Latest

    Government

    Home Government

    Trump And Vance Just Put A Price On Exposing Government Fraud

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    President Donald Trump has a new pitch for Americans who know where taxpayer money is being stolen: Turn in the fraudsters — and collect a cut.

    Trump and Vice President JD Vance announced a $25 million whistleblower incentive program Tuesday, adding a financial reward to the administration’s campaign against fraud in federal programs.

    The idea is straightforward: Give people with inside information a reason to come forward before more taxpayer dollars disappear.

    “If anybody turns anybody in… you get a 1 percent commission, and I think that will be amazing, because the kind of money that’s been stolen is trillions from this country,” Trump said in the Oval Office, according to The Hill.

    The Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program will offer eligible tipsters up to $30,000 for information leading to a successful fraud conviction or a significant federal enforcement action. The Justice Department will administer the initiative, WFXB reported.

    Trump said Americans can submit tips through fraud.gov. He also said he would personally resolve competing claims to rewards through binding arbitration.

    “In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving…and I will be very generous,” he said, according to The Hill.

    A Reward For Speaking Up

    Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley joined Trump and Vance for the announcement after drawing national attention with videos investigating suspected childcare fraud in Minnesota.

    Fox News reported that Shirley would receive $10,000.

    The program expands the work of Vance’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, which Trump established in March. Its responsibilities include improving eligibility checks, disrupting fraud networks and preventing improper payments before federal money goes out the door.

    “The president has said it must stop,” Vance said of fraud, according to The Hill. “It is stopping, and if you want to help us stop it, you get to share in the rewards now, thanks to what the president of the United States has done.”

    Billions At Stake — And Concrete Results

    The scale of the problem makes a stronger response overdue.

    A Government Accountability Office study estimated annual federal fraud losses of $233 billion to $521 billion, using fiscal 2018–2022 data. That estimate predates the new program and underscores how much taxpayer money is at risk.

    The administration’s enforcement record already includes substantial seizures and blocked payments.

    In June 2025, the Justice Department announced its largest healthcare fraud takedown: charges against 324 defendants tied to schemes involving more than $14.6 billion in alleged intended losses.

    Authorities seized more than $245 million in cash and other assets. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also reported preventing more than $4 billion in false and fraudulent claims from being paid and suspending or revoking 205 providers’ billing privileges.

    Those figures represent different results: alleged attempted fraud, assets seized and payments blocked — rather than $14.6 billion recovered.

    Federal prosecutors have also secured serious punishment in Minnesota’s long-running Feeding Our Future case.

    In May, the Justice Department announced a 500-month prison sentence for nonprofit founder Aimee Bock over her leading role in a $250 million scheme exploiting a federally funded child nutrition program. Prosecutors proved that participants used fabricated meal counts and attendance records to obtain money intended to feed children.

    The new whistleblower program gives that enforcement effort another potential source of evidence: people who see the cheating firsthand.

    Rewarding credible information that produces results is a welcome step toward protecting taxpayers — and the Americans who actually depend on those programs.

    Trump Publicly Rebukes His China Ambassador Over Stunning Xi Weapons Claim

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    President Donald Trump poured cold water on a remarkable account from his own ambassador to China, saying he never discussed selling American weapons to Chinese President Xi Jinping and suggesting the envoy had confused China with Taiwan.

    U.S. Ambassador David Perdue made the claim Sunday on Fox News Sunday while defending the administration’s approach to arms sales to Taiwan. Perdue said Trump had explained to Xi that the United States sells arms around the world, then added: “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some, at one point.” Perdue did not say when the purported exchange happened or describe Xi’s response.

    Trump appeared caught off guard when a reporter raised the account at the White House on Monday.

    “To China? You mean to Taiwan?” the president asked. After the reporter clarified, Trump replied, “I never heard of that one. I’m going to have to ask him.”

    Watch:

    Trump said China would probably want American equipment because, in his view, the United States makes better weapons. He briefly mused that selling them might be a good idea, but then rejected Perdue’s account: “We didn’t discuss that.” He suggested Perdue had been referring to Taiwan.

    State Department Draws a Hard Line

    The public contradiction followed a blunt response from the State Department. “U.S. law prohibits arms sales to China and there is no offer or plan to sell arms to China,” the department said in a statement to ABC News. A U.S. official separately told the outlet the government had no plans for such a sale.

    Federal defense export rules list China among countries subject to a policy of denying approvals for defense articles and services. That makes Perdue’s account striking even as Trump insists the conversation never occurred.

    Perdue’s comment arose from a different, long-running dispute: U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island China claims as its territory. Fox host Shannon Bream pressed the ambassador about concerns that arms deliveries or approvals for Taiwan had been delayed to avoid angering Beijing. Perdue rejected the suggestion that Trump was abandoning Taiwan, saying the president remained strong on its defense and that the two leaders had discussed future arms sales to the island.

    The White House’s summary of Xi’s state visit described talks on trade, Iran, strategic stability and trilateral arms control. It did not announce any proposed sale of American weapons to China.

    For now, the ambassador’s account and the president’s account remain at odds. Trump said he would ask Perdue about the remark. Neither man has publicly explained what Perdue was referring to, while the State Department says an arms offer to China is off the table.

    Supreme Court Hands Trump A Major Election-Year Win

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant victory Friday, clearing the way for his administration to revive an expanded federal database that states can use to check voters’ citizenship ahead of the November midterms.

    In a 6–3 order, the justices paused a lower court ruling that had shut down the administration’s overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE. The move allows the Department of Homeland Security to operate the expanded system while the legal fight continues.

    The decision gives Trump a boost in his push to tighten voter eligibility checks. It does not authorize a broad, last-minute purge of voter rolls, and the Court has yet to issue a final ruling on the program’s legality.

    What the ruling changes

    SAVE dates to 1986 and originally drew mainly on immigration records. Following a March 2025 executive order, the administration connected it to Social Security Administration records and added the ability to search multiple names at once. State and local election officials can use the expanded system to check whether people registering or already on voter rolls are citizens.

    The League of Women Voters, several affiliates and a privacy group challenged those changes. A federal district judge in Washington set aside the overhaul in June, finding violations of the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. A divided federal appeals court then refused to put that ruling on hold.

    The Supreme Court took a different view. Its unsigned majority opinion said federal law likely permits the information sharing at issue and that the government would be harmed if it could not use the system it considers best suited to helping states verify citizenship. As ABC News reported, the ruling lifts the lower court’s block for now.

    Federal law requires states to finish programs designed to systematically remove ineligible voters at least 90 days before a federal election. The majority acknowledged that the rule limits the immediate effect of its decision, but said election officials may still make individualized inquiries during that period. The Court left for a separate case the question of how the 90-day rule applies to programs targeting noncitizens.

    A sharp dissent

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, warned that outdated citizenship information could put eligible voters at risk. The majority itself noted the case of a naturalized citizen whose Social Security records did not accurately reflect her citizenship, though it concluded the challengers’ legal claims were unlikely to succeed.

    The administration argues the expanded tool helps states identify ineligible registrations. In its Supreme Court filing, it said the system had confirmed more than 65 million voters as citizens across 26 states and flagged 28,635 potential noncitizens. That latter figure is not a count of proven illegal votes. ABC News has reported that documented noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare.

    Trump’s Arch Plan Pushes Ahead After Preservation Talks Break Down

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Reflecting Pool

    President Donald Trump’s planned triumphal arch has hit a new stage in its fight with preservation officials: A federal council is ending talks aimed at resolving objections to the 250-foot monument near Arlington National Cemetery.

    The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation told the National Park Service Thursday that it was “terminating consultation” under the National Historic Preservation Act. The move follows months of disagreement over the arch’s effect on historic views around Memorial Circle, Arlington Memorial Bridge and the approach to the cemetery.

    That does not give the project final approval. The council plans to send advisory comments to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum by October 7. Burgum must consider and respond to them before making a final decision under this preservation review. The public and consulting parties have until September 29 to submit their views.

    A fight over historic views

    The Park Service identified 42 historic properties that could be affected by the project, including six National Historic Landmarks. Its assessment found that the arch would have adverse effects on historic settings and sightlines by adding a prominent structure to the commemorative landscape.

    In the council’s letter, the Park Service said further talks on the existing proposal were unlikely to produce an agreement. It also said alternatives that would avoid or reduce the adverse effects would change the project’s fundamental nature and prevent it from meeting its goals.

    Virginia officials pushed back. In a letter described by ABC News, state preservation official Samantha Henderson argued that the proposed measures would “further highlight how this undertaking has marred rather than added to these spaces.” She said public and local-government concerns had not been directly addressed in a way that showed an effort to reach agreement.

    The administration says the arch would celebrate American triumphs and beautify the capital. Opponents argue that its scale would overwhelm the solemn route between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The proposed site is Memorial Circle on Columbia Island, at the Washington, D.C., end of Arlington Memorial Bridge.

    Trump adds a military twist

    Trump has also given the project a new purpose. In a Sunday Truth Social post, he said that “at the strong request of the United States Military” he had agreed to turn the arch into a “top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch.” He said it would hold drones, provide positions for snipers and store sniper ammunition. The Pentagon declined to comment when ABC News asked about the announcement.

    The National Capital Planning Commission approved preliminary site and building plans in July. It requested more information about the arch’s height, traffic effects and aviation-related lighting before final review. That final approval has yet to be granted.

    The preservation dispute now moves from negotiations toward a decision at Interior.

    Letitia James’ DOGE Lawsuit Against Trump Ends in Courtroom Defeat

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    New York Attorney General Letitia James took President Donald Trump to court over his DOGE team’s access to sensitive Treasury systems. This week, the judge closed the case — and James’s coalition walked away without the lasting order it sought.

    U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed the 19-state lawsuit Wednesday, finding that the states’ challenge to DOGE personnel accessing Treasury data had become moot. The executive order that created the temporary DOGE organization expired July 4, and the Treasury DOGE team has since disbanded.

    “There is no longer any action to enjoin,” Vargas wrote. She also rejected the states’ remaining claims over a system designed to flag federal payments for further review. Their complaint did not identify a specific payment owed to a state that the process had frozen or canceled.

    For James, a longtime Trump adversary, it was a sharp turn from the early days of the case. When she and 18 other attorneys general filed suit in February 2025, James accused the administration of giving DOGE improper access to the federal payment system and warned that the team could interfere with funds for state programs.

    At the time, she declared that Trump “does not have the power to give away Americans’ private information to anyone he chooses.” Her office celebrated an early court order restricting DOGE access as a “swift victory.”

    An early win that did not settle the fight

    James did win a preliminary injunction in February 2025. Vargas initially barred the Treasury DOGE team from Bureau of the Fiscal Service systems, which handle federal payments and hold sensitive financial data. The judge said the administration’s hurried process for granting access was likely arbitrary and capricious and raised serious security concerns.

    But the restrictions changed as the administration supplied details about vetting, training and safeguards. In May 2025, Vargas allowed DOGE-affiliated Treasury personnel to access the systems if they followed the specified procedures. This week’s ruling ended the broader case altogether.

    The judge did not rule that DOGE’s original access was lawful. She found that the access dispute no longer presented a live controversy because the team and its governing executive order had expired. Vargas noted that two former DOGE team members still work at Treasury in other roles, but the DOGE reporting structure no longer exists.

    The states’ separate argument about an automated payment-review process survived that mootness question, only to fail on the allegations in their complaint. A system that flags payments for review, Vargas wrote, does not by itself establish that the administration unlawfully withheld money Congress appropriated. The states had not identified a payment to them that the system actually paused.

    Tucker Carlson Calls on Trump’s Cabinet to Remove Him Under 25th Amendment

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    9
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Tucker Carlson’s break with President Donald Trump has reached a startling new point: The former Fox News host says Trump’s own Cabinet should have moved to strip him of presidential power over his threats against Iran.

    In a Thursday interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, Carlson argued that Trump’s rhetoric about the war warranted action under the 25th Amendment. It was an extraordinary demand from a commentator who once championed Trump and spoke on his behalf at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

    “He should have been removed from office by his own Cabinet secretaries the moment he threatened a nuclear attack,” Carlson said, according to Mediaite’s account of the interview.

    When Inskeep asked whether he meant the 25th Amendment, Carlson confirmed it. He also described Trump’s remarks as a threat of a first-use nuclear strike. That is Carlson’s characterization: Trump’s quoted warning about Iran did not explicitly say he would use nuclear weapons.

    The Iran warning behind the rupture

    In his address to the United Nations on Tuesday, Trump presented Iran with a choice between a deal and possible destruction, asking whether he should “annihilate the Islamic Republic.” Mediaite quoted the fuller passage. The White House’s summary of the address emphasized his pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and cast his approach as a show of American strength.

    Carlson sees the war in sharply different terms. NPR reported that he questioned whether Trump had made the decision to begin it independently and alleged that Israel had effectively forced his hand. Those are Carlson’s assertions, not established facts. NPR said the White House, asked to comment, instead pointed to a Trump social media post attacking Carlson and others who oppose his Iran policy.

    The public split carries political weight because Carlson was once among Trump’s most prominent defenders on the right. His call now goes beyond criticizing a military decision: He wants senior officials inside the administration to act against the president.

    What the 25th Amendment would require

    Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet’s principal officers to declare in writing that a president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. The vice president would then become acting president. If the president contested the declaration and the officials persisted, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to agree for the vice president to continue acting in that role.

    The provision is a process for presidential inability, not a finding of criminal guilt or a substitute for impeachment. Carlson’s accusation that Trump’s words constituted a crime does not, on its own, trigger it.

    For now, Carlson’s remarks underscore how far one of Trump’s best-known former allies has moved over Iran. The unanswered question is whether his appeal resonates with anyone in an administration whose participation the constitutional process would require.

    South Korean President Presses Trump To Ease North Korea Sanctions

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    South Korean President Lee Jae Myung is publicly pressing President Donald Trump to consider easing sanctions on North Korea — a high-stakes gamble aimed at stopping Kim Jong Un from adding more nuclear weapons to his growing arsenal.

    Lee argued that demanding complete denuclearization before offering Pyongyang anything in return has produced a dangerous stalemate. In an interview with The New York Times, he proposed trading some sanctions relief for a verified halt to North Korea’s development of additional nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile technology, The Hill reported.

    “Aiming for denuclearization under the current circumstances guarantees that nothing will be accomplished,” Lee told the Times.

    The South Korean leader said a freeze could open the door to reciprocal concessions, build trust and eventually persuade the North to begin reducing its stockpile. His pitch amounts to a phased approach: stop the growth of the arsenal first, then seek reductions and, ultimately, dismantlement.

    But it would also require Trump to decide whether sanctions relief could bring Kim back to the negotiating table — or merely reward a regime that has repeatedly advanced its weapons programs while talks remained frozen.

    Lee Warns The Clock Is Ticking

    Lee framed the proposal as a response to an increasingly urgent threat. He said South Korean estimates indicate North Korea may now be able to produce an additional 10 to 20 nuclear weapons each year.

    “Once it believes it has accumulated enough nuclear weapons and missiles to guarantee its survival, it will be tempted to export them to make money,” Lee told the Times. “That will be a truly dangerous moment.”

    The warning comes as Pyongyang continues to demonstrate new military capabilities. North Korea said this week that it tested a new hypersonic weapon designed to maneuver at low altitude and evade missile defenses, according to the Financial Times. The test added fresh pressure to diplomatic efforts by both Trump and Lee.

    Kim has also hardened his public position. Earlier this year, he described North Korea’s nuclear force as an “irreversible” shield and tied it directly to the regime’s survival, the Financial Times reported. Pyongyang has meanwhile drawn closer to Russia and China, giving it economic and diplomatic alternatives that could blunt Washington’s leverage.

    Trump’s Personal Diplomacy Faces A New Test

    Trump met Kim three times during his first term, including summits in Singapore and Hanoi and a meeting at the Korean Demilitarized Zone. The diplomacy produced dramatic images and an exchange of personal letters, but it did not deliver a lasting agreement to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program.

    Trump has nevertheless signaled that he remains open to another meeting. Lee has embraced that possibility, saying earlier this month that South Korea should help create the conditions for renewed U.S.-North Korea talks. He credited Trump’s outreach with creating “at least some possibility for a change” on the peninsula, according to The Korea Herald.

    Trump also ordered the annual U.S.-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercise shortened in August, a move intended to reduce hostility and encourage diplomacy. North Korea did not respond by returning to talks and instead continued weapons tests and public criticism of the United States.

    That history underscores the central risk in Lee’s proposal: sanctions could be relaxed before the United States has proof that Kim intends to move beyond a temporary freeze. Supporters of a phased deal argue that waiting for an all-at-once surrender allows the arsenal to grow unchecked. Skeptics warn that Pyongyang could pocket concessions, preserve its existing weapons and later abandon negotiations.

    Washington And Seoul Still Demand Denuclearization

    Lee’s push does not formally abandon the goal of a nuclear-free North Korea. His government describes the freeze as the first stage of a longer process, not the final destination.

    That distinction was reinforced Monday, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan in reaffirming their “resolute commitment” to the complete denuclearization of North Korea. The three governments also called on Pyongyang to resume dialogue and backed continued efforts to block revenue supporting its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, according to Yonhap News Agency.

    The result leaves Trump with a difficult choice. He can maintain maximum pressure in pursuit of complete denuclearization, or test Lee’s argument that a smaller interim deal is the only realistic way to stop North Korea’s arsenal from becoming even more dangerous.

    For now, Kim has offered no sign that he is prepared to accept either path.

    Massie Launches Eight-Count Impeachment Effort Against Pete Hegseth

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    6
    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.

    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

    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...20Page 1 of 20
    © Great America News Desk 2022