News

-

February 3, 2026

3

1080px-Jeanine_Pirro_(52251751058) — By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Jeanine Pirro, CC BY-SA 2.0,

Republican Florida Rep. Greg Steube issued a forceful response to comments from Jeanine Pirro, President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, after she warned that anyone carrying a firearm in Washington, D.C., should expect to be arrested.

During a Monday night interview with Fox News host Martha MacCallum, Pirro took a hard line on guns in the nation’s capital while discussing efforts to remove repeat offenders and illegal firearms from the streets.

“You bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district and I don’t care if you’re a law abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back! And that makes all the difference,” Pirro warned.

Her remarks immediately drew criticism from gun-rights advocates and several Republican lawmakers, including Steube, who pointed out that lawful concealed carry is permitted in Washington, D.C., including for non-residents.

“I bring a gun into the district every week, @USAttyPirro. I have a license in Florida and DC to carry. And I will continue to carry to protect myself and others,” Steube wrote on X. “Come and Take it!”

I bring a gun into the district every week, @USAttyPirro. I have a license in Florida and DC to carry. And I will continue to carry to protect myself and others.

Come and Take it! https://t.co/GThPY2I8HO
— Congressman Greg Steube (@RepGregSteube) February 3, 2026

MacCallum defended Pirro’s position during the interview, arguing that tougher enforcement changes behavior. “It’s amazing how accountability works, and people think if they actually get arrested they might have to do time and they might get taken off the street, it sorta puts a little bit of a different message in people’s heads.”

Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie also pushed back, noting that D.C. law allows permitted carry and has done so for years.

“The District of Columbia has been ‘shall issue’ since 2017 when the requirement that you must have a ‘good reason’ to carry a handgun was struck down. Non-residents can obtain a permit in DC — don’t ask me how I know,” Massie said in a post on X.

In a separate post, Massie questioned Pirro’s rhetoric more broadly, writing, “Why is a ‘conservative’ judge threatening to arrest gun owners?”

The National Rifle Association clapped back at Pirro on Tuesday, writing on social media, “Now is the time for Congress to pass HR 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Your right to self-defense should not end simply because you crossed a state line or into Washington, D.C.”

Now is the time for Congress to pass HR 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

Your right to self-defense should not end simply because you crossed a state line or into Washington, D.C.
— NRA (@NRA) February 3, 2026

The backlash surprised many conservatives, given the Trump administration’s long-standing and vocal support for Second Amendment rights.

Facing growing criticism, Pirro addressed the controversy in a video posted Tuesday to X, emphasizing her support for gun ownership and constitutional rights.

She said she is a “proud supporter of the 2nd amendment” and a gun owner herself, noting that she previously keynoted a National Rifle Association convention. Pirro stressed that her comments were aimed at criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

“However, you need to be responsible. And every responsible gun owner that I know makes sure they understand the laws where they are going and understand whatever registration requirements there might be,” Pirro said. “President Trump’s goal here, and my goal as well, is to make sure we take guns out of the hands of criminals.”

She added, “There is a reason that we have the lowest homicide rate in reported history. We’re taking guns off the street — illegal guns — in the hands of criminals, who want to use those guns to victimize law-abiding citizens. There is a big difference here. If you are responsible, you follow the laws, you are not going to have a problem with me.”

Pirro’s clarification appeared aimed at reassuring conservatives that her tough-on-crime stance is focused on illegal firearms and repeat offenders—not Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Tuesday morning, Pirro attempted to quell the outrage with a post on X.

Let me be clear: I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment.

Washington, D.C. law requires handguns be licensed in the District with the Metropolitan Police Department to be carried into our community.

We are focused on individuals who are unlawfully carrying guns and…
— Jeanine Pirro (@JudgeJeanine) February 3, 2026

Sponsored

The House GOP HQ is pledging 35X IMPACT that could completely turn the tides for our House majority and bring the radical left to their knees. But time is running out! We’d hate for you to miss this critical opportunity. [Donate HERE]

Russian Military Plane Lands In Cuba As Trump Declares National Emergency

By

-

February 3, 2026

Vladimir_Putin_ — Kremlin.ru, via Wikimedia Commons

A sanctioned Russian military cargo plane landed Sunday night at a Cuban military airfield outside Havana, raising fresh concerns in Washington as President Donald Trump sharply escalates pressure on the communist government in Cuba.

The aircraft — an Ilyushin Il-76 heavy transport jet operated by Russian state-linked airline Aviacon Zitotrans — touched down at San Antonio de los Baños Airfield, a Cuban military installation roughly 30 miles south of the capital, according to public flight-tracking data. The Il-76 is commonly used to move military equipment and personnel and has been scrutinized by U.S. officials in past operations.

Flight records show the plane traveled through St. Petersburg and Sochi in Russia, Mauritania, and the Dominican Republic before arriving in Cuba. Each stop would have required authorization from host governments, highlighting which countries continue to permit Russian military-linked aircraft to operate despite Western sanctions.

The same aircraft conducted multiple flights to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba in late October 2025, during a period of heightened tensions between Washington and Caracas. Those movements preceded U.S. military action in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of longtime strongman Nicolás Maduro, an operation U.S. officials and analysts have since cited as a warning sign when assessing similar Russian aviation activity in the region.

Now, attention has turned to Cuba — and to President Trump’s increasingly aggressive posture toward Havana.

On Thursday, Trump declared a national emergency related to Cuba, stating that the Cuban government poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. The administration also announced it would impose penalties on any country that sells or supplies oil to Cuba without U.S. authorization, a move aimed at further isolating the regime.

Trump confirmed Sunday that the United States is engaged in direct talks with Cuban officials.

“Cuba is a failing nation. It has been for a long time, but now it doesn’t have Venezuela to prop it up,” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago. “So we’re talking to the people from Cuba, the highest people in Cuba, to see what happens. I think we’re going to make a deal with Cuba.”

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both signaled support for political change in Havana, though the administration has not said whether it would pursue that goal through military action.

Russian military ties to Cuba have long alarmed U.S. officials. While Moscow’s presence on the island diminished after the Cold War, Russia has steadily rebuilt defense and intelligence cooperation with Havana over the past decade — a development Washington views as a potential security risk just 90 miles from the U.S. mainland.

The Il-76’s capabilities only heighten those concerns. The aircraft can carry roughly 50 tons of cargo or up to 200 personnel, and its operator, Aviacon Zitotrans, has a well-documented history of supporting Russia’s defense sector. The airline has been sanctioned by the United States, Canada, and Ukraine.

“Aviacon Zitotrans has shipped military equipment such as rockets, warheads, and helicopter parts all over the world,” the U.S. Treasury Department said when it sanctioned the company in January 2023.

It remains unclear what the aircraft carried on its most recent flight. During earlier operations tied to Venezuela, Russian state media and a Russian lawmaker said the same plane delivered Pantsir-S1 short-range and Buk-M2E medium-range air defense systems to Caracas.

With the Trump administration pressing Cuba economically and diplomatically — and with Russian military activity once again surfacing in the Caribbean — U.S. officials are watching closely

Sponsored

Donate to Turning Point TODAY. Your urgent support helps us win one precinct at a time. Give $100 or more and receive Charlie’s book How We Win as our thank-you gift. Donate NOW to help save America.

Blue City Prosecutor Vows To Pursue Federal Agents Criminally After Trump Term Ends

By

-

February 2, 2026

ICE_Immigration_Raid_Scene — By U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero, Public Domain,

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Soros-backed progressive prosecutor, is facing mounting bipartisan criticism after making fiery remarks comparing federal immigration agents to Nazis and suggesting they should be “hunted down.”

Speaking last week, Krasner denounced Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as “a small bunch of wannabe Nazis,” adding, “If we have to hunt you down the way they hunted down Nazis for decades, we will find your identities.”

The comments prompted swift backlash from Republicans, with Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) a member of the House Intelligence Committee, urging the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation.

Steube cited federal statutes that make threatening a federal law enforcement officer a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

“The DOJ should absolutely arrest and convict this guy,” Steube said.

Krasner has a history of antagonism toward federal immigration enforcement. He previously claimed he would seek to arrest and prosecute federal agents who “come to Philly to commit crimes,” an apparent reference to controversial law enforcement actions during a Minnesota operation in which a woman was shot after allegedly attempting to ram officers with her vehicle.

In the speech that drew Steube’s condemnation, Krasner boasted that the 350 million Americans living in the United States vastly outnumber ICE agents, and he floated the idea of coordinating with prosecutors in other states to pursue them criminally after President Donald Trump’s term ends.

Even prominent Democrats distanced themselves from Krasner’s rhetoric. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro called the remarks “unacceptable… abhorrent and it is wrong; period; hard-stop; end of sentence.”

Republicans were far less restrained.

“We have a psychopath with a badge,” Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa) said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Meuser blasted Krasner for what he described as chronic failures to prosecute violent crime, pointing to reports that the district attorney’s office prosecutes only about 30% of violent crime arrests.

“Every responsible Democrat must condemn this behavior,” Meuser said. “Failure to do so only increases the temperature in an already volatile situation, endangering federal law enforcement and communities alike.”

Meuser also accused Senate Democrats of borrowing Krasner’s “reckless political playbook” by using Department of Homeland Security funding as leverage in government shutdown negotiations.

Critics have long dubbed Krasner “Let ’Em Go Larry” for his lenient prosecution policies—an approach Meuser contrasted sharply with Krasner’s aggressive posture toward federal immigration officers.

Meuser has authored the Holding Prosecutors Accountable Act, legislation that would strip Justice Department grant eligibility from district attorney offices that fail to prosecute at least two-thirds of arrests.

The Department of Homeland Security weighed in as well. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called Krasner’s comments “vile,” accusing him of encouraging violence and doxing of law enforcement officers.

“He is intentionally stoking the flames of hatred and division in this country for political gain,” McLaughlin said, citing a reported 1,300% increase in assaults against ICE agents. “The violence and dehumanization of these men and women who are simply enforcing the law must stop.”

McLaughlin argued that Krasner should instead be thanking ICE for removing dangerous criminals from the Philadelphia region, including Yehi Badawi of Egypt, convicted of aggravated assault and robbery; Cuban national Alan De Armas-Tundidor, a convicted drug trafficker; and Thanh Long Huynh of Vietnam, convicted of rape and cocaine distribution.

Other Pennsylvania Republicans emphasized that Krasner’s threats are legally hollow.

State Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-Gettysburg) who taught constitutional law at the U.S. Army War College, noted that the federal supremacy clause would override any attempt by Philadelphia officials to interfere with lawful federal immigration enforcement.

“The Constitution is not optional,” Mastriano said bluntly.

State Sen. Jarrett Coleman (R-Allentown) chairman of the Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee, echoed that warning, calling claims that city officials can block ICE “empty threats.”

“If they do obstruct federal law enforcement efforts, the Pennsylvania Senate will be the least of their worries,” Coleman said, adding that if Krasner focused more on prosecuting violent offenders, “Philadelphia wouldn’t be such a s—hole.”

As criticism intensifies, Krasner’s remarks have reignited a broader debate over progressive prosecutors, public safety, and the limits of local resistance to federal law enforcement—one that now may draw scrutiny from the Justice Department itself.

Sponsored

Donald Trump Jr. just endorsed Byron Donalds for Governor! But he needs all the help he can get to keep Florida red. Grassroots supporters like YOU can make a HUGE impact! [Help Byron Donalds TODAY]

Trump Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Over IRS Tax Return Leak

News

By

admin

-

January 30, 2026

President Donald Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization filed a federal lawsuit Thursday night seeking at least $10 billion in damages from the U.S. Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, according to Bloomberg Tax.

President Donald Trump sued the US Treasury and Internal Revenue Service for at least $10 billion over an unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns during his first term in office. https://t.co/uFqvsPsgie
— Bloomberg Tax (@tax) January 30, 2026

The suit alleges that Trump’s tax returns from 2017 through 2021 were unlawfully disclosed in violation of federal privacy laws, including protections under 26 U.S.C. § 6103.

The disclosures were traced to Charles Littlejohn, a former IRS contractor working for Booz Allen Hamilton, who pleaded guilty in 2023 to leaking the returns to The New York Times and ProPublica. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison.

The Treasury Department recently severed contracts with Booz Allen earlier this month following the incident.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the cancellations were due to insufficient protection of sensitive taxpayer data. The contracts totaled about $21 million in obligations and roughly $4.8 million annually. Bessent added that canceling the contracts was part of broader efforts to restore trust in data security after the leak.

Legal analysts say the lawsuit’s demand for punitive damages at this level is rare and could raise new questions about IRS accountability. No immediate response was reported from the defendants.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Sponsored

Hold the House. Protect Trump. Stop the next impeachment threat — chip in today!

Walz Says He’d ‘Beat the S—‘ Out of JD Vance in Debate, Admits He Was Outmatched in 2024 Showdown

By

-

January 29, 2026

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), Kamala Harris’s running mate in the 2024 election, said this week that he now believes he mishandled his vice-presidential debate with Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) — and resorted to profane bravado while attempting to explain why.

Appearing Tuesday on The Bulwark podcast with host Tim Miller, Walz was asked whether he gave Vance “too much benefit of the doubt” during their widely watched debate and whether assuming good faith was a mistake.

“Look, I’ll own it,” Walz said. “But you’ve been around this long enough. When you’re on a ticket, you take your orders. Look, I have agency on that, meaning I could have done this, but I am a good team player. And I will say this: I never kidded anybody about debates.”

Walz went on to express frustration that he failed to more aggressively challenge Vance, who emerged from the debate with bipartisan praise for his composure, clarity, and command of the issues.

Though Walz claimed he does not “get joy out of beating someone,” he added, “Yes, I would beat the s— out of him now if I could, and I would call that out. I mean, that’s just different. In verbally going at it, my argument is much better.”

Walz specifically objected to Vance’s arguments on housing and immigration — positions that align closely with mainstream Republican policy priorities and resonate strongly with working-class voters.

“Making the case that housing prices are up because of immigration and that we should build on federal lands — it was such a crazy thing,” Walz said. “But then when I watched him, I got sucked into that.”

Walz admitted he veered off message during the debate, particularly when reacting to controversial media narratives circulating at the time.

“If you remember, this was right in that moment of eating dogs and cats,” Walz said. “I took that bait and thought that that was the argument of how outrageous it was. That was not the argument.”

A Debate That Elevated Vance

The October 2024 vice-presidential debate was widely viewed as a breakout moment for Vance, who surprised many observers with a calm, confident, and policy-focused performance. While Democrats had expected an aggressive partisan clash, Vance struck a cordial tone while forcefully defending conservative positions on immigration enforcement, housing affordability, energy independence, and federal overreach.

Polling afterward showed Vance’s favorability rising, particularly among independents and blue-collar voters — a key reason many Republicans now see him as the natural heir to the post-Trump GOP coalition.

Since the election, Vance has continued to build his national profile, maintaining close ties to President Donald Trump while also positioning himself as a next-generation conservative leader capable of winning Rust Belt states and expanding the Republican map. Many party insiders already consider him the likely Republican presidential nominee in 2028, if not sooner.

Harris Privately Criticized Walz Performance

Former Vice President Kamala Harris confirmed Walz’s shaky debate showing in her post-campaign memoir, 107 Days, revealing that she was deeply disappointed by his performance.

“When Tim fell for it and started nodding and smiling at J.D.’s fake bipartisanship, I moaned to Doug, ‘What is happening?’” Harris wrote, referring to her husband, Doug Emhoff.

Harris acknowledged that the debate ultimately had little impact on polling but suggested Walz should have been better prepared.

“I reassured him that the election would not be won or lost on account of that debate, and in fact it had a negligible effect on our polling,” she wrote. “In choosing Tim, I thought that as a second-term governor and twelve-year congressman he would know what he was getting into. In hindsight, how could anyone?”

A Telling Contrast

For many Republicans, Walz’s comments highlight a broader contrast between the two men: Vance’s disciplined, message-driven approach versus Democrats’ increasing reliance on emotional rhetoric and post-hoc excuses.

While Walz now says he wishes he had been more combative, Republican voters saw something different in 2024 — a Republican candidate who didn’t need theatrics to win the argument, and who looked every bit like a future president.

Sponsored

Hold the House. Protect Trump. Stop the next impeachment threat — chip in today!

Trump Warns Massive Armada Has Been Sent To Iran

By

-

January 28, 2026

1080px-2024_Army_National_Guard_Best_Warrior_Competition_-_53918479974 — Competitors in the 2024 Army National Guard Best Warrior Competition run a 1-kilometer route as part of the competition’s biathlon event at Ethan Allen Firing Range, Vermont, Aug. 6, 2024. The Best Warrior Competition is a physically and mentally challenging five-day event that tests Soldiers on a variety of tactical and technical skills. Winners are named the Army Guard Soldier and Noncommissioned Officer of the Year and move on to compete in the Department of the Army Best Squad Competition, with other Soldiers from the Best Warrior Competition filling out the ranks of their squad. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)

Former President Donald Trump confirmed Thursday that the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its accompanying strike group are being deployed to the Middle East as a direct signal to the Iranian regime, saying the United States is prepared to take decisive action if Tehran does not negotiate.

In a series of posts on his Truth Social platform, Trump described a “massive Armada” heading toward Iran and warned that time is running out for the Islamic Republic to return to the negotiating table on terms that would bar it from obtaining nuclear weapons. “It is moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose. It is a larger fleet, headed by the great Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln, than that sent to Venezuela,” Trump wrote. “Like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”

“Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal — NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS — one that is good for all parties,” Trump added. “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence! As I told Iran once before, MAKE A DEAL! They didn’t, and there was ‘Operation Midnight Hammer,’ a major destruction of Iran. The next attack will be far worse! Don’t make that happen again.”

The Navy’s deployment — which includes the Abraham Lincoln and supporting warships — is part of an expanding U.S. military presence in the region intended to deter Iranian aggression and signal Washington’s readiness to act if necessary. According to U.S. military statements, the carrier strike group has entered the Middle East under U.S. Central Command and is positioned to promote regional security and stability amid heightened tensions.

Trump has also insisted that there is willingness on the Iranian side to discuss a deal. In a Monday interview with Axios, he said Tehran had reached out “on numerous occasions” and “want[s] to make a deal.” “They want to make a deal. I know so. They called on numerous occasions. They want to talk,” he told the outlet.

But U.S. officials cited by Axios said that any agreement would require Iran to remove all enriched uranium, cap its long-range missile stockpile, curb support for proxy forces, and cease independent uranium enrichment — conditions Iranian leaders have not accepted.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations responded to Trump’s posts within hours, warning that Tehran would defend itself if attacked. “Last time the U.S. blundered into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it squandered over $7 trillion and lost more than 7,000 American lives. Iran stands ready for dialogue based on mutual respect and interests — BUT IF PUSHED, IT WILL DEFEND ITSELF AND RESPOND LIKE NEVER BEFORE!” the statement read.

The military buildup comes amid widespread unrest inside Iran following protests that began in late December. Activist groups have reported thousands of deaths in the crackdown, and recent coverage says Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been sheltering in a fortified underground facility as tensions escalate.

Trump is expected to hold further consultations in coming days, and White House officials continue to say that military action remains on the table if diplomacy fails to produce results acceptable to U.S. interests.

Sponsored

The House GOP HQ is pledging 35X IMPACT that could completely turn the tides for our House majority and bring the radical left to their knees. But time is running out! We’d hate for you to miss this critical opportunity. [Donate HERE]

Appeals Court Won’t Reconsider Habba Disqualification, Opening Path To Supreme Court

News

By

-

January 27, 2026

Alina_Habba_ — Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,

A federal appeals court has declined to revisit a controversial ruling that blocked President Trump’s choice to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey—setting the stage for what could become a major Supreme Court showdown over presidential authority and the limits of judicial power.

In a brief order issued Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said it would not rehear a panel decision that invalidated Alina Habba’s service as U.S. attorney for New Jersey. Habba, a former personal attorney to President Trump and a trusted member of his legal team, was found by a three-judge panel to have been unlawfully kept in the position after her 120-day interim term expired.

Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The court noted that the judges who issued the original ruling did not request a rehearing, and a majority of the full court voted against taking the case en banc. Three of the court’s 11 active judges dissented and would have reheard the case, with one dissenting opinion to be released later. Judge Emil Bove—another Trump appointee and former Trump attorney—did not participate in the vote.

The ruling keeps in place the panel’s conclusion that Habba’s continued service violated federal law, despite what the judges described as a “novel series of legal and personnel moves” by the Trump administration to keep her in office. Critics on the right argue those moves were necessary responses to an increasingly aggressive judiciary inserting itself into executive branch decisions.

At issue is a long-standing statute governing how vacant U.S. attorney positions are filled. When Habba’s interim term expired in July, federal judges in New Jersey declined to extend it and instead used a rarely invoked power to appoint her first assistant as U.S. attorney. In response, Attorney General Pam Bondi removed that appointee, and President Trump withdrew Habba’s formal nomination, redesignating her as acting U.S. attorney.

The panel ruled that this maneuver violated the “plain text” of the statute, arguing that once a president submits a nomination—even if later withdrawn—the legal timeline changes. Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge D. Michael Fisher, a George W. Bush appointee, acknowledged the administration’s frustration with “legal and political barriers” to staffing key law enforcement roles but concluded the law did not allow the workaround.

Supporters of the administration see the case differently, arguing it highlights a broader pattern of unelected judges constraining the president’s constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch. The Justice Department warned the Third Circuit that the panel’s ruling imposes “atextual limits” on acting U.S. attorneys and raises issues of “exceptional importance,” particularly for a president seeking to implement the policies voters elected him to carry out.

Although Habba resigned last month following the ruling, she has made clear she intends to return if a higher court rules in her favor—underscoring how unsettled the law remains. The administration is widely expected to ask the Supreme Court to step in, potentially clarifying the balance of power between the presidency and the judiciary.

Habba was the first of several Trump-aligned U.S. attorneys to be sidelined under similar legal theories. Comparable rulings have since affected prosecutors in Los Angeles, Nevada, the Northern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Virginia. In Delaware, the state GOP chair-turned-U.S. attorney resigned after citing the Third Circuit’s decision.

In Virginia, Lindsey Halligan—another former Trump attorney—resigned last week after a judge barred her from acting as U.S. attorney unless she was confirmed by the Senate or appointed by the court. That ruling led to the dismissal of federal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, two prominent critics of President Trump—fueling conservative concerns that procedural technicalities are being weaponized to interfere with prosecutorial discretion.

For many Republicans, the growing list of disqualified Trump-aligned prosecutors raises fundamental questions: Who controls federal law enforcement—the elected president or the courts? And how far can judges go in second-guessing executive decisions before crossing into policymaking themselves?

Those questions now appear headed for the nation’s highest court.

Sponsored

Donald Trump Jr. just endorsed Byron Donalds for Governor! But he needs all the help he can get to keep Florida red. Grassroots supporters like YOU can make a HUGE impact! [Help Byron Donalds TODAY]

Bill O’Reilly Flips Out When Host Says Trump ‘Backing Down’ After Shooting

By

-

January 27, 2026

Veteran broadcaster Bill O’Reilly forcefully pushed back Monday night against claims that President Donald Trump is “backing down” following violent unrest in Minneapolis after a Border Patrol–involved shooting that sparked protests and national controversy.

The confrontation unfolded during NewsNation’s On Balance with Leland Vittert, where O’Reilly accused the host of adopting left-wing media framing by suggesting Trump had retreated under political pressure.

The unrest began Saturday after Border Patrol agents shot Alex Pretti during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. As video of the incident circulated online, activist groups and Democratic officials immediately accused federal authorities of misconduct, triggering protests that quickly escalated into disorder.

As is often the case in fast-moving, emotionally charged incidents, early claims about the shooting were disputed. Trump administration officials initially described Pretti as a dangerous suspect, while critics accused the government of spreading false narratives. Multiple videos later emerged that fueled further debate over what exactly occurred.

President Trump responded first with a blunt social media statement condemning lawlessness, defending federal officers, and criticizing Democratic leadership in Minnesota for what he has long argued is a refusal to enforce federal immigration law. As tensions grew, Trump administration officials—including Border Czar Tom Homan—shifted toward de-escalation, engaging with local leaders to restore order.

That shift became the flashpoint of the exchange between O’Reilly and Vittert.

During the interview, Vittert referenced O’Reilly’s recent commentary criticizing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, drawing a historical comparison that sparked sharp disagreement:

LELAND VITTERT: You write “Who is the modern John C. Calhoun,” about Walz, “a despicable South Carolina senator who actually wanted the Civil War to happen.”

Do you think Walz wants the Civil War to happen and therefore should be arrested as though he was a southern governor or something in the early or late 1850s?

O’Reilly responded by arguing that state officials who openly defy federal law should face scrutiny under existing statutes:

BILL O’REILLY: I think there is evidence that should be examined, and you might be able to charge Walz with insurrection under the, if you want me to read it to you, I got it right here. It fits Walz to a tee.

Pressed on whether such action would be good for the country, O’Reilly emphasized order and de-escalation—values long central to conservative governance:

LELAND VITTERT: Would that be good for America?

BILL O’REILLY: I don’t care. Look, anarchy is the worst thing that could happen, the worst. Right now, in this present moment, de-escalation is the best thing that can happen. So Homan meeting with Frey has my 100% endorsement. Walz calling Trump, vice versa, 100%.

O’Reilly argued that cooperation does not mean capitulation—and that enforcing federal law remains non-negotiable:

BILL O’REILLY: But that doesn’t excuse what has happened and is happening, which is a rebellion against the United States law passed by Congress, by a state under the governance of Walz and a city where Frey runs.

If you continue, and I say you in a general sense, to allow states and cities to not enforce federal law, you don’t have a country. It goes! Okay? Everybody should understand.

The interview reached its most heated moment when Vittert suggested Trump was “backing down” in response to public pressure:

LELAND VITTERT: So then why is Trump backing down?

O’Reilly erupted at the framing, accusing the host of echoing legacy media talking points:

BILL O’REILLY: Now here’s the second part of the story. He’s not backing down! He’s trying to defuse. Why would you say he was backing down?! Do you want a CNN contract?!

He’s backing down! He’s defusing the way he should!

Sponsored

A SECURE MESSAGE FROM JD VANCE: Patriot — I keep my word. I told Republican leaders I’d deliver your response, and I’m not backing down. My next meeting is coming up fast, and I need your answers before I walk in. Complete the GOP Leadership Survey now.

Trump Confirms The US Used New Sonic Weapon

By

-

January 23, 2026