Government

Home Government

Greene Questions Details Of Trump Assassination Attempt

Marjorie Taylor Greene -Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, via Wikimedia Commons

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the 2024 assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, adding to growing debate within fringe circles over the incident.

Greene suggested in comments and social media posts that aspects of the shooting remain unclear, pointing to what she described as unanswered questions about how the attack unfolded and how security failures occurred.

Her remarks come despite official investigations concluding that the incident involved a lone gunman who opened fire at a campaign rally, grazing Trump’s ear before being killed by law enforcement.

As Mediaite reports:

Authorities identified 20-year-old Thomas Crooks as the sole shooter in the incident that injured Trump and two others. 50-year-old rally-goer Corey Comperatore, who was seated behind Trump, was killed, and Crooks was killed by authorities.

Since then, some MAGA stalwarts have joined other critics in calling for detailed information on the investigation into the shooting.

Greene retweeted a lengthy post by Trisha Hope, a self-described “J6 Activist,” in which she questioned the shooting and the legitimacy of the famous photo of a bloodied Trump with his fist in the air yelling, “Fight, fight, fight!”

Greene called Hope’s post an “Extremely important post worth the read and consideration.”

While Greene has amplified claims circulating online that question whether the full details of the incident have been disclosed, no evidence has been presented to support those theories.

Her remarks reflect a broader pattern among some political figures and commentators, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who have expressed skepticism about the investigation’s findings.

Authorities have described the Butler shooting as a targeted assassination attempt carried out by a single attacker. The incident resulted in Trump being injured and at least one rally attendee killed, prompting a large-scale federal investigation involving the FBI and other agencies.

Subsequent congressional hearings also examined security lapses that allowed the shooter to access the rally site, with bipartisan calls for greater transparency and accountability from the Secret Service.

There is no indication from federal authorities that the official conclusions of the investigation are being reconsidered.

However, the renewed attention on the Butler incident suggests it will remain a subject of political debate as the 2026 election cycle continues.

READ NEXT: House Dems Make Shameless Move Against Key Trump Official

Smartmatic Execs Accused Of Bribery Scheme Tied To $300M LA Voting Contract

Federal prosecutors in Miami say top Smartmatic executives funneled money from a $300 million Los Angeles County voting contract into an illegal slush fund.

According to the Justice Department, Smartmatic co-founder Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez and two others used shell companies and fake invoices to siphon off cash from the taxpayer-funded deal. That money allegedly ended up in bribes paid to government officials in Venezuela and the Philippines.

Joe DePaolo of Mediaite offers further insights:

Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion — alleging the network defamed them by promoting President Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election in the days and weeks after the 2020 vote.

The new filing is part of a corruption case in Florida against the three Smartmatic executives for allegedly operating a bribery and money-laundering scheme in which they are accused of paying off an election official in the Philippines to help secure $182 million in contracts. The DOJ also claims the executives carried a similar plot with a Venezuelan official — whom the executives gave a home with a pool in 2019, according to prosecutors.

The DOJ hasn’t charged Smartmatic as a company, nor has it accused any L.A. County officials of wrongdoing. Still, the department is clearly using the L.A. contract to establish a pattern of corrupt practices tied to the voting tech firm.

DePaolo continues:

Notably, the original case against the Smartmatic executives was brought in August 2024, during the final months of the Biden administration.

In a statement provided to the Los Angeles Times, Smartmatic spokesperson Samira Saba said the DOJ’s filing contained misrepresentations that were “untethered from reality.”

The DOJ’s latest move builds on earlier charges against the same executives. Federal prosecutors had previously accused Piñate of laundering money through a similar slush fund to bribe election officials in the Philippines during the 2016 elections.

To be clear, no one is alleging votes were tampered with or election results altered. The charges focus strictly on financial corruption — kickbacks, shell firms, and international bribery.

READ NEXT: Former Trump Ally Issues Fiery Response To Shock Report

Former White House Chief of Staff Seeks Reimbursement From DOJ For Legal Fees From Trump-related Probes

3
Office of Congressman Mark Meadows, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Mark Meadows is asking the Justice Department to cover his mounting legal bills tied to the wave of Trump-era investigations — and it could ultimately leave taxpayers on the hook.

The former White House chief of staff, a central figure in President Trump’s post-2020 election fight, quietly submitted the request earlier this year. It comes as the DOJ is already juggling a flood of claims tied to Trump, including lawsuits from the former president himself and even Jan. 6 defendants seeking payouts.

Meadows was never charged in Jack Smith’s federal case, but he was swept up in aggressive state prosecutions in Georgia and Arizona over the so-called “fake electors” effort. Trump later pardoned him, and Georgia prosecutors dropped their case — but Arizona remains unresolved.

Now comes the price tag…

Court filings show Meadows has already spent well over $2 million on lawyers, including big-name firms and a former top DOJ appellate attorney. Some of those costs were reportedly covered by a conservative nonprofit, raising fresh scrutiny from watchdog groups.

His pitch to DOJ hinges on a key argument: he was acting in his official role at the time — meaning the government should help foot the bill.

That’s far from guaranteed.

Justice Department rules allow reimbursement in limited cases, but officials weigh factors like whether the actions served the “interest of the United States.” Translation: not every political fight qualifies.

Meanwhile, Meadows is also trying to claw back legal costs in Georgia under a new state law — part of a broader push by multiple defendants seeking more than $17 million combined. That effort is now tied up in court.

The bottom line:
A top Trump ally is asking Washington to pay for the legal fallout of one of the most controversial chapters in modern politics — and whether taxpayers will actually be forced to cover it remains an open question.

Judge Blocks Fani Willis From Fighting Multi-Million Legal Fee Demand In Trump Case

0
Image via Pixabay free images

A Fulton County, Georgia, judge ruled Monday that District Attorney Fani Willis cannot participate in a legal dispute over President Donald Trump and his co-defendants’ efforts to recover millions of dollars in legal fees from her failed racketeering case against them.

In an order issued Monday, Judge Scott McAfee said that because Willis had already been “wholly disqualified” from the prosecution, she could not take part in the dispute over approximately $16.8 million in legal fees sought by Trump and the other defendants. Earlier this year, Trump requested that Willis’ office reimburse him more than $6.2 million in attorney fees and related costs.

McAfee’s ruling marks another victory for Trump in his long-running conflict with Willis, whom he previously described as a “rabid partisan” engaged in a “witch hunt” during the prosecution.

The defendants—who were originally charged by Willis with conspiring to illegally overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia—are seeking reimbursement under a state law passed in 2025. The law allows defendants to recover legal fees in cases where prosecutors are disqualified.

In his ruling, McAfee noted that Fulton County itself could become involved in the matter, since any reimbursement would come from the county’s budget. However, Willis’ attorneys argued in court filings that she should still be allowed to participate in the proceedings.

“Without intervention by the District Attorney, any award would violate basic fundamental notions of due process by denying her an opportunity to be heard or even challenge the reasonableness of the claimed attorney fees before it is taken from her budget,” the lawyers wrote.

Trump’s lead attorney, Steve Sadow, praised the decision in a statement.

“Judge McAfee has properly denied DA Willis’ motion to intervene in POTUS’ action for reimbursement of attorney fees because her disqualification for improper conduct bars Willis and her office from any further participation in this dismissed, lawfare case,” Sadow said.

Willis originally brought a sweeping Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) case against Trump and 18 co-defendants in August 2023. Prosecutors alleged that the group conspired to interfere with Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results. Over time, however, the case narrowed significantly due to plea deals and the dismissal of several charges.

The most significant setback for the prosecution came in 2024, when the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis from the case. The court determined that an undisclosed romantic relationship between Willis and her lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, created a conflict of interest.

Following her disqualification, responsibility for the case shifted to the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council. The council’s director, Peter Skandalakis, ultimately moved to dismiss the case, and McAfee approved the request.

“In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years,” Skandalakis said.

READ NEXT: Megyn Kelly Blasts Lindsey Graham After Senator Threatens 4 Countries In 24 Hours

GOP Congressman Floats Prospect Of Contempt Charges For Pam Bondi

4
Image via Pixabay

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) suggested this week that holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt remains an option as Congress presses the Justice Department over its handling of the long-awaited Epstein files.

Massie, who helped author legislation requiring the release of government records tied to convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein, said lawmakers are still not receiving full access to unredacted documents — despite the deadline set by Congress.

Appearing Tuesday on CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Massie accused the Justice Department of failing to deliver what the law requires and raised concerns that redactions appear inconsistent and unjustified.

“We have not had access to totally unredacted files,” Massie said, adding that names such as Epstein associate and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner have been blacked out “for no apparent reason.”

Massie said the DOJ’s refusal to acknowledge gaps in its production makes it difficult for Congress — and the public — to trust that the full truth is being released.

“If they’ll admit that they’re making mistakes and that their document production is not done, I could trust them,” Massie said. “But I can’t trust them if they say… this is it, there’s no more.”

The Kentucky Republican noted he would have limited time to question Bondi when she appeared Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, warning that stronger measures could follow if answers are not forthcoming.

Massie first raised the possibility of using Congress’s “inherent contempt” powers against Bondi in a weekend interview, calling it the most direct way to force compliance.

“The quickest way… to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” he said.

Still, Massie acknowledged the challenge of pursuing contempt charges against the nation’s top law enforcement official, noting that referrals often run through the same department under scrutiny.

“You know, it’s hard to refer a contempt charge… on an attorney general to the attorney general,” Massie said. “This is the problem that you run into.”

Instead, he suggested Congress may need to compel testimony from individuals named in the documents, similar to efforts already underway by the House Oversight Committee.

Bondi’s appearance on Wednesday quickly turned tense as Democrats confronted her over the Justice Department’s redaction process — particularly allegations that some victims’ identities were improperly exposed while other information, including references to powerful individuals, was withheld.

Watch:

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pressed Bondi to apologize directly to Epstein survivors seated in the hearing room, accusing the DOJ of mishandling sensitive records.

Bondi declined to issue a direct apology for the department’s release process, offering general sympathy for victims but defending the DOJ’s actions. The exchange escalated into a sharp back-and-forth, with Bondi accusing Jayapal of engaging in “theatrics.”

Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) struggled to bring the room back to order as lawmakers debated whether the Justice Department has been transparent — or selective — in what it has released.

White House Issues Statement Clarifying Musk’s Role With DOGE

9
UK Government, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

All eyes are on Elon Musk…

The White House said Monday that Elon Musk is technically not part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), even though the tech billionaire is said to be leading its sweeping cost-cutting efforts. 

Musk is an employee of the “White House Office” and serves as senior advisor to the president, said Joshua Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, in a court filing. 

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, both of which are separate from the White House Office, according to Fisher. 

He is also not the U.S. DOGE Service administrator, the head of DOGE as laid out in President Trump’s executive order last month establishing the service. 

“In his role as a Senior Advisor to the President, Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors,” Fisher said in his declaration to the court.  

“Like other senior Whtie House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself,” he continued. “Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.”

Fisher compared Musk’s role to Anita Dunn, who served as a senior advisor to former President Biden. 

The announcement comes as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 states against Musk, Trump and DOGE last week, arguing that the government role of the world’s richest man is unconstitutional because he has not been confirmed by the Senate.  

“Mr. Musk’s seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse would have been shocking to those who won this country’s independence,” the states wrote.  

“There is no office of the United States, other than the President, with the full power of the Executive Branch, and the sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure,” they continued.   

The states initially asked the court to bar Musk and the DOGE team from taking a wide range of actions, including making changes to government contracts, regulations, personnel or the disbursement of public funds, as well as receiving access to or altering data systems. 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in a post on its website says it has found $55 billion in savings through a combination of efforts, including a reduction in the federal workforce.

It said it estimated it had realized $55 billion in savings by canceling or renegotiating leases and contracts, selling assets, cancelling grants, finding regulatory savings, making programmatic changes to the government and reducing the workforce.

Other top agencies that DOGE said it had cut contracts from include the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), General Services Administration (GSA), Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

On Tuesday, the Social Security Administration’s acting leader stepped down from her role over requests from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access recipient data, according to The Hill.

Acting Commissioner Michelle King departed from the agency over the weekend after more than 30 years of service. She allegedly refused to provide DOGE staffers with sensitive information.

Fourth Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bid To Create National Voter Citizenship List

2
Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s effort to reshape election administration, striking down key portions of an executive order that would create a federally compiled list of eligible voters and impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts ruled that the administration exceeded its constitutional authority, becoming the fourth federal judge to reject major provisions of Trump’s March 31 executive order on elections.

“The President ‘plays no direct role in the process’ of appointing electors, ‘nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do,'” Talwani wrote in her decision, according to court filings cited by The Hill.

The ruling sided with 22 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and attorneys representing Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who argued that the Constitution gives states—not the White House—the primary authority to administer elections.

What Trump’s Order Would Have Done

Trump’s executive order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile state-specific lists of individuals confirmed to be U.S. citizens using federal databases. The lists would then be transmitted to state election officials before federal elections.

The order also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters appearing on those federally compiled citizenship lists. In addition, states would have been required to use individualized Intelligent Mail barcodes on ballot envelopes so ballots could be tracked through the postal system.

The White House argued the measures were designed to strengthen election integrity by ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens receive mail ballots. Administration officials have also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that would establish proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration through federal law rather than executive action.

States Argued the Order Was Already Causing Harm

The Trump administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the states had not yet suffered any concrete injury because federal agencies were still developing rules to implement the order.

Talwani rejected that argument.

According to The Hill, the judge noted that many states have already spent millions preparing election materials for the 2026 midterms that would no longer comply with the executive order.

Massachusetts alone has already spent approximately $3 million on mail ballot envelopes, while Maine and Rhode Island have each spent more than $50,000 on ballot materials lacking the required Intelligent Mail barcodes. Delaware also informed the court it had already purchased envelopes and had not budgeted funds to replace them.

Those expenditures demonstrated that the order was already affecting state election planning, Talwani concluded.

Constitutional Limits

Talwani’s opinion echoed earlier federal rulings that found the Constitution assigns election administration primarily to the states and Congress—not the president acting through executive order.

She ruled that key portions of Trump’s directive “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers,” concluding that federal agencies cannot assume authority over election procedures that Congress has not granted them.

The decision follows several other court losses for the administration this week involving different parts of Trump’s election agenda, including provisions requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and expanded use of federal databases to verify voter eligibility.

USPS Says It Will Follow Court Orders

The ruling also comes as the U.S. Postal Service prepares for the 2026 election cycle.

Postmaster General David Steiner told lawmakers Wednesday that the Postal Service would comply with whatever federal court orders ultimately govern the handling of election mail, according to The Hill.

The administration is expected to appeal Thursday’s decision, setting up another chapter in the broader legal battle over the limits of presidential authority in administering federal elections.

Trump’s Voter Citizenship Requirement Blocked By Federal Judge

In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.

It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.

Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.

Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.

But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.

If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?

Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.

When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?

This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It is republished with permission.

READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections

Senate Panel Blocks Trump’s FBI HQ Plan

I, Aude, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

A Senate committee voted Thursday afternoon to block President Donald Trump’s plan to keep the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., escalating a simmering power struggle over the agency’s future location.

The dispute pits the White House against a bipartisan coalition in Congress that had long backed moving the agency’s headquarters out of the decaying J. Edgar Hoover Building and into suburban Maryland.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2026 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would restrict funding exclusively to the original relocation site in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The measure gained unexpected bipartisan traction, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) siding with Democrats. The decision to cross party lines prompted a backlash from several Republican senators, who argued the decision was outside the committee’s authority.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) pushed back, saying the panel does not “get to choose sites.”

The dispute led Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) to call for a “very long recess,” delaying further consideration of the bill. Collins said she hopes the standoff can be resolved before the next markup session.

“I think it’s better we withdraw the bill for now than watch this bill go down,” she said.

The panel is not expected to reconvene before next week.

Trump’s plan would relocate the FBI to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center — a federal property just blocks from the White House. The administration argues the move keeps the FBI close to other national security agencies while avoiding the massive cost of building a new complex from scratch.

But Maryland officials aren’t backing down, determined to secure the economic and strategic benefits of hosting the new FBI campus.

Politico has more on the reaction and outlook from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The blowup exasperated some Democrats on the panel, who questioned why the Republican majority could not accept Van Hollen’s provision. “Because there was a bipartisan amendment adopted we’re going to tank this bill?” asked Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz.

Others expressed confidence the issue would ultimately get settled.

“I honestly think we’ll be able to resolve it,” said Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the panel’s top Democrat. “We’ve always been able to work out issues.”

Murkowski, who was spotted chatting on the floor on Thursday afternoon with Murray, said she had “volunteered” a path for members to hit pause on the bill and “get a little more information about what it is the administration is seeking to do with the [new headquarters plan], because it seems to me that is kind of the blank spot right now.”

Despite cautious optimism, Thursday’s vote throws another wrench into the increasingly politicized debate over the FBI’s future headquarters — and highlights the broader friction between Congress and the Trump administration.

READ NEXT: Trump Mulling Federal Takeover Of DC To Tackle Crime

GOP Rep. Introduces Bill To Stop Foreign Adversaries From Buying American Homes

Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy introduced legislation Tuesday to block foreign adversaries and state sponsors of terrorism from purchasing homes and residential property in the United States.

The bill, obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller, would prohibit foreign adversaries, nationals from designated foreign countries of concern and state sponsors of terrorism from acquiring American housing. It would also require existing property holdings covered under the legislation to be sold within two years to American citizens.

Roy said the legislation is intended to prevent hostile foreign powers from gaining influence over American land and housing markets while many Americans struggle with rising housing costs.

“American homes belong to American families — not the Chinese Communist Party, foreign Islamists, or our geopolitical foes,” Roy told the Daily Caller.

“While Americans struggle to afford housing, hostile regimes are buying up our land and neighborhoods,” Roy said. “This bill slams the door on foreign adversaries owning American housing and forces them to sell what they already control. We’re putting America’s homes back in American hands.”

The proposal comes amid growing concern among congressional Republicans over foreign ownership of American land, particularly purchases linked to Chinese investors and entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.

According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report, foreign ownership of American land totaled nearly 46 million acres at the end of 2024, representing more than $86 billion in value.

Documents reviewed by the Daily Caller indicate that as much as 338,000 acres owned by foreign adversaries could become subject to forced divestiture under Roy’s legislation, totaling an estimated $1.1 billion in property value.

Texas — Roy’s home state — has become one of the focal points in the debate over foreign land ownership.

The USDA report found that non-Americans own more than 5.6 million acres across Texas. Under Roy’s proposal, properties in 20 Texas counties totaling roughly 124,000 acres could potentially be required to change ownership.

Roy and other Republicans have repeatedly raised alarms about Chinese-linked land purchases near military installations, critical infrastructure and growing residential developments.

One Texas development cited by the Daily Caller reportedly spans 342 acres zoned for residential and commercial use, with roughly 70% allegedly tied to Chinese Communist Party-linked investors.

Another property linked to Chinese ownership reportedly stretches across more than 123,000 acres in 15 Texas counties and is estimated to be worth approximately $900 million, according to USDA figures.

Several Republican-led states, including Florida and Texas, have already pursued or enacted laws limiting property ownership by citizens or entities connected to adversarial foreign governments.

Supporters of such measures argue they are necessary for national security, food security and economic sovereignty, especially as geopolitical tensions between the United States and China continue escalating.

Roy’s legislation additionally reflects growing Republican focus on housing affordability as broader economic concerns remain central heading into the 2026 election cycle.

The issue also intersects with the national debate over birthright citizenship, which is currently being litigated before the Supreme Court.

Critics of current birthright citizenship policy have pointed to reports over the years of Chinese nationals traveling to the United States specifically to give birth — sometimes referred to as “birth tourism” — in order to secure automatic American citizenship for their children. Federal authorities have previously investigated businesses accused of helping wealthy foreign nationals coordinate such operations, including arranging housing, medical care and travel logistics for expectant mothers entering the United States.

Others have raised the alarm over reports involving foreign nationals paying American surrogates to carry and deliver children in the United States, after which the children obtain citizenship and are then taken back to China shortly after birth.

Supporters of stricter immigration and property ownership laws argue such arrangements could create long-term loopholes allowing foreign adversaries, including those tied to the CCP, to maintain indirect or proxy influence over American land and assets.

This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.