America’s most prominent libertarian think tank released a report on Monday concern-mongering over the drastic drop in legal immigration from third-world Muslim nations under President Donald Trump.

The Cato Institute — admittedly a big supporter of immigration and longtime opponent of the president’s border wall — is fretting over an apparent 96% drop in immigrant visa issuances and refugee admissions from majority-Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and Somalia.

‘We’ve come so far on these issues.’

Meanwhile, prominent voices in the MAGA movement are celebrating the news from Cato.

The White House’s rapid response account even shared a Cato Institute graph showing the decline in migration from Muslim countries.

In response to the graph, Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet wrote, “I couldn’t love this stat and this graphic any more. This is actually exactly what I voted for.”

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said, “Coming to America means committing to America: our Constitution, our laws, our freedoms. Tougher vetting under POTUS Trump has cut admissions from high-risk countries by 96%. We owe Americans nothing less than knowing exactly who we let in.”

Texas Rep. Brandon Gill (R) noted, “Absolutely incredible victory for the American people, thanks to POTUS.”

RELATED: Alabama: The anti-caliphate

Aaron Schwartz/AFP/Getty Images

The libertarian think tank underscored that Trump and his administration are directly responsible for the drop in admissions of refugees and migrants from nations, highlighting:

Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, proclamation that the U.S. “admit only those refugees who can fully and appropriately assimilate into the United States,” “ensure that the United States preserves taxpayer resources for its citizens,” and suspend the entry of refugees into the U.S. under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program;Trump’s Sept. 30, 2025, determination allocating refugee admissions for fiscal year 2026 primarily to Afrikaners from South Africa;Trump’s Dec. 16, 2025, proclamation restricting the entry of foreign nationals into the U.S. from scores of third-world countries including Afghanistan, Mali, South Sudan, and Yemen;the State Department’s pause on immigrant visa processing from 75 countries “whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates”;U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Jan. 1, 2026, memo applying Trump’s 40-country entry ban; and the State Department’s recent immigrant visa interview freeze.

Many of the administration’s actions have been challenged and in some cases blocked in the courts. The State Department’s pause on visa processing from 75 countries, for instance, is no longer in effect as of Aug. 21, owing to a court order.

Nevertheless, these actions have proven impactful.

The libertarian think tank’s analysis of State Department data shows incredible drops in migration from various Muslim terrorist hot spots.

Whereas, for example, 5,563 immigrants and refugees from Afghanistan were admitted by the U.S. in former President Joe Biden’s final month in office, there were only nine in February 2026 — a decline of 99.8%. Whereas 3,026 Pakistani refugees and migrants were admitted in December 2024, only 63 were admitted in February 2026. Similarly dramatic declines were observed among admissions from various other Muslim nations.

“If the current pace continues, the fiscal year 2026 (which started in October) would see the fewest immigrants and refugees from majority-Muslim countries in at least 30 years,” said the Cato Institute report.

‘Of course, there are immigrants who don’t work and commit crimes.’

The report noted further that if these levels continue for the rest of this fiscal year, “then only about 40,000 immigrants and refugees from these countries will have immigrated that year. This would be down nearly 80 percent from 2024 and even about 30 percent lower than 2020, when the first Trump administration used the pandemic as an excuse to cut off legal immigration.”

The libertarian outfit also questioned the administration’s justification for the 40-country entry ban on the basis of security, claiming that “only two of the ten majority Muslim countries on that list have ever carried out a deadly terrorist attack in the United States.”

The Cato Institute further characterized immigrants from Muslim nations as hard workers who have a positive effect on government budgets and as “much more highly educated than the US-born.”

RELATED: Diversity is our strength? Britain has to remind migrants: Don’t rape kids

Afghan migrants attempting to cross US border near Sasabe, Arizona, in January 2025. John Moore/Getty Images

Minnesota is among the states that has had a different experience on the ground with some of these supposed scholarly and industrious imports.

The Center for Immigration Studies reported in December that approximately 54% of Somali-headed households in Minnesota received food stamps and 73% of Somali households had at least one member on Medicaid. By way of comparison, the figures for native households were 7% and 18%, respectively. The CIS also noted that 58.2% of working-age Somalis do not speak English very well and 39% have no high school diploma.

Trump shared a graph on Jan. 4 titled “Immigrant Welfare Recipient Rates by Country of Origin,” which showed that the percentages of immigrant households on assistance from Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Yemen were all over 40% and went as high as 75%.

The Cato Institute’s report claimed, “Of course, there are immigrants who don’t work and commit crimes. But they are the minority. The vast majority of immigrants — including those from majority-Muslim countries — want to contribute to the United States, and they have contributed to it.”

The libertarian think tank implored Congress to “go further to protect Americans’ right to associate freely with people born in other countries, regardless of their countries of origin.”

William Wolfe, the executive director of the Center for Baptist Leadership, tweeted, “To see an official White House account celebrating a decrease in 1) legal immigration and from 2) explicitly Muslim-Majority countries is truly amazing. We’ve come so far on these issues. Some of the young guys don’t know that, but it did not used to be like this.”

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

​Immigration, Muslim, Cato institute, Brandon gill, Markwayne mullin, Visa, Donald trump, Libertarian, Terrorism, Politics 

Voters were not confused about what they were choosing in 2024. “Mass deportation” was not a line buried in a white paper. It was printed on signs, chanted at rallies, and repeated by the candidate himself. Americans who cast their ballots on that promise had every reason to believe it meant what it said.

Nearly two years into this administration, it is fair to ask whether that promise is being kept. By the government’s own numbers, it is falling short. Those numbers are not a failure of the men and women in the field. They are the result of decisions made well above them.

As long as the jobs are there and the penalties for employers are weak, no amount of border rhetoric will change the math.

I spent 24 years in federal immigration enforcement and retired as deputy field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations in New York City, the largest field office in the country. I know what it takes to move removal numbers, and it is not rhetoric.

Removals are a pipeline: locating the person, arresting him, detaining him, getting a final order through an overwhelmed court system, and putting him on a plane. The pipeline moves only as fast as its narrowest point.

When an administration is serious, it widens every one of those points at once, through detention space, fugitive operations teams, cooperation from local jails, immigration judges, and flights.

When it is not serious, you see press releases instead.

Consider what happens after an arrest. Many people assume a deportation is nearly complete once an officer puts someone in handcuffs. In reality, the foreign government has to be notified, and it has to confirm the person’s identity and issue a travel document. Some countries turn those documents around quickly, while others slow-walk them or refuse outright.

Every day of delay is a day in a detention bed that could hold someone else, and if the wait runs long enough, the person may have to be released back into the community. Even when the document arrives, the flight still has to be coordinated, whether that is a seat on a commercial flight with escorting officers or a spot on a charter that has to be filled and scheduled.

So where is the pressure against mass deportation coming from? Look at who benefits from enforcement that stops at the factory door. Agriculture, hospitality, construction, and meatpacking interests have lobbied openly for exemptions and slower worksite enforcement.

Each carve-out is defended as practical. Taken together, they amount to a policy of enforcing the law against individuals while protecting the employers who hired them.

RELATED: Kansas Republicans muddy the waters on ICE enforcement

Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Worksite enforcement is the one measure that shows whether an administration means business, precisely because it is the one measure that impacts the political donor class. As long as the jobs are there and the penalties for employers are weak, no amount of border rhetoric will change the math.

We should also call things by their proper names. Issuing work-authorization workarounds, or declining to pursue people with final orders of removal, are just amnesty by other names. Every one of these moves is a message to the world that American immigration law is negotiable if you wait long enough.

The people most insulted by this message are the immigrants who did it the right way. Every fraudulent case that clears is a slot, a court date, or a benefit taken from someone who waited in line and told the truth.

Critics say mass removals would disrupt the labor market and raise prices. The answer to that concern is simple: An economy built on a permanent pool of workers without legal status, who cannot report abuse and undercut wages for citizens and legal residents alike, is not a model worth defending.

Regardless of how it is covered, a substantial share of Americans support mass deportation. The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll surveyed 1,725 registered voters from May 29 to 30, 2026, with a margin of error of ±2.4 points. It found that 80% support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes, up five points from 75% in April. That includes 71% of Democrats, 90% of Republicans, and 79% of independents.

They are not asking for cruelty. They are asking for a system that works, one with no amnesty, no fraud, and no exemptions for the well-connected.

Here is what keeping the promise would look like: mandatory E-Verify for every employer, funding for detention capacity and fugitive operations that matches the stated goal, worksite enforcement without industry carve-outs, and immigration judges and attorneys to clear a backlog that currently stretches for years.

The president made a promise, and voters took him at his word. The officers in the field are ready to do the job. What is missing is the will to let them do it.

​Amnesty, Deportation, Economy, Fraud, Immigration, Labor market, Mass deportation, Ice, Trump administration, Worksite enforcement, Democrats, Republicans, Opinion & analysis 

X is the platform of free speech, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t times when it will limit the reach of a post to comply with platform policies or the government. Luckily, there’s a new reporting feature that will tell you if and when you’ve been shadowbanned, and you can use it right now.

Shadowbanning is the act of arbitrarily limiting the reach of a user’s post without his knowledge, warning, or consent. From the user’s perspective, his content will simply drop views and engagement with no explanation. Meanwhile, the social platform virtually removes the post from its algorithm so that the content isn’t served to as many users, if at all. The post is still visible on the user’s main profile page, but to the rest of the social network, it basically doesn’t exist.

X is giving users a new tool to see if their content is being limited for any reason.

Shadowbans, even on a free speech platform like X, are issued for a number of reasons: spam behavior, like mass following and unfollowing accounts or overusing hashtags, having a post reported by too many users, violating X’s safety policies, and requests from local law enforcement or the government, usually over “hate speech” or breaches of national security.

For what it’s worth, X’s official stance on shadowbanning is that it doesn’t do it, according to a blog post published in 2018, long before the Musk acquisition. This, however, has been proven false plenty of times in the past. For instance, conservative voices were silenced in 2018 and again in 2020 when the FBI met with Twitter to censor Charlie Kirk, Libs of TikTok, and Dan Bongino.

Needless to say, this has happened on and off for many years.

RELATED: 200,000 Chinese bots are hiding on X — built to control what you think

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Now X is giving users a new tool to see if their content is being limited for any reason. In an effort to improve platform transparency, Under the Hood gives users more insight into how their posts are labeled and served by X’s algorithm.

To access your shadowban report, simply log in to your X account and go to the official Under the Hood page. From here, there are several requirements you must meet before the system generates your report: Your account must be at least one year old, and you must have posted a minimum of 10 posts within the last month.

If you meet the criteria, tap or click the “View Report” button. This takes you to the next page that shows the number of posts you’ve sent within the last month as well as any labels attached to your content that could impact visibility. Labels are split into two categories: Post labels are attached to individual posts to limit their specific reach on X, while account labels are broader restrictions that can limit the visibility reach of an entire account. In most cases, both should be green.

Under the Hood/X.com

Unfortunately, if any of your posts or your account are flagged, there isn’t an easy way to tell exactly what you did wrong. X only allows users to download a JSON file of their report, which contains lines of code that may not tell the complete story. Preferably, X would build a proper user-friendly dashboard that clearly highlights the labeled posts, but so far, no such plans have been revealed.

At the very least, Under the Hood finally offers an official way to confirm your sneakiest suspicions that your posts or account are shadowbanned. Unless you’re an avid X user, you probably won’t need to run this report very often. This feature is mostly meant for those times when you see a sudden dip in your content engagement and you want to know why. That said, new reports can be generated every month, so if you’re so inclined, you can check your shadowban status regularly.

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

​Shadowbanning, X.com, Twitter.com, Twitter ban, Twitter, Tech 

A woman who claimed to be caring for a baby girl said she could not forgive her foster grandchild’s mother after her body was found discarded like garbage.

A bystander says she believed the girl was a doll when she found her body wrapped in a blanket inside a dumpster near the Holmes Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles, California.

‘I have no love for her. Why? Because she had no love for that innocent baby. I don’t feel nothing for her.’

The tragic discovery was reported to police after 10:30 p.m. on Monday.

“Someone was dumping trash and I guess saw the body in the dumpster and called 911,” said Los Angeles Police Department Juvenile Division Lt. Dave Hoskins.

The Los Angeles Fire Department responded and transported the child to a hospital, where she was declared dead.

Police later detained a woman but would not say whether she was the child’s mother, according to KTLA-TV.

The woman who found the child told KTLA that the baby was wearing gloves and shorts.

An anguished couple who spoke to KTLA said they were the foster parents of the mother and explained that the baby was wearing gloves to prevent scratching.

Herman Johnson and Laura Lacy said that their foster daughter had changed her story that day. Earlier she said she had the baby and later claimed that the father had her.

“She just seemed strange,” said Johnson. “Any time she called me and tell me to come over here and take the baby, you know, it was strange to me. She couldn’t control the baby. So that’s when me and Laura took the baby, and we had the baby ever since the baby was like two weeks old.”

Lacy was extremely upset at her foster daughter.

RELATED: Foul odor leads cops to gruesome scene inside Detroit home — and it gets worse a day later

“I have no love for her. Why? Because she had no love for that innocent baby. I don’t feel nothing for her,” said Lacy.

“I love her and I still want to know why. What was the problem?” she asked. “Why did you do that? You had no reason to do that. I was taking care of your child for you. Didn’t even go in the system. I was going to do it. I’m the grandma.”

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

​Dumpster, Dead child, Los angeles, California, Crime 

Jack Smith, the Biden regime’s former special counsel, is back in the news with his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The Oversight Project has uncovered new records that don’t focus on the settled question of why Smith used federal power to target political enemies, but instead on how he was able to do it.

Understanding the “how” is more important at this stage. We all know why the weaponization of the Biden years happened. It happened because they wanted to extinguish a political movement so that people from around the country could never truly shake up Washington, D.C., again.

For those who believe Smith’s investigation crossed the line from legitimate law enforcement into political targeting, that broader reach is the central issue.

We also know why it can happen again if Democrats take back power.

In Democrats’ minds, they have unfinished business. They regard Donald Trump and his supporters as too great a threat to stop short the next time. That makes it essential to understand how the weaponization of government happened, how it could happen again, and what reforms are needed now to prevent a repeat.

Instead, systemic reform has largely fallen by the wayside, replaced by political declarations that government weaponization has been solved once and for all.

With few signs of meaningful accountability, the need for concrete action is urgent.

January 6 gave Democrats the justification they needed to discard restraint and use the powers of federal law enforcement against their political opponents. That effort did not stop with President Trump. It extended to his supporters, especially those who challenged the conduct of the 2020 election or became prominent figures in the broader America First movement.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith in November 2022 to investigate Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and his actions surrounding January 6. Smith became the central figure in the federal effort to prosecute the former president.

Smith took over the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, a sweeping inquiry that gathered records involving Republican politicians, Trump allies, and organizations.

RELATED: ‘Deranged partisan fanatic’ Jack Smith obtained personal info on Trump supporters to try to rig the election, Tom Cotton says

L-R; Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images; Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

The investigation grew out of an inspector general inquiry that was later folded into Arctic Frost. Smith has cited that earlier investigation in denying knowledge of actions taken before his involvement, including those associated with former FBI agent Timothy R. Thibault.

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Smith’s team issued hundreds of subpoenas involving more than 400 Republican individuals and organizations. It also obtained phone records connected to 20 current or former Republican members of Congress.

Newly released records provide more detail about how Smith’s office conducted the investigation.

The scale is worth considering. Investigators collected cellphone records, audio, video, and other digital data involving elected officials as well as private citizens engaged in political activity.

Understanding exactly what was collected, from whom, and under what authority is essential to judging whether the investigation stayed within legitimate law enforcement bounds.

Smith’s office then faced the tough task of sorting through a vast trove of information and building a case for trial.

The investigation also gave prosecutors an unusually detailed picture of Trump’s political network. If the argument is that this information could be used for purposes beyond prosecution, the piece should show that rather than assume it.

Venue mattered too. Washington, D.C., offered prosecutors a jury pool markedly less favorable to Trump than many other jurisdictions.

Through Freedom of Information Act litigation, the Oversight Project obtained 844 pages of records from Smith’s office.

Those documents show that in July 2023, just weeks before Trump was indicted over his actions surrounding January 6, Smith’s team said it was in “desperate need” of forensic video software from Axon, a major law enforcement vendor best known for Tasers and police body cameras.

Axon has since drawn attention as cities across the country consider the company’s expanding surveillance technology.

The urgency inside Smith’s office was enough to override normal purchasing procedures, despite initial objections from a member of his own staff.

On July 13, 2023, the office’s executive officer wrote that Smith “supports more strict requirements than DOJ’s standard policies.” Even so, she authorized the purchase “prior to creating the UFMS obligation” — before the expense had been entered into the Justice Department’s financial system — because “the purchase is urgent.”

The order was placed July 14. Axon shipped the software licenses the next day.

Eighteen days later, on August 1, Smith indicted Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and events surrounding January 6.

The records leave key questions unanswered.

The Justice Department withheld the purchase price. It also has not disclosed what video or audio Smith’s team needed to process so urgently. Given the timing, the material may have been related to the January 6 case, but the records do not establish that.

Axon’s proposal also included language allowing the government to share “de-identified segments of Agency Content with Axon to develop new products.”

The Justice Department released only an unsigned copy of the agreement. As a result, it remains unclear whether Smith’s office agreed to let a private vendor use investigative material in product development.

Smith’s investigation likely cost taxpayers more than $50 million, according to a Fox News analysis of Justice Department spending reports. How much of that money went to outside vendors such as Axon remains unclear. Some expenses may have been recorded through the Antitrust Division or U.S. attorneys’ offices, making the full cost difficult to trace.

But we do know that when Smith needed help targeting President Trump, he called Axon in a rush, and the company was more than happy to answer. The grand jury indictment over January 6 that quickly followed appears to be a natural consequence of Smith finally being able to dig through the results of his dragnet.

Smith’s office was far less careful with its own records. When it moved its files at the start of the investigation, Justice Department e-discovery staff warned the transfer “will change the metadata on those files (create and modify dates).”

RELATED: Trump picked the wrong way to fight fake news

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The office replied, “The team has no issue with the changes to metadata.” Its records officer decided the team’s Microsoft Teams chats were “not necessary to be moved.” Phones and an iPad used by Smith’s lawyers were returned to other Justice Department offices, with nothing in the records showing their contents were preserved first.

In the end, Smith did not secure a conviction.

The classified documents case was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that Smith’s appointment was unlawful. The election case was narrowed by the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, then dismissed after Trump won the 2024 election and Justice Department policy barred continued prosecution of an incoming president.

Smith resigned 10 days before Trump returned to office.

For many Americans, the arguments and passions of that period have faded. For those who were investigated, subpoenaed, or otherwise drawn into the government’s scrutiny, they have not.

Smith remains one of the central figures associated with that period. His return to the news is a reminder that the powers of federal prosecution remain in place regardless of which party controls the executive branch.

The damage was not limited to the final disposition of the cases.

Years of litigation brought legal bills, damaging headlines, invasive discovery, and scrutiny of people beyond Trump himself. The investigation placed an entire political network under examination by the federal government.

Trump was the central defendant. But the investigation reached far beyond him, touching elected officials, activists, and others associated with the America First movement.

For those who believe the investigation crossed the line from legitimate law enforcement into political targeting, that broader reach is the central issue.

Understanding how Jack Smith almost pulled it off, and who he worked with, would go a long way toward understanding how lawfare works. The senators questioning Smith this week have a chance to start. Republicans would be wise to take the leads developed by the Oversight Project and get to the bottom of it.

​Democrats, Donald trump, Fbi, Federal judge, Grand jury indictment, Jack smith, January 6, Justice department, Lawfare, Oversight project, Senate judiciary committee, Supreme court, Washington dc, Opinion & analysis, Merrick garland 

The Trump administration’s tariff policies have delivered a series of wins for the American people. Ford announced that it would be shifting more production of its Lincoln line from China to the United States. Sapporo, the beer brewer, recently said it would move brewing from Canada to south of the border.

The tariff agenda has been pursued using a wide array of tools. Many, including steel tariffs, have come by way of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Steel and aluminum tariffs of some sort date back to Trump’s first presidency. Former President Joe Biden kept them going, and upon returning to office, President Trump increased them to 50% in some cases.

The loophole is pushing America’s retailers toward cheaper, foreign-filled canned food.

These tariffs helped to support a domestic steel industry that had fallen on tough times and whose weakness had turned the Steel Belt to the Rust Belt.

The strategy is clear: make foreign production more expensive, particularly in countries that regularly cheat, like China, in order to encourage companies to reshore in the United States. This will result in more jobs, weaker adversaries, more government revenue, and a stronger economy.

There is only one problem: There’s a loophole in the steel tariffs. The tariffs include tinplate steel, a type of thinner steel used to hold canned foods. Practically all of the cans of soup, fruit, vegetables, and fish that Americans purchase are made with tinplate steel. Tariffing tinplate steel in itself is no problem, as it fits in with broader goals of the administration. But in the current tariff landscape, cans manufactured in America and filled with foods grown by American farmers face much higher levies than cans produced overseas and filled with foreign-sourced foods.

It’s these imported canned foods that increasingly show up on American grocery store shelves, outcompeting against foods made in America.

The resulting issues this creates are obvious. The loophole is pushing America’s retailers toward cheaper, foreign-filled canned food. However, foreign food, especially in places like China, can be far less healthy or safe, since food safety regulations in those countries are far less stringent than in the United States.

This loophole weakens the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. It also directly benefits foreign competitors over domestic producers, both in terms of the tinplate steel that goes into making canned goods and the food found within them. This tariff on tinplate also shifts production and jobs overseas, at a time when American farmers, food processors, and manufacturers are capable of supplying the same products domestically.

RELATED: How Trump got Washington to think about the national debt

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

Fortunately, the loophole can be easily corrected: Apply the same Section 232 treatment to the steel in imported finished food cans that applies to imported tinplate steel, using the authority President Trump has already granted to the secretary of commerce and the U.S. trade representative. It will align with the administration’s broader tariff goals and support domestic steel producers.

This fix should not be difficult. Steel producers and manufacturers want to make their products in the United States. U.S. Steel, which was just saved by the Trump administration, is reopening a tinplate steel mill in Gary, Indiana, next year. But as long as this loophole persists, other companies will have trouble following U.S. Steel’s lead. And Americans will continue, in an effort to save money, to be directed toward foreign-filled food cans.

If the administration wants companies to invest, reshore, and produce in America, it’s time to stop giving foreign-filled food cans the advantage. The steel tariff should follow the steel, whether it arrives as an empty can or inside a finished food product.

​Loophole, President trump, United states, Us steel, Tariffs, Trump administration, China, Steel, Canned foods, Tinplate steel, Imported food, Maha, Section 232, Gary indiana, Opinion & analysis 

Mica Miller was a 30-year-old worship leader at Solid Rock Church when she was found dead from a gunshot wound just two days after serving her husband, JP Miller, lead pastor and founder of the church, with divorce papers.

Authorities ruled her death a suicide.

The death has led to the Netflix documentary series “Death of the Pastor’s Wife,” which dives into the prior allegations of abuse against her husband — and questions whether or not her death was truly a suicide.

However, while the series puts an emphasis on JP’s religion as a reason for his alleged crimes and potential part in his wife’s passing, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey explains that he and his church were not biblically aligned at all.

“The problem with John Paul Miller at Solid Rock was abuse of power, was deviation from Scripture, rejection of biblical truth, not the hierarchy that is actually outlined in Scripture,” Stuckey explains.

And Miller was refusing to submit to Scripture long before Mica’s passing.

“There had been affairs before that. There had been allegations of abuse. There had been allegations of infidelity. There had been all kinds of scandals with Susie, the woman that he had apparently had an affair with,” Stuckey explains.

“There were accusations of grooming of Mica when she was a teenager. There should have been church discipline long, long before Mica Miller committed suicide,” she continues.

“John Paul’s first wife, Allison,” she explains, “said in an affidavit that when John Paul admitted to the affair with Mica, he also admitted to soliciting prostitutes, being sexually inappropriate with several female underage church members.”

John Paul’s church even recognized his “sin problem” and asked him to “step away from the pulpit.”

“But according to the church bylaws, no one within the church had the authority to make him do that,” Stuckey says.

“According to Allison’s affidavit, a council was formed and voted for John Paul to step down to get sexual addiction counseling. But instead of stepping down, John Paul held a meeting informing the council that according to the church’s bylaws, he had 100% decision-making authority,” she continues.

“That’s not the structure that’s outlined by Scripture,” she adds.

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 stuckey, John paul miller, Mica miller, Netflix, Blazetv show, Death of the pastors wife