have the right to demand ideological uniformity on disputed questions of law, morality, and public policy.

When employers invite diverse views and then punish employees for expressing religious ones, they betray their own promises and risk violating federal law.

Religious freedom is not a privilege granted at an employer’s discretion. It is a fundamental civil right.

That protection is especially important in the workplace, where most Americans spend much of their waking lives.

Employers that genuinely value diversity and inclusion must make room for religious employees.

The Ninth Circuit has now held that Brown and Smith presented enough evidence for a jury to conclude that Alaska Airlines and the union discriminated against them because of their faith.

When this case goes to trial, we are confident that is exactly what the jury will find.

​Alaska airlines, Christian faith, Civil rights act, Inclusivity, Religious liberty, Diversity and inclusion, Dei, Pride, Lgbtq agenda, Opinion & analysis 

I do not believe the actual deportation and self-deportation numbers are anywhere near the roughly 3 million claimed in Department of Homeland Security press releases.

This is more than a hunch. The published figures appear mathematically impossible.

If a population roughly equal to that of New Mexico left the United States, there should be visible statistical evidence.

That is a serious problem, which is why the Oversight Project has announced a lawsuit to force the DHS to release the underlying data.

Some people will be surprised that a Trump-aligned legal and investigative organization, best known for exposing the autopen scandal, is suing the administration’s Department of Homeland Security.

Here is why.

Trump’s central promise

Immigration enforcement has been the central thesis of President Trump’s political career.

It began with “build the wall” after he descended the golden escalator in 2015. He returned to office with 77 million votes after promising mass deportation.

Agenda 47 contained only 20 major promises. The first was to secure the border, and the administration deserves enormous credit for doing so — even as House Republicans refuse to codify those gains without attaching amnesty for illegal farmworkers.

The second promise was to conduct the largest deportation operation in American history.

Trump repeatedly indicated that this meant surpassing President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1954 operation, which some estimates say reduced the illegal population by 31% in a single year.

With two and a half years remaining in office, Trump is entering the period when presidents begin thinking seriously about legacy.

If “promises made, promises kept” is to mean anything, the deportation machinery must begin operating at full capacity now. Only then can removals reach the millions during the administration’s final years and surpass Eisenhower’s record.

Trump has the resources to do it. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is better funded and equipped than ever.

The administration should direct ICE toward high-density workplaces where illegal labor is concentrated — factories, farms, hotels, restaurants, warehouses, and meatpacking facilities — while imposing serious penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

That is how the numbers begin rising rapidly.

Surpassing Eisenhower would be the natural culmination of Trump’s political career. It would fulfill the promise at the center of his movement and provide the necessary answer to the Biden years, when roughly 10 million illegal aliens were allowed into the country and dispersed throughout American communities.

Those illegal aliens are still here. Trump can still remove them.

RELATED: The birthright ruling leaves Trump one clear move

Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The amnesty lobby needs inflated numbers

The second reason for demanding transparency is that the amnesty lobby does not care what Trump promised.

Many Republicans rolled their eyes when he pledged mass deportation. They quickly began trying to narrow enforcement to a small category of the “worst of the worst” criminals.

The reason is obvious: The amnesty lobby, especially its Republican wing, is in love with cheap illegal labor. Its members fiercely oppose worksite enforcement, even though worksite enforcement is the only realistic way to generate removals on the scale Trump promised.

They are already preparing their next push for what they will call “comprehensive immigration reform,” the familiar euphemism for mass amnesty.

The Dignidad Act has roughly 20 Republican co-sponsors. The Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act of 2026, another amnesty proposal for illegal farm laborers, has attracted more than 40.

Congress is also considering reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Over time, that law has encouraged migration from noncontiguous countries and fed migrants into labor- and sex-trafficking networks.

It has also created a funding stream for left-wing nongovernmental organizations now suing the Trump administration, undermining both the war on fraud and the work once associated with the DOGE.

The House and Senate are full of pro-amnesty Republicans financed by industries that profit from cheap labor. Most are not going anywhere soon.

Their preferred argument is predictable: Enough people have already been deported. Now it is time to make a deal.

We will not allow them to make that case using inflated numbers.

The amnesty lobby used the same tactic during the Obama administration. It combined border returns with formal removals to portray Barack Obama as the “deporter in chief.”

The goal was to make Obama look tough enough to create political space for amnesty. That strategy produced the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, which collapsed after a national populist revolt, and the unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

That revolt also helped create the conditions for Trump’s rise.

I was born at night, but not last night.

The amnesty lobby is preparing to run the same play again.

The numbers don’t add up

The third reason for the lawsuit is simple: The public deserves the real figures.

The DHS recently gave several media outlets the following statement:

In President Trump’s first year back in office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations. As of June 24, we have now deported over 948,000 illegal aliens and arrested over 981,000 illegal aliens.

Consider the first sentence.

It refers specifically to Trump’s first year back in office, from January 20, 2025, through January 20 of this year. The same claim appeared on the DHS website.

If 3 million people left and 2.2 million supposedly self-deported, that leaves approximately 800,000 formal deportations or removals.

But DHS has provided no evidence supporting the claim that 2.2 million people self-deported.

The administration has pointed to the CBP Home app, yet only about 72,000 people reportedly used it to leave as of March. I have reason to believe even that number may be overstated.

That leaves a gulf of more than 2 million people.

RELATED: A real nation knows who is in and who is out

Blaze Media Illustration

If a population roughly equal to that of New Mexico left the United States, there should be visible statistical evidence. School enrollments, rental markets, remittance flows, employment records, border crossings, airline bookings, and foreign-government data should all reflect it.

The DHS should be able to produce that evidence.

Now consider the claimed 800,000 deportations during Trump’s first year.

The department’s fiscal year 2027 Congressional Budget Justification states that the DHS and ICE removed or returned 442,637 illegal aliens during fiscal year 2025, which included several months of the Biden administration.

That figure combines removals, which are closer to formal deportations, with returns, which often occur at the border.

Even with those categories combined, the official budget figure is little more than half the number implied by the press release.

The second sentence creates an even larger problem. If 800,000 people were deported during Trump’s first year, how could the cumulative total be only 948,000 seven months into 2026?

That would mean the administration deported only 148,000 people during those seven months.

The numbers do not add up.

Anyone who travels the country, follows social media, or watches television knows skepticism about these claims is now widespread. That is creating a political problem, especially among young Republican men who rank immigration enforcement and national sovereignty among their highest priorities.

Fortunately, the problem is fixable.

The administration can expand full-scale worksite enforcement and produce real, rapidly increasing removal numbers. It can then release those figures transparently, every month, with the same attention given to the jobs report.

Mass deportation is part of the glue holding Trump’s coalition together.

Regular, verifiable reporting would generate enthusiasm and demonstrate that the administration has not retreated from its defining promise.

The Oversight Project does not want Trump to fail. We want him to succeed.

That begins with knowing the real numbers.

​Dhs, Ice, Immigration, Mass deportations, Trump, Dignity act, Congress, Republicans, Gop, Eisenhower, Opinion & analysis 

A self-described lover of communism has had to face the music after allegedly crowing about canceling a DoorDash food order for the Department of Homeland Security and stealing the meal.

A social media user who indicated that she was a DoorDash driver apparently posted messages about how she took food ordered by a detention center in Buffalo, New York, and instead dropped it off at her local pantry.

‘When our support team attempted to address their report and explain our policies, the individual was abusive toward the agent, which is a separate violation.’

The account posting under the name “nixxslingerland” had a profile photo of the user wearing a “Black Lives Matter” shirt.

“Just dropped off another cancelled nazi DoorDash to my free pantry and was handed this large bag of m&ms in return,” she apparently wrote. “I love communism.”

She apparently added in another post, “For new people who are unaware, there’s unfortunately a detention center right in my town, and every single time I contact support and tell them they need to remove the location completely, I doubt they ever will, but it still feels good getting their orders cancelled and donating their food.”

DoorDash responded after the popular Libs of TikTok account posted images of the alleged messages. The account shared the images on Wednesday afternoon, and they appear to be marked as a couple of days old.

“This Dasher’s account has been deactivated,” the official business account responded to Libs of TikTok within hours.

“Misusing the safety-unassign feature to intentionally cancel orders and redirect the food based on where it’s going is theft and a violation of both our Community Guidelines and Platform Access Policy,” it added. “When our support team attempted to address their report and explain our policies, the individual was abusive toward the agent, which is a separate violation.”

RELATED: Meal service company gets CRUSHED online over very crude sex joke for Pride Month

The user appears to have canceled the account or renamed it. Blaze News reached out for comment to other accounts believed to be associated with the same user but did not receive a response.

The DoorDash delivery company previously faced backlash from anti-Trump liberals after a marketing stunt included a delivery driver dropping off McDonald’s food at the White House.

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

​Black lives matter, Department of homeland security, Libs of tiktok, Doordash, Politics 

Dear Mr. Haygood,

My name is Brad Dacus, and I am the founder and president of the Pacific Justice Institute.

Congratulations on your appointment as President and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

One cannot openly profess devotion to Jesus Christ on Sunday morning while leading an organization that labels fellow believers as hate groups on Monday.

I understand that you are a purported follower of Jesus Christ and that the SPLC Board has publicly praised your religious convictions and concern for human dignity.

I am also a Christian. However, I believe there is a contradiction between the faith we both profess and the institution you now lead.

For nearly 30 years, PJI has defended religious liberty, parental rights, free speech, and other constitutional freedoms. We have represented churches, schools, students, parents, veterans, business owners, and everyday Americans who believed their rights had been violated because of their faith and had nowhere else to turn.

Yet the institution you now lead classifies PJI as a “hate group” and has placed our nonprofit on a “hate map” alongside reputable Christian ministries such as Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, and American Family Association.

PJI and these ministries have spent decades serving others and helping people live according to their convictions. We love God and our neighbors, and we seek to serve our communities faithfully.

Yet the SPLC’s judgments of PJI and these organizations now bear your signature.

Mr. Haygood, how do you reconcile your Christian witness with leading an institution that publicly brands Christian ministries as hateful because of their Bible-based beliefs?

One cannot openly profess devotion to Jesus Christ on Sunday morning while leading an organization that labels fellow believers as hate groups on Monday.

Do you believe adherence to biblical teaching is sufficient grounds to classify a ministry as a hate group?

Let me be clear: PJI categorically rejects the SPLC’s accusations. We do not incite violence, bigotry, or hatred. The SPLC is wrong about who we are and what we do.

Your public profile cites 2 Timothy 1:7: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” If those words genuinely guide your leadership, then a public examination of the SPLC’s accusations should not be viewed as a threat, but as an opportunity.

That is why I am extending a direct and public invitation to you:

I welcome you to join me for a recorded, in-person conversation. Sit across from me and explain why PJI and these other ministries deserve to be classified as hate groups. Defend the SPLC’s accusations and conclusions.

The issue before us extends far beyond PJI or the SPLC. It concerns whether Americans can still disagree without being publicly vilified and whether deeply held religious convictions can be represented fairly in our national conversation.

The invitation stands, and I truly hope you accept it.

Running the Race,

BRAD DACUS

Founder and President
Pacific Justice Institute

Editor’s note: This letter originally appeared at pacificjustice.org.

​Southern poverty law center, Hate groups, Pacific justice institute, Freedom of religion, Ryan p. haygood, Faith 

The woman who was at the center of the viral fraud investigation by Nick Shirley has pleaded guilty to fraud related to a Minneapolis day care she owned.

Prosecutors say 50-year-old Fahima Mahamud owned the Future Leaders Early Learning Center and charged the federal government $854,000 in reimbursements for the Feeding Our Future scam.

She also fraudulently claimed to have provided up to 60,000 meals for needy children on a monthly basis during the scam.

Rather than use the money to feed needy children, she used the vast majority of the ill-gotten gains to buy real estate. Among those purchases was an autism center that billed the federal government $3.1 million over the last five years.

She billed the federal government for child-care expenses as part of the Child Care Assistance Program and was able to scam $4.6 million from the government.

Mahamud pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, but a sentencing date has not yet been scheduled.

Prosecutors said she booked a flight to London in February immediately after alerting the state that her learning center was shutting down.

News video footage from KARE-TV showed Mahamud walking into the courthouse while wearing full-body Islamic garb that covered her face as well.

Mahamud received the largest amount of reimbursement from the Child Care Assistance Program, which totaled about $4.6 million, after submitting over 13,000 fraudulent claims from 2022 until Dec. 2025.

RELATED: Top scammer of ‘Feeding Our Future’ fraud in Minnesota NAILED with painful sentence

She also fraudulently claimed to have provided up to 60,000 meals for needy children on a monthly basis during the scam.

Mahamud did not respond to requests for comment from a KARE reporter at the courthouse.

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

​Autism center, Feeding our future, Nick shirley, Scam, Daycare fraud, Autism fraud, Minnesota, Politics 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara struck down President Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority found a constitutional violation where none exists.

The court has ruled. Now Congress must answer.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s separate opinion points to the path forward. He agreed that the executive order conflicts with the law’s current language, but he rejected the majority’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

“Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Congress now has both the authority and the responsibility to act.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ exhaustive dissent recovered the original public meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That phrase required more than physical presence. It contemplated complete political allegiance and permanent domicile.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment distinguished permanent members of the American political community from temporary visitors and people who remained subject to foreign powers.

Justice Samuel Alito also warned of the consequences of the majority’s interpretation. Automatic citizenship for the children of illegal entrants and birth tourists creates opportunities for foreign exploitation and weakens the nation’s control over membership in its political community.

This was not a close call.

The majority conflated temporary subjection to American law with the solemn allegiance, duties, and privileges of citizenship in a constitutional republic.

The American Revolution rejected the relationship between monarch and subject. The United States instead recognizes sovereign citizens with God-given rights who consent to government through a shared political compact.

By erasing the distinction between a person temporarily subject to American law and a citizen belonging permanently to the American political community, the court cheapened citizenship and created a serious vulnerability.

The judiciary has failed. Congress must now correct that failure.

Unfortunately, the current Republican Congress has squandered much of the mandate voters delivered. Election-integrity legislation remains unfinished, while promised efforts to restrain activist courts and restore constitutional government have stalled.

Voters have noticed.

RELATED: The birthright ruling leaves Trump one clear move

Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The legislative solution follows directly from Kavanaugh’s opinion and the historical record presented by the dissenters.

Congress should pass a Birthright Citizenship Reform Act amending 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). Citizenship at birth should attach only when at least one parent is a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident domiciled here.

Congress should also define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude the children of foreign nationals present unlawfully or admitted only temporarily.

The legislation should apply prospectively and include narrow transition provisions. These changes would respect the original limits of the 14th Amendment, close national security gaps, and restore the integrity of American citizenship.

I am running for Congress in Florida’s 19th District because Washington needs representatives willing to turn constitutional principles into legislation.

I qualified for the ballot through citizen participation rather than by writing a check. As a former January 6 defendant who refused a false plea agreement and endured solitary confinement, I understand the cost of standing on principle.

In Congress, I will introduce the Birthright Citizenship Reform Act and fight for its passage. I will also demand action on election integrity and work to restore American sovereignty.

Justice Alito identified the danger. Justice Thomas supplied the historical case. Justice Kavanaugh identified the legislative remedy. All that remains is for Congress to find the courage to enact it.

The court has ruled. Congress must answer.

This is our republic. We have a duty to keep it.

​Congress, Scotus, Supreme court, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, John roberts, Clarence thomas, Civil rights act, American revolution, American citizens, Justice alito, Opinion & analysis 

The Supreme Court delivered a monumentally bad decision last week in Trump v. Barbara, holding that, with limited exceptions, children born on U.S. soil become citizens at birth.

Much of the majority’s reasoning rested on mythology rather than a faithful reading of the law.

The court has closed one path. It has not closed them all.

No one can say with certainty when the United States began treating the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens as citizens. Google and Wikipedia claim the practice dates to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Both also assert that the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Both claims are wrong.

After the Civil War, the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment and its precursor, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, were understood primarily as securing citizenship for former slaves and their children.

It took seven years after ratification for anyone even to ask whether the Citizenship Clause applied to children born here to foreign nationals. When the question finally arose, Attorney General George Williams concluded that such children were not citizens because they retained allegiance to their parents’ countries and therefore were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark addressed a different question: whether a child born in the United States to lawfully present foreign nationals became a citizen at birth.

Nowhere in the court’s 59-page opinion did it decide whether the Citizenship Clause applies to the children of illegal aliens.

Americans are therefore justified in reacting angrily to Trump v. Barbara.

But border hawks and rule-of-law conservatives should stop acting as though the decision ends the fight.

This is not the first dreadful Supreme Court opinion on immigration law. Anyone remember Plyler v. Doe? It will not be the last.

The court could have resolved the problem through a reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Instead, the majority chose political mythology over persuasive legal argument.

But birthright citizenship never had to be addressed only through the courts.

RELATED: 1776, not 1608: What the Supreme Court got wrong on birthright citizenship

It can also be confronted through diligent enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Now the Trump administration must do exactly that.

Illegal immigration is not merely a border problem. Once illegal aliens reach the interior, they settle in American communities and form families. Under Barbara, their U.S.-born children become citizens.

But illegal aliens who never enter the country cannot give birth here.

The damage from the court’s decision can therefore be reduced through secure borders and rapid removal of illegal entrants before they establish themselves and have children in the United States.

Birth tourism can also be curtailed through enforcement.

State Department consular officers already presume that pregnant women applying for B-2 visitor visas may be seeking entry for the primary purpose of giving birth to a U.S. citizen child.

After Barbara, the administration should scrutinize such applications more aggressively. Applicants suspected of birth tourism should bear the burden of demonstrating a legitimate temporary purpose for travel.

The problem becomes more complicated with foreign nationals admitted temporarily for work.

H-1B workers, L visa intracompany transferees, and other employment-based nonimmigrants may travel with their families and reside here for extended periods. Preventing every birth to those visa holders would be neither practical nor lawful.

But consular officers already have authority to refuse visas when they believe an applicant is misrepresenting the purpose of entry.

RELATED: The birthright ruling leaves Trump one clear move

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

If officials have credible reason to believe that the primary purpose of an application for H-1B, H-4, or another temporary visa is to secure U.S. citizenship for a child, they should deny it.

The Supreme Court’s absurdly broad interpretation of birthright citizenship proves the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Automatically granting citizenship to every child born on American soil to foreign nationals is terrible policy.

The best way to limit its consequences is to prevent the circumstances that trigger it. That means effective border security, rapid removal, rigorous interior enforcement, and close scrutiny of birth tourism and visa fraud.

The court has closed one path. It has not closed them all.

The Trump administration should now use every lawful enforcement tool available to prevent Trump v. Barbara from taking root and expanding the very incentive that produced the case.

​14th amendment, Birth tourism, Birthright citizenship, Civil rights act, Constitution, Illegal aliens, Opinion & analysis, Plyler v doe, State department, Supreme court, Trump v. barbara, Visa fraud, Deportation 

BlazeTV’s Sara Gonzales has been at the forefront of busting H-1B fraud in Texas. Her on-the-ground investigative reporting has been deeply impactful for the state — triggering state investigations and lawsuits by Attorney General Ken Paxton against dozens of suspect companies and a gubernatorial freeze on new H-1B hires at state agencies and universities.

Now Sara’s H-1B crackdown has escalated to the national level. While Vice President JD Vance has been heading the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud since March, the administration launched its first major H-1B fraud investigation on July 8. The Department of Labor has already issued dozens of subpoenas targeting visa abuse, labor trafficking, worker displacement, and related PERM issues in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to prioritize American workers.

“Uh-oh. Ticktock. The jig is up. … Pack your bags. Hurry up. Get out of sight before they find out all of the fraud that you guys have been achieving,” Sara says with glee.

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” she sits down with Dept. of Labor Inspector General Anthony D’Esposito to break down the Trump administration’s aggressive H-1B visa fraud probe.

“What prompted this investigation from the Department of Labor?” Sara asks D’Esposito.

“The fact that we have a president and a vice president that actually supports rooting out fraud here in America,” he replies.

The task force, D’Esposito says, is a dream team — everyone is “working together,” there are ample “resources,” and the team has direct communication lines to the president and vice president.

“We could call the president or the vice president’s team and say, ‘Listen, if we want to conduct this investigation, if we want to broaden the scope of the fraud that we could tackle, these are the resources that we need,’ and they come up with them,” he tells Sara. “They never hang up the phone and say, ‘Sorry, we can’t help.”’

The DOJ’s involvement and support is another factor that makes D’Esposito confident the fraud investigation will produce major results.

“I remember the cases that I worked on in New York City, whether it was homicides or dismantling gangs or gun trafficking. The cases that you always brought to the finish line were the ones that you worked hand in hand with prosecutors, and that’s what we are doing now,” he explains.

While the task force is uprooting all kinds of fraud, D’Esposito is ready for a major crackdown on H-1B fraud, specifically because that’s what’s “holding the American job hostage” right now.

“President Trump made it very clear that he wants to rein the golden age of the American worker in, and he’s been doing that. … But think about how much better we could do when the people who are taking these jobs away from American workers [are held accountable],” he says.

“I say this often on social media, and I mean it. Fraud is a tax that you never voted for, but also fraud is without a doubt fueling and funding both violent crime and criminal enterprises throughout the United States of America,” he continues, referencing how H-1B workers often send their wages back to their home countries to fund illegal activity.

“So, not only are they taking American jobs away, not only are they putting American people out of work, but they’re actually taking the wages of the American dollar and sending it back to criminal enterprises. And after these conversations, we said absolutely no more.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, H-1b fraud, Anthony d’esposito