Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner found himself in hot water on Monday following new allegations of “sexual assault” by a woman who was described as having once dated him.

Now, Platner’s campaign hangs in the balance as Democrat leaders pulled their endorsements in light of the new allegations.

‘If a process for selecting a new nominee becomes necessary, it will be open, transparent, and inclusive.’

While Platner’s leverage in keeping his candidacy seems to be drying up as quickly as his support from Democrats, the path ahead still has a few possibilities.

Here is what Platner’s campaign looks like in the next week.

The first major test of the Platner campaign’s longevity comes Monday.

Maine law stipulates that a vacancy may be declared and a replacement named only if the candidate withdraws on or before 5:00 p.m. ET on the second Monday in July.

RELATED: ‘Taking time to reflect’: Graham Platner responds to most recent sexual misconduct allegations against him

Laura Brett/Getty Images

The Maine Democratic Party, then, faces a problem: If Platner does not withdraw voluntarily, the party will not be able to name a replacement candidate prior to the election in November, barring Platner’s death or a catastrophic illness.

Platner’s name would be removed from the ballot if he withdrew his candidacy any time prior to 70 days away from the election, which falls in late August.

Seemingly aware that Platner’s last remaining point of political leverage, if it can even be called that as his support dries up, some on the right, including Michael Knowles, have half-jokingly encouraged Platner to remain in the race lest the Democrats find a less politically damaging replacement candidate.

“Stand strong, Graham! Don’t let the establishment steal this nomination from you! Whatever you do, don’t drop out!” Knowles said on social media.

If, however, Platner decides not to heed Knowles’ advice and drops out any time before next Monday’s deadline, the Democrats will be scrambling to find a viable replacement before the end of the month.

The Maine Democratic Party, through the Democratic State Committee, will decide on the process by which a replacement candidate can be selected, assuming Platner voluntarily drops out.

This process, however, cannot begin until Platner formally withdraws his candidacy. To make matters worse for Democrats, the replacement candidate must be submitted by July 27 — a mere two weeks after the deadline for Platner’s withdrawal.

“No process to elect a new nominee can commence unless the Platner campaign is suspended. If a process for selecting a new nominee becomes necessary, it will be open, transparent, and inclusive,” a Monday statement from the Maine Democratic Party said.

“The sooner this process can begin, the more time we will have to administer an intentional and inclusive process for Mainers and Democrats.”

The Maine Wire’s Steve Robinson suggested on Tuesday that there is “enough ambiguity” in the rules for selecting a candidate that “state party leaders will be making this up as they go along.”

The Democratic State Committee, which consists of over 100 members including alternates, will be forced to agree on a replacement candidate in a two-week period.

A New York Times report, citing conversations with Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ chief of staff, Kate McBrien, stated that officials have ruled out the option that the DSC will directly choose the nominee.

McBrien told the Times that she was unaware of any precedent in Maine for selecting a new Senate candidate post-primary.

The New York Times, citing two anonymous sources familiar with party officials’ plans, also reported other possible plans include a pop-up convention on the weekend of July 25, immediately prior to the deadline, or a statewide caucus to “effectively redo the party’s primary election.”

Robinson suggested similar procedures like a snap election and a caucus, though he added that both would likely be “logistical nightmares and potential PR disasters.”

Robinson added at the end of his post that even if Platner resigns within the appointed window and the party decides on a satisfactory procedure, the Democrats still have a third hurdle to overcome before the end of the month.

They will still have to “unite behind whoever emerges, raise tens of millions of dollars, and hope that Platner’s radicals stay on the bandwagon and independent voters don’t get lefty fatigue.”

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

​Democrats, Election, Graham platner, Maine, Primary election, Sexual assault, Shenna bellows, Politics 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter is a major victory for constitutional government.

By restoring the president’s authority over the executive branch and overruling what remained of the mistaken Humphrey’s Executor precedent, the justices took an important step toward democratic accountability. The decision also opens a path for President Trump and future administrations to rein in the administrative state.

Americans should celebrate this ruling as a victory for self-government.

At the heart of the ruling is a simple constitutional principle: The president, as the elected head of the executive branch, must have authority to direct executive policy and hold executive officers accountable.

That authority is not merely an administrative convenience. It is the mechanism through which the American people exercise control over executive government.

Article II vests “the executive Power” in a single president and charges him with ensuring that “the Laws be faithfully executed.” Officers exercising executive power derive that authority from the president and must remain accountable to him.

Without meaningful removal authority, the presidency risks becoming little more than a figurehead while unelected officials pursue agendas beyond democratic control.

For decades, Congress has increasingly insulated parts of the federal bureaucracy from presidential supervision. The founders envisioned no such arrangement.

The expansive appeals processes and employment protections shielding many federal employees are well known. Less appreciated is how much of the current system emerged during the 1960s and expanded over the following decades, producing a bureaucracy increasingly insulated from elected leadership.

Whatever the intentions behind those reforms, the result has been to weaken the president’s authority to manage the executive branch and the people’s ability to govern themselves through elections.

The consequences have become increasingly visible.

A Merit Systems Protection Board survey found that only about two in five federal supervisors believed they could successfully remove an employee for serious misconduct. That finding shows how procedural barriers have eroded managerial accountability.

RELATED: No slaughter for the CIA’s DEI office — yet

DigitalVision/iStock/Getty Images

The same culture was evident during President Trump’s first term, when career officials embedded policies contrary to administration priorities in guidance documents, subregulatory materials, and even formal regulations.

When executive officials deliberately frustrate lawful presidential policy, the president must possess adequate authority to remove them.

Predictably, critics warn that Slaughter will politicize the civil service and revive the spoils system. Those concerns miss the point.

President Trump has repeatedly said federal hiring should be based on merit, qualifications, and competence. His administration’s executive orders, rules, and regulations reject political loyalty tests in career hiring.

Merit-based hiring and presidential accountability are not competing principles. They are complementary.

A professional civil service should be selected because its members are qualified to perform their duties. But once entrusted with executive authority, those officials must faithfully execute the lawful policies of the elected president.

That’s far from “patronage.” It’s how representative government should function.

The administration’s Schedule Policy/Career executive order reflects that distinction. It applies to career employees in confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions. Those employees remain merit-based career officials, not political appointees.

But senior career officials exercising substantial policy influence should not be able to use endless procedural protections to delay, frustrate, or undermine an elected administration’s agenda.

The Civil Service Reform Act was never intended to create permanent insulation for officials exercising broad executive discretion.

The administration has also appropriately tested constitutional errors by removing officials whose statutory protections conflict with Article II. Those cases have allowed courts to reconsider precedents that steadily weakened presidential control over the executive branch.

RELATED: Trump calls ‘Slaughter’ ruling the greatest increase of presidential power in 100 years

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

In its 2026 Jackler and Jaroch decision, the Merit Systems Protection Board recognized that statutory employment protections cannot override Article II when applied to inferior officers exercising significant executive authority.

The Supreme Court’s Slaughter decision builds on that reasoning and on other precedent. It rejects the fiction that agencies exercising executive power can remain meaningfully “independent” of the executive.

Those who execute federal law must ultimately answer to the president.

Opponents will characterize the decision as a dangerous expansion of presidential power. In reality, it restores the constitutional structure the founders designed.

Americans elect a president to implement policies on immigration, the economy, national security, and countless other questions. If unelected officials can frustrate those policies through institutional resistance or procedural barriers, elections become less meaningful.

Accountability disappears because voters cannot determine who is responsible for the success or failure of executive policy.

The Slaughter decision restores that chain of accountability. It strengthens the president’s ability to direct officers exercising executive power while preserving a federal workforce hired on merit and expected to execute the law faithfully. That is neither radical nor unprecedented. It is the constitution’s design.

The federal government exists to serve the American people, not to function as an independent center of political power.

By reaffirming presidential authority under Article II, the Supreme Court strengthened democratic accountability and helped ensure that executive power remains where the Constitution places it: with the president elected by the American people.

Americans should celebrate this ruling as a victory for self-government.

Elections cannot provide meaningful accountability when officials exercising executive power are insulated from the president voters chose.

Slaughter helps restore that constitutional chain: Executive officers answer to the president, and the president answers to the people.

​Administrative state, Executive orders, Opinion & analysis, Article ii, Donald trump, Supreme court, Trump v. slaughter, Constitution, Bureaucracy, Congress, Humphrey’s executor 

A convicted “high-risk” pedophile hired by the city of Syracuse, New York, was fired after he was arrested for “horrific” allegations involving a 12-year-old girl.

On Thursday, police responded to a report of a man with an underage girl in a parking lot. The man fled the scene after being approached by another adult, according to the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office.

He allegedly lured the child to an isolated area in the Town of Lafayette and subjected her to a sexual act two separate times.

An investigation of the victim’s social media found that she had been interacting with a male through Snapchat. The messages indicated they had been having a sexual relationship.

The man was identified as 45-year-old James M. Desantis, who was already registered as a high-risk sex offender.

Desantis was arrested Thursday and booked into the Onondaga County Justice Center. He faces a slew of charges that include:

First-degree attempted rape;Luring a child to commit a felony;First-degree sexual abuse;Sexual abuse with an underage child;First-degree coercion;Third-degree aggravated sexual abuse;Aggravated sexual abuse with an underage victim;First-degree stalking; First-degree disseminating indecent materials to minors;Third-degree obscenity; andTwo counts of acting in a manner injurious to a child under 17.

Desantis was previously convicted of sex crimes against children in 2004 and 2005. In the first case, he was sentenced to 10 years probation for the rape of a 14-year-old girl. In the second case, he was convicted for the rape of another 14-year-old girl and sentenced to five years in prison.

Both victims were known to Desantis.

In the more current accusations against Desantis, he allegedly lured the child to an isolated area in the Town of Lafayette and subjected her to a sexual act two separate times. Both times, he sent a photo of a firearm to her and said he knew where she lived.

Desantis was hired by the Syracuse Department of Public Works in 2017 and was promoted to an on-location supervisor in 2024. He was fired after the arrest, and city officials are now being questioned about how a child sex offender had been working for years at the city.

RELATED: Michigan parents charged with murder and torture after 7-year-old boy dies with disturbing weight

Syracuse Mayor Sharon Owens said her administration is investigating how Desantis was hired by the city and reviewing hiring practices.

“I’m very angry,” Owens said to WSYR-TV. “I spent my life working with children and protecting families, and this, quite frankly, is pissing me off.”

Desantis is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday.

The sheriff’s department asked for help from the public to find other possible victims in the case.

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

​New york, Pedophile, Snapchat, Syracuse, Social media, Child rape, High risk sex offender, Crime 

On June 23, standing before a crowd in Pennsylvania, President Trump was asked where he stood on a national right to carry.

His answer was four words: “Yeah, we’re working on it.”

The crowd roared.

For millions of law-abiding gun owners, those words pointed toward something they have awaited for decades: an end to a system that treats a constitutional right like a privilege that must be renewed at every state line.

Let’s be honest about where things stand.

The president has not signed anything, and no national reciprocity law exists today. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act cleared a House committee last fall but has stalled in the Senate.

Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.

This is the starting line, not the finish line. But it is the right race to run, because the issue reaches far beyond the convenience of carrying a firearm across state borders.

I think about that every time I drive from my home in upstate New York to North Carolina to visit my son, daughter-in-law, and grandson.

I travel through New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. Four states. Four sets of gun laws. Four different answers to the same question: What rights does a free citizen carry when he crosses an invisible line on a map?

We accept this with almost no other right.

My driver’s license is honored in all 50 states. My freedom to speak, worship, and remain secure in my home does not evaporate at a tollbooth.

President Trump has made the same point since 2015, comparing a carry permit to a driver’s license: If one works in every state, so should the other.

The argument is common sense. The principle beneath it runs deeper.

The Second Amendment does not create the right to self-defense. It recognizes a natural right the founders understood to be endowed by God.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a permission slip issued by the government. It is the people’s right of self-preservation.

The founders knew what they were guarding against because they had lived under it.

Strip people of the means to defend themselves, and every other freedom becomes a favor granted by those in power. Free speech becomes a suggestion. Religious liberty becomes a privilege.

History is brutally consistent on this point: Disarmament often comes before oppression, not after it.

RELATED: ‘Shall not be infringed’ — even if you’re high, Supreme Court rules

Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Yet over the past century, America has moved from treating the right to bear arms as a birthright of citizenship to treating it, in too many places, as a government-granted privilege hedged in by fees, waiting periods, and paperwork.

The result is a maze of state and local laws so inconsistent that the same citizen, with the same clean record and character, can be legal in one state and a criminal the moment he crosses into another.

That is not the rule of law. That is a trap for honest people.

National reciprocity would cut through that maze. It would recognize a simple principle: Your right to carry should travel with you.

Twenty-nine states already recognize that citizens should not need government permission to carry. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision also affirmed that the Constitution protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense rather than leaving it to the discretion of local officials.

Reciprocity would extend that logic across state lines.

So yes, the president’s words in Pennsylvania were encouraging. But encouragement is not law, and the bill remains stalled in the Senate. It will stay there unless the people who care about this issue make themselves heard.

I have often said that elections are only victories in individual battles. The fight for freedom continues long after the votes are counted.

This is one of those fights.

If you believe your God-given rights should not change the moment you cross a state line, say so. Call your senators. Talk to your neighbors. Make the national right to carry a question every candidate must answer.

Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.

The founders did their part. The question is whether we will do ours.

​Concealed carry, Drivers license, Gun owners, President trump, Second amendment, Supreme court, Right to carry, Pennsylvania, Opinion & analysis 

Europe is warming at an unprecedented rate. England is experiencing record-breaking temperatures this summer, with the month of June being the hottest the country has ever recorded. In the same month, Spain saw over 1,000 heat-related deaths, and in France 40 people died from drowning in one week’s time, as people rushed to bodies of water to escape the suffocating heat.

Sadly, these deaths aren’t uncommon. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 175,000 people die from heat-related causes in Europe every year.

The irony is that Europe has some of the world’s most ambitious climate policies. Many countries have rules limiting how cold public buildings or offices can be set; energy costs price the majority out of purchasing air conditioning; and the public largely views climate change as an urgent crisis demanding immediate aggressive action.

Glenn Beck is nauseated by the number of Europeans dying from what’s an easily fixable problem.

“It’s a box in a window that blows cold air. What a crazy thought,” he scoffs, citing a study that found that “air conditioning cuts heat deaths by as much as 75%.”

“So, you would think with bodies piling up that Europe might be like, yeah, we got to get a box in every window. … You’d think that that would be one thing everybody could agree on, but you’d be wrong,” he sighs.

Glenn plays a recent clip of British climate activist Dr. Kush Naker urging Brits to essentially ditch their gas-powered air conditioners.

“If you can switch your electricity provider to one that’s completely renewable, or you speak to your MP and tell them that we need to get off oil and gas … those are the sorts of things that means that we can actually make our grid green and that we can actually have air con without making climate change worse,” he said.

“Good Morning Britain” anchor Richard Madeley pushed back, “But all of that would take a heck of a long time. Are you saying in the interim you shouldn’t have air con? You should wait until you can say, hand on heart, ‘Yep, it’s green energy that’s keeping me cool?’”

Despite the fact that thousands are dying from the heat, Naker — who was also addressing a mother of young children whose bedrooms are often hotter than the threshold of what’s considered safe — replied, “We need to be honest about the fact that it has costs, right? And then when we face these sorts of costs, we then need to make a decision: Well, who should we prioritize?”

“These people are out-of-their-mind nuts!” Glenn exclaims.

He then shares a harrowing story out of France, where several schoolchildren have fainted or been hospitalized from classrooms reaching over 100-degree temperatures.

In late June 2026, during a severe heat wave in Nîmes, a young pupil at École Primaire La Planette fainted in class as temperatures hit around 104 degrees F with no air conditioning.

Parents, frustrated by the conditions, crowdfunded money to buy and install AC units themselves.

“Problem solved, right? Of course not! You’re in France,” Glenn scoffs, calling the mayor of Nîmes a “communist.”

The left-wing municipality in Nîmes, led by communist Mayor Vincent Bouget, ordered the removal of the parent-funded air conditioners. The stated reason was that it “set a precedent” and created inequality, as not all neighborhoods/schools had parents with the means to do the same.

“Everybody sweats together. I just want you to know that’s not a glitch. That is the socialist philosophy. … You’re all going to be miserable,” Glenn says.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Europe, Climate change 

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in Houston led to the shooting death of a Mexican illegal alien who allegedly tried to run over officers.

Officers were performing a traffic stop as part of a “targeted enforcement operation to arrest an illegal alien” just before 7 a.m. at the intersection of Canal Street and Wayside Drive, according to an ICE spokesperson.

‘All available footage, communications, and other evidence should be preserved and reviewed as part of a full and impartial investigation.’

Rather than pull over, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo reportedly tried to escape in his vehicle and rammed into an ICE vehicle.

ICE said he then “weaponized” his vehicle and tried to run over an officer, who fired in self-defense.

Araujo was struck in the stomach and transported to a hospital, where he was later declared dead.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the incident, according to ICE, but the FBI said it was investigating the potential assault on a federal officer, not the man’s death.

Video reportedly from the incident shows Araujo groaning on the ground near a white van while officers attend to him.

Democratic Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Texas issued a statement about the incident on social media.

“ICE has released an initial account, but the facts must be independently and thoroughly investigated, including the circumstances that led to the use of deadly force,” she wrote.

RELATED: Video shows protester apparently shooting at federal agents during immigration operation at California farm

“All available footage, communications, and other evidence should be preserved and reviewed as part of a full and impartial investigation,” she added. “The victim’s family, my constituents, and the entire community deserve a complete and transparent accounting of what happened.”

Houston City Council Member Alejandra Salinas also called for a “thorough and impartial investigation” into the circumstances of the lethal shooting.

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

​Ice shooting, Illegal alien, Immigration and customs enforcement, Traffic stop, Deadly force, Houston, Politics 

One company believes biology should not limit who should be able to conceive children.

That same company says it has now made strides to turn that belief into a reality.

‘Yeah, I’m gay, and it’s something that got me so personally interested.’

Fertility company Conception announced last week that it accomplished what was, until recently, only possible with mice: creating early human egg cells.

“Biology limits who can have children and when,” Conception says on its website. “Egg supply declines and medical barriers can limit fertility entirely, as birthrates fall across the globe.”

To counteract this, Conception says, it has finally “generated the first early human eggs derived from stem cells.”

CEO Matt Krisiloff said that after a simple blood draw, his company converted blood cells into stem cells, and from there, “coaxed” those stem cells into becoming “miniature human ovaries containing the early eggs.”

Krisiloff has not hidden his intentions; in fact, he made them crystal clear during a 2023 interview with NPR. Inside the company profile, Krisiloff expressed that he is personally invested in being able to create babies for gay couples.

“My personal biggest interest in it is that it could allow same-sex couples to be able to have biological children together as well,” the CEO said. “Yeah, I’m gay, and it’s something that got me so personally interested in this in the first place.”

RELATED: Disembodied human brains kept ‘alive’ for drug testing by controversial American startup

Seoul National University/Getty Images

Conception calls its technology “in-vitro gametogenesis” and claims it is a “profound advance” in reproductive technology.

The recent announcement discusses the process, which comes from successful trials of making viable eggs from stem cells in mice back in 2016. Conception’s collaborative scientist, Katsuhiko Hayashi, reportedly demonstrated that skin cells in mice can be turned into stems cells capable of becoming any type of cell in the body, which in turn were used to create usable eggs.

“These eggs produced healthy [mouse] pups that lived normal lifespans and reproduced naturally, having healthy pups of their own,” Conception wrote.

While the process has been far easier to achieve in mice than in larger animals, the company said, the technology is still “worth pursuing” in humans.

No public information is available on what other animals Conception has tested on.

The company’s financial backing is available, though, and this includes investments from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Skype founder Jaan Tallinn, and Recursion Pharmaceuticals co-founder Blake Borgeson, who all contributed to a $20 million round in previous years.

RELATED: At 250, America’s fate is wonderfully unwritten

Conception’s co-founders, Pablo Hurtado Gonzalez and Bianka Seres, also shared their views on the project. Hurtado Gonzalez said, “There is something intrinsic, sharing a life that is half me and half my husband.”

“I don’t have the capacity right now, and I am devoting my life to try to change that,” Hurtado Gonzalez added.

Seres also said the project is likely to be a “pretty big” deal around the world.

“And for individuals, I think it’s going to be life-changing,” she contributed.

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

​Fertility, Sam altman, In vitro fertilization, Tech 

A Democratic congressman in California reiterated his call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a record high number of arrests was reported.

Border czar Tom Homan appeared on Fox News and lauded the historic number of arrests over the five-day period while talking about the effort to strip commercial licenses from illegal aliens.

Federal officials had been able to rescind over 28,000 commercial licenses that were being held by illegal aliens.

“In the last five days, ICE has arrested over 10,000 illegal aliens, which is a record for the agency,” Homan said to Fox host Dana Perino. “So we’re hitting on all cylinders. There’s just a lot of these people to find, but we are out there every day looking for them.”

He suggested that officials in states like New York were sheltering illegal aliens from these federal investigations.

“The problem is, we’re working very well with red states; in blue states it’s still a struggle, right? Places like New York, I mean, ICE and CBP can’t even get access to the DMV database!”

He added that federal officials had been able to rescind over 28,000 commercial licenses that were being held by illegal aliens since May 1.

In response, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) posted a statement on the X social media platform calling for ICE to be replaced.

“We cannot ignore their continued abuse and violation of human rights. It’s time to abolish ICE and replace it,” Khanna wrote in the post.

“These people being detained are being denied basic human rights,” Khanna said in a video attached to the post.

RELATED: Majority of Americans approve of Trump’s response to anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis: Harvard poll

“I was at the California detention center. I saw someone with blood in his urine who was denied medical care,” he continued. “I saw rocks in the food. I saw people shivering because they didn’t have clothes. We need to stop funding ICE that’s violating human rights.”

Homan went on in the Fox interview to accuse sanctuary mayors and state governors of “normalizing” illegal immigration by allowing illegal aliens to have driver’s licenses.

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

​Immigration and customs enforcement, Rep ro khanna, Illegal aliens, Tom homan, Ice arrests, Sanctuary cities, Politics