Supreme Court Gives Trump Admin Key Immigration Victory

Here we go again with the Democrat performative nonsense-over-practical policies gibberish.

You may recall that billionaire liberal donor-turned-candidate Tom Steyer is one of several Democrats running for California governor. Earlier this month, he vowed to prosecute ICE agents along with White House adviser Stephen Millier and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, of course, forbids this insanity. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Steyer, who just doubled down on his vow:

“Watch me,” he says. Okay. We’ll do just that: There is a certain kind of politician who has learned that saying something loudly and confidently is a perfectly adequate substitute for saying something true. California’s gubernatorial race has produced a bumper crop of them. Tom Steyer, the billionaire-liberal-donor-turned candidate, has called for abolishing ICE and jailing its agents, describing the federal law enforcement agency as a “violent extremist group.” Former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa compared ICE officers to the Ku Klux Klan, and state Schools Superintendent Tony Thurmond promised to have ICE agents arrested. Former US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra vowed to “police the immigration police. “ These are the leading candidates to become governor of the most populous state in the union. One might ask: Can they actually do any of this? The answer, rooted not in opinion but in two centuries of constitutional law, is no. And yet the question almost never gets asked, because the performance is the point. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution, and under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, states may not criminally prosecute federal officers for actions taken in the lawful course of their federal duties, provided the officer reasonably believed those actions were necessary to fulfill that duty. This is not an obscure technicality. It is the foundational architecture of American federalism, and it has been settled law for longer than most of these candidates have been alive. My emphasis there.

Also, what happened to the Democrats’ “No Kings” antics? Because vowing to arrest federal agents doing their duly appointed jobs sure sounds…king-like.

Yes, President Trump should absolutely do this. It might be the last chance we have to save the most populous state in the union.

Yeah, Democrats are a misnamed party; they don’t really believe in “democracy.” They believe in power.

Of course, Steyer won’t be the one trying to do the actual arresting. He’ll order his state police to do it – and they’ll either refuse or they’ll try and they will get arrested.

But my guess is, not one police officer in California is gonna try to arrest armed federal agents. So again, this is all performative – for the increasingly left-wing zombies of the Domestic Terrorist Party.

California Democratic Rep. Julia Brownley announced that she will not seek re-election after seven terms representing a district in the Ventura County area.

Brownley’s statement is part of a surge of retirement announcements before this fall’s midterm elections. Thus far, more than three dozen members of the House have already announced that they won’t run again. Brownley is the second California House Democrat to announce her intention not to seek re-election this year. Brownley represents the 26th Congressional District, which includes most of Ventura County and a sliver of Los Angeles County. Proposition 50’s Democratic-friendly gerrymander was a triumph, making it bluer.

“Serving our community and our country has been the honor of my lifetime,” Brownley said in a statement. “Every step of this journey has been shaped by the people I represent, by their resilience, their determination, and their belief that government can and should work for the common good,” Brownley added. “Together, we have expanded access to affordable health care, strengthened support for veterans and their families, protected our natural resources, confronted the climate crisis, and fought for working families,” she continued. Brownley has a long history of being far-left.

“We have helped thousands of constituents navigate the federal government, returned millions in earned benefits, and never lost sight of the simple truth that public service is about showing up for people when they need help the most,” the Democrat added. “With another year remaining in my term, I will continue working every day to deliver results for our region, advance legislation that improves the lives and livelihoods of people in my district and across our country, and stand up for the values and priorities my constituents sent me here to defend,” Brownley declared. “Despite the immense challenges we are currently facing, I remain deeply optimistic about the future of our country,” she said. “The American experiment has endured not because it is perfect, but because generations of Americans continue to believe in it and work to make it more just, more equal, and more reflective of those it serves,” she said.

“I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to have played a part in that work, and I know we will learn from this moment in time how to shore up our democracy to make it even stronger for the generations that will follow,” Brownley wrote. Brownley added, “I am particularly pleased that I will leave the House with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. I am confident that he will lead Congress with integrity, with purpose, with resolve, and with a clear vision for the future. While I will not be in Congress, I will remain in the fight, fighting for a better and brighter future.” Brownley did not give a reason for her decision, but the Democrat said in a statement she was “confident” that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would be an excellent speaker of the House if Democrats win back the chamber. California Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin told reporters, “I am the most obvious person to run for that seat” as she walked off the Assembly floor after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s State of the State speech, saying she was exploring a bid for Brownley’s now-open seat.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a statement after Brownley announced she would not seek another term. “Congresswoman Julia Brownley is a principled public servant and an incredible advocate for the communities that she so ably represents in Ventura and Los Angeles counties,” Jeffries said. “Brownley’s career has been defined by a commitment to making life better for others,” Jeffries added. “She has been an incredible advocate for our veterans, service members and military families, particularly our women veterans. She led passage of the Female Veterans Suicide Prevention Act and the Deborah Sampson Act, critical pieces of legislation supporting the women who have bravely served our nation in uniform,” Jeffries continued.

“Rep. Brownley will be missed by the House Democratic Caucus and we wish her and her family the very best in this new chapter,” Jeffries concluded.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is walking a tightrope as President Donald Trump’s controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund” runs into legal snags and growing exasperation among the GOP.

The South Dakota Republican refused to declare victory Monday after the Justice Department indicated it would comply with a federal judge’s decision to halt payouts from the fund through at least June 12. The pause came after the surprising court verdict on Friday, which revived Trump’s case against the IRS over the disclosure of his tax returns. But Thune made it obvious that Republicans aren’t ready to move on. “The way the statement is worded, I think it’s clear that they’re not proceeding with the fund, but obviously, whether that’s sufficient to satisfy a number of our members is something we’re still sorting through,” Thune said.

Then came the line that raised eyebrows. Asked whether he was concerned Trump could veto the broader funding bill if lawmakers moved to ban the fund outright, Thune answered with a blunt four-word response. “Oh yeah, don’t you?” Thune snidely said. The comment soon drew charges that Thune was ridiculing Trump at a sensitive moment for Republicans.

This also comes as Republicans are seeking to keep their conference unified while negotiating with Democrats on a large $70 billion package to fund immigration enforcement. The challenge for GOP leaders is simple. Democrats could try to force votes on amendments to restrict the fund, putting Republicans in the awkward position of siding with Trump or getting pulled into a messy political dispute ahead of the midterms. Even some of Trump’s most devoted Senate friends are not content with the administration’s present approach. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said Trump needs to be much more straightforward.

“It’s pretty clear that the President has to say very explicitly that there’s not going to be a weaponization fund,” Grassley said. Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy, another staunch Trump ally, was even more direct when describing the overall funding fight. “The reconciliation bill looks like a broken arm with the bones sticking out,” Kennedy declared. Kennedy also rejected the notion that the Justice Department’s promise to obey the court order should end the dispute.

“Saying you’re going to follow a court order doesn’t tell me anything. You have to follow the court order,” Kennedy added. U. S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema last week prevented the government from taking any actions to form or implement the fund before a June 12 hearing. The Justice Department responded in a statement on X, saying it “disagrees strongly” with Brinkema’s decision but “will abide by the court’s ruling.” The department said the fund was “established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people,” and said it is “open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise.”

Reports say the Trump administration now plans to drop the fund, with one source saying: “It’s dead for now.” But killing the fund may not remove what critics say was the most lucrative element for Trump in the agreement. The settlement reportedly granted Trump, his sons, and his businesses immunity from future IRS examinations. It is unclear whether eliminating the fund would also eliminate that protection. The White House declined to comment, referring questions to the Justice Department.

The $1. 776 billion fund was created under a settlement from Trump’s civil case against the IRS after a former government contractor disclosed his tax returns. The administration has said the money was intended to compensate those damaged by government “weaponization” and “lawfare,” terms Trump has frequently used to describe what he contends was the political targeting of conservatives and his friends. But critics say the fund has no clear legal basis, no monitoring, and may be used to reward Trump followers, even individuals convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U. S. Capitol. Last year, on his first day back in office, President Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted in connection with the attack on Congress as his supporters tried to reverse former President Joe Biden’s 2020 election triumph.

President Donald Trump told a private gathering at the White House this week that he has settled on a replacement for former US Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Trump will nominate now-acting AG Todd Blanche, according to a video of the president at a dinner in the Rose Garden announcing his decision posted to X by adviser Dan Scavino. “Tomorrow I’m instructing Dan and everybody else that’s involved in that very complicated process, which is gonna go I think very quickly, that we are going to make him permanent attorney general,” Trump said in the video. When Trump formally nominates Blanche, it would end a two-month period in which he has served as attorney general on an acting basis following the dismissal of Bondi. Since assuming the role, Blanche—best known to many Americans as Trump’s former personal attorney and one of his most outspoken legal defenders—has worked to establish himself as a leading figure within the administration’s law enforcement team.

Supporters argue he has aggressively advanced the president’s priorities while seeking to restore confidence among Trump allies who long accused the Justice Department of political bias. CNN reported Wednesday that Trump was expected to move forward with Blanche’s nomination, citing a source familiar with the matter. In an earlier statement to the outlet, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump has a great relationship with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and is very pleased with the job he’s doing so far.” “Todd Blanche is an American patriot who fearlessly fought against the Democrats’ unprecedented lawfare campaign on behalf of President Trump,” she added.

“The President’s entire team at the Department of Justice is doing a great job advocating for sanity, law and order, and policies that keep Americans safe,” Jackson noted further, per CNN. Blanche’s expected nomination has been widely anticipated for months. Trump has repeatedly praised him publicly, describing him as a trusted ally, an effective advocate, and someone well-suited to lead the Justice Department on a permanent basis. In recent weeks, Blanche’s standing within the administration has appeared to strengthen further as the Justice Department pursued several high-profile initiatives.

Those efforts have included major fraud investigations, changes to federal firearms policies, and a series of politically sensitive prosecutions and inquiries that have attracted national attention. Supporters argue that Blanche has moved aggressively to implement the administration’s priorities, particularly its emphasis on combating government waste, fraud, and what Trump allies describe as the politicization of federal law enforcement. They view his tenure as evidence that he is willing to challenge longstanding institutional practices and pursue reforms promised during the campaign. Critics, however, contend that many of those same actions reflect an effort to align the Justice Department too closely with the president’s political objectives.

They argue that the department’s recent decisions have intensified concerns about the independence of federal law enforcement and its role in politically charged investigations. The expected nomination also comes amid continued debate surrounding the administration’s proposed $1. 776 billion anti-weaponization compensation fund, which is designed to provide financial relief to individuals who claim they were unfairly targeted by government investigations or prosecutions. The initiative originated from a settlement involving the Internal Revenue Service, Trump, members of his family, and the Trump Organization, and has become a focal point in broader arguments over alleged political bias within federal agencies. Several Republicans also recoiled at the fund, with many voicing concerns that undeserving Jan. 6 rioters would be awarded cash.

Because of that inter-party pushback, Blanched on Wednesday announced that the Justice Dept. would be abandoning the weaponization fund, CNN reported. Meanwhile, Blanched has made it clear he wanted the AG job but said he would do whatever Trump wanted. “If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say: ‘Thank you very much, I love you, sir,’” he said.

Headlines spread fast—sometimes faster than the facts themselves. Recently, a viral post claimed that “30 minutes ago in Utah, Charlie Kirk’s wife was confirmed as…” and framed it as an official appointment to a prominent position. Supporters and critics alike rushed to react, flooding social media with speculation.

What do we actually know about Charlie Kirk’s wife, her civic involvement, and whether she holds an official role in Utah? Let’s unpack the facts, the context, and the bigger picture behind this type of viral political story. Who Is Charlie Kirk’s Wife? Erika Kirk delivers emotional remarks to the nation after killing of husband Charlie Kirk – ABC News Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, is a well-known conservative activist with a strong presence in political media. His wife, Erika Frantzve, is recognized for her involvement in civic and community projects. Erika is a former Miss Arizona USA