Crime | Federalist Press | Defending Liberty

Election Day 2026: A Democratic Wave, a Republican Surprise, or Another Polling Failure?

November 3, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

As Americans decide control of Congress, Republicans face the traditional midterm headwinds of an unpopular war and high prices. But polling uncertainties, Democratic divisions and unusual controversies in Alaska, Michigan and Texas could complicate the expected results.

Federalist Press | November 3, 2026

WASHINGTON — Americans are voting today in one of the most consequential midterm elections in recent memory, with control of the House of Representatives and Senate at stake, an escalating conflict with Iran influencing gasoline prices, and political controversies disrupting several of the nation’s most closely watched races.

Most national political analysts expect Democrats to make substantial gains, following the historical pattern in which the president’s party loses congressional seats during midterm elections. Republicans, however, are pointing to previous polling failures, the administration’s economic record and divisions within the Democratic Party as reasons the results may differ from the prevailing forecasts.

The central question is whether today’s elections will resemble 2006, when Republicans suffered a substantial defeat during President George W. Bush’s second term, or whether Donald Trump’s political coalition will again prove more resilient than pre-election surveys suggest.

Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, writing in Fox News this morning, argues that Republicans have good reason to fear a repeat of 2006, but also identifies important differences between the two elections.

In 2006, Republicans lost 30 House seats and six Senate seats. Today, the GOP begins with a narrow House majority and a 53–47 advantage in the Senate. Democrats need a net gain of only three House seats to control that chamber, while the Senate presents a considerably more difficult challenge requiring four additional seats.

Are the Pollsters Underestimating Republicans Again?

Perhaps the most intriguing Election Day question concerns the reliability of political polling.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten has repeatedly examined the tendency of Republican candidates to outperform surveys in several Midwestern states. In September, he noted that Republicans exceeded their September 2024 polling numbers by nine points in Iowa, six points in Ohio and five points in Michigan. Similar polling discrepancies appeared in major statewide races during the 2018 midterms.

Those historical errors matter because Democrats entered the final weeks of this election with polling leads in several contests that were smaller than the previous Republican overperformance.

Hewitt highlighted another concern in today’s Fox News column. According to figures reported by The Washington Post, pollsters attempting to measure the Kansas Senate race made approximately 85,000 telephone calls and sent 50,000 text messages. Their response rate among Democrats was 32 percent, compared with just 12 percent among Republicans.

That discrepancy raises legitimate concerns about nonresponse bias, particularly if Republican voters who decline to participate differ politically from those who answer surveys. Professional pollsters attempt to compensate through weighting and other statistical techniques, but those adjustments are not always successful.

There are also reasons for caution. Polling errors vary between elections, states and individual races. A Republican advantage in one election does not guarantee the same advantage in another. Enten himself warned in late October that an apparent four-point Republican improvement between registered-voter and likely-voter Senate polling was unusually large by historical standards.

The polls are therefore an imperfect guide rather than evidence of a predetermined result. The actual composition of today’s electorate will determine whether Republicans again exceed expectations.

Michigan: A Democratic Senate Candidate Loses His Primary Opponent to the GOP

Michigan has produced one of the election’s most extraordinary political developments.

Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive former county health director who supports universal health care, is facing former Republican congressman Mike Rogers for the seat being vacated by Senator Gary Peters.

But on Sunday, Representative Haley Stevens, who lost the Democratic primary to El-Sayed, publicly endorsed Rogers. She subsequently explained that her decision reflected serious concerns about El-Sayed and her belief that his campaign had failed to include the voters who supported her.

The endorsement stunned Michigan Democrats. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and state party officials condemned Stevens’s decision, while President Trump welcomed it.

The controversy follows a bitter primary involving disagreements over Israel, progressive economic policies and the direction of the Democratic Party. El-Sayed has emphasized health care and affordability while seeking to expand Democratic turnout among younger voters and working-class communities. Rogers has emphasized his national-security experience and criticized his opponent’s positions.

Stevens’s defection illustrates a broader tension within Democratic politics between progressive candidates and more centrist party figures. Whether that division materially affects the election remains unknown, but it has become a major issue in one of the nation’s most important Senate contests.

Alaska: The Mystery of the Two Dan Sullivans

In Alaska, the controversy surrounding the appearance of two Senate candidates named Dan Sullivan has become a national story.

Republican incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan is facing Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, along with another candidate, Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg.

Republicans alleged for months that the second Sullivan had been recruited to confuse voters and draw support away from the incumbent. The allegations acquired substantial documentary support when The New York Times published an October 28 investigation describing an organized candidate-recruitment effort involving people associated with Peltola’s campaign and national Democratic campaign personnel.

According to the newspaper, operatives searched for Alaskans named Dan Sullivan and worked to encourage additional candidates to enter the contest. Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have denied involvement, and the extent of Peltola’s personal knowledge remains disputed.

The controversy has prompted state and federal investigations and legal proceedings concerning the election. Recruiting candidates to divide an opponent’s support is not automatically illegal, and no court has established that the operation constituted criminal election fraud.

Nevertheless, the disclosures have placed unusual scrutiny on Alaska’s election process, particularly because the state uses ranked-choice voting. The final outcome may require additional counting rounds, and the legal disputes could extend beyond Election Day.

Texas: James Talarico’s Political Balancing Act

Texas presents another test of the Democratic Party’s ability to compete in a traditionally Republican state.

Democrat James Talarico, a former state legislator whose campaign emphasizes Christian faith, education and economic fairness, is challenging Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general.

Talarico has attempted to appeal to voters beyond the Democratic base by emphasizing shared values and economic concerns. Republicans have countered by drawing attention to his progressive policy positions and questioning whether his general-election presentation accurately reflects his political record.

The campaign has become a contest over both ideology and credibility. Talarico argues that his religious beliefs and economic message can attract voters who have grown disillusioned with partisan politics. Paxton emphasizes conservative priorities and seeks to connect his opponent to positions unpopular among Republican-leaning Texans.

Claims that Talarico has reversed specific campaign pledges should be evaluated against his original statements and subsequent explanations. Political moderation, a change in emphasis and an actual policy reversal are not necessarily the same thing.

Texas has attracted substantial national attention because its Senate election could influence the balance of power in Washington and reveal whether Democrats can expand their appeal in a state Republicans have dominated for decades.

The Economy: Strong Growth Meets High Living Costs

President Trump’s economic record presents both an opportunity and a challenge for Republican candidates.

Hewitt points to third-quarter economic growth of 3.4 percent, more than twice the initially reported growth rate during the comparable quarter of 2006. Republicans also emphasize the administration’s tax policies, border enforcement and efforts to expand domestic economic activity.

But voters encounter the economy primarily through household expenses, and those figures present a less favorable picture.

According to the comparisons in Hewitt’s column, inflation stands at approximately 3.7 percent, gasoline averages around $4.20 per gallon nationally, and 30-year mortgage rates are approximately 7.25 percent.

The ongoing conflict with Iran has added pressure to energy markets, complicating the administration’s economic message. Supporters of the president argue that confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional activities is necessary for long-term security. Critics question the military strategy, its costs and the resulting pressure on American households.

The 2025 American strikes severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities, but subsequent developments have demonstrated that the conflict and questions about Iran’s nuclear capabilities remain unresolved.

Voters must weigh the administration’s economic and national-security objectives against the immediate financial pressures they experience.

That tension may be especially important in suburban House districts, where high housing costs, fuel expenses and household budgets can influence voters who are otherwise divided over national politics.

The House: Dozens of Races, a Narrow Republican Majority

All 435 House seats are on today’s ballot, and Democrats need only a small net gain to take control.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report has moved numerous districts toward Democrats during the closing weeks of the campaign. NPR identified approximately 70 districts where both parties have invested at least six figures in late advertising, illustrating the breadth of the competitive map.

Among the contests attracting particular attention are Arizona’s 1st District, where Republican Jay Feely faces Democrat Amish Shah, and Arizona’s 6th District, where Republican incumbent Juan Ciscomani faces Democrat JoAnna Mendoza.

Other important races include Republican Mike Lawler’s contest against Democrat Cait Conley in New York’s 17th District, Republican Bryan Steil’s race in Wisconsin’s 1st District, and competitive districts in Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina.

Redistricting has further complicated the picture. Republican-controlled states have altered boundaries in ways intended to improve GOP opportunities, while Democratic-controlled states have pursued changes benefiting their candidates.

The House contest is therefore not simply a national referendum on Trump. It is also a collection of local elections shaped by candidate reputations, district boundaries, spending and the issues most important to individual communities.

The Senate: Candidate Differences Could Matter as Much as Party Labels

Beyond Michigan, Alaska and Texas, several other Senate contests deserve attention.

In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins faces Democrat Troy Jackson, a progressive former state legislative leader. Collins’s reputation for independence and Jackson’s economic-populist platform offer voters contrasting approaches in a state known for ticket splitting.

In Ohio, Republican Senator Jon Husted faces former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, whose campaign seeks to revive the working-class coalition that previously supported him.

In Kansas, Republican Senator Roger Marshall faces Democrat Adam Hamilton in a contest that has drawn attention because of unexpectedly competitive polling.

Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff is defending his seat in a state that remains closely divided, while other races in Minnesota, Florida and South Carolina have attracted varying degrees of national interest.

Republicans begin the election with a numerical advantage in the Senate, but the chamber’s eventual composition will depend on several distinct statewide electorates rather than a single national voting pattern.

What Tonight’s Results Will Actually Tell Us

There are several important questions that election returns may begin answering tonight.

Will Republican turnout exceed the expectations built into pre-election polling? Will Democratic gains be concentrated in suburban House districts, or will they extend into states and communities that have recently supported Trump? Will progressive Democratic candidates perform differently from more moderate nominees? And will the Iran conflict and high gasoline prices outweigh arguments about economic growth and national security?

The answers may not arrive immediately.

Alaska and Maine use ranked-choice voting, while several states process large numbers of mail ballots after Election Day. Closely divided House districts could require days of additional counting before control of Congress becomes clear.

The election also provides a test of the reliability of political forecasts. If Republicans outperform polling again, analysts will need to examine whether turnout models and survey participation adequately captured the electorate. If Democrats meet or exceed expectations, the results will reinforce the significance of the traditional midterm disadvantage facing the president’s party.

Neither outcome, by itself, would prove deliberate manipulation by pollsters or the news media. But either would provide valuable evidence about the strengths and weaknesses of the political assumptions that shaped this campaign.

A Country Divided, an Election Full of Uncertainty

The 2026 midterms have brought together an unusual combination of forces: a president serving a nonconsecutive second term, an overseas military conflict, stubbornly high living costs, ideological disagreements within both parties, contentious redistricting and allegations of political manipulation in individual races.

The Democrats are seeking to capitalize on dissatisfaction with the administration and the historical tendency of voters to check presidential power. Republicans are defending their governing record while questioning whether the polling and political commentary accurately reflect the electorate.

The most consequential factor, however, is not a television forecast, a campaign advertisement or a historical comparison. It is the actual decision made by millions of Americans casting ballots today.

The political experts have offered their expectations. Now the voters will provide the evidence.

And when the ballots are counted, the country may discover whether 2026 was another 2006, a repudiation of conventional polling wisdom, or something entirely different.

Democrats’ Secret Alaska Ballot Fraud Exposed: New York Times Uncovers Effort to Recruit a Phony Dan Sullivan

October 31, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

A NYT investigation reveals how Democratic operatives sought to populate Alaska’s Senate ballot with fake candidates who could draw votes from the Republican incumbent. Now federal subpoenas, a state investigation and congressional inquiries are raising questions about the operation’s organizers and its legality.

Federalist Press | October 31, 2026

WASHINGTON — For months, Alaska Republicans alleged that the appearance of a second candidate named Dan Sullivan in the state’s U.S. Senate race was no coincidence. They suspected that Democratic operatives had recruited a political newcomer with the same name as Republican incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan, hoping to confuse voters and divert enough votes to help Democratic challenger Mary Peltola.

Peltola’s campaign repeatedly denied involvement. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which coordinates Democratic Senate campaigns nationally, likewise denied recruiting competing candidates.

Then, on October 28, The New York Times published an extensive investigation revealing that operatives associated with Peltola’s campaign and national Democratic organizations had indeed worked on a secret candidate-recruitment operation. The newspaper’s findings were based on interviews with 12 people, dozens of text messages and documents connected to a possible lawsuit against the campaign.

The revelations have now triggered investigations at both the federal and state levels, while congressional investigators are demanding answers from people identified as participants.

Find Every Dan Sullivan in Alaska

According to the Times, the operation began in the summer of 2025, when a member of Peltola’s campaign staff received an unusual assignment: Search Alaska’s voter records and identify people named Dan Sullivan.

The purpose, according to the investigation, was to find someone sharing the Republican senator’s name who might be persuaded to enter the race. On Alaska’s four-candidate general-election ballot, a second Dan Sullivan could potentially draw support away from the incumbent, particularly among voters who failed to distinguish between the two candidates.

The effort eventually produced Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, a small community in southeastern Alaska. He entered the Senate contest despite having no established statewide political organization.

The Times reported that the operation went considerably further than recruiting one namesake candidate. Campaign-associated personnel also sought other candidates who might divide Republican support, and the effort included discussions about creating a separate political party to attract conservative voters.

Internally, participants referred to the undertaking as the ballot composition project.

The newspaper identified Jerid Kurtz, a Democratic political operative with experience in Ohio and Georgia, as a central figure in the recruitment effort. Kurtz traveled throughout Alaska, sometimes using a pseudonym while approaching potential candidates.

The Times also documented the recruitment of Gerald Heikes, another candidate appearing on the general-election ballot as a Republican.

How Far Up the Democratic Organization Did It Go?

One of the most consequential aspects of the investigation is its account of participation by national Democratic campaign personnel.

The Times reported that Peltola campaign lawyers and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee participated in discussions about the candidate-recruitment effort. The DSCC is the national organization responsible for coordinating Democratic efforts to win Senate seats.

Former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios, who was dismissed in August, described the operation to the newspaper and said Peltola was aware of it, although she was not directly involved.

Rios subsequently attempted to retract her statements. The Times nevertheless published its findings, explaining that her earlier accounts were corroborated by other reporting and documentary evidence.

Peltola’s campaign continues to deny recruiting competing candidates, and the DSCC has denied involvement. Peltola dismissed the controversy as a distraction while campaigning Wednesday.

The reporting does not establish that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer personally authorized the operation. His connection is institutional rather than a documented role in directing the recruitment effort.

Nevertheless, the evidence of participation by national campaign personnel raises questions about how such operations are supervised, financed and disclosed to voters.

Federal Subpoenas and a State Investigation

The controversy intensified Thursday when the New York Times reported that the Justice Department had issued dozens of subpoenas to individuals believed to have knowledge of the recruitment operation.

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy separately directed the state’s Department of Public Safety to investigate whether the reported conduct violated state election laws. State officials confirmed that an investigation had begun.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer also sought interviews with Rios and Kurtz, two individuals prominently identified in the Times investigation.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to prevent certification of the Senate election under specified circumstances: if the incumbent loses by fewer votes than those received by the other Dan Sullivan.

The legal challenge is controversial. Alaska election officials have taken steps to distinguish the candidates on the ballot, and the Alaska Supreme Court previously ruled that both Sullivans could remain in the race.

Legal experts have also questioned whether the federal government has grounds to intervene in certification based on the recruitment of a competing candidate.

These proceedings raise separate issues. Investigators must determine whether any election, campaign-finance or disclosure laws were violated, while the courts must consider whether the reported conduct provides a lawful basis for interfering with election certification.

Voters Had Already Begun Casting Ballots

The timing of the revelations adds urgency to the controversy.

By the time the Times published its investigation, approximately 58,000 Alaskans had already voted, according to Fox News reporting published October 29. That meant many voters had cast their ballots before learning the details of the alleged recruitment operation.

Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. But the system does not eliminate the possibility that similar candidate names could confuse some voters, particularly if they do not rank additional choices.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has supported Democrat Peltola in a previous election, criticized the revelations and called for a truthful accounting from the Democratic campaign.

The Questions Investigators Must Answer

The New York Times investigation has transformed the Alaska controversy from a dispute over suspicious circumstances into a documented account of organized political activity.

The most important unanswered questions concern who authorized the recruitment effort, what resources supported it, whether any campaign-finance rules were violated, and whether the candidates themselves knowingly participated in an effort intended to confuse voters.

The investigation must also establish the extent of Peltola’s personal knowledge and determine whether the public denials by her campaign and the DSCC were consistent with their internal records.

Those are questions that subpoenas, interviews and documentary evidence may help resolve.

The larger issue extends beyond Alaska. Political parties have legitimate reasons to recruit candidates and compete strategically, but voters also have a legitimate interest in knowing when a candidacy is encouraged or supported by people whose political objectives differ sharply from those of the candidate’s apparent constituency.

The Alaska case now provides an unusually detailed example of how a political organization can attempt to shape an election not merely by persuading voters, but by influencing which names appear on the ballot.

Whether that strategy crossed a legal boundary remains for investigators and courts to determine. What is no longer merely speculation is that a coordinated candidate-recruitment operation existed, and that its connections to Democratic campaign personnel were substantially more extensive than the public had previously been told.

With Election Day approaching, the demand for a complete accounting is unlikely to disappear.

Obama Administration Investigated Ilhan Omar for Marriage Fraud

October 29, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Federal investigators examined the Minnesota Democrat’s controversial marriage as early as 2016. The inquiry was closed due to statute of limitations, but newly disclosed details complicate claims that the investigation originated with President Trump.

Federalist Press | October 29, 2026

WASHINGTON — A significant new development in the federal investigation of Representative Ilhan Omar has emerged: The FBI and Department of Homeland Security investigated allegations of marriage fraud involving the Minnesota Democrat in 2016, during the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, long before Donald Trump entered to the White House.

According to reporting published Thursday by Fox News, citing an investigation first disclosed by The New York Times, federal authorities examined allegations that Omar’s 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi was fraudulent. Investigators reportedly uncovered some evidence suggesting the marriage may have been arranged for immigration purposes, but prosecutors declined to pursue charges because the suspected felony conduct was considered too old to prosecute under the applicable statute of limitations.

The revelation changes an important part of the public narrative surrounding the current investigation. Although the Trump administration has revived scrutiny of Omar’s immigration history, the underlying allegations had previously attracted the attention of federal law-enforcement agencies operating during a Democratic presidency.

The Investigation Began During Obama’s Presidency

The earlier inquiry reportedly began during the summer of 2016, when Omar was campaigning for a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives. Federal investigators examined allegations involving her marriage to Elmi, including claims that the relationship was not a genuine marital union.

According to the latest reporting, investigators found information suggesting possible fraud, but the evidence and investigative findings have not been publicly released in sufficient detail to establish precisely what authorities concluded. The reported expiration of the criminal statute of limitations also meant that prosecutors faced legal restrictions on pursuing charges for conduct dating back to 2009.

A subsequent inquiry was terminated in 2021 under a U.S. attorney appointed by President Joe Biden. The account of why the earlier investigations ended remains disputed: Omar’s representatives maintain that the allegations were rejected for insufficient evidence, while the new reporting identifies the statute of limitations as a decisive factor in the 2016 inquiry.

An investigation closed because prosecutors lack sufficient evidence is materially different from one closed because a potential offense can no longer be prosecuted. Obtaining the original investigative records would help resolve the discrepancy.

Obama’s Recent Defense of Omar Takes on New Significance

The disclosure follows former President Obama’s public condemnation of the October 12 federal search of Omar’s Washington residence.

In an October 18 statement, Obama accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement against a political opponent. He argued that government authorities should not selectively target citizens because of their political beliefs and characterized the investigation as an example of such conduct.

The newly reported 2016 inquiry adds important context to that criticism. Federal investigators were examining allegations concerning Omar while Obama himself occupied the White House.

The Current Investigation Is More Extensive

The renewed federal inquiry has already resulted in a court-authorized search of Omar’s Washington residence, the seizure of electronic devices and other records, and grand jury subpoenas involving members of her family.

Investigators are examining whether Omar or relatives provided false information in immigration and naturalization documents dating to the family’s arrival in the United States from Somalia in 1995. Reports indicate that questions concerning her birth date, family relationships, and citizenship documentation are among the matters under review.

The current investigation also extends beyond the 2009 marriage allegations. Authorities are examining whether statements made during the family’s earlier immigration process were accurate, raising potential legal questions distinct from those considered in the original inquiry.

No criminal charges against Omar have been announced yet, but prosecutors told a federal court this week that investigators are continuing to review evidence seized during the October 12 search.

The Battle Over the Search Warrant

Another development emerged Wednesday when the Justice Department opposed requests by news organizations and Judicial Watch to release the search warrant and supporting affidavit.

Federal prosecutors argued that disclosing the materials while investigators are still examining evidence could compromise the inquiry. The matter is before Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The sealed affidavit is particularly important because it may eventually reveal what evidence persuaded a federal magistrate judge to authorize the search, which allegations investigators are pursuing, and how the current investigation relates to earlier inquiries.

Until those records become available, the public cannot independently assess the full evidentiary basis for the government’s actions.

A Decade of Questions, and an Opportunity for Answers

The newly reported Obama-era investigation establishes that allegations concerning Omar’s marriage and immigration history were examined by federal authorities years before the current administration took office.

It also introduces a potentially important distinction between an investigation that produced no prosecutable evidence and one that could not proceed because of legal time limits.

Those questions should be resolved through the release of authenticated investigative records, not competing political assertions. The reported findings from 2016, the circumstances surrounding the closure of subsequent inquiries, and the evidence supporting the current search warrant are all relevant to understanding how the government has handled the allegations over the past decade.

The public is entitled to know whether investigators uncovered credible evidence of fraud, whether prosecutors applied the law consistently, and whether the present inquiry is being conducted independently and lawfully.

The central revelation is that federal scrutiny of Ilhan Omar’s controversial marriage did not begin with Donald Trump. It reportedly began under Barack Obama. What remains to be established is precisely what those investigators discovered—and why the matter was never brought before a court.

Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal Reopens: Two Former FBI Officials Arrested as Investigators Examine What the Bureau Knew in 2020

October 23, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

New federal charges allege that senior FBI personnel misled Congress about their involvement in the Hunter Biden investigations. The case revives questions about the FBI’s foreign-influence operation, the 51 former intelligence officials who challenged the laptop story, the Biden campaign’s role in promoting their statement, and the suppression of reporting before the presidential election.

Federalist Press | October 23, 2026

WASHINGTON — Six years after the New York Post published its explosive reporting about Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, two former senior FBI officials have been arrested and charged with making false statements to Congress concerning their knowledge of the bureau’s investigations into the then-presidential candidate’s son.

The arrests of Nikki Cole Floris and Bradley Benavides on Friday, October 23, reopen one of the most contentious episodes of the 2020 presidential campaign: the collision of an authentic laptop, an ongoing federal investigation, false warnings about Russian election interference, a fraudulent public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials, and decisions by major social-media platforms to restrict circulation of damaging reporting about the Biden family. Never before has there been such a dangerous convergence of government power to overthrow a federal election.

The newly filed criminal complaint does not charge either defendant with suppressing the laptop story or conspiring to elect Joe Biden. Instead, prosecutors allege that both knowingly misrepresented their awareness of and participation in FBI investigations when questioned by congressional investigators in 2023.

The government’s 27-page supporting affidavit describes internal FBI activities and communications that provide new material for examining how the bureau handled information concerning Hunter Biden during the final months of the 2020 campaign.

The case therefore presents two questions. The immediate legal question is whether Floris and Benavides lied to Congress. The larger historical question is whether the Biden government’s efforts to substitute its contrived story of foreign disinformation will be dealt with in a just manner, or swept under the rug.

The October 23 Arrests

According to the Justice Department, Floris and Benavides surrendered to authorities on Friday after federal prosecutors charged them with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the statute prohibiting materially false statements in matters within federal jurisdiction.

Floris served as deputy assistant director and functional head of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, or FITF, from approximately mid-2019 through mid-2022. Benavides served as a section chief within that task force from mid-2019 through the 2020 presidential election.

The task force was responsible for examining foreign efforts to influence American political institutions and elections. Its work included Russian influence operations, but its jurisdiction eventually expanded to other foreign actors.

Both officials were questioned during the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the FBI’s handling of matters involving Hunter Biden.

The government alleges that Floris provided materially false information during her July 19, 2023, congressional interview and that Benavides did likewise on September 28, 2023.

The supporting affidavit asserts that contemporaneous FBI messages, emails, meetings and witness accounts contradict their descriptions of their involvement.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro characterized the allegations as a serious breach of congressional accountability, emphasizing that FBI officials have an obligation to provide truthful information to lawmakers.

FBI Director Kash Patel also announced the arrests, saying that the two former officials had allegedly misled Congress about matters related to the 2020 election.

Floris was deputy assistant director and functional head of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and stated: “I’m basically running a shadow government across the FBI at this point.”

The FBI Already Had the Laptop

One of the most significant details in the affidavit concerns what federal investigators knew before the laptop became a national political controversy.

The government states that the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office obtained the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop from a Delaware computer repair shop on December 9, 2019.

The bureau was already investigating Hunter Biden for tax and money-laundering offenses. Internally, the investigation used the code name “Sportsman.”

The affidavit further states that an FBI official confirmed during an October 2020 meeting that the bureau had obtained the laptop, that it belonged to Hunter Biden, and that it related to the ongoing investigations.

This matters because the public debate in October 2020 was not simply about whether a suspicious document had appeared on the internet. Federal investigators had already possessed and examined the computer’s contents for months.

The laptop’s authenticity was later reinforced in federal court. In January 2024, prosecutors stated that information recovered from the computer corresponded with material obtained from Hunter Biden’s Apple iCloud account. During his federal firearms trial in June 2024, an FBI witness authenticated the laptop, and the device was introduced as evidence.

Those developments established that the underlying computer was genuine, notwithstanding.

The FBI’s Secretive “Round River” Operation

The most intriguing new material concerns an FBI project known as Round River.

According to the affidavit, analysts associated with the Foreign Influence Task Force began working in 2019 on an effort to examine derogatory information involving Hunter Biden and other subjects for indications of Russian disinformation.

The government describes Round River as an intelligence effort that scrutinized informant reporting and other information potentially associated with foreign influence.

The affidavit identifies Floris and Benavides as officials who reviewed and approved an initial Round River report in September 2020. It also describes their participation in meetings concerning proposed defensive briefings, which are intended to warn people who may be targets of foreign intelligence activity.

A particularly notable September 24, 2020, communication concerned how the FBI might use an informant network to transmit information. The affidavit quotes an official discussing ways to send selected information back through that network.

The statement is significant enough to warrant examination of its full operational context. Intelligence agencies routinely assess the reliability of informants and attempt to detect disinformation. But the precise methods, objectives and consequences of Round River deserve scrutiny because the project operated during a presidential election involving the father of one of its subjects.

October 14, 2020: The Day the Laptop Story Broke

The New York Post published its initial laptop reporting on October 14, 2020, less than three weeks before the presidential election.

The newspaper described emails and other material concerning Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings, including his relationship with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

The publication immediately triggered a national controversy. Supporters of Donald Trump argued that the material raised serious questions about the Biden family’s business relationships and the probability that Hunter had benefited from his father’s public office.

Democrat operatives immediately launched a massive public campaign to cast doubt on the provenance of the materials and issued feigned warnings that foreign intelligence services were attempting to influence the election.

The new criminal affidavit documents how the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force responded internally.

According to prosecutors, Floris and Benavides received communications from FBI personnel concerning the laptop story, including questions about whether the bureau possessed the computer and how it should respond to congressional inquiries.

Benavides also received information about a technology-industry call during which participants discussed questions concerning the laptop and Burisma.

The affidavit describes an FBI task-force official communicating with Twitter on October 14 about the laptop reporting. It further recounts congressional testimony concerning an FBI employee who reportedly indicated to a Twitter representative that the laptop was genuine.

Those details are consequential because as a result, Twitter in fact restricted distribution of the New York Post story.

The newly disclosed communications provide additional evidence of contact between federal investigators and social-media companies at the moment the story was being restricted.

The Social-Media Suppression Controversy

The handling of the laptop story by major technology platforms became one of the defining media controversies of the 2020 election.

Twitter prevented users from sharing links to the original New York Post reporting and temporarily restricted the newspaper’s account. Facebook reduced the distribution of the story.

The decisions were criticized by Republicans and civil-liberties advocates who argued that politically significant journalism was being restricted at precisely the moment voters needed access to it.

Later disclosures added another dimension. Former Twitter executive Yoel Roth described regular meetings with federal law-enforcement personnel concerning potential foreign hacking and information operations. According to his account, officials insisted that material associated with political campaigns might emerge through hack-and-leak operations, and that things would go very badly for the social media giant if it failed to kill the story.

Mark Zuckerberg separately acknowledged that Facebook had received FBI pressure to censor the Hunter Biden Laptop contents story.

The new criminal complaint adds details about FBI officials’ knowledge of the laptop and their involvement in untruthful related communications.

The 51 Intelligence Officials and Their October 2020 Statement

Five days after the New York Post published its story, 51 former intelligence and national-security officials signed a public statement questioning whether the release of the Hunter Biden material was connected to a Russian information operation, although they all knew it was not.

The October 19 statement became one of the most influential documents of the presidential campaign’s final weeks.

Its signatories included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, and former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Their former positions gave the statement considerable authority. To ordinary voters, a document endorsed by dozens of former intelligence officials could appear to reflect the informed judgment of people familiar with classified intelligence and Russian interference operations.

The statement suggested that the laptop disclosures displayed characteristics associated with Russian influence activity.

In particular, Joe Biden cited the former officials during his final debate with Donald Trump, portraying their assessment as support for dismissing the laptop allegations as a Russian operation.

The distinction between a warning about possible foreign influence and a definitive finding that the laptop was fabricated became central to the controversy.

Later authentication of the computer established that the underlying laptop was genuine.

The Biden Campaign’s Role in the Intelligence Statement

The origins of the 51-person statement were examined extensively by Republican-led congressional committees.

Their investigations established that former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell organized the contrived statement after communicating with Antony Blinken, who was serving as a senior adviser to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

According to Morell’s congressional testimony, Blinken’s contact helped prompt him to organize the statement. Morell also acknowledged that he wanted Joe Biden to win the election and that the statement could provide the campaign with a useful response to the laptop reporting.

Those admissions formed the basis for the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees’ conclusion that the Biden campaign played a role in generating a statement intended to discredit authentic damaging reporting.

The committees went further in June 2024, releasing an interim report describing contacts between the statement’s organizers and CIA personnel.

The report found that some individuals presented publicly as former intelligence officials still held active CIA contracts. Among those identified were Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley.

That fact raised questions about the relationship between the statement’s political purpose and the professional obligations of individuals who retained government connections.

The committees also reported that senior CIA officials were informed about the statement before publication and that the agency’s prepublication review process had been involved.

Prepublication review is intended to prevent improper disclosure of classified information.

The involvement of current contractors and agency review personnel created legitimate questions about whether intelligence-community relationships were being used to lend credibility to a campaign-related message.

Clapper, Brennan and the Obama-Era Intelligence Establishment

The involvement of James Clapper and John Brennan gave the 2020 statement particular prominence because both had occupied senior intelligence positions during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Clapper served as director of national intelligence, while Brennan served as CIA director. Their names were associated with the intelligence community’s exaggerated response to very limited Russian interference in the 2016 election and the broader national-security controversies that followed.

Their participation in the Hunter Biden statement therefore connected the 2020 dispute with an established group of former senior intelligence officials who remained influential in public debate after leaving government service.

But their involvement should be understood precisely. The evidence establishes that Clapper and Brennan signed the October 2020 statement.

The most direct documented connection between the Biden campaign and the 51-person statement remains the interaction involving Blinken and Morell.

Hunter Biden’s Criminal Cases and His Father’s Pardon

The laptop controversy cannot be separated from what happened after the 2020 election.

Hunter Biden eventually faced federal criminal proceedings involving firearms and taxes. In June 2024, a Delaware jury convicted him of three felony firearms offenses connected to his purchase of a handgun while using illegal drugs. He also pleaded guilty in California to federal tax charges involving substantial unpaid taxes.

Those proceedings established that Hunter Biden had committed criminal offenses.

In December 2024, President Joe Biden issued his son a sweeping federal pardon, reversing repeated public assurances that he would not use his presidential authority to spare Hunter from the consequences of his criminal acts.

The pardon covered federal offenses committed over a broad period extending from January 2014 through December 2024.

The decision generated substantial criticism because it followed years of public assurances that the president would not intervene.

The Larger Question: Intelligence Power and American Elections

The Hunter Biden laptop controversy illustrates a difficult problem at the intersection of national security, journalism and electoral politics.

Federal intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have a legitimate responsibility to identify foreign interference. Russian operations against American elections are real subjects of national-security concern, and officials must be able to warn relevant institutions if credible threats emerge.

But those responsibilities create opportunities for serious mistakes and potential abuses.

When government officials communicate with social-media platforms about politically sensitive material, their assessments can influence what millions of voters see. When former intelligence officials use their credentials to characterize damaging political reporting, their statements can carry authority far beyond that of ordinary campaign advocates.

And when federal officials testify before Congress about their activities, the public depends upon those statements being truthful.

The October 23 arrests place that last obligation at the center of a federal criminal case.

The government now alleges that two officials responsible for protecting the 2020 election from foreign influence concealed aspects of their own involvement in investigations concerning the son of a presidential candidate.

Those allegations demand careful judicial examination. They also justify continued scrutiny of the institutional decisions surrounding the laptop story.

A Controversy That Has Outlasted Two Presidencies

The Hunter Biden laptop story began as a dispute over a computer and its contents. It became a dispute over media suppression, intelligence assessments, campaign messaging and the integrity of federal investigations.

The laptop itself was immediately authenticated and eventually used in federal court. Hunter Biden was convicted of firearms offenses, pleaded guilty to tax charges and received a presidential pardon. Congressional investigators documented contacts between the Biden campaign and the organizer of the 51-person intelligence statement, along with continuing CIA relationships involving some of its signatories.

Now two former FBI officials face criminal charges over what they told Congress about their roles in the underlying investigations.

The public has a right to know whether federal officials accurately represented what they knew, whether intelligence assessments were communicated responsibly, and whether political considerations influenced decisions that affected the flow of information during a presidential campaign.

The immediate question before the courts is whether two former FBI officials lied to Congress. The larger question for Congress and the public is whether the institutions entrusted with protecting American elections maintained the independence, transparency and accountability those responsibilities require.

It appears that the Biden administration was guilty of conducting subterfuge and lawfare to steal the 2020 election.

Ilhan Omar Faces Expanding Federal Scrutiny: DNA Evidence, Immigration Records and Millions in Disputed Financial Disclosures

October 22, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Federal agents have searched the Minnesota congresswoman’s home, seized her telephone and obtained DNA evidence as investigators examine longstanding questions about her immigration history. Separately, a congressional inquiry has demanded records explaining a dramatic increase in the reported value of businesses associated with her husband.

Federalist Press | October 22, 2026

Federal agents execute search warrant on home and property of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

WASHINGTON — Representative Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democrat whose political career has repeatedly generated controversy over immigration, foreign policy and her outspoken criticism of the Trump administration, is confronting an expanding series of federal inquiries into matters reaching back to her family’s arrival in the United States more than three decades ago.

The investigation has now moved well beyond political accusations. Federal agents executed a search warrant at Omar’s Washington residence on October 12, seized her cellphone and issued more than a dozen subpoenas involving family members. Federal authorities obtained her DNA and passport as investigators examine questions surrounding her immigration history, and even her actual identity.

Separately, House investigators have demanded financial records from companies associated with her husband after disclosures indicated that the value of his business interests had increased dramatically.

These developments create several distinct questions requiring answers: Were the representations made during Omar’s immigration and naturalization process accurate? What is the factual basis for longstanding allegations concerning her former marriage? And how should the public understand financial disclosures showing business interests that increased from tens of thousands to potentially tens of millions of dollars?

The answers could carry substantial legal and political consequences. They will depend on documentary records, authenticated evidence and the findings of investigators.

Federal Agents Search Omar’s Home and Seize Her Telephone

The investigation became public in dramatic fashion when Homeland Security Investigations agents executed a search warrant at Omar’s Washington residence on October 12. Investigators had seized her cellphone and issued more than a dozen subpoenas to relatives while examining possible irregularities in her family’s immigration documentation.

Reuters independently reported that the inquiry concerns possible false statements in immigration and naturalization records dating back to Omar’s arrival in the United States as a Somali refugee in 1995. She became a naturalized citizen in 2000. The reported offenses under examination include immigration fraud, conspiracy and false statements.

The use of a search warrant and grand jury subpoenas marks a significant investigative development. Federal authorities are now seeking records and testimony through formal legal processes rather than relying solely on allegations circulated in political commentary.

Questions about Omar’s immigration paperwork have become the subject of a federal inquiry with the authority to compel evidence and examine potentially conflicting records.

DNA Evidence Could Address the Former-Marriage Allegation

One of the most persistent controversies surrounding Omar concerns her former marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009. Critics have alleged that Elmi was her biological brother, and that the marriage was connected to fraudulent immigration benefits.

The latest reporting introduces a potentially important development. Multiple news outlets reported on October 20 that federal authorities had obtained Omar’s DNA as part of the ongoing investigation. The network also reported uncertainty surrounding how the sample was collected, after initial accounts of investigators obtaining discarded genetic material were disputed.

DNA testing could potentially establish or exclude a close biological relationship if investigators possess suitable, authenticated comparison samples.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) raised her head to beg for more cash as she vowed to return to the campaign trail and fight the federal investigation into her immigration status and financial irregularities.

Another development attracting attention is a noticeable change in how Representative Omar has answered questions about her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. For years, Omar has categorically rejected allegations that Elmi was her biological brother, dismissing the accusations as politically motivated falsehoods. But when confronted with the issue during a recent television interview, she answered the question of whether they were related with the more carefully qualified phrase, “Not to my knowledge.” Note the contrast with her previous denials.

The distinction is worth examining. “Absolutely not” is an unequivocal denial; “not to my knowledge” leaves open the possibility of facts unknown to the speaker.With federal investigators obtaining genetic evidence relevant to the allegation, the precise wording of her response has become a legitimate subject of scrutiny. If a scientifically reliable comparison is eventually disclosed, it will provide a far more definitive answer than any political interview.

Questions About Immigration Records and Identity

The immigration investigation also concerns the accuracy of information submitted by Omar’s family when they entered the United States and later obtained citizenship.

Investigators are examining whether Omar’s age was accurately represented in the original paperwork. More recent reporting has raised questions about names appearing in documents associated with her immigration history.

Different names appearing in government records may reflect marriage, legal name changes, transliteration differences or other legitimate circumstances. They can also warrant investigation when authorities have evidence suggesting that a false identity was knowingly used.

The legal issue is whether a materially false representation was made, by whom, and with what knowledge. Those are questions that investigators can examine through original applications, birth and family records, sworn statements, and other documentary evidence.

The public interest in the investigation is substantial because the accuracy of federal immigration and naturalization records is an appropriate subject for lawful scrutiny, including when the person involved is an elected official.

The Financial Disclosures: From $51,000 to as Much as $30 Million

The financial questions are supported by particularly concrete public documentation.

On February 6, 2026, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer formally requested records from businesses associated with Omar’s husband, Timothy Mynett. According to the committee, Omar’s disclosures indicated that ownership interests in two companies—eStCru LLC and Rose Lake Capital LLC—had increased from a combined reported value of as much as $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million in 2024.

That is a substantial change, and the committee requested documents and communications concerning the companies’ finances, ownership and operations.

Congressional financial reporting exists to give the public visibility into lawmakers’ financial interests and potential conflicts. When reported asset values change by such a large amount, examining the valuation methods, business activity, ownership structure and supporting documentation is a legitimate oversight function.

The committee’s February request is an official, independently accessible record of that scrutiny.

Political Controversies and the Question of Loyalty

Omar’s immigration and financial investigations arrive against a backdrop of longstanding political controversy. She has frequently criticized American foreign policy, Israel, and Republican immigration proposals, while many of her statements reflect divided national loyalties.

One frequently cited incident occurred in January 2024, when Omar addressed Somali-American constituents about a dispute involving Ethiopia and Somaliland. A widely circulated video showed her declaring that her allegiance to Somalia came before the United States.

That statement became the basis for demands by politicians for an ethics investigation and even removal from Congress.

Public Accountability Requires Records, Not Political Theater

The central questions in the current investigation are more concrete than debates over Omar’s rhetoric.

Federal investigators can examine original immigration applications, interview witnesses, compare authenticated genetic evidence and determine whether any materially false statements were made. Congressional investigators can examine financial records and determine whether reported business valuations accurately reflected the underlying assets.

The Questions That Remain

The federal investigation has already produced substantial developments: a search of Omar’s residence, the seizure of her telephone, subpoenas involving relatives and reports that investigators obtained DNA evidence. Separately, official congressional records document a request for financial information concerning businesses whose reported value increased dramatically.

The investigation now provides an opportunity to examine them through evidence rather than speculation. The public is entitled to a thorough accounting of the immigration records, the reported genetic evidence and the financial transactions at issue—and to conclusions that follow the evidence wherever it leads.

That standard applies to every member of Congress, regardless of political affiliation. To quote Representative Ilhan Omar, “No one is above the law.”

Violent Threats, Blacklists and Political Revenge: Should Dems be Prosecuted for Terrorist Threats?

October 21, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Senator Elissa Slotkin threatens Soviet-styled investigations to deter young Americans from joining the Trump administration. An Indiana Democratic candidate reminds Republicans that Democrats have guns, too. These statements raise urgent questions about political intimidation, government retaliation and the constitutional limits of threatening speech.

Federalist Press | October 21, 2026

*Senator Elissa Slotkin wants the prospect of investigations to deter young Americans from joining the Trump administration.*

WASHINGTON — Two more Democratic politicians have ignited controversy in recent days with statements about Republicans and the Trump administration that raise a fundamental question about the boundaries of political discourse in America: At what point does a promise of political accountability become a terrorist attempt to intimidate citizens into abandoning their constitutional rights?

In Michigan, Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin has openly described her desire to make young Americans think twice before accepting jobs in President Donald Trump’s administration because of the legal and professional difficulties they might encounter. In Indiana, Democratic candidate Jaime West declared that she would fire Republicans from local government if given the opportunity, disparaged supporters of the MAGA movement, and concluded a televised candidate appearance with the pointed observation that Democrats have guns, too.

Both have drawn attention to a troubling feature of contemporary American politics: the increasing willingness of Democrats to describe political opponents not merely as people whose policies should be defeated, but as people who should face personal consequences or death for their traditional values.

Although the Constitution protects vigorous disagreement, even offensive political rhetoric, it also protects Americans against government retaliation for lawful political activity. And when threats of unlawful violence enter the picture, the First Amendment’s protections have limits that the Supreme Court has carefully defined.

Americans have already witnessed how profoundly government sponsored criminal prosecutions and civil litigation can disrupt a presidential campaign. During the Biden administration, Donald Trump, then the leading Republican presidential candidate, confronted 91 felony counts across four separate criminal indictments, brought by Biden federal prosecutors and Democratic-led state and local prosecutorial offices who coordinated closely with Biden officials. At the same time, Democrat civil proceedings produced judgments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, including a New York business-fraud judgment initially exceeding $450 million with interest and an $83.3 million defamation award. Trump was forced to devote enormous time, money, and attention to defending himself while campaigning to return to the White House.

That extraordinary convergence of these proceedings amounted to political lawfare—the use of legal institutions to weaken or destroy an electoral opponent. The experience illustrates why threats of politically motivated investigations deserve serious scrutiny. Using prosecution, financial ruin, or professional blacklisting to punish lawful political opposition would resemble the coercive methods associated with authoritarian governments, not the constitutional principles of an American republic. Threatening such tactics to prevent American citizens from supporting a traditional Constitutional government is terrorism. When politicians speak openly of making prospective government employees fear the consequences of serving an opposing administration, Americans have every reason to demand assurances that the machinery of justice will never become an instrument of partisan revenge again.

Senator Slotkin Wants Young Americans to Fear Working for Trump

The more consequential of the two most recent controversies involves Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat and former CIA analyst who spoke at the University of Chicago on October 13 about her party’s political future and the prospect of using congressional investigations to threaten conservatives.

Discussing how Democrats should exercise oversight authority, Slotkin urged her party to pursue what she called “signature cases” involving people who had enabled the Trump administration. She argued that concentrating on prominent examples of contrived misconduct could send a deterrent message to younger Americans considering government service.

Her description of the desired result was unusually candid. She said she wanted prospective administration employees to worry that accepting such positions might be “buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want.” She concluded that she wanted that deterrence message sent in unmistakable terms.

Her remarks were played during Slotkin’s October 19 appearance on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper. The televised discussion confirmed that the controversy was not based on a fabricated quotation. Slotkin had indeed expressed the threat against prospective employees, to discourage them from joining the administration by emphasizing the insurmountable legal and personal problems they would face.

What makes the statement significant is the audience Slotkin explicitly identified. She was not speaking solely about senior officials already suspected of corruption. She described young people leaving school and contemplating an opportunity to work in the federal government.

When an elected official says she wants prospective employees to fear serious consequences of accepting government positions, It is a threat against the government and the people.

A Formal Ethics Complaint Follows

The controversy moved beyond political commentary on October 20, when the Center to Advance Security in America filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee concerning Slotkin’s remarks.

The organization asked Senate Ethics Committee Chairman James Lankford, a Republican, and Vice Chairman Chris Coons, a Democrat, to examine whether Slotkin’s statements were consistent with Senate ethical standards. The complaint characterized her remarks as an attempt to discourage Americans from government service through the prospect of adverse consequences.

The complaint illustrates that the controversy has become more than a dispute over political messaging. It raises questions about the responsibilities of elected officials who possess—or hope to acquire—the power to summon witnesses, demand records, and conduct investigations that can impose enormous costs on the people subjected to them.

Although Congressional oversight is indispensable to constitutional government, it must be exercised only for legitimate legislative purposes. It is not a general license to threaten make political opponents.

An Indiana Candidate Declares: “We Have Guns, Too”

A separate controversy erupted after Jaime West, a Democratic candidate for Fayette County Council in Indiana, appeared at an October 9 local television candidate forum.

Asked about an unpopular policy she might pursue if elected, West said she would fire Republicans. She went on to criticize MAGA supporters, describing them as racist and unintelligent, before ending her appearance with the words, “We have guns, too.”

The remarks circulated widely online and attracted national media attention. On October 19, West appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored, where Morgan questioned both her violent threats against Republicans and her unusual demeanor during the original interview.

West acknowledged having consumed three beers before the local television appearance, explaining that she had been nervous about facing a largely Republican audience. She nevertheless declined to retract her threats against Republicans.

Her firearms statement understandably drew particular scrutiny because it followed remarks about removing political opponents from employment. In a political climate already marked by four attempted assassinations against President Trump, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and many other threats of violence against conservatives, invoking guns while denouncing an opposing political movement is an unmistakable alarm of violence to listeners.

West’s comments also raise a separate issue concerning public employment. A candidate’s desire to dismiss every Republican employee, without regard to individual qualifications or conduct, would invite serious constitutional questions if translated into official action. Public employment law distinguishes between political positions for which partisan affiliation may be relevant and other government jobs where employees enjoy substantial protections against political discrimination.

What Is a Terroristic Threat?

The phrase terroristic threat has a specific legal meaning in many jurisdictions, although its precise definition varies by state. Some statutes prohibit threats to commit violence intended to terrorize another person, cause evacuation, or create serious public alarm. Other statutes use different terminology, including criminal threatening, intimidation, or making threats of violence.

Federal law likewise prohibits certain threatening communications, including specified threats transmitted across state lines.

The Supreme Court addressed the constitutional standard in Counterman v. Colorado, decided in 2023. The Court explained that a true threat involves a serious expression of threatened unlawful violence. It also held that criminal punishment requires proof that the speaker had at least recklessly disregarded the risk that the communication would be understood as threatening violence.

The decision is important because it protects people against genuine threats, as we hear daily in the news. Source: U.S. Supreme Court decision, Counterman v. Colorado

When does political intimidation become a terroistic threat? When it includes threats to commit violence intended to terrorize another person, cause evacuation, or create serious public alarm. Check, check, and check.

Political Intimidation Does Not Require a Gun

Americans ordinarily associate intimidation with threats of physical harm. Yet government officials possess other forms of power capable of imposing profound consequences on an individual.

A congressional investigation can require extensive document production, sworn testimony, and substantial legal representation. A federal criminal investigation can disrupt careers and family finances even when prosecutors ultimately bring no charges. Regulatory scrutiny can affect businesses, professional licenses, and employment opportunities. Republicans have been dealing with just these issues for years.

Those powers serve legitimate purposes when used to investigate evidence of wrongdoing. They become constitutionally troubling when wielded to punish people for protected speech or political association.

The Supreme Court reinforced that principle in its 2024 decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo. The case concerned allegations that a New York financial regulator had used her authority to pressure businesses into severing relationships with the NRA because of its advocacy.

The Court unanimously recognized that government officials cannot use regulatory coercion to suppress protected expression indirectly. Officials cannot accomplish through threats against private parties what the First Amendment forbids them from doing directly.

The same principle would be relevant if government officials attempted to pressure employers into blacklisting former administration employees solely because of their lawful political activities.

The Coming Battle Over Congressional Investigations

Threats of aggressive oversight is already influencing decisions within the Trump administration.

An October 18 Wall Street Journal report described officials and businesses seeking legal counsel in anticipation of possible investigations if Democrats gain control of congressional committees after the midterms. According to the report, lawyers have been contacted by people concerned about subpoenas, contrived allegations of misconduct, and the financial consequences of prolonged scrutiny.

The prospect of investigations becoming a political deterrent presents a different problem. If capable Americans begin declining government positions because they fear future retaliation for lawful service, the consequences will extend beyond the Trump administration.

If allowed, future Democratic administrations could encounter the same problem. Republicans could adopt similar language and investigative strategies against officials who implement leftist policies. Each change in congressional control could then become an opportunity for political revenge.

A constitutional republic cannot function indefinitely under a system in which government service becomes a recurring source of personal jeopardy merely because the opposing party eventually regains power.

The First Amendment Protects Political Participation

The First Amendment protects political speech and association, including the right to advocate controversial policies and participate in political organizations. Those protections are especially important when an individual’s views are unpopular with people exercising government authority.

Public employees do not possess unlimited immunity from investigation or discipline. Officials who engage in bribery, corruption, obstruction, or other unlawful conduct may properly face consequences. Certain political appointments also carry different employment protections from ordinary civil-service positions.

But lawful political affiliation cannot automatically be treated as evidence of wrongdoing. Nor does service in an administration establish that every employee personally approved every decision made by the president or senior officials.

The distinction should be obvious, yet it can become blurred when political figures speak of making examples of people associated with their opponents.

The American system depends on citizens being able to accept government positions, advocate policies, and participate in elections without facing unlawful retaliation for their political identities.

The Responsibility of Political Leaders

There is an additional reason elected officials should exercise caution when discussing punishment of political adversaries.

Political leaders possess audiences far larger than those of ordinary citizens. Their statements can be amplified through television, social media, and partisan organizations, often reaching people who hear only a provocative excerpt rather than the surrounding explanation.

That does not mean politicians should be prohibited from expressing anger or demanding accountability. It means they should recognize the difference between condemning alleged wrongdoing and encouraging hostility toward entire categories of Americans.

Slotkin is an example of someone with a large microphone abusing that power to make terroristic threats against political opponents, fully expecting to force the public to refrain from living in a peaceful, constitutional manner based on her threats. Those are the very tactics and goals of terrorism.

The Constitutional Line America Cannot Afford to Cross

The United States has endured fierce partisan conflict throughout its history. Political leaders have accused one another of corruption, disloyalty, abuse of power, and betrayal of constitutional principles. Some accusations have been justified; others have reflected the passions of the moment.

What distinguishes constitutional government from political persecution is not the absence of conflict. It is the existence of enforceable limits on how government may treat those who lose a political contest.

Those limits protect Republicans today and Democrats tomorrow. They protect administration officials who implement lawful policies, citizens who advocate unpopular positions, and private individuals who refuse to abandon their beliefs under political pressure.

The recent statements by Elissa Slotkin and Jaime West warrant public scrutiny because they cross those boundaries.

Heroes Fought Back: The Oregon School Shooting That Proved One Man’s Life Mission

October 16, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Three children and a young teacher died when a gunman attacked an elementary school in Bend. But many more may be alive because two ordinary citizens refused to remain victims — putting into practice the principle that the late school-safety trainer Dave Acosta spent years teaching across America.

There are stories Americans have heard far too many times. A gunman enters a school. Shots ring out. Children and teachers hide behind desks and locked doors. Frantic calls pour into 911 while police race toward a scene where every passing second can mean another life. Thursday’s horror at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, began much that way. But it did not end that way.

This time, two people inside and immediately outside the school did something extraordinary: They fought back. One was a teacher who found herself face-to-face with an armed attacker. She threw her cellphone at him, tackled him and struggled for control of his shotgun. The other was Kaylub Giamanco, a 36-year-old Bend carpenter and father of two girls who attend Silver Rail. He saw what was happening, retrieved a legally possessed handgun from his vehicle, followed the shooter into the school and ran toward the sound of gunfire. When Giamanco reached the classroom, he found the teacher already fighting the attacker. Giamanco fired, and the attack was over before police could reach the gunman.

Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz believes their actions saved lives, saying the teacher “almost certainly helped prevent more bloodshed.” The gunman still had dozens of rounds of ammunition available when the attack was stopped.

What happened inside that Oregon classroom is also a remarkable reminder of another man — one who died six years ago and therefore never knew the names Kaylub Giamanco or Silver Rail Elementary School. His name was Dave Acosta, and preparing Americans for precisely this moment became his life’s mission.

Horror Arrives at an Elementary School

Shortly before 1 p.m. Thursday, October 15, a witness driving near Silver Rail Elementary saw something alarming: a teenager threw a gun over the school’s fence and then climbed over it. When the witness confronted him, the teenager responded by firing at the man’s truck, striking it at least three times. The driver escaped and placed the first 911 call at 12:59 p.m., beginning a frantic police response to what was already developing into a deadly attack.

Police identified the gunman as 16-year-old Griffin J. John II, a former Silver Rail student armed with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. When he reached the school’s locked double doors, rather than being deterred by the security measure, he fired through the glass panes and forced his way inside. He then entered a special-education classroom and opened fire, discharging as many as 15 rounds before two extraordinary acts of resistance brought the attack to an end. Investigators had not yet announced a motive.

The human cost was nevertheless devastating. Three children, ages 5, 8 and 11, and 25-year-old teacher Meghan Lambert were killed. A 7-year-old girl was seriously wounded, while another teacher, 54, was wounded but expected to survive. Lambert was at the beginning of a career devoted to children; Silver Rail was her first teaching job, and her family remembers her as compassionate, big-hearted and someone who “always fought for the underdog and those with special needs.” The youngest child killed was 5-year-old Rhoam Summer, while the families of the other two boys initially asked that their names remain private.

It was an almost incomprehensible loss. Yet the events that unfolded during the final moments of the attack provide compelling reason to believe that the death toll could have been considerably worse.

A Father Saw the Gunman — and Ran Into the School

Kaylub Giamanco had perhaps the most understandable reason imaginable to stay outside the building: his two daughters were somewhere inside it. He was not a police officer responding under a professional obligation to confront the gunman. He was a carpenter and a father who suddenly found himself watching an armed teenager attack the elementary school attended by his children.

Giamanco had witnessed the attacker shooting at the first man’s truck and then watched him blast his way through the school’s locked doors. At that moment, he faced a decision that few people will ever confront. Police had been called and were racing toward Silver Rail. Giamanco could have remained outside, taken cover and waited for trained officers to arrive. No reasonable person could have condemned him for doing so.

Instead, according to police, Giamanco retrieved the .40-caliber pistol that he legally kept secured in his vehicle. Then he turned back toward the school.

He went in.

*Kaylub Giamanco* is being hailed as a hero after confronting and killing a gunman during a shooting at his children’s school in Bend, Oregon

Not knowing exactly where his daughters were, not knowing precisely where the shooter was, and not knowing what he would encounter on the other side of those shattered doors, Giamanco entered the building through the same entrance the attacker had just breached. He followed the sound of gunfire deeper into the elementary school, moving toward the danger from which every natural instinct would ordinarily tell a person to flee.

What he encountered when he reached the classroom was equally remarkable. Someone else had already decided not to remain a victim.

The Teacher Who Refused to Surrender

The teacher has not been publicly identified, but what police say she did deserves to be remembered. Faced with a teenager wielding a 12-gauge shotgun, she threw her cellphone at him and then physically attacked him, tackling the gunman and struggling with him for possession of the weapon.

She was not a police officer or a SWAT operator. She was a schoolteacher in a classroom where children were being shot. There was nowhere else for those children to go, and so she did something that required extraordinary courage: she attacked the person trying to kill them.

That struggle was underway when Giamanco entered. He saw the teacher wrestling with the shooter and fired multiple rounds, killing the attacker and bringing the massacre to an end. At approximately 1:02 p.m. — only about three minutes after the first 911 call — arriving officers learned that the suspect had already been shot by a community member.

The speed of the police response deserves recognition. Three minutes from the first emergency call to the arrival of officers is remarkably fast. But those same three minutes demonstrate the terrible arithmetic of an active-shooter attack. By the time police arrived, four innocent people had already been killed and others wounded. The people who were already there had been forced to make decisions before professional help could reach them.

Police say the gunman still possessed approximately 44 rounds of ammunition when he was stopped. No one can know how many more people he would have shot had the teacher not attacked him or had Giamanco waited outside for police. But a teenager who had already fired repeatedly inside an elementary classroom and still possessed dozens of additional rounds plainly retained the ability to continue killing.

The teacher disrupted the attack. The armed father ended it.

“Prepare to Be the Solution”

Years before Silver Rail, Dave Acosta summarized his philosophy in five words:

“Prepare to be the solution.”

Those words appear near the beginning of his book, VICTIMS NO MORE! Fighting Back Against An Active Shooter.

In *Victims No More! Fighting Back Against an Active Shooter*, veteran SWAT officer and international security expert Dave Acosta drew upon decades of real-world tactical experience to teach ordinary people how to survive the unthinkable. Through his Fight Back Nation program, Acosta trained thousands of teachers and school employees to move beyond helplessness—to escape when possible, protect those in their care, and, when there is no other choice, fight back. His message was simple and urgent: “Prepare to be the solution.”

I knew Dave, and I helped him tell that story. He had spent his adult life around violence most Americans thankfully never experience. Acosta began his law-enforcement career in Las Vegas and spent years in specialized assignments, including six years as the point man on the North Las Vegas SWAT Team. He later worked as an international tactical instructor and led high-risk protection teams in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, Mexico and Central and South America. His biography credited him with more than 1,800 real-world tactical missions.

Yet one of the causes that eventually consumed him wasn’t protecting diplomats or training elite tactical teams. It was protecting schoolchildren. Dave founded Fight Back Nation and began teaching teachers, administrators and school employees what to do during the few terrifying minutes between the first shot and the arrival of police. His objective was not to turn teachers into commandos. It was to teach ordinary people that they were not helpless.

Survive the Minutes Before Help Arrives

The foundation of Acosta’s program was the familiar principle RUN — HIDE — FIGHT. If you can safely escape, escape. If you cannot escape, secure yourself behind a locked door. And if the attacker reaches you and there is nowhere else to go, fight. But Dave believed that the third word was too often treated almost as an afterthought.

Law enforcement had changed dramatically after Columbine. Instead of assembling outside and waiting for specialized teams, officers in many jurisdictions were trained to enter immediately and move toward the gunfire. Dave praised that transformation, writing that responding officers were willing to run “into the gunfight because every second counts.”

But even an extraordinary police response takes time. Dave therefore posed a different and critically important question: What can the people already inside the school do during those minutes? His mission, he wrote, was to give schools the knowledge to become their own first responders until police arrived.

That distinction became terribly relevant in Bend. Police responded extraordinarily quickly. The first 911 call came at 12:59 p.m., and officers arrived at approximately 1:02. Yet by then four innocent people had already been killed. The attack had also already been stopped by people who were there when it began. Three minutes can be an eternity when someone is firing a weapon inside a classroom.

Dave Acosta Believed Teachers Could Fight Back

One of the most memorable sections of Victims No More! describes teachers arriving at Acosta’s training frightened by the very idea of discussing a school massacre. At one pilot training session, several elementary teachers told administrators they could barely tolerate thinking about someone attacking their children. Two wanted to leave, but they were persuaded to remain as long as they could tolerate the training.

Two hours later, according to the account in the book, their attitude had completely changed. They wanted more training. The difference wasn’t that they suddenly stopped fearing school shootings; they had learned that they could do something about one. The book describes the transformation as a movement from potential victim to “capable and confident protector.”

That was perhaps the most important thing Dave taught. Fear can produce paralysis. Training provides a plan. A plan can produce decisive action when seconds matter, and action can save lives.

What Dave Taught Happened in Bend

That is what makes the events at Silver Rail so striking. There is no indication that the teacher who attacked the gunman had ever met Dave Acosta or attended Fight Back Nation training, nor is there evidence that Giamanco had. But their behavior illustrated almost perfectly the principle at the heart of his work: Run if you can. Hide if you must. Fight when you have no alternative.

The teacher could not run. Children were being shot in her classroom, and she did not wait passively for someone else to arrive. She threw what she had — her cellphone — and attacked. Giamanco was in an entirely different position. He was outside the school and therefore could have remained outside. Yet his own children, along with hundreds of other people’s children, were somewhere in that building. He retrieved his legally possessed handgun and deliberately went toward the sound of gunfire.

One disrupted the attack. The other ended it. Together they bought something extraordinarily valuable: time — the very commodity Dave Acosta spent years teaching schools they could not afford to waste.

Dave Wanted Schools to Prepare as Seriously for Shooters as They Do for Fires

Acosta made another argument that deserves renewed consideration after Bend. American schools practice relentlessly for fires. Students learn evacuation routes, teachers know their responsibilities, alarms are standardized, and drills are repeated until the response becomes almost automatic. Dave wanted active-shooter preparation approached with similar seriousness.

He argued that although law enforcement transformed its response following Columbine, schools had never developed comparably consistent nationwide protocols beyond the general Run-Hide-Fight concept. Fight Back Nation therefore concentrated on the details. Teachers were taught to identify escape routes before an emergency. Classrooms could use a red-card system to signal to responding officers that someone inside required immediate medical attention. Acosta developed a Hall Boss concept intended to prevent children from blindly pouring into a hallway or outside area where a shooter might be waiting. Teachers were also trained to expect an extended lockdown after the immediate threat ended and to keep water, basic medical supplies, gauze and tourniquets available.

Acosta trained educators psychologically as well as physically. During lockdowns, he encouraged teachers to communicate with frightened students, explain what they were doing and give the children tasks rather than leaving them sitting silently imagining that death might come through the door at any moment. His program therefore amounted to considerably more than instruction about physically confronting an attacker. It was an attempt to build a culture of preparedness in which teachers and students understood what to do before the unthinkable happened.

Thousands of Teachers Heard the Message

Dave did not merely write about his ideas. He took them into schools. American Preparatory Academy says Acosta joined its school community in 2013 and trained thousands of its teachers over the years. The organization continues to credit him with having a lasting impact on its safety culture.

His book records that American Preparatory Academy made the training mandatory for its staff and that Utah’s Juab School District became the first complete district in the country to have its schools designated as Fight Back Nation certified. He also participated in the Utah County Sheriff’s Teachers Academy, working within programs that combined active-shooter response, self-defense, tactical medical care and other emergency preparation.

The acknowledgments of Victims No More! say Dave and his colleagues had helped transform more than 7,000 educators from potential victims into confident protectors. That represents thousands of classrooms in which someone had been taught one of Dave’s central lessons: helplessness was not the only option.

Then, Suddenly, Dave Was Gone

Dave Acosta survived dangerous assignments around the world. He lead SWAT teams, operated in Iraq and Afghanistan, trained security personnel and prepared ordinary Americans for extraordinary violence. Then, on July 30, 2020, he went mountain biking near Spanish Fork Reservoir in Utah and never came home.

Someone found his bicycle near the Hidden Oaks Mountain Bike Trail that evening. Police and emergency personnel responded and discovered Dave nearby. There were no witnesses to the accident, and investigators said he had been wearing a helmet. He had apparently crashed and suffered fatal injuries.

The cruel randomness of his death was difficult to comprehend. A man who had spent so much of his life studying danger was taken during an ordinary afternoon bicycle ride. His family remembered him afterward as a father, grandfather, husband and community hero who put other people before himself. A fundraiser created for his family offered a remarkably concise summary of the life he had lived: “Dave gave his life to service.”

That may be the best epitaph anyone could have written for him.

Bend Shows Why His Work Mattered

There will be difficult questions following the Silver Rail massacre. Investigators will examine why a 16-year-old former student returned to his elementary school with a shotgun. They will examine how he obtained the weapon, which authorities say had been legally purchased by his mother. They will examine warning signs, school security and whether anything could have prevented him from reaching that classroom. Those questions should be asked.

But there is another question that should not be lost amid those investigations: What do people do when prevention has failed and the killer is already inside? Dave Acosta devoted the latter part of his life to that question.

The answer Thursday came first from a teacher whose name most Americans still do not know. She fought. Then it came from a carpenter and father named Kaylub Giamanco. He ran toward the danger.

Neither could undo what had already happened. Neither could bring back three children or Meghan Lambert. And Giamanco apparently understands that painfully well. His family says he is overwhelmed by what happened and wishes he could have saved more people. He has declined interviews and asked for privacy.

That response perhaps tells us more about the man than an interview ever could. He did not enter that school seeking recognition. He entered because children were being killed, and two of those children could have been his own daughters.

The Armed Citizen Who Ran Toward the Gunfire

There is something particularly important about Giamanco’s role that should not disappear into the larger debate that inevitably follows a mass shooting. Police did exactly what Americans have spent decades asking police to do in these situations: they came quickly. According to the reported timeline, approximately three minutes separated the first 911 call from officers reaching the school.

Giamanco was simply closer.

He possessed a firearm lawfully. He had secured it in his vehicle rather than carrying it recklessly into an elementary school. When a catastrophe suddenly unfolded in front of him, however, he retrieved that firearm and made a decision that placed his own life in obvious danger. He did not know whether there was one gunman or several, whether the attacker had a handgun, rifle or explosives in addition to the shotgun, or whether he himself might be mistaken for the shooter when police arrived. He knew only that an armed attacker had entered a school filled with children.

And so he followed him.

That does not mean Americans should ordinarily pursue armed criminals or substitute themselves for police. Circumstances differ enormously, and poorly considered intervention can make an already dangerous situation worse. But neither should what Giamanco actually did be minimized. In this particular emergency, according to the police account, an armed citizen reached the attacker before responding officers could and stopped the killing.

It is impossible to calculate how many lives that decision saved. But police found approximately 44 rounds of ammunition remaining with a shooter who had already demonstrated his willingness to use them against children and teachers.

That fact makes Giamanco’s choice extraordinarily consequential.

Two Kinds of Heroes

There were at least two kinds of heroism at Silver Rail Elementary. There was the extraordinary physical courage of a teacher attacking an armed man with little more than a cellphone and determination. And there was the courage of a father who could have waited for someone else to solve the problem but instead retrieved a lawful firearm and went through those shattered doors himself.

Police Chief Mike Krantz publicly thanked the people who intervened, telling them, “We owe you a debt of gratitude.”

We do.

But perhaps we owe something to Dave Acosta as well. Not because he was there; he wasn’t. Not because these people necessarily knew his techniques; there is no evidence they did. We owe him gratitude because he spent years insisting upon an uncomfortable truth that events in Bend have once again demonstrated: during the worst minutes of a person’s life, there may be no one else there yet to save him.

Sometimes survival depends upon ordinary people deciding that they will not surrender themselves — or the people entrusted to them — without a fight.

Near the beginning of Victims No More!, Dave recalled standing among survivors after the Sutherland Springs church massacre when a young television reporter asked him when the insanity would end. His answer was characteristically Dave: mass shootings would stop when they were no longer productive.

Then came the principle around which he built his life’s final mission:

Prepare to be the solution.

On October 15, 2026, inside a small elementary school in the Oregon high desert, a teacher and a father did exactly that.

Four innocent people still died. Two more were wounded. Families have been changed forever, and an Oregon community will carry the scars of what happened at Silver Rail for years to come. But a 16-year-old attacker entered that school carrying a shotgun and enough ammunition to continue killing. He apparently expected to encounter defenseless victims.

Instead, he encountered resistance. A teacher fought him. Then an armed father ran through the doors and stopped him. And the killing ended.

Somewhere, one would like to think, Dave Acosta would have understood exactly what happened in that room. His work was called Victims No More! In Bend, Oregon, two courageous people showed America what those words meant.

By James Thompson. James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Federal Investigation of Ilhan Omar Expands: Agents Seize Phone, Subpoena Relatives as Citizenship and Financial Questions Mount

October 15, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

A court-authorized search of the Minnesota congresswoman’s Washington home has been followed by revelations of grand jury subpoenas, scrutiny of her citizenship records, and a separate investigation into dramatic changes in her family’s financial disclosures.

Federalist Press | October 15, 2026

WASHINGTON — What began as a renewed examination of longstanding allegations involving Representative Ilhan Omar’s immigration history has developed into a federal criminal investigation involving a residential search warrant, seized electronic evidence, and more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas.

Federal agents searched the Minnesota Democrat’s Washington, D.C., residence on Monday, October 12, as part of an investigation into possible fraud involving immigration documents submitted when Omar and her family entered the United States. By Wednesday evening, additional details had emerged.

Investigators seized Omar’s cellphone, according to Fox News and the Associated Press. Federal authorities have also issued more than a dozen subpoenas, including to members of her family, seeking evidence related to the family’s immigration history.

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has acknowledged a separate investigation involving Omar’s congressional financial disclosures. The developments represent a significant escalation in federal scrutiny of a sitting member of Congress. They also raise questions about allegations that have circulated for years, including disputed accounts of Omar’s marital history and the circumstances under which she became an American citizen.

Omar denies wrongdoing and maintains that the Trump administration is using federal law enforcement to intimidate a political opponent.

A Federal Search Warrant and a Seized Cellphone

Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Omar’s Washington residence before dawn Monday to execute a search warrant obtained through the Justice Department. The department confirmed that agents had conducted a judicially authorized search as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

The operation attracted immediate attention because Omar is a sitting member of Congress and a prominent critic of President Donald Trump. Investigators seized Omar’s cellphone during the search.

The seizure of a phone can provide investigators with access to potentially relevant communications, documents, photographs, application records and other electronically stored information, subject to the warrant’s scope and constitutional restrictions.

The search itself establishes that federal authorities persuaded a left-leaning judge that there was a legally sufficient basis to search the residence.

The Judge Imposed Restrictions on Investigators

An additional development emerged Wednesday when CNN reported that federal prosecutors had encountered resistance from the magistrate judge reviewing their proposed search.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh reportedly required limitations on investigators’ access to certain records because of constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress. Those protections arise principally from the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields legitimate legislative activities from certain forms of executive-branch investigation.

It indicates that the government could not simply search every congressional document or communication in Omar’s possession without regard to those protections.

The precise restrictions have not been publicly disclosed. Neither has the affidavit explaining the evidence that investigators presented to obtain the warrant.

Consequently, the public knows that the search received judicial authorization but does not yet know the specific facts supporting that authorization. Those facts will be essential to determining the strength of the government’s case.

The Citizenship Question: Was Omar Under 18?

One of the most consequential allegations involves Omar’s age when she acquired American citizenship. Omar was born in Somalia and entered the United States with her family in 1995 after spending several years in a Kenyan refugee camp.

Her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, subsequently became a naturalized American citizen. Omar has stated that she acquired citizenship through her father’s naturalization in 2000, before she turned 18. Under the citizenship laws applicable at that time, a child’s age could be critical to determining eligibility for derivative citizenship.

Investigators are now examining whether information concerning Omar’s birth date was accurate. The specific issue involves conflicting historical references to her birth year. Omar’s official biography identifies her birth year as 1982. However, older biographical materials maintained by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library previously listed 1981.

According to emails obtained by the New York Post and described by Fox News, Omar’s congressional staff requested that the library change the year to 1982 in May 2019. The library complied.

But an important qualification appears in the same correspondence: the original 1981 listing reportedly came from secondary reference materials rather than an authenticated birth certificate. That means the discrepancy is a legitimate subject for documentary investigation.

Investigators would need to determine her actual date of birth, the information submitted in the relevant immigration proceedings, and whether any discrepancy was intentional and legally material.

The potential consequences could be substantial if fraud were established.

More Than a Dozen Grand Jury Subpoenas

The investigation has extended beyond Omar herself.

According to the Associated Press, federal authorities have issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas as part of the immigration inquiry. Some were directed to Omar’s relatives. Her sister, Sahra Noor, is among those subpoenaed.

The investigation reportedly involves a federal grand jury collecting evidence in Minnesota. Grand jury subpoenas can compel witnesses to provide testimony or produce documents relevant to a criminal investigation.

In this case, relatives may possess information about the family’s departure from Somalia, its residence in Kenya, its entry into the United States, or the documents used in subsequent immigration proceedings.

Investigators are also reportedly examining information supplied by Omar’s late father. Because he died in 2020, federal authorities cannot question him directly about the documents he submitted. That circumstance may increase the importance of surviving records and testimony from family members.

The Longstanding Marriage Allegation

Questions concerning Omar’s immigration history are not new. For approximately a decade, critics have questioned her marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a British citizen whom she legally married in 2009.

The most serious allegation is that Elmi was actually Omar’s brother and that the marriage was arranged to obtain an immigration benefit. Omar has repeatedly denied the allegation.

The issue attracted considerable attention in 2019 when the Minnesota Star Tribune conducted an investigation into her marital history. The newspaper examined marriage records, divorce filings, business documents, university records and social media material. It identified several discrepancies that Omar had not fully explained.

Among them was the discovery that Omar had filed joint federal tax returns in 2014 and 2015 with Ahmed Hirsi, the father of her children, while she remained legally married to Elmi.

That circumstance raised legitimate questions about her tax filings and marital history.

The current federal investigation may provide investigators with access to immigration records and testimony unavailable to journalists examining the controversy years earlier.

But as of October 15, authorities have not publicly confirmed that the alleged relationship between Omar and Elmi is a specific subject of the current search warrant. Nor have they publicly produced evidence establishing the allegation.

The marriage controversy therefore remains relevant historical background rather than a proven element of the current criminal investigation.

The Financial Disclosures: From Thousands to Millions and Back Again

A second federal inquiry concerns Omar’s financial disclosures.

This investigation involves two businesses associated with her husband, political consultant and businessman Tim Mynett. The companies are eStCru LLC, a California winery, and Rose Lake Capital LLC, a venture capital firm.

Omar’s earlier congressional disclosures placed the combined reported value of the business interests between approximately $15,000 and $51,000 in 2023. Her 2024 disclosures subsequently listed their combined value between $6 million and $30 million.

That dramatic increase attracted scrutiny from House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer.

In February 2026, Comer requested financial records and communications concerning the businesses, including information that might explain their reported valuations. The investigation took another turn when Omar amended her financial disclosures in April. The amended filing substantially reduced the couple’s reported assets, placing their combined disclosed value between approximately $18,000 and $95,000.

Omar’s office explained that the earlier filings had failed to account properly for business liabilities. The office maintained that the original figures created a misleading impression of the family’s actual wealth.

The extraordinary difference between the original and amended disclosures prompted additional questions about the accuracy of the reporting.

On October 13, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro confirmed that her office was examining Omar’s financial disclosures. The inquiry is separate from the immigration investigation that prompted Monday’s search.

The Minnesota Fraud Scandal and Questions About Political Connections

Omar has also faced scrutiny concerning her political relationships with individuals implicated in Minnesota’s massive Feeding Our Future fraud scandal. The underlying criminal case is among the largest pandemic-era fraud prosecutions in the country.

Federal prosecutors established that participants submitted fraudulent claims for meals supposedly provided to children through federally funded nutrition programs. More than 60 defendants have been convicted, and the scheme involved approximately $250 million in fraudulent claims.

The case exposed extensive failures in the administration and oversight of federal assistance programs. Some individuals associated with the scandal had political connections or made campaign contributions to elected officials.

Omar has faced questions about her relationships with individuals involved in the scheme and her legislative activities concerning federal meal-program oversight. Aimee Bock had suggested Omar should have known about irregularities involving restaurant operators.

Federal prosecutors have not yet charged Omar with participating in the Feeding Our Future scheme.

Could Omar Lose Her Citizenship?

The potential consequences of the immigration investigation extend beyond ordinary criminal penalties.

Federal law permits the government to seek revocation of citizenship obtained through certain forms of fraud or unlawful procurement. Such proceedings are known as denaturalization.

The legal standards are demanding, and the government must establish grounds recognized under federal law. In Omar’s case, the legal analysis could be particularly complicated because she says she acquired citizenship as a minor through her father’s naturalization.

If investigators establish that inaccurate information was submitted, courts would still need to consider its materiality, the relevant citizenship statutes and the circumstances surrounding the alleged misrepresentation. The fact that a parent completed paperwork for a child could also be relevant.

Loss of citizenship would not automatically establish that a person should be deported. Removal would involve additional legal questions and procedures.

Nevertheless, the administration’s interest in the circumstances surrounding Omar’s acquisition of citizenship gives the investigation potentially far-reaching consequences.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that federal investigators are examining whether evidence could support proceedings to revoke Omar’s citizenship.

Omar Accuses the Administration of Political Intimidation

Omar has responded forcefully to the investigation. Following Monday’s search, she accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents. Of course, that is terribly rich in light of her public delight when the Biden administration filed dozens of federal charges against President Trump to derail his presidential candidacy.

The dispute is particularly sensitive because President Trump has repeatedly criticized Omar publicly, including questioning her immigration history and political positions.

The search also occurred approximately three weeks before the November 3 midterm elections.

Justice Department practice has traditionally discouraged overt investigative steps involving political candidates close to elections when such actions could affect electoral proceedings.

That practice is not an absolute prohibition on legitimate criminal investigations. Nevertheless, the timing has prompted questions about whether ordinary prosecutorial safeguards were followed.

The administration maintains that federal law applies equally to elected officials. “No one is above the law.”

Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday that investigators should follow the evidence and proceed only if a genuine case exists.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of the investigation will depend on the evidence, the lawfulness of the investigative process and the decisions of independent courts.

What Evidence Is the Government Seeking?

The investigation has now reached a stage at which several developments could become decisive.

First, investigators may obtain historical immigration records capable of establishing Omar’s actual birth date and the information submitted when her family entered the United States.

Second, grand jury testimony may clarify the family’s immigration history and identify who prepared or supplied particular documents.

Third, forensic examination of electronic evidence may identify relevant communications or records.

Fourth, the separate financial inquiry may establish whether the dramatic changes in her reported business assets reflected legitimate accounting corrections or inaccurate disclosures.

Finally, the government may seek additional testimony concerning Omar’s marital history, although officials have not confirmed that the longstanding allegation involving Elmi is part of the current warrant.

A Test of Accountability and Due Process

The federal investigation of Ilhan Omar has entered a consequential stage.

A sitting member of Congress has had her residence searched under judicial authorization. Her cellphone has reportedly been seized. More than a dozen grand jury subpoenas have been issued.

Federal investigators are examining possible irregularities in her family’s immigration history, while a separate inquiry addresses extraordinary changes in reported financial assets. These are significant developments deserving careful public scrutiny.

The public interest is served neither by dismissing documented investigative developments as meaningless nor by treating unproven allegations as established crimes.

The next decisive development will not be another political accusation. It will be the disclosure of evidence capable of showing what actually happened.

For now, the investigation continues, and the questions remain unanswered.

Federal Agents Raid Ilhan Omar’s Washington Home in Criminal Immigration Investigation

October 12, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Justice Department confirms pre-dawn search of Minnesota congresswoman’s residence as federal investigators examine allegations involving her immigration history. No charges have been announced.

Federalist Press | October 12, 2026

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration enforcement agents searched the Washington, D.C., home of Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar early Monday morning, executing a court-authorized warrant in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation.

The operation, conducted by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), represents a significant development in a federal inquiry that became public last month when White House border czar Tom Homan confirmed that immigration authorities were examining allegations involving the Minnesota congresswoman.

The Department of Justice acknowledged the operation in a statement.

“Today in the Washington, D.C., area, Homeland Security Investigations executed a judicially authorized search warrant secured by the Department of Justice.”

The department added that the operation was part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.

Neither the Justice Department nor Homeland Security Investigations has publicly disclosed the specific allegations underlying the warrant, identified any evidence recovered during the search, or announced criminal charges against Omar.

The investigation remains active.

Investigation Reportedly Centers on Omar’s Immigration Records

The investigation concerns possible fraud involving immigration documents submitted on Omar’s behalf when she entered the United States as a child.

The documents reportedly were completed by her late father.

Omar was born in Somalia in 1982. Her family fled the country’s civil war, spent several years in a refugee camp in Kenya, and eventually resettled in the United States.

She subsequently became an American citizen and entered politics, winning election to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 before becoming one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress in 2018.

She currently represents Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Minneapolis. The reported focus on childhood immigration paperwork introduces potentially complicated legal questions.

Immigration applications frequently involve information supplied by parents or guardians on behalf of minor children. If investigators identify inaccuracies in such documents, establishing who supplied the information, whether the inaccuracies were intentional, and whether they were legally material would be important to determining whether any crime occurred.

At present, federal officials have not publicly established that Omar knowingly submitted false information or committed immigration fraud.

Tom Homan Confirmed Investigation in September

Monday’s search follows public statements made in September by Tom Homan, President Trump’s border enforcement adviser.

During a September 13 appearance on Fox News, Homan acknowledged that federal immigration authorities were examining allegations involving Omar. He characterized the matter as an ongoing criminal investigation but declined to discuss specific evidence.

Homan also emphasized that federal immigration laws apply regardless of a person’s position in government. His remarks followed years of allegations concerning Omar’s immigration history and marital relationships.

One longstanding allegation is that Omar entered into a marriage intended to facilitate immigration benefits. Critics have claimed that a former husband was her brother.

When questioned on September 18, Omar said Homeland Security had not contacted her about an investigation and characterized the allegations as politically motivated attacks.

The September statements established that federal authorities were investigating allegations. Monday’s execution of a search warrant marks a new investigative step.

What Does a Federal Search Warrant Mean?

The execution of a judicially authorized search warrant is an important legal development, but its significance should be understood precisely.

Under the Fourth Amendment, federal investigators generally must establish probable cause before a judge may authorize a search of a private residence. Probable cause requires a factual basis for believing that evidence associated with a crime may be found in the location identified in the warrant. It does not require prosecutors to prove that the homeowner committed a crime. Nor does it necessarily mean that the homeowner is the only person under investigation.

The search warrant itself, along with the affidavit supporting it, would provide considerably more information about the government’s allegations. Those documents may remain sealed while investigators continue their work. Federal investigators can seek records, electronic devices and other materials relevant to an inquiry, subject to the scope of the warrant.

As of Monday’s initial reporting, authorities had not publicly identified what, if anything, was seized from Omar’s residence.

The fact that agents obtained judicial authorization establishes that a judge approved the search. It does not establish the truth of every allegation being investigated.

Could Immigration Fraud Affect Citizenship?

The investigation raises questions about whether alleged fraud in immigration proceedings could have consequences for naturalized American citizens. Federal law provides mechanisms for revoking naturalization when citizenship was illegally procured or obtained through concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation.

But denaturalization is not automatic, and the legal standards are demanding. The government generally must establish that the relevant misrepresentation was material to the acquisition of citizenship or that citizenship was otherwise unlawfully obtained.

The circumstances surrounding an application submitted by a parent on behalf of a minor child can present additional questions about knowledge, responsibility and intent.

Immigration attorney Michael Wildes, discussing the allegations involving Omar in a September Fox News report, described the evidentiary burden facing investigators as substantial.

Even if federal authorities eventually identify inaccurate information in Omar’s childhood immigration records, that discovery would not necessarily establish grounds for criminal prosecution or loss of citizenship. Those determinations would depend on the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

A Political Confrontation Years in the Making

Omar has been among President Trump’s most outspoken congressional critics since entering the House in 2019. The two have clashed repeatedly over immigration enforcement, national security, American foreign policy and the administration’s treatment of immigrant communities.

Omar has criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement and supported legislation seeking changes to federal immigration enforcement practices. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly questioned her political positions and immigration history. Their longstanding conflict makes Monday’s search politically consequential. It also places additional importance on transparency concerning the investigation.

Supporters of the investigation may view the search as evidence that federal authorities are willing to examine allegations involving powerful elected officials. Critics may question whether political considerations influenced the decision to investigate one of the president’s most prominent congressional opponents. Neither interpretation, standing alone, establishes whether the investigation is justified.

The underlying evidence, the legality of investigative procedures and any eventual court proceedings will be necessary to assess those questions.

Why the Timing Matters

The search occurred just three weeks before the November 3 midterm elections. Omar is seeking another term representing Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.

A federal investigation involving a sitting member of Congress naturally attracts public attention, particularly during an election campaign. However, the timing of a law-enforcement action does not, by itself, establish either political interference or improper conduct by the person being investigated.

The Justice Department has not publicly explained why investigators sought to execute the warrant on October 12.

Without the supporting court documents or additional official disclosures, it is not possible to determine what investigative developments prompted the search at this particular time.

The timing nevertheless ensures that the investigation will receive scrutiny from Congress, the news media and voters.

What Happens Next?

Several important questions remain unanswered. The Justice Department has not publicly disclosed the specific criminal statutes under investigation. It has not released the warrant affidavit, described the evidence investigators sought, or identified materials recovered during the search. It has not announced whether Omar is a target of the investigation or whether investigators are examining the actions of other individuals associated with historical immigration filings.

Omar’s response to Monday’s search also remains an important part of the developing story. The Associated Press reported that it had requested comment from her office but had not received a response at the time of its initial report.

Further information could emerge through official statements, court filings, congressional inquiries or subsequent investigative reporting. Until then, the allegations remain allegations.

The Larger Question: Accountability Under the Law

The investigation presents a question that extends beyond the political differences between Omar and the Trump administration. How should federal authorities investigate allegations involving elected officials without allowing political considerations to compromise either accountability or due process?

Members of Congress are subject to federal criminal laws. Holding elected office does not provide immunity from investigation into conduct unrelated to protected legislative activities.

At the same time, elected officials retain constitutional protections, including the presumption of innocence and the right to challenge government searches and criminal accusations. Those principles apply regardless of political affiliation.

The government’s responsibility is to investigate credible evidence lawfully and present any resulting charges in court. Omar’s responsibility, if formally accused, would be to respond through the legal process available to every American. And the public’s responsibility is to distinguish established facts from allegations that have not been proved.

Monday’s search is a documented development in an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Whether that investigation produces charges, uncovers evidence of wrongdoing, or concludes without prosecution remains unknown.

For now, federal agents have searched the home of a sitting member of Congress under judicial authorization. The evidence that prompted the search—and what investigators discovered—will determine the significance of what happens next.

The Economic Numbers Americans Should See: Income Rises, Poverty & Crime Fall and Job Growth Rebounds

September 18, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Newly released Census and Labor Department figures contain some strikingly positive news for American households. Income reached a record high in 2025, child and Hispanic poverty reached record lows, and the latest employment report showed a sharp rebound in job creation. The numbers strengthen the economic case for President Trump’s agenda—but the underlying government data tell a more nuanced story in some areas.

Americans have spent years hearing about inflation, affordability, government debt and economic anxiety. Those problems have not vanished. But a remarkable collection of statistics released by the federal government this month deserves attention for another reason: several important measures of American economic well-being moved decisively in a favorable direction during 2025, the first year of Donald Trump’s second administration.

Median household income reached the highest level ever recorded by the Census Bureau. Official child poverty fell to the lowest level in the government’s historical series. Hispanic poverty reached its lowest recorded level. Black households registered a particularly large increase in median income. And the latest employment report, covering August 2026, showed payroll growth rebounding sharply after a period of weak job creation during the Biden years.

Those results form the centerpiece of a new economic assessment from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, the conservative economic-policy organization associated with economists Stephen Moore, Arthur Laffer and Steve Forbes. Its presentation is unabashedly favorable to Trump’s economic record and compares a series of indicators under Trump and former President Joe Biden. The Economic State of the Union — Unleash Prosperity

And several of those numbers are striking.

Household Income Reaches a Record

The Census Bureau reported September 15 that median U.S. household income reached $87,460 in 2025, up from $85,210 in 2024. Adjusted for inflation, that was an increase of 2.6 percent in a single year.

More significantly, Census says 2025 median household income was the highest recorded in its data series going back to 1967.

Americans don’t experience prosperity merely through changes in GDP or the stock market. What ultimately matters to a household is what its income can purchase after accounting for rising prices.

The gains were not confined to the highest-income households. Census reported that median income increased 3 percent among White households and 4.8 percent among Black households between 2024 and 2025. The estimates for Asian and Hispanic households did not show statistically significant changes.

A 4.8 percent real increase in median Black household income is substantial.

There is additional good news after taxes. Census found that median household income after accounting for taxes and credits increased 3.1 percent, from $73,760 in 2024 to $76,060 in 2025.

Child Poverty Hits a Historic Low

Perhaps the most consequential statistic has received considerably less attention than most monthly political controversies. According to the Census Bureau, the official poverty rate among American children fell to 13.4 percent in 2025—the lowest level ever recorded under the official measure.

The overall official poverty rate also declined, from 10.7 percent in 2024 to 10.2 percent in 2025, leaving approximately 34.5 million Americans below the official poverty threshold.

The official measure compares pretax money income with poverty thresholds based on family composition. The Supplemental Poverty Measure incorporates taxes, government benefits, housing costs, work expenses and medical expenses.

By America’s long-established official poverty measure, child poverty reached an historic low in 2025. That is genuinely important news.

Hispanic Poverty Also Reaches a Record Low

The Hispanic poverty numbers are similarly striking. Census reports that the official Hispanic poverty rate dropped 1.2 percentage points in 2025, reaching 13.9 percent—the lowest recorded level in the historical series. Census says the record remains even after accounting for methodological changes in the survey over time.

Other groups also experienced declines. The Unleash Prosperity presentation highlights the racial and ethnic breakdown and argues that the gains undermine claims that Trump’s economic policies primarily benefit wealthy Americans.

The data establish the improvement. Annual income and poverty outcomes reflect many forces simultaneously: wages, employment, inflation, monetary policy, previous legislation, demographic changes and broader economic conditions.

Record real household income, record-low official child poverty and record-low Hispanic poverty are consequential economic developments and Trump’s policies certainly have earned the political credit.

Then Came a Much Stronger Jobs Report

The newest employment report adds another favorable development. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on September 4 that employers added 162,000 payroll jobs in August, while unemployment remained at 4.1 percent.

The improvement from July was dramatic. July produced only 21,000 additional jobs. Over the previous 12 months, monthly job growth had averaged approximately 31,000. August’s 162,000 therefore represented more than five times the preceding 12-month monthly average.

Food services and drinking establishments added about 59,000 jobs. Local-government education added approximately 42,000. Manufacturing added 16,000, while information employment declined by 23,000.

Government Employment Is Moving in the Opposite Direction

One of Unleash Prosperity’s most dramatic charts concerns federal employment.

Its argument is ideological as well as economic: private-sector employment produces goods and services in the marketplace, while government employment is financed through taxation and borrowing. The organization therefore presents reductions in federal payrolls under Trump as evidence of “draining the swamp.”

The underlying direction is real: the federal workforce has contracted significantly since Trump returned to office. The precise comparison depends heavily upon which starting and ending months are chosen and how employees receiving severance or paid leave are counted, so the group’s headline figure should not be treated as a simple measure of government savings.

What can safely be said is that Trump’s second administration has deliberately pursued a smaller federal workforce while the Biden administration generally presided over federal employment growth.

The Inflation Story Is Better Than 2022

One of the most visually arresting Unleash Prosperity charts traces inflation from the Biden years into Trump’s second administration.

There is an important truth behind it: inflation reached 9.1 percent in June 2022, the highest 12-month CPI increase in four decades, before declining considerably.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week that consumer prices rose 0.4 percent in August 2026 and were 3.4 percent higher than a year earlier. Core inflation, excluding food and energy, was 2.4 percent over the year. Gasoline prices were responsible for more than one-third of August’s monthly increase.

Economic Growth Continues

The economy itself continues to expand. Real GDP grew at a 2.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2026 and 1.5 percent in the second quarter, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Consumer spending, exports and investment contributed positively to second-quarter growth, while declining government spending partially offset them.

The composition is noteworthy. An economy in which private consumption, investment and exports expand while government spending contracts is different from one in which headline GDP growth depends heavily upon expanding public expenditures.

The third-quarter numbers, due later, will tell us considerably more about whether the August employment rebound is part of a broader acceleration.

Retirement Accounts Have Benefited From Strong Markets

Unleash Prosperity also highlights retirement accounts, arguing that average 401(k) balances lost purchasing power during the Biden years but have increased substantially during Trump’s two terms.

This is an area where the organization’s calculation requires more caution than its graphic suggests.

A 401(k) balance is affected not merely by presidential economic policy but by employee contributions, employer matches, withdrawals, participant demographics, asset allocation, interest rates and financial-market performance. Comparing average balances at presidential endpoints therefore cannot establish that a president personally “created” or “destroyed” the difference.

Nevertheless, strong equity markets and rising asset values unquestionably matter to tens of millions of Americans with retirement accounts. For households with substantial market exposure, asset appreciation can be an important component of financial well-being even when it doesn’t appear in household-income statistics.

Crime Has Fallen Dramatically

Another chart supplied by Unleash Prosperity attributes large crime reductions to Trump. The underlying decline is real—and remarkable.

The Council on Criminal Justice found that in its sample of large cities, homicide fell 21 percent in 2025 compared with 2024, gun assaults fell 22 percent, robbery 23 percent and carjackings 43 percent.

The improvement continued in 2026. During the first half of this year, homicide was another 18 percent lower than during the corresponding period of 2025, robbery fell 17 percent and carjacking fell 47 percent.

What the Numbers Actually Tell Us

The emerging economic picture contains a substantial amount of good news.

In 2025, inflation-adjusted median household income rose 2.6 percent and reached a record. Black median household income increased 4.8 percent. Official child poverty reached a record low. Hispanic poverty reached a record low. Overall official poverty declined. After-tax median household income increased. Crime continued falling dramatically. And now August 2026 has produced the strongest payroll-growth month in some time.

The Biden years included the 2021–22 inflation surge that sharply reduced household purchasing power.

Americans will ultimately judge Trump’s policies by results accumulated over years, and the latest results provide plenty worth noticing.

American household income is at a record high. Official child poverty is at a record low. Hispanic poverty is at a record low. Unemployment is 4.1 percent. August produced 162,000 new payroll jobs. And several categories of violent crime have continued their steep decline.

Those aren’t campaign slogans. They are measurements appearing in the latest reports from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics and independent crime researchers. And in an era when Americans are accustomed to being told what’s going wrong, they are also a reminder that sometimes the numbers contain genuinely good news.

Is Islamic Terror Winning? 25 Years After 9/11: America Must Remember What Happened

September 11, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Is Osama bin Laden winning? The attacks of September 11 did not emerge from nowhere. They were the culmination of years of escalating Islamist terrorism against Americans and others. A quarter-century later, remembrance requires more than mourning the dead. It requires remembering the ideology that motivated their killers.

Twenty-five years ago this morning, Americans turned on their televisions and watched something that seemed impossible.

A passenger jet had struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At first, millions assumed they were witnessing a terrible accident. Then, at 9:03 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the South Tower before television cameras and millions of witnesses.

America was under attack.

Before the morning was over, another hijacked airliner had crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth, United Flight 93, was brought down in a Pennsylvania field after passengers learned what was happening and fought the hijackers. Both towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. Nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed. Twenty-five years later, Americans are gathering again at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville to remember them.

But September 11 did not come without warning.

The War Had Already Begun

For years before Americans understood that they were confronting a new kind of enemy, radical Islamist organizations had been telling the United States precisely what they intended to do.

On February 26, 1993, terrorists detonated a truck bomb in the underground garage beneath the World Trade Center. Six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured. The objective was vastly more ambitious than the death toll suggests: mastermind Ramzi Yousef intended to topple one tower into the other, potentially killing tens of thousands. The FBI later described the bombing as a deadly dress rehearsal for what would happen eight years later.

The plotters were Islamist extremists. Yousef had trained in a camp associated with Osama bin Laden, and his uncle was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who would become the principal architect of the September 11 plot. Investigators subsequently uncovered another conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks, including the United Nations and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. In 1995, authorities in the Philippines disrupted the Bojinka plot, which envisioned blowing up a dozen U.S.-bound airliners over the Pacific; Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were involved.

The attacks continued.

In November 1995, a bombing in Riyadh killed five Americans and two others. In June 1996, terrorists bombed the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding hundreds. The 9/11 Commission attributed that attack primarily to Saudi Hezbollah, with assistance from Iran—a reminder that the terrorist threat Americans faced was not confined to al-Qaeda or to Sunni jihadism.

Then came Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war.

In February 1998, bin Laden and other Islamist leaders issued a purported religious decree calling for Muslims to kill Americans, military and civilian. Six months later, al-Qaeda simultaneously bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands.

In December 1999, an attempt to bomb Los Angeles International Airport was stopped when Ahmed Ressam was caught entering the United States from Canada with explosives.

Then, on October 12, 2000, suicide terrorists maneuvered an explosives-laden boat alongside the USS Cole while the American destroyer was refueling in Aden, Yemen. The explosion ripped a massive hole in the ship, killing 17 American sailors and injuring nearly 40. The FBI concluded that al-Qaeda planned and carried out the attack. Investigators also discovered that the terrorists had previously attempted to attack the USS The Sullivans, but their overloaded explosives boat sank before reaching its target.

The pattern was no longer obscure. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission later concluded that by September 2001 America’s government, Congress, news media and public had received unmistakable warning that Islamist terrorists intended to kill Americans in large numbers.

The Ideology Behind the Terror

Islamism is a political ideology seeking to organize government and society according to particular interpretations of Islamic law and authority. Jihadism is its revolutionary and violently extremist manifestation—the ideology embraced in differing forms by al-Qaeda, ISIS and affiliated organizations.

Twenty-five years after 9/11, jihadist terrorism has not vanished. Europol reported this year that it remained the primary terrorist threat in the European Union: jihadists accounted for 24 of the EU’s 45 terrorist attacks in 2025 and 347 of its 486 terrorism-related arrests. Modern jihadism increasingly operates through propaganda and online radicalization that can mobilize lone actors without the enormous organizational machinery al-Qaeda required for September 11.

Western societies therefore have two responsibilities that are entirely compatible: refusing to treat peaceful Muslims as terrorists because of their religion, while refusing equally to sanitize or ignore a violent Islamist ideology because acknowledging it might offend someone.

September 11, 2001

Nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists boarded four commercial aircraft that Tuesday morning.

At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

At 9:03, United Flight 175 struck the South Tower.

At 9:37, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

On Flight 93, passengers receiving telephone calls learned what had happened in New York and Washington. Understanding that their airplane was itself a weapon, they acted. They rushed the cockpit. At 10:03, the hijackers crashed the aircraft near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, before reaching their intended target.

At 9:59, the South Tower collapsed. At 10:28, the North Tower followed.

The scale of the destruction almost defied comprehension. Firefighters and police officers ran upward while thousands fled downward. Ordinary office workers carried injured strangers. Passengers aboard Flight 93 knowingly confronted armed terrorists rather than permit their aircraft to destroy another American landmark. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered in a matter of hours.

And then something remarkable happened. America became America again.

For a Brief Time, We Remembered That We Were One People

The flags appeared everywhere.

They hung from houses and apartment windows. They flew from pickup trucks and highway overpasses. Blood-donation centers filled. Churches filled. Americans donated money, food and equipment. Firefighters drove toward New York from communities hundreds of miles away.

Political divisions that had seemed enormous on September 10 suddenly looked trivial.

There was widespread agreement about several basic facts. America had been deliberately attacked. The killers were al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists motivated by a radical Islamist ideology. The country had a right to defend itself. Terrorist organizations could not be allowed sanctuary from which to organize mass murder.

The mistake came later, when parts of Western political and media culture increasingly treated concern about Islamist ideology itself as though it were indistinguishable from prejudice against individual Muslims. Islamophobia was born on CNN and other liberal outlets.

One can defend a Muslim American’s constitutional right to worship while vigorously opposing Islamism. One can welcome an immigrant who embraces America’s constitutional order while questioning immigration policies that import people hostile to that order. And one can condemn anti-Muslim bigotry while demanding that governments confront jihadist organizations without euphemism.

Twenty-Five Years of an Argument We Still Have Not Resolved

The intervening quarter-century did not make the underlying problem disappear.

Al-Qaeda survived in altered form. ISIS established a territorial caliphate before losing it and inspired or directed terrorist attacks abroad. Europe endured jihadist massacres in Madrid, London, Paris, Brussels, Manchester and elsewhere. America suffered attacks at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, Orlando and other locations.

And on October 7, 2023, Hamas and other armed groups poured across the Gaza border into Israel, murdering civilians and taking hostages. A United Nations investigative mission subsequently found reasonable grounds to believe that rape and gang rape occurred at multiple locations during the attack and clear and convincing information that hostages were subjected to sexual violence, including rape and sexualized torture. The same UN investigation also rejected some specific allegations for which evidence did not hold up—an important reason to distinguish documented atrocities from rumor.

None of this means Muslims collectively bear responsibility for terrorism. They do not. Collective guilt is both unjust and intellectually lazy.

But neither does that truth require the West to avert its eyes from radical Islamism.

Even today Americans remain profoundly divided about that question. A Pew Research Center survey released just before this anniversary found that 51 percent of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers, compared with 25 percent in March 2002. The partisan divide is enormous: 76 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said so, compared with 29 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

That does not establish which interpretation of Islam is correct. It demonstrates something else: the argument America seemed to have settled on September 12, 2001, is very much alive 25 years later.

Europe Learned Some Lessons the Hard Way

Immigration makes the issue still more difficult because several distinct questions are routinely collapsed into one.

Europe has experienced serious problems involving integration, radicalization and—in some communities—forms of criminality whose cultural dimensions authorities were reluctant to discuss. Britain’s group-based child-sexual-exploitation scandals are an especially grim example. A major British government audit concluded in 2025 that national ethnicity data remained too inadequate to establish a definitive nationwide perpetrator profile, while also examining significant local evidence involving men of Pakistani heritage. The British government has since established a statutory inquiry specifically charged with examining ethnicity, religion and culture alongside institutional failures.

The lesson should not be that Pakistani men, Muslims or immigrants are collectively responsible for these crimes. That would substitute prejudice for analysis.

The lesson is that governments must be willing to investigate uncomfortable facts—including cultural or religious factors when the evidence supports them—without suppressing discussion because officials fear accusations of intolerance.

A civilization confident in itself should be capable of doing both things simultaneously: protecting innocent minorities from collective blame and protecting the larger society from genuinely dangerous movements within minority populations.

The Strange Political Coalitions of the Post-9/11 Era

One of the more remarkable developments of the past 25 years has been the political convergence, on certain issues, between elements of the Western progressive left and Islamist political movements. Their underlying philosophies are hardly natural allies. Secular progressivism and traditional Islamist doctrine profoundly disagree about religion, sexuality, women’s roles, family structure and the proper relationship between religious authority and government.

Yet alliances can form around common political causes—anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, opposition to Western foreign policy, immigration politics or a shared conception of certain groups as oppressed and others as oppressors.

That phenomenon deserves scrutiny without turning every Muslim political candidate, immigrant or Palestinian advocate into an Islamist. American Muslims are politically diverse, just as Christians, Jews and atheists are.

The constitutional question is ultimately straightforward. Americans may believe whatever religion they choose. They may criticize Christianity, Judaism, Islam or atheism. They may advocate socialism, capitalism or almost any other political philosophy. But America’s constitutional system—not religious law, racial identity or revolutionary ideology—remains the governing compact.

Immigration policy has a legitimate role in protecting that compact. Citizenship should mean more than physical residence. A country has every right to ask whether those seeking to join it are prepared to live peacefully under its laws and constitutional institutions.

Did Bin Laden Succeed?

Osama bin Laden failed in his most obvious objective.

He did not destroy the United States. He did not establish an Islamist state here. Al-Qaeda’s original leadership was devastated, bin Laden was eventually killed by American forces, and the United States has prevented another foreign terrorist attack approaching the scale of September 11.

But the more disturbing question on this 25th anniversary is whether he succeeded in a different way.

Terrorism is intended not merely to kill people but to alter societies. Bin Laden hoped to provoke conflict, deepen divisions and undermine confidence in the Western order. Twenty-five years later, Americans distrust one another profoundly. Our understanding of national identity is contested. Even basic discussions about borders, assimilation, religion, terrorism and Western civilization can become exercises in partisan accusation.

It would go too far to attribute those changes to bin Laden. They have many causes, most of them originating within the West itself.

But that makes the lesson of September 11 more important, not less.

Bin Laden therefore failed to conquer America, but he succeeded in making America change itself. Every security checkpoint, every fortified airport, every counterterrorism bureaucracy and every hour an innocent traveler spends proving that he is not carrying a weapon is part of the enormous price a free society has paid because a small number of men were willing to murder strangers in the name of an extremist ideology. Necessary precautions may protect liberty, but their necessity itself represents something we lost on September 11. The America of September 10, 2001—where ordinary citizens could move through many public spaces with a degree of openness that younger Americans have never experienced—is a country that in some respects no longer exists.

The Freedom We Lost After September 11

There was another victory the terrorists achieved that Americans rarely discuss when commemorating September 11: they permanently changed the way ordinary Americans live. Before 9/11, family members could routinely accompany travelers to an airport gate and wait there to embrace them when they stepped off the airplane. Airport security was comparatively unobtrusive. Americans traveled without removing shoes, surrendering bottles of water, measuring shampoo into tiny containers or routinely submitting themselves and their belongings to elaborate screening. Today we accept identification checkpoints, scanners, metal detectors, restricted areas, security lines and searches as ordinary features of American life. Some of those precautions are reasonable responses to genuine threats, but that does not change why they became necessary. Nineteen terrorists demonstrated that civilian transportation could be transformed into a weapon of mass murder, and hundreds of millions of innocent travelers have lived with the consequences ever since.

The transformation went far beyond airports. Congress created the Transportation Security Administration in November 2001 and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, producing an enormous federal security apparatus devoted to aviation security, border protection, intelligence coordination, cybersecurity, emergency preparedness and counterterrorism. The federal government acquired surveillance and investigative powers that would have generated extraordinary controversy before September 11. Buildings strengthened security. Public events acquired checkpoints and bag searches. Police departments developed counterterrorism units. Governments spent vast sums hardening transportation systems and potential targets. Whatever one thinks of each particular policy—and some unquestionably prevented or complicated subsequent attacks—the larger historical fact is undeniable: terrorism imposed a tremendous tax on American liberty, privacy, time and money. The passengers standing barefoot in an airport security line a quarter-century later are living, however indirectly, with the consequences of September 11.

There is an additional frustration in the necessarily generalized nature of modern security. A grandmother, businessman, child or mother traveling with breast milk can find herself subjected to rules created because terrorists learned to conceal explosives in shoes, liquids, underwear, electronics and other ordinary objects. (Breast milk is actually exempt from the TSA’s normal 3.4-ounce liquid limit, although it must be declared and may receive additional screening.) The principle of equal treatment means security procedures generally cannot simply assume that someone is harmless because of race, sex or appearance—and racial or religious profiling would also sweep enormous numbers of innocent people into suspicion while potentially missing terrorists who do not fit a stereotype. Yet there is a bitter irony here: law-abiding Americans who had nothing whatsoever to do with Islamist terrorism surrendered freedoms and conveniences because governments had to devise systems capable of detecting the comparatively tiny number of people who might commit it. The terrorists did not merely murder nearly 3,000 people on September 11. They forced an open society to spend the next quarter-century protecting itself against another September 11.

Never Forget Means Remembering All of It

“Never Forget” cannot merely mean remembering collapsing buildings once a year.

It means remembering the people inside them.

It means remembering the firefighters climbing stairwells from which they would never return. The police officers running toward destruction. The passengers aboard Flight 93 deciding that their own lives might have to be sacrificed to save strangers. The husbands and wives who made final telephone calls. The children who went to bed on September 10 with two parents and did not have them both the following night.

And it means remembering why they died.

They were not killed by an airplane accident, poverty, American intolerance or an abstraction called “extremism.” They were deliberately murdered by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists acting in service of a radical Islamist ideology that had declared Americans legitimate targets.

Remembering that fact does not dishonor peaceful Muslims. Blaming peaceful Muslims for September 11 would itself betray America’s principles of individual responsibility and religious liberty.

But refusing to name an ideology that openly seeks our destruction would betray those principles in another way.

Today, at the Pentagon, Ground Zero and Shanksville, Americans are again reading the names of the dead. Twenty-five years have passed, and an entire generation has grown up knowing September 11 only through photographs and recordings.

We owe that generation the truth—neither hatred nor historical amnesia.

On September 11, 2001, Americans saw what radical Islamist terrorism could do.

For a brief period afterward, we also saw what Americans could do when they remembered that beneath every political disagreement, race, religion and region, they belonged to one country.

Twenty-five years later, perhaps the most important words remain the simplest:

Remember the dead. Remember the heroes. Remember the enemy that attacked them. Defend the Constitution that the terrorists could not destroy. And never forget.

The Red Line Moves: The Socialist-Islamist Insurgency No Longer Hides at the Democratic Party’s Fringe

September 1, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Abdul El-Sayed insists he isn’t a socialist. ‘Socialist’ may be too weak for a man who seems more enamored of an Islamist Caliphate. From Michigan to New York to Florida, candidates once relegated to the ideological fringe are defeating establishment Democrats—and beginning to look less like a faction than a possible future of the party. Totalitarian candidates are on the rise in the Democrat Party.

For years, conservatives warning that America’s progressive movement was marching steadily leftward were routinely accused of exaggeration. Democrats were not becoming socialists, Americans were told. Bernie Sanders was an eccentric outlier. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represented an unusually liberal congressional district. The Democratic Socialists of America were activists operating at the edges of a much larger and fundamentally conventional political party.

That explanation has become increasingly difficult to sustain.

The story unfolding in 2026 is not that every Democrat has suddenly become a socialist. Not completely–not yet. Is democratic socialism synonymous with Soviet-style communism? Again, not yet. The more consequential development is that candidates openly identifying as democratic socialists, and candidates closely allied with that movement, are demonstrating that they can defeat traditional Democrats, capture Democratic nominations and build a political infrastructure capable of reproducing those victories.

And Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed may be the most revealing example precisely because he publicly rejects the socialist label.

The Candidate Who Says He Isn’t a Socialist

El-Sayed is now the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in one of America’s most important battleground states. He defeated the more centrist Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic primary and will face Republican Mike Rogers in November. His victory followed endorsements from Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and every current member of the congressional “Squad.”

El-Sayed nevertheless insists that descriptions of him as a socialist are wrong. “I’m not somebody who is a socialist,” he told CNN during the campaign, adding that he believes in capitalism but believes it must be regulated. In another interview he described himself as “a capitalist who’s actually read about capitalism.” A wholistic survey of his totalitarian-leaning statements provide a textbook definition of Mussolini-styled fascism.

Fox News reported that El-Sayed appeared at six DSA events between 2017 and 2020. He headlined a 2019 fundraiser that raised approximately $10,000 for Detroit DSA, whose organizers reportedly described him as a “longtime friend.” At one event, El-Sayed and Rep. Rashida Tlaib were photographed behind imagery depicting a hand labeled “DSA” choking a snake labeled “capitalism.”

Streamer Hasan Piker, left, and Abdul El-Sayed take a selfie with young fans following a campaign event at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, on April 7. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP)

Then there is the coalition behind him. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez campaigned with El-Sayed. The entire Squad endorsed him. DSA members have gravitated toward his campaign even without a formal organizational endorsement. His agenda includes Medicare for All and an aggressive attack on corporate concentration and money in politics.

Whether El-Sayed personally checks the “socialist” box is therefore almost beside the point. He has become a vehicle through which America’s socialist left can exercise power in a state that Donald Trump carried twice. That is much more significant than a label.

The Deleted Posts

El-Sayed’s past rhetoric has received renewed attention as he attempts to broaden his appeal for the general election.

CBS News reported this week that it verified two deleted El-Sayed posts comparing America’s COVID death toll with the nearly 3,000 people murdered on September 11. He is for it. Another deleted post from the 20th anniversary of 9/11 compared the victims with deaths resulting from subsequent American military interventions.

Then there is is close relationship with Hasan Piker. Piker, the enormously popular left-wing streamer who infamously said that “America deserved 9/11” appeared at El-Sayed campaign events. Their association has become sufficiently controversial that fellow Democrats have demanded a repudiation.

This is no longer simply Republican opposition research. It has become an argument inside the Democratic Party about how far its insurgent wing has traveled and which associations should remain beyond the pale.

The same problem surfaced after an attack on a Michigan synagogue. El-Sayed initially discussed the attack partly through the assailant’s personal loss in the Middle East and said that “hurt people hurt people.” He subsequently apologized to Michigan’s Jewish Democratic Caucus, saying he had not intended to excuse violence and regretted the pain his words caused.

Taken together, the statements illustrate that a candidate who developed his political identity within America’s activist left is now attempting to translate that identity into statewide political power. And he is hardly alone.

Zohran Mamdani Proved the Model Could Work

The political earthquake really began with Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani doesn’t run away from the terminology. He is a democratic socialist and was sworn in as mayor of America’s largest city in January after campaigning on universal childcare, free bus service, rent freezes and higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers.

More importantly, Mamdani isn’t treating his victory as a one-off New York phenomenon. He told CBS that democratic socialism “can flourish anywhere.” The movement is now testing that proposition.

In June, all three congressional candidates endorsed by Mamdani won their New York Democratic primaries. Brad Lander defeated incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman. Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Claire Valdez captured the nomination for an open congressional seat. At least a dozen NYC-DSA-backed candidates won races that night.

That is not an activist club issuing manifestos. That is an electoral machine. And because these are overwhelmingly Democratic districts, primary victories can be tantamount to election.

The Insurgency Spreads to Michigan

Then came Michigan. State Rep. Donavan McKinney, a DSA member, defeated incumbent Democratic Rep. Shri Thanedar for the Democratic nomination in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District. McKinney ran on Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel and rejecting corporate PAC money. He was backed by DSA and other progressive organizations and is heavily favored in his Democratic district.

On the same primary night, El-Sayed defeated the more establishment-oriented Stevens for the Senate nomination. Consider what that means.

A democratic socialist knocked a sitting Democratic congressman out of office. A Sanders- and AOC-backed progressive with longstanding DSA relationships captured the party’s Senate nomination. And the results occurred not in Brooklyn or San Francisco, but in Michigan, one of the states that determines who governs America.

Reuters now describes El-Sayed and McKinney as part of a broader test for the democratic socialist movement as it attempts to expand its coalition beyond younger progressives and into constituencies, including older Black Democrats, that have traditionally been more skeptical of the socialist left.

Florida Just Delivered Another Warning

Florida provided yet another data point. State Rep. Angie Nixon stunned the Democratic establishment by defeating Alex Vindman for the party’s U.S. Senate nomination. Nixon joined the Democratic Socialists of America in June, although she has emphasized that she doesn’t endorse every position taken by the organization.

After winning, Nixon told CBS that voters weren’t interested in ideological terminology. “It’s not about labels,” she argued.

That phrase is becoming remarkably common. El-Sayed says he isn’t a socialist. Nixon says labels aren’t important. Mamdani says democratic socialism can flourish everywhere.

Conservatives would be foolish to become obsessed with terminology while ignoring the underlying transformation. Look at the policies. Look at the alliances. Look at who is winning.

A Democratic Leadership Vacuum

Former Democratic fundraiser Lindy Li offers one explanation for why this is happening.

Li, who raised money for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris before breaking with the party and now identifies as conservative, told Fox News that the Democratic Party’s post-Biden leadership vacuum has created an opening for DSA.

“Power abhors a vacuum,” she said. “They’re simply filling a vacuum. There’s no one there.” Li’s political conversion obviously gives her a point of view, and her characterization of DSA should be understood in that context. But the underlying observation is difficult to dismiss.

Who currently defines the Democratic Party? The Biden generation is gone. The old Clinton-era centrism has little emotional hold on younger Democratic voters. The party establishment remains institutionally powerful, but establishment-backed incumbents have repeatedly discovered that institutional power doesn’t guarantee victory in a Democratic primary.

The socialist left, meanwhile, has something establishment Democrats increasingly lack: an ideology, an activist base, recognizable national personalities, an economic narrative and an organized mechanism for identifying and electing candidates. It knows what it wants.

Socialism With Better Marketing

There is also a reason the movement is succeeding that conservatives should understand rather than caricature. Its candidates rarely campaign by giving voters lectures on Marx.

They campaign on rent. Groceries. Health insurance. Childcare. Corporate power. Housing.

Young Americans facing enormous housing costs, student debt and health-care expenses (all created by Democratic policies) are told that their economic insecurity is not primarily the result of scarcity, regulation, monetary policy, taxation or failed government programs. They are told instead that the system has been captured by billionaires and corporations, and that government can make life affordable by transferring more economic power to the public sector.

That message has political potency.

Mamdani’s campaign was built around affordability. Nixon stresses everyday costs. El-Sayed continually redirects interviews toward housing, health care and the price of living. Even Reuters’ examination of the socialist movement today notes that its candidates are concentrating on affordability as they try to broaden their electoral appeal.

Supporters see these policies as democratic government correcting market failures, restraining monopolies and providing necessities that private markets have failed to make affordable. They reject comparisons with authoritarian communism and point to social-democratic programs throughout Europe and elsewhere. That is the strongest argument for their side.

But conservatives should recognize what is occurring beneath the friendlier vocabulary: the acceptable boundary of government intervention in American economic life is moving dramatically.

Policies that would have been considered outside mainstream Democratic politics a generation ago are increasingly presented not as radical experiments but as obvious moral necessities.

Yesterday’s Fringe Is Tomorrow’s Establishment

That is the real lesson of Abdul El-Sayed. It isn’t necessary to prove that he secretly keeps a copy of The Communist Manifesto under his pillow. It isn’t even necessary to win an argument over whether “socialist” “communist” or even “caliphate” is the technically correct description of his political philosophy.

Watch the movement instead. Bernie Sanders spent decades as an eccentric independent socialist from Vermont. Then came AOC and the Squad. Then came Mamdani.

Now Mamdani has become mayor of New York City and helped knock incumbent Democrats out of Congress. DSA-backed candidates are winning nominations in Michigan. A DSA member has captured Florida’s Democratic Senate nomination. And a politician who spent years appearing at DSA events, enjoys the backing of virtually every major figure in the congressional socialist left and advocates some of its signature economic policies is now the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in Michigan.

The socialist movement has not quite captured the entire Democratic Party. A few moderate Democrats may still exist, often resist it somewhat, and in many parts of the country remain more electorally successful. But that is no longer the relevant threshold.

The question is whether socialism has moved from the Democratic Party’s fringe into a position from which it can plausibly compete for the party’s future.

The 2026 election cycle is supplying an increasingly uncomfortable answer: It has.

And Americans who were once told that warnings about the Democratic Party’s leftward march were merely conservative hysteria no longer have to speculate about where the movement wants to go.

Its candidates are telling us. Its organizations are mobilizing. And increasingly, Democratic primary voters are putting them in office.

Do Liberal Women View Lindsay Clancy Murders Akin to Late Term Abortions?

August 29, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

As the Lindsay Clancy jury deliberates, hundreds of supporters dressed in pink have turned a horrific triple killing into a national debate over motherhood, mental illness—and criminal responsibility

Three children are dead. Their mother killed them. Those two facts are not disputed by either side in a Massachusetts courtroom.

Cora Clancy was five years old. Her brother Dawson was three. Their baby brother, Callan, was eight months old. On January 24, 2023, their mother, Lindsay Clancy, strangled all three children with exercise bands in the basement of the family’s Duxbury home after she sent her husband to pick up medication and takeout food. After murdering her three children, Clancy then attempted to kill herself, ultimately leaving herself paralyzed.

What the jury must decide is something considerably more complicated: Was Lindsay Clancy legally responsible for what she did?

After five weeks of testimony, the case went to a Plymouth Superior Court jury Thursday. The panel deliberated for several hours Thursday and approximately seven more Friday without reaching a verdict. Jurors requested to examine prescription medications and the knife involved in Clancy’s suicide attempt before being dismissed for the weekend. Deliberations resume Monday morning.

The jury has five potential outcomes before it: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, outright acquittal, or a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible because of mental illness. A first-degree murder conviction could result in life imprisonment without parole; a finding of no criminal responsibility could result in confinement in a psychiatric institution rather than prison.

The defense: This was psychosis, not murder in the legal sense

Nobody seriously disputes that Clancy was suffering psychologically before the killings.

She had sought psychiatric treatment, experienced suicidal thoughts, contacted crisis resources and underwent hospitalization. Her defense maintains that she developed postpartum psychosis following the birth of Callan and was subjected to an ineffective and excessive succession of psychiatric medications. Defense experts testified that she was psychotic when she killed her children and therefore incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of what she was doing.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington consequently isn’t asking the jury to believe someone else killed Cora, Dawson and Callan. He acknowledges that Clancy did it. His contention is that mental disease had so profoundly destroyed her rational capacity that Massachusetts law cannot hold her criminally responsible.

That could be a legitimate legal defense, and it deserves to be considered on the evidence rather than dismissed because the crime is horrifying.

But prosecutors have presented a profoundly different interpretation.

Prosecutors say there was planning

The prosecution contends Clancy was depressed and psychologically troubled but not psychotic to the degree required to eliminate criminal responsibility.

Prosecutors emphasize the sequence preceding the killings. Clancy sent her husband Patrick awayt from the house to obtain medication for one of the children and collect dinner. While he was away, she had the opportunity she needed to kill the children. She strangled them individually with exercise bands before attempting suicide.

Prosecution experts also challenged Clancy’s subsequent account that she heard a voice directing her to kill the children. Forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun testified that he doubted she was suffering an acute psychotic episode and concluded that she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. Other prosecution experts pointed to inconsistencies in her descriptions of what happened.

That conflict—not whether Clancy killed her children—is the case the jury is deciding.

Then came the women in pink

Outside the courthouse, however, something unusual happened.

Hundreds of Clancy supporters assembled wearing bright pink. Associated Press reporters estimated approximately 300 women and a few men participated in one demonstration. Shirts carried messages including “Believe,” “She Needed Help” and “Peace For Lindsay.” Some supporters traveled considerable distances to attend.

These supporters have said nothing about Cora, Dawson and Callan in this extraordinary public spectacle.

Whatever ultimately happened inside Lindsay Clancy’s mind, three human beings incapable of defending themselves were brutally murdered. The oldest had barely begun school. The youngest had lived only eight months.

A society can demand better psychiatric treatment for mothers while remembering their murdered children. Those propositions do not conflict.

When the accused becomes the symbol

The unsettling feature of the demonstrations is not concern about postpartum psychosis. That concern is legitimate and potentially lifesaving. The uncomfortable question is why the person who killed three children became the visual centerpiece of the movement.

There are countless women who have suffered postpartum depression and psychosis without killing anyone. Their experiences deserve attention. So do women who recognized frightening symptoms and sought emergency intervention, families who protected mothers and babies during psychiatric crises, and physicians attempting to recognize an uncommon but extremely dangerous condition.

Making Clancy herself the symbol creates an unavoidable moral ambiguity.

One recent commentary from the political left demonstrates how far that reframing can go. Left Voice, a self-described revolutionary socialist publication, published an essay with the remarkable headline “In the Trial of Lindsay Clancy, Capitalism Is the Guilty Party.” Its authors argued that the capitalist healthcare system—not Clancy—was the true guilty party.

That is no longer simply an argument that mental illness can eliminate legal responsibility. It relocates moral responsibility from the individual who performed a murderous act onto “the system.” It echoes Luigi Mangione shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the back, and the large cast of young liberal supporters of that “heroic” act of murder.

And that deserves examination.

Compassion cannot require forgetting the victims

Mental illness is real. Postpartum psychosis is real. A human being suffering a genuine psychotic break may be incapable of understanding reality in a way that fundamentally changes criminal responsibility. American law has recognized versions of that principle for generations.

The jury, not demonstrators, commentators or politicians, must determine whether the evidence proves that happened here. But compassion for a mentally ill defendant need not require the moral displacement of her victims.

There is something deeply uncomfortable about seeing hundreds of people assembling around the person who admittedly murdered three defenseless children while the children’s names risk becoming secondary characters in their own deaths.

Cora. Dawson. Callan. They were not abstractions in a debate about America’s healthcare system. They were children. Beloved by their decimated father and extended family members.

Is there a broader cultural question?

The spectacle also raises a difficult cultural question that extends beyond this particular defendant.

Modern political debate increasingly frames traditional obligations through the vocabulary of autonomy. Marriage can be discussed primarily in terms of personal fulfillment. Pregnancy becomes a question of bodily autonomy. Parenthood is frequently discussed in terms of its economic and psychological burdens. Abortion politics, particularly regarding later stages of pregnancy, places the competing moral claims of mother and unborn child at the center of an intense national disagreement.

The Clancy case is legally and morally different from abortion, and it would be inaccurate to claim that the women outside the courthouse necessarily connect the two.

Nevertheless, a conservative cultural critique can legitimately ask whether something happens to a society when the language of adult autonomy consistently becomes louder than the language of obligation toward dependent children.

That is a philosophical question, not evidence concerning Clancy’s guilt.

But this case makes the question difficult to avoid.

Now twelve jurors must decide

The jury of nine women and three men has already spent more than ten hours examining an enormous record developed during five weeks of testimony. Their early requests for prescription medications suggest, although we should not speculate too far, that they are carefully considering the medical evidence central to Clancy’s defense.

They return Monday. Their responsibility is narrower than America’s. They must determine Lindsay Clancy’s criminal responsibility under Massachusetts law.

The rest of us confront a different question. Can we acknowledge severe mental illness without romanticizing the person who commits an atrocity? Can we identify failures in psychiatric medicine without automatically transferring responsibility from individuals to institutions? Can we have compassion for a desperately ill mother while reserving our deepest compassion for three children whose lives were taken from them?

We should be capable of all three. Whatever verdict eventually comes from Plymouth Superior Court, one fact should never become obscured by pink shirts, political ideology, psychiatric terminology or television cameras.

Cora Clancy was five. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. They deserve to remain at the center of this story.

For What Possible Reason? The Political Movement That Opposes the People

August 24, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

There is a question Americans ought to ask whenever they encounter a political position that seems, at first glance, difficult to understand: What principle connects it to the other positions being advanced at the same time? Taken separately, arguments over illegal immigration, voter identification, gun ownership, government fraud, taxation, regulation and the growth of the federal bureaucracy can appear to be unrelated disputes.

Taken together, however, they illuminate one of the oldest disagreements in American political life: whether government exists primarily to protect the liberty and sovereignty of the individual citizen, or whether increasingly consequential decisions should be entrusted to an expanding administrative state.

What Possible Reason for an Open Border?

Consider the border. A sovereign country has both the authority and responsibility to decide who may enter, who may remain, and who may become a citizen. What obligation does the federal government have to the existing citizenry when immigration occurs illegally or at a scale that strains housing, schools, hospitals, public assistance and law enforcement? Immigration policy is not merely a discussion about the people seeking admission. It is mainly a question about the government’s responsibilities to the people who already constitute the nation. Those people ARE the government.

The Democrats oppose controlling our borders. For what possible reason? They oppose removing illegal aliens. For what possible reason?

What Possible Reason to Oppose Election Integrity?

The same fundamental question arises in election administration. Americans can reasonably disagree about precisely which safeguards provide the best combination of ballot access and election security. But the objective itself should be overwhelmingly shared: every eligible citizen should be able to vote, every lawful vote should be counted, and unlawful votes should not be counted. Requirements such as voter identification, accurate voter rolls, auditable election procedures and effective citizenship verification should therefore be evaluated according to whether they accomplish those objectives without improperly disenfranchising qualified voters. Election integrity should not belong to Republicans or Democrats. Confidence in legitimate elections is infrastructure for the republic itself. Yet, Democrats oppose election integrity at every step. For what possible reason?

What Possible Reason to Oppose Gun Ownership?

Then there is the Second Amendment. The Constitution does not merely mention firearms as an incidental matter of public policy; it expressly protects a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Americans should recognize the deeper philosophical question underlying the debate. A society in which peaceful citizens possess enforceable rights independent of government is fundamentally different from one in which government decides which privileges citizens may exercise. The distinction between a right and government-granted permission is central to the American constitutional experiment. The right to keep and bear arms exists before, during and after the existence of the federal government, and the government has no ability to “infringe” that right. For what possible reason would Democrats seek to restrict or eliminate that right?

What Possible Reason to Oppose Ending Government Fraud?

Perhaps nowhere should political agreement be easier to achieve than in the effort to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse from government.

Whether the amount ultimately uncovered is billions or hundreds of billions of dollars, every dollar fraudulently obtained from government originated with taxpayers or public borrowing. A fraudulent Medicaid payment, fictitious government contractor, nonexistent beneficiary, corrupt grant recipient or improperly obtained federal benefit is not free money. Someone earned the money that government collected, and future taxpayers must ultimately service the debt incurred when government spends money it does not have.

That should make aggressive auditing one of the least partisan propositions imaginable. It is not. Democrats oppose ending government fraud at every step, and their abhorrent treatment of DOGE and Elon Musk are clear evidence of their disdain.

If investigators identify apparent fraud, investigate it. If an audit discovers payments going to ineligible recipients, stop them. If government databases contain glaring inconsistencies, reconcile them. If contractors are billing taxpayers for services never performed, prosecute the responsible parties where the evidence warrants it. If an agency cannot satisfactorily account for enormous amounts of public money, require it to do so.

After all, a government confident in its integrity should welcome serious auditing because an audit that disproves an allegation is valuable too.

The Answer

There is one common answer to each of these simple questions. Who could possibly oppose doing what is best for the American people, rather than what is best for unvetted foreigners, election fraudsters, Leftist politicians with totalitarian desires, and financial fraudsters?

Those who benefit, is the common answer.

Democrats benefit from a permanent underclass, who will vote against America’s interest to elect politicians who promise massive benefits and cash for little effort.

Democrats benefit from promoting and defending those involved in election fraud, because those illegal votes are nearly 100% cast for Democrats.

Democrats are always engaged in anti-Second Amendment activities, because they, like every wanna-be totalitarian government that preceded them have trouble taking away American rights if American’s are armed.

Democrats oppose investigating and prosecuting fraud because it is their operatives who engage in it, funneling billions to friendly recipients, and many millions of those ill-gotten dollars end up in Democrat campaigns coffers.

I challenge anyone to offer sound reasons why these conclusions are not true. There is no other possible reason for Democrats to take these harmful and foolish positions.

The Growing Cloud Over Sen Ruben Gallego: Money, Staffers, Swalwell and Questions Arizona Deserves Answered

August 21, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

A federal investigation into campaign spending, newly revealed family travel, reported relationships with congressional aides and Gallego’s extraordinary closeness to Eric Swalwell are creating a very different picture of Arizona’s junior senator than the carefully managed public image.

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego increasingly has a Washington problem that cannot simply be dismissed as partisan gossip.

The latest disclosure came this week, when campaign records reviewed by the New York Post showed that Gallego’s political operation spent more than $2,000 flying his sister-in-law and the family’s Brazilian au pair to Washington ahead of his January 2025 Senate swearing-in. The campaign reportedly spent approximately $1,227 on airfare for his sister-in-law and another $777.91 flying the au pair from Mexico City. Campaign funds were also reportedly used to purchase roughly $661 worth of customized stationery announcing the birth of Gallego’s daughter to political donors.

These revelations arrive while the Department of Justice is already investigating whether Gallego improperly used political money for family travel and personal expenses dating back years. CBS News, Axios and ABC News have independently confirmed the existence of that federal investigation.

Disney, Miami Beach, St. Barts and the Super Bowl

The spending now under scrutiny is extensive.

Reports based on Federal Election Commission records show Gallego-associated political committees paying for travel involving Disneyland, Disney World, Miami, Chicago, Puerto Rico, Nantucket and the Caribbean. His JUNTOS PAC reportedly spent approximately $1,500 on meals and lodging connected to a Disneyland trip and about $2,900 at Disney World. Gallego’s family accompanied him on some of these trips.

Then there was Miami Beach.

Gallego and his wife stayed at the Loews Miami Beach Hotel during a trip coinciding with her birthday, with political funds reportedly covering more than $9,000 in hotel expenses.

There was also a trip to St. Barts associated with the birthday of Gallego’s wife’s employer. Again, Gallego’s representatives have described the travel as part of a broader political and fundraising itinerary.

And then there is the Super Bowl.

Gallego and former Rep. Eric Swalwell created a joint fundraising vehicle known as the Swallego Victory Fund. FEC records reportedly show that committee spending more than $37,000 on Super Bowl tickets and meals surrounding the 2023 game in Arizona. Gallego says the Super Bowl event was a fundraiser.

Federal campaign records also raised questions about a 2021 Puerto Rico trip surrounding Gallego’s wedding. Swalwell’s campaign reported approximately $1,522 in expenditures at the Hyatt Regency Grand Reserve, the resort where Gallego was married, while Gallego’s campaign separately reported a $2,000 payment to another Puerto Rico resort.

Federal Election Commission rules are fairly straightforward in principle: campaign funds cannot be converted to personal use. The FEC applies what it calls the “irrespective test.” If an expense would have existed regardless of the person’s candidacy or duties as an officeholder, campaign funds generally cannot pay it.

More Than $18,000 in Childcare

Gallego’s committees have reportedly paid or reimbursed more than $18,000 in childcare expenses since 2019. Among those payments was approximately $400 paid to his mother-in-law for babysitting during a fundraiser.

The Department of Justice Is Investigating

The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into Ruben Gallego for suspected campaign-finance violations.

CBS News reported that the investigation was triggered by a whistleblower complaint originating in Southern California and is examining Gallego’s use of campaign money since approximately 2019 for family travel and related expenses. Axios and ABC News separately confirmed the federal investigation.

Gallego denies wrongdoing and says the Trump administration is politically targeting him because he has criticized the president.

Federal investigators now have an obligation to follow the money wherever it leads and explain publicly, when legally possible, what they found.

The Congressional Staffer Relationships

Then there is Gallego’s personal conduct on Capitol Hill.

Multiple sources told the New York Post that Gallego had sexual relationships with at least two female congressional aides while serving in the House. Other outlets, including ABC News reporting on subsequent congressional reform discussions and The Independent, reported the allegations.

The ethical concern being debated in Washington is instead the enormous power disparity between an elected member of Congress and junior congressional employees.

When reporters asked Gallego about the reports concerning the two staffers, he did not issue a detailed denial. He said: “I’m not going to engage in gossip.”

Arizona voters can decide whether it is an adequate answer from a senator whose political future increasingly attracts scandalous national attention.

The Divorce That Was Kept Sealed

Gallego’s personal history became an issue years earlier because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the end of his first marriage.

In December 2016, while his then-wife Kate Gallego was pregnant and nearing the birth of their son, Ruben Gallego filed for divorce. Contemporary reporting described the couple as expecting their first child, and later-unsealed records confirmed that the petition was filed shortly before the birth.

Gallego also sought to have the divorce record sealed.Years later, after litigation by the Washington Free Beacon, Arizona courts ordered most of those records released.

Critics have understandably focused on the human element: a husband initiating divorce proceedings while his pregnant wife was approaching childbirth.

And Then There Is Eric Swalwell

Perhaps no relationship has produced more uncomfortable questions for Gallego than his close friendship with former California congressman Eric Swalwell.

These were not two Democrats who occasionally sat together in committee hearings.

Gallego described Swalwell as one of his closest friends in Congress. They were roommates on Capitol Hill. Gallego chaired Swalwell’s short-lived presidential campaign. The two created the Swallego Victory Fund. They traveled together. Their families socialized together. Gallego subsequently supported Swalwell’s political ambitions.

When serious sexual misconduct allegations against Swalwell emerged this spring, Gallego said he was shocked and quickly distanced himself, claiming that despite their extremely close relationship and many travels together, he had no idea about Swalwell’s constant womanizing.

Swalwell denied the allegations, but eventually withdrew from California’s gubernatorial race and resigned from Congress. Federal agents have since seized electronic devices and searched his Washington residence as part of an investigation into multiple sexual-misconduct allegations. Swalwell continues to deny wrongdoing.

How could someone so extraordinarily close to Swalwell have known nothing?

Skepticism is reasonable when two politicians were roommates, campaign partners, travel companions, joint fundraisers and publicly described close friends for years.

Gallego was sufficiently concerned about the political fallout that he hired former Biden deputy press secretary Andrew Bates for crisis communications, including specifically to deal with matters involving Swalwell and Gallego’s own ethics problems.

The “Cool Kids” Culture on Capitol Hill

Recent reporting has also linked Gallego, Swalwell and Rep. Jimmy Gomez socially as members of what has been described as a Capitol Hill “Cool Kids Clique.” Gomez is now himself facing an Ethics Committee investigation after acknowledging an extramarital relationship with a younger congressional staffer; his accuser disputes Gomez’s characterization that the relationship was consensual. Gomez has denied assault.

This accumulation of misconduct allegations involving interconnected lawmakers has generated a broader institutional question that Congress can no longer avoid: whether an entrenched culture allowed powerful elected officials to treat junior staffers as part of their social and dating pool.

The Money Questions Are the Most Concrete

Sexual gossip attracts headlines. The campaign-finance records may ultimately matter more.

Federal filings do not depend upon anonymous rumors. They document money leaving political committees.

The Justice Department now has the authority to determine whether Gallego’s travel, childcare, family airfare, political events and other spending complied with federal law.

The FEC’s governing principle is remarkably simple: Would the expense have existed irrespective of the campaign or the officeholder’s official duties?

If yes, campaign money generally cannot pay it. If no—if the expense genuinely resulted from campaign or official activity—it may be lawful.

That means investigators can examine each trip individually. Why was Gallego in Miami? What political events occurred? Who attended? How much money was raised? How much of the hotel expense was political and how much personal? Why was the family traveling? Why did the campaign pay airfare for relatives or childcare providers? Were reimbursements made for personal portions? Were contemporaneous records kept?

Arizona Deserves Answers

Arizona sent Ruben Gallego to Washington to represent its citizens—not to create a political financial ecosystem so complicated that voters need federal investigators to determine where political expenses end and personal life begins.

The Justice Department should finish its investigation. The Federal Election Commission should examine any expenditures requiring review. Congress should close the loopholes that permit lawmakers to engage sexually with junior employees outside their own offices.

And Ruben Gallego should answer the questions directly rather than dismissing them as gossip, smears or partisan persecution.

Because eventually every politician facing a growing stack of receipts reaches the same point: The explanations have to be better than the questions.

No Debate, No AG Interview: What Is AZ Gov Katie Hobbs Hiding?

August 20, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Arizona’s governor won’t debate Rep. Andy Biggs. She won’t sit for interviews requested by investigators examining pay-to-play schemes. Meanwhile, her campaign is spending heavily to falsely define her opponent without facing him.

Arizona voters are being asked to give Katie Hobbs another four years as governor. Why would they do such a foolish thing?

It is remarkable how many questions the governor appears unwilling to answer, even in the traditional forums where politicians are expected to answer them.

Hobbs has announced that she will not debate Republican gubernatorial nominee Andy Biggs before November’s election. She similarly refused to debate Republican Kari Lake during her successful 2022 campaign and has not participated in a televised political debate since 2018.

Hobbs is no stranger to controversy over institutional conflicts. During the 2022 gubernatorial election against Kari Lake, Hobbs simultaneously served as Arizona’s Secretary of State—the state’s chief elections officer—and Democratic nominee for governor. Hobbs rejected calls to recuse herself from election duties, and ultimately certified the very questionable election declaring herself the winner.

Hobbs refuses to submit submitted to a formal interview requested months ago by investigators working for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes—a fellow Democrat and close friend of Hobbs—who is conducting a criminal investigation into allegations of a pay-to-play scheme involving one of Hobbs’ major political benefactors.

Rep. Andy Biggs will attend debate vs. sitting Arizona governor Katie Hobbs whether she shows up or not.

Hobbs says she is cooperating with the Attorney General’s Office, but Mayes reports that Hobbs is refusing to sit with criminal investigators for an interview.

After two years for stonewalling investigators, Arizona voters are entitled to wonder why obtaining straightforward answers has proved so difficult.

The $400,000 Question

At the center of the controversy is Sunshine Residential Homes, a company providing group-home services for children in Arizona’s foster-care system.

The basic chronology is not a partisan invention. Sunshine and its leadership made more than $400,000 in political contributions benefiting Hobbs, her inaugural operation and the Arizona Democratic Party during 2022 and 2023. Sunshine previously had little history of political giving.

Then came the state money. After Hobbs became governor, her Department of Child Safety approved a substantial special increase in the rate paid to Sunshine for caring for foster children, worth millions of dollars.

Other providers seeking increases had been turned down. And yes, Sunshine got one.

The resulting increase ultimately took its rate from approximately $140 to $234 per bed, according to Capitol Media Services—a rise of more than 60 percent.

That combination—large political contributions followed by favorable specific government treatment worth many millions of dollars—was sufficiently troubling that it eventually triggered multiple investigations.

It presents exactly the kind of circumstances that investigators exist to examine.

Three Investigations—and Two Years Later, Still No Answer

Attorney General Mayes opened her investigation in June 2024. That means Arizona has now entered the third year of an investigation involving its sitting governor.

And Mayes isn’t the only prosecutor looking at the matter. Republican Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has conducted a separate investigation, and the Arizona House retained outside attorney Justin Smith to conduct an independent inquiry for lawmakers. That is important because criticism of Mayes’ handling of the investigation has inevitably been complicated by politics. Mayes and Hobbs are both Democrats, and are closely aligned.

The extraordinary duration of the investigation, and Mayes’ inability or unwillingness to say whether investigators will actually get the governor into an interview room, naturally invites scrutiny.

In April, Mayes publicly confirmed that investigators are seeking to interview Hobbs. “Our investigators are prepared to do that interview,” Mayes said at the time, calling it appropriate to ensure that the investigation was thorough.

Months passed. No interview.

Although earlier this month, Mayes insisted that “no one can blow off the Attorney General’s office,” Hobbs has done exactly that. Despite numerous invitations and demands by prosecutors for interviews, Hobbs has refused each and every opportunity to tell her side of the public corruption story.

Last week, Hobbs told KTAR that her office remains in discussions with Mayes’ office about the request but offered no explanation for why she has not simply sat down and answered investigators’ questions. That is difficult, if not impossible, to understand.

If the governor had nothing to do with Sunshine’s favorable treatment, as she maintains, why has arranging an interview with investigators required months of “negotiation”? The answer becomes more obvious with each passing week.

In reality, a criminal investigation involving a sitting governor cannot simply drift through an election indefinitely. Either the evidence supports her story in the criminal investigation, or it doesn’t. And after more than two years, Arizona deserves answers.

Even worse, Hobbs Vetoed a Contract-Transparency Bill

There is another awkward chapter in the Gov Hobbs criminal investigation saga.

Republican state Sen. T.J. Shope proposed legislation requiring companies seeking state contracts and grants to disclose certain political donations, gifts and financial connections involving the governor and her political network.

Hobbs vetoed that legislation in June.

Politically, the optics are extraordinary. A governor under criminal investigation over allegations involving political contributions and a lucrative state arrangement vetoes legislation specifically designed to expose relationships between political contributions and state contracts.

Arizona taxpayers should not have to work this hard to discover who is giving politicians money while simultaneously seeking taxpayer-funded business.

Hobbs Won’t Debate Biggs Either

Against that backdrop comes Hobbs’ other refusal. She won’t debate her opponent, Rep. Andy Biggs.

Hobs likewise refused to debate Kari Lake in 2022. She also refused to debate her Democratic primary opponent that year. Her last televised political debate was reportedly in October 2018.

Biggs, meanwhile, has committed to appearing at the October Clean Elections debate whether Hobbs shows up or not.

Arizona voters deserve better than dueling television commercials.

Hobbs’ “23 Percent Tax” Attack Is a Lie

Hobbs has instead gone aggressively negative against Biggs, particularly with advertisements claiming he wants to impose a 23 percent sales tax that would make groceries, gasoline, rent and other necessities 23 percent “more expensive.”

The truth is that Biggs has discussed replacing federal income and payroll taxes with a national consumption tax.

Its central premise is to abolish federal individual income taxes, payroll taxes and several other federal taxes and replace that revenue with a simple, across the board consumption tax.

Of course, that is merely restructuring the manner in which federal taxes are levied and collected. It does not add any tax.

A gubernatorial debate would be an excellent place for Hobbs to challenge Biggs on that, and for Biggs to react to a few of the allegations against Hobbs. She has chosen not to debate him—likely, for that very reason.

Arizona Really Does Have an Affordability Problem

There is one criticism of Hobbs that doesn’t require exaggeration. Arizona has become painfully expensive.

A 2026 Common Sense Institute analysis ranked Arizona 45th among the 50 states and Washington, D.C., for affordability, down sharply from 2019. Arizona PBS reported the study as placing the state seventh-least-affordable nationally. Housing is the largest problem: CSI estimates that only about 42 percent of Arizona households could afford the monthly mortgage on an average-priced home under conventional affordability standards, compared with 66 percent in 2019.

Much of Arizona’s housing-price explosion began during the pandemic and the Biden inflation mistakes. Hobbs touted and even embraced those democratic party policies, and now seeks to escape her responsibility for the affordability crisis in Arizona.

Again, that sounds like an excellent debate question.

Arizona Deserves Answers Before November

Arizona voters shouldn’t have to choose their governor first, and receive answers about the governor’s criminal investigations afterward.

They deserve to know why a company and its principals suddenly became major political benefactors and subsequently received unusually favorable state treatment, resulting in millions of dollars in benefits.

They deserve to know whether anyone in the Governor’s Office influenced that decision They deserve to know what Mayes’ investigators found after spending more than two years examining it They deserve to know why Hobbs still has not sat for the interview investigators requested months ago.

And they deserve to see their governor stand across from the man seeking her job and answer questions without handlers, campaign advertisements, or carefully controlled events separating the candidates.

Hobbs says she has nothing to hide. Andy Biggs says he is prepared to debate. Kris Mayes says nobody can blow off the Attorney General.

Excellent.

Then there should be a remarkably simple solution to all three controversies: Answer the investigators. Debate the opponent. And let Arizona voters hear the answers before they cast their ballots.

The Fang Fang Files: Democrats Covered Up Eric Swalwell Affair with Chinese Communist Intelligence Officer

August 18, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Newly declassified FBI records reveal an intimate relationship, a years-long counterintelligence investigation, suspected foreign campaign contributions, and disturbing questions about Chinese efforts to cultivate rising American politicians.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D) and “Best Friend” Sen. Ruben Gallego (D) in the hot seat after traveling to Doha on several Qatar-sponsored trips, and being caught in extramarital affairs.

For nearly six years, Americans have heard two dramatically different versions of the Eric Swalwell–Christine Fang story.

One version portrayed it largely as partisan gossip: a rising California Democrat encountered a Chinese woman active in Bay Area politics.

Newly declassified FBI records reveal that abbreviated version as a lie.

According to records released yesterday, Swalwell acknowledged to FBI investigators that he had engaged in what he described as “physical relations” with Christine Fang—better known as Fang Fang—on a “handful of occasions.” The disclosure provides an important fact that was absent from the original public reporting when the controversy erupted in 2020. Fang Fang would show up at Swalwell’s rooms “wearing no panties,” and the security team was under instruction to allow her in.

Chinese honeypot Fang Fang solicited illegal campaign donations for Eric Swalwell and placed Chinese spies in his office, FBI found

More importantly, the documents illuminate the concerning breadth of the FBI’s concerns about Fang herself and about Chinese Intelligence efforts to cultivate relationships with American politicians.

The FBI investigation ran from 2014 through 2017 under the code name “Freshman Fifteen.” Investigators examined suspected foreign-source campaign contributions, congressional internships and Fang’s relationships with American political figures.

Swalwell was never criminally charged by Biden’s DOJ and a House Ethics Committee investigation ended without disciplinary action against him.

This Was About Much More Than Sex

Federal investigators believed Fang was associated with China’s intelligence apparatus and were sufficiently interested in her activities that the FBI at one point attempted to develop her as an intelligence source.

The FBI discovered the Swalwell relationship during that effort. Investigators eventually concluded that Fang could not be trusted as a source.

The documents also provide additional information concerning Fang’s political activities. Investigators examined campaign contributions and internships in Swalwell’s congressional office, finding that she was planting female Chinese Intelligence operatives on Swalwell’s staff in exchange for political contributions.

Of course, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to American federal campaigns for an obvious reason: Americans, not foreign governments or foreign nationals, are supposed to choose and influence America’s political leadership.

And the broader question remains unavoidable:

How did a woman under FBI counterintelligence scrutiny for suspected connections to America’s principal geopolitical adversary obtain such extraordinary access to a rising member of Congress?

China’s Influence Operations Are Not Hypothetical

The larger story is Communist China’s patient approach to cultivating political influence inside the United States. Intelligence operations rarely begin with a stranger walking into a congressman’s office and requesting classified documents.

They begin with relationships. Access. Introductions. Fundraisers. Friendships. Political assistance. Personal vulnerabilities.

And sometimes, sex.

An intelligence service does not necessarily need its target to become a conscious spy. Simply establishing access to an ambitious politician can produce information about personalities, relationships, political networks, schedules, vulnerabilities and future opportunities.

That is why the original Fang story was significant even before these new documents appeared.

The original 2020 Axios investigation reported that U.S. intelligence officials believed Fang participated in a Chinese political-influence operation targeting promising American politicians. She assisted Swalwell’s fundraising efforts and helped place interns in his congressional office.

Today’s declassified records provide considerably more context about just how close the relationship became.

Then Swalwell Joined the Intelligence Committee

The chronology makes the episode especially uncomfortable. Swalwell entered Congress in 2013 and subsequently served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence beginning in 2015.

Members of that committee oversee extraordinarily sensitive national-security matters involving the CIA, NSA, covert activities, foreign intelligence operations and threats posed by adversarial governments—including China.

Counterintelligence is supposed to identify vulnerabilities before classified information is compromised.

Imagine reversing the political parties and changing only one country.

Suppose a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee admitted having repeated sexual encounters with a woman whom the FBI suspected of connections to Russian intelligence. Would Washington dismiss questions about that relationship as partisan politics?

Would journalists consider the matter unworthy of aggressive investigation? Would congressional leaders insist there was nothing interesting to see because GOP prosecutors ultimately filed no espionage charges?

Americans can answer those questions for themselves.

The “Freshman Fifteen” Investigation

The newly disclosed existence and scope of the FBI investigation deserve particular attention.

According to the newly reported documents, “Freshman Fifteen” operated from approximately 2014 through 2017 and examined Fang’s activities surrounding American politicians, including suspected campaign-finance activity.

Investigators reportedly believed Fang herself may have violated federal laws governing foreign political contributions. Reporting on the records says investigators believed she understood the prohibition against foreign nationals contributing to American campaigns and examined whether American intermediaries had been used instead.

Fang departed the United States in 2015. The FBI dropped its investigation. But Americans should understand that “not charged” is not synonymous with “nothing happened.”

The newly released records demonstrate that the FBI considered the situation sufficiently serious to conduct a multiyear counterintelligence investigation.

Why Didn’t Americans Know?

That brings us to perhaps the most important question raised by the entire release. Why did Americans have to wait until 2026 to learn so much of this?

When the Fang controversy became public in 2020, Americans did not have the investigative record now available. It was essentially covered up by the Deep State FBI. They received fragments of the story through anonymous intelligence sources, partisan arguments, and carefully worded political responses.

The FBI knew substantially more. Investigators had interviewed Swalwell. They knew the nature of his personal relationship with Fang. They had investigated Fang’s political activities. They had examined suspected campaign-finance issues. They had attempted to assess her intelligence connections.

Yet the public remained largely in the dark about the underlying investigative material. Only conservative news outlets like Fox News provided the public coverage of the outrageous behavior of Rep. Swalwell, and later, his “Best Friend,” Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona.

National-security investigations legitimately require secrecy while they are underway. Sources and methods must be protected. Active counterintelligence operations cannot simply be published on the Internet. But an investigation that concluded years ago raises a different question.

At what point does protecting legitimate national-security information become protecting Washington from embarrassment? That question deserves an answer.

What About Ruben Gallego?

The release has also renewed attention on Sen. Ruben Gallego (D) because of his extraordinarily close political and personal relationship with Swalwell. Gallego and Swalwell were exceptionally close, by their own admission.

Gallego served as national chairman of Swalwell’s short-lived 2020 presidential campaign. The two traveled together often, on foreign junkets paid for by foreign countries. They were congressional roommates, and maintained a close friendship. Swalwell has reportedly described Gallego as his “best friend in the world.”

That makes questions about what Gallego knew politically interesting. Recent revelations about Galleo’s extra-marital affairs are likewise deeply disturbing, particularly when discussing allegations involving national security.

When prominent politicians campaign together, travel together, live together, have affairs at the same time, and publicly defend one another, reporters are perfectly entitled to ask what each knew about controversies surrounding the other.

Patriotism Should Not Be Partisan

There is a principle here that should transcend political affiliation. China conducts sophisticated intelligence, cyber, economic and political-influence operations against the United States. American intelligence officials under Republican and Democratic administrations alike have repeatedly warned about their scale.

Protecting America from foreign influence therefore cannot depend upon which letter follows a politician’s name.

If a Republican develops an intimate relationship with someone suspected of connections to Russian intelligence, investigate it. If a Democrat develops an intimate relationship with someone suspected of connections to Chinese intelligence, investigate it.

If foreign campaign contributions appear to be entering American elections through intermediaries, investigate them.

If foreign operatives are cultivating young American politicians whom they believe may someday become governors, senators, presidential candidates or members of sensitive congressional committees, expose those operations.

National loyalty should come before party loyalty.

The Fang Fang Story Is No Longer a Punchline

For years, “Fang Fang” became a punchline in partisan political arguments.

The newly released records demonstrate why it never should have been. Foreign intelligence services cultivating American politicians is serious business.

Sexual relationships can create counterintelligence vulnerabilities. Foreign campaign money is prohibited for a reason. Access to congressional offices matters. Access to congressional personnel matters. And access to politicians who later oversee America’s intelligence agencies matters enormously.

The FBI investigated Christine Fang for suspected connections to Chinese intelligence personnel and political-influence activities. Investigators examined suspected foreign-source campaign contributions and congressional internships. And Swalwell acknowledged an intimate relationship with Fang on a “handful of occasions” during the period when his political career was rapidly ascending toward one of the most sensitive committees in Congress.

Americans deserved to know those facts. They deserved to know them years ago. And that leaves Washington with questions that cannot be dismissed simply by pointing out that no prosecution resulted:

What exactly happened? Who knew about it? What did the FBI conclude about China’s operation? And why did the American people have to wait more than a decade to see so much of the underlying record?

The American press and Democratic leadership did everything they could to hide the story, and lied about the facts for over 10 years while they boosted Swalwell’s political career. That is why the American people are only learning about it today.

If Packing the Supreme Court Is a Good Idea, Why Shouldn’t President Trump Do It?

August 14, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

For years, many progressive Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court should be expanded by four seats. They call it “court reform.” Others call it “court balancing.” Critics have called it by a more accurate name: court packing.

The argument is simple. Democrats dislike the current ideological makeup of the Court, so they propose changing the rules until they achieve a different outcome. It is a remarkable admission that the problem is not with the Constitution, nor even with the qualifications of the justices. The problem, they argue, is simply that too many justices disagree with them.

But there is a simple thought experiment that exposes the weakness of the entire proposal.

If expanding the Supreme Court by four justices is fair when Democrats control Washington, why wouldn’t it be equally fair for President Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to do exactly the same thing? Now!

Imagine President Trump announcing tomorrow that he intends to appoint four additional constitutional originalists to the Supreme Court. Would the same politicians who have spent years demanding court expansion applaud his commitment to institutional reform?

Of course not.

They would denounce it as authoritarian. They would call it an assault on democracy. Editorial boards would declare the judiciary under attack. Cable news networks would run wall-to-wall coverage warning of constitutional crisis.

The very people who have insisted that adding four seats is perfectly legitimate would suddenly discover that it is dangerous, reckless, and fundamentally unfair.

That reaction reveals the truth.

The debate has never really been about the number of justices.

It has always been about who gets to appoint them.

The Supreme Court has consisted of nine justices since 1869. That number is not fixed by the Constitution, but it has endured through Republican and Democratic administrations alike because both parties gradually recognized that constantly changing the size of the Court would destroy public confidence in its independence.

Once one party expands the Court for political advantage, the other party has every incentive to respond in kind.

Nine becomes thirteen.

Thirteen becomes seventeen.

Seventeen becomes twenty-one.

Eventually the Supreme Court ceases to function as an independent judicial branch and instead becomes another political battlefield whose membership changes whenever power changes hands. Supreme Court Justices become political activists, appointed by the party what holds the White House.

The institution itself becomes the casualty.

Even President Franklin Roosevelt—perhaps the most powerful Democratic president of the twentieth century—failed in his attempt to enlarge the Supreme Court after the justices struck down portions of the New Deal. Roosevelt argued that additional justices were necessary for efficiency. Few believed him. Americans understood that the proposal was fundamentally about changing judicial outcomes rather than improving judicial administration.

Congress rejected the idea, including many members of Roosevelt’s own party.

History has generally vindicated that decision.

The genius of the American constitutional system lies in its separation of powers. The judiciary was intentionally insulated from day-to-day politics precisely so that constitutional rights would not depend upon whichever party happened to win the most recent election.

Court packing undermines that safeguard.

Ironically, many of the same politicians advocating Supreme Court expansion have spent years warning that American institutions must be protected from political interference. Yet they propose changing one of the nation’s oldest institutions because they dislike its current decisions.

That is not judicial reform.

It is political retaliation.

There is another question that proponents rarely answer. If four additional justices are appropriate today, why stop there?

Why not six? Why not ten?

What constitutional principle determines the “correct” number of justices?

There is none.

The only apparent principle is obtaining enough votes to guarantee preferred outcomes.

That is a dangerous precedent regardless of which party holds power.

Those who support court packing today should remember that political fortunes change. Every tool one administration creates eventually becomes available to its successor. That is exactly why the GOP refuses to do away with the filibuster; a tool that works against them currently.

If expanding the Court is acceptable when progressives hold the White House, it must also be acceptable when conservatives do.

If President Trump were to announce tomorrow that he intended to appoint four new constitutional originalists to a newly expanded Supreme Court, would today’s advocates of court packing cheer the decision?

Their answer would almost certainly be no. And that answer tells us everything we need to know.

The issue has never been the number nine. The issue has always been power.

The American people should be wary of any proposal that changes the rules of our constitutional system simply because one political faction dislikes the current outcome. The Constitution was designed to restrain temporary political passions, not surrender to them. Preserving the independence and legitimacy of the Supreme Court ultimately requires something increasingly rare in modern politics: the willingness to respect institutions even when they do not always produce the decisions we prefer.

When Bill Maher Starts Worrying About Socialism, Democrats Should Pay Attention

August 6, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

A lifelong liberal says his party is being “colonized” by democratic socialists. The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party has changed—but how much, and how far will it go.

For years, Republicans have warned that the Democratic Party has steadily moved left, far left, embracing policies that greatly expand government, increase redistribution, and elevate the role of the state in every aspect of American life. Despite overwhelming evidence, Democrats have generally dismissed those criticisms as partisan rhetoric.

Now, however, one of the country’s best-known liberal commentators is raising many of the same concerns.

Bill Maher is hardly a conservative. Not even a moderate Democrat. He is firmly rooted in the far left. For decades, he has identified with liberal causes, criticized Republican presidents, and supported Democratic candidates. Yet in recent interviews and on his HBO program, Maher has expressed growing concern that the Democratic Party is being, in his words, “colonized” by democratic socialists and increasingly radical activists. He has even remarked that his vote is now “in play” because of the party’s direction.

That observation is significant precisely because it comes from someone who has long been a thought leader of the American left.

Two Parties—or One Coalition?

The Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America remain separate organizations, technically.

The Democratic Party is a broad coalition ranging from moderates to progressives. The DSA is an independent organization that advocates substantially expanding the role of government in healthcare, housing, education, labor policy, and parts of the economy, while also supporting greater worker ownership and cooperative enterprises. In other words, it advocates for state ownership of the means of production and distribution, the touchstone of Marxist and Leninist communism.

Yet in recent years, the distinction between Democrats and Democratic Socialists has become less clear in the public mind.

Several elected officials identify as democratic socialists, or have received DSA support. Policy proposals once associated primarily with the party’s progressive wing—such as Medicare for All, tuition-free public college, wealth taxes, and broad student-debt forgiveness—have increasingly become part of mainstream Democratic debate.

Maher’s concern is not that every Democrat has become a democratic socialist. It is that ideas once considered outside the party’s mainstream are exerting greater influence over its direction.

The Shift in Priorities

Many mainstream Democrats continue to support a regulated market economy, private enterprise, and incremental reform. Democratic socialists generally advocate more sweeping structural changes to the economy, including expanded public ownership or worker control in most sectors.

There is nevertheless meaningful overlap on several policy questions. Both generally support broader access to healthcare, although they differ on how far government should go. Both support stronger labor protections, though democratic socialists typically seek more extensive workplace restructuring. Both support addressing climate change, though they often differ over the balance between government planning and market incentives. Both favor making higher education more affordable, though the DSA generally advocates tuition-free public higher education as a permanent policy.

The debate is therefore less about whether there is any overlap and more about how far the Democratic Party should move toward the DSA’s vision.

Maher’s Warning

Maher has argued that many Democratic politicians are not themselves radicals, but that they have become reluctant to challenge the party’s most ideological activists. He has criticized slogans and positions such as calls to abolish police, prisons, or borders, and he has warned that embracing such ideas risks alienating many Americans.

His criticism is noteworthy because it comes from someone who still describes himself as a liberal.

Bill Maher says, “I’m not voting for anyone who thinks the wrong side won the Cold War or cheers for the Intifada like it’s the World Cup.”

Rather than urging the party to move right, Maher argues that it has drifted away from the pragmatic liberalism associated with previous Democratic leaders and toward a more ideological politics.

Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it reflects an active debate within the Democratic coalition itself.

The Larger Question

Every major political party evolves. The Republican Party today differs in important respects from the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

Likewise, the Democratic Party has changed significantly over the past several decades. The question confronting voters is not simply whether the party has moved left. It is how they view that evolution.

Supporters argue that expanded government programs, stronger regulation, and greater redistribution are necessary responses to modern economic challenges. Critics contend that those policies increase government dependence, reduce economic flexibility, and gradually shift decision-making from individuals and markets to political institutions.

That debate is likely to define American politics for years to come, unless action is taken immediately to eradicate this leftward march toward communism from our nation.

Why Maher’s Voice Matters

Political labels are often dismissed when they come from ideological opponents. They are harder to ignore when they come from longtime allies.

Bill Maher’s recent comments do not settle the debate over the Democratic Party’s future. They do, however, demonstrate that concerns about the party’s ideological direction are no longer coming only from conservatives.

When one of America’s most recognizable liberal voices publicly warns that his own party is being “influenced”colonized” by democratic socialists and says his vote is “in play,” it suggests that the conversation has moved well beyond partisan talking points.

Whether Democrats view that as a warning or an opportunity will shape not only their party’s future—but perhaps the nation’s as well.

Democratic Socialists and Democrats: Is there any Difference?

August 5, 2026 By Editor Leave a Comment

Although the Democratic Socialists of America and the Democratic Party remain separate organizations, many of their policy priorities increasingly intersect.

The rise of openly self-described democratic socialists and even communists within American Democratic Party politics has revived a question that would have seemed unlikely a generation ago: How different is the Democratic Party from the Democratic Socialists of America?

For decades, American politics treated socialism as a fringe ideology. Both Republicans and Democrats generally embraced a market-based economy, private property, and entrepreneurial capitalism, while debating how extensively government should regulate markets and provide social programs.

Today, however, the political landscape has changed. The Democratic Party has moved steadily left, to the point that they have now intersected with the Democratic Socialist Party, due to their common views and goals of transferring wealth and power to just one party, and doing away with Constitutional safeguards.

Bill Maher expresses growing concern that the Democratic Party is being, in his words, “colonized” by democratic socialists and increasingly radical activists. He has even remarked that his vote is now “in play” because of the party’s direction.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown substantially since the mid-2010s, and several prominent elected officials identify as democratic socialists or have received support from the organization. At the same time, many policy ideas once associated primarily with socialism have become part of mainstream debate within the Democratic Party.

Different Organizations, Similar Philosophies

The Democratic Party is one of America’s two major political parties and includes a broad coalition of moderates, liberals, progressives, and some elected officials who identify as democratic socialists. Its platform lightly supports a mixed-market economy, private enterprise, while emphasizing its extreme brand of civil rights protections for non-citizens, environmental regulation, and a social safety net that includes Medicare for all.

The Democratic Socialists of America is a separate political organization that advocates for a swifter transformation of the economy. It supports expanding worker ownership and cooperative enterprises, increasing public ownership in most sectors, strengthening labor unions, and significantly expanding the role of government in healthcare, housing, education, and other public services, and most areas of American life.

Healthcare

One area of significant overlap is healthcare. Many Democrats support strengthening and expanding the Affordable Care Act, while others within the party advocate Medicare for All. The DSA explicitly endorses a universal single-payer healthcare system.

Although Democrats disagree internally about the best approach, both organizations generally support broader access to healthcare than currently exists. The difference often lies only in the degree of government involvement rather than the objective of expanding coverage to complete government domination.

Higher Education

Education provides another example. Many Democrats support reducing college costs, expanding Pell Grants, and forgiving most student debt. The DSA generally advocates tuition-free public colleges and universities as a permanent policy.

Labor and the Economy

Both organizations strongly support labor unions. The Democratic Party generally advocates strengthening collective bargaining rights and improving workplace protections.

The DSA goes further by promoting worker cooperatives, greater employee ownership, and broader democratization of economic decision-making, and the seizure of the means of production and distribution; essentially, pure communism.

Climate Policy

Climate policy has also become an area of considerable overlap. Both organizations support substantial government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage clean-energy investment.

The DSA generally favors larger public investment, expanded government planning, and more extensive public ownership in portions of the energy sector. Many Democrats support aggressive environmental regulation while continuing to rely primarily on heavily regulating private markets and private investment.

Of course, none of these proposed policies is designed to actually affect the climate. They merely use climate philosophy to facilitate the transfer of high levels of wealth and power to the Left.

Taxation

Both organizations generally support higher taxes on many high-income households than current law provides. The DSA advocates broader wealth taxes and more extensive redistribution through public spending.

Many Democrats also support increasing taxes on higher-income Americans, though the party encompasses a wider range of views regarding how far redistribution should extend. Of course, as in all examples of socialism and communism in the past, “the rich” turn out to be nearly everyone, and eventually, all citizens become impoverished through socialistic policies, except for the elite leaders.

Public Ownership

Perhaps the clearest distinction involves ownership itself.

The Democratic Party still accepts the concept ofprivate ownership of businesses operating within a highly regulated market economy.

The DSA argues that more sectors of the economy must be seized by government, and be publicly owned, cooperatively owned, or democratically controlled by “workers” meaning them.

The Broader Question

The broader debate extends beyond labels. It concerns the proper relationship between government, markets, and individual liberty. Democrats earn a D minus in these areas, where the DSA earns a prison sentence.

Supporters of expanded government programs argue they reduce inequality, improve economic security, and provide opportunities that markets alone may not deliver. Critics argue that larger government increases public debt, reduces economic flexibility, discourages investment, and places more decisions under political rather than market control, and will inevitably reduce America to Venezuela or Cuba status.

These competing visions have shaped American politics for generations and continue to influence debates over healthcare, education, taxation, housing, labor policy, and environmental regulation.

Looking Ahead

The conversation about democratic socialism and the Democratic Party is unlikely to end soon. As younger progressive leaders gain prominence and the Democratic Party continues to devolve, voters will continue to evaluate where the party sits along the spectrum between market-oriented liberalism and democratic socialism.