Saying Meta hurts kids' health, state lawsuits demand $1T in penalties



Mark Zuckerberg has spent over 20 years building the Facebook brand, but it could all come to an end in one fell swoop.

Parent company Meta used words like "outlandish" and argued there was no historical precedent for its proposed punishment in recent legal filings for a lawsuit that could completely wipe out the company.

'A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.'

Twenty-nine states are currently engaged in a lawsuit against Meta that accuses the company of violating child privacy laws that bar the collection of data from underage users.

The online company is facing court battles from almost every cardinal direction, but four particular states are threatening Meta with penalties of $1.4 trillion, which nearly equals its entire valuation; according to Yahoo Finance, Meta's market cap is $1.48 trillion.

Meta responded to the sum in documents from the case in California, saying the "sheer magnitude" of the demands from the attorneys general "offends constitutional and ethical limits."

"In just a single one of their 'Remedy Chart' calculations, the AGs seek over one trillion dollars in penalties and disgorgement, and they then layer on various other double-counting charts," Meta wrote.

The massive sum comes from the AGs in California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, who reportedly came up with the figure by estimating every under-13 user in each state that could have been affected by Meta's policies.

"Each of these charts applies the maximum statutory penalty to every teen and purported under-13 user and every monthly instance of time spent at certain arbitrarily-selected thresholds," Meta claimed.

Meta argued, "A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission recently described a '$1 billion penalty' as 'the largest ever in a case involving an FTC rule violation."

RELATED: New Senate bill punishes chilling of online speech — if it passes

HECTOR GUERRERO/AFP/GettyImages

Meta further argued that the demands made were in "gross disproportion" to the alleged violations, and are "unsubstantiated" and "outlandish."

The defense went on, calling the trillion-dollar figure a "construct of lawyers" that counts the same individuals "many times over."

The aforementioned jurisdictions are also looking to pin claims of misleading the public on Meta, which they say "prioritized profits over the safety of kids."

A spokesperson for the California attorney general's office told the New York Post that Meta helped fuel the mental health crisis that is "impacting a generation of American children."

"The California Department of Justice looks forward to holding Meta fully accountable at trial in August," the spokesperson added. The two sides will meet in court on August 18 in Oakland, California.

RELATED: Meta had 17-STRIKE policy for sex traffickers, ex-employee says

Christian Ender/Getty Images

Another parallel claim Meta is battling accuses the company of being aware of the harm its platforms can cause.

A former employee alleged that Meta stopped internal research that would have shown that ceasing use of Facebook saw users become less depressed or anxious. Blaze News reported on this portion of the lawsuit in November, which allegedly included a study called Project Mercury.

Project Mercury was allegedly initiated in 2019 to "explore the impact" of Meta apps and how they can affect "polarization, news consumption, well-being, and daily social interactions."

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

Wikipedia Founder’s Ban From His Own Website Confirms The Left’s Censorship Scheme Is Far From Over

Wikipedia’s treatment of its founder is the perfect prophecy for anyone tempted to believe that we’ve won the free speech war for good.

Meet The Georgia Pastor Suing His School District For ‘Discrimination’ Against Christian After-School Program

'If we don't stand up for our freedoms at home, then when does it stop? If we just let it go, we'll never stay free.'

How the H-1B visa replaces American workers



Mary, a veteran Silicon Valley marketer who can’t find a job, considers herself a victim of an H-1B visa program run amok.

Her story, a U.S. native replaced by a foreign-born employee who is willing to work at a significantly lower wage, has become commonplace, particularly in the tech industry. Adding insult to injury, she says, her CEO, who hails from India, told her to train the man he selected to replace her before laying her off.

Despite stints at Google and Cisco and two years of job-hunting, Mary can no longer compete in a job market saturated with foreign-born H-1B visa holders. “I had experience. I should have walked right into these corporate jobs, but I didn't. Why? Because Silicon Valley is flooded with people who work for two-thirds of the price, or even half price,” said Mary, who asked to be identified only by her first name.

Companies, on average, save nearly $100,000 per worker over six years by hiring an H-1B worker rather than an American.

U.S. tech workers like Mary are at the center of a battle brewing in Washington, D.C., over reforming the troubled H-1B visa program, which is designed to fill highly skilled positions when qualified American workers can’t be found. The controversy pits tough-on-immigration Republicans and some Democrats against the most formidable of opponents — Big Tech, the primary beneficiary of a program considered by critics to be little more than a pipeline of cheap labor.

In the last few decades, the California dream has gone global, as U.S. tech firms have filled their ranks and C-suites with employees born abroad. Intel is no longer the company of its founders, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, but of Malaysian-born Lip-Bu Tan, its CEO since March 2025. Microsoft is led by Satya Nadella; Alphabet Inc. by Sundar Pichai; Adobe by Shantanu Narayen; IBM by Arvind Krishna; and T-Mobile US by Srinivas Gopalan — all of whom were born in India.

All told, a remarkable two-thirds of the Valley’s nearly 400,000 tech jobs are now held by those born abroad, according to a 2025 report from the think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley. Today, more tech workers were born in India (23%) and China (18%) combined than in the U.S. (34%).

Low-cost talent

The influx of low-cost Asian talent has clearly helped fuel profits in one of America’s most influential sectors. But there is a downside to this tech boom — the sidelining of U.S. workers thanks to the H-1B visa program. Created in 1990, the federal program has morphed into a vehicle for employers, particularly in the nation’s tech centers, to recruit much cheaper foreign labor at the expense of U.S. tech workers, according to Harvard economist George J. Borjas.

While the H-1B program spans multiple industries, it is overwhelmingly concentrated in tech. Last year, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Tata Consultancy, and Google were the biggest visa users, with Amazon alone recording more than 13,000 applications. These companies find the savings from hiring foreign workers hard to resist. The job of software developer, for instance, accounts for 38% of all H-1B visa workers, according to a 2026 paper by Borjas. And these foreign software developers earn about 30% less than their U.S. counterparts, the economist estimates.

Since many of these tech jobs pay six figures, the savings quickly add up. Borjas estimates that companies, on average, save nearly $100,000 per worker over six years by hiring an H-1B worker rather than an American. The arrangement “redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants,” Borjas wrote in 2016. That, in turn, helps account for the soaring stock prices of Big Tech since the 2008 financial crash.

RELATED: America should eliminate the H-1B and replace it with THIS

El Nuevo Herald/Getty Images

False rationale

The vaguely written H-1B law has been easy for companies to exploit. Hassan Abdullah, an immigration attorney and H-1B advocate, said the supposed congressional basis of the law — to fill highly skilled jobs with foreigners if Americans aren’t available — has always been a fiction. “The actual regulations don’t necessarily say that's required,” said Abdullah, who helps companies get the visas. “Throughout all my years, I’ve never had to even consider that as a factor.”

One of the most glaring weaknesses of the law, critics say, is that most companies applying for these visas are not required to demonstrate that they were unable to find qualified American workers. Only companies with more than 15% of their workforce on H-1Bs must make small efforts to recruit U.S. citizens.

Companies are required to pay foreign workers at least the “prevailing wage” for the occupation and region, a provision that should theoretically reduce the incentive to hire employees from Asia. But the process relies on self-reporting and has been easy to manipulate because salaries are calculated using broad regional averages that often fail to reflect real market wages in the technology sector.

As a result, the number of H-1B visa workers has skyrocketed. 2025 was a banner year, with 406,348 approved visas, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Seventy percent of those visas were issued to Indians. That compares with a total of 275,317 visa approvals in 2015.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, who is part of the MAGA wing of the GOP, reacted to these numbers on X, calling the program “a national security nightmare. Enough. No more flooding the market with 400k+ H-1B visas while our people and our sovereignty gets screwed."

After foreign-born employees take on leadership roles, including CEO, they attract and hire more foreigners by tapping their own professional and social networks.

With criticism of the visas dovetailing with broader anti-immigration sentiments, the Trump administration has made the most serious move yet to restrict the program. Six months ago, USCIS announced a new $100,000 fee that companies must pay per new H-1B worker living outside the U.S. While official figures have not yet been released, some immigration experts estimate that the fee may lead to a 30% to 50% decline in new visa applications.

“This is the first year we have not filed any H-1B visas for people outside the U.S. because tech companies don’t want to pay the $100,000 fee,” said immigration attorney Navdeep Meamber, who is based in Silicon Valley.

But companies have found a work-around. Meamber said she has seen an increase in the number of clients filing for the visas for workers already in the U.S., particularly those such as students who transferred from other visa types to H-1Bs.

“The $100,000 fee is discouraging some employers from bringing in brand-new H-1B workers, but it is not reducing the numbers, because foreign students, especially those who get on the Optional Practical Training program, can move into the H-1B pipeline without paying that fee,” said attorney Rosemary Jenks, a campaigner for immigration reform with the Immigration Accountability Project. “So there are still plenty of H-1B visas being issued every year.”

American ingenuity

Silicon Valley wasn’t always dominated by foreigners. Some claim the true birthplace of Silicon Valley can be found in a garage at 367 Addison Avenue in Palo Alto. It was there that David Packard, a native of Colorado, and Bill Hewlett of Michigan founded Hewlett-Packard in 1939. Robert Noyce, a native son of Iowa and co-inventor of the integrated circuit, critically made from silicon, gave name to the valley after the substance. With his colleague, Gordon Moore of San Francisco, they founded Intel in 1968.

Throughout the postwar years, America’s booming tech industry was largely pioneered by natives. By the 1980s, however, concerns were raised about the dwindling number of young people available to fill STEM jobs in the future. Erich Bloch, director of the National Science Foundation, told the American Council on Education in 1985: “The pool of potential students from U.S. schools will become smaller. Demographic projections, of which you are all aware, show the number of 18- to 24-year-olds declining by about 20% over the next decade.”

The 1990 Immigration Act created the H-1B visa, a temporary work visa lasting a few years aimed at filling the labor shortages Bloch had warned about. Since then, tech firms have sometimes struggled to find employees, particularly specialized engineers, during times of rapid growth. But whether the industry faces a persistent shortage of American workers is a matter of debate among economists and labor analysts.

Major technology companies reject the criticism that the H-1B system is primarily a source of cheap labor. Executives stress that the program allows American firms to recruit engineers and researchers with advanced technical expertise in areas where qualified talent can be scarce.

They also contend that many H-1B workers are paid high salaries and that access to global talent helps keep American companies competitive against rivals.

Critics of the visas point to waves of layoffs accompanied by the growth in H-1Bs as evidence that a labor shortage is nothing more than a fig leaf. Michael Capuano of the Federation for American Immigration Reform wrote in a blog post last year,

Google laid off 951 U.S. employees in 2024, but found room for 1,058 new H-1B workers. Apple laid off 735 people in 2024, but signed on 864 new H-1B employees. Microsoft laid off 3,426 workers from 2022 to 2024 and hired 3,259 new H-1Bs during that same period.

A 2023 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute similarly found that the top 30 H-1B employers hired more than 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 while laying off at least 85,000 employees during the same period.

In addition to cheaper talent, critics say H-1B visas also provide a captive workforce. Because employers can sponsor visa holders for permanent residency, many workers become heavily reliant on keeping their jobs in order to remain in the United States. Critics argue that this dynamic discourages employees from changing companies or demanding higher wages, with some likening the system to a form of indentured servitude.

Tribalism at play

Critics say favoritism has also contributed to foreign dominance of the tech sector. After foreign-born employees take on leadership roles, including CEO, they attract and hire more foreigners by tapping their own professional and social networks.

Kevin Lynn, executive director of the Institute for Sound Public Policy, argues that “professionalism doesn’t exist in these IT departments any more,” adding that “when you look at the hiring, it gets very tribal. It’s really India versus the rest of the world.”

Microsoft saw the number of decisions on H-1B applications rise from 2,983 in 2014, when Nadella became CEO, to 6,258 in 2025. Google’s numbers jumped from 2,309 in 2015, when Pichai took the top job, to 7,868 in 2025. During these years, these companies also grew, making it hard to know if the percentage of foreign workers increased. At IBM, H-1B decisions have remained consistent since Arvind Krishna was named the leader.

Meamber, the immigration lawyer, disputes the idea that companies run by foreign-born leaders are more likely to rely on labor from their home countries. “The CEO doesn’t even know who is being hired. ... These decisions are being taken at a lower level by the HR team and by the recruiters,” she said.

Stephen Vivien, an engineer, said he witnessed Indian employees helping each other get hired by sharing interview questions when he worked at Google. “There were a lot of H-1B workers ... there's a network.” he said.

“When one Indian guy would be coming up for his interview; the other Indian guys who had [already] gotten hired would call and share the questions.”

RELATED: America didn’t lose its tech edge — globalist CEOs gave it away

Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In April, a New York jury found New Jersey-based Cognizant Technology Solutions liable for $8.4 million after a former executive sued the company, which was founded in India, for discrimination against non-Indian and non-South Asian workers. The executive argued he was passed over for a promotion and was later fired for raising concerns about bias against non-Indian employees.

The decision follows a separate successful lawsuit brought by three other employees against Cognizant in 2017, all similarly claiming discrimination against non-Indian workers, though the company is appealing and denies all allegations. In both lawsuits, juries found in favor of claims that Cognizant had used the H-1B program as a tool to discriminate against American workers. Since 2009, the company has received tens of thousands of H-1B visa approvals.

Reformers vs. Big Tech

While restrictions to the program have yet to meaningfully slow its growth, some Republicans have called to abolish it. In February, Florida Rep. Greg Steube (R) introduced the EXILE Act, which would end the H-1B visa program entirely.

A proposed reform that might gain more bipartisan support targets the ineffective prevailing wage requirement that allows firms to underpay foreign workers. One idea floated by Republicans would create a minimum salary requirement for H-1B workers that is much higher than the current pay scale, thus removing the financial incentive to replace U.S.-born workers.

Ro Khanna, the Democrat congressman representing much of Silicon Valley, said on the "All-In" podcast last year that “there’s definitely abuse. ... It needs to be corrected” in the H-1B program. Khanna said a new prevailing wage standard would be a reform he could support.

But legislation that would raise labor costs would be opposed by Big Tech, armed with its war chest of money and influence in Washington. Jenks, the lawyer, said H-1B reformers face a tough fight. “The donors on this issue include all of the high-tech companies, whether it’s Microsoft, Facebook, all of them,” she said. “They put millions and millions of dollars every year into lobbying.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire. The article was reported in conjunction with a GB News documentary, which can be viewed here.

Florida female, 29, and her children's 15-year-old male babysitter accused of shooting at woman's car after Facebook dispute



A 29-year-old Florida female and her children's 15-year-old male babysitter are accused of shooting at a woman's car after a Facebook dispute earlier this week.

The Volusia County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday night's shooting outside a Deltona home stemmed from a dispute between the female suspect — Ines Jonjic — and the victim, WESH-TV reported.

'Are you guys sure he’s a babysitter?'

The station, citing the arrest report, said the victim became "highly upset" after Jonjic "took an image of [the victim's] infant from her Facebook page, added malicious comments, and sent it to [the victim]."

Deputies said the victim then decided "she wanted to have a face-to-face conversation with Jonjic" and drove to Jonjic's home on Hemingway Drive, WESH reported.

However, deputies said Jonjic and a 15-year-old boy — whom they later discovered was the babysitter for Jonjic's children — pointed guns at the victim and fired several shots at her vehicle, the station said.

More from WESH:

The victim drove away and noticed she had a flat tire. However, according to the arrest report, "instead of immediately notifying law enforcement, she called roadside assistance, had her tire repaired, and drove home." Deputies eventually met with the victim and discovered bullet holes in several of her car windows.

Investigators said it took about five hours for Jonjic and the teen to exit the home after deputies arrived. Once inside, deputies said they found marijuana and cocaine throughout the residence.

Detectives located .380-caliber and 9-millimeter shell casings in the garage. Jonjic admitted to shooting at the victim's vehicle, according to the arrest report.

Jonjic was charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a specified area, possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, two counts of possession of a new legend drug without a prescription, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia, the station said.

Jail records indicate that Jonjic was still behind bars as of Friday afternoon.

RELATED: Florida mom accused of kicking youth football player on field; during arrest she actually screams, 'I'm the one who got hit!'

The 15-year-old babysitter denied firing a gun at the victim, WESH reported.

However, the station said he was charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of a firearm by a delinquent, trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a specified area, and violation of probation.

WESH added that he already was on probation for an unrelated drug possession charge.

The Facebook post from the sheriff's office about the incident has attracted more than 1,000 comments, and the commenters haven't held back — particularly in regard to the teenage male's stated job.

  • "Babysitter sure lol," one commenter said.
  • "That ain't a 'babysitter'..." another user declared.
  • "Are you guys sure he’s a babysitter?" another commenter wondered.
  • "Who has a 15-year-old male with priors babysitting at their house at 5:30 a.m.?" another user asked. "Sounds like she's missing a few charges."
  • "A 15-year-old babysitter @ 5 a.m. while she is home?" another commenter queried.

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

Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech



A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.

'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'

Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.

The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.

However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.

"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.

The court must first approve this settlement agreement.

RELATED: BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' exposes how the censorship industrial complex silenced Americans during COVID

Eric Schmitt. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."

Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."

He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."

"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.

RELATED: 'Karma is a b***h': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH

Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.

"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."

"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.

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

California’s next dumb tech idea: Show your papers to scroll



California has a habit of importing some of the worst tech-regulation ideas from overseas. After lawmakers enacted a censorial statute cribbed from the U.K. in 2022 — and watched it run headlong into an injunction — the Golden State now appears eager to borrow from Australia, which in December barred children from major social media platforms.

Earlier this month, California lawmakers introduced a bill to impose “a minimum age requirement to open or maintain a social media account.” Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who usually avoids weighing in on pending bills, publicly endorsed the idea.

Will America keep light-touch rules that protect consumers without strangling innovation — or import Europe’s heavy-handed, fear-driven approach?

However well intentioned, the Australian model collapses on prudential grounds. In the United States, it also invites a swift constitutional challenge — and likely a swift defeat in court.

Most proposals that force platforms to distinguish between adults and minors require age verification. That means users must hand over sensitive personal information — usually government ID documents or biometric data — as the price of entry to the platforms where everyday digital life happens. Once companies collect, process, and store that data, it becomes a tempting target. Hackers do not need ideology, only opportunity.

The roster of victims reads like Don Giovanni’s catalogue. The list includes corporations such as Target, Equifax, Marriott, Capital One, MGM Resorts, and T-Mobile. Platforms from Facebook to X.com to the “Tea” app were also hit. So were third-party verification services. Even in France, where regulators tried to build a privacy-protective system, a third-party age verifier exposed sensitive user data. In the digital age, breaches and leaks are simply a fact of life.

Legislation promoted as “child protection” thus runs into a basic contradiction: it can expose children to new forms of harm. As the R Street Institute and Experian have reported, 25% of minors will become victims of identity fraud or theft before they turn 18. Age-verification mandates would widen the attack surface and increase the odds that minors’ information gets stolen, misused, or sold — and that families spend years cleaning up the wreckage.

Some advocates now treat constitutional objections to “child-safety” bills as impolite. Courts don’t share that squeamishness. In recent years, judges have enjoined multiple constitutionally defective state laws, leaving behind little more than wasted taxpayer dollars and public frustration, while state attorneys general mount doomed defenses.

Newsom’s favored approach also clashes with a Supreme Court precedent California already lost: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. In that 2011 case, the court struck down a California law that restricted minors’ access to violent video games. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion applied strict scrutiny — a demanding standard — and rejected the state’s argument that the law simply “helped” parents.

Scalia’s point applies with even greater force here. A sweeping ban on minors’ access to social media would function less as parental support and more as state substitution. The state would not merely empower parents; it would decide what parents should want, then impose that judgment across the board.

RELATED: Kids have already found a way around Australia's new social media ban: Making faces

David GRAY/AFP/Getty Images

In American law, parents generally hold the duty — and the right — to decide what media their children consume. That principle does not stop at the edge of the internet.

The broader fight over technology policy often turns on a single question: Will America stick with light-touch, sensible regulation that protects consumers without strangling innovation — or will it import the heavy-handed, fear-driven regulatory posture popular abroad, especially in Europe?

The American technology sector grew and thrived in the internet era. Many foreign regimes, more focused on expansive “safety” mandates than innovation, privacy, or consumer benefit, have not.

Lawmakers should borrow good ideas wherever they find them. But California keeps shopping in the wrong aisle. If Sacramento wants to protect kids, it should start with tools that don’t require building a mass ID-check system for the entire public — and that don’t hand criminals a richer trove of data to steal.

It’s wise to learn from other countries. It’s foolish to copy their worst mistakes.

'Large human smuggling operation' uncovered in Texas? ICE makes alarming claim about 'alien from India.'



While immigration enforcement has faced some hurdles, including a partial government shutdown, law enforcement has continued to take down criminals. In a major score for Houston Immigration and Customs Enforcement, authorities announced the arrest of two people who allegedly ran a major illegal operation.

On Wednesday morning, the official United States Customs and Immigration Services X, Facebook, and Instagram accounts announced the arrest of an "alien from India" and his "spouse" in Texas, where they were allegedly running a "large human smuggling operation."

'He and his spouse were apprehended ... on charges of human smuggling, document fraud, and overstaying their visa.'

"He and his spouse were apprehended at our Houston office by @ICEgov on charges of human smuggling, document fraud, and overstaying their visa," USCIS wrote.

"Human traffickers will be caught and held accountable," the account added.

RELATED: No more 'safe harbor for illegals': Colony Ridge settles with DOJ, Texas

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

A USCIS spokesperson referred Blaze News to ICE for comment since ICE made the arrests.

Blaze News reached out to the DHS, ICE, and its Houston field office for comment but did not receive a response.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

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

'I am going to kill Donald Trump': Smug Democrat candidate threatens death penalty in latest campaign trick



While the Trump administration continues trying to put out real and proverbial fires started by Democrats, more are igniting across the country.

Now a Democratic candidate appears to be promising to kill the president as part of his campaign platform.

'That kind of vile comment makes it clear that Elliot Forhan is not qualified to be attorney general.'

On Tuesday, a video went viral of Ohio attorney general candidate Elliot Forhan (D) promising to "kill Donald Trump" if elected.

"I want to tell you what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump," Forhan, a former Ohio state representative, said in a video posted to Facebook.

RELATED: 'Convicted and f**king dangles': NeverTrumper Rick Wilson calls for execution of top White House adviser

Current Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R); Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

"I mean I'm going to obtain a conviction rendered by a jury of his peers at a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence, presented at a trial, conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process, resulting in a sentence, duly executed, of capital punishment," Forhan said in the video.

In the clip, he did not indicate which crimes worthy of the death penalty he thought President Donald Trump has committed.

The Republican attorney general candidate for Ohio, Keith Faber, promptly posted a response to Forhan's unhinged rant.

"That kind of vile comment makes it clear that Elliot Forhan is not qualified to be attorney general," Faber said. "Look, it is important that [gubernatorial candidate] Amy Acton and the other Democrats on the ticket call him out for such conduct."

This isn't the first time Forhan has faced public scrutiny for his rhetoric. Just days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Forhan made a Facebook post that said, "Violence is wrong. F**k Charlie Kirk."

Faber didn't miss his chance to remind people of that vile comment from Forhan: "Add to that his recent celebration of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and you see just what kind of individuals the Democrats are running for attorney general."

Forhan has also faced backlash and professional consequences for what some have alleged to be "erratic and abusive" behavior involving a female constituent and others, according to a 2023 article by Fox News.

Forhan was never charged with a crime, though he was stripped of his legislative privileges and committee assignments as an Ohio legislator in the last General Assembly amid allegations and an investigation into his conduct, according to Statehouse News Bureau last February.

The primary election in Ohio will be held on May 5.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) 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!