Zohran Mamdani’s war on Trump will bankrupt NYC before liberals wake up



Zohran Mamdani has just taken his place as the mayor of the “most powerful city in the world,” but BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales warns it won’t remain that way for long — especially after his victory speech.

“After victory was declared for him, he was very quick to just declare war with President Trump,” Gonzales says, playing a clip of Mamdani yelling, “So, Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: Turn the volume up.”

“To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us,” he yelled.

“You haven’t actually said anything. ... You’re stringing a bunch of words together, and you think that they sound nice and they sound insightful,” Gonzales scoffs.


“But with this in particular, it’s very cute that this man who is now going to be in charge of New York City wants to wage this war against President Trump when in actuality, you’re going to run out of money, Zohran. You’re going to run out of money,” she continues.

“You can’t pay for these policies that you’ve just promised New Yorkers. And if you think for one second President Trump is going to bail you out with federal funding, you are sorely mistaken,” she adds.

In his speech, Mamdani also went after capitalism, claiming that he plans to tear down the system that allowed President Trump to initially be a thriving businessman in New York City — which is capitalism.

“President Trump has already been very clear that he is not going to give federal tax dollars to bail out these cities, these states that are just doing communism. That’s not going to happen. So, you’re going to find out real quick who is going to win that battle,” Gonzales says.

Gonzales predicts Mamdani’s reign will be much like Joe Biden’s, in that his voters won’t realize, or admit, how awful a job he’s done until much too late.

“We will tell them for years, ‘Guys, this is happening. Guys, this is happening.’ And they will call you crazy. ... They’ll tell you you’re a right-wing nutjob. And then, all of a sudden, when it’s too late, they’re like, ‘God, you know what? It turns out this thing that you guys said was happening the whole time that we denied, it turns out you may be right,” she says.

Even CNN host Van Jones reflected on Mamdani’s crazed speech as a bit of “a character switch,” which Gonzales points to as the first of many liberals who will slowly realize the man they voted for doesn’t exist.

“Uh oh, the peaceful Muslim isn’t so peaceful anymore,” Gonzales mocks.

“Have you been paying attention at all? Because there are videos that have existed, that have been posted all over social media, that have shown this guy, again, code-switching, changing his accents depending on who he’s with, which is, we know, what Democrats do all the time,” she continues.

“Van Jones is apparently just catching wind that this guy may not be exactly who he portrayed himself to be, even though videos like this already existed,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Orbán emphasizes to Trump that Hungary survives today as Christian 'island of difference in a liberal ocean'



President Donald Trump had a cordial meeting at the White House on Friday with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who he emphasized was a "good person" and a "great leader."

In addition to discussing trade, the war in Ukraine, and energy, the two leaders discussed two transformative matters where Hungary has distinguished itself from the rest of Europe, namely immigration and faith.

'We want a Christian Europe because we believe that this is the only way forward.'

Trump noted that while other European nations have made "tremendous mistakes on immigration and it's really hurting them very badly, [Orbán] has not made a mistake on immigration," adding that while not universally liked, Orbán, who has been prime minister since 2010, "is respected by everybody" and well-positioned to win his 2026 election, where he's likely to face off against liberal Europhile Péter Magyar.

After Trump celebrated the conservative nationalist's leadership, Orbán made a point of clarifying the nature of his government: "We are the only government in Europe which considers itself as a modern Christian government. All the other governments in Europe are basically liberal, leftist governments."

Orbán noted that since retaking office in 2010, he and his Christian government have endeavored to break from the pack "at the philosophical level and at the level of practice as well."

RELATED: Christians are refusing to compromise — and it's terrifying all the right people

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

"We are kind of a special island of difference in a liberal ocean in Europe and consider ourselves as a modern Christian government," the prime minister continued.

Orbán has made no secret of his antipathy for atheistic establishmentarians and liberal bureaucrats in Brussels, noting in a September statement, for instance, that "the European Union is teetering on the brink, with debt, migration, violence, and failing policies everywhere. Hungary stands firm: migrant-free, pro-family, providing opportunities to those willing to work. We need courage — intellectual, political, and personal — to recognize that the West is no longer a role model to follow, and to show that there is a better way."

The prime minister's policies have long enraged liberals — who frequently refer to him as an "authoritarian" — and in some cases resulted in threats and financial penalties from the European Commission.

Hungary under his leadership has, for instance, imposed a ban on LGBT propaganda targeting children; signaled opposition to Ukraine's proposed admission to the European Union; drove bums out of public spaces; built a barrier to keep out border jumpers; and implemented various pro-natalist measures including tax exemptions for mothers.

"We want a Christian Europe because we believe that this is the only way forward," the prime minister said earlier this year. "In the shadow of empires, at the crossroads of civilizations, we have always won our battles for the survival of our homeland, the preservation of our nation, and Christian culture."

— (@)

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

A GOPer’s Seemingly Simple Announcement For Governor’s Race Could Poison The Party

'this could be a high-stakes pivot that would hurt the GOP'

Exclusive: Sen. Blackburn introduces bill that would bar military 'leftists' from disrespecting Trump in key way



Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced key legislation on Friday to ensure that military bases respect their commander in chief.

Blackburn introduced the Respect the Chief Act in response to reports of military bases failing to display portraits of President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. In response to the bases and military officials who may be motivated by ideology rather than tradition, Blackburn's legislation would formally require the portraits to be displayed, according to bill text obtained exclusively by Blaze News.

Rather than allowing this tradition to be carried out at the discretion of commanders, who sometimes may be 'leftists,' Blackburn decided to take matters into her own hands.

“The president of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and chain-of-command boards at America’s military bases should reflect current leadership,” Blackburn told Blaze News.

“The Respect the Chief Act would ensure military bases continue this long-standing tradition and prevent leftists from disrespecting the chain of command.”

RELATED: Exclusive: Republican senator introduces bill slashing funds to anti-American governments

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Blackburn's legislation came in response to the suspension of Colonel Sheyla Baez Ramirez, a commander at Fort McCoy who failed to install photos of Trump, Vance, and Hegseth at the base back in April.

Following the scandal, Blackburn recognized the lack of formal federal statutes and regulations that require these customs to be upheld. Rather than allowing this tradition to be carried out at the discretion of commanders, who sometimes may be "leftists," Blackburn decided to take matters into her own hands.

RELATED: Democrat senator makes stunning admission about Obamacare failures

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

In addition to mandating the display of the portraits of the president, vice president, and secretary of war, Blackburn's bill would require the separate military branches within the Department of War to submit reports to the executive branch confirming that all displays of leadership reflect the current chain of command.

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

Woman Who Harassed Stephen Miller’s Family at Their Home Is Harmless Academic ‘In the Field of Peace Studies,’ Her Lawyer Argues

The woman who posted flyers exposing White House adviser Stephen Miller’s address and calling for "NO NAZIS" in Northern Virginia is a harmless academic "in the field of peace studies," her lawyer claimed.

The post Woman Who Harassed Stephen Miller’s Family at Their Home Is Harmless Academic ‘In the Field of Peace Studies,’ Her Lawyer Argues appeared first on .

'Mass slaughter': Trump moves to help Nigerian Christians under attack



"Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a 'COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN.'"

President Trump’s recent post to Trump Media-owned Truth Social focused attention on a crisis not known for being a priority of American foreign policy. But as much as the news out of Mexico and Ukraine may overshadow what’s happening in Nigeria, the situation there is no less severe. And it is indeed an “existential threat” that should especially concern Christians.

Just this past weekend, nine Christians — including a pastor — were killed by Fulani assailants in a terrorist attack.

Despite their well-observed decline in North America and Europe, the number of Christians worldwide is increasing, largely thanks to Asia and Africa. And in Africa, nowhere does the faith have a stronger presence than in Nigeria.

Christian stronghold

Africa’s most populous nation (238 million) is also its most Christian, with some 100 million believers — enough to rank Nigeria as the sixth-largest Christian population in the world. Concentrated in the country’s south, this population includes 21 million Catholics, 22 million Anglicans, 14 million Baptists, 6 million evangelicals, and 4.5 million Pentecostals, in the form of the Apostolic Church Nigeria.

Despite these numbers, Nigeria remains predominantly Muslim (53.5%), especially in the north, where Islamic terrorism is on the rise. According to a 2022 State Department report, groups like Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa — along with religiously unaffiliated criminal gangs — have killed thousands of Muslims and Christians, with both sides accusing the government of failing to intervene.

There continued to be frequent violent incidents, particularly in the northern part of the country, affecting both Muslims and Christians, resulting in numerous deaths. Kidnappings and armed robbery by criminal gangs increased in the South as well as the North West, the South South, and the South East. The international Christian organization Open Doors stated that terrorist groups, militant herdsmen, and criminal gangs were responsible for large numbers of fatalities, and Christians were particularly vulnerable.

In response to such persecution, the State Department listed Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the first Trump administration, in 2020; the Biden administration removed that designation in late 2021. This was despite protests from the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which noted widespread "violence by militant Islamists and other non-state armed actors, as well as discrimination, arbitrary detentions, and capital blasphemy sentences by state authorities."

Since then, USCIRF has continued to call for Nigeria’s Country of Particular Concern designation to be restored, warning as recently as July that “religious communities are facing ongoing, systematic, and egregious violations of their ability to practice their faith freely.”

High-profile attacks

This year alone, Nigeria has seen multiple high-profile attacks against Christians, including massacres in April and June that killed 40 and more than 100, respectively. In August, 50 Muslims were killed in an attack on a mosque. Just this past weekend, nine Christians — including a pastor — were killed by Fulani assailants in a terrorist attack.

On Saturday Trump followed up his initial statement with another post threatening to halt humanitarian aid and assistance to Nigeria until the killings stop. He also hinted at the possibility of military intervention, stating that he was prepared to enter the country “guns-a-blazing” in order to “wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.”

While aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump made no effort to walk back his comments, telling reporters that deploying troops to Nigeria was still very much on the table. “I envisage a lot of things. They’re killing record numbers of Christians in Nigeria ... and killing them in very large numbers. We’re not going to allow that to happen.”

Nigeria responds

Nigerian spokesman Daniel Bwala subsequently responded to Reuters with a statement following Trump’s comments, stating that U.S. assistance would be welcomed so long as the U.S. respected Nigeria’s “territorial integrity.” "I am sure by the time these two leaders meet and sit, there would be better outcomes in our joint resolve to fight terrorism." He similarly affirmed to the BBC that any anti-Jihadi efforts ought to be made jointly.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu also challenged Trump’s statements and defended Nigeria’s record on religious freedom in a post on X.

“Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so. Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it.”

RELATED: Rapper thanks Trump for defending Nigerian Christians; president threatens to 'completely wipe out' their jihadi attackers

Photo (left): Rodin Eckenroth/WireImage; Photo (right): SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Image

Genocide or not?

While acknowledging the realities of Nigeria’s ongoing security crisis, the mainstream media has disputed characterizations of the violence as a genocide against Christians.

Time magazine dismissed such claims as an idea “circulating in right-wing circles” and amplified by politicians like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.V.). It also cited statistics from independent watchdog Armed Conflict Location and Event Data suggesting that of the 20,409 estimated civilian deaths in the past five years, just 417 deaths were Muslim and 317 deaths were Christian.

CNN called the genocide narrative an “oversimplication” that blames religion for the violence while ignoring factors such as ethnicity and resource scarcity.

The Guardian cast Trump’s remarks as an attempt to pander to “his right-wing, evangelical base,” reflecting “renewed domestic political pressure to appear tough on the marginalization or persecution of Christians abroad.”

Methodological weakness

While ACLED rejects the claim of a Christian genocide in Nigeria, arguing that most violence stems from ethnic rivalries and competition over land and resources rather than religion, it has previously acknowledged the difficulty of ruling out religious persecution. In a note on its general methodology, the group has acknowledged that "disentangling the ethnic, communal, political, and religious dimensions of specific events ... [proves] to be problematic — at times even impossible — and extremely time-consuming. As a result, religious repression and disorder ... may be underrepresented in the dataset."

Proponents of the genocide narrative say this could lead to systematic undercounting of Christian victims. In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, Rep. Moore countered with significantly larger figures: “More than 7,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria in 2025 alone — an average of 35 per day — with hundreds more kidnapped, tortured, or displaced by extremist groups.”

'This needs to stop'

Evangelical author, public speaker, and Christian apologist Dr. Alex McFarland agrees with Moore, noting that resistance to covering Christian persecution is the norm. Reached just prior to Trump's statements over the weekend, he told Align that he believes that claims of a Christian genocide are accurate.

In an age when so many champion human rights and social justice, Nigeria is something that should be talked about. What’s going on there is tragic on an unimaginable scale. This needs to stop, and I pray the United States of America will do what it can to stop the killing of Christians and advocate for their human rights.

American Christians who want to to help should be relentless in speaking up to elected officials, advises McFarland, making it clear that they “ask and expect them to take a stand on this issue, just as we expect our elected officials to take a positive stand for Israel and against anti-Semitism.”

Supporting organizations like Samaritan's Purse, Open Doors, and Voice of the Martyrs is also an option.

McFarland emphasizes that anti-Christian persecution extends well beyond Nigeria, pointing to similar ongoing persecutions in China, India, and Saudi Arabia. “We need to understand that Christians outside of the United States have a hard go of it.”

Finally, he cautions his fellow Christians not to overlook one of the most powerful ways they can effect change. “What Christians can do is pray,” he tells Align. “That might sound glib and easy to say, but prayer works and is quite significant.”

'Patently inequitable': Ketanji Brown Jackson whines after SCOTUS stays Biden judge's order in trans passport case



The U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a victory on Thursday, prompting bitterness not only from trans activists but from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who suggested that the "regrettable" ruling might leave transgender-identifying individuals at risk of "harassment and bodily invasions."

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 directing his secretaries of state and homeland security to ensure that government-issued identification documents, including passports and visas, "accurately reflect the holder's sex."

'Today, the Court refuses to answer equity's call.'

The Trump administration's reversal of the Biden-era policy that enabled people to choose their own sex marker as well as a third marker, "X," instead of an "M" or an "F" marker, was poorly received by some radicals.

Keen to have the government continue indulging their delusions, several transvestites joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP in a lawsuit over the passport policy in February.

In April, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee, granted them a preliminary injunction preventing the State Department's enforcement of Trump's Executive Order 14168 while the lawsuit played out — but only as it applied to six of the plaintiffs. Months later, Kobick granted a class certification request and expanded the scope of her injunction.

After its appeal was rejected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Trump administration filed an emergency stay request to the Supreme Court.

To the chagrin of non-straight activists, the high court granted the stay on Thursday, stating, "Displaying passport holders' sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."

RELATED: Trans-identifying teen agrees to plead guilty to plotting Valentine's Day massacre at high school

Photo by Hyoung Chang/Denver Post/Getty Images

The court noted further in its unsigned order, which was opposed by all three liberal justices, that the "respondents have failed to establish that the Government's choice to display biological sex 'lack[s] any purpose other than a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group.' ... Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress expressly required it to follow."

The high court concluded that absent a stay, the government would suffer a form of irreparable injury as the Biden judge's injunction could lead to foreign affairs implications.

Justice Jackson noted in her dissenting opinion that "as is becoming routine, the Government seeks an emergency stay of a District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. As is also becoming routine, this Court misunderstands the assignment."

After casting doubt on her "obliging" colleagues' comprehension skills, Jackson — whose past opinions have bewildered her conservative and liberal peers alike — characterized the reality-affirming passport policy as "new" and legally questionable. Then sentences later, she acknowledged that it was not new so much as a reversion to the government's long-standing policy as it existed until at least the early 1990s.

Jackson argued that the cross-dressing plaintiffs face greater harm absent injunctive relief than the government would face absent a stay, and expressed doubt whether the government faces any irreparable harm at all.

"But the Court somehow sees fit to grant the Government's stay request regardless, waving away its abject failure to show any irreparable harm and promoting a patently inequitable outcome to boot," wrote Jackson.

Jackson suggested further that the indication of an individual's actual sex on a passport amounts to a concrete injury and echoed the Biden-appointed district court judge, writing that "transgender people who encounter obstacles to obtaining gender-congruent identity documents are almost twice as likely to experience suicidal ideation, and report more severe psychological distress, than transgender people who do not face such barriers."

In her conclusion, the leftist justice complained that "today, the Court refuses to answer equity's call."

Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, joined Jackson in complaining about the court's decision, stating, "This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights."

"This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents," said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts."

Attorney General Pam Bondi referred to the court's ruling as the administration's "24th victory at the Supreme Court's emergency docket" and noted, "Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport. In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth."

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

Democrat senator makes stunning admission about Obamacare failures



Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont made a shocking admission on the Senate floor while trying to defend the Democrat shutdown.

Congress is now well into a record-long government shutdown, and it all started when Democrats demanded an extension on Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. Even though this Obamacare extension is at the core of Democrats' professed opposition to reopening the government, even Welch acknowledged the failures of the very system they want to uphold.

'Only three Democrats have crossed the aisle.'

"I owe you an answer on why it is I'm standing here today asking to extend something that was temporary," Welch said. "Here's the reason."

"We did fail to bring down the cost of health care."

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was signed into law in 2010 and began to be implemented a few years later.

RELATED: Trump admin agrees to partially fund food stamps as Democrat shutdown approaches record

Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images

In addition to propping up a flawed health care system, Democrats have also insisted on passing their own $1.5 trillion spending bill that would reverse every legislative accomplishment from President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as they reopened the government.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have held over a dozen votes on their clean continuing resolution that would reopen and fund the government at Biden-era spending levels that Democrats overwhelmingly voted for in the past.

RELATED: Trump urges Senate to deploy the 'Nuclear Option' on filibuster

Allison Robbert/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Despite Republicans' attempt to pass a clean nonpartisan funding bill, only three Democrats have crossed the aisle and voted to reopen the government. Because of the 60-vote threshold, Republicans need at least five more Senate Democrats to vote in favor of their bill, which seems less and less likely as the shutdown continues.

Because of this stalemate, Trump has repeatedly called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune to eliminate the filibuster, which would allow Republicans to pass their funding bill with a simple majority. Thune, a longtime institutionalist, has always defended the filibuster and has been firm about keeping it.

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

'Absurd': JD Vance blasts activist Obama judge's apparent overreach on SNAP handouts amid Democrat shutdown



Vice President JD Vance blasted the apparent overreach by a meddlesome Obama-appointed judge who ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to make full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments for November despite Democrats' government shutdown.

A pair of Obama-appointed U.S. district court judges — Indira Talwani in Boston and John McConnell in Providence — ruled last week that SNAP benefits could not be cut off amid the Democrats' government shutdown.

McConnell ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday to resume the handouts either in full or in part "as soon as possible." Days later, the Trump administration announced that it would comply by exhausting $4.65 billion in contingency funds to make a partial payment that would cover roughly half of each eligible household's SNAP benefits for the month of November.

'This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations.'

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, echoing President Donald Trump, emphasized on Monday that the administration doesn't want vulnerable Americans to suffer and is working to "get partial allotments to SNAP households" but that "it will take several weeks to execute partial payments." Rollins added that once obstructionist Democrats reopen the government, "FULL benefits can get to families without delay."

Democracy Forward, the anti-Trump outfit that is representing plaintiffs in the case overseen by McConnell, filed an emergency request on Tuesday asking the Obama judge to force the administration to fund SNAP benefits in full.

"Because it is now clear that due to Defendants' course of conduct, and by their own admission, undertaking a partial payment plan at this point cannot meet the Court's directives or adequately remedy the harm Plaintiffs are suffering, the Court should grant Plaintiffs' motion to enforce and should temporarily enjoin and compel Defendants to release the withheld funding, in its entirety, for November SNAP benefits," Democracy Forward said in its motion.

RELATED: Democrats' shutdown is about to make catching a flight a lot harder

Photo by FADEL SENNA/AFP via Getty Images

McConnell proved more than willing to oblige the liberal outfit, ordering the USDA to make full SNAP payments to the states by Friday by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with its contingency funds.

The USDA previously indicated that it would not tap Section 32 funds — supplied by tariff revenues — because they are intended for Child Nutrition Programs, which feed at least 29 million American children and are distinct from SNAP benefits.

'We're not going to do it under the orders of a federal judge.'

"Section 32 Child Nutrition Program funds are not a contingency fund for SNAP," the USDA noted in a court filing. "Using billions of dollars from Child Nutrition for SNAP would leave an unprecedented gap in Child Nutrition funding that Congress has never had to fill with annual appropriations, and USDA cannot predict what Congress will do under these circumstances."

McConnell cited some of Trump's recent social media posts — including his Tuesday suggestion that SNAP benefits will only be doled out "when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before" — as evidence of the government's "intent to defy" his Friday order as well as the supposed insincerity of the USDA's arguments against using Section 32 funds to make full payments.

"This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations," wrote McConnell. "Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes. Such 'unjustifiable partisanship' has infected the USDA’s decision-making, rendering it arbitrary and capricious."

The Obama judge has previously faced criticism for what WJAR described as his "ties and massive contributions to Democratic politics."

Vance noted during a roundtable with Asian leaders at the White House on Thursday that "it's an absurd ruling because you have a federal judge effectively telling us what we have to do in the midst of a Democrat government shutdown."

"What we'd like to do is for the Democrats to open up the government," continued the vice president. "Of course then we can fund SNAP, and we can also do a lot of other good things for the American people. But in the midst of a shutdown, we can't have a federal court telling the president how he has to triage the situation."

Vance added, "We're trying to keep as much going as possible. The president and the entire administration are working on that, but we're not going to do it under the orders of a federal judge. We're going to do it according to what we think we have to do to comply with the law, of course, but also to actually make the government work for people in the midst of the Democratic government shutdown."

— (@)

The Trump administration has appealed the Obama judge's ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

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