With the Texas primaries fast approaching, candidates are scrambling to pitch a last-minute winning message to voters.

Primary elections are set to take place March 3, leaving Republicans and Democrats with just days to edge out their competition. Here is everything you need to know about the three major primaries that have taken center stage.

1. Ken Paxton vs. John Cornyn vs. Wesley Hunt

Felix/Bloomberg via Getty Images, Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images, Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

The three-way primary giving Republicans a headache has been the GOP Senate race with Sen. John Cornyn, the establishment-backed incumbent, fending off Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt. Cornyn and Paxton had already been facing off in the bitter primary before Hunt decided to throw his hat in the race.

Hunt’s ambitions are not expected to go far, but his candidacy is forcing the GOP to pour more resources into a race that ought to be a slam dunk.

RELATED: ‘Loser mentality!’ Sparks fly as Texas Republicans spar to succeed Ken Paxton in debate moderated by Allie Beth Stuckey

In a two-way race between Cornyn and Paxton, the attorney general has maintained a narrow 2.3 point average lead. Three-way polls show Hunt pulling a significant portion of the vote from both candidates, with one survey showing 36% support for Paxton, 34% for Cornyn, and 26% for Hunt.

If none of the candidates are able to secure at least 50% of the vote, the Republicans will be forced into a runoff, draining more valuable resources Republicans could otherwise spend in tougher races. Notably, President Donald Trump has refrained from endorsing any of the candidates.

2. Jasmine Crockett vs. James Talarico

Photo by Alberto Silva Fernandez/Getty Images, Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for MoveOn

While Republicans duke it out in the Senate primary, their Democratic counterparts are also trying to find their footing.

Tensions reached a boiling point after Stephen Colbert’s show decided not to air on TV an interview with state Rep. James Talarico, pointing the finger at the Trump administration and the FCC’s “equal time” regulations. Rep. Jasmine Crockett sought to set the record straight, claiming her challenger’s interview was actually canned due to a decision from Colbert or the network, saying they didn’t want to have her on the show.

RELATED: ‘Maybe I should endorse Jasmine Crockett’: Lauren Boebert jokes with, praises James Talarico amid heated Texas primary

Crockett has become a rising star for the progressive faction of the party, while Talarico has branded himself a blue-dog Democrat with a Christian upbringing.

Although Talarico’s attempts to moderate would likely give him an advantage in the general, Crockett has maintained an average of a three-point advantage against her primary opponent. It’s also worth noting that polls predict that no matter the nominee, both Crockett and Talarico would have the best shot of securing the Senate seat going up against Paxton.

3. Tony Gonzales vs. Brandon Herrera

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images, by Scott Stephen Ball for The Washington Post via Getty Images

The House primary that has recently become the center of controversy has been in Texas’ 23rd congressional district between incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales (R) and gun YouTuber Brandon Herrera.

Herrera came within striking distance of unseating Gonzales in 2024, but Gonzales narrowly managed to maintain his House seat. Gonzales’ odds at re-election are now looking slimmer than ever after a massive scandal broke, derailing his campaign and bringing calls of resignation from his Republican colleagues.

RELATED: ‘Desperate rage’: Republican accuses lawyer of ‘blackmail’ amid affair rumors linked to staffer’s suicide

The nightmare began when Gonzales’ former staffer Regina Santos-Aviles tragically took her own life by setting herself on fire in the backyard of her Uvalde home back in September. A month after her horrific passing, reports began to surface alleging that Gonzales had had an affair with Santos-Aviles.

These allegations resurfaced after new text messages were turned over to the media that appear to confirm the affair. The most recent set of alleged text messages seem to show Gonzales pressuring Santos-Aviles to send explicit photos as well as asking about her favorite sexual position.

This sparked a massive rebellion within the GOP with mounting pressure for Gonzales to resign. Notably, Trump has not yet rescinded his endorsement of the Texas Republican.

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, Texas, Texas primary, Tony gonzales, Brandon herrera, Regina santos-aviles, Jasmine crockett, James talarico, Stephen colbert, Fcc, Texas senate primary, Texas senate race, Wesley hunt, John cornyn, Ken paxton, House republicans, House democrats, Senate republicans, Senate demcorats, Politics 

Many parents assume the battles over “woke” education are largely settled — that whatever excesses defined the last few years have been corrected and that schools have moved on.

Recently uncovered internal curriculum guidance from Maryland’s largest school district suggests otherwise.

Eighth-grade students were shown graphic, politically charged material about Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a geography lesson.

The documents reveal that Montgomery County Public Schools encourage teachers to center lessons on white supremacy, racial and gender identity, and the need for students to engage in “resistance to and liberation from” existing social structures. These guidelines were discussed at a recent PTA meeting and outline what the district calls the “Characteristics of Anti-Bias/Antiracist Curriculum.”

Teachers are instructed to emphasize themes of injustice, racism, oppression, implicit bias, and inequity across subject areas — an approach that reframes education not simply as the transmission of knowledge, but as a moral project aimed at reshaping how students understand society and their place within it.

Left alone, this might have remained a quiet local issue — noticed by a handful of parents, discussed briefly, and eventually absorbed into the bureaucratic background noise of a large school system. Instead, the documents became public.

That’s because of Defending Education, a national grassroots nonprofit that helps parents and communities understand what is being taught in schools — and advises them on coordinating a local response when academic instruction drifts into political or ideological advocacy.

Founded in 2021 by free speech advocate Nicole Neily, Defending Education operates according to a model of indirect activism, emphasizing transparency, documentation, and resources over directives. Parents, Defending Education argues, know their schools better than any national group ever could. What they often lack is access to internal materials, legal context, and a sense of whether what they’re seeing is isolated — or part of a broader pattern.

As the organization puts it in its Empower resources:

Knowledge is power. If you walk into a meeting confident that you know what you’re talking about, you’ll be more effective.

That principle underlies most of Defending Education’s work: Collect primary documents, explain what they mean in plain language, and allow families to decide for themselves how — and whether — to act.

Why the Montgomery County case matters

According to Defending Education, the Montgomery County guidance reflects a broader trend: Controversial frameworks are often introduced not as standalone courses, but as values meant to permeate instruction across subjects, grade levels, and disciplines.

In a press release, Paul Runko, senior director of strategic initiatives at Defending Education, said the language in the MCPS materials should concern parents who were told such frameworks were not entering K-12 classrooms:

This internal guidance from Montgomery County Public Schools looks and sounds a lot like Critical Race Theory, despite repeated assurances to parents nationwide that CRT is not in K-12 schools.

Lessons framed around “resistance to and liberation from white supremacy” — and that ask students to “challenge the current social order” — risk dividing students and indoctrinating them into far-left ideology rather than upholding the American ideal that individuals are judged by their character and achievements, not the color of their skin.

Not an isolated case

The Montgomery County documents are not an anomaly. They are one of many examples Defending Education has uncovered across the country in recent months, spanning classroom instruction, curriculum design, and civil rights enforcement.

Recent cases include:

Minnesota (Hermantown Middle School):
Eighth-grade students were shown graphic, politically charged material about Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a geography lesson, including claims of people being “dragged, beaten, tased, and shot.” The lesson asked students to consider whether ICE had “gone too far” and tied immigration enforcement to President Trump’s campaign promises. School officials defended the material as aligned with state standards. Portland, Oregon:
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into Portland Public Schools following a Title VI complaint filed by Defending Education. The complaint alleges millions in taxpayer dollars were diverted to race-exclusive programs associated with the district’s Center for Black Student Excellence, potentially violating federal civil rights law.

RELATED: ‘Whites … need not apply’: Trump DOJ sues Minneapolis Public Schools for alleged racial discrimination

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Across these cases, Defending Education functions less as a protest group and more as an institutional clearinghouse. Its work includes:

Collecting internal documents and guidance through parent tips and public-records requests; Publishing primary materials so parents can judge content for themselves; Explaining education law, civil rights rules, and parental rights in accessible language; and Providing tools for local engagement with school boards and administrators.

In practice, Defending Education operates as a kind of relay between local parents and a national platform. It gathers tips from families, obtains internal materials through public-records requests, and publishes primary documents so parents can see exactly what schools are saying and doing — often in their own words.

The organization then provides legal and policy context around those materials, helping families understand whether what they’re seeing is routine, questionable, or potentially unlawful.

How to get involved

Parents can explore Defending Education’s Empower resources to understand basic education law, parental rights, and common curriculum frameworks; follow the organization’s reporting to see whether local concerns mirror national trends; or submit tips and documents when something doesn’t seem to align with what schools have publicly promised.

Some parents go further — connecting with others in their district, attending school board meetings more prepared than before, or using Defending Education’s materials to frame questions in ways administrators are more likely to answer. Others simply want reassurance that they’re not imagining patterns that feel hard to name. In either case, the organization’s premise is the same: You know your school best — but you shouldn’t have to navigate it blind.

​Defending education, Public school, Crt, Critical race theory, Wokeness, Education, Provisions 

A family of foreigners visiting California were kicked out of the famed La Jolla Cove in San Diego after they were caught allegedly harassing the sea lions.

Visitors and tourists to the cove are warned to avoid the sea lions, but unruly behavior has led some activists to call on the state to shut down access to human beings in order to protect the animals.

‘Why shouldn’t I give you a citation for kicking an animal?’

On Sunday, San Diego photographer Jim Grant said he witnessed one such incident and recorded a San Diego City park ranger kicking out a group of people from the Cove.

“He was giving a really, really stern warning to a couple of kids about throwing things,” said Grant to KNSD-TV. “Finally he told the mother, ‘Woman in the brown jacket, come to the top of the stairs.'”

The video shows the mother interacting in broken English with the ranger.

“Where are you guys from?” the ranger asks.

“China,” the mother says.

“China? In China, do you guys throw dirt at the animals too?” he asks.

“Why shouldn’t I give you a citation for kicking an animal?” the ranger asks later on.

He decided not to give the family a citation but did follow through with kicking them out of the Cove.

Grant said he’s never seen anyone kicked out of the Cove in decades of shooting photos there.

The woman got off easy. Harassing sea lions is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and carries a punishment of up to $30,000 per violation and up to one year in prison.

RELATED: Man decapitated sea lion on Christmas and rode away on e-bike with its head, California officials say

“The Cove is not your personal petting zoo, and it’s not the wild, wild west. There are federal regulations that are put there for a reason,” Grant added.

In July 2024, video captured at the Cove showed sea lions charging at beachgoers and causing a panic. Experts said that they were not actually chasing people but were likely just looking for a suitable place to mate.

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

​La jolla cove sea lions, Marine mammal protection act, Chinese people harass animals, Chinese kicked out of la jolla, Crime 

When it comes to artificial intelligence, the Trump administration has made its position clear: America will not choke innovation with red tape.

That instinct is understandable and, in many ways, correct. AI is moving fast, and heavy-handed regulation could do real damage. If the United States cripples its own companies, China will gladly take the advantage. And no one on the right wants blue-state politicians using AI rules to smuggle “woke” ideology into the next generation of powerful models.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

As White House AI adviser David Sacks recently put it, “We don’t like seeing blue states trying to insert their woke ideology in AI models, and we really want to try and stop that.”

Fair enough.

But what happens when resistance to bad regulation hardens into resistance to any regulation at all?

That question is now surfacing in Utah, where the White House is reportedly opposing a Republican-sponsored AI transparency bill. The fight may sound parochial, but it raises a much larger question: Do conservatives have the discipline to protect constitutional liberty in the AI age?

Utah isn’t California

The Utah proposal is not a European-style crackdown. It would not impose speech codes, mandate ideological compliance, or try to centrally plan the AI economy.

At its core, the bill focuses on transparency and accountability. It would require frontier AI companies to disclose serious risks, plan for safety in advance, report major problems, and protect whistleblowers who raise alarms.

That’s far from radical.

If the administration’s AI strategy is to stop progressive states from embedding political orthodoxy into algorithms, Utah’s bill does not belong in that category. The measure is about making sure the companies building extraordinarily powerful systems acknowledge the risks up front and take responsibility when things go wrong.

Treating that effort as if it were blue-state social engineering confuses two very different problems. There is a real difference between using AI regulation to enforce ideology and asking powerful firms to level with the public about systems that could reshape society.

The myth of an ‘unregulated’ AI market

Another uncomfortable truth lurks beneath this debate: AI is not operating in anything like a free-market vacuum.

The European Union has already enacted its sweeping AI Act. That regulatory regime will not stop at Europe’s borders. American companies that operate globally will feel its force, and American users will feel the downstream effects.

If the United States adopts a posture of total federal non-engagement, it will not preserve a neutral market. It will hand the regulatory initiative to Brussels.

That would be a serious mistake. Europe does not regulate with American constitutional principles in mind. It regulates through a bureaucratic worldview that prizes centralized control over freedom. If Washington refuses to establish clear guardrails rooted in our own constitutional tradition, foreign regulators and multinational firms will fill the void.

Power without constitutional guardrails

AI is quickly becoming part of the infrastructure of modern life. These systems increasingly shape how information flows, how public opinion forms, and how daily choices get nudged.

That is power.

We have already watched major corporations use private power to shape public life. Social-media companies moderated, suppressed, and curated speech in ways that tilted public debate. Large firms adopted ESG frameworks that embedded political priorities into lending, hiring, and investment. In both cases, powerful institutions pushed ideological outcomes without a vote being cast or a law being passed.

Nothing suggests AI will escape those pressures.

RELATED: If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control

gorodenkoff / Getty Images

The companies building frontier systems carry their own assumptions, incentives, and cultural biases. If those assumptions get baked into foundational models — and those models then get integrated into education, finance, media, hiring, and governance — ideological influence will move from the margins to the infrastructure of society.

Yes, clumsy central planning would hurt innovation and weaken America’s position against China. But the answer cannot be blind faith that market incentives alone will protect liberty. That asks a great deal of institutions that have already shown a willingness to steer political and cultural outcomes in their preferred direction.

The real challenge is making sure extraordinary technological power develops inside a framework that respects constitutional rights, individual liberty, and personal autonomy.

A pro-liberty AI framework

The Trump administration is right to resist ideological manipulation in AI models and to oppose sweeping regimes that would handicap American innovation while China races ahead.

But someone will shape the boundaries of this technology. The only real question is whether those boundaries reflect American constitutional principles or the preferences of foreign regulators and corporate boards.

Red states such as Utah should be treated as allies in that effort, not obstacles. They can serve as proving ground for approaches that protect transparency, due process, free expression, and individual autonomy without strangling innovation.

Artificial intelligence will shape the next century more than any single statute. Total non-engagement may sound pro-growth, but in practice it leaves the foundational rules of the AI era to someone else.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

​Ai, China, Usa, Liberty, Ai regulations, Artificial intelligence, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Utah, Legislation, Woke ai, Leftism, Red states, Blue states, Brussels, European union, Free speech, Censorship, David sacks, Free market, Transparency 

Jared Hudson is a former Navy Seal, a devoted Christian, a current Republican candidate running for the U.S. Senate seat in Alabama, and the founder of Covenant Rescue Group, a nonprofit dedicated to combatting human trafficking and child exploitation through law enforcement training; operations to rescue victims and arrest perpetrators; and advocacy.

On a recent episode of “Strange Encounters,” Hudson joined Rick Burgess to dive into today’s darkest headlines — Epstein, child exploitation, cultural depravity, and political corruption — and ultimately connect them to the bigger reality of spiritual warfare.

During their conversation, however, Hudson told Rick something that genuinely shocked the BlazeTV host: After years of infiltrating the child exploitation industry, there’s an even darker underworld operating in the United States.

Since Covenant Rescue Group kicked off in 2019, Hudson and his team have seen things most of us can’t even begin to imagine.

“I mean, we’ve seen guys having sex with 18-month old babies — their own children,” he says.

And yet, Hudson says his work in D.C. politics has shockingly exposed him to even deeper levels of depravity.

“I feel [depravity] more now in the politics side that I’ve gotten involved in running for U.S. Senate than I do in the child exploitation side,” he told Rick, who was taken aback by this declaration.

“You just said that you have sensed demonic activity [in politics] more … than you’ve even seen in Covenant Rescue with human trafficking and child exploitation. So, why would that be?” he asks.

Hudson explains that dealing with child exploitation, while undeniably monstrous, is in some ways easier because it’s still “taboo” and widely opposed.

“Look at the outcry from both sides of the aisle on this Epstein stuff, right?” he says.

Even though there are fringe groups that want to destigmatize pedophilia by pushing it “into a sexual orientation,” by and large, “we are, as a society, not past protecting children,” he explains.

Hudson compares that to the D.C. swamp, which runs on “partiality.”

“Everybody within politics, even if they disagree with exploitation or whatever, they show partiality,” Hudson says.

And where partiality thrives, so does depravity, he explains, citing James 3:16-17: “For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.”

“Career politicians, even if they claim to be Christians, they sell access … and they’re partial to donors,” Hudson says, arguing that these politicians disregard those who “can’t write [them] a max donation check,” “support a super PAC,” or “put [them] on a platform that’s going to reach a 100,000 people.”

“They’re partial to their club as opposed to the people they’re elected to represent. And you have a bureaucracy that’s in place, and you have these elitists that are in place that think that they can buy … your position, buy you, buy access to you … and own [you],” he explains.

This kind of systemic corruption isn’t occasional or confined to certain groups — it’s baked into the structures and normalized at every level.

“It’s across the board for everything — congressmen, even the president,” Hudson says.

“Everything’s for sale,” Rick echoes.

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Strange encounters with rick burgess, Blazetv, Blaze media, Rick burgess, Jared hudson, Dc corruption, Spiritual warfare 

Affordability has become a problem for nearly every American. Inflation and the rising cost of living keep chewing through paychecks, and the old markers of the American dream — home ownership, small-business ownership, a secure retirement — feel farther out of reach than they have in years.

Some people respond by demanding more government involvement in daily life. President Trump has taken the opposite view: The government should step back.

Success will not come only from repealing rules. It will come when regulators stop seeing entrepreneurs as problems to manage and start seeing them as partners in growth.

Within days of returning to office, Trump signed two major executive orders aimed at saving money for business owners and taxpayers alike: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation and the much-discussed DOGE initiative. Their core principle was simple: For every new federal regulation, agencies should eliminate 10 old ones.

One year later, the results are real.

I have spent that year on the front lines of the fight against unnecessary regulation as a regional advocate in the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. Congress established the office in 1976, but it has taken on renewed life under the current administration.

My team and I have spent the past year meeting with small-business owners — many still trying to recover from the economic damage of the COVID lockdown era — to identify ways the federal government can serve as a partner instead of a roadblock.

Nationwide, our team has met with more than 12,000 businesses.

The full report is available publicly, but the top-line results from the past year are straightforward:

We flagged more than 300 regulatory issues for federal regulators.We helped influence changes to 23 federal regulations affecting millions of businesses.We saved small businesses nearly $110 billion in unnecessary regulatory costs.

That last number is significant, but it also shows the scale of the broader problem. Federal regulation costs the U.S. economy more than $3 trillion a year by some estimates — roughly 12% of GDP. Much of that burden falls hardest on smaller firms that cannot absorb legal and compliance costs the way large corporations can. Meanwhile, the Code of Federal Regulations has swollen from a few thousand pages decades ago to more than 180,000 pages today.

For small businesses, that kind of regulatory sprawl is not an abstraction. It is a threat.

Big companies can keep in-house counsel, compliance officers, and HR departments on payroll. A family business, a contractor, or a startup working out of a garage cannot. Excessive regulation tilts the playing field toward the largest players and against the very people most likely to create new jobs and local wealth.

For too long, federal rulemaking has treated small-business owners as an afterthought. We once heard that giant firms were “too big to fail.” Today, many small businesses face a different reality: they are becoming too small to succeed.

RELATED: Republicans and Democrats are in revolt — for very different reasons

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

One of the most effective tools we have built to push back is the SBA’s Red Tape Hotline — 1-800-827-5722 — which allows small-business owners to speak directly with federal staff about regulatory burdens and offer suggestions for reform. Through that hotline, we have heard from thousands of people we could not have reached in person.

Our broader goal is to improve the regulatory climate for every business owner in the country. But even saving a mom-and-pop shop a few billable hours with an attorney can make a real difference.

In one especially memorable case, SBA staff helped a toy company in Mississippi clear a shipment through Customs and Border Protection in time for December — literally saving Christmas for that business.

The philosophy behind this work is the same one that guided me as mayor of Riverton, Utah, where I recently completed two terms. Riverton has grown because we kept taxes, fees, and regulations low enough for businesses to thrive. Companies came, jobs followed, and the city’s sales-tax revenue doubled during my time in office. Watching that same pro-growth approach work at the national level has been deeply rewarding.

Still, this is only a first down, not a touchdown.

Success will not come only from repealing rules. It will come when regulators stop seeing entrepreneurs as problems to manage and start seeing them as partners in growth. If we can make that shift, we can do more than trim costs. We can make the American dream attainable again.

​Government regulations, Red tape, Small businesses, Entrepreneurs, American dream, Affordability, Regulatory costs, Small business administration, Opinion & analysis 

A brawl broke out late last week after a police chief dressed in street clothes tried to arrest a high school girl who allegedly was causing trouble amid a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement — and now some residents in the southeastern Pennsylvania borough of Quakertown want the chief to resign.

The Bucks County Courier Times said a probable cause affidavit provides the first official police account of what led to the arrest of five Quakertown High School students.

‘Everybody was confused because nobody knew it was a policeman. He was in regular clothes. We were just like, “Why is the man attacking us?”‘

At least 35 students participated in the Friday walkout to protest ICE, the Courier Times said, citing the affidavit.

Quakertown police had been monitoring the protest “from a safe distance” and assisting with road closures after students left the high school campus and headed into the downtown business district, the paper said.

More from the Courier Times:

Early in the protest Friday police allege they noticed a large group of protesters move into the road in the 100 block of East Broad Street, and a girl kicked a white pickup truck on the passenger side several times and hit the side mirror with her hand, the affidavit said.

Protesters also threw “ice balls” at vehicles, stood on public benches, and police approached the group and requested they protest respectfully, and keep the sidewalk clear, the affidavit said.

In a statement issued Friday, Quakertown police alleged student protesters threw snowballs at vehicles, kicked cars, and “damaged property such as tearing a side mirror from a car.”

The police statement also said that additional officers were called to the scene when confrontations with students escalated “and some individuals assaulted officers.”

However, the paper said witnesses and protesters alleged that motorists followed the students and revved their engines, blew exhaust fumes at them, and yelled taunts at the students.

The Courier Times, citing the affidavit, said students who continued walking toward Front Street were yelling obscenities “at the officers and in general.”

RELATED: Praise rolls in for high school suspending hundreds of students over anti-ICE walkout: ‘Adults are taking charge’

Police said a 15-year-old female protester was seen “numerous times” walking in the road, including in front of moving vehicles and blocking traffic, and she was warned to stay on the sidewalk, the paper reported.

An officer allegedly ordered the girl to come across the street to be detained, and when she started to walk away from him, the officer grabbed her arm, the Courier Times said, citing the affidavit.

With that, other teen protesters confronted the officer and pulled the girl away, which allowed her to slip into the crowd, the paper said, citing the affidavit.

The officer radioed for assistance, the affidavit said, after which Quakertown Police Chief Scott McElree, 72, and a sergeant arrived at the scene. The officer pointed to the girl he was trying to detain, and McElree allegedly attempted to arrest her — but a boy was pulling her away, the affidavit added.

More from the Courier Times:

After McElree grabbed the boy, he pulled away and struck the chief in the head with his cell phone multiple times, the affidavit said.

The boy was eventually taken to the ground and placed in custody after he intervened again attempting to keep McElree away from the 15-year-old girl, according to the document.

Multiple teens encircled McElree and began to punch and hit him including the 15-year-old girl that police were originally attempting to detain, the affidavit said.

The paper, citing the affidavit, added that a sergeant saw another teen boy dressed in black come up behind McElree and hit him three times on the right side of his face and rib area. With that, the sergeant grabbed the teen, took him down, and placed him in handcuffs, the Courier Times said.

RELATED: Juvenile hit by car at student anti-ICE protest in Florida

Another police officer saw a girl hit McElree in the head with her backpack while the chief was on the ground grappling with a female protester, the paper said, citing the affidavit.

What’s more, a detective who responded to the scene allegedly saw a girl punch McElree in the head, after which the detective caught the girl and placed her on the sidewalk, where she allegedly kicked him several times while being handcuffed, the Courier Times said.

The girl whom police originally wanted to detain was taken into custody, the paper said, adding that her attorney, Ettore “Ed” Angelo, on Tuesday denied his client had any physical contact with McElree.

In all, five students were arrested and taken to juvenile detention.

Three of them were released Tuesday, the Courier Times said, adding that the status of the remaining two is unknown, and the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office has released no information as of Tuesday. The DA’s office on Thursday did not immediately respond to Blaze News’ question regarding how many students have been released.

Authorities have not released their names, ages, and charges since they’re juveniles, but the paper said it confirmed that at least two of the students face felony aggravated assault charges.

RELATED: Video shows brawl after high school walkout protester allegedly hit pro-ICE man — and the man is charged with child abuse

The Courier Times, citing the affidavit, said McElree was treated at a hospital for nonspecific injuries. The paper added that his face was covered in blood as he left the scene; however, in a cellphone video posted to social media he’s heard telling an officer that he was “fine.”

Since the melee, McElree has been facing increasing backlash, including calls for him to resign. One of the issues is that the chief was not in uniform and allegedly did not identify himself as a police officer, the Courier Times said.

Ashley Orellana, a Quakertown High School senior and friend of one of the arrested students, told WPVI-TV that “everybody was confused because nobody knew it was a policeman. He was in regular clothes. We were just like, ‘Why is the man attacking us?'”

Orellana attended a hearing Tuesday to support one of the defendants, the station said, adding that Robert McMillion, who witnessed his younger sister’s arrest, also was in attendance.

“The chief, the unmarked man, he just started attacking us first, and something should be happening to him instead of the kids,” McMillion told WPVI.

At a borough council meeting Monday night, parents and community members called for McElree to resign or be fired, the station said.

RELATED: Girl says she fought ‘old,’ ‘racist’ man with MAGA hat at ICE protest — and excuses fellow teen brawlers

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania alleged that McElree violated his commitment to “serve and protect” his community amid the incident, WHYY-TV reported.

“By all accounts, including abundant video evidence, there were no issues at the demonstration until Quakertown police arrived and incited violence,” Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told the station in a statement.

Walczak added to WHYY that “the police should have been there to facilitate the demonstration, ensuring that the students could safely exercise their rights to assemble and speak out freely as guaranteed by our Constitution. They failed. In abandoning his job and his mission on Friday afternoon, Chief McElree effectively was acting as a counter-protester, albeit one with the ability to arrest people. Quakertown deserves better.”

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

​Ice, Ice protest, Pennsylvania, Quakertown, High school students, Police chief, Fight, Arrests, Property damage, Quakertown high school, Kicking cars, Blocking traffic, Harassment, Bucks county district attorney, Crime, Aggravated assault charges, Immigration and customs enforcement, Scott mcelree, Politics