A House lawmaker introduced a constitutional amendment this week that would do exactly what Daily Wire host Matt Walsh called for last month: bar foreign-born citizens from serving in Congress.
The proposed constitutional amendment, introduced this week by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), would require members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed appointees to be natural-born citizens — the same standard the Constitution already sets for president and vice president.
In late April, Walsh <a href="https://youtu.be/OMzr9b2Rd8o?si=TkMAiOYDoYi3CnIP">proposed</a> his &#8220;heritage American Bill of Rights,&#8221; the first rule of which was intended to do exactly this:
&#8220;Rule number one: First-generation immigrants should not be permitted to serve in Congress at all, especially illiterate Somali ones,&#8221; Walsh said. &#8220;We already require that presidents must be natural-born citizens. And that requirement should simply be extended to Congress as well.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Hmm seem to recall <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MattWalshBlog</a> saying this 🤔 <a href="https://t.co/2wJ4bbORFj">https://t.co/2wJ4bbORFj</a> <a href="https://t.co/I6RqggfKTb">pic.twitter.com/I6RqggfKTb</a>
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/2057566502669127935?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Walsh added that &#8220;if you just got here, then you have no business telling Americans how to live their lives,&#8221; or &#8220;spend their money. &#8221;
Both Walsh and the amendment proposed by Mace point to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), along with the 18 other foreign-born members of Congress.
Members of Congress like Omar have made clear &#8220;their loyalty is not here,&#8221; Mace <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5887636-nancy-mace-amendment-foreign-born-citizens-holding-office/">said</a>. Walsh argued that first-generation immigrants like Omar have no business &#8220;complaining all the time or defaming millions of people,&#8221; adding that &#8220;it&#8217;s the height of humiliation for Americans to have to listen to a member of Congress talk about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ilhan-omar-hits-rock-bottom-with-her-dumbest-remarks-yet-as-trump-delivers-his-best-speech-ever">World War 11</a>.&#8221;
Mace&#8217;s proposal faces an uphill battle in its form as a constitutional amendment. Ratification would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by approval from three-fourths of the states — a bar that has not been cleared by any amendment since 1992.
Democrats reacted furiously to Mace&#8217;s amendment, with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), herself a naturalized citizen born in India, <a href="https://jayapal.house.gov/2026/05/20/jayapal-statement-on-hateful-mace-legislation-to-ban-naturalized-citizens-from-government-service/">calling</a> the measure &#8220;racist legislation&#8221; and saying it &#8220;denies the very history of a country that has been proudly shaped by immigrants.&#8221;
In his &#8220;heritage American Bill of Rights,&#8221; Walsh further proposes deporting (or denaturalizing and then deporting) foreigners and naturalized citizens who cannot speak English or who become a net drain on taxpayers, as well as barring new citizens from voting for 10 years.
&#8220;We can&#8217;t prevent people from voting based on race, and we shouldn&#8217;t, and no one is suggesting that,&#8221; Walsh said. &#8220;But we can protect our institutions by taking basic steps to make sure that voters are actual adult citizens of the country who are assimilated into the culture and invested in it.&#8221;
Walsh calls for requiring all voters to pass a fifth-grade civics exam in English, and disenfranchising welfare recipients — even if they&#8217;re native-born U.S. citizens.
&#8220;If you want to vote, there has to be some legacy you want to protect,&#8221; Walsh said. &#8220;You should not be able to vote yourself money from the public treasury.&#8221;

WalshOmarDC

Matt Walsh’s Idea For Foreign-Born Lawmakers Makes It To The House Floor

Constitution

Constitutional Amendment

Ilhan Omar

Matt Walsh

Nancy Mace

Calls to invoke the 25th Amendment have become a kind of political reflex — trotted out whenever opponents of a sitting president decide that sharp rhetoric, unconventional behavior, or controversial decision-making must somehow amount to incapacity. With Donald Trump, this refrain has reached predictable levels: he’s “unfit” or “unstable,” critics say, and therefore should be removed not through elections or even impeachment, but via the Constitution’s emergency mechanism for presidential disability. That argument fundamentally misunderstands what the 25th Amendment is and why it exists.
Ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the 25th Amendment was designed to address a narrow but serious problem: what happens when a president is incapable of exercising the powers of the office? Section 4, the most discussed (and most misunderstood) provision — and one that has never been invoked — allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Upon transmitting that declaration to Congress, the vice president immediately assumes the role of acting president.
Crucially, the amendment anticipates disagreement. If the president contests the declaration, Congress must decide the issue, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses to sustain the vice president’s judgment. That’s an extraordinarily high bar, reflecting the gravity of sidelining a duly elected president without impeachment.
The text is clear: the concern is inability and incapacity, not unpopularity or controversy. It’s a mechanism for dealing with presidents who cannot function, not those whose personalities provoke opposition.
Historical practice reinforces this understanding. The 25th Amendment has been invoked several times — under Section 3, which allows voluntary delegation of authority — in cases involving clear, temporary incapacity. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan had surgery for colon cancer and transferred power to Vice President George H.W. Bush for about eight hours. President George W. Bush invoked Section 3 twice, in 2002 and 2007, when he underwent colonoscopies requiring anesthesia. President Joe Biden did the same thing in 2021. In these cases, the respective vice presidents briefly served as “acting” president. They were textbook examples of the 25th Amendment’s purpose: a president temporarily unable to perform his duties due to a known, concrete medical condition.
Even outside formal invocation, the amendment’s logic reflects lessons from earlier constitutional crises. Woodrow Wilson, after suffering a debilitating stroke in 1919, remained president in name only while his wife and aides effectively ran the executive branch. That episode — along with concerns raised after President Dwight Eisenhower’s heart attack — led to calls for constitutional reform, which Kennedy’s assassination finally triggered.
In other words, this provision exists precisely because there have been presidents who were genuinely unable to govern due to physical or cognitive impairment. It’s not a catch-all remedy for political dissatisfaction.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. One can oppose his policies, criticize his rhetoric, or argue that he shouldn’t be president. The Constitution provides a mechanism for that: elections. It also provides another mechanism for serious misconduct: impeachment. But outrage over a president’s behavior can’t magically transform into constitutional “inability.”
Trump’s critics often claim that he’s erratic or mentally unstable. But these are political assertions, not medical diagnoses. More importantly, they’re not evidence of incapacity as the 25th Amendment contemplates it. There’s no indication that Trump is unable to understand his role, make decisions, or carry out the basic functions of the presidency. Indeed, whatever one thinks of his style, he’s behaving much as he did during his first term — hardly evidence of a sudden, disqualifying decline.
The contrast with genuinely incapacitated presidents is stark. Wilson was physically and neurologically impaired to the point of being unable to govern. More recently, Biden’s cognitive decline prompted debate precisely because it raised questions about whether he could perform the job’s demands. Those are the kinds of situations the 25th Amendment is meant to address: actual inability, not partisan disgust.
To stretch the amendment to cover unconventional leadership would be to weaponize it, turning a safeguard for emergencies into a tool for political maneuvering. That would not only distort the Constitution but also set a dangerous precedent, inviting future cabinets and vice presidents to attempt end-runs around elections whenever tensions run high.
Trump’s opponents are entirely within their rights to argue that he is unfit for office. They can make that case to Congress and ultimately to voters. They can even continue to deploy the language of “craziness” in the rough-and-tumble of political debate. But they shouldn’t pretend that such rhetoric satisfies the legal standard for removing a president under the 25th Amendment.
* * *
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lawless-Miseducation-Americas-Ilya-Shapiro/dp/0063336588/">Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites</a>. He also writes the <a href="https://ilyashapiro.substack.com/">Shapiro’s Gavel</a> newsletter.

President Trump Delivers Remarks At The FII PRIORITY Summit In Miami Beach

No, Trump Can’t Be Removed Under The 25th Amendment

25th Amendment

Congress

Democrats

Donald Trump

DW Opinion

John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Daily Wire host Ben Shapiro will headline a major rally this summer at Mount Vernon as part of a nationwide tour celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States, Young America&#8217;s Foundation (YAF) announced on Monday.
The event, scheduled for August 6, will kick off Young America&#8217;s Foundation’s 48th annual National Conservative Student Conference and marks the third stop on the “Freedom at 250” tour organized in partnership with The Daily Wire.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@benshapiro</a> to join YAF at George Washington&#8217;s Mt. Vernon for Freedom at 250 Rally to open 48th National Conservative Student Conference.
Register at <a href="https://t.co/jebRK1CDxm">https://t.co/jebRK1CDxm</a> <a href="https://t.co/1YLXf6nNWv">pic.twitter.com/1YLXf6nNWv</a>
— YAF (@yaf) <a href="https://twitter.com/yaf/status/2031037673549222080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
The year-long tour will commemorate the upcoming 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding by bringing together conservative voices and student leaders across the country to highlight the founding principles of the American experiment.
Shapiro said the historic setting of George Washington’s estate offers a powerful reminder of the sacrifices that shaped the nation. “At a time when many Americans are uncertain about the country’s direction, gathering at George Washington’s Mount Vernon for our country’s 250th anniversary is a powerful reminder that this nation was forged in challenge, not comfort,” Shapiro said in a statement. “It was built by men and women who risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure rights given by God and protected by the Constitution.”
Shapiro added that the milestone anniversary presents a profound moment to reflect upon the country’s future. “At pivotal moments, America has always faced a choice: decline or renewal,” he said. “Young America’s Foundation is helping ensure the next generation understands those founding principles and is prepared to defend them.”
The Mount Vernon rally will serve as the opening program for YAF’s flagship student conference, one of the largest gatherings of conservative college students in the country. Conference registration opened Monday as organizers prepare for what they expect to be the largest event in the program’s history.
Former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who now serves as president of Young America’s Foundation, said the event’s location was intentionally chosen to connect young conservatives with the nation’s founding ideals. “As America approaches its 250th anniversary, there is no more fitting place to gather than George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and no better person to deliver this message to young Americans than a fearless fighter like Ben Shapiro,” Walker said.
Walker added that the upcoming conference comes at a time when the country’s founding principles are increasingly being scrutinized. “At a time when our founding principles are under pressure and the direction of our country is being fiercely debated, it has never been more important for YAF to shape the next generation in the spirit of Washington and the other Founding Fathers,” he said.
Young America’s Foundation’s National Conservative Student Conference, now entering its 48th year, regularly brings together leading conservative activists, policymakers, and media figures to engage students on issues ranging from constitutional government and free speech to culture and public policy.
This year’s conference will take place August 6–8 in Washington, D.C., with Shapiro’s Mount Vernon address launching the three-day event as part of the broader “Freedom at 250” tour celebrating America’s founding and the principles of 1776. Registration opened Monday, March 9.

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro To Speak At Mount Vernon For YAF’s Freedom At 250 Tour

1776

America

Young America's Foundation

What makes America great?
Some attribute American greatness to the brilliant system of government inaugurated two and a half centuries ago. The first groups that came to this continent were Christians, and so were most of the Founding Fathers. Fifty-three out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians who believed that “God who gave us life gave us liberty” and endowed us “with certain unalienable rights” as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated. They developed a political and economic system that reflected this Judeo-Christian belief.
For the first time in human history, there existed a nation where freedom not only guaranteed the rights of citizens but also ensured the smooth operation of a market economy. Individuals, regardless of their origin or social status, could attain the American Dream by applying themselves in exercising their God-given talents to the fullest extent. Thus, our political and economic structures helped build this great nation. Rightly so.
As someone who grew up in China, I, however, have another perspective. America is great because for many decades her immigrants came from a similar cultural background that bore a heavy Christian influence.
For two centuries, the majority of immigrants came from Western countries whose civilization was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. In this new environment where they shared the same traditions, they didn’t experience severe cultural clashes. In fact, American freedom enhanced and protected the Christian values that had already been observed in their mother countries. Consequently, most of the immigrants naturally embraced the culture of their new country. The fusion of freedom and Christianity has produced — in addition to unprecedented prosperity — citizens who feared God, were honest, compassionate, hardworking, independent, and law-abiding.
Together, they made America great.
<h3>The Rise Of Multiculturalism</h3>
However, America&#8217;s immigration policy underwent a significant shift in the 1960s. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act, abolishing the &#8220;country-of-origin&#8221; quota system, which favored immigrants from Western countries. This change was most likely influenced by the civil rights movement, aiming at eliminating the perceived discriminatory practice in immigration. In subsequent decades, it led to an increase in immigration from outside the West, drastically altering immigration patterns and the demographic makeup of the United States. Ultimately, it contributed to the rise of multiculturalism.
<div id="attachment_1049789" style="width: 856px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1049789" class="size-large wp-image-1049789" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-846x576.jpg" alt="President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor with a view of the New York City skyline in the background. Next to the president on his right are First Lady Lady Bird Johnson and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. To the president's left are Senator Edward Kennedy (third from right) and Robert Kennedy (second from right). (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)" width="846" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-846x576.jpg 846w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-300x204.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-768x523.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 846px) 100vw, 846px" />President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)</div>
Those on the Left believe that there is no good or bad culture. Every culture is equal.
I strongly disagree. They mistake the concept of the individual with the notion of culture. While individuals who are made in the image of God have innate value and rights regardless of which culture they are from, culture, on the other hand, is a complex system of learned behavioral patterns deriving from outside influences. Not all behavioral patterns are the same, and some clearly should be condemned and rejected, as the various wicked nations surrounding Israel described in the Hebrew Scripture.
In addition, culture is a powerful force that dictates and controls individuals’ thoughts and behavioral patterns; even those who strive to go against the flow often feel compelled to comply with the socially endorsed behaviors. If culture had not had such a strong pull, then God would not have commanded the Israelites to painstakingly separate themselves from the surrounding nations.
For nearly two millennia, since the death and resurrection of Christ, Western civilization has implemented a new set of behaviors and social expectations centered on the gospel message. This Western shift toward Christianity radically diverged from other non-Western cultures. It was on this Christian foundation that America was established.
<h3>Coming To America</h3>
When I first arrived in America, I could tell immediately that American culture differed fundamentally from that of China. I noticed how free Americans were; even young children could candidly express their thoughts without worrying about being silenced by adults. I also noticed how Americans, by and large, demonstrated a strong sense of law and order and right from wrong.
In contrast, in the province where I grew up, the concept of individual value and rights was totally absent. No one could exist apart from a group. Thus, who you knew was more important than who you were. The intricate interpersonal social structure and the lack of individual rights made it impossible to execute law and order successfully. Practicality often preempted rules and morality.
<div id="attachment_1049825" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1049825" class="size-large wp-image-1049825" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-864x576.jpg" alt="BEIJING, CHINA - DECEMBER 06: Large images of the late former leader Mao Zedong hang behind a vendor as a customer looks at items at a stall at the Panjiayuan Market on December 6, 2024 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kevin Frayer/Getty Images</div>
Corruption has been a common practice throughout Chinese history. It’s ironic, though, that quite a number of individuals in Chinese history have stood up against the dominant culture, championing integrity and honesty. They were hailed and are still remembered as heroes and role models for the Chinese people to emulate. Nonetheless, it takes culture to transform beliefs into behaviors. That is why being upright and incorruptible has never become part of Chinese culture, only a quality to be admired. The impact of those role models, thus, remains minimal.
By no means do I suggest that every aspect of American culture — and by extension Western culture — is preferred and that all features outside of Western civilization are questionable. However, from the perspective of cultural expectations — the shared beliefs about how people should behave in society — the difference between the two groups remains unbridgeable.
For instance, take corruption. Though not all Americans are honest, and corruption does occur among American citizens and politicians, it is widely condemned by society and has not become a cultural phenomenon.
In contrast, in many non-Western countries, bribery, fraud, and dishonest dealings are often given tacit consent, even by those who despise such practices. This is why the Chinese government’s repeated attempts to crack down on corruption are more of a show than a sincere effort. It is ultimately unattainable.
Under no circumstances do I disapprove of immigrants from outside the Western world. I am one of them. What I oppose is the notion of multiculturalism, which differs from the concept of multiethnic societies.
<h3>Multiculturalism Vs. Multiethnic Societies</h3>
A multiethnic society comprises people from different cultural backgrounds who are united by a set of essential beliefs, analogous to conservative Christian denominations that share the orthodox Christian core doctrines and moral principles, while still able to retain non-essential elements in their practices.
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is an attempt to form a co-existence of different cultures that do not share a basic conviction and whose ideologies are irreconcilable, comparable to a church encompassing Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. The ideological incompatibility will eventually result in the dominance of one group with the extinction of the other two.
Is a multiethnic society achievable in America? My own experience says, yes. Most immigrants from a non-Western country do not ponder and analyze their own cultures before immigrating to America. They will, however, perceive the cultural differences once arriving in the United States. In a way, America’s freedom and Christian values — the core of American culture — function as a mirror, reflecting the condition of an immigrant’s own culture. Those immigrants who truly love America and treasure what she stands for would be inclined to assimilate into the American culture, relinquishing the elements in their culture that are contrary to the core beliefs of America. They would want to live in conformity with the features that have made America great — freedom, individual rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, honesty, compassion and other Christian principles. The prerequisite of a multiethnic society is assimilation.
<div id="attachment_1050899" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1050899" class="size-large wp-image-1050899" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-864x576.jpg" alt="LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 28: People holding national flags of the United States attend a parade celebrating the Chinese Lunar New Year, or the Spring Festival, at Chinatown on January 28, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by I RYU/VCG via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />I RYU/VCG via Getty Images</div>
My own assimilation experience has not reduced my ethnic identity. Rather, it has in some way enhanced it. Take the concept of The Middle Way, for instance. It’s a prominent Chinese philosophical concept that advocates making compromises so as to find the more effective, appropriate, and harmonious path in a given situation. In a free society where excess tends to be the norm, an active pursuit of equilibrium through balance is especially practical. For me, the benefit of The Middle Way was more acutely felt after I immigrated to the United States. Indeed, while living in America, I have been able to practice many of the positive features of Chinese culture.
Even so, I am keenly aware that I am an American now and must abide by her fundamental beliefs. While I can still speak Chinese, enjoy Chinese food, and celebrate Chinese New Year, I must treasure freedom and be ready to fight to preserve it. While I can still visit the country of my origin, I must give America my first allegiance and live as the host and owner of the country, not as a guest. I must also be attentive to the events in society, knowing my constitutional rights and striving to contribute to her greatness, instead of taking advantage of her magnanimity.
Unfortunately, not every immigrant from outside the Western world shares my conviction.
<h3>Leftist Multiculturalism Courts Disaster</h3>
What Nick Shirley exposed about the Somali fraud in Minnesota may shock us, but it should not be a surprise. Aside from the green light given by the Democrat run state government, our immigration policy that encourages and enables mass immigration from a non-Western culture should also bear responsibility. This practice, in accordance with the multiculturalism of the Left, courts disaster by allowing immigrants — whose ideology is worlds apart from ours, and who love neither America nor what she stands for — bind together as a group, and thus permitting them to live as Somalians on American soil and openly and shamelessly steal American taxpayers’ money. Perhaps for them, America feels like heaven, whose welfare system has offered them such an auspicious opportunity to do what their culture is inclined to. It would have been a genuine shock if they had not stolen so much already.
<div id="attachment_1024577" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1024577" class="size-large wp-image-1024577" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-864x576.jpg" alt="MINNEAPOLIS, MN. - DECEMBER 2025: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a press conference to address the media following reports that the Trump administration will be targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities, held at City Hall in Minneapolis, Minn., on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. Behind Frey is Minneapolis city council member Jamal Osman." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Leila Navidi/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images</div>
Multiculturalism — people of different races, religions, and traditions living together — is a mirage, looking attractive only from a distance. No nation can afford multiculturalism, for diverse religions and traditions can never co-exist. One will eventually dominate the others. If we allow the idea of multiculturalism to progress, America soon will repeat the fate of Turkey and Egypt, which once were major Christian centers but were tragically replaced by Islam.
Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
America is good because her culture — centered around Judeo-Christian values and freedom — is good. Multiculturalism poses an existential threat to our culture. In contrast, a multiethnic approach protects the integrity of American culture by welcoming immigrants from diverse backgrounds, Western or not, but demanding assimilation.
* * *
<a href="https://stream.org/author/chenyuansnider/">Chenyuan Snider</a> was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the United States and studying at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor at Christian colleges and seminaries. She and her husband live in Northern California and have two grown children.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Shadows of People on the road and Flag of China concept picture

I Came From China — And I’ve Seen How This Ends For America

China

Chinese Communist Party

Founding Fathers

Illegal Immigation

Immigration

Leftists

Trump Administration

On Saturday, elite American military operators descended upon an indicted narco-terrorist and extracted him from Venezuela, delivering him to New York to face the charges. That indicted narco-terrorist just happened to be Nicolás Maduro, the dictator who calls himself &#8220;president.&#8221;
With Maduro gone, Democrats who once called for his ouster are suddenly up in arms, simply because President Donald Trump is the one who made it happen.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
Across the major legacy networks, Democrats complained about the fact that the Trump administration had sent military operators in to extract Maduro — and media personalities quickly joined them in questioning whether or not the Trump administration had the authority to take that action without first getting congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who <a href="https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2007868827355484611">criticized Trump</a> in 2020 for not ending Maduro&#8217;s regime — led the charge on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; speaking with Democratic strategist-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, Schumer conceded that Maduro was a bad actor but claimed that the Trump administration had still been coloring outside the lines in going to get him.
&#8220;Look, Maduro is a horrible, horrible person,&#8221; Schumer said. &#8220;But you don&#8217;t treat lawlessness with other lawlessness. And that&#8217;s what&#8217;s happened here. The American people, this morning, are scratching their heads in wonderment and in fear of what the president has proposed: &#8216;The United States will run Venezuela.&#8217; We have learned through the years [that] when America tries to do regime change and nation-building in this way, the American people pay the price in both blood and dollars.&#8221;
Stephanopoulos pointed out the fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration had the authority to move on Maduro, and Schumer protested: &#8220;It&#8217;s a violation of the law to do what they did without getting the authorization of Congress.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticizes the U.S strike in Venezuela and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro: “It&#8217;s a violation of the law to do what they did without getting the authorization of Congress.” <a href="https://t.co/jbZuHwZD9A">https://t.co/jbZuHwZD9A</a> <a href="https://t.co/nNEQWg1d7V">pic.twitter.com/nNEQWg1d7V</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2007838874295287924?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan brought in Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who became a household name when he traveled to El Salvador to retrieve MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Van Hollen also complained that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority in taking action in Venezuela without asking Congress first.
He predicted that in reaction, Congress &#8220;will have a vote on a war powers resolution probably as early as this week, if not next.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Chris Van Hollen says President Trump does not have the legal authority to attack Venezuela and says he’s sure that Congress “will have a vote on a war powers resolution probably as early as this week, if not next.”
“For the most part, Republicans are happy to give Donald… <a href="https://t.co/J4kq7RraNC">pic.twitter.com/J4kq7RraNC</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/2007863051152679414?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On &#8220;The Sunday Briefing,&#8221; Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) said much the same to Fox News host Jacqui Heinrich, after first claiming that more traditional avenues like sanctions hadn&#8217;t worked on Maduro because American allies hated Trump too much to join the United States in enforcing them. Then he, too, argued that Trump should have come to Congress for approval before sending military operators into Venezuela.
Kaine, as recently as 2024, had called Maduro an <a href="https://x.com/SenTimKaine/status/1836398711837974976">illegitimate leader</a> and demanded a &#8220;peaceful transfer of power.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 WOW. Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine just got UTTERLY EMBARRASSED on national television!
&#8220;If Dems cared SO MUCH about process, why didn&#8217;t THEY do anything to bring Maduro to justice when THEY were in charge? The guy&#8217;s been under indictment since 2020!&#8221; 🔥💯<a href="https://t.co/aoPkS0qMlC">pic.twitter.com/aoPkS0qMlC</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2007878745403912679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
More of the same came from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who <a href="https://x.com/TimMurtaugh/status/2007864277823107222">said in 2019</a> that Trump would move to topple Maduro because &#8220;getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States.&#8221;
On CNN&#8217;s &#8220;State of the Union,&#8221; however, he said Trump&#8217;s actions had been &#8220;wildly illegal&#8221; and claimed that he was only moving on Venezuela to gain control of natural resources for his own personal financial gain.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Chris Murphy tells Dana Bash that Trump’s attack on Venezuela “seems to be mostly about oil and natural resources” and is “all about making money for his friends.” <a href="https://t.co/EvylbRzl5B">pic.twitter.com/EvylbRzl5B</a>
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSOTU/status/2007847037501329477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But Rubio explained in several interviews on Sunday why the Trump administration had not asked Congress for permission to act — or even notified Congress prior to doing so — and why they hadn&#8217;t been bound to do so.
&#8220;This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn’t require congressional approval because this was not an invasion. This is not an extended military operation,&#8221; he told NBC News anchor Kristen Welker on &#8220;Meet the Press.&#8221;
&#8220;We will seek congressional approval for actions that require congressional approval. Otherwise, they’ll get congressional notification.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;This was not an action that required congressional approval&#8230; This was not an invasion,&#8221; says <a href="https://twitter.com/SecRubio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecRubio</a>.
&#8220;We will seek congressional approval for actions that require congressional approval. Otherwise, they&#8217;ll get congressional notification.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/up6ZEJtmXd">pic.twitter.com/up6ZEJtmXd</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2007831235091910730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; he added, &#8220;You can&#8217;t congressionally notify something like this for two reasons. Number one, it will leak. It&#8217;s as simple as that. And number two, it&#8217;s an exigent circumstance,&#8221; Rubio explained.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sec. Rubio responds to criticism of the lack of congressional authorization in the U.S. operation in Venezuela: “You can&#8217;t congressionally notify something like this for two reasons. Number one, it will leak. It&#8217;s as simple as that. And number two, it&#8217;s an exigent circumstance.” <a href="https://t.co/qIBPiRuDYk">pic.twitter.com/qIBPiRuDYk</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2007837470977581424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley addressed that point as well, responding specifically to the comments made by Tim Kaine, and argued that not only was the Trump administration&#8217;s action legal, it was no different than actions taken by previous Democratic presidents.
&#8220;Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va) told Fox that &#8220;the Constitution does not give the President the right to initiate military action.&#8221; That is entirely incorrect. The Constitution does not give a president the right to declare war. However, presidents are allowed to use military forces without such a declaration&#8230;&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/2007884771209187539">Turley stated</a>, adding, &#8220;Democratic presidents routinely launched attacks in other countries without any objection from Sen. Kaine. Obama not only killed an American citizen not charge with any crime but attacked Libya&#8217;s capital and attacked its military to cause a regime change without consulting with Congress.&#8221;

Nicolás Maduro

Spin Cycle: Flip Test, The Maduro Edition

ABC News

CBS News

Global Politics

Joe Biden

Media

Military

NBC News

Politics

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the Constitution is &#8220;pretty clear&#8221; on presidential term limits, putting to rest <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-third-term-talk-puts-leftists-in-a-tizzy-again">theories</a> that have been pushed recently about Trump seeking to run again in 2028.
While en route to South Korea, Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “I have my highest poll numbers that I&#8217;ve ever had, and, you know, based on what I read, I guess I&#8217;m not allowed to run.&#8221;
&#8220;I would say that if you read [the Constitution], it&#8217;s pretty clear. I&#8217;m not allowed to run. It&#8217;s too bad,&#8221; Trump added. &#8220;But we have a lot of great people,&#8221; referring to the potential Republican presidential candidates waiting to take the torch from him.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
&#8220;Based on what I read, I guess I&#8217;m not allowed to run.&#8221;
US President Donald Trump conceded Wednesday that it was “pretty clear” the Constitution didn’t allow him to seek a third term as president, despite frequently floating the idea in recent months <a href="https://t.co/3MeLI1D3J8">https://t.co/3MeLI1D3J8</a> <a href="https://t.co/08tM9EfCMu">pic.twitter.com/08tM9EfCMu</a>
— Bloomberg (@business) <a href="https://twitter.com/business/status/1983453256715063423?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/article/can-trump-run-for-a-third-term-in-2028-mike-johnson-says-he-doesnt-see-the-path-192522300.html">pushed back</a> against the third-term theories on Tuesday, saying, “It&#8217;s been a great run, but I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about, the constrictions of the Constitution.”
The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1951, states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The 22nd Amendment was ratified shortly after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to four consecutive terms before he died in office in 1945.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Theories about Trump running for a third term in 2028 swirled this week after former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said in an interview that &#8220;there is a plan&#8221; to create a path for Trump to run again. Trump would be 82 years old when the 2028 election takes place.
“Trump is going to be president in 2028, and people just ought to get accommodated with that,” Bannon <a href="https://x.com/TheEconomist/status/1981393309869215887">said</a> during an interview with The Economist last week. “We need him for at least one more term, and he’ll get that in 2028.”
Trump was asked about Bannon&#8217;s remarks earlier this week and told reporters that he &#8220;would love&#8221; to run in 2028. Trump&#8217;s and Bannon&#8217;s comments sparked rage and trepidation among political commentators on the Left. Some leftists have also argued that Trump&#8217;s tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom is evidence that he plans on staying in office past January 20, 2029.
The president has hinted at a potential 2028 run multiple times in recent months, but has also stated that the idea &#8220;is not something I&#8217;m looking to do.&#8221; Trump&#8217;s official store also sells &#8220;Trump 2028&#8221; hats, keeping alive fears that he could run. But all of the third-term talk appears to just be talk, or possibly a ruse to troll Democrats. Political <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/27/us/politics/trump-third-term-politics.html">analysts</a> have also <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/27/politics/president-trump-third-term-2028">suggested</a> that Trump and his allies are keeping third-term theories alive to prevent Trump from becoming a lame-duck president, which could hinder his agenda as he gets closer to the end of his term.

Trump Puts Third-Term Theories To Bed, Says Constitution Is ‘Pretty Clear’

2028 presidential election

Elections

Executive

Mike Johnson

Republicans

Steve Bannon

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) made it clear on Monday that he was not going to simply step into the trap laid for him by NBC News host Kristen Welker when she asked about a conversation she&#8217;d had with President Donald Trump on Sunday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;Meet the Press.&#8221;
Welker took an exchange from Sunday&#8217;s show regarding whether or not illegal immigrants were entitled to due process simply because they were physically in the United States — a question Trump had said he was not sure about — and asked Donalds how he would respond to the same question. Donalds, instead of answering the question directly, gave a response that exposed the framing of the question as an attempt to force him into suggesting that Trump&#8217;s answer had been out of line.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: Byron Donalds TURNS TABLES on Kristen Welker after she presses him on &#8220;due process&#8221; for illegal immigrants🚨
DONALDS: &#8220;When the framers wrote our Constitution, they never envisioned that there would be an executive that would allow millions of people to come into the… <a href="https://t.co/OIUn4VqKto">pic.twitter.com/OIUn4VqKto</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1919508253928783900?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welker read the text of the Fifth Amendment and then pressed Donalds for a response: &#8220;The Constitution says any person, not citizen and therein lies the debate and the root of my question. I mean, does &#8216;any person&#8217; just apply to citizens in your mind or does it apply to citizens and non-citizens? Secretary of State Marco Rubio says it applies to citizens and non-citizens.&#8221;
&#8220;Let&#8217;s be very clear,&#8221; Donalds began, taking a jab at former President Joe Biden and his administration&#8217;s open borders policies. &#8220;First and foremost, when the framers wrote our Constitution, they never envisioned that there would be an executive that would allow millions of people to come into the country illegally.&#8221;
&#8220;Number two, more importantly, you have a situation right now — is it okay for any administration to not follow the law, abuse border security laws, let millions of people in, and then hide behind a court system to say, &#8216;Well, now they’re here, so now we have to go through a lengthy process&#8217;?&#8221; he asked.

House GOP Sept 18

NBC Host Lays Trap For Byron Donalds. He’s Not Taking The Bait.

NBC Host Lays Trap For Byron Donalds. He's Not Taking The Bait.

Byron Donalds

Due Process

Illegal Immigration

It’s hard to keep track of all the immigration cases that blew up once President Trump started securing our borders and enforcing U.S. immigration law only three months ago.
The latest <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25897170-chnvparole041425/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a> by Massachusetts District Court judge Indira Talwani was an unjustified and baseless nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s decision last month to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-pulling-legal-status-more-than-530k-migrants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">end the parole status</a> for half a million Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan nationals.
Nationwide injunctions by federal judges are based on dubious authority and threaten the separation of powers doctrine in the Constitution – the checks and balances that hold this nation together. The sooner Congress and the Supreme Court implement and enforce clear limits on this, the better.
But it’s not just the sweeping executive power that Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, asserts is the problem. It’s also the bewildering double-standard applied to the Biden and Trump administrations on immigration.
Americans want to believe that once appointed, judges do their best to follow the Constitution and the law. But it gets harder each time we see a ruling that stretches logic and law to reach a conclusion that aligns with politics. We’ve seen so many in the past few years, including the many “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wonder-land-henninger/wsj-opinion-the-high-price-of-democrats-anti-trump-lawfare/04D0426F-2196-433D-B6FF-56BCA3688D79?mod=bizbuysell_trending_now_video_pos1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawfare</a>” cases brought against President Trump since his first term.
Let’s get our heads around immigration parole. Aliens who want to come to the U.S. need a visa. In exceptional cases, Congress provided a <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&amp;num=0&amp;edition=prelim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">limited power</a> for the executive (exercised by the President through his Secretary of Homeland Security) to parole aliens for limited periods. When that period ends, they go back to whatever status they had before.
In 1996, Congress tightened the rules, clarifying that parole could only be granted on a “case-by-case basis,” and strictly “for urgent humanitarian reasons” or a “significant public benefit.” Parole isn’t a path to permanent status.
Blatantly violating the clear limits set by Congress, Biden perverted parole to invent a slew of “McVisa” programs to benefit groups he liked and to bypass numerical caps.
Biden’s DHS started paroling illegal aliens caught at the border, arguing that they didn’t have room to detain them. This <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/Federal-Judge-Vacates-Bidens-ParoleATD-Border-Release-Policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Parole+ATD”</a> was shut down by a federal judge who <a href="https://legacy.myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/GPEY-CPQPAB/%24file/final%20order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> the president didn’t have the authority to give illegal aliens a free pass into the country.
In August 2021, Biden invented Operation Allies Welcome to let in thousands of Afghans. In theory, these were supposed to be the ones who’d helped the U.S. and whose lives might be in danger under the Taliban, but in practice, many got in through fraud or had nothing to do with our efforts in their country. Some were even criminals and suspected terrorists.
Then in April 2022, Biden <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">began</a> a Uniting for Ukraine program to bring people in from that country, even though (a) you might wonder why the men weren’t home fighting Russia, and (b) why they could not have claimed asylum in neighboring European countries instead of the U.S.
In January 2023, Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/05/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-border-enforcement-actions/">rolled out</a> a Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan Parole program allowing up to 30,000 nationals from those four countries per month to enter the U.S.
Then he added up to 1,400 appointments a day for nationals of any country to schedule their illegal entry into the U.S. using the <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/Whats-Biden-Doing-Migrants-Ports-Entry">CBP One</a> phone app, as long as they claimed to be in Mexico. Nearly all of them ended up getting <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/958-Percent-Illegal-Migrants-Who-Preschedule-Their-Illegal-Entries-Are-Allowed">paroled</a> once they showed up at a U.S. port of entry.
Finally, in June 2024, Biden tried but failed to give a de facto amnesty via parole to over a million illegal aliens who were married to American citizens. Who knows how far a “President Harris” could have continued with parole-a-palooza, had she won.
All told, Biden used bogus parole programs to bring in over 1.5 million inadmissible illegal aliens.
Even though the law specifically says a president can’t use parole to bypass the U.S. official refugee program, that was clearly the intent. The Biden administration expected them all to claim asylum and live here while their cases dragged on for years or decades. But not all of them bothered to make that claim, figuring parole would just be extended. Bad bet.
Trump revoked the CHNV parole – as was his rightful power as president – in March. What Biden did, even if it wasn’t right, Trump had the power to undo.
For Judge Talwani to now tell Trump he can’t revoke parole for 530,000 paroled CHNV nationals without a “case-by-case” review is rich indeed. Does she seriously think that every one of the 30,000 CHNV applicants Biden let in per month was examined and approved on a “case-by-case” basis? Sure, if we say every fan let into Yankee Stadium for a game has been admitted “case-by-case.” If it simply means ‘one-by-one’, then Secretary of Homeland Security Noem can certify that, and it will be just as true as it was when former Secretary Mayorkas did.
Federal immigration law is very clear that the president has wide discretion to deny or revoke visas and remove aliens on national security or discretionary grounds. He can do or undo parole as well.
Joe Biden violated the law when he provided mass parole to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. No judge should be able to stop a successor president from undoing the harm a prior president has done, particularly harm that was done by ignoring, twisting, and breaking the law.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

White House Homeland Security Advisor And Deputy Chief Of Staff Stephen Miller Speaks To The Media At The White House

Liberal Judge Tries To Block Trump Over Bogus Biden-Era Parole For Countless Illegals

Biden Administration

Heritage Foundation

illegal immigrants

Judges

Massachusetts

Migrants

Obama Administration

Opinion

President Trump

Venezuela

President Donald Trump told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-term-white-house-methods-rcna198752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC News</a> on Sunday that he&#8217;s &#8220;not joking&#8221; about a potential third term, but added that it&#8217;s &#8220;far too early to think about&#8221; another run.
Trump, who became only the second U.S. president to win two non-consecutive terms, would need the Constitution to be altered for him to be sworn in for a third time. The <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/#:~:text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20elected,the%20President%20more%20than%20once." target="_blank" rel="noopener">22nd Amendment</a> — passed by Congress in 1947 after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms — prohibits presidents from being elected more than twice. However, the 78-year-old president told NBC News that &#8220;there are methods&#8221; that would allow him to effectively be re-elected in 2028.
When asked, Trump acknowledged that one of those methods would be backing Vice President JD Vance in 2028 so that Vance could hand Trump the reins. &#8220;That&#8217;s one method,&#8221; Trump said, adding, &#8220;There are others too.&#8221; The president declined to explain what the other methods could be, according to NBC News, but touted his poll numbers, adding that “a lot of people would like me to” run for a third term.
Trump was later asked by reporters about his comments on a third term and <a href="https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1906532647376957625" target="_blank" rel="noopener">quipped</a> that running for re-election again would be &#8220;sort of a fourth term.&#8221;
“I have had more people ask me to have a third term, which in a way is a fourth term because the 2020 election was totally rigged, so it&#8217;s actually sort of a fourth term in a certain. I just don&#8217;t want the credit for the 2nd because Biden was so bad. He did such a bad job, and I think that&#8217;s one of the reasons that I&#8217;m popular,&#8221; Trump said.
&#8220;I think I&#8217;m popular because we&#8217;ve done a great job,&#8221; he added. &#8220;We&#8217;ve had the best almost 100 days of any president.&#8221;
Despite remaining slightly underwater, Trump&#8217;s current job approval numbers are higher than they were at any time during his first term, according to the RealClearPolitics <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating" target="_blank" rel="noopener">average</a>. As of Monday morning, Trump holds a 47.9% approval rating. His highest approval rating in the RCP average during his first term was 47.2%.
One of those pushing for a third Trump term is Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN). Just days after Trump took office in January, Ogles <a href="https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-proposes-amending-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> a joint House Resolution pushing for a Constitutional amendment to &#8220;revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment on presidential terms.&#8221;
“It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration,&#8221; Ogles said. &#8220;President Trump has shown time and time again that his loyalty lies with the American people and our great nation above all else. He is dedicated to restoring the republic and saving our country, and we, as legislators and as states, must do everything in our power to support him.”

‘A Lot Of People Would Like Me To’: Trump Says ‘There Are Methods’ For Him To Get A 3rd Term

Election

Term Limits

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, called on the Department of Justice to investigate whether President Joe Biden’s alleged cognitive decline enabled unelected staff to enact far-left policies without his informed approval.
According to a letter from Bailey, “Biden’s mental decline is famous,” and staffers “may have exploited Biden’s incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them.”
He contends that such orders, including mass commutations and pardons for convicted criminals, would be “null and void” if Biden never knowingly approved them.
Bailey cites House Speaker Mike Johnson’s account of Biden’s mental decline heavily impacting his effectiveness as an executive: “Biden did not know what orders he was signing.”
“In January 2024, when Johnson asked Biden about a moratorium on energy exports to Europe, Biden informed Johnson that he thought he had merely signed an order authorizing a study on exports,” Bailey said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨BREAKING: I am demanding the DOJ investigated whether President Biden’s cognitive decline allowed unelected staff to push through radical policy without his knowing approval.
If true, these executive orders, pardons, and all other actions are unconstitutional and legally void. <a href="https://t.co/pOhATRfw2j">pic.twitter.com/pOhATRfw2j</a>
&mdash; Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1897388657557885403?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Special Counsel Robert K. Hur released a 345-page report in February on Biden’s handling of classified documents, where Hur detailed early indications of the decline that would eventually lead Biden to drop out of the race just a few months later, as Bailey notes in the letter.
In what was described as &#8220;[t]he loudest public alarm about Joe Biden&#8217;s mental acuity,&#8221; Special Counsel Hur described Biden as an &#8220;elderly man with a poor memory&#8221; who could not even remember when he was Vice President or, even within several years, when his son passed away,” Bailey said about Hur’s report.
In the end, Hur declined to charge Biden, not necessarily for a lack of evidence, but for a seeming lack of competence as a &#8220;well-meaning, elderly man&#8221; with a &#8220;poor memory.”
Bailey points out, “If Biden could not even form a mens rea [criminal intent] for allegedly criminal activity (a low bar), how can anyone have confidence he had the capacity to make decisions as the chief executive of the United States?”
According to high-profile DNC fundraiser Lindy Li, quoted in the letter, “the people who ran our country for the last four years” were his staff, his wife, and his son, Hunter Biden.
Bailey further claims that prominent Democrats and senior staffers, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, heavily restricted Biden’s interactions, creating conditions under which unelected aides could assume disproportionate influence over policy.
Whether the president was fully aware when authorizing key decisions can pose significant constitutional questions and impact the balance of power among the executive branch, Congress, and individual states, with Bailey in particular pointing to Biden vacating the death sentences of several inmates who committed their offenses in Missouri.
And, if it is found that Biden was not competent, “As the Supreme Court recently held, States like Missouri can criminally try individuals under state law even if they already were prosecuted under federal law. States like Missouri need to know whether to pursue that path or similar paths.”
Likewise, the letter references a series of clemencies for roughly 2,500 people described as “non-violent.” Among them, it says, was an individual convicted in the killing of a mother and her 8-year-old child, heightening questions about whether authorities might revisit similar cases if the president himself was not competently directing those actions.
Bailey concludes, “I fear that Mr. Biden, while he held the office of President, did so in name only and was a mere puppet for far-left, unelected staffers. The people deserve to know the truth.”

President Biden Holds News Conference Day After Midterm Elections

Missouri AG Bailey Questions Constitutionality Of Biden Orders, Citing Mental Decline

Biden Campaign

Biden-Harris administration

Department of Justice

Whenever a new administration takes over the White House, a lot of major changes are obviously going to take place. I&#8217;ve covered many of these changes already in the past few weeks, Trump&#8217;s executive orders and so on. But there are also some minor changes that no one really talks about, even though they may have symbolic significance.
In particular, one of the first moves Trump made when he first took office, back in 2017, was to <a href="https://time.com/4649081/andrew-jackson-donald-trump-portrait/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">install</a> a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office. Jackson was a war hero who served in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, when he led American troops to a historic victory in New Orleans. Jackson was also a populist who wanted the United States to expand and grow its borders because he believed it would benefit the average American. And so, for four years, Jackson&#8217;s portrait remained in the Oval Office.
Then, the minute he became president, Joe Biden quickly removed the portrait. No one in Biden&#8217;s administration could stand to look at Andrew Jackson. They didn&#8217;t destroy the portrait, however, they apparently just put it in storage. So now, four years later, the game of &#8220;Andrew Jackson tug-of-war&#8221; is continuing. The portrait is officially back.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨 First view of the new Oval Office &#8211; ANDREW JACKSON and ABRAHAM LINCOLN can be spotted on the walls. <a href="https://t.co/4r1j2QWHRM">pic.twitter.com/4r1j2QWHRM</a>
&mdash; Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1881429685944635531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
As you can see from this photo from the Oval Office a couple of weeks ago, Abe Lincoln is on the left, and Jackson is on the right. If you ask a typical Biden supporter about this, they&#8217;ll tell you that this is an outrage, because Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, and on top of that, he wasn&#8217;t exactly a big fan of the Indians. And therefore, he&#8217;s canceled.
That explanation, however, actually misses one of the defining moments of Jackson&#8217;s presidency. A moment that, very soon, could have a lot of relevance for the second Trump term. I am referring to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1832 which held that the Cherokee Indians were a sovereign nation that had the right to govern themselves, without interference from the states. This was a ruling that threatened to disrupt Jackson&#8217;s plans for American expansion to the West. It was also a major blow to the concept of states&#8217; rights, and it would have significant ramifications for Georgia in particular. Of course, as Jackson saw it, it was also an unlawful ruling. In response to this decision, according to various accounts, Jackson uttered some version of: “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.&#8221;
In other words, when a court — even the Supreme Court — exceeds the limits of its authority, then there&#8217;s no requirement that anyone follow the court&#8217;s rulings. There&#8217;s certainly no way for the courts to compel the executive branch to do anything. So if a court ever goes rogue, and begins to issue rulings that flagrantly disregard the Constitution — as well as the outcome that a majority of Americans want — that&#8217;s how you deal with it. Jackson set that precedent. A century later, FDR built on that idea. When the courts began striking down his New Deal legislation, he threatened to pack the courts. Very quickly, the Supreme Court backed down and started upholding some of those laws.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1535-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Depending on who you ask, Andrew Jackson and FDR were either villains or heroes in these stories. Either way, their actions illustrate an important point: In our system of checks and balances, everything depends on legitimacy. If courts are seen as legitimate, then their orders are enforced. If courts are seen as illegitimate, then nothing they do really matters. Donald Trump, as a student of Andrew Jackson, certainly understands that. We can assume judges understand this principle as well.
That&#8217;s why the flood of federal injunctions that have already been issued in Trump&#8217;s second term are best understood as a deliberate provocation by the judiciary. Every other day, an unelected federal judge — usually a Left-wing judge — is issuing a nationwide injunction, barring some aspect of Trump&#8217;s agenda. This is happening so frequently that most people don&#8217;t understand the scale of the problem.
So let me run down a non-exhaustive list of some of these injunctions:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Biden judge blocked Trump&#8217;s halt on federal grant spending. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Clinton judge in Massachusetts blocked Trump&#8217;s plan to issue buyouts to federal workers, and also blocked the Trump administration from transferring a trans-identifying man to a man&#8217;s prison facility, where he belongs. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An Obama judge in New York blocked both DOGE and the Treasury secretary himself from accessing internal Treasury records. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Biden judge in Massachusetts blocked Trump from cutting billions of dollars in fraudulent spending that was earmarked for scientific research, including wasteful overhead, as we discussed yesterday. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Another judge in Washington DC, appointed by Trump, halted the suspension of USAID workers, who were spending billions of dollars orchestrating foreign coups and sponsoring transgender theater. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An Obama judge in D.C. ordered Trump to reinstate the head of a Special Counsel office. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Reagan judge in D.C. blocked prison officials from transferring trans-identifying men to men&#8217;s prisons. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three judges — including Biden, Bush and Reagan judges, in New Hampshire, Washington and Maryland — blocked Trump&#8217;s executive order ending birthright citizenship. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">And most recently, a D.C. judge named John Bates issued what may be the single most obviously unconstitutional ruling ever written by a federal judge.</li>
</ul>
Before we get into that last ruling, let&#8217;s take stock of the sheer magnitude of orders listed here, and where they&#8217;re coming from. Without exception, these are judges located in Left-wing jurisdictions. Most of them were appointed by Democrats. And in every case, they&#8217;re unilaterally issuing emergency temporary restraining orders, which are supposed to be an &#8220;extraordinary and drastic remedy,&#8221; according to established legal precedent. If you&#8217;re trying to portray the courts as legitimate, nonpartisan institutions, this simply does not look good. In fact, it&#8217;s a travesty. And it gets much worse when you look at what these rulings are saying. So let&#8217;s go back to the ruling by John Bates.
This ruling prevents the Trump administration from removing content from websites that the Trump administration controls. In fact, the ruling goes further than that, it requires the Trump administration to keep old content from the Biden administration online. That is not an exaggeration. The order, by its own terms, bans the Trump administration from, &#8220;removing or modifying health-related webpages and datasets,&#8221; while also compelling the administration to, &#8220;restore webpages and datasets that they have already removed or modified.&#8221; In other words, an unelected federal judge has just named himself the official web editor of the entire federal government. He&#8217;s saying in effect that the executive branch has no power whatsoever. They can&#8217;t even control what they&#8217;re putting on the internet. Trump, as the president of the United States, and most powerful man in the world, actually doesn&#8217;t even have the power to make alterations to a website.
Specifically, the ruling comes in response to the Trump administration&#8217;s executive order ending gender ideology in the federal government. Pursuant to that order, the administration removed a lot of content from websites that are run by the CDC, HHS, FDA, and so on. Some of that content was related to sex-changes and cross-sex hormones. Some of it included activist research on the risk of suicide among trans-identifying individuals, which of course has been used to justify child castration — instead of treating their obvious mental health condition. Some of the materials had to do with nonsense concepts like &#8220;environmental justice.&#8221; Some of it was about drugs that gay people can take in order to prevent the spread of HIV while they&#8217;re engaging in reckless and dangerous sexual activity. And on and on. Whatever you think of these materials — and you should think they&#8217;re garbage — it&#8217;s clearly within the federal government&#8217;s purview to delete them from their own websites. That is why we have elections.
But Judge Bates disagreed. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/11/judge-orders-cdc-websites-restored/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">He ruled</a> that, “By removing long relied upon medical resources without explanation, it is likely that … each agency failed to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.&#8221; He goes on to say that the administration has violated something called the &#8220;Paperwork Reduction Act,&#8221; which is a law that no one knows anything about, or cares about in any way, shape or form.
There&#8217;s more to the ruling, but let&#8217;s stop there and address this part of it. He&#8217;s saying that there&#8217;s &#8220;no explanation&#8221; for why this content was removed. So apparently we can&#8217;t &#8220;reduce&#8221; this particular &#8220;paperwork.&#8221; This would be a compelling argument if the judge were, say, living in a cave with no internet access, or access to newspapers or other human interaction, for the past decade or so. But everyone else understands exactly why the Trump administration is gutting these websites. As we discussed yesterday, activists have taken over scientific and medical research in this country. They have promoted child butchery and other obviously immoral practices, which the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. Trump ran against all of that and he won a resounding victory. That&#8217;s all the &#8220;explanation&#8221; the federal judge should require.
Then the judge goes on to offer another explanation for his ruling. Again, from <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/11/judge-orders-cdc-websites-restored/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the decision</a>: 
<blockquote>If those doctors cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions.</blockquote>
The judge is now claiming that doctors are reliant on government websites in order to treat their patients. As proof of this, he cites a doctor from Yale who says it now takes her a little longer to prescribe contraception to her patients. Without these websites, she&#8217;s totally clueless. Her medical school training wasn&#8217;t enough; her residency wasn&#8217;t enough; her years of practice weren&#8217;t enough; her access to thousands of research papers isn&#8217;t enough. She needs a small handful of government websites in order to do her job, apparently. Now, if we take this claim literally, of course it means that this doctor is incompetent to practice medicine. Instead, the judge takes it as proof that he needs to dictate what content goes on the internet.
If you go through any of the other 10 million injunctions that judges have filed against Trump so far, you&#8217;ll find that this kind of reasoning — as egregious as it is — is pretty much the norm. Judges are taking anecdotal claims from activists, and they&#8217;re using them to throw up roadblocks in the way of the new administration. And they&#8217;re doing it so that CNN can report that Trump is causing a &#8220;constitutional crisis,&#8221; when in fact the judges are the ones doing that. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&gt;&gt; <a href="https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kaitlancollins</a>: &quot;We are three weeks into the second Trump presidency, three weeks, and tonight, there are warnings that the U.S. is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/PCHCm6MmRf">pic.twitter.com/PCHCm6MmRf</a>
&mdash; Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1889144671231693086?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As you just heard, there are hints in that reporting that the Trump administration may not comply with some of these orders. Trump himself hasn&#8217;t come out and said that. He&#8217;s apparently weighing his options at this point. But as this continues — which it inevitably will — the Andrew Jackson solution is going to become more and more appealing. And ultimately it will be necessary.
To be very clear about this: There is nothing in the constitution that gives any random federal judge absolute power to override anything the president does or any decision he makes at any time. If a single judge in a place like New Hampshire or Washington can decide that the president can&#8217;t reduce foreign aid, or fire his own employees, or kick men out of women&#8217;s prisons, or even control the content that&#8217;s posted on government websites, then essentially the president has no power at all. That&#8217;s the result the Left obviously wants. And now that the deep state and the career bureaucrats are being terminated, they see the courts as their only hope.
That&#8217;s why Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just spoke on the floor of the Senate, declaring that courts are essentially infallible, and their rulings must always be honored. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Schumer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MwdXu6Ro1d4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
If you remember just a couple of years back, Democrats like Schumer were standing in front of the Supreme Court, threatening individual judges over their rulings. AOC was telling Anderson Cooper that Biden should just ignore Supreme Court rulings — and he did. He admitted that the Court had struck down his plan to cancel student loans, so he just went ahead and implemented it anyway. Now these same Democrats are maintaining that judges should never be questioned, under any circumstances.
The reality of course is somewhere in the middle. Judges are not infallible. They can deliberately and maliciously violate the Constitution, just like anyone else can. And when that happens — when a judicial coup is underway — a response is necessary. We&#8217;re not talking about one or two bad rulings here. We&#8217;re not talking about rulings that block a handful of policy goals or anything like that. We&#8217;re at the point where the president is not being allowed to do anything. He can&#8217;t even edit a website anymore. Left-wing judges are issuing emergency injunctions without even deciding actual cases.
The only way to get us out from under this judicial tyranny is for Trump to disregard these orders and for Congress to impeach the judges responsible for them. Throughout our history, there have only been a handful of times when presidents have needed to consider drastic action like this. The country was clearly better off because Andrew Jackson did it. And now, two centuries later, it&#8217;s equally clear that this country would be better off if the Trump administration followed in Jackson&#8217;s footsteps and dared these judges to enforce these rulings. They couldn&#8217;t do it, obviously. They would complain and issue more injunctions and more opinions. Meanwhile, the rest of us — people who want to see this country improve — will get exactly what we voted for.

TOPSHOT-US-JORDAN-DIPLOMACY-TRUMP-ABDULLAH II

Tyrannical, Power Hungry Judges Attempt To Seize Total Control Of The Government

Abraham Lincoln

Andrew Jackson

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Federal Government

While Democrats are screaming that the Trump administration is fomenting a “constitutional crisis” by contending that leftist activist judges are impeding the administration’s agenda, they were singing a different tune during the Biden administration, when they were only too willing to advise ignoring judges’ rulings.
On January 31, District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island issued a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.50.0_2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">temporary restraining order</a> blocking the Trump administration from freezing payments for grants and other programs.
On Sunday night, President Trump said, “Well, you&#8217;ve got some very bad rulings, and it&#8217;s a shame to see it, frankly. They want to sort of tell everybody how to run the country when they say that certain people in charge of massive agencies or people doing very, very &#8212; important people, smart people &#8212; doing investigations of fraud, and they don&#8217;t talk about what you&#8217;re looking at. All they just say is, oh, it&#8217;s unconstitutional. Judges should be ruling; they shouldn&#8217;t be dictating what you&#8217;re supposed to be doing.”
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vice-President Vance <a href="https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287" target="_blank" rel="noopener">echoed</a>. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that&#8217;s also illegal. Judges aren&#8217;t allowed to control the executive&#8217;s legitimate power.”
On Monday, McConnell accused the Trump administration of ignoring his order, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/02/10/nx-s1-5292342/trump-federal-funding-freeze-restraining-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguing</a> that the Trump administration was working “to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” adding that the freeze was “likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.”
Democrats and their allies in the media then heightened their rhetoric. &#8220;This isn&#8217;t hyperbole to say that we are staring the death of democracy in the eyes, right now,&#8221; Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT) exclaimed Monday night. “The centerpiece of our democracy is that we observe court rulings. Criminal court rulings, civil court rulings and constitutional court rulings. No one is above the law. And whether we like it or not, the courts interpret the law.”
“If the President of the United States says, ‘You know what, I don&#8217;t care what the courts say, I&#8217;m going to do whatever the hell I want,’ that&#8217;s essentially the end of the rule of law,” he declared. “Because if the President isn&#8217;t bound by our laws and the Constitution, then why would anybody else be bound by our laws and the Constitution? &#8230;. If they were to openly declare that because they disagree with, for instance, a court&#8217;s order to reopen USAID, or to get Elon Musk out of the Treasury Department, simply because on the merits, they disagree with the court&#8217;s ruling, then you are clearly in the most serious constitutional crisis.”
Legacy media outlets are following the Democrats&#8217; lead on the issue. “Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk and others in the Trump administration are openly challenging the centuries-old power of the nation’s judiciary, foreshadowing a possible constitutional breakdown of American government,” CNN&#8217;s chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/10/politics/constitutional-crisis-trump-overhaul-analysis-biskupic/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asserted</a>.
The New York Times joined the effort in an article titled, “Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say.” “Law professors have long debated what the term means. But now many have concluded that the nation faces a reckoning as President Trump tests the boundaries of executive power,” the Times&#8217; Adam Liptak <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-constitutional-crisis.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.
Yet Democrats and their allies in the media took a very different approach when Biden was in office. In February 2023, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (OR) <a href="https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-delivers-floor-speech-calling-on-president-biden-and-the-fda-to-keep-mifepristone-on-the-market-regardless-of-outcome-in-texas-case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advised</a> the Biden administration to ignore a Texas judge’s ruling on abortion, stating:
<blockquote>
There are moments in history where Americans and their leaders must look at circumstances like this one and say, “Enough.” &#8230; A judge’s rulings stand because elected leaders and citizens have agreed that abiding by them is right and necessary to uphold the rule of law. That’s part of the social contract in America. 
But the judiciary must uphold its end of the social contract too. It must follow the rule of law and earn the confidence of the American people continually, every day, every month, every year. The awful reality is, from the moment this case landed in front of Judge Kacsmaryk, it’s been a rigged game all along. It’s illegitimate. The case is an affront to the Constitution and to the rule of law in the United States of America. 
So here’s what must happen if and when Judge Kacsmaryk issues his nationwide injunction halting access to mifepristone. 
President Biden and the FDA must ignore it. 
</blockquote>
New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-aoc-lashes-out-at-abortion-pill-decision-says-biden-should-ignore-this-ruling/">echoed</a> the call to ignore the court two months later, <a href="https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1889337281518969102">telling</a> Anderson Cooper of CNN: &#8220;I think we&#8217;ve been preparing and anticipating for there being these egregious overreaches by members of the judiciary appointed by a right-wing Republican Party, whose goal for a very long time was to just pack these Courts with partisan Judges often under qualified or completely unqualified for the for their role. And so there has been thought I believe given to this. Senator Ron Wyden has already issued statements, for example, advising what we should do in situations like this, which I concur, which is that I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling.&#8221;

Baby crying, screaming and howling, close-up

Dems Cry ‘Constitutional Crisis’ If Trump Ignores Leftist Judges. Here’s What They Told Biden.

Judiciary

Menu