Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez (D) recently said the quiet part out loud: If Democrats regain power, they intend to “melt ICE” and “dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.”

Not reform. Not recalibrate. Dismantle.

At this point, no one should be surprised, but everyone should be paying attention.

The window for aligned federal action is limited, and states must be prepared to carry that work forward regardless of what happens in Washington.

Over the past several years, we have seen what a serious approach to border security can look like. Under President Donald Trump, the federal government has taken long overdue steps to restore enforcement at the border, disrupt cartel operations that extend into American communities, and reassert the basic principle that immigration law should be enforced.

But the job is nowhere near finished.

Cartel networks are still heavily embedded in trafficking routes, financial systems, and communities across the country. Interior enforcement remains inconsistent. Local and state cooperation is uneven at best. And despite real progress, the broader homeland defense framework is still fragile — dependent on political will, which can shift overnight.

That fragility is exactly what Ramirez’s comments expose. We are not debating hypotheticals; we are being explicitly told what will happen when the balance of power shifts.

The same agencies tasked with protecting the homeland would be targeted for dismantlement, the enforcement tools that have begun to regain ground would be stripped away, and the limited progress made in confronting transnational criminal networks would be reversed.

This threat is not just rhetoric from some far-left politician. Polling trends are already pointing toward a potential shift in power in the 2026 midterms. That means the window for aligned federal action is limited, and states must be prepared to carry that work forward regardless of what happens in Washington.

RELATED: My message to President Trump: Don’t mess with Texas politics

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Key legislation like the SAVE America Act remains stalled, and DHS is still not fully funded to meet the scale of the challenge, caught in the middle of ongoing congressional budget standoffs. Structural reforms that would lock in enforcement gains for the long-term have yet to materialize. In other words, even with unified control, the system is struggling to deliver the level of security the country requires.

So what happens when that control goes away? We don’t have to guess — we’ve been told.

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) has said that under Democratic control, officials carrying out deportations could face mass prosecutions, while taxpayers would be expected to fund reparations for the “trauma” inflicted on foreign nationals.

The largest deportation effort in American history would be halted. Federal enforcement would be curtailed. The focus of immigration policy would shift away from American communities and toward accommodating foreign nationals.

And once that signal is sent from Washington, it will cascade downward — into statehouses, city councils, and law enforcement agencies across America.

This fight cannot be viewed as strictly federal. As I’ve written before, it starts at home. It depends on governors willing to lead, legislatures willing to fund enforcement, and local law enforcement willing to uphold the law consistently and without apology.

Sheriffs, police chiefs, and county officials are not peripheral actors in this system; they are fundamental to whether it succeeds or fails.

That responsibility is especially urgent in red states. And right now, Texas has an opportunity to lead.

RELATED: Senate Republicans tried to cave on Trump’s agenda

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The Texas Legislature has already laid the groundwork with its 2026 Interim Charges, taking on everything from hostile foreign networks operating inside our state to strengthening and equipping the new Texas Division of Homeland Security. But our interim work only matters if it turns into action.

As we head into the 90th Legislature, and while there is still alignment in the White House, Texas has an opportunity to go further — building a real, state-led homeland defense framework that doesn’t depend on shifting priorities in Washington. That means passing laws with teeth, funding enforcement, closing loopholes, and making it clear that in Texas, the rule of law is not optional.

Because when the political winds shift, and they always do, the difference between a secure nation and a vulnerable one will come down to what was built beforehand. The left’s intentions are no longer implied, they are explicit. The time for debate about what might happen is over. The only question now is whether we have the will to act before those promises become policy.

​Border states, Texas, Trump, Dhs, Ice, Democrats, Immigration, Illegal immigrants, Border security, Red states, Opinion & analysis 

WhatsApp is the most widely used messaging platform in the world, boasting three billion active monthly users as of 2025. With widespread adoption, Meta’s communication juggernaut delivers 100 billion messages per day brimming with terabytes of data that, up until recently, were believed to be safely encrypted to keep prying eyes at bay. Allegedly, that’s not the case: A new lawsuit claims WhatsApp’s encryption technology is merely a façade that hides Meta’s broad backdoor access.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Meta “categorically” denies the claims. But while the most recent turn in the drama involved a judge tossing out a suit from WhatsApp’s former cybersecurity chief alleging the company fired him for blowing the whistle, the larger global class-action suit against Meta rolls on.

Why people love WhatsApp

WhatsApp is hugely popular for several reasons.

A full trial and an investigation will need to be conducted before the truth comes to light.

First, it’s not tied to any specific phone platform or service. Unlike Apple’s proprietary iMessage, or perhaps Blackberry Message of the past, WhatsApp works on most devices, including Apple products, Android phones, desktop computers, and more. It’s ubiquitous, making it an easy choice for users who just want to connect with their family and friends, wherever they are and whatever device they use.

Second, WhatsApp features end-to-end encryption built on Signal Protocol — the same encryption technology found in the Signal app. That means your messages, photos, videos, and other files sent through the app are private so that only you and the person you’re talking to can view them. Don’t take my word for it though. Here’s what Meta says:

When you send a message, the only person who can read it is the person or group chat that you send that message to. No one can see inside that message. Not cybercriminals. Not hackers. Not oppressive regimes. Not even us. End-to-end encryption helps make communication via WhatsApp private — sort of like a face-to-face conversation.

With end-to-end encryption, you can be sure that your messages are safe and sound from prying eyes who wish to monetize your information or worse, right? At least, that’s what it’s supposed to mean.

The lawsuit

The new lawsuit alleges that WhatsApp isn’t as encrypted as everyone believed. Filed at the U.S. District Court by a band of whistleblowers from Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa, the suit claims that WhatsApp’s encryption technology can be easily thwarted by the right people within Meta’s own hallowed halls — including content moderators working through Accenture, which has been added as a defendant in the case.

Before we jump too far down the rabbit hole, the suit admits that WhatsApp doesn’t make the source code behind its encryption implementation available to the public or third-party auditors. Therefore it’s impossible to prove (or even disprove) that its encryption system is set up correctly, with no backdoor access or vulnerabilities. The public simply has to trust Meta to be honest here.

RELATED: Meta drops stunning news about its $77 BILLION VR world

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images (L), Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto/Getty Images (BG)

So how do the whistleblowers allegedly know that users’ encrypted messages are easily accessible? They claim that a Meta engineer can simply file a request within their internal system to view a user’s ID and chat history for work purposes. Worse, they claim some celebrities, politicians, and even Meta employees are closely “tracked” by staff for “investigation.” Lastly, the suit claims that Meta tried to prevent this information from reaching the public by isolating workers into specialized groups and forcing them to sign NDAs that threatened legal action should they speak out.

If true, this would mean that practically anyone’s WhatsApp data is viewable by a limited but notable group of people within Meta and, perhaps, some moderators working through Accenture. This data could also theoretically be copied and shared with other groups outside of the company, including advertisers, bad actors, or the government. Note that there is no proof so far that Meta shared users’ information outside of the company, but its sheer accessibility would throw a spotlight on Meta’s promise that no one — including Meta itself — can see your messages.

Naturally, Meta disputes the charges laid out in the lawsuit: “Any claim that people’s WhatsApp messages are not encrypted is categorically false and absurd,” the company says. “WhatsApp has been end-to-end encrypted using the Signal protocol for a decade. This lawsuit is a frivolous work of fiction and we will pursue sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel.”

Should you abandon WhatsApp?

Just like individual people, in the court of law, companies are innocent until proven guilty. A full trial and an investigation into Meta’s encryption practices will need to be conducted before the truth comes to light. Erring on the side of caution, however, open source apps that are subject to public scrutiny and security audits are the only ones that can be tested and proven to do what they promise to do. Whether or not you wish to move away from WhatsApp is a personal choice.

That said, both public-facing apps from Signal and Telegram are open source, and they’re built with security protocols that are publicly verifiable. Signal comes with end-to-end encryption enabled from the start. Telegram requires the user to enable end-to-end encryption by starting a Secret Chat. That makes either of these options stronger on private messages and data.

​Meta, Whatsapp, Privacy, Tech 

A mother and father of a 15-month-old child who died have been arrested after an investigation determined the child died from ingesting methamphetamine.

Pennsylvania state police responded to a call on Feb. 12, 2025, at the Mt. Pleasant Township residence of 34-year-old Michael Thomas Blaesser and 31-year-old Ashley Amber Makarsky.

Another child at the home, who was 3 years old, tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine.

Police found the unresponsive boy and transported him to the Independence Health Frick Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The living conditions at the residence were described as “beyond deplorable” by officers.

“There was no food in the house that we saw that was edible,” Trooper Steve Limani said. “The temperatures were below freezing within the home. The only heat source for the house was a kerosene heater that emitted fumes that you could strongly smell … along with fecal matter and garbage.”

There was no running water or electricity, the roof had holes in it, and the temperature inside was 28 degrees. A mattress appeared to have mold growing on it.

Limani says the boy was likely exposed to methamphetamine through drinking the mother’s toxic breast milk.

An investigation discovered that the parents had a history of drug abuse and had been involved in two other cases where children where exposed to drug-laced breast milk, according to Limani.

The three alleged incidents provided enough evidence for the parents to be charged with third-degree murder. They may also be charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment.

Another child at the home, who was 3 years old, tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine, according to police.

RELATED: Arizona mother charged with child abuse after her 2-year-old daughter tests positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine

“There is a pattern set forth about where a person should know and understand the consequences of taking illicit substances and then using your body to … sustain life for your child — you’re feeding it drugs and potentially going to kill your child,” Limani said. “And that’s what took place.”

The pair were each given a $1 million bond. An attorney for Makarsky said the mother is “gutted” by the accusations and said it was the first time she’d gotten into trouble as far as the attorney knew.

A TribLIVE report said that court papers did not reference breast milk as the reason the child died.

“Those were the results of their horrific neglect and absolute disregard for trying to take care of a [child] that relied solely on these two individuals,” Limani added.

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

​15 month old boy dies, Toxic drugs in breast milk, Blaesser makarsky charged murder, Mt pleasant township baby murder, Crime 

What if the radical feminism shaping your daughter’s identity isn’t coming from culture but from a school “mental health” session?

My organization, Courage Is a Habit, investigated and unveiled that the American School Counselor Association is promoting Lean In Girls, a program developed by the Sandberg Goldberg Bernthal Family Foundation, as a tier 2 intervention for girls as young as 11.

They are grooming the next generation of activists to carry out a political agenda.

We released a bombshell report showing that this program is marketed as confidence-building, but it introduces controversial ideas about identity, power, and gender under the umbrella of mental health, often in settings where parents may have limited visibility.

Its connection to radical feminist Sheryl Sandberg, who has recently re-entered the cultural spotlight, raises broader questions about how these ideas are reaching students. At a minimum, this debate points to a simple question: When schools say “mental health,” what are children actually being taught — and do parents know?

For decades, the school counselor’s office served as a sanctuary for student wellness and academic guidance. However, the ASCA continues peddling radical feminist curriculum into the lives of young girls in their most formative years.

Silencing dissent

Sheryl Sandberg, the architect of this curriculum, brings a troubling record from her time as Meta’s chief operating officer. Under her leadership, the platform weaponized “fact-checking” systems to silence conservative voices and fuel and create a stifling, hypersensitive environment.

This era of aggressive content moderation suppressed COVID skepticism and gender-critical opinions while hiding the Hunter Biden laptop story. Now that same culture, which Mark Zuckerberg later admitted “neutered” his company, has been repackaged as a mental health tool for young girls.

The erasure of biological reality

The most alarming aspect of Lean In Girls is its assault on the definition of a “girl.” The program openly invites biological males, described as “nonbinary teens who identify with the girlhood experience,” to participate in these sessions.

Facilitators are directed to use “gender-neutral language,” avoiding the words “girls” or “guys” in favor of “folks” or “leaders.” They are coached to swap “they/them” pronouns into scenarios and apologize if they make a mistake with a student’s preferred name or pronouns. All of this is funded by taxpayer-backed school resources.

Beyond gender ideology, the curriculum utilizes the divisive tactics of critical race theory. Facilitators are directed to rank themselves and their students on an intersectional “hierarchy of oppression.” This exercise divides children by race, sexuality, and perceived victim status.

Instead of teaching girls to lead with character, it teaches them to view every interaction through the lens of power and systemic bias.

RELATED: Why do state schools bankroll people who despise the state?

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

Bypassing the parents

ASCA is positioning this program as a tier 2 intervention for students flagged as needing targeted behavioral or mental health support. This allows schools to target students for radicalization, often without explicit parental notification, under the fraudulent banner of wellness.

By framing activism as mental health support, school districts are attempting to bypass parental rights protections affirmed in cases like Mahmoud v. Taylor. They are grooming the next generation of activists to carry out a political agenda, similar to the radical figures Sandberg’s previous platforms once protected from criticism.

A call to action

The “Lean In” philosophy has moved from the corporate boardroom to the middle school hallway, bringing the full weight of DEI compliance and radical gender ideology with it. Parents must realize that many school counselors have become activists in residence. It is time to demand transparency.

Parents should take an active role in understanding what their children are being exposed to in school. Start by asking whether programs like Lean In Girls are being used and request access to the full curriculum.

It’s also important to insist on clear, written confirmation that parental consent will be obtained before any child is placed in these types of groups. And if concerns remain, parents have the option to opt out, ensuring their daughters are not placed in programs that conflict with their values or understanding of identity.

Our daughters deserve a future built on truth and genuine confidence, not a life of miserable marches, constant screaming, and insufferable activism.

​Woke ideology, Left wing activists, Courage is a habit, Lean in girls, Radical feminism, Lgbtq, Dei, American school counselor association, Opinion & analysis 

Leslie Jones is not happy with the institution of marriage, and she made that clear in a recent interview with YouTuber Ziwe — where she likened marriage to “legalized slavery.”

When pressed on her stance, Jones doubled down, warning young people against getting married and comparing traditional expectations of wives to oppression.

“I think marriage is legalized slavery,” Jones told Ziwe.

When the interviewer pushed back, Jones responded, “If he is expecting you to be a trad wife, he might as well pull out a whip and a chain.”

“There are young people watching who might be wanting to get married. What would you say to them?” the interviewer then asked.

“Don’t,” Jones replied.

Shemeka Michelle tells BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock on “Jason Whitlock Harmony” that Jones’ position is not born of a healthy mindset.

“I think this is silly. She’s 58 years old, and it really bothers me when we have old women who are just bitter and angry and never been married, alone. She never had children. She wants this same bitterness and anger for young people, saying, ‘Never get married,’” Michelle says.

“How can you even liken marriage to slavery? Marriage is something that God ordained. It’s why he created woman, because man wasn’t supposed to be alone. The fact that she likens it to slavery is just her own bitterness,” she continues.

“She has some residual bitterness for not being chosen,” she adds.

Whitlock couldn’t agree with Michelle more.

“Calling marriage slavery when it’s actually the greatest tool in the pursuit of holiness, that’s what really bothers me,” he agrees.

Michelle points out that Jones’ view of marriage is based on those who enter marriage for the wrong reasons.

“For Leslie to say that, I just feel like she’s never really stepped back and taken a look at herself beyond her physical appearance. But to say, ‘How can I change? How can I be a good wife?’ Because there are a lot of women who just enter marriage for the wrong reason,” Michelle explains.

“They want the big wedding. They want the nice ring. They want to be able to think that they’ll just get to sit on the couch and eat bonbons. They’re not looking at it from an act of service and how I can be a good wife. There are a lot of women who want to get married, but there aren’t a lot who want to be wives,” she continues.

“And this is clear from the way she likens it to slavery. She just has the wrong mindset about it,” she adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Fearless with jason whitlock, Jason whitlock harmony, Jason whitlock, Shemeka michelle, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Leslie jones, Marriage, Slavery, Ziwe podcast, Feminism, Feminist 

The Supreme Court just heard arguments in a case (Trump v. Barbara) to determine whether we are a sovereign nation or whether any invaders can trespass in our nation and unilaterally assert jurisdiction to grab citizenship for their children.

Shockingly, there is no legal scholar alive who believes we have five votes against the maniacal theory that the 14th Amendment codifies anchor-baby citizenship of illegal aliens.

To eliminate the ability of the people to even debate the future membership of their society will spell the end of our country as a sovereign entity.

Rather than submitting to the Supreme Court, Trump must stake his presidency on the notion that Congress, not SCOTUS, has the final say on citizenship, and every fiber of his messaging and political capital should be expended toward shaming Republicans into passing a clarification of the law.

President Trump has already shown that he is willing to focus his attention singularly on one issue with his push for the SAVE Act. However, to the extent that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, fixing the debasement of citizenship itself is exponentially more important than preventing noncitizens from voting.

Although voting by noncitizens does unfortunately occur, it is relatively small compared to those who are given citizenship and vote legally when they should be disqualified.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there were 225,000 to 250,000 births to illegal immigrants just in 2023. That is close to 7% of all births in the country and could account for several million new citizens over a decade. In addition, the CIS estimates that roughly 500,000 kids were born to temporary visa-holders over the past decade. Thus, fake citizens voting “legally” is a much graver concern than noncitizen voting.

This loophole is a sovereignty and security problem. The Chinese espionage machine exploits this loophole to bring in pregnant women, drop a baby, and grab citizenship on behalf of an enemy nation. Would we allow invading armies to bring their wives along for the ride and obtain citizenship too?

Whenever I challenge some friends to make broader immigration reform more important than the SAVE Act, which the right has chosen as its final hill to die on, the retort I get is that SAVE has simplicity of messaging. However, nothing beats the message that illegal invaders should not be able to come here against the national will and steal citizenship from the nation.

An immigration reform bill to stop granting citizenship to those here illegally and those born to temporary visa-holders should be coupled with a bill to ensure that illegal aliens are not counted in the Census. Some estimates project that counting noncitizens in the Census has shifted 17 House seats.

This is a much more consequential form of voter fraud. And unlike voter registration, it’s fully under federal control. I’m all for the SAVE Act, but let’s be honest: Blue states will not enforce it in the long run, especially under a Democrat president.

So what should the president do? He must preemptively build the case that even to the extent one agrees with the Wong Kim Ark decision on birthright citizenship, it can only apply to those domiciled here on a permanent basis, not illegal aliens or temporary visitors. And to the extent that there is a dispute, it is up to Congress, not SCOTUS, to decide.

It’s important to remember that the 14th Amendment itself, under Section 5, grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment. To interpret it in a superfluous fashion that would void an entire enumerated power is absurd in light of the power of Congress to interpret the amendment itself.

Certainly, in any case of ambiguity, we must err on the side of caution not to strip the consent to citizenship away from the society and its representatives.

Congress clearly has the authority to interpret the scope of jurisdiction any given class of immigrants have and can pass laws clarifying in which instances their children are entitled to citizenship. After all, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over naturalizations.

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Unless there would be no way to read the plain language of the 14th Amendment other than a mandate based upon territorial jurisdiction instead of political jurisdiction (before 1898, nobody read it this way), it is simply imprudent to interpret it in the most stringent way. Doing so would have the effect of almost completely voiding an enumerated power of the people’s representatives.

If Congress is powerless to prevent people from coming here and stealing citizenship, that would mean Congress does not control the power over naturalization.

The operative paragraph of the Ark opinion establishing birthright citizenship for children born to immigrant parents qualifies that they “are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States,” but only “so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here.” If they are not permitted to reside here, which is the subject addressed in Trump’s birthright order, then all bets are off.

We will always have social disagreements on immigration as a matter of policy, but to eliminate the ability of the people to even debate the future membership of their society will spell the end of our country as a sovereign entity. To create an affirmative right to immigrate and remain in the country against the national will represents that most profound usurpation of a nation’s sovereignty.

During the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866, Rep. James F. Wilson (R-Iowa) emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” He reiterated, “It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.” How tragic for us to now create the ultimate novel right for foreigners that strips the sovereignty from every citizen.

​Birthright citizenship, Supreme court, Trump, Immigration, Illegal immigrants, Trump v barbara, Wong kim ark, Elections, Fourteenth amendment, Scotus, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump has announced that Operation Epic Fury is “nearing completion” as the military operation against Iran approaches its fifth week.

During his address to the nation Wednesday night, Trump recapped the United States’ progress in the region, aiming to reassure Americans that the conflict would soon draw to a close. Notably, Trump did not indicate whether the United States would put boots on the ground in the region.

‘The hard part is done.’

Trump reiterated the objectives of the operation, including destroying Iran’s air force and navy, debilitating its missile capabilities, and preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons.

“Tonight, I’m pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion,” Trump said. “As we celebrate this progress, we think especially of the 13 American warriors who have laid down their lives in this fight to prevent our children from ever having to face a nuclear Iran.”

RELATED: Trump says Iran asked for a ceasefire — but the US has one major condition

Trump also echoed the updates he provided throughout the week, urging European allies burdened by the oil crisis to buy American oil and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz themselves.

“The hard part is done, so it should be easy,” Trump said. “And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally.”

Although it is still unclear who in Iran the United States is negotiating with and the status of those negotiations, Trump said that he is on track to “get rid of a cancer that has long simmered.”

“It’s known as the nuclear Iran,” Trump said. “And they didn’t know what was coming. They never imagined it.”

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

​Donald trump, Iran war, Strait of hormuz, Ayatollah, Iran, Israel, Operation midnight hammer, Operation epic fury, Nuclear iran, Boots on the ground, Politics