ANALYSIS – More than two years after ceasing construction on former President Donald Trump’s border wall, and more than two million illegal immigrants flooding into the United States, Joe Biden is quietly restarting the oft criticized by the left, but critical, border barrier.
According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) led by the incompetent Alejandro Mayorkas, Team Biden has used executive action to suddenly waive 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow emergency border wall construction.
The Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Endangered Species Act were some of the federal laws waived by Biden to allow immediate construction of the border wall using funds appropriated by congress in 2019.
The waivers, also criticized by left wing activists and environmentalists, avoid time-consuming reviews and lawsuits challenging violation of environmental laws.
The initial construction would be in Starr County, Texas, which is part of a busy Border Patrol sector seeing “high illegal entry.” Around 245,000 illegal entries have been recorded this fiscal year in the Rio Grande Valley Sector which contains 21 counties.
“There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas,” Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, stated in the notice, according to Newsmax.
“So interesting to watch Crooked Joe Biden break every environmental law in the book to prove that I was right when I built 560 miles (they incorrectly state 450 in story!) of brand new, beautiful border wall.”
Biden ceased the border barriers that Trump had earlier begun, on Inauguration day Jan. 20, 2021, stating then that “building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border is not a serious policy solution.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott renewed some of those efforts after Biden halted them on day one of his presidency. But the state can only do so much.
Apparently, it took Biden more than two years and massive waves of unvetted, illegal immigrants crowding our major cities, to realize that the border wall is a serious policy solution after all.
Trump added on Truth Social: “As I have stated often, over thousands of years, there are only two things that have consistently worked, wheels, and walls! Will Joe Biden apologize to me and America for taking so long to get moving, and allowing our country to be flooded with 15 million illegals immigrants, from places unknown. I will await his apology!”
I don’t know if 15 million illegals have come in under Biden, but it is a huge number. Border control advocates hope this major reversal will lead to a total overhaul of Biden’s failed border and immigration policies.
“After years of denying that a border wall and other physical barriers are effective, the DHS announcement represents a sea change in the administration’s thinking: A secure wall is an effective tool for maintaining control of our borders,” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said in a statement. “Having made that concession, the administration needs to immediately begin construction of wall across the border to prevent the illegal traffic from simply moving to other areas of the border.”
It’s time for the dysfunctional GOP congress to push Biden on this issue. It should be a battle cry for the next House speaker.
Conservative firebrand Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee chair, who has thrown his name into the race for speaker, said his first focus as leader would be border security.
‘The very first thing I would focus on is that no money can be used to process the release of migrants into this country,’ he told Fox. That, and accelerating border wall construction should be priorities, followed by reinstalling most , if not all of Trump’s effective border and immigration policies.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Elon Musk is challenging fellow billionaire George Soros and the entire globalist elite now meeting in Davos Switzerland. Musk, still majority owner and CEO of Twitter, made his challenge via his recently acquired social media platform.
In a tweet by Ian Miles asking, “If we got George Soros in a Twitter Space what question would you ask him?” – Musk responded with his own simple question for Soros: “Do you actually know where your money is going?”
Another said Soros would respond by saying: “To fund the demise of capitalism so no one will ever be as rich as me again”
Musk has never directly attacked Soros, but his provocative question comes less than two months after Soros disclosed that he had tripled his investment stake in Tesla over the summer.
Since then, Tesla’s shares lost almost two-thirds of their value in 2022.
We will have to wait until February’s 13F quarterly financial disclosures to know whether Soros remains a shareholder of Tesla.
But getting back to Musk’s question, Soros, who is reportedly worth about $8.5 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, should definitely know where his money is going.
Most recently the far-left financier who is one of the Democrat Party’s biggest donors spent $128.4 million on the midterms, says the Americans for Tax Fairness.
And the Democrat Party has been effectively co-opted by the extreme, so-called ‘progressive’ left.
However, that is trifling compared to the vast sums of money and resources he uses to fund a radical leftist agenda, causes, and NGOs worldwide through his Open Society Foundations, the billionaire also funds many socialist and socially radical causes and NGOs worldwide.
In the U.S. his organizations are notorious for funding the election of leftist prosecutors who are releasing hardened criminals into our nation’s cities without bail, and supporting the extreme transgender agenda, as well as various extreme far-left ‘racial justice’ groups throughout the country.
He does all this under the highly deceptive banner of promoting democracy, human rights, and press freedom.
Rather than attack Soros too directly, Musk heaped most of his scorn on the World Economic Forum (WEF), apparently trying to shake up the gathering of those liberal political and economic elites.
The forum is traditionally held every year in January in the ski resort of Davos, Switzerland, though it was suspended for the covid-19 pandemic.
This year’s event, which opened on Jan. 16, brought together 52 heads of state and government and nearly 600 CEOs, including JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon and BlackRock’s Larry Finkis.
A few days before the forum opened, Musk said he’d been invited to join the WEF but had turned down the invite – a claim denied by the WEF.
They stated he had not been invited.
“My reason for declining the Davos invitation was not because I thought they were engaged in diabolical scheming, but because it sounded boring,” Musk explained on Dec. 31.
However, later Musk tweeted: “I guess there’s value to having a mixed government & commercial forum of some kind,” the billionaire said on Jan. 15. “WEF does kinda give me the willies though, but I’m sure everything is fine 👀.”
The World Economic Forum's Davos summit starts tomorrow. Its founder, Klaus Schwab, is one of the most influential men alive. He even participated in the G-20 summit of world leaders last November.
His mockery of the WEF only intensified after that.
He wondered in particular about the message of Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, urging the participants of the 2023 edition to “master the future” in the face of the challenges currently facing the world.
“‘Master the Future’ doesn’t sound ominous at all,” the billionaire said sarcastically. “How is WEF/Davos even a thing? Are they trying to be the boss of Earth!?”
I’m skeptical of anything that can’t be explained in a sentence. What exactly do they do? And why? https://t.co/F7e2zomKxv
Later on Musk dialed it back quite a bit in response to comments from Chris Rufo of the conservative Manhattan Institute arguing that the Davos forum was essentially an overrated clown show and not a serious concern to Americans.
Sensible thread.
We shouldn’t be obsessed with WEF/Davos, but they take themselves sooo seriously that making fun of them is awesome 😎
It is still good to see Musk questioning both Soros and the Davos WEF forum. I can only hope this is the beginning of even more questioning – especially of Soros and his deceptive and extremely far-left Open Society Foundation.
There is a lot to question.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
ANALYSIS – Every now and then you see a story that just hits home, and you know you need to write about it and spread the word. This one, reported by CBS News, is absolutely one of them.
Morse had served two combat tours in Iraq with the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division Special Troops Battalion, followed by service in the National Guard, and then worked as a military contractor in Iraq for four years.
One day an Army buddy Morse served with in Iraq showed up at his gun store with his car and his dog. Then he brought a lot of guns inside the store, Morse said, adding: “And I’m like, brother, what are you doing?”
Morse knew well that often when people, especially combat veterans, start giving away their things, they may be considering suicide.
But before Morse could have a chat with his buddy, the vet simply left. And for six months his buddy didn’t answer his phone.
Meanwhile, Morse decided to hold his friend’s guns at Rustic Renegade in case he ever came back.
…his friend called and explained he had been in a bad spot and wondered where his guns were. Morse said he told him, “They’re your guns, man. They’re yours, you may want them back. And whenever you’re ready, they’re here for you.
“More than half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2022, the CDC reported that 26,993 people died by firearm suicide. Deaths by gun suicide are at an all-time high and have steadily increased, nearly uninterrupted, since 2006 according to researchers at John Hopkins School of Public Health.
In the veteran population the problem is acute; in its 2022 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Report, the Department of Veterans Affairs found that the suicide rate in 2020 was 57.3 % greater for veterans.
Guns are more commonly involved among veteran suicides, at 71%, than the rest of the population, at 50.3%, according to the CDC.
Soon after his first buddy chose to drop off his guns with Morse, another veteran came by to do the same, telling Morse that he was “in a bad spot.”
Morse, who had similarly been very depressed after returning from Iraq, accepted the vet’s gun and decided to set up a system to hold and track guns being left for storage by troubled vets in his store’s inventory, telling them to pick up their firearms when they felt better.
Within a year, other veterans dropped off guns “about a dozen times,” CBS reported. Since then, he has stored about 100 firearms.
According to CBS, she met with Morse in 2021 to work on a project she was coordinating with gun store owners who wanted to store firearm storage for those in crisis who, for a time, didn’t want their firearms in their homes.
The Armory Project was launched in Louisiana that same year with three different gun shop owners interested in providing storage for firearms.
Through a Veterans Administration (VA) grant, True and her team helped the gun dealers build local networks and partnerships.
And Anestis is absolutely correct. Voluntary outside storage, like preventing drunk driving by “taking away the car keys,” is a far better solution for preventing suicide by gunshot, than bans that violate our 2nd Amendment rights.
However, storing guns as part of a gun store’s inventory can cause liability issues.
So, as CBS reported, in July 2023 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) got involved (in a good way this time). It issued an open letter to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) and gun shops advising how to legally and safely store firearms for these individuals.
Providing gun storage lockers at the gun store that individuals can open themselves and put their firearms inside, is one option.
As the ATF letter states: “In this situation, an FFL does not “receive “or “acquire ” the firearm into its inventory, nor does the FFL assume control of the individual’s firearm.” This can reduce liability for gun shop owners like Morse, who want to provide outside storage for others in need.
This is a great idea, and a great story. Look up The Armory Project and see if you can help with the effort in your state, city, or locality.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
NEW YORK CITY (September 11, 2022) Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas lays flowers for USSS Master Special Officer Craig Miller and participates in the September 11th Anniversary Commemoration Ceremony at Ground Zero in New York City, NY. (DHS photo by Sydney Phoenix)
ANALYSIS – Yes, this was election interference. Under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’ the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) led the effort that colluded with major universities and Big Tech to censor free speech leading up to the 2020 election.
As House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Monday, according to Newsmax: “This pressure was largely directed in a way that benefited one side of the political aisle: true information posted by Republicans and conservatives was labeled as ‘misinformation’ while false information posted by Democrats and liberals was largely unreported and untouched by the censors.”
How did they do this?
An interim staff report by the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government explained that DHS, so-called disinformation “experts” at universities, Big Tech and others colluded through the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to monitor and censor Americans’ online speech during the 2020 election.
“The federal government and universities pressured social media companies to censor true information, jokes and political opinions.”
The federal government, disinformation “experts” at universities, Big Tech, and others worked together through the Election Integrity Partnership to monitor & censor Americans’ speech.
Among the DHS targets was Newsmax, according to a summary of the report, titled “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Free Speech.”
Newsmax reported: “The report revealed how the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Global Engagement Center (GEC) within the State Department coordinated with Stanford University and other entities to create the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor Americans’ speech in the lead-up to the election.”
In a post on X, Jordan wrote, “according to one EIP member, the EIP was created ‘at the request of CISA.’ The head of the EIP also said that EIP was created after ‘working on some monitoring ideas with CISA.'”
Newsmax added:
It [the report] outlines how the EIP was created in the summer of 2020 to provide a way for the federal government “to launder its censorship activities in hopes of bypassing the First Amendment and public scrutiny.”
“The EIP targeted Americans across the political spectrum, but especially conservatives,” according to the report’s summary.
The House committee found that EIP, using Stanford, encouraged social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, to declare conservative news as “misinformation.”
Newsmax continued: “ EIP used a tactic known as “switchboarding” to refer to removal requests from state and local officials to Facebook, X and other social media sites, the New York Post reported Monday…the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana ruled in September federal officials colluded with Big Tech social media platforms to suppress speech.”
And they didn’t just censor everyday Americans, they also targeted Republican politicians ranging from former President Donald Trump, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Among the media, the report noted, in addition to Newsmax, this corrupt political effort targeted conservative commentators such as Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, Michelle Malkin and Mollie Hemingway, and “an untold number of everyday Americans of all political affiliations.”
As an added note, I was permanently banned from LinkedIn, where I had a growing following in the tens of thousands, back in 2022.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Drew Wrigley is a fourth generation North Dakotan with family roots in Walsh County and Burke County, where Wrigley Brothers Farm still thrives. Wrigley was born in Bismarck and grew up in Fargo. After graduating from Fargo South High School in 1984, Wrigley attended the University of North Dakota, graduating in 1988 with honors in economics and philosophy. He graduated from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1991, followed by a year-long judicial clerkship in Delaware. Wrigley then worked as an Assistant District Attorney for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, prosecuting every variety of crime in one of our nation’s most violent cities.
Wrigley and his wife Kathleen married in 1998 and moved home to North Dakota. In 2001, Wrigley was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 17th United States Attorney. Wrigley led his office’s successful efforts to combat violent crime, large-scale narcotics trafficking, illegal immigration, financial fraud and ground-breaking investigations focused on Internet crimes against children. Under Wrigley’s leadership, the office’s Civil Division worked diligently to promote and protect legal and contractual interests of the United States, while battling to ensure the protection of civil rights and the promise of landmark legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even while serving as United States Attorney, Wrigley personally tried several noteworthy cases, including North Dakota’s first federal Internet child-luring case, and the successful death penalty prosecution of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., who kidnapped, assaulted, and viciously murdered University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin. That was North Dakota’s first and only federal death penalty case, for which Wrigley served as lead trial and appellate counsel. From 2004 to 2009, Wrigley was appointed by three successive Attorney Generals of the United States to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a select group of United States Attorneys tasked with advising the Attorney General of the United States and other Department of Justice leaders.
After stepping down as United States Attorney in 2009, Wrigley served as vice-president of a national Medicare and Medicaid contractor based in Fargo. He subsequently served as North Dakota’s 37th Lieutenant Governor, from December 2010 through December 2016. Wrigley served as the President of the State Senate, chaired the State Investment Board and its oversight of then-$11 billion in pension and other state assets, chaired the state’s International Trade Office Board, chaired the Governor’s Cybersecurity Task Force, and led the economic development efforts and oversight authority for North Dakota’s FAA-sanctioned unmanned flight systems testing facility. In 2016, Wrigley and Governor Jack Dalrymple chose to not seek re-election, and in early 2017 Wrigley once again returned to the private sector, serving in a senior advisory role for a regional healthcare, insurance, research and philanthropy enterprise, Sanford Health. In 2019, Wrigley was nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 19th United States Attorney, becoming the first North Dakotan to twice serve as our state’s chief federal law enforcement officer. Wrigley stepped down in February of 2021 and worked as counsel with his family’s industrial/mechanical/commercial contracting firms, Wrigley Mechanical, Inc. and BDT Mechanical LLC, both located in Fargo. Wrigley maintains an ownership interest in both companies.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The family of vice presidential candidate Tim Walz aren’t fans of his politics…
An image circulating online shows family members of vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz openly supporting former President Trump.
The photo was shared online by former Nebraska Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster. It shows eight people wearing “Nebraska Walz’s (sic) for Trump” T-shirts.
“Tim Walz’s family back in Nebraska wants you to know something…” Herbster wrote on X.
Family members told Fox News they consider themselves “distant” from Walz and have never met or spoken with him. One person in the photo who wished to remain anonymous said they are supporting Trump because “he supports our values.”
Trump replied on Truth Social to the image, implying that he plans to “meet” with Jeff Walz, the older brother of the Minnesota governor.
