During a recent conversation with Trump’s incoming border czar Tom Homan, former Fox News star Tucker Carlson proposed sending illegal immigrants to the neighborhoods of high-profile government officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Carlson argued this approach would expose what he called the “hypocrisy of the liberal elite.”
The former Fox News host offered to assist by providing Homan with specific zip codes, emphasizing that the political class advocating for relaxed border policies should experience the consequences of those decisions firsthand.
NEW: Tucker Carlson tells Tom Homan he will send him the zip codes of Anthony Blinken and other Washington elites so he can bus illegal immigrants into their communities.
Brilliant.
Carlson was calling out the hypocrisy of the liberal elite before Homan revealed that Trump was… pic.twitter.com/naEt7yYJLU
“I could give you a list of zip codes where Tony Blinken lives,” Carlson said during the discussion. Illegal immigrants “need to be moved into the neighborhoods of the people who are calling you racist for wanting to have laws and borders.”
Carlson framed the suggestion as a way to hold elites accountable for policies widely viewed as detrimental to American communities. “They need to feel the effects of their own destruction. So just text me, and I will send you the zip codes,” he concluded.
Homan, in response, noted that the idea of busing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and neighborhoods aligned with such policies had originated with President-elect Donald Trump.
The strategy has since been employed by Republican governors, like Florida’s Ron DeSantis, to highlight the strain that mass migration places on border states.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
Despite Donald Trump’s early entrance to the 2024 presidential campaign, some Republicans are dedicated to taking the “wait and see” approach to the next election.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who also previously served as Trump’s press secretary, told Fox News’s Shannon Bream that she isn’t focused on 2024 yet and declined to endorse her old boss publicly.
According to The Daily Wire, Bream asked the newly sworn-in governor, “Your bio, on your official page as Governor, describes you as a ‘trusted confidant of President Trump. Have you talked to him about his ’24 run? Will you endorse him in that?”
“I love the president, have a great relationship with him,” Sanders responded. “I know our country would be infinitely better off if he was in office right now instead of Joe Biden. But right now, my focus isn’t 2024. It’s focusing here in Arkansas and doing what we can to empower the people of this state, and make sure that I’m delivering on the promises that I laid out over the course of the last two years.”
“My focus isn’t on 2024,” Sanders answered. “It’s on what we can deliver in this legislative session. I’m not going to set an arbitrary timeline. I’m not really focused on that at all.”
Bream also pressed Sanders on her own ambitions.
“I feel the pressure of delivering this legislative session,” Sanders said. “That’s the only thing that our team, and that I am focused on, is delivering on what we laid out to do.”
Sander’s refusal to outwardly endorse Trump underscores speculation that Republicans are preparing to steer away from the former president and support another candidate in the 2024 election. Numerous polls have reported Trump trailing behind other potential contenders such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
President-elect Donald Trump tapped New York Congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Trump confirmed the news in a statement Monday afternoon, writing in part:
“Lee, with a very strong legal background, has been a true fighter for America First policies. He will ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions that will be enacted in a way to unleash the power of American businesses, while at the same time maintaining the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet. He will set new standards on environmental review and maintenance, that will allow the United States to grow in a healthy and well-structured way.”
Trump said Zeldin has “brilliantly” handled some “extremely difficult and complex situations.” He said he is sure Zeldin will “quickly prove to be a great contributor!”
“It is an honor to join President Trump’s Cabinet as EPA Administrator,” Zeldin wrote on X. “We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water.”
This is a breaking news story. Click refresh for the latest updates.
A group of Evanston, Illinois, residents are suing their city government over a $20 million scheme to give away $25,000 each to Black residents as “reparations” for wrongs experienced by past generations.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.” (RELATED: San Francisco Debates $5 Million Per Person Reparations Proposal)
The New York Times photo archive, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”
“Through a series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” JW reports, after filing a class action, civil rights lawsuit which challenges “on Equal Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendant’s use of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.”
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
JW argues that “the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:”
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental interest…
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
According to JW, the program works as follows:
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group as “ancestors.”
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as “direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.
“At no point in the application process are persons in the first and second groups required to present evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919 and 1969,” Judicial Watch states in the laws.” “In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.” (RELATED: Squad Member Introduces Proposal For $14 Trillion In Reparations)
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that “the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as ‘direct descendants’ other that the race requirement (the actual number of individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).”
Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
A trust connected to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s in-laws donated $5,000 to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Records show that the Siebel Family Revocable Trust, which is run by Kenneth Siebel Jr. and Judith Siebel, the parents of Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel, gave $5,000 to the Friends of Ron DeSantis PAC in early April.
The Siebel family has a history of making donations to Republican candidates, including Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Josh Hawley (R-MO).
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is trailing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) by a whopping 16 points in the 2026 Republican Senate primary, according to an internal poll reported by Punchbowl News on Monday.
The poll from the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF) found Paxton leading with 50% support to Cornyn’s 34%, with 17% undecided.
Paxton, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, officially announced his candidacy last month. He is positioning himself as a more pro-MAGA alternative to Cornyn, who hardline Texas conservatives have painted as a moderate. Cornyn, Texas’s senior senator, has held his seat since 2002 and served in Senate leadership. He was a leading contender to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as GOP leader, but eventually lost the race to Sen. John Thune (R-SD).
Cornyn faced backlash over his work in crafting the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a gun safety law passed in 2022 after a massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
The legislation included enhanced background checks for gun buyers under 21 and was the first major federal gun control measure in decades.
Punchbowl News reported in a hypothetical three-way GOP primary, Paxton leads with 44%, followed by Sen. John Cornyn at 34% and Rep. Wesley Hunt at 19%, according to an internal Tarrance Group poll conducted April 27 to May 1.
In general election matchups against potential Democratic challenger Colin Allred, Cornyn leads by six points.
President Donald J. Trump hosts a Rose Garden Club dinner in honor of Police Week in the White House Rose Garden, Monday, May 11, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump joked Monday that he planned to keep the New York Stock Exchange’s ceremonial opening bell for display in his new White House ballroom, prompting criticism from opponents and renewed attention to the administration’s ongoing renovation projects.
Trump became the first president to ring the NYSE opening bell remotely from the Oval Office during an event marking the launch of the administration’s new “Trump Accounts” investment program for eligible children.
After ringing the bell, Trump quipped, “I’m not giving it back,” before later repeating the remark during a White House luncheon.
‘They’ll Have To Fight Like Hell’
Speaking to guests in the Rose Garden, Trump again pointed to the bell and joked about making it part of the White House.
“There’s the bell right there. It’s so beautiful, I’m not giving it back. I don’t know if it’s supposed to go back, but they’re gonna have to fight like hell to get it back,” Trump said.
It was not immediately clear whether the president was speaking entirely in jest, and there has been no indication that the NYSE bell will remain at the White House.
Latest In Series Of Similar Jokes
The remark follows several similar episodes in recent months.
Last month, Olympic speed skating champion Jordan Stolz placed one of his gold medals around Trump’s neck during an event in Wisconsin. Trump joked that he was “keeping it” before returning the medal.
He made a similar quip after FIFA President Gianni Infantino brought the FIFA World Cup trophy to the White House ahead of next year’s tournament, later saying FIFA had permitted the trophy to remain on display.
Ballroom Project Draws Renewed Attention
Trump’s latest comments also focused attention on the White House ballroom project, one of the administration’s most ambitious renovation efforts.
The ballroom, originally projected to cost about $200 million, has since grown substantially in scope. Recent reports indicate estimated costs have risen to roughly $600 million, though the administration disputes claims that taxpayers will bear a significant portion of the expense.
The White House has said the ballroom will provide a secure venue for large state functions and official events.
Critics Question Costs
Democrats and preservation groups have continued criticizing the project, arguing the administration understated its expected cost and failed to adequately explain how construction will ultimately be financed.
The White House has maintained that private donors are funding much of the project and has defended the renovation as a long-overdue modernization of the executive mansion.
Whether Trump’s comments about the NYSE bell were serious or simply another off-the-cuff joke, they quickly became the latest flashpoint in the broader debate surrounding the president’s efforts to reshape the White House during his second term.
A recent poll showed that Independent candidates appear to be hurting President Joe Biden and boosting former President Donald Trump when on the ballot in four critical battleground states.
Trump’s leads grow against Biden among likely voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina when Robert F. Kennedy Jr., independent Cornel West, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are on the ballot, according to The Cook Political Report/BSG/GS Strategy Group survey.
With Kennedy and the other third-party candidates included in the poll, Trump’s margins grew from one to four points in Arizona; from two to three points in Michigan; from three to four points in Georgia; and from seven to eight points in North Carolina.
COOK POLITICAL REPORT: To be losing by this margin- that is UNSUSTAINABLE at this point for an incumbent.
The RealClearPolitics averages for each battleground state suggest Trump’s leads grow against Biden when Kennedy, West, and Stein are on the ballot in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Trump lost Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan last cycle after having won them all in 2016. Nevada voted Democratic in both cycles, while Trump secured North Carolina in 2016 and 2020.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
Some Democrats are finally acknowledging they need to course correct on their immigration stance.
A new report from The New York Times revealed some leading Democrat lawmakers have admitted that open borders and immigration are costing the party and
“When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump, that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas).
The report highlighted that Gonzalez witnessed President Donald Trump “win every county in his district along the border with Mexico.” Gonzalez’s 34th district in Texas has swung dramatically from voting heavily Democratic in recent presidential elections to going in favor of Trump in 2024.
“This is a Democratic district that’s been blue for over a century,” Gonzalez told the Times.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said the Democrat Party “got led astray by the 2016 and the 2020 elections, and we just never moved back.”
“We looked feckless, we weren’t decisive, we weren’t listening to voters, and the voters decided that we weren’t in the right when it comes to what was happening with the border,” Gallego told the Times.
In May, Gallego released a border security plan that would speed up asylum seekers’ claims and make other countries do their “fair share” in receiving asylum seekers, as well as take action against cartel violence.
The New York Times reported that various Democrats “are pushing for a course correction they see as overdue,” noting a new proposal from the Democratic policy shop and left-wing think tank Center for American Progress. The organization is calling for expanding legal immigration but also for ramping up border security and clamping down on abuse of the nation’s asylum system, the latter two of which are longtime Republican priorities.
Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, admitted to the Times that Democrats will have to adopt some level of border security policy.
“I’m happy to argue with Stephen Miller or anyone else about why they are wrong,” Tanden told the New York Times. “But the way we’re going to be able to do that is to also honestly assess that the border has been too insecure, that it allowed too many people to come through and that we need to fix that.”
The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to deport illegal immigrants as well as increase security at the U.S. border. The administration’s efforts have been criticized by progressives and violent anti-ICE protests recently prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard to California.
On a recent episode of Tim Miller’s podcast, a prominent liberal columnist revealed that, behind closed doors, senior Democrats don’t view Donald Trump as an existential threat to democracy. The revelation contrasts sharply with the often apocalyptic rhetoric about Trump unthinkingly regurgitated by liberals.
Ezra Klein’s Insight
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein shared what he’s heard from top Democrats on Capitol Hill. According to Klein, these leaders privately express deep concern about President Biden’s situation while downplaying the potential dangers of a Trump victory.
“People are weighing this set of things. Like, ‘It would be quite unpleasant for me personally to come out against the president as an elected official in the Democratic Party,’ and weighing what will happen if Donald Trump wins, and saying, in a revealed preference way, ‘I can live with Donald Trump winning,’” Klein stated.
Tim Miller’s Reaction
Miller, known for his strong opposition to Trump, responded with disbelief. “Really?” he exclaimed, clearly taken aback by Klein’s account. Klein elaborated, saying he’s heard top Democrats question why their peers act as though Trump is an existential threat while they themselves do not believe this.
Ethical Journalism and Source Protection
At one point, Miller’s frustration boiled over. “Who the f**k is this?” he demanded. “Out your sources, Ezra!” The angry comments overlooked the fact that journalistic ethics prohibit revealing sources. Protecting confidential sources ensures the free flow of information and encourages insiders to share sensitive insights without fear of repercussions.
Despite Miller’s intense reaction, Klein remained composed. “I find it maddening, but I do find it consistent,” he said. He suggested that whatever Democrats say publicly, their private resignation contradicts their public statements.
Miller’s Fiery Response
Miller, still fuming, responded, “You have a calm voice, but you’re skyrocketing my f**king blood pressure right now. Ezra, I’m just, like, so f**king mad.”
