Home Blog

Massie Launches Eight-Count Impeachment Effort Against Pete Hegseth

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
1
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, accusing him of continuing military operations in Iran without authorization from Congress.

Massie presented the measure as a privileged resolution, meaning the Republican-controlled House must address it within two legislative days. House leaders could schedule a vote on the articles or attempt to table the resolution.

The Kentucky congressman said Hegseth violated his oath to support and defend the Constitution and failed to ensure that federal laws—particularly those governing the use of military force—were faithfully executed.

“By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable,” Massie said in a statement announcing the resolution.

Three of the articles concern the Iran conflict. They accuse Hegseth of participating in a war that Congress never formally authorized, disregarding congressional resolutions directing the removal of American forces and continuing operations beyond the deadlines established by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

That law generally requires the president to end unauthorized military involvement within 60 days, with up to 30 additional days permitted when necessary for a safe withdrawal.

Massie’s five other articles include allegations concerning civilian-protection laws, maritime strikes against suspected drug traffickers, alleged retaliation against Sen. Mark Kelly, the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and military operations in Yemen. Those accusations remain unproven allegations contained in the impeachment resolution.

The Pentagon responded by defending Hegseth’s performance rather than addressing the war-powers arguments. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told The Hill that Hegseth had strengthened the arsenal, reduced bureaucracy and improved recruitment and morale.

The Trump administration has offered a different legal and factual account of the Iran conflict. In a formal policy statement, the White House said the hostilities that began Feb. 28 ended with an April 7 ceasefire. It argued that Trump retained constitutional authority to defend U.S. forces and counter threats from Iran.

Congress has continued to challenge that position. The House approved war-powers resolutions in June and July directing the president to end unauthorized hostilities, with several Republicans joining Democrats.

The impeachment effort also comes after a bitter Republican primary fight. Hegseth campaigned in Kentucky for Trump-backed former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, who defeated Massie in May. Massie will remain in office until the end of his current term.

Hegseth was already facing a separate impeachment resolution introduced by House Democrats in April. That six-article proposal included allegations involving the Iran conflict, the handling of sensitive information and congressional oversight. The full Democratic resolution is available through official House materials.

Support for Massie’s resolution remains uncertain. Its privileged status, however, ensures that House leaders must respond and that lawmakers may soon be required to take a public position on the effort.

Judge Blocks Kennedy Center’s Latest Attempt to Put Trump’s Name on Building

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Kennedy Center’s latest attempt to place President Donald Trump’s name on the performing arts complex, ruling that the proposal violated both federal law and an earlier court order.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper issued the order less than an hour before the center’s board was scheduled to meet to consider closing the main building for a two-year renovation, ABC News reported.

“The board resolution bucks a federal court order and a statute Congress enacted,” Cooper wrote, according to ABC News.

The ruling concerned a resolution the board approved in August. It called for an inscription on the building’s facade crediting Trump with having “restored and renovated” the center. The board also sought to designate the grounds in front of the building as the President Donald J. Trump Plaza, according to reports.

Cooper rejected the board’s argument that the inscription would recognize Trump’s work on the renovation rather than rename the institution.

“Linguistic gymnastics cannot extricate the Kennedy Center’s Board from an operative judicial order,” the judge wrote, as quoted by ABC News.

Congress Holds the Naming Authority

The dispute centers on the Kennedy Center’s status as a congressionally designated memorial to President John F. Kennedy.

Federal law identifies the center as the sole national memorial to Kennedy in the Washington area and directs its trustees to prevent additional memorials or memorial-style plaques from being installed in the building’s public areas.

Cooper first ruled in May that the board lacked the authority to rename the center without congressional approval. He ordered Trump’s name removed from the exterior after the board had added it in December 2025. The lettering came down in June.

The August resolution attempted a narrower form of recognition. In addition to the facade inscription and plaza name, it contemplated another inscription if a proposed Trump Kennedy Center Fund raised $100 million, according to the AP.

Tuesday’s ruling blocks the facade tribute and the plaza designation. The Wall Street Journal reported that Cooper did not resolve whether a later inscription tied to a fully funded endowment could be permissible.

Closure Fight Continues

The naming dispute is unfolding alongside a separate battle over whether the Kennedy Center should close for renovations.

The board voted 23-3 in August to approve a two-year closure as part of a renovation plan then estimated at $285 million, according to a court filing cited by ABC News. Congress has already allocated $257 million for infrastructure work at the center.

Kennedy Center officials say the aging building has serious water damage, corrosion and other safety problems. A portion of the ceiling in the Grand Foyer fell during a storm earlier this month; no one was injured. The center said the incident showed why extensive repairs are urgent, while opponents of an immediate closure have challenged whether the available engineering reports support declaring the entire building unsafe. Multiple reports indicated that the center’s leadership renewed its call for a shutdown after the ceiling collapse.

Before Tuesday’s meeting, Justice Department attorneys told the court that the board’s agenda would focus exclusively on the proposed closure and would not include additional measures honoring Trump. An email included with the filing said trustees continued to stand by the recognition resolution they adopted in August.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) an ex officio member of the board, brought the lawsuit challenging the naming and closure plans. Her attorneys argued that the proposed tribute defied Cooper’s earlier injunction.

The latest order does not end the broader dispute over the center’s future. Questions about the renovation, the proposed two-year shutdown and the institution’s finances remain before the board and the court. But on the naming issue, Cooper’s conclusion was direct: any new memorial at the Kennedy Center requires Congress to act first.

Trump Turns on His Supreme Court Picks After Mail-Ballot Setback

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
1
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump tore into the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the justices rejected his administration’s emergency push to impose new mail-ballot rules before the Nov. 3 midterm elections — and he made clear that some of his sharpest anger was aimed at the three justices he put on the bench.

“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote in a lengthy Truth Social post, referring to a Court that includes his nominees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He called the justices “merely a shell of their original selves” and accused the Court of being pressured by the political left.

Trump singled out Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — the only two justices who publicly dissented from Monday’s order — as “legends both,” according to the ABC News report provided as the basis for this article.

The outburst followed a major election-year setback, but the ruling was narrower than a final decision striking down the administration’s policy.

In an unsigned, one-paragraph order, the Supreme Court denied the administration’s request to pause a lower-court injunction. The majority said the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” of its challenge and had not shown that the balance of equities favored emergency relief.

The practical result is straightforward: states can continue using their existing mail-ballot procedures for this year’s midterms.

Kavanaugh Breaks With Trump — For Now

Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s three nominees, wrote separately to explain that timing was decisive.

He said there was “at least a fair prospect” that the Postal Service’s final rule fell within the agency’s legal authority. But imposing it during the 2026 elections, he concluded, would be “arbitrary and capricious” because state and local officials did not have enough time to implement it reasonably.

That distinction matters. The Court did not settle every legal question surrounding the rule or permanently bar a future version. It kept the injunction in place for an election already underway in parts of the country.

Alito, joined by Thomas, argued that the administration had made the showing required for a stay. His dissent said the Postal Service has broad power to regulate the mail and blamed the challengers and lower courts for much of the delay that pushed the dispute so close to Election Day.

The Rule Behind the Fight

Trump’s March 31 executive order directed the Postal Service to develop national standards for federal ballot mail. Those standards included official election-mail markings, automation-compatible envelopes, individualized barcodes and Postal Service design review. The plan also called for voters receiving mail ballots to be enrolled through state-specific lists submitted to a federal system.

The Postal Service’s final rule, issued in August, required election officials to submit voter information through a new Federal Ballot Mail Portal. Noncompliant mailings could be rejected and returned to the sending jurisdiction, according to the Supreme Court’s account of the rule.

The administration framed the changes as election-security safeguards. A White House spokesperson told Axios that officials had ample time to prepare and called the requirements “commonsense measures” intended to secure mail voting and prevent ineligible voting.

Opponents — including Democratic-led states, voting-rights groups and election administrators — argued that the president and Postal Service were reaching into powers reserved to Congress and the states while forcing a sweeping operational change only weeks before the election.

That argument has gained traction in more than one courtroom. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, separately found that Congress authorized the Postal Service to handle mail, not to make states enroll voters in a federal portal or refuse ballots that fail the new checks. His Sept. 13 opinion imposed another block on key parts of the rule.

A Familiar Collision With the Court

Trump’s response also reopened a long-running tension between the president and the conservative-majority Court he helped shape. In Tuesday’s post, he broadened his attack beyond mail voting, citing earlier defeats involving tariffs and birthright citizenship. Yet the Court has also delivered major victories for Trump, including its 2024 presidential-immunity ruling.

The mail-ballot fight carries immediate consequences because roughly one-third of voters cast ballots by mail, according to ABC News, and some states have already begun sending ballots.

Trump has long argued that mail voting invites fraud. A 2025 Brookings Institution analysis, drawing on documented cases from four general elections between 2016 and 2022, estimated about four mail-voting fraud cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast. Brookings noted that the underlying Heritage Foundation database was not comprehensive, while arguing that even assumptions designed to inflate the rate still produced a very low figure.

For now, the Court’s order freezes the administration’s overhaul for the 2026 midterms. The broader legal fight over how far the Postal Service may go in regulating ballot mail is not necessarily finished — but Trump’s fury with the justices is already out in the open.

Democrat To Force House-wide Trump Impeachment Vote

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
1

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) is forcing the House to confront another attempt to impeach President Donald Trump, creating a politically sensitive vote for Democrats during Congress’ final legislative stretch before the November midterm elections.

Green designated his impeachment measure, H.Res. 1486, as a privileged resolution on the House floor Monday. That procedural move requires House leaders to address it within two legislative days, meaning action is expected no later than Wednesday.

Republican leaders are not required to permit a direct up-or-down vote on impeachment. They could instead move to table the resolution or refer it to a committee—either of which would effectively halt Green’s effort without the House voting on whether Trump should be impeached.

The resolution accuses Trump of failing to uphold his constitutional oath and describes him as “a great threat to democracy and the Constitution.” It alleges that the president has transformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection into unaccountable forces that operate without adequate oversight.

Green’s resolution specifically names Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero as civilians whose deaths he attributes to unjustified uses of force by federal immigration officers. It further accuses the Trump administration of obstructing investigations and spreading false accounts about the shootings.

Those are Green’s allegations, and the House has not conducted an impeachment inquiry or made formal findings supporting them. The administration has defended its immigration-enforcement operations and disputed Democratic characterizations of the officers’ actions.

“The President is reducing American democracy to an authoritarian regime,” Green said during his Monday floor remarks, according to Deseret News reporting.

In a letter circulated to lawmakers, Green rejected calls to wait until Democrats potentially regain control of the House and can launch investigations.

“How many more lives must we lose?” Green wrote, according to Fox News’ report on the resolution.

Green initially introduced H.Res. 1486 on Aug. 24, when it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. By raising it as privileged Monday, however, he moved the resolution out of the normal committee process and onto the House’s immediate agenda. The official resolution contains one article of impeachment centered on Green’s allegations concerning immigration enforcement, constitutional rights and executive accountability.

Read the full resolution below:

h.res_.1486-rep-al-green-articles-of-impeachment-final-with-signatureDownload

The maneuver has placed House Democrat leaders in an uncomfortable position. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., announced that they would vote “present” on the expected Republican motion to table the resolution.

In a joint statement, the leaders argued that impeachment traditionally requires a comprehensive investigation, document collection, witness testimony and congressional hearings.

“None of that serious work has been done,” they said, while promising to use other congressional tools to investigate the administration if Democrats regain control of the House.

Their position allows Democratic leaders to avoid directly endorsing Green’s resolution while also declining to join Republicans in killing it. It reflects the party’s broader attempt to keep its midterm message focused on living costs and health care rather than another impeachment battle.

Some House Democrats have privately expressed frustration with Green’s timing, according to Axios. Green answered those critics by challenging them to state their objections publicly.

The White House dismissed the resolution. “This is more obstruction from the radical Democrats,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Axios.

Green has repeatedly attempted to impeach Trump, including during both of Trump’s terms in office. In June 2025, Green introduced an impeachment resolution accusing the president of abusing his authority by ordering strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional authorization. The House voted 344–79 to table that measure, with 128 Democrats joining Republicans, according to the official House roll call.

Trump was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Senate both times.

The current push could be among Green’s final major acts in Congress. The 79-year-old lawmaker lost his Democratic primary earlier this year to Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, following redistricting and calls for generational change.

Green has also drawn national attention for protesting Trump during presidential addresses to Congress. He was removed from the chamber after interrupting Trump’s 2025 address and was subsequently censured by the House. He was escorted out again during Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address after displaying a protest sign.

The latest resolution is unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled House. Its more immediate consequence may be political: forcing lawmakers to record their positions on impeachment just weeks before voters decide control of Congress.

For Democrats, the vote highlights the divide between members demanding immediate action against Trump and party leaders who say any future impeachment effort should follow a full investigation. For Republicans, it offers another opportunity to argue that a Democratic House majority would revive impeachment proceedings against the president.

Whatever procedural path Republican leaders choose, Green has ensured that the issue will reach the House floor this week—and that both parties will have to answer for their positions before the midterms.

Mitch McConnell Returns To Senate, Casts First Vote Since June

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
Mitch McConnell via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) returned to the Capitol on Monday, casting his first Senate vote in more than three months after a fall at his Washington home left him hospitalized.

The 84-year-old senator arrived in a wheelchair and briefly addressed reporters outside the Senate chamber.

“Time to get back to work, finish the job of this Congress,” McConnell said, according to The Hill.

McConnell then voted to advance the nomination of Matthew Byrne to serve as a federal judge for the Southern District of Ohio. The cloture motion passed 47-46, according to the official Senate roll call.

His lengthy absence had fueled questions about his health and whether he would return before his term ends in January. McConnell acknowledged that his recovery has been difficult, saying he is “still not quite back to 100 percent” and continues to undergo physical therapy.

The Kentucky Republican said the lingering effects of childhood polio have complicated his recovery, but he has assured Senate Majority Leader John Thune that he will try to attend closely contested votes when Republicans need him.

McConnell also identified the farm bill, NATO and continued support for Ukraine as priorities during his remaining months in office. His return gives Senate Republicans another crucial vote as they attempt to move stalled legislation through closely divided committees.

McConnell has served in the Senate since 1985 and is retiring when his current term concludes in January.

Trump-Backed Republican Makes Unexpected Senate Pledge

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

Republican California gubernatorial nominee Steve Hilton has made an unexpected promise: If elected, he would appoint a Democrat to fill a hypothetical vacancy in one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats.

Hilton, a former Fox News host endorsed by President Donald Trump, made the pledge during an appearance on the liberal “Pod Save America” podcast with host Jon Lovett.

Lovett raised an imagined scenario in which Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff’s seat suddenly became vacant and asked whether Hilton would select another Democrat because California voters had elected Democrats to both Senate seats.

“Yes,” Hilton responded.

When Lovett pressed him to confirm his answer, Hilton said he believed the governor should respect the choice voters had already made.

“I just think you have to honor the vote that people took,” Hilton said, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Hilton’s campaign did not immediately provide the outlet with additional comment.

There is currently no vacancy in California’s Senate delegation, and Schiff has not announced plans to leave office. The Democrat’s current term runs through January 2031, according to the U.S. Senate.

California Law Gives The Governor Broad Authority

Hilton would not be legally required to preserve the departing senator’s party affiliation.

Under California Elections Code Section 10720, the governor may temporarily appoint any qualified California elector to fill a vacant Senate seat until voters choose someone to serve the remainder of the term at a statewide general election.

The statute contains no requirement that the temporary replacement belong to the same political party as the departing senator.

That means a Republican governor could legally appoint a Republican to replace a Democratic senator—or vice versa. Hilton’s promise would therefore represent a voluntary restriction on one of the most consequential appointment powers held by a governor.

For Republicans, the practical consequence is significant. Even if Hilton broke California Democrats’ long hold on the governor’s mansion, his pledge means an unexpected Senate vacancy would not automatically give the GOP an opportunity to alter the balance of power in Washington.

California Has Seen Two Recent Senate Appointments

Senate appointments are more than an obscure constitutional possibility in California. Gov. Gavin Newsom has exercised the power twice since taking office.

In December 2020, Newsom selected then-Secretary of State Alex Padilla to complete Kamala Harris’ Senate term after she was elected vice president. Padilla became California’s first Latino U.S. senator and subsequently won election to a full term.

Newsom used the authority again following Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s death in 2023, appointing EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler to complete the remainder of Feinstein’s term.

Both appointments preserved Democratic control of the seats.

Hilton’s position applies that same party-preservation principle even though he is campaigning as the Republican alternative to years of Democratic control in Sacramento.

Trump Backed Hilton’s Bid

Trump endorsed Hilton in April, describing him as someone who had watched California decline under its current leadership and arguing that the former television host could help restore the state.

Hilton later advanced from California’s June 2 top-two primary and will face Democrat Xavier Becerra in November. Becerra previously served as California attorney general and as Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden. California’s official primary results confirmed Hilton and Becerra as the two gubernatorial finalists.

Hilton is competing in a state where registered Democrats continue to substantially outnumber Republicans. As of May 18, Democrats accounted for 44.9% of California’s registered voters, compared with 24.96% for Republicans. Another 22.82% registered with no party preference, according to the California secretary of state.

The unusual pledge offers voters a clearer picture of how Hilton would approach the office if he manages to win it: Although he is running with Trump’s endorsement, he says he would not use an unexpected Senate vacancy to overturn the partisan choice California voters previously made.

Trump Breaks Silence On Request From Lindsay Clancy Lawyer

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
President Donald Trump answers questions from members of the media aboard Air Force One en route to Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, for a rally on the economy, Tuesday, December 9, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

President Donald Trump is refusing to intervene in the explosive Lindsay Clancy case, telling reporters that the fate of the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children must remain in state hands.

Trump addressed the extraordinary pardon request Sunday after Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, publicly urged the president to get involved following her mistrial.

“It’s a very sad situation,” Trump said. “There is no winner there—there’s no win no matter what you do; three children are dead.”

“It’s actually a state situation, not a federal,” the president added, according to The Daily Wire.

When a reporter asked whether Trump would instead pressure Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz, the president again kept his distance.

“I hope they can work it out,” Trump responded. “That’s something they have to work out. There is no win there.”

Trump also described Reddington as a “good attorney” but stopped short of offering the political intervention the defense lawyer had sought. The president delivered the remarks while leaving Ireland following a two-day visit, according to CBS News Boston.

Lawyer Wanted White House Pressure

Reddington initially appealed directly to Trump during a “Good Morning America” interview after Clancy’s trial ended in a hung jury.

“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.

The request immediately ran into a constitutional roadblock. Clancy is charged with murder under Massachusetts law, while the president’s pardon power applies only to federal offenses.

Pressed about that limitation during a subsequent interview, Reddington acknowledged that Trump could not directly pardon his client. He said his real objective was to persuade the president to exert pressure on Cruz, a fellow Republican.

“Trump would be able to reach out to one of his Department of Justice people, maybe talk to Tim Cruz, and maybe bring some pressure,” Reddington said.

When questioned about asking a president to pressure a local prosecutor, Reddington did not back down.

“I don’t care if Mahatma Gandhi came down and pressured him into doing something,” he said, arguing that he does not believe Clancy’s prosecution is “righteous.”

Trump’s response effectively closed the door on both proposals, leaving any decision about a retrial or negotiated resolution with Massachusetts authorities.

Governor Says She Cannot Issue Pardon Either

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has also addressed the pardon controversy, saying she cannot grant clemency while Clancy’s prosecution remains unresolved.

“I don’t have the authority to pardon,” Healey said. “It’s in the middle of the court case, so there’s no existing conviction.”

That leaves Clancy’s future with the courts and Cruz’s office, which has not announced whether it will pursue a second trial.

Defense Prepares Another Legal Fight

Clancy was charged with three counts of murder in the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter Cora, 3-year-old son Dawson and 8-month-old son Callan at the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023.

She has admitted killing the children but pleaded not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility. Her defense maintained that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and the effects of multiple medications. Prosecutors argued that she acted deliberately and understood what she was doing.

The jury deliberated for approximately a week before Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4. Reddington and several jurors have said the panel was divided 11-1 in favor of acquittal, with the lone holdout allegedly refusing to apply the reasonable-doubt standard as the other jurors understood it.

Reddington now plans to ask Sullivan to block another trial on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing that there was no “manifest necessity” to declare a mistrial. Prosecutors have not yet said whether they will retry Clancy.

Clancy is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29, when the next stage of the bitterly contested case could begin—without help from the White House.

Mullin: Another Terror Attack Is A Matter Of When, Blames Sanctuary Policies For Security Gaps

By
Patrick Houck
-
0
DHSgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned on the 25th anniversary of 9/11 that another terrorist attack remains a question of “when,” while arguing that sanctuary jurisdictions make it harder for federal authorities to protect the country.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned Friday that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack, using a 9/11 anniversary address to argue that sanctuary city policies create dangerous gaps in federal law enforcement.

Speaking at the Department of Homeland Security’s Resilience Plaza in Washington, Mullin credited the department with helping prevent another attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. However, he cautioned that the evolving threat from foreign terrorist groups, domestic extremists, drones, and other emerging tactics makes another attempt a “matter of when.”

Mullin did not identify a specific, imminent plot. His warning came as federal authorities circulated a bulletin saying foreign terrorist organizations continue to encourage attacks in the United States and may use the 25th anniversary of 9/11 to inspire violence or hoax threats.

The bulletin said potential attackers have demonstrated a willingness to act with little or no warning, according to ABC News.

Mullin targets sanctuary jurisdictions

Mullin’s remarks moved from the broader terrorism threat to the administration’s continuing dispute with cities and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“It is tough to sometimes fight, and I’m not trying to get political here, but I will,” Mullin said.

“Sanctuary cities, where they don’t want us to go into, and they’re harboring and abetting activities just like this. They can say it’s for humanitarian purposes, but the truth is, when you become a sanctuary city and you were not supporting law enforcement and you are not allowing law enforcement to do their job, it is a safe haven that incubates terrorist activity.”

Mullin named Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, and Fairfax, Virginia, as jurisdictions where local restrictions can impede federal enforcement.

“And it does not just stay local in Seattle or San Francisco or New York City or Boston, or even Fairfax, Virginia,” he said. “It bleeds into other parts of the country.”

Sanctuary policies generally restrict when local police or jail officials may share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or hold someone beyond a scheduled release based solely on an ICE request. They do not prevent federal agents from enforcing federal immigration law inside those jurisdictions.

Supporters argue the restrictions encourage immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with local police without fearing deportation. The Trump administration contends that the policies allow removable immigrants, including some with violent criminal histories or suspected terrorist connections, to remain in American communities.

Federal bulletin describes changing danger

The security bulletin issued before the anniversary did not specifically attribute the terrorism threat to sanctuary jurisdictions. It warned that overseas terrorist organizations continue to promote attacks and that conflicts in the Middle East could intensify grievances against the United States.

DHS described the country as facing a “heightened and increasingly complex terrorism threat environment.”

“Before 9/11, the primary concern came from centralized international terrorist organizations. Today, those groups remain a threat, but the landscape is broader and more dispersed,” a DHS spokesperson said. “Individuals and small cells now plot attacks independently, often motivated by a range of ideological and political goals.”

ISIS and al Qaeda continue to seek opportunities to conduct or inspire attacks inside the United States, the department said. Domestic terrorists motivated by anti-government beliefs and other causes also remain a concern.

Federal officials said the FBI had arrested at least 16 people during the previous 18 months for allegedly plotting or supporting attacks on behalf of ISIS or al Qaeda.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s 2026 threat assessment estimated that ISIS had as many as 18,000 members worldwide, while al-Qaeda’s broader network included up to 28,000. The groups increasingly rely on digital propaganda to inspire supporters in Western countries where organizing large, centrally directed operations is more difficult.

Drones and artificial intelligence add new concerns

DHS also warned that extremists are experimenting with generative artificial intelligence to produce propaganda and research explosives or biological agents.

“Terrorists are increasingly experimenting with generative AI, not only to create and circulate violent online propaganda, but to explore ways to use explosives and biological agents to conduct attacks,” the department said.

Federal authorities are separately preparing for the possibility that terrorists could use commercially available drones to strike critical infrastructure or interfere with emergency personnel. The United States has not experienced a large-scale terrorist attack involving drones, but the technology has become a central concern for the FBI and DHS.

The immediate anniversary warning did not describe a known plan involving drones, biological weapons, or AI. It instead outlined capabilities that terrorist groups may attempt to exploit.

Debate over federal pressure continues

Mullin has previously proposed withholding federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions and reconsidering federal customs operations at international airports serving cities that resist the administration’s immigration policies.

He said earlier in September that administration officials were examining how federal funding could legally be withheld. Any broad effort to condition grants or withdraw personnel would likely face court challenges and strong opposition from state and local officials.

The administration has also cited recent immigration operations as evidence that federal intervention is needed. During “Operation Rotten Apple,” ICE arrested more than 2,100 people in New York, including individuals with convictions or allegations involving murder, sexual offenses, kidnapping, and drug trafficking, according to a DHS account of the operation.

Mullin’s address connected that immigration dispute to the department’s founding mission after 9/11. His warning did not establish that another attack is imminent, but it underscored the administration’s view that fragmented cooperation between federal and local authorities could leave vulnerabilities as terrorist tactics become more decentralized and difficult to detect.

READ NEXT: UCLA’s 9/11 Event Features Speakers With Radical Records

Vance Fires Back At Mexican Flag-Waving Protester During GOP Speech

By
Patrick Houck
-
2
White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The vice president offered to buy the heckler a plane ticket to Mexico after the troublemaker interrupted his address at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

Vice President JD Vance drew one of the loudest reactions of the Republican midterm convention Thursday after responding to a protester who interrupted his speech while waving a Mexican flag.

The disruption occurred roughly 15 minutes into Vance’s address in Dallas as he discussed what he called Americans’ “birthright” to safe communities, affordable homes, strong families, and economic opportunity.

Vance stopped speaking as the protester, dressed in a purple shirt, waved the flag and shouted from the audience. Other attendees booed and began chanting “USA” as security personnel moved toward the demonstrator.

“What the people at home missed is that we just had a protester interrupting us and waving the Mexican flag,” Vance told the crowd.

“Well, my friend, if you love Mexico so much, get your ass over there,” he continued. “I’ll buy you the plane ticket.”

The crowd erupted in cheers before resuming its “USA” chant. The protester was escorted out of the convention.

Watch: Vance Responds to Mexican Flag-Waving Protester

Vance departs from his prepared speech

Vance continued addressing the incident after security removed the demonstrator, telling the audience that the interruption had prompted him to change his prepared remarks.

“I had a whole speech written, but I think I got to change it because we just discovered the symbol of the far left, an idiot waving an American fla— or a Mexican flag at a protest when he should be waving the flag of the United States of America,” Vance said.

He then argued that the protester would prefer living in an American city to moving to Mexico.

“Now, we all know, of course, that as much as that person might wave around a foreign flag, he’d much rather live in Dallas or in Cincinnati or in any one of our great cities than Mexico,” Vance said.

The brief confrontation became the most prominent unscripted moment of the vice president’s address and drew wider attention than many of the policy arguments contained in the speech.

The official broadcast did not clearly show the protester, but videos recorded inside the arena captured portions of the disruption and the crowd’s response.

Speech centered on family and national identity

Vance’s speech focused heavily on family formation, economic security, immigration, education, crime, and American national identity.

The vice president said every American child should inherit the benefits of citizenship regardless of the identity or background of his or her parents.

“I believe that our founders built this nation on a promise that echoes our creator, that every American child is born an heir, is born with a birthright, born with the right to inherit the blessings of the greatest country on earth, not because of who their parents are, not because of what they look like or where they come from, but because they are Americans, and this is our country,” Vance said.

The address also included a personal tribute to Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist assassinated one year earlier. Vance described Kirk as a close friend, praised his commitment to family life, and addressed remarks to Kirk’s young children.

Vance connected that discussion to the recent birth of his fourth child with second lady Usha Vance. He said becoming a father again had sharpened his focus on what the administration should deliver for American families.

The vice president called for schools that emphasize reading, writing, arithmetic, and patriotism. He also cited public safety, employment, housing costs, religious liberty, and parental authority as central concerns heading into the November midterm elections.

Republicans urged to remain united

Vance used the second half of the address to contrast the Trump administration’s record with Democratic policies and to encourage Republicans to remain engaged even when they disagree with the White House.

He pointed to Kirk as an example of a conservative who remained active in Republican politics despite holding differences with the administration, particularly over foreign military involvement.

“I’m not asking anybody to agree with me on every single issue,” Vance said. “What I am asking you to do is to recognize the contrast with the radicals and recognize the achievements of the last 18 months.”

The vice president also criticized several Democratic candidates by name, including Texas Senate nominee James Talarico and Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed. His broader argument was that the midterms represented a contest over family, immigration, economic policy, and national culture.

At one point, attendees again chanted Vance’s name, prompting him to deflect speculation about his political future.

“We gotta take care of business this November, then we’ll worry about what comes next,” Vance said.

The remark came as Vance continues to be discussed as a possible contender for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination. He did not announce a campaign or directly address whether he intends to run.

Convention turns toward November

Vance spoke on the second and final day of the Dallas gathering, which brought together Republican officials, candidates, activists, and voters ahead of the November elections.

President Donald Trump later closed the convention after delivering a much longer address the previous day. Speakers repeatedly warned that Democratic control of Congress could halt the administration’s agenda and expose administration officials to investigations.

For Vance, the protester’s interruption offered an unexpected opportunity to reinforce the patriotic and immigration themes running through his speech. His promise of a plane ticket lasted only seconds, but the audience’s response made it one of the convention’s defining moments.

READ NEXT: Houthis Tighten Their Grip On The Gateway To The Red Sea

Democrats Prepare Hegseth Investigations If They Win Congress

By
Patrick Houck
-
1
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

Democratic lawmakers are considering hearings, subpoenas, and renewed impeachment proceedings involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but their ability to act would depend on winning at least one chamber in November.

Congressional Democrats are preparing an aggressive campaign of investigations into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if they win control of Congress in November, according to a new report detailing plans for hearings, document demands, and possible subpoenas.

The proposed inquiries would reportedly examine the war with Iran, allegations involving civilian casualties and the laws of armed conflict, Pentagon contracts, the removal of senior military officers, internal leak investigations, and Hegseth’s handling of sensitive operational information.

Some House Democrats have already moved beyond oversight demands. In April, a group of lawmakers introduced six articles of impeachment against Hegseth, although the effort has little chance of advancing while Republicans control the chamber.

The discussions remain contingent plans, not scheduled proceedings. Democrats would need to capture the House, the Senate, or both in the Nov. 3 elections before they could control committee agendas and pursue the full range of investigative actions under consideration.

Hearings and subpoenas under consideration

Democrats are considering a “blitz” of public hearings and inquiries if they gain congressional power, according to Politico reporting.

Winning the House would allow Democrats to select committee chairmen, schedule hearings, demand documents, and issue subpoenas, subject to House and committee rules. Committees could call Hegseth and other Pentagon officials to testify about military operations, personnel decisions, procurement, and the department’s compliance with congressional oversight requests.

Control of the Senate would provide separate investigative authority through committees including Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators would also oversee Pentagon nominations and could use confirmation proceedings to press administration officials for information.

Executive branch officials can assert privileges, challenge congressional demands, negotiate the scope of requests, or fight them in court. Such disputes can continue for months or years, limiting the immediate effect of an investigation.

Existing impeachment articles outline Democrats’ case

Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April with support from several other House Democrats.

According to the seven-page resolution, the articles accuse Hegseth of:

  • Participating in an unauthorized war against Iran and recklessly endangering U.S. service members;
  • Violating the law of armed conflict and permitting attacks that caused civilian casualties;
  • Mishandling sensitive military information;
  • Obstructing congressional oversight;
  • Abusing his authority and politicizing the military; and
  • Engaging in conduct the sponsors contend brought disrepute upon the United States and its armed forces.

The Pentagon dismissed the effort when the articles were introduced.

“This is just another Democrat trying to make headlines as the Department of War decisively and overwhelmingly achieved the Presidents’ objectives in Iran,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said.

“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson added. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

Iran and Pentagon leadership take center stage

The Iran war would likely become one of the largest components of any Democratic-led investigation.

The impeachment resolution cites a Feb. 28 bombing of a girls’ school in Iran that killed 168 people. A preliminary U.S. assessment reportedly concluded that American forces were “likely” responsible but did not intentionally target the school and may have struck it by mistake. Any congressional investigation would be expected to examine targeting procedures, intelligence assessments, command decisions, and the administration’s legal justification for military operations.

Democrats also want to examine allegations involving other military strikes and determine whether U.S. forces complied with the law of armed conflict. The Pentagon has disputed accusations that its operations deliberately targeted civilians.

Personnel decisions present another point of conflict. Democrats have criticized Hegseth over the removal of senior officers and what they describe as the politicization of military leadership. The administration has defended personnel changes as necessary to restore accountability, readiness, and a focus on combat effectiveness.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) recently said lawmakers had not received a briefing on a Pentagon investigation into leaks concerning U.S. weapons stockpiles. Crow, a member of both the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, accused Hegseth of creating “an environment of fear.”

“Certainly, stopping leaks and protecting classified information is really important, and I would always support that,” Crow said. “The problem is the broader context that Pete Hegseth has created here.”

Pentagon officials said the investigation did not subject every senior military leader to polygraph examinations and that no one failed the tests.

Impeachment would face a much higher barrier

A Democratic House could revive the existing articles, introduce new charges, or conduct hearings before deciding whether to proceed. Impeachment requires only a majority vote in the House.

Removing Hegseth from office would be far more difficult. The Senate would have to hold a trial, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. Unless Democrats won an overwhelming Senate majority, removal would require substantial Republican support.

Only two Cabinet officials have been impeached. Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876 but acquitted by the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the Republican-controlled House in 2024, but the Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the charges without conducting a full trial.

For that reason, hearings and subpoenas are substantially more plausible than Hegseth’s removal. Democratic control of even one chamber could subject the Pentagon to sustained public scrutiny, but impeachment would remain only the first step in a much more demanding constitutional process.

The November elections will determine whether the plans move from private discussions and minority-party demands to formal congressional investigations. Until then, Democrats can request records and introduce resolutions, but Republicans retain control over whether the House and Senate put Hegseth under the level of scrutiny his critics are promising.

READ NEXT: Iran Quietly Restarts Ballistic Missile Production Underground

123...348Page 1 of 348
© Great America News Desk 2022