Repealing the Patriot Act — does Rep. Luna's new bill stand a chance?



Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has introduced the “American Privacy Restoration Act,” which aims to fully repeal the Patriot Act and “strip rogue intelligence officers of their extraordinary mass surveillance powers.”

“Since the passage of the USA Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11, intelligence agency officials have used their mass surveillance tools to settle personal scores, interfere in elections, and spy on untold numbers of innocent Americans. This abuse must come to an end,” Luna wrote in a post on X.

“Do we think that Anna Paulina Luna can actually gain enough support, because we know disarming the deep state is not going to be easy. So will she be able to get enough people to rally around this and get this one done?” Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” asks co-host Matthew Peterson.


“We don’t even know if Congress will have enough people to get President Trump’s budget passed, so I can’t say, ‘Yes,’” Peterson answers.

“I’m old enough to remember when the Patriot Act was a predominantly Republican-coded thing,” he continues. “Republicans are the ones who were responsible for the Patriot Act, although there were some people, like the Pauls, we have to give credit to, who realized this was a bad idea.”

“So that is an enormous challenge, but what’s really refreshing about this, is that here you have a star person in Congress, a real star, coming out and doing something that would’ve been considered radical even five years ago, that needs to be done. So is it a step in the right direction? Hell yeah, it is,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

House Pulls Bill Prohibiting Anti-Israel Boycotts After Conservative Backlash

'Americans have the right to boycott'

Congress quietly pulls bill criminalizing anti-Israeli boycotts following GOP backlash



The House pulled a controversial bill that would criminalize anti-Israel boycotts from the votes schedule this week after several Republicans publicly criticized the bill for violating the First Amendment.

The bill, known as the IGO Anti-Boycott Act, would penalize Americans who participate in anti-Israeli boycotts if they are "imposed by" international organizations or governments like the United Nations or the European Union. The resolution, which was spearheaded by Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, would fine Americans who violated the bill up to $1 million and could impose prison time of up to 20 years.

'It was a ridiculous bill that our leadership should have never scheduled for a vote.'

The bill was originally set for a vote on Monday but was quietly removed from the votes schedule after Republican lawmakers and conservative voices spoke out against it, arguing that it was a slippery slope.

"H.R. 867, up for a vote tomorrow, aims to curb antisemitism but threatens First Amendment rights," Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida said Sunday before the bill was removed from the schedule. "Americans have the right to boycott, and penalizing this risks free speech. I reject and vehemently condemn antisemitism but I cannot violate the first amendment."

"It is my job to defend American’s rights to buy or boycott whomever they choose without the government harshly fining them or imprisoning them," Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said Sunday. "But what I don’t understand is why we are voting on a bill on behalf of other countries and not the President’s executive orders that are FOR OUR COUNTRY???"

Prominent conservatives like Charlie Kirk also came out against the bill, arguing that the legislation would foster more prejudice rather than reduce it.

"Bills like this only create more antisemitism, and play into growing narratives that Israel is running the US government," Kirk said in a post Sunday. "In America you are allowed to hold differing views. You are allowed to disagree and protest. We've allowed far too many people who hate America move here from abroad, but the right to speak freely is the birthright of all Americans. This bill should not pass. Any Republican that votes for this bill will expose themselves. We will be watching very closely."

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has previously criticized and voted against similar resolutions, cheered the decision to remove the bill from the schedule Sunday night.

"Thank you for your vocal opposition on this platform," Massie said. "It was a ridiculous bill that our leadership should have never scheduled for a vote."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SANDOVAL: This Woke Talking Point Could Kill Republicans’ Momentum
play icon

SANDOVAL: This Woke Talking Point Could Kill Republicans’ Momentum

Beware of the feminist in conservative's clothing

Anna Paulina Luna’s ‘Pro Family’ Proxy Push Rings Hollow After She Avoided Florida’s 2024 Abortion Battle

When it came to standing against the anti-family abortion amendment in her own state last year, Luna was largely absent from the fight.

ROOKE: Republicans Sabotaged By Their Own Feminist Infiltrators, Again

'Straight out of the feminist playbook'

GOP lawmakers back bill to lock illegal aliens out of path to citizenship



House Republicans are backing a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from seeking a pathway to citizenship.

Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) introduced the No Citizenship for Alien Invaders Act on Thursday, which would “prohibit immigrants, of any nationality, who have illegally entered the United States from ever obtaining legal citizenship.”

'There can be NO citizenship for the nearly 20 MILLION people who live here illegally.'

If passed, Mills’ bill would amend the existing Immigration and Nationality Act to state, “No alien who enters the United States unlawfully shall be eligible for naturalization, notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws.”

Mills said, “Under the Biden administration, we saw more than 10 million encounters at our borders, a crisis exacerbated by reckless catch-and-release policies that allowed criminals who broke our laws to remain in the United States.”

“President Trump has made it clear that anyone that tries to unlawfully undermine, exploit, or bypass our immigration system is a criminal,” he continued. “The No Citizenship for Alien Invaders Act will ensure these criminals will never be granted U.S. citizenship; that privilege will be reserved for those who respect our laws.”

The proposed legislation already has several co-sponsors, including Republican Reps. Josh Brecheen (Okla.), Andy Harris (Md.), and Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.).

Brecheen explained that the bill would prevent illegal immigrants from “being rewarded with citizenship after breaking our laws.”

“America is a nation of laws, and if we allow those laws to be subverted by illegal aliens who have no constitutional right to be here in the first place, then we will cease to be a nation,” he said. “It’s time we get back to common-sense policies that restore law and order to America.”

Luna stated, “Time and time again, Congress refuses to enforce our immigration laws, complains about it being broken, promises to ‘fix it for good’ in exchange for amnesty programs, and then never actually enforces the law like they promised.”

“We need to draw a line in the sand for the sake of the American people: There can be NO citizenship for the nearly 20 MILLION people who live here illegally,” she added.

Earlier this week, Mills also introduced the Prohibiting Automatic Rights to Enter National Territory Act, which would close birthright citizenship loopholes.

This bill would also amend the INA, adding language that would ensure that only those born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident would receive birthright citizenship.

Mills noted that the proposed legislation adds to President Donald Trump’s executive order that similarly sought to close birthright citizenship loopholes.

“For decades, criminal migrants have exploited loopholes in our immigration system, undermining our nation’s sovereignty, straining taxpayer resources, and ignoring the rule of law,” Mills said. “By amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, the PARENT Act seeks to end the abuse and reaffirm the principles of American citizenship and our constitutional republic.”

“Building on President Trump’s efforts to protect American sovereignty, this bill ensures birthright citizenship is reserved for those with a legal right to be here. It’s past time to restore integrity to our laws and put American citizens first,” he added.

Harris also co-sponsored Mills’ PARENT Act.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘You Need A Pitbull’: House Task Force To Probe Whether CIA Misled Congress On JFK Assassination

'We are working night and day to try to locate this document'

Congress can’t legislate away unintended consequences



Sometimes, bipartisanship is a great meeting of the minds. Other times, it’s a meeting of minds that don’t understand economics. The latter is the case with recently proposed legislation to cap credit card interest rates, introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and her reliably misguided counterpart, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Let’s start with common ground. Most people agree that credit card interest rates, which now average well above 20%, are excessive. No one should pay 20% or 30% interest annually unless facing a true emergency, and even then, that debt should be paid off as quickly as possible.

Policies that sound good in theory often fail in practice, and capping credit card interest rates is one of them.

Pricing serves as a signal, providing consumers with critical information. A high interest rate should send a clear message: Avoid carrying a credit card balance. Paying off the full amount each month prevents the burden of excessive interest charges.

However, in typical fashion, lawmakers who put political appeal over economic literacy ignore the unintended consequences of their policies. Proposing a cap on interest rates disrupts this pricing signal and creates a cascade of negative effects.

The most immediate consequence is reduced access to credit. High credit card interest rates exist largely because lenders assume the risk of defaults, including the possibility that borrowers may discharge their debt through bankruptcy. To compensate for this risk, lenders adjust costs accordingly.

Capping credit card interest rates while maintaining the bankruptcy “out” forces lenders to adjust their underwriting process. As a result, many borrowers — including those with poor credit and even some with decent credit — will lose or be denied access to credit from traditional sources. To compensate for lost revenue, lenders will likely introduce additional fees, making borrowing more expensive in other ways.

Predictably, lawmakers like Luna and Ocasio-Cortez will then complain about financial discrimination against low-income borrowers who suddenly find themselves locked out of the credit system.

Without access to traditional credit, many of these individuals will turn to riskier, more expensive alternatives, such as payday lenders or even black-market sources, further exacerbating the problem policymakers claim to be solving.

Ultimately, Congress cannot legislate away unintended consequences. In fact, Congress is typically a source of unintended consequences.

Some may argue that restricting credit access is beneficial for certain individuals, but denying access doesn’t mean people won’t seek credit elsewhere — often from riskier, more expensive sources.

More importantly, what gives the government the authority to regulate financial responsibility? Should Congress also prevent people from buying cars they can’t afford, placing sports bets, purchasing designer clothes, or enjoying steak dinners?

Financial responsibility cannot be legislated, especially in a country with minimal financial literacy education.

And let’s not forget that Congress itself has accumulated $36.5 trillion in national debt. Hardly a role model for fiscal responsibility.

Policies that sound good in theory often fail in practice, and capping credit card interest rates is one of them. Instead of creating more financial hurdles, Congress should focus on fixing its own fiscal mismanagement and addressing affordability issues. People shouldn’t feel forced to borrow at insane rates just to make ends meet.

Sanctuary mayors face DOJ criminal referral for allegedly harboring illegal aliens



Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced Wednesday her plans to refer several sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation, accusing them of harboring illegal aliens.

Luna shared the announcement during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s hearing with Democratic Mayors Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, Mike Johnston of Denver, and Eric Adams of New York City. The hearing was held as part of the committee’s investigation into the impact of sanctuary city policies.

'I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations.'

She opened her remarks by questioning Wu, Johnson, and Johnston about their cities’ sanctuary policies. She did not pose any questions to Adams, who has agreed to work with President Donald Trump, border czar Tom Homan, and the rest of the administration to address New York City’s illegal immigration crisis.

“After this line of questioning, it’s very clear that these policies, that you will have all implicated are active and alive and well in your cities, are in direct violation with U.S. Title 8 code, subsection 1324, and is a federal offense,” Luna told the mayors.

“But you all speak about a broken immigration system, and yet here you guys are aiding and abetting in that entire process,” she continued. “I want to be very clear about something: Open border policies, which is something that you guys are talking about, hurts people on both sides, meaning the people that are coming here illegally and then American citizens as well.”

Luna stated that she does not believe the Democratic mayors “are bad people” but instead that they are “ideologically misled.”

“Unfortunately, based on your responses, I’m ... going to be criminally referring you to the Department of Justice for investigation, and as soon as I leave here, these will be going over to Pam Bondi,” Luna declared, as she held up three apparent DOJ referrals, potentially indicating she may have excluded Adams from the scrutiny.

Several media reports stated that Luna referred all four sanctuary mayors; however, it remains unclear from her direct statements whether Adams was included.

Luna noted that the referrals were not intended to “bully” the mayors.

“But I do believe that your policies are hurting the American people, and you can make that known with the evidence that you could present to the Department of Justice. But if you guys continue doing what you’re doing, you’re not going to help anyone. You’re going to hurt more people, and that’s exactly why I’m tired of it. The American people are tired of it,” she concluded.

Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) used the remainder of Luna’s yielded time to question Adams about the financial impact the influx of illegal aliens has had on New York City.

Adams explained that city taxpayers have shelled out roughly $6.9 billion in response to the immigration crisis.

“The long-term impact of that is extremely significant,” Adams replied.

After the hearing, Luna wrote in a post on X, “I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations based on evidence from their own comments and policies, proving that they were breaking federal law.”

“Open borders ideologies hurt people on both sides. If you hold federal office and are breaking the law, you’ll be criminally investigated by the DOJ,” she added.

The DOJ and the mayors' offices did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!