The top Senate Democrat said “we’ll be at the table” if the president wants to negotiate.
By Jordain Carney
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday there are no pending bipartisan talks over expiring health insurance subsidies despite a claim from President Donald Trump.
The president said in Oval Office comments to reporters Monday that “we have a negotiation going on right now with the Democrats that could lead to very good things ... with regard to health care.” He later reiterated “we are speaking with the Democrats” on health care but did not specify with whom.
But Schumer said in a statement that “Trump’s claim isn’t true — but if he’s finally ready to work with Democrats, we’ll be at the table.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries separately told reporters that the White House had “gone radio silent” since an Oval Office meeting a week ago. “Neither Leader Schumer or myself have heard a word from the administration about resolving this issue,” he said.
Democrats have made extending the expiring subsidies — available for insurance plans offered on Affordable Care Act exchanges — a central demand in the ongoing government shutdown fight. They have pushed Republicans to negotiate but GOP leaders on Capitol Hill have said they must first reopen government agencies.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told his party to not go “wobbly” on ObamaCare amid a push from Democrats on health care in the ongoing government shutdown.
By Tara Suter
The federal government shut down last week in the wake of congressional leaders failing to come to a deal on a stopgap spending bill, leaving lawmakers struggling on how to move forward.
Democratic senators refused to vote for the House-passed funding bill because it did not extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to expire in December. They also want Medicaid funding restored after it was cut from the budget bill President Trump signed in July.
A recent survey found a majority of Republicans and Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters back the continuation of enhanced ACA tax credits, which are central to the government shutdown fight.
Marc Short, who was former Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, predicted Sunday in an interview that the GOP will fold in the face of pressure from Democrats to extend ACA subsidies to stop the shutdown.
“I think, sadly, Republicans are going to cave on this in the end. The bottom line is that Democrats were really shrewd when they put the ObamaCare subsidies in the plan,” Short said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.”
“It bought off insurance to support ObamaCare. No surprise the government takes our health care, prices go up. And so here we are, 100 percent increase in prices, and basically you have Democrats and Republicans, and Republicans are opposed to any free market reforms, eventually they’re going to do this.”
Back on August 27, Kristi Noem’s goons raided a car wash in Carson, CA. In the process, they badly broke Bayron Rovidio Marin’s leg. The break was so bad, he has been hospitalized ever since. And in spite of the fact that they’ve never obtained a warrant or even claimed that Rovidio Marin is undocumented, ICE has been paying private guards to guard him 24/7 since then.
On August 27, 2025, Petitioner was arrested at the Carson Car Wash in Carson, California by uniformed Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers and unidentified plainclothes federal agents. See Pet. ¶¶ 16, 48; Santiago Decl. ¶ 3. During the arrest, Petitioner sustained severe leg injuries. See Pet. ¶ 48; Santiago Decl. ¶ 5. He was handcuffed and transported by CBP to the emergency room at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Carson, California. Id.
At the hospital, Petitioner was admitted under a “blackout” procedure for patients in law-enforcement custody and was registered under the pseudonym “Har Maine UNK Thirteen.” Santiago Decl. ¶ 7. Federal agents remained at Petitioner’s bedside during admission, transfer to non-public treatment areas, and throughout his stay, keeping him handcuffed to his hospital bed. Id. ¶ 6
On or about August 27, 2025, CBP transferred custody of Petitioner to ICE. See Pet. ¶ 48. He remains detained at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center under the supervision of ICE, which has contracted with Spectrum Detention Services (“Spectrum”) to provide guards. See Santiago Decl. ¶ 8; Pet. ¶ 48.
Since that date, two to four uniformed guards—either Spectrum employees or ICE agents—have been continuously stationed in Petitioner’s hospital room, monitoring him at all times, including while he sleeps, eats, uses the restroom, or receives medical care. See Santiago Decl. ¶¶ 9–10. [my emphasis]
There’s a lot that’s outrageous about this unlawful detention: On top of the original injury, ICE hid this guy using fake names at the hospital, they’ve questioned him without reading him his rights, they’ve restricted his access to lawyers.
Judge Cynthia Valenzuela just ordered ICE to release him from “custody.”
But consider it from the context of right wing manufactured outrage that Democrats want to provide free medical care for “illegals,” a combination of misrepresentation that Democrats would provide healthcare for migrants with legal status, false accusations that those who rely on ACA subsidies are “illegal,” and complaints (voiced explicitly by JD Vance) that under EMTALA (which was passed under Ronald Reagan) hospital emergency rooms have to treat anyone in need of care.
Ignoring that ICE has not even claimed that the guy they hospitalized is undocumented, Kristi Noem’s goons have required taxpayers to pay for 37 days (and counting) of his medical care, plus private guards to watch him 24/7. The guards would cost upwards of $71,000 ($40 X 2 X 24 X 37), and just the room could cost upwards of $333,000 ($9,000 X 37). (ICE probably gets a discount on the room, but they still have to pay for his medical care.)
So just that one victim of ICE violence — someone against whom ICE had no warrant or even knowledge of his identity — may cost taxpayers upwards of $400,000.
And counting, because he’s still not out of the hospital.
Instead of paying for Medicaid and ACA subsidies to keep Americans healthy, right wingers in Congress decided to throw tons of money at Kristi Noem and Tom Homan (whose fondness for bags of cash gives him an incentive to drive up contractor cost) to go hunt down car wash workers who might or might not be undocumented.
And just one of the predictable injuries that resulted (there’s no telling how many other people abused by ICE Noem has hidden away under fake names) has cost taxpayers around $400,000.
What with the current, every day, choreographed outbursts from the Democrats inciting violence against President Trump (and “the right” in general), too many to catalogue here but coming from a range of actors, they are Democrats with few exceptions all—governors, mayors, candidates, actors, comedians, members of Congress, judges and, oh my, “influencers.” I would like to point out here that the Democrats and their party have a long and sorry history of eliminating, by hook or crook, Republican offenders of their orthodoxies from our midst.
Let’s go chronologically, looking at the Republican presidents who have been killed or wounded by assassination, compiled by Lauren Matiuzzo:
1. Abraham Lincoln, Republican-Killed
When: April 14, 1865 (During his presidency term)
Who: John Wilkes Booth
Where: Ford’s Theatre in Washington D.C.
2. James A. Garfield, Republican-Killed
When: July 2, 1881 (During his presidency term)
Who: Charles Guiteau
Where: Train station in Washington, D.C.
3. William McKinley-Killed
When: September 6, 1901 (During his presidency term)
Who: Leon Czolgosz
Where: Temple of Music in Buffalo, New York
4. Theodore Roosevelt-Wounded
When: October 14, 1912 (After his presidency term)
Who: John Schrank
Where: Campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
5. Ronald Reagan-Wounded
When: March 30, 1981 (During his presidency term)
Who: John Hinckley Jr.
Where: Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C.
6. Donald J. Trump-Wounded
When: July 13, 2024 (After his first presidency term)
Who: Thomas Matthew Crooks
Where: Rally in Butler, Pennsylvania
And, here is the one Democrat president killed during an assassination:
1. John F. Kennedy, Democrat-Killed
When: November 22, 1963
Who: Lee Harvey Oswald (disputed still)
Where: Dallas, Texas
(There was an assassination attempt against Democratic president Andrew Jackson, but he was not wounded.)
So, that’s an interesting political ratio, 6:1.
More disturbing is the threat level today, although all of the Republican presidents on this list took more than a hefty share of abuse from Democrats and their toadies long before July 13 of last year in Butler.
Ronald Reagan was also publicly, politically, vilified by Democrats. President Reagan, the man who brought down the Berlin Wall and sent terrorists packing all over the globe, in defense of Americans, was also branded an enemy of “freedom” by the Democrats, over and over.
We are not up against anything new here. But not exactly “same old” at present. The viciousness of the Democrats and their leftists is more tolerated. That must change forthwith.
I live in Virginia which means I, like my fellow Virginians, are in the midst of our gubernatorial race. This weekend, we and the rest of the country got a good view of a deep-seated problem in politics in this state. Jay Jones, a Democrat running for the Attorney General position this fall, was exposed for the radical that he truly is. As we all read the hate-filled messages, we also took note of the milquetoast response by the Left.
For those of you that may missed it, Jay Jones called for death of Republican House of Delegates leader Todd Gilbert, literally fantasizing about shooting him in the head. He further desired that Gilbert’s wife and children would die, and even went so far as to express his desire to “piss on their graves” of Gilbert and other Republicans. This, in the same week the Jones was convicted of speeding at 116 miles per hour, something he called, “a mistake.”
This is a Democrat running to be the top law enforcement official in the state.
It should come as no surprise. Abigail Spanberger has been encouraging voters to embrace their “rage” and let it “fuel” them. In her comments about Jones, she expressed disappointment, but did not call for him to step down. Jones offered a half-hearted apology, then used his apology to rant about Donald Trump. To date, the Democrats, while saying they are saddened by these comments, still embrace Jay Jones as their candidate.
The media went into protection mode. The “piss on their graves” comment was omitted from most reports. One CBS TV station WTVR out of Richmond, claimed that references to the texts that Jones posted were “accusations,” despite the fact Jones had admitted they were indeed his. The Washington Post said that controversy “roiled” the election, glossing over the heinous nature of what Jones had posted. As usual, the legacy media moved into a cover-up mode, downplaying the text messages or simply not reporting them.
We saw similar behavior in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. From the Democratic politicians; a momentary announcement of shock, followed by the same rage/hate filled rhetoric that led to such acts. From the media, distortions and outright coverup.
For the first time, they are showing themselves for what they are and what they desire. Coexistence and cooperation is not possible with a political party that wants you dead. Spanberger’s evasiveness in light of the Jones texts tells you a great deal about her. Many of her followers are posting they support Jones even more. This highlights that her message of rage and hate is playing well with her base. In this post Kirk-era, one would think they would tone down their messaging. Not Spanberger. In fact, not any of the Dems running for office. Their solution to the Jay Jones problem, run pro-abortion ads. It’s like a broken record of the last four election cycles.
We are dealing with a political party that has embraced violence since 2020. Look at the recent riots in LA, Portland, and Chicago. When the Left doesn’t get its way, they openly encourage confrontation. They are playing a game of blackmail, offering to stop rioting if ICE simply ignores federal law. These would be the same people that would turn around and impeach President Trump if he bent the knee to their demands. There is no satisfying a political party that embraces violence.
In any other period in our history, Jay Jones would have stepped down in shame as both parties called for him to do so. While the Democrats are pretending to be shocked, none of their candidates are calling for Jones to give up the race. They are more than willing to put an emotionally unstable lawbreaker into office… anything other than a Republican.
With early voting already underway, it is difficult to say whether the Jones controversy will cost the Left the election. It should. One thing is for sure, it is firing up conservatives in the state. Slowly the message is getting out about Jones and it should be an albatross around the neck of Abigail Spanberger for her lack of leadership. As she has trumpeted about fueling rage, we are getting a good glimpse of what her administration would have in store for Republicans.
Virginia deserves better… much better than the Democratic Party in our fine state. So does the rest of America.
Blaine Pardoe is a New York Times Bestselling and award-winning author canceled by one of his publishers in 2022. His conservative political thriller series, Blue Dawn, is the story of the violent overthrow of the government by radical progressives. His new series, Tenure, is about a Punisher-like hero that goes after the woke. He also authors the bestselling military science fiction series, Land&Sea.
With the government shutdown, Democrat politicians are in rare form these days.
The talking points of the Left this week are that the shutdown fight is necessary, or 50,000 people will die, and 15 million people will lose health coverage, and 20 million will see their health insurance premiums double.
Politicians always like using superlatives; it makes them feel important.
And there’s no time like a government shutdown for speaking in superlatives.
Even without exaggerating, the numbers they have to work with are enormous. The federal government employs about 3 million people, making it the nation’s largest employer, almost double the size of Walmart’s 1.5 million, the nation’s largest private sector employer.
The federal government currently spends about $7 trillion per year, while taking in only about $5 trillion in revenue (“only $5 trillion.” Twenty years ago, could you imagine the federal government taking in $5 trillion – and it not being enough?). This creates an annual deficit – not the total annual debt, just this one year’s contribution to it – of about $2 trillion per year.
But different statistics mean different things to different people. All these numbers horrify conservatives, but leftists see them and are undeterred. The modern leftist likes an enormous federal government, so such figures don’t bother him in the least.
If you want to get a modern leftist excited, just tug at his heartstrings, as Bernie Sanders did this week:
“Some 50,000 Americans will die this year!” because of Trump’s agenda, the socialist Senator from Vermont declared, successfully netting him headlines around the world.
That certainly excites the Democrat rank and file. And perhaps it should, if you don’t dig too deeply.
But when we pay attention to the underlying truths below such numbers, we find that they don’t really support the Democrats’ position at all.
The only reason anyone would lose health coverage if there’s a government shutdown is if they depend on the government for their health care. People who don’t depend on the government for health care aren’t losing coverage.
Hasn’t the effort to make the entire country dependent on the federal government for health care always been a Democrat goal? The Republican party has always worked for a robust private sector, and a huge variety of affordable private insurance plans. It’s the Democrats who took that away in 2010, by passing Obamacare, more than doubling the cost of health insurance in America in one fell stroke.
In addition, a huge number of those whose health coverage Democrats are trying to fund are actually illegal aliens.
The main sticking point in the current federal shutdown is this fundamental disagreement: the Republicans want to deport criminal illegal aliens, and the Democrats want to give them free unlimited, no-copay, no-deductible health insurance, a benefit we working American citizens cannot obtain.
The 50,000 number, however, is especially interesting, because while it is certainly a gripping figure, there is no real data to support it.
Democrats chose that number to be high enough to be scary, but low enough to be believable. And sure enough, it has gathered global attention – even though it makes no sense under current U.S. law.
American hospitals are required to provide emergency services regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, so the kind of people with needs so urgent that they would die if unserved during a week or two long shutdown are guaranteed their care.
Yes, guaranteed.
With or without a shutdown.
But as long as they have brought it up, perhaps this might be a good time to ask where the Democrats normally stand on the question of human life, when there isn’t a political battle over government funding in the news.
Remember the early months of the COVID-19 “pandemic” in 2020 -- when Democrat regulators literally shut down hospitals, scaring doctors and nurses out of going to work, scaring patients from going in for treatment, refusing to allow necessary checkups and surgeries? We will never know how many cancers and other conditions went undetected when they were operable, only to be discovered later when it was too late. The Democrats have never apologized for that.
And remember how Democrat governors in multiple states – most infamously in New York – directly ordered contagious COVID patients to be placed amongst the most vulnerable elderly patients in nursing homes, quickly spreading the disease and causing countless unnecessary deaths as a result? The Democrats have never apologized for that, either.
Perhaps we should consider the murder rate in our nation’s big cities. The United States sees some 23,000 murders per year, primarily in our large cities. Numbers like 800 per year in Cook County, Illinois, or 660 per year in Los Angeles County, California are not unusual, and there are many smaller metros with (proportionally) even higher murder rates than those.
Not only do Democrats show no interest in reducing these numbers, they fight every Republican effort to remove killers from society. They oppose prosecutions, empty our prisons, reject capital punishment ... the Democrats even demonstrate against the current White House’s offers to bring in the National Guard to help control crime. They attack ICE officials in the process of rounding up foreign drug dealers and other gang members.
Shocking as it may seem, one can only conclude that these 23,000 murders each year don’t upset the Democrat party a bit. How else can they look at the Trump administration’s current success in cleaning up Washington, D.C. and not demand the same help across the country?
Not all avoidable deaths are from homicide; we should consider one of the world’s oldest scourges: starvation. The United States could be the world’s agricultural powerhouse. With our fertile land, supportive climate, and modern technology, American farms could feed the world.
But our agricultural output is intentionally reduced further and further below its potential, due to Democrat policies. Corn is unnecessarily repurposed as ethanol instead of food. Punitive federal land management policies have reduced available grazing for cattle. The outrageous Green New Scam of inefficient windmills and solar panels has removed hundreds of thousands of acres from planting.
Instead of getting our power from efficient nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas plants, we increasingly rely on inefficient sources that reduce the amount of food America can grow for ourselves and for the world.
Today’s Democrats champion their devotion to an imaginary climate theory at the expense of the world’s poor and starving millions.
Finally, one can hardly address the issue of unnecessary human deaths without facing the issue of abortion. Over the past 50 years, the killing of the unborn has become the universal goal of the Left; the Guttmacher Institute estimates the current number at more than a million lives extinguished per year, in the United States alone.
Yes, a million.
Senator Sanders and his colleagues will continue to score political points by claiming to protect 50,000 lives by their budget fight, but those who pay attention know better.
In fact, the Democrats have not only become longtime advocates of Zero Population Growth and similar anti-human theories; they have found numerous ways to twist public policy toward aggressive population reduction, not just in the U.S. but around the globe.
If one truly values human life, one would be best advised to listen carefully to whatever today’s Democrats advocate, and then do the exact opposite.
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation manager, trade compliance trainer, and speaker. Read his book on the surprisingly numerous varieties of vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel), his political satires on the Biden-Harris years (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes I, II, and III), and his recent collection of public policy essays, Current Events and the Issues of Our Age, all available in eBook or paperback, exclusively on Amazon.
Very broadly speaking, the state three challenges to Trump’s invasions adopt different theories.
By emptywheel
The 22-page California challenge (the TRO request was filed separately), which was filed during large scale protests, contested whether the scale of the protest merited nationalization of the Guard and invasion by the Marines
The 41-page Oregon challenge basically showed that Trump’s batshit claims about Portland don’t match the reality on the ground, noting that to the extent there were significant protests, they subsided long before Trump called in the Guard
The 69-page Illinois challenge argues that the invasion arises out of animus
Of those 69 pages in the Illinois suit, 21 are dedicated to describing Trump’s animus, which it dates as starting in 2013, continued though his first presidential term, and even came out during the interregnum. 44. The supposed current emergency is belied by the fact that Trump’s Chicago troop deployment threats began more than ten years ago. In a social media post from 2013 Trump writes “we need our troops on the streets of Chicago, not in Syria.”
47. Three years ago, in 2022, Trump was between his presidential terms. In two separate speeches that summer, Trump shared his plans for Chicago, stating in July 2022 that the “next president needs to send the National Guard to the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago.” He reiterated that point at the August 2022 CPAC speech, saying that the problem was “these cities that were run by Democrats going so bad so fast.”
It shows how Trump and Stephen Miller’s targeting
57. On April 18, 2025, Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the Homeland Security Advisor leveled the accusation that “Sanctuary cities shield criminal illegal aliens from removal.” Although not a lawyer, he opined that “these cities are engaged in systemic criminal violations and that they are engaged in a scheme to nullify and obstruct the duly enacted laws of the United States of America.” Miller specifically cited Chicago, along with Los Angeles and Boston, saying the cities were “waging war against the very idea of nationhood.”
It showed how, in May, DHS ditched its first draft list of sanctuary jurisdictions to get rid of the Republican ones on the list.
63. In the midst of these immigration-related federal defunding actions and responsive lawsuits, DHS published, on May 29, 2025, a list of 500 purported “sanctuary jurisdictions” around the country. It accused them of “shamefully obstructing” the Trump administration’s deportation plans and “shielding dangerous criminal aliens.” Fox News Channel 32 Chicago accurately characterized the list as an escalation of “efforts to penalize states and cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.”
64. However, days later, based on widespread news reporting as early as June 1st, that first sanctuary jurisdiction list was gone. As reported, very soon after publishing the list, the Trump administration faced objections from Republican stronghold jurisdictions that found themselves on the list. The Department of Homeland Security quickly and quietly removed the list from the website where it had been posted.
65. Then on July 25, 2025, the federal district judge presiding over the United States’ lawsuit regarding Illinois’s, Chicago’s and Cook County’s immigration-related laws and policies dismissed the case. United States v. Illinois, No. 25 CV 1285, 2025 WL 2098688, *27 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2025). In concluding that there was no claim for the United States to pursue, the court held that “the Sanctuary Policies reflect [Illinois’s, Chicago’s and Cook County’s] decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by the INA. Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment. It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity— the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.” Id.
66. Less than two weeks later, the Trump administration posted a new version of its sanctuary jurisdiction target list. That August 5, 2025, publication shortened the list from about 500 to just 35 jurisdictions. The new sanctuary “jurisdiction” list targeted twelve states (including Illinois, California, and Oregon), the District of Columbia, eighteen cities (including Chicago), and four counties (including Cook County).
It tracks a number of things Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino did to create a pretext for invasion, focusing closely on Bovino’s boat trips around the river, but also describing the way Noem went out of the way to address protestors directly (the Chief of Police of Broadview was pretty unhappy about that event).
106. As this DHS show of force in Broadview was escalating, CBP appeared in tactical gear with large weapons in hand around the City of Chicago. On September 25, 2025, Greg Bovino, head of the CBP operations in Chicago, led a small fleet of “Border Patrol” boats downtown on the Chicago River, with officers armed with semi-automatic rifles. Photographs in the local news showed the boats passing the upscale Riverwalk, in the area of the Trump Tower:
107. The CBP boats were seen again on the Chicago River in the following days, seemingly doing nothing more than eponymous showboating.
108. However, the day after the Border Protection’s first unimpeded river fleet cruise, DHS executed a memo expressing an urgent need for support in Illinois from the “Department of War.” Specifically, on September 26, DHS requested from DoD 100 troops to protect ICE facilities in Illinois with “immediate and sustained assistance” because of a fictional “coordinated assault by violent groups . . . actively aligned with designated domestic terror organizations . . . .” DoD’s National Guard Bureau informally made this request to Illinois for its National Guard troops on September 27, which Illinois refused the following day.
109. Two days after this request, on Sunday, September 28, around 100 DHS agents, dressed in militaristic tactical gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles, patrolled the Chicago business district near Millenium Park and Michigan Avenue. They positioned themselves in large groups on major pedestrian thoroughfares in tourist and commercial areas.
112. On October 3rd, 2025, Kristi Noem, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, orchestrated a visit to the Broadview facility designed to provoke those who could hear or see the visit. Throughout this visit, rather than avoiding the protesters, Secretary Noem and her entourage, including Bovino, entered areas congested with protesters, even when there were alternative routes that would have avoided those areas.
113. Defendant Noem was videotaped speaking to assembled DHS agents about protestors outside of the ICE facility in which she stated: “Today, when we leave here we’re going to go hard. We’re going to hammer these guys that are advocating for violence against the American people . . . we’re going to go out there and we’re going to make sure that there’s consequences for the way that they’re behaving and that we’re going to prosecute them” Noem’s comments about protestors “advocating for violence against the American people” are unsupported by public reports, and appear to conflate the First Amendment-protected speech of protestors with political violence.
114. Noem then introduced Bovino, who began his speech saying, “It’s roll up time here, state instrument is a hard power, you’re going to be put into full effect.” Although at that time demonstrators were confined to a free speech area blocks from the ICE facility, and managed by ISP and local police, Bovino called demonstrators an “unsafe crowd.” He further stated, “we’re going to roll them all the way out of here, and when they resist what happens? They get arrested. So it’s now going to be a free arrest zone . . . I’m giving them one warning . . . They’re getting it here as soon as we leave.”
115. Subsequently, Secretary Noem’s motorcade, in a large armored, tactical vehicle known as a BearCat, exited the facility through an entrance congested with protesters, rather than the alternative, which was not. She then proceeded to an area with protesters on all sides and exited the vehicle. Because she affirmatively went to the protest area, the U.S. Secret Service was required to extend the protective perimeter, resulting in federal agents engaging with protesters and prompting ISP involvement. There was no legitimate purpose under federal law for this conduct by defendant Noem.
Sadly, they didn’t describe Russian useful idiot Benny Johnson’s role in all this, because his false claims are a key part of the effort to stoke violence (and, probably, to mislead Trump about what is really happening).
It cites a number of Trump’s false Truth Social claims and fundraising emails, including this one from September 6.
And it describes Trump’s incendiary language to describe peaceful protest, including his declaration of a war from within.
120. A few days later, on September 30 at the Pentagon, Trump and Hegseth addressed a gathering of about 800 top military leaders. Trump took the opportunity again to attack Chicago, stating: “You know, the Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape. We have many cities in great shape too, by the way. I want you to know that. But it seems that the ones that are run by the radical left Democrats, what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re going to straighten them out one by one.” He went on to say, “And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”
121. Trump then stated that he had informed defendant Hegseth, “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard, but military, because we’re going into Chicago very soon.” Defendant Hegseth has now taken formal action to do so.
It used Trump’s invitation for Pete Hegseth to use Chicago as a “training ground” as the introduction of the rest of the complaint.
The complaint describes the shooting of a Chicago man and the lies DHS told about it. The Black Hawk invasion of an apartment building appears elsewhere, to show that there was no interruption of whatever that invasion was meant to be. It doesn’t mention the shooting on Saturday: but emails submitted by the ILNG show that Trump had already made the request for Guard before that event (though they happened nearly simultaneously).
I’ve seen some people speculate, because of more recent events, that Chicago would have a tougher time than Portland to prove there was no purpose for the invasion.
But this is a different, more ambitious argument, effectively showing that Kristi Noem set out to create a pretext for a long contemplated plan to invade Chicago.
Flip-Flopping Democrats Dancing an Immigration Jig for Political Gain
By Brian C. Joondeph
October 6, 2025
Ladies and gentlemen, gather 'round for a tale of political acrobatics worthy of Olympic gymnastics. The Democratic Party, once a stronghold of tough talk on illegal immigration benefits, has pirouetted into a chorus line of hypocrisy, all to serve political convenience.
ChatGPT generated image
Let's waltz through the decades with Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, comparing their former stern warnings with their current soft-shoe routines. Buckle up, because this flip-flop parade will be an inconvenient sashay through their past statements.
Back in 1996, Senator Chuck Schumer was the sheriff of congressional fiscal responsibility, wielding his gavel like a six-shooter. “People say, why can't you stop illegal immigrants from coming here? The number one answer we give our constituents is when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud,” he declared during a U.S. House session.
Fast forward to 2025. Last week, Schumer and his caucus shut down the government over illegal immigrants getting taxpayer-funded health care and men competing against women in sports. Talk about a 180-degree turn! It’s like he swapped his cowboy hat for a sombrero mid-dance.
Speaking of sombreros, President Trump posted a hilarious AI-generated video on his X account featuring Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, with Jeffries wearing a sombrero, making liberals' heads explode.
Hakeem Jeffries in a sombrero | Truth Social screen grab
Remember that in 2023, Customs and Border Patrol “recorded more than 2.4 million encounters at the Southwest border and more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide.” No wonder Jeffries was wearing a sombrero.
In the video, Schumer argues that illegal aliens should get “free health care” because “nobody likes Democrats anymore because of all our woke trans bullsh**." While CNN and other corporate media outlets, along with Democrat politicians and shills, yell about racism and bigotry, they only cry foul because the satire hits too close to home.
The top troll doubled down with another video on his X account featuring Jeffries, complaining that the first video was disgusting and bigoted, with the sombrero again popping onto his head and a Trump mariachi band playing in the background. Poor Hakeem might need therapy after Trump’s trolling.
Back in 1996, Schumer genuinely cared about American citizens. Today, his office might say, “We’re just being compassionate,” but back then, compassion seemed like a privilege reserved only for legal residents.
The hypocrisy? Thicker than a New York deli pastrami sandwich.
Barack Obama, the smooth operator of 2008, once crooned, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
It was a bold border security break dance that resonated with many voters. But as his presidency progressed, Obama’s tone shifted to more inclusive, with policies that expanded certain benefits for undocumented immigrants.
His spokespeople might now argue, “We were just laying the groundwork for comprehensive reform,” but it suspiciously sounds like a political dance move. It’s as if Obama traded his border wall blueprint for a welcome mat, all while the band played on.
Trump, not missing a beat, shared a C-SPAN video of Obama’s 2005 comments with his caption, “I agree with President Obama 100%!” in 2018.
Hillary Clinton, during her 2007-2008 campaign, was no stranger to tough talk, either. "As president, I will not support drivers'licenses for undocumented people,” she promised, correctly fearing that it would encourage more illegal immigration.
But as the political winds shifted, Clinton’s dance moves softened faster than butter on a hot skillet. By 2016, she was advocating for comprehensive reform that included benefits for undocumented immigrants. Her campaign might now say, “We evolved,” but it looks more like they revolved around the voter bloc du jour.
It’s a pivot that would make even the most flexible politician dizzy.
Bill Clinton, in 1993, was the Fred Astaire of welfare reform, danceing around issues of illegal immigration benefits. He echoed the Democrat position of the day, “The simple fact is that we must not and we will not surrender our borders to those who wish to exploit our history of compassion and justice. We cannot tolerate those who traffic in human cargo, nor can we allow our people to be endangered by those who would enter our country to terrorize Americans.”
Trump and MAGA would fully agree. Bill Clinton’s legacy might now be summed up as, “Well, times change,” but it’s hard not to notice the political choreography involved.
Then there’s Joe Biden, who in the run-up to the 2008 election echoed Bill Clinton. As recalled by CNN, Joe Biden once spoke about jailing employers who hire “illegals,” said sanctuary cities shouldn’t be allowed to violate federal law, and argued a fence was needed to stop “tons” of drugs coming into the country from “corrupt Mexico.”
But as president, Biden’s administration faced criticism for policies that loosened restrictions and expanded benefits. His team might argue, “We’re focusing on humanity,” but it’s a humanity that conveniently aligns with current political advantages.
It’s as if Biden traded his border patrol badge for a hospitality badge, all while the music shifted. The hypocrisy isn’t just a minor slip-up, it’s a convenient flip-flop.
These Democrats once opposed benefits for illegal immigrants, citing concerns about encouraging more illegal immigration and respecting legal pathways. But as the political climate shifted, so did their stances, faster than you can say “dirty dancing.”
It was never about principle, only about the audience and the next election. One day, they’re the stern parents saying no to dessert, and the next, they’re the indulgent grandparents taking the kids to the ice cream shop. The voter base changed, and so did the message.
So, as we watch this flip-flop dance, let’s remember that politics is a performance, and these Democrats have perfected the art of quick changes. But for conservative voters, it’s less of a dance and more a reminder of why trust in these political chameleons is as stable as a house of cards. The music may change, but the hypocrisy stays the same.
Remember this dance when you vote. Otherwise, you'll likely see it again.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer. Follow me on Twitter @retinaldoctor, Substack Dr. Brian’s Substack, Truth Social @brianJoondeph, LinkedIn @brian Joondeph, and email brianjoondeph@gmail. com.
The top House Democrat said a floor exchange would “provide the American people with the transparency they deserve.”
By Nicholas Wu and Mia McCarthy
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries challenged Speaker Mike Johnson to a floor debate on the government shutdown Monday as agencies remained closed into a second workweek.
“Given the urgency of the moment and the Republican refusal to negotiate a bipartisan agreement, a debate on the House Floor will provide the American people with the transparency they deserve,” Jeffries said in a letter sent Monday. “It will also give you an opportunity to explain your my way or the highway approach to shutting the government down, when Democratic votes are needed to resolve the impasse that exists.”
Johnson declined the offer at a news conference Monday, calling the offer “nonsense” and Jeffries “desperate” while arguing that the time to debate was when the House took up a seven-week continuing resolution late last month.
“I respect him, but we all know what he’s trying to do there,” Johnson said.
It’s not the first time Jeffries has tried to engage the speaker in a tete-a-tete. He similarly asked for a “one-on-one debate” with Johnson in April as the House GOP muscled through its party-line domestic policy megabill.
It’s set to be a quiet week in the House, with Johnson keeping the chamber in recess as Republicans try to pressure Senate Democrats to pass the House-approved seven-week CR. He told House Republicans on a private call over the weekend they would be given 48 hours notice if they needed to return to the Capitol. Jeffries, meanwhile, is set to host his members for a Monday evening online conference meeting but has not announced any plans to bring them back to Washington.
Jeffries says ‘no Democrat’ trying to give health care to migrants without legal status
By Max Rego
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that “no Democrat” in Congress is attempting to expand health care benefits to migrants without legal status.
“Federal law clearly prohibits the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to provide health care to undocumented immigrants. Period, full stop,” Jeffries said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And no Democrat on Capitol Hill is trying to change that law.”
As the government shutdown approaches a full week, the Senate continues to negotiate on competing proposals to fund the government. The Republican-backed bill would fund the government through Nov. 21.
The Democratic-backed proposal would fund the government through October, permanently extend subsidies offered under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and restore nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. As part of the back-and-forth, Republican lawmakers have accused Democrats in Congress of seeking to expand health care coverage to migrants without legal status.
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Trump on July 4, restrictions on access were implemented for lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees. The law, according to the nonpartisan health policy research group KFF, reduces eligibility for Medicaid, Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and ACA Marketplace enrollment.
Medicaid payments for emergency services are able to be made to hospitals on behalf of immigrants without legal status. According to KFF, those payments accounted for less than 1 percent of total Medicaid spending in fiscal 2023.
The July budget law implemented reductions in the amount of federal funding provided to hospitals for such emergency services. Migrants without legal status, though, are ineligible to receive full access to the aforementioned programs.
Jeffries, meanwhile, said Democrats’ focus is on extending the ACA subsidies, which expire at the end of this year. If the subsidies expire, premiums for millions of Americans could increase come January 2026.
“We are standing up for the health care of hard-working American taxpayers, of working-class Americans, of middle-class Americans, and everyday Americans who have seen over the last several months Republicans pass their one big ugly bill,” the New York Democrat added.
EXCLUSIVE: Mike Johnson Says Hakeem Jeffries Is ‘Terrified’ As ‘Marxists’ Jockey For More Power In Democratic Party
by Daily Caller News Foundation
October 5, 2025
House Speaker Mike Johnson sees growing leadership challenges on the horizon for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the far-left flank of the Democratic Party jockeys for more power.
Jeffries and his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, fully embraced a federal government shutdown following pressure from their party’s base, who have been demanding a prolonged fight with congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump. Johnson told the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) in a recent interview Jeffries’s decision to align himself with the far-left forces in his party could ultimately prove untenable and risks turning off the handful of moderates who remain in the party’s coalition.
“He’s trying to appeal to the less-progressive, more-moderate people, the small handful of them that remain in the Democratic Party and in Congress while also trying to appease the radical Marxist progressive left, and that’s an impossible assignment,” Johnson told the DCNF. “So he finds himself in these terrible positions saying and doing things that he knows are not true, that he doesn’t personally believe, but he’s trying to lead a fractured caucus.”
“Hakeem is establishment and the Marxists are taking over the party,” Johnson continued. “It’s a tough, tough position to be in.”
Jeffries and the majority of his Democratic House colleagues have cheered a politically-risky government shutdown which, among other impacts, is forcing troops to temporarily report for duty without pay and potentially jeopardizing Americans’ access to federal nutrition programs and certain healthcare services.
This hardball strategy follows the lead of left-wing activist groups, who have waged a months-long campaign to urge Democratic lawmakers to fight Republicans over funding government programs.
Johnson told the DCNF he sees considerable irony in the current shutdown fight with Democrats — who support big government — effectively giving the Trump administration an opening to further cull the federal workforce and slash agency programs by keeping the government closed.
Republicans also called out the hypocrisy of House Democrats’ embrace of shutdown. Jeffries and other top Democrats previously railed against shutting down the government, predicting dire consequences for Americans that could occur with a funding lapse.
“Hakeem Jeffries has always said that shutting the government down is dangerous,” Johnson said. “He knows that, but he voted, and he led his entire caucus to vote against it [funding the government] two weeks ago, except for one who broke ranks.”
Maine Rep. Jared Golden was the lone House Democrat to vote for the GOP’s spending bill, which would fund the government at current levels and does not feature any partisan policy riders favored by Republicans.
Golden issued a veiled critique of Jeffries’s shutdown strategy, arguing top Democrats were currying favor with far-left activist groups “to put on a show of their opposition to President Donald Trump.”
Jeffries was asked Wednesday about Golden’s criticism during a press conference by a Fox News reporter. Jeffries did not directly respond to the question, but argued the Democrats’ demands to add $1.5 trillion in policy demands to any spending measure were not partisan.
“You must disagree with Mr. Golden?” the reporter followed up.
Jeffries immediately moved on to the next question.
Johnson also pointed to Jeffries’s apparent hesitancy to endorse avowed socialist and Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s campaign as a prime example of the difficult choices the minority leader is facing within a divided party.
Though Mamdani has notched recent endorsements from top New York Democrats, Jeffries has thus far declined to weigh in on the contest despite being asked about the race during nearly every press availability he holds in the Capitol. Jeffries’s silence on the race has led to a revolt from the left flank of the party, with Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez excoriating Jeffries and Schumer for dragging their feet on endorsing the party’s nominee.
Several New York Democrats notably went out of their way to distance themselves from Mamdani and blast the democratic socialist as “too extreme” to lead New York City.
“Both Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are running scared from AOC and the far-left in their party — they have outsize influence — and they’re terrified,” Johnson said.
It’s also not clear that Jeffries’s combative shutdown strategy will land with or appease intraparty critics — who torch his messaging as too scripted — as well as the party’s left-wing base.
House Democrats’ government shutdown livestream struggled to attract viewers — amounting to just a few dozen at certain hours — and was cut short in the eleventh hour after being widely mocked by the media and even some Democratic strategists. Conversely, a three-minute video released by Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders starring Ocasio-Cortez garnered 1.5 million views on X.
Jeffries also lashed out after Trump posted an AI-generated video depicting the minority leader in a sombrero with a mustache. Johnson told the DCNF the move played right into Trump’s hands.
“He’s making himself appear unserious when he’s arguing about a sombrero meme while the government is shut down and people are losing healthcare and vital services,” Johnson said. “They are doing this to themselves. This is not Republicans — these are self-inflicted wounds.”
Wall Street Review: Stocks Hit New Records Despite Government Shutdown
Technology, small-cap, and healthcare stocks led the rally, fueled by positive corporate headlines and the prospect of lower interest rates.
A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the opening bell on Oct. 1, 2025. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
Panos Mourdoukoutas
10/4/2025
Stocks shook off concerns about the government shutdown and reached new highs this week, led by technology, small-cap, and health care shares on a flurry of positive corporate headlines and the prospect of lower interest rates.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended the week on Oct. 3 at 46,758, up by 1.1 percent for the week. The S&P 500 Index closed at 6,715, up by 1.09 percent. Both indexes closed near new records reached during the week.
The technology-heavy Nasdaq also ended higher for the week, up 1.32 percent, to 22,780, while the Russell 2000 gained 1.72 percent, resuming its multi-week rally.
The rally broadened, with health care shares staging a strong rebound. The Vanguard Health Care ETF gained 6.47 percent for the week, outshining the rest of the market.
Market volatility, as measured by the Chicago Board Options Exchange’s Volatility Index, rose by 8.89 percent from last week to 16.65.
After staying on the sidelines for a week, investors returned to the market, buying up tech shares and small caps that had lost ground the previous week.
The interest in stocks came despite signs of an imminent federal government shutdown, which became a reality on Oct. 1.
Historically, government shutdowns add uncertainty to the economic outlook, but they have a marginal effect on the overall economy, according to S&P Global.
One of the immediate consequences of the government shutdown is the absence of the release of government statistics on the economy, including the closely followed non-farm report, scheduled for release on Oct. 3.
Still, investors got a glimpse of the labor market from the JOLTS job openings report released on Sept. 30, less than a day before the shutdown. It showed job openings rising by 19,000 to 7.227 million in August, up from an upwardly revised 7.208 million reading in July, in line with market expectations. The report indicates that the economy’s “low fire, low hire” trend continued.
Two additional private reports released over the following two days presented a mixed picture of the labor market.
The ADP Employment report, released on Oct. 1, showed that private businesses cut 32,000 jobs in September, following a revised loss of 3,000 in August, marking the steepest job decline since March 2023.
On Oct. 2, the private Challenger report showed that United States-based employers cut 54,064 jobs in September, the lowest in three months. This was down from 85,979 in August and 25.8 percent lower than the same month in 2024. However, planned layoffs by employers totaled 202,118 in the third quarter, the highest third-quarter number since 2020.
Meanwhile, the ISM Services Business Activity Index dropped to 49.9 in September from 55 in August, marking the first decline in business activity since June 2024.
Economic weakness renewed prospects of further interest rate cuts, sending bond yields and the dollar lower for the week.
The benchmark 10-year Treasury bond yield that began the week at around 4.20 percent closed at 4.12 percent, while the U.S. Dollar Index that started the week at around 98.12 closed at 97.7.
A lower dollar boosted the tech sector, which derives a significant portion of its revenues from overseas markets, while lower bond yields supported both tech shares and small caps, which are more appealing to investors as these yields decline.
Another factor supporting stocks during the week was a flurry of corporate headlines that revived the AI buzz, such as OpenAI reaching a $500 million valuation after a share sale to SoftBank and BlackRock’s $40 billion data center deal.
The most critical corporate deal of the week was Pfizer with the White House, in which Pfizer agreed to sell drugs at lower prices in exchange for avoiding tariffs on branded products for three years.
Shares of Pfizer rallied 15.19 percent for the week, pulling along other pharmaceutical, insurance, and medical equipment shares. Merck gained 13.53 percent for the week, Eli Lilly and Company 15.92 percent, UnitedHealth Group up by 4.68 percent, Cigna 8.68 percent, and Medtronic 3.69 percent.
Still, David Laut, chief investment officer at Granite Bay, KERUX Financial, expressed concern over valuations as the market entered October, historically a volatile month for equities.
“We remain opportunistic during pullbacks and remind investors that pullbacks can be subtle and take place in small increments over several trading days,” he told The Epoch Times.
“What takes place in the markets during October can have implications for November and December, which are historically strong periods of time for the markets.”
Laut remains optimistic about equities, driven by earnings and lower interest rates that could push the market higher by the end of the year.
“Regardless of whether or not we see volatility in October, we still expect stocks to rally into year-end, as the markets start to price in 2026 optimism over earnings, rate cuts, and fading trade uncertainty,” Laut said.
Glen Smith, chief investment officer at Flower Mound, Texas-based GDS Wealth Management, views the government shutdown as another brick in the stock market’s wall of worry.
“It comes at a time when many investors are worried that the stock market is vulnerable due to high valuations and a powerful performance throughout September,” he told The Epoch Times.
However, Smith doesn’t see the government shutdown as a reason for portfolio adjustments.
“Any stock market volatility from a government shutdown may be an opportunity for investors, since the overall backdrop for stocks is still positive, with strong earnings and Fed rate cuts,” he said.
The DOGE initiative has saved $214 billion in taxpayer funds, according to the agency’s website.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) website is displayed on a phone, in this photo illustration. Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times
Naveen Athrappully
Reporter
10/6/2025
Various federal government agencies have terminated and descoped 94 wasteful contracts over the past five days, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) said in an Oct. 4 post on X.
The terminated contracts had a ceiling value of $8.5 billion and saved $546 million, DOGE said.
This included a “533k Dept. of Commerce consulting contract for ‘editing support services to the Fisheries Resource Division’ and a $61M HHS research contract for ‘solutions to support innovation in pursuit of affordable and better healthcare,’” according to the post.
This follows an earlier X post on Sept. 27 in which DOGE reported terminating and descoping 55 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $3.8 billion, saving $622 million.
According to the DOGE website, the initiative has saved $214 billion worth of taxpayer funds as of Oct. 4. This comes to roughly $1,329 in savings per taxpayer.
The savings were achieved through actions such as grant cancellations, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, asset sales, workforce reductions, and the deletion of fraud and improper payments, DOGE said.
Agencies that have seen the most savings include the Department of Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Social Security Administration, Office of Personnel Management, and the Small Business Administration.
Some of what DOGE describes as the “strangest, most baffling” uses of government funding uncovered by the agency include a $10 million grant for decolonizing the curriculum, a $2.8 million grant to address “historic and systemic racial inequities” in STEM education, and a $1.5 million grant to advance “reproductive justice” and behavioral health among blacks and “birthing people.”
In an Oct. 3 X post, DOGE criticized an Oct. 1 NPR article that claimed DOGE had failed to deliver on its promises of boosting efficiency and cutting costs.
The article is “full of inaccurate and misleading statements,” the agency said in its post.
NPR said that a contract termination showing $4.3 million in savings was not actually terminated, and almost all the money had already been spent.
DOGE published the receipt for $4.3 million of de-obligated funds under the contract, which it said was the “very definition of taxpayer savings.”
DOGE has faced criticism regarding privacy risks in its operations. In February, a group of unions and individuals sued the Trump administration over DOGE being granted access to the data of American citizens.
DOGE representatives have accessed social security numbers, bank account numbers, and other “extraordinarily sensitive” records of millions of people, the complaint said.
“Steamrolling into sensitive government record systems threatens to upend how these critical systems are maintained and compromises the safety and security of personal identifying information for Americans all across the country. It also violates federal law,” the plaintiffs argued.
The mass disclosure of people’s personal information “flies in the face of that legal framework and tramples on the individual privacy rights and interests protected by the Privacy Act,” the complaint stated.
In March, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Education from disclosing the plaintiffs’ information to DOGE affiliates.
However, on Aug. 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the block. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in proving DOGE’s activities violated federal law.
“To insist that the DOGE affiliates explain in advance the exact information they need and why is to demand something just short of clairvoyance,” Richardson said.
“It does not stretch the imagination to think that an employee tasked with modernizing an agency’s software and IT systems would require administrator-level access to those systems, including any internal databases, especially when conducting the initial survey of the agency’s technological ailments.”
Meanwhile, DOGE commended the Department of Energy (DOE) in an Oct. 3 X post for terminating 321 wasteful contracts and saving taxpayers around $7.5 billion in the process. These projects were “mostly in uneconomic ‘green’ grants,” the agency said.
DOGE said that the department determined these projects “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”
Pete Hegseth Blasts Woke Diversity at Navy’s 250th Anniversary
Olivia Rondeau
5 Oct 2025
War Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed a lively audience of U.S. Navy Sailors in Virginia to commemorate the military branch’s 250th anniversary, reiterating President Donald Trump’s emphasis on “America first, and peace through strength” and blasting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Hegseth received loud applause as he began his remarks to thousands of Sailors at the Naval Station Norfolk, the world’s largest naval station with over 82,000 active-duty military on base and over 29,000 civilians.
🚨 JUST IN: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth just took the stage at Naval Station Norfolk and the sailors are ELECTRIC. 🔥🇺🇸
"This is the PERFECT WAY to mark 250 years of the US Navy."
Calling the crowd “the absolute best of America,” the War secretary said, “Looking out at all of you — I know you know why the President always says we have the strongest, most powerful, most lethal, most ready military on the planet, and he’s going to make sure we keep it that way.”
“This is the perfect way to mark 250 years of the United States Navy. You know, President Trump has made our mission clear; America first, and peace through strength with common sense at every turn,” Hegseth continued, before emphasizing the name change from Department of Defense to Department of War.
“At the War Department — it is the War Department — we’re committed to that mission of peace through strength. And for the Navy, that means more Sailors, more subs, more ships and more munitions for all of them. Navy and the Marine Corps embody the resilience of our country. Nobody, nobody in the world does it better than the United States Navy,” he said to more cheers.
Pete Hegseth to Navy troops: "Your diversity is not your strength. Your strength is your unity of purpose, your shared mission, your love of country." pic.twitter.com/7NYyD4FDyc
Hegseth went on to blast DEI mantra like “diversity is our strength,” instead highlighting the common mission that unites all service members.
“You’re not civilians, you are different — Sailors, Seals, Marines. You were set apart for a distinct purpose. Your diversity is not your strength,” he told the crowd. “Your strength is your unity of purpose, your shared mission, your love of country. Generation after generation, battle after battle, ship after ship, Sailor after Sailor, you have set the tone.”
He continued on to reference John Paul Jones, the Scottish-born naval officer who is also known as the “Father of the American Navy” for his role in the Continental Navy during the American Revolutionary War:
The story began with John Paul Jones when he declared, “I have not yet begun to fight.” Today we have a commander-in-chief who fights for all of you and fights for our country every single day.
A commander in chief who guarantees that you, the war fighters, have everything you need on the high seas to deter our enemies, and if necessary, win overwhelmingly. We have a president who appreciates your dedication.
He appreciates your service, your sacrifice, and that of your family as well. And as I always tell every service member, every Sailor I see, he has your back.
Hegseth concluded his speech with a message of gratitude to the Sailors from the Pentagon.
“So war fighters, on behalf of everyone at the Department of War, thank you. Thank you for your commitment to America’s Navy. You stand the watch 250 years later, God bless you, and may God bless our great Republic. Godspeed,” the secretary said, to more loud applause.
Hegseth’s speech was immediately followed by short remarks from first lady Melania Trump, then a 45-minute speech from President Trump himself.
Americans Get More from Less Migration, Says Study by Pro-Migration Group
Neil Munro
5 Oct 2025
Keeping migration low is the best way to raise Americans’ prosperity, says a study funded by the leading lobby group for investors who want mass migration.
“At medium and low immigration levels, labor-based [skilled professional] immigration, characterized by fewer but more skilled population, produces higher GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per capita [emphasis added] growth,” compared to mass inflow of migrants and their extended families, says the September study by Springer, titled “Demographic and Economic Implications of Alternative U.S. Immigration Policies.”
“That should be a no-brainer because we know we could annex Mexico and our GDP would be enormously higher, but our per capita income would drop,” said Rosemary Jenks, cofounder of the Immigration Accountability Project. “That’s just ‘Duh!'”
The study is useful because “you have the advocates [for mass migration] themselves saying immigration is not a good deal for the average American,” said Stephen Camarota, the research director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “It may be good for Wall Street, it’s not good for Main Street, ” he added.
The study matches reality in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, where the estimated quality of life is declining and productivity is stalling because elites are importing consumers, renters, and workers to grow the nation’s real-estate prices and stock values.
FWD.us
The pro-migration report credits the education-fund spinoff of FWD.us for its creation, saying, “This research was supported by a grant from the FWD.us Education Fund.”
FWD.us was created by West Coast investors to lobby for a greater inflow of consumers, renters, and workers.
It was initially pushed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to pass the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill. Since then, Zuckerberg has reportedly stepped back from the organization, ceding a greater role to other investor founders. The other leaders include venture capitalists Ron Conway and Reid Hoffman, and Salesforce founder Marc Benioff.
The group reveals very little about its funding or backers, or operations. But the report thanked the lobby group’s staff, including president Todd Schulte and advocacy chief Mark Delich:
The authors would like to thank Todd Schulte, Mark Delich, Phillip Connor, Pete Boorgard, Andrew Moriarity, Eddie Taveras, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on the manuscript at various stages. We also thank Giovanni Peri for his advice on modeling, and Tim O’Shea and Nowrin Fatema for research assistance.
The study looks at economic growth from 2021 to 2060, and concludes that GDP [the blue line] is maximized by mass immigration of families who must work to rent apartments and pay living expenses.
But per-capita income [the red line] is maximized by a smaller inflow of working-age, skilled workers, the FWD.us report admitted: “GDP grows faster in policy scenarios with higher immigration.”
The report’s scenarios consider unskilled mass migration — “family emphasis” — and skilled migration, dubbed “labor” migration. “Compared to the family emphasis scenarios, the labor-emphasis scenarios predict that immigration will be more concentrated in the prime working ages and include more Asian and European immigrants, and fewer Latin Americans,” the study adds.
The report concludes:
All family-emphasis scenarios experience slower GDP per capita growth compared to both their [skilled] labor counterparts and the zero immigration scenario, primarily due to larger population sizes and lower supplies of working-age populations.
In fact, the option of zero immigration generates higher per-capita growth than the GDP-boosting option of mass family migration, according to the study.
The report says the zero migration option grows per-capita income by 1.089 in the 35 years up to 2060.
Cutting immigration to half the 2021 level but emphasizing skilled migrants raises per capita result by 0.01.
Keeping migration at President Joe Biden’s 2021 rate but emphasizing skilled foreign workers raises per capita income by another 0.06, the study says:
The new study matches prior work by the FWD.us group and its education fund.
In November 2024, a FWD.us report agreed that migration drives down wages:
When labor is in short supply relative to demand, employers offer higher wages, which are in turn passed on to consumers, leading to rising prices … Congress and the Biden Administration should immediately find legislative solutions to increase legal immigration, or risk future inflationary spikes.
In February 2020, for example, Breitbart News reported that a FWD.us study showing the exclusion of migrants in Florida would drive up local wages:
If “existing undocumented workers were to exit the Florida economy in the number anticipated were E-Verify were [sic] to be adopted, the adequate numbers of native workers would not be available at current wage rates,” says the draft report funded by FWD.us, an advocacy group for billionaire investors, including Mark Zuckerberg.
…
“In today’s tight labor market, it is unlikely that the workforce lost due to the implementation of mandatory E-verify would be replaced without driving up production costs,” according to the report, which was commissioned by FWD.us in November 2019 in response to DeSantis’s push for legislation that would reduce the hiring of illegal migrants.
In April 2021, another FWD.us-funded study from George Mason University showed that mass migration helps to inflate the U.S. economy, for example, by raising land values and rental income. A bigger economy is good for property owners, investors, and banks — but forces ordinary citizens to deal with more expensive housing, chaotic politics, more wage competition, and crowded roads, amenities, schools, and hospitals.
But the 2021 report also admitted that mass migration does little for per-capita growth:
Projections show that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) could double and grow as large as $47 trillion in today’s dollars in 2050 if immigration levels were doubled to more than 2 million new permanent and temporary immigrants each year. Per capita, this would lead to a 3% increase in average income by 2050 for all Americans compared with keeping immigration at recent levels.
But a 3 percent gain over 30 years is just 0.1 percent a year amid the huge civic and pocketbook costs of higher migration.
"Immigration: what the hell were we doing? The bottom 20% of our population’s wages haven’t gone up for 20 years..."
"The Biden admin was giving money to EVs & green stuff that isn't gonna work...schools don't work. They're not getting the skills they need." pic.twitter.com/gRqb9E2Qot
The 2021 report’s promise of a 3 percent per-capita gain over 30 years “is a tiny, trivial per-capita benefit … it is so small that it’s within any kind of margin of error,” said Stephen Camarota, the research director at the Center for Immigration Studies. He added:
There’s no evidence this [migration] makes the average American more prosperous, and in fact, it almost certainly makes the working class worse off by increasing job competition … There’s many consequences to adding to the U.S. population, including making housing more unaffordable, congestion, pollution, sprawl, and none of that is being accounted for here … There’s even evidence that immigration reduces the fertility of the native born.
The non-economic costs include chaotic diversity, reduced innovation, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, fewer births, and limited opportunities for upward mobility among young strivers.
For example, Americans’ housing costs rose dramatically under President Joe Biden’s supercharged economic policy of Extraction Migration. The total value of U.S. housing rose by 56 percent from 2020 to late 2025, Zillow reported in September. A Danish study reported that a lower level of migration spiked housing costs by 30 percent. The same trend is seen in high-migration Australia.
But amid Trump’s low-migration policies, “growth has slowed in the past year as high costs cooled buyer demand,” Zillow added. “Rents in Doral have dropped to their lowest level in three years,” the Wall Street Journal reported as it charted the self-deportation of many Venezuelan migrants.
Australia has screwed its housing market more than any other developed nation. We have sacrificed future generations just to maximise the profits that can be squeezed out of housing. Freaking attrocious
The 2025 and 2021 reports are silent about the increased costs imposed by greater migration. The 2025 report also assumed productivity would grow at 1.4 percent per year.
Still, both the 2025 and 2021 reports touted benefits for decision-makers and political advocates in Washington, DC.
The 2025 report says:
U.S. economic growth and our continued global economic leadership depend on expanding opportunity supported by a sufficiently large working-age population, which means implementing humane, orderly ways to increase immigration levels of all kinds.
The 2021 report says, “By increasing immigration — and by creating a humane, orderly system for employment- and family-based immigration — the United States can maintain its global leadership and invest in a strong economic future for all Americans.”
“We don’t give a damn what the GDP is — we care what our per-capita income is,” said Jenks, adding:
I think the elites care about the overall GDP …Well, who cares if it’s not helping us? This is what the 1940s and 50s were all about — [because] after we got out of the war and immigration was at historic lows, the middle class started growing.
Other reports also say massive migration inflows generate tiny economic gains. For example, a 2024 Brookings report by economist Wendy Edelburg criticized Trump’s immigration policy, saying it “could cause GDP growth in 2025 to be roughly half a percentage point … lower in a second Trump administration than under a [Kamala] Harris administration.” The report did not mention per-capita gains or losses.
In July, Edelberg told Bloomberg News that Trump’s deportations would have “pretty modest economic effects” on the overall size of the nation’s economy. But, she added, “We’re going to see stronger wage growth in some occupations, stronger wage growth in the agricultural sector, stronger wage growth for home health workers.”
“Immigration does not make countries rich,” said Camarota, adding:
It doesn’t make countries necessarily more productive, it just makes their population and GDP bigger. If you want to try to use immigration to make yourself richer, then you mean a much lower level and a highly selective system.
Moreover, the 2025 FWD.us report also admits alternatives to their favored policy of more migration. “Immigration is not the only approach to address labor shortages and population aging: improving labor force participation can have positive and long-term effects on the economy [and] increasing fertility among the native-born would slow population aging,” the report said.
President Donald Trump is zig-zagging towards that economic alternative to migration.
“We’re going to need robots … to make our economy run because we do not have enough people,” he told Breitbart News, adding:
So we have to get efficient … we’ll probably add to [the existing workforce] through robotically—it’s going to be robotically … It’s going to be big. Then, somebody is going to have to make the robots. The whole thing, it feeds on itself.
Notably, Trump’s Labor Department posted a September 30 tweet saying, “America First. Americans First.”
Liberals are complaining that the Amish are now getting more work, after illegal immigrants have been deported..
Exclusive — Rep. Joe Wilson: ‘Never Been Clearer’ Democrats Giving Health Care to Illegal Aliens to Buy Votes
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein
Sean Moran
5 Oct 2025
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) told Breitbart News Saturday that it has “never been clearer” that Democrats are giving health care to illegal aliens to buy votes using American taxpayers’ money.
In 2009, Wilson yelled “you lie” when then-President Barack Obama claimed during a joint address to Congress that illegal aliens would not have access to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
“I almost fell out of my chair when he said what he said — that illegal aliens are not covered,” Wilson told Breitbart News Saturday host Matthew Boyle.
Now, Democrats have shut down the government over soon-to-be expiring enhanced Obamacare subsidies.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and other Democrats have admitted that the Democrats have shut down the government in part to make it easier for illegal aliens to secure taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits.
“In terms of the health care, the reality is they are just not being honest. The amount of money that actually is going towards people who are undocumented is such a small portion of the Medicaid cuts or the Affordable Care Act, if at all,” Khanna said.
Khanna on Fox: "In terms of healthcare, the reality is they are just not being honest. The amount of money that actually is going towards people who are undocumented is such a small portion of the Medicaid cuts or the ACA, if at all." pic.twitter.com/Y8vREnylaI
Wilson told Breitbart News Saturday that the shutdown is “cover” to provide health care for illegal aliens.
The South Carolina congressman said that the “whole intent” of the shutdown is to “bring in new democrat voters and part of that would be the attraction of providing free health care. It’s so important to see the Republican Party stand up on this.”
“They’re buying votes with American taxpayers’ money, it’s never been clearer,” Wilson continued.
“I have faith in Breitbart, faith in conservative media, that the truth will prevail and voters and constituents will be contacting their U.S. senators to agree to a clean continuing resolution, and we can discuss other issues later,” he said.
Speaker Mike Johnson: Government Shutdown and Healthcare Debate Are Two Different Issues
US House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, during a news conference
Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Hannah Knudsen
6 Oct 2025
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) held a press conference on day six of the Democrat government shutdown and made clear that Democrats are being incredibly misleading in their messaging and that it is Republicans who are actually trying to solve the healthcare crisis.
“I want you to look at the real facts,” Johnson began, explaining that Republicans decided to come up with an extremely simple
stop gap measure to “keep the lights on and keep the government open so that appropriators can finish this very healthy process for the people they represent,” maintaining that this was a clean continuing resolution.
“Why do we say it’s clean? Because there’s nothing to it. It’s 24 pages. It’s the bare minimum. It just says, keep the status quo,” he said, reminding Democrats that the status quo is very much the Biden-era policies and spending they have not been able to fix yet.
“We’re in the process of getting appropriations done to prepare all that, but we needed more time to do it. So in a bipartisan fashion, Democrats and Republicans got together and said, you know what? Fine. Let’s extend this until November 21. The Democrats in the House agreed to that. That was the date we put that on the floor. We passed it out of the House in bipartisan fashion, and we sent it over to the Senate,” Johnson explained, noting that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) changed his tune and is now trying to save face among fellow Democrats — namely, the radical left wing of his party.
“They created a red herring. A red herring is a distraction. They decided that they would pick a fight on healthcare. Let me look right under the camera and tell you very clearly, Republicans are the ones concerned about healthcare,” Johnson clarified.
“Republicans are the party working around the clock every day to fix healthcare. It’s not talking points for us. We’ve done it. A big part of the one big, beautiful bill, the working families tax cut, was to fix healthcare. Health care is broken in America. It’s too expensive. The quality of care needs to rise. We need more access for more people, and we have lots of ideas to do that,” he said, explaining that the debate for that issue is in the next few months and “always was.”
“We have members working on that. The tax credit, the subsidy you’ve heard about, that expires December 31. There’s a lot of thoughtful debate and discussion that has already been going on about that, and will go on about it, but that’s a December 31 issue. So Chuck Schumer is scrambling. He has to have an issue,” the Speaker continued, noting that none of the Democrat policies are very popular right now, so they decided to take on healthcare and tie it to government funding, despite the fact that they are two separate issues.
“They’re two totally separate things. The clean continuing resolution would simply keep the lights on so that the members in the House and Senate can have those debates on healthcare. We were always planning it. We have lots of ideas on the table on how to fix it, but we don’t yet have consensus on it because it’s very complicated,” he said. “We have time to do it.”
“In his [Schumer’s] desperation, they decided to create the red herring. They decided to claim that this is all about health care, which the September funding issue never was. That’s a December policy issue. He tried to create it as a September funding issue… In his desperation, they hastily filed an outrageous counter proposal. It is a wild wish list of big government liberal nonsense that we can’t do,” he added.
WATCH:
Speaker Johnson: The simple truth why the government shut down
Democrat-Run Chicago: More than 1,500 Shooting Victims Thus Far in 2025
Brandon Johnson, Mayor of Chicago, speaking on the first day of the Democratic National Co
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
AWR Hawkins
6 Oct 2025
There have been more than 1,500 shooting victims–fatal and non-fatal combined–in Mayor Brandon Johnson’s (D) Chicago thus far in 2025.
Chicago Police posted a report for Week 39 of this year (Sept. 22-28) showing that the number of shootings in the Windy City had topped 1,100.
The Chicago Sun-Times published figures showing the city had witnessed a total of 1,500 shooting victims by the end of October 4, 2025.
Those 1,500 shooting victims were comprised of 276 who succumbed to their wounds and 1,224 who were wounded but survived.
At the time of this writing–October 6, 2025, two days after the Sun-Times report–there there have been numerous additional shootings and shooting victims in Chicago, bringing the total number of victims beyond the October 4 figure of 1,500.
For example, Breitbart News reported at least 30 people were shot over the past weekend, including five who were shot fatally.
CBS News listed nine shootings in Chicago that occurred Sunday, October 5, 2025, and two that occurred in the wee hours of Monday, October 6. There was a total of 13 victims, including one fatality, in the 11 shooting incidents that occurred in the two days since the Sun-Times reported 1,500 shooting victims in Chicago.
White House: Federal Workers Won’t Receive ‘Next Full Paycheck’ Unless Dems End Shutdown Tonight
Nick Gilbertson
6 Oct 2025
WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noted Monday that millions of federal workers will not receive their next full paycheck unless Democrats vote to open the federal government this evening.
Leavitt emphasized the consequences of the Democrats’ shutdown during a White House press briefing.
.@PressSec on the Democrat Shutdown: If Democrats do not vote to open the government tonight, federal workers will not receive their next full paycheck, the special nutrition program for women and infants will run out of money, and service members will miss their next paycheck. pic.twitter.com/jwJs7AzUY5
“We are now in day six of the Democrat federal government shutdown. Millions of American federal workers are under enormous financial stress as a result, wondering how they will pay their bills and take care of their families,” she said.
“If the Democrats do not vote to open the government tonight, federal workers will not receive their next full paycheck,” Leavitt added.
Leavitt further noted that the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children will soon be out of funds, adding that if Democrats vote to fund the government tonight, then it can be “easily fully funded.” The voucher program helps low-income families with essentials like healthy food and baby formula.
“Also, our incredible military servicemembers who risk their lives to preserve and defend our country are now working without pay and will miss their next paychecks if this Democrat shutdown does not end tonight,” she noted.
Senate Democrats, except for three, have repeatedly voted against the Republicans’ clean continuing resolution (CR), which would fund the government at the same levels as those approved by then-President Joe Biden in 2024 which were carried over into Fiscal Year 2025. The CR, which passed the House with support from Republicans and just one Democrat on September 19, would fund the government into November while House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) work to pass individual appropriations bills through the regular order process.
Democrats have proposed their own continuing resolution with strings attached, including reversing a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill that nixed taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits for illegal immigrants.
“The sad truth we believe is that the Democrats intentionally shut down the government and are inflicting this pain on American citizens to try and demand free health care for illegal aliens,” Leavitt said Monday.
“Of course, this is an indefensible and truly radical policy to be in favor of, let alone to use as the primary reason to shut down the United States government, so the Democrats and their allies are desperately lying about their true motivations,” she added.
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
