DOJ slaps Karen Bass, LA City Council with 'long overdue' lawsuit: 'It ends under President Trump'



Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stated earlier this month while radicals were savagely attacking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in her city, "We will not stand for this."

The Democratic mayor was not condemning her fellow leftists' attacks on federal agents but rather the agents' enforcement of federal immigration law.

In the wake of the Los Angeles riots, Bass has kept up her anti-ICE, pro-illegal alien rhetoric, noting on Sunday, for instance, "Every community in L.A. is feeling the shock of these horrific ICE raids — this isn't just targeting one group, it's striking at the heart of our collective safety and trust."

The Trump administration gave Bass more than just ICE raids to complain about on Monday, filing a lawsuit against the mayor, Los Angeles City Council, and the City of Los Angeles over their alleged interference with the federal government's enforcement of immigration law.

"Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. "Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump."

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California notes that immediately after President Donald Trump's re-election, the Los Angeles City Council, "wishing to thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations, began the process of codifying into law its Sanctuary City policies."

RELATED: Democrats who locked down America during COVID now cry dictator over Trump's deportations

Photo by BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

In late November, the L.A. City Council unanimously voted to establish L.A. as a "Sanctuary City."

The following month, Bass ratified the corresponding ordinance titled "Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement," which enshrined sanctuary policies into municipal law and barred "the use of City resources, including property and personnel, from being utilized for immigration enforcement or to cooperate with federal immigration agents engaged in immigration enforcement."

'Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law.'

The ordinance — the "urgency clause," which makes clear that undermining the "incoming federal administration" was the goal — also prohibits city officials, including law enforcement officers, from directly or indirectly sharing data with federal immigration authorities.

The DOJ's lawsuit notes that L.A.'s sanctuary city laws are illegal and "are designed to and in fact do interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."

Lawyers for the government asked the district court to recognize that the ordinance's violation of the Supremacy Clause and 8 U.S. Code § 1373 makes it unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio, as well as to enter a permanent injunction barring Los Angeles, its city council, and the mayor from enforcing the ordinance.

RELATED: JD Vance rejects Democrats' narrative, names the 'real threat to democracy'

Photo by Apu Gomes/Getty Images

"Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law," said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California, who stressed in a tweet that the lawsuit was "long overdue."

'Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again.'

"The United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not," continued Essayli. "By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City's unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end."

The Los Angeles Times, which indicated Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment, noted that radical L.A. city officials are contemplating striking back at the Trump administration with a lawsuit of its own.

The DOJ's lawsuit appears to be a major step toward another promise kept on Trump's part.

In his Tuesday speech at the 250th anniversary of the Army at Fort Bragg, Trump said, "Within the span of a few decades, Los Angeles has gone from being one of the cleanest, safest, and most beautiful cities on Earth to being a trash heap with entire neighborhoods under the control of transnational gangs and criminal networks."

"They don't like it when I say it, but I'll say it loudly and clearly: They'd better do something before it's too late," continued Trump. "Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again."

"We will use every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore law and order right away," stressed the president.

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

Trump’s Effort To Remove Noncitizens From Census Would Affect Elections

If the second Trump administration fails to win court approval of its expected effort to exclude illegal migrants from the census, this time around, it will have backup.

A gun in the hand is worth more than ‘never again’



Let’s face the truth. Being Jewish is a marvelous way of life, but it is also a very dangerous one. Jews need to wake up to the fact that there are imminent threats to their safety seemingly everywhere now in our country: in their homes, workplaces, synagogues, community centers, schools, and wherever else they happen to be.

FBI hate crime statistics against Jews are now at the highest they have been in decades. Just in the past several weeks, there have been two high-profile anti-Semitic attacks in America: the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum on May 21 and the Molotov cocktail attacks against Jews at a pro-Israel event in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1.

Jewish gun ownership isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. Don’t wait. Do it now.

But the truth is, these incidents are not unusual. They are becoming all too common. Anti-Semites from both the radical left and radical right are out for Jewish blood. Their violent, unhinged anger is not going away any time soon.

It is also chilling how many Americans, especially in the younger generations, believe that violence is justified in the name of their political ideals. This is evidenced, for example, by the astonishingly high percentage of younger Americans who sympathize with Luigi Mangione in the murder of a health care executive.

Although Mangione’s case has nothing to do with Jews, it’s indicative of what people think are reasonable forms of activism. Increasingly, people believe that killing innocents is justified and normal.

The fact is, plenty of radicals blame “the Jews” for whatever they happen to be angry about that day — whether it’s the conflicts in the Middle East, America’s economic support for Ukraine, capitalism, globalism, woke ideology, high prices, or whatever else. Both sides have their reasons for wanting to see Jews dead.

Now that we recognize just how precarious Jewish lives have become, American Jews have two solutions going forward. The first is to rely on government to protect us. How is that working out, though? While many attacks are foiled by law enforcement, plenty still slip through the cracks. Unless we’re prepared to turn America into a full-on Orwellian surveillance state that watches everyone’s every move and strips basic freedoms from all, dangerous people will always slip through.

The second solution is more reasonable: Jews must become more self-reliant. That means becoming armed.

Unfortunately, American Jews are among the groups least likely to own guns. According to a survey from the American Jewish Committee, Jewish gun ownership is around 10%. Compare that to roughly 32% for the general population, according to Pew. And the AJC also found that 70% of Jews support strict gun control laws.

The irony is maddening. Jews face greater threats than most, yet they oppose the very means of self-defense they need most. This needs to change.

RELATED: Now more than ever, Jews must learn to shoot

Mike Stocker/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Jewish Americans need to buy guns, seek firearms training, and carry legally. Synagogues and community centers should sponsor training workshops and allow lawful carry on premises. They should also build neighborhood watch teams and community security groups.

Most American Jews live in the three most virulently anti-gun states: New York, New Jersey, and California. They need to support state-level reforms to restore the God-given right to self-defense as America’s founders intended.

Two things stand in the way. The first is hoplophobia — irrational fear of guns. Many Jews treat firearms as inherently evil simply because bad people use them. They need to understand good people use them, too.

The second obstacle is uncertainty. For those unfamiliar with gun culture, it can be daunting. But help is easy to find. NRA-certified instructors are available across the country. The NRA website has a full directory. And several excellent Jewish gun-rights organizations already exist — including Cherev Gidon in the Catskills and Magen Am in Los Angeles.

Jewish gun ownership isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. Don’t wait. Do it now. Your life, your family, and your community may depend on it.

If Trump Doesn’t Reject Judicial Supremacism, His Presidency Is Finished

Just because the judiciary chooses to violate the Constitution does not mean the other branches are required to follow suit.

Don’t let the Biden autopen scandal become just another lame hearing



Congressional hearings can serve the public — when followed by real action. They can expose wrongdoing, shape public opinion, and force accountability. But when the hearings end and nothing follows, they become a substitute for meaningful oversight — a way to check the box and collect headlines without doing meaningful work.

That’s the routine Americans have come to expect: dramatic sound bites, viral clips, and lawmakers patting themselves on the back for sending strongly worded letters. Unless Congress breaks that habit now, the autopen scandal risks becoming just another lost opportunity.

The Biden administration may have dodged the 25th Amendment, but Congress can’t dodge its duty.

Last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the use of the autopen under President Joe Biden. The stakes couldn’t be higher. As Oversight Project board member Theo Wold put it in his testimony, the United States did not have a fully functioning president for the past four years. Biden’s longtime Senate colleagues know it — and should have testified as fact witnesses. Instead, all but two Senate Democrats — Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont — boycotted the hearing. That includes Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose receipt of an autopenned pardon raises a glaring conflict of interest.

Senate Republicans showed up and asked the right questions. They grasped the core issue: Biden’s lack of capacity and his inability to direct subordinates. Unlike previous administrations, the Biden White House appears to have used the autopen not for convenience, but as a way to obscure who actually ran the government — skirting the 25th Amendment without invoking it.

The hearing raised serious constitutional concerns. What happens when top officials prefer an incapacitated president over triggering a process designed to protect the country? Several senators floated the idea of reforming the 25th Amendment. That’s a conversation worth having. But it means nothing without follow-through.

So what should happen now?

First, the Senate should demand every record related to the Biden administration’s use of the autopen. That includes documentation of who authorized its use and a log of every instance it was used. As Wold testified, these records exist — or their absence signals a much deeper problem. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) quickly pledged to pursue them.

Those materials fall under the Presidential Records Act and remain off-limits to the public. Trust me, we would have been in court months ago to procure their release if we could get them. Only Congress or the Trump administration can obtain them. If they stall, they’ll be complicit in the cover-up.

Second, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson must testify. Their book “Original Sin” relied on more than 200 sources. If they know something the public doesn’t, they have a moral — and potentially legal — obligation to come forward. The Senate invited them to the hearing. They declined. The next request should come in the form of a subpoena.

RELATED: Oversight Project over target: Dems seethe as facade of autopen presidency comes crashing down

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Third, Congress should use the same tools the January 6 select committee wielded with abandon. That includes subpoenas for documents, phone and bank records, and private communications from staffers and political operatives who helped prop up the “autopen administration.” If these individuals claim executive privilege, Trump should waive it — just as Biden did during the Jan. 6 probe.

Finally, the House had better follow through. Kentucky Republican Chairman James Comer’s promised interviews and depositions can’t be treated as political theater. They must become the backbone of a real investigation.

Accountability won’t happen unless the public demands it. Americans should track every step — or failure to act — and hold Congress to its promises. The country doesn’t need another performance. It needs answers.

The Biden administration may have dodged the 25th Amendment, but Congress can’t dodge its duty. The biggest scandal in modern American history demands more than six-minute cable news hits and clips for social media. It requires courage, subpoenas, and a willingness to pull every legal lever available.

The public has largely caught on to the ineffectiveness of “strongly worded letters” and now will have a perfect test case to judge whether Congress means business or if it’s the same old tired, do-nothing routine.

It’s time to get off X and into the trenches.

Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular



Unlike certain recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito has consistently delivered for God-fearing conservatives and constitutionalists.

This consistency and Alito's resistance to the fads of the day have made him a popular target for Democratic lawmakers and other radical leftists, along with their fellow travelers in the liberal media.

Democrats including Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) have, for instance, pressured Alito to recuse himself from cases of consequence. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have painted a target on his back, calling him a "threat to our democracy." Liberal publications such as the New York Times and ProPublica have pushed false narratives framing him as an extremist or at the very least as unethical. A false-flagger who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 futilely tried to catch Alito saying something damning on tape. A radical even allegedly threatened to assassinate him last year.

Alito underscored in his recent interview with Peter Robinson, host of the Hoover Institution's "Uncommon Knowledge," that the judiciary has a responsibility to resist possession by the zeitgeist and to do what is right, even if unpopular.

In 2022, Alito gave a speech in Rome at a religious liberty summit convened by the Religious Liberty Initiative of the University of Notre Dame's law school, where he underscored that religious liberty is far more than just "freedom of worship."

'Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.'

"Freedom of worship means freedom to do these things that you like to do in the privacy of your home, or in your church or your synagogue or your mosque or your temple. But when you step outside into the public square, in the light of day, you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen," said the conservative justice. "That's the problem that we face."

RELATED: American de-Christianization: Why it's happening and what it will mean for the republic

Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images

When asked in the interview published Wednesday to expound on his suggestion in the Rome speech, Alito told Robinson, "I think it is the problem that we face because support for religious liberty, unfortunately, has cratered in the last 20, 25 years."

After Alito raised the matter of how the U.S. Constitution singles out religion and gives it protection that is not similarly afforded to views that are not religiously based, Robinson said, "I can't remember who it was who said that it's fair to expect the judicial system to ignore the politics of the day but naive to expect the judicial system to remain unaffected by the politics of the era — something like that. And if public support for religion, public practice of religion — if the support, as you just said, is 'cratering' — what can the court do over the long term?"

Alito indicated that the Constitution wouldn't turn on a faithful minority just because the majority turned on faith.

"There's a reason why we're not elected. We are not supposed to do what is popular. We're supposed to do what is right," said Alito. "We're supposed to interpret the Constitution and figure out what it means, and then apply the Constitution. That's the purpose of this institution, the core purpose of this institution."

RELATED: Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end

Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

While suggesting that America is "basically a democratic country," Alito noted that the Framers, wary of the mob and its impulses, applied "some restraint on things that people might do."

James Madison was among the Founding Fathers aware of the need for checks on the mob, noting in Federalist No. 55 that "passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed how the republican government could serve as a check on the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the "rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."

"We have to stand firm on this, and I think we have done a pretty good job on it," said Alito, "but we have to keep it up because challenges ... will continue to come."

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

Stop trying to segregate the American founding



Race relations in the United States have unraveled in recent years, not only because of genuine disagreement, but because many Americans now grow up believing the nation is fundamentally unjust — racist to the core, perhaps even irredeemable.

This idea, once fringe, now enjoys institutional backing. Critical race theory and DEI ideology assert that the U.S. was founded on slavery and white supremacy. And they dominate schools, corporations, and government agencies alike.

Don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t divide what should unite us.

As a result, America has seen a quiet comeback of sanctioned segregation. Colleges increasingly host race-based graduation ceremonies. Society encourages people to define themselves first by racial identity, not shared citizenship. That should alarm anyone who once marched for equal rights in the 1950s and ’60s.

When Americans stop thinking of each other as fellow citizens, the glue that holds the republic together dissolves.

Juneteenth and the new segregation

Consider one example of this trend: the push for a separate “independence day” for black Americans.

On June 17, 2021, Joe Biden signed Senate Bill 475 into law, establishing a new federal holiday: “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” The bill commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Texas and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that slaves in the state had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation — two years after it was signed.

Former slaves in Texas celebrated, and in the years that followed, Juneteenth spread across the South. But it never held central importance in the broader civil rights movement.

Juneteenth did not abolish slavery. It merely marked the day slaves in one state learned they had been legally freed. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in 1863, applied only to states in rebellion — excluding Union-supporting border states like Kentucky and Delaware, where slavery remained legal until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

A false independence narrative

Some activists now argue that Juneteenth should serve as “Black Independence Day.” That’s a mistake.

This view implies that African Americans have no rightful claim to the Fourth of July or to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But those ideas belong to all Americans — not just the descendants of the signers.

It’s true that many historical figures sought to exclude black Americans from the promise of the Declaration. Chief Justice Roger Taney made that argument explicit in the Dred Scott decision. Confederates like Alexander Stephens and John C. Calhoun claimed that “all men are created equal” never applied to African Americans.

They were wrong.

What Frederick Douglass really believed

Some cite Frederick Douglass’ famous 1852 speech — “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” — to support the idea that black Americans should reject the founding. But they ignore the full context.

Douglass, speaking two years after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, condemned the hypocrisy of a country that declared liberty while tolerating bondage. “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” he asked. “A day that reveals to him ... the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

But unlike Taney, Stephens, and Calhoun, Douglass didn’t reject the Declaration. He upheld it.

RELATED: Frederick Douglass: American patriot

Photo by Carol M. Highsmith/Buyenlarge/Getty Images

Douglass took hope from the principles it proclaimed and called on America to live up to them. He dismissed the Garrisonian claim that the Constitution was pro-slavery. “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

He believed America’s founding held the moral resources to defeat slavery — and it did.

The universal promise of 1776

America’s founders didn’t invent slavery; they merely inherited it. At the time of the Revolution, slavery was a global institution, practiced on every continent and defended by every empire. Slavery, including African slavery, was a manifestation of the argument of the Athenians at Melos as recounted by Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Even Africans sold fellow Africans into slavery.

The Declaration of Independence marked a sharp break from that past. It asserted that all human beings possess natural rights — and that no one may rule another without consent.

Thomas Jefferson famously observed that humanity had long been divided into those born "booted and spurred” and those “born with saddles on their backs.” The founders rejected that model. They established a republic based on equality before the law, not the interests of the stronger over the weaker.

They also knew slavery contradicted those ideals. Many believed the institution would die out — an Enlightenment relic destined for extinction. Still, the political compromises they made to preserve the Union allowed slavery to persist, and it took a war to end it.

Why the founding still matters

The Civil War was not a rejection of the founding. It was a fulfillment of it.

As Harry Jaffa wrote, “It is not wonderful that a nation of slaveholders, upon achieving independence, failed to abolish slavery. What is wonderful ... is that a nation of slaveholders founded a new nation on the proposition that ‘all men are created equal,’ making the abolition of slavery a moral and political necessity.”

The Declaration of Independence lit the fuse that ultimately destroyed slavery.

So let Americans celebrate Juneteenth — gratefully, joyfully, and historically. Let the holiday recall the biblical jubilee it was meant to evoke.

But don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t segment America’s founding. Don’t divide what should unite us.

As Douglass said: “I would not even in words do violence to the grand events, and thrilling associations, that gloriously cluster around the birth of our national independence.”

He went on: “No people ever entered upon the pathway of nations, with higher and grander ideas of justice, liberty and humanity than ourselves.”

Douglass understood something too many have forgotten: The genius of the American founding lies not in who it excluded but in the promise that, one day, it would include everyone.

Here Are 8 Killer Quotes From Justice Alito’s Latest Sit-Down Interview

'We are not supposed to do what is popular, we're supposed to do what is right,' said Justice Samuel Alito.

SCOTUS Must Rein In Rogue Judges Threatening To Enable Violent Rioters

Over and over again, the court seems fit to allow injustice to persist when it comes to halting the policies of President Trump.

Trump fulfills his oath while Newsom and Bass shield foreign felons



Los Angeles looked like a war zone this week. Rioters — roughly 1,000 strong — torched vehicles and hurled rocks, concrete, and fireworks at law enforcement officers. They slashed tires and set fires in the streets. In the middle of it all, an American flag burned on the pavement as a mob urinated on it and screamed, “F**k Trump!”

This wasn’t spontaneous outrage. It was an organized assault on law, order, and national sovereignty — an eruption years in the making. And it happened in a city governed by officials who have spent decades dismantling the very structures meant to defend their constituents.

The United States owes rights and protections to its citizens — not to those who break its laws and exploit its generosity.

This riot didn’t begin last week. It began when Joe Biden threw open the nation’s borders and undermined the rule of law.

As rioters burn the American flag in downtown Los Angeles, state and local officials burn the constitutions that once protected their citizens.

The Constitution’s preamble lays out the government’s core mission: to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Article II, Section 3 provides that the president will ensure the laws “be faithfully executed.”

Contrary to what we’ve seen in Los Angeles, the duty of our elected officials is to defend the rule of law — not to support those who challenge it. That responsibility ultimately rests with the president: to protect the safety and security of the United States and its citizens.

Biden lit the fuse

Biden abandoned that responsibility. During his four years in office, he permitted more than 12 million illegal crossings, including at least 500,000 individuals with criminal records in their home countries.

He didn’t just neglect the law — he defied it. And the consequences have been deadly. More than 300,000 Americans died from fentanyl poisoning during the Biden years. Illegal alien gangs now operate trafficking networks in every major U.S. city. Innocent Americans have been raped, murdered, and assaulted because the federal government refused to act.

That’s not failed policy — it’s failed leadership. And the Constitution offers no cover for it.

Trump restores constitutional order

The voters responded in November. Donald J. Trump returned to the White House in January with a clear mandate: re-establish sovereignty, restore order, and protect the American people. That mandate extends to the men and women he’s appointed to carry it out — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and ICE Director Todd Lyons.

Their job is not theoretical. It’s real, it’s active, and it’s happening now. While California officials obstruct federal agents and give shelter to violent mobs, Trump’s team is working to reassert lawful authority — starting with immigration enforcement.

RELATED: Why is Gavin Newsom going full Jefferson Davis?

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

You might think California’s leaders would welcome help as their cities descend into chaos. Instead, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) demand that ICE back off and the National Guard go home. Rather than cooperate with federal law enforcement, they’ve chosen to protect the very forces tearing their communities apart.

They might want to reread their founding documents.

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution states:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Moreover, the Los Angeles City Charter grants broad authority to protect life, liberty, and property. Yet, Bass and Newsom are using that power to shield foreign criminals from lawful arrest.

Sanctuary for criminals

Among those ICE sought to detain last week:

  • Armando Ordaz, convicted of sexual battery and affiliated with a known gang.
  • Victor Aguilar, previously deported and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
  • Jesus Morales, a wanted felon convicted of alien smuggling conspiracy.
  • Jose Ortiz, convicted of trafficking large quantities of cocaine.
  • Cuong Chanh Phan, convicted of second-degree murder.

Don't mistake those men for “asylum seekers.” They are predators. And California’s sanctuary policies shield them.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us that legitimate government exists “to secure these rights” — not for foreigners in defiance of the law but for citizens who consent to be governed under it. That is the basis of our system. That is what’s at stake.

This government belongs to Americans

The United States owes rights and protections to its citizens — not to those who break its laws and exploit its generosity. Yet, Democrat-run cities across the country have flipped that principle on its head.

New York. Chicago. Portland. Seattle. Los Angeles. City after city refuse to enforce basic law and order and make a mockery of their charters.

This must end.

Every foreign national who entered this country illegally must come under the jurisdiction of the federal and state constitutions — and face removal. Let them return home and wave their own flags instead of burning ours in the streets.

Donald Trump and his administration understand what’s at stake. The Constitution demands action. America is blessed to have a president willing to deliver it.