I do not believe the actual deportation and self-deportation numbers are anywhere near the roughly 3 million claimed in Department of Homeland Security press releases.

This is more than a hunch. The published figures appear mathematically impossible.

If a population roughly equal to that of New Mexico left the United States, there should be visible statistical evidence.

That is a serious problem, which is why the Oversight Project has announced a lawsuit to force the DHS to release the underlying data.

Some people will be surprised that a Trump-aligned legal and investigative organization, best known for exposing the autopen scandal, is suing the administration’s Department of Homeland Security.

Here is why.

Trump’s central promise

Immigration enforcement has been the central thesis of President Trump’s political career.

It began with “build the wall” after he descended the golden escalator in 2015. He returned to office with 77 million votes after promising mass deportation.

Agenda 47 contained only 20 major promises. The first was to secure the border, and the administration deserves enormous credit for doing so — even as House Republicans refuse to codify those gains without attaching amnesty for illegal farmworkers.

The second promise was to conduct the largest deportation operation in American history.

Trump repeatedly indicated that this meant surpassing President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1954 operation, which some estimates say reduced the illegal population by 31% in a single year.

With two and a half years remaining in office, Trump is entering the period when presidents begin thinking seriously about legacy.

If “promises made, promises kept” is to mean anything, the deportation machinery must begin operating at full capacity now. Only then can removals reach the millions during the administration’s final years and surpass Eisenhower’s record.

Trump has the resources to do it. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is better funded and equipped than ever.

The administration should direct ICE toward high-density workplaces where illegal labor is concentrated — factories, farms, hotels, restaurants, warehouses, and meatpacking facilities — while imposing serious penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

That is how the numbers begin rising rapidly.

Surpassing Eisenhower would be the natural culmination of Trump’s political career. It would fulfill the promise at the center of his movement and provide the necessary answer to the Biden years, when roughly 10 million illegal aliens were allowed into the country and dispersed throughout American communities.

Those illegal aliens are still here. Trump can still remove them.

Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The amnesty lobby needs inflated numbers

The second reason for demanding transparency is that the amnesty lobby does not care what Trump promised.

Many Republicans rolled their eyes when he pledged mass deportation. They quickly began trying to narrow enforcement to a small category of the “worst of the worst” criminals.

The reason is obvious: The amnesty lobby, especially its Republican wing, is in love with cheap illegal labor. Its members fiercely oppose worksite enforcement, even though worksite enforcement is the only realistic way to generate removals on the scale Trump promised.

They are already preparing their next push for what they will call “comprehensive immigration reform,” the familiar euphemism for mass amnesty.

The Dignidad Act has roughly 20 Republican co-sponsors. The Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act of 2026, another amnesty proposal for illegal farm laborers, has attracted more than 40.

Congress is also considering reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Over time, that law has encouraged migration from noncontiguous countries and fed migrants into labor- and sex-trafficking networks.

It has also created a funding stream for left-wing nongovernmental organizations now suing the Trump administration, undermining both the war on fraud and the work once associated with the DOGE.

The House and Senate are full of pro-amnesty Republicans financed by industries that profit from cheap labor. Most are not going anywhere soon.

Their preferred argument is predictable: Enough people have already been deported. Now it is time to make a deal.

We will not allow them to make that case using inflated numbers.

The amnesty lobby used the same tactic during the Obama administration. It combined border returns with formal removals to portray Barack Obama as the “deporter in chief.”

The goal was to make Obama look tough enough to create political space for amnesty. That strategy produced the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, which collapsed after a national populist revolt, and the unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

That revolt also helped create the conditions for Trump’s rise.

I was born at night, but not last night.

The amnesty lobby is preparing to run the same play again.

The numbers don’t add up

The third reason for the lawsuit is simple: The public deserves the real figures.

The DHS recently gave several media outlets the following statement:

In President Trump’s first year back in office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations. As of June 24, we have now deported over 948,000 illegal aliens and arrested over 981,000 illegal aliens.

Consider the first sentence.

It refers specifically to Trump’s first year back in office, from January 20, 2025, through January 20 of this year. The same claim appeared on the DHS website.

If 3 million people left and 2.2 million supposedly self-deported, that leaves approximately 800,000 formal deportations or removals.

But DHS has provided no evidence supporting the claim that 2.2 million people self-deported.

The administration has pointed to the CBP Home app, yet only about 72,000 people reportedly used it to leave as of March. I have reason to believe even that number may be overstated.

That leaves a gulf of more than 2 million people.

Blaze Media Illustration

If a population roughly equal to that of New Mexico left the United States, there should be visible statistical evidence. School enrollments, rental markets, remittance flows, employment records, border crossings, airline bookings, and foreign-government data should all reflect it.

The DHS should be able to produce that evidence.

Now consider the claimed 800,000 deportations during Trump’s first year.

The department’s fiscal year 2027 Congressional Budget Justification states that the DHS and ICE removed or returned 442,637 illegal aliens during fiscal year 2025, which included several months of the Biden administration.

That figure combines removals, which are closer to formal deportations, with returns, which often occur at the border.

Even with those categories combined, the official budget figure is little more than half the number implied by the press release.

The second sentence creates an even larger problem. If 800,000 people were deported during Trump’s first year, how could the cumulative total be only 948,000 seven months into 2026?

That would mean the administration deported only 148,000 people during those seven months.

The numbers do not add up.

Anyone who travels the country, follows social media, or watches television knows skepticism about these claims is now widespread. That is creating a political problem, especially among young Republican men who rank immigration enforcement and national sovereignty among their highest priorities.

Fortunately, the problem is fixable.

The administration can expand full-scale worksite enforcement and produce real, rapidly increasing removal numbers. It can then release those figures transparently, every month, with the same attention given to the jobs report.

Mass deportation is part of the glue holding Trump’s coalition together.

Regular, verifiable reporting would generate enthusiasm and demonstrate that the administration has not retreated from its defining promise.

The Oversight Project does not want Trump to fail. We want him to succeed.

That begins with knowing the real numbers.

GOP bill aims to gut online censorship funds — and where the money is going will shock you

A Republican-sponsored bill wants to make sure no money goes toward censoring Americans' speech online.

Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) is credited with making key additions to the text that people who feel they have been blacklisted online will surely appreciate.

Prohibitions on any form of deplatforming, deboosting, demonetizing.

The appropriations bill, H.R. 8595, contains text specifically designed to prevent NGOs and nonprofits from aiding tech companies in online censorship.

This includes prohibitions on any form of deplatforming, deboosting, demonetizing, suppressing, or otherwise penalizing lawful speech online in the United States.

Funds also cannot be used to affect advertising, sponsorship, payment, or revenues on the basis of lawful online speech.

Additionally, no programs can help, directly or indirectly, "create, disseminate, share, or operationalize any blacklist or similar designation system."

Mike Benz, director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, described portions of the bill as prohibiting NGOs, contractors, or subcontractors from supporting or helping a foreign government looking to wield censorship laws on platforms like X, Meta, Google, or YouTube.

Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg/Getty Images

However, among many of the appropriations in the bill, which includes money to the Offices of Inspector General, the State Department, and the Treasury Department, are appropriations to a series of organizations most Americans are likely are not aware of.

Many of these organizations are spending money in a way most Republicans would not approve of either, even if they are not even in the realm of censorship.

This includes appropriations for the National Endowment for Democracy, which has a stated goal of supporting "projects of nongovernmental groups abroad who are working for democratic goals in more than 100 countries."

The organization's board of directors includes several sitting U.S. House members and senators.

Appropriations also go to the Israeli Arab Scholarship Program, which "funds scholarships for Israeli Arabs to attend institutions of higher education in the United States."

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund also gets support in the bill, an organization that has historically served as "a bridge between Iranian and U.S. scholars and experts by including Iranian citizens in its conferences when possible."

It also pushes dialogue on topics including "the Caspian Sea and its neighbors, unity and diversity in Iraq, and the future of Afghanistan."

Other appropriations are provided to the East-West Center, which has a "lush 21-acre campus" in Hawaii that "promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific."

At the same time, the Asia Foundation has a "Strategy 2030" program that aims to "build inclusive, future-ready economies."

The House will hold a final passage vote on the bill this week.

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

Tucker Carlson declares ‘I’m out’ of the GOP — Glenn Beck issues urgent warning

On a recent episode of the "Can't Be Censored" podcast hosted by former Canadian journalists Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, longtime conservative commentator Tucker Carlson dropped a major announcement: He’s withdrawing his support for the GOP.

“There’s no chance I would support the Republican Party. Not going to support the Democratic Party. I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he stated bluntly, citing his frustration with what he believes is the party putting a foreign country’s interests above America’s.

“I’m out, and if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out,” he added.

When he heard Carlson’s announcement, Glenn Beck issued a warning to both Washington Republicans and conservative voters.

Addressing Republican politicians, Glenn scolds, “I told you this would happen. For years, I have said this. I said the day would come when your own people would stop defending you, when their loyalty would run out, when ‘the other side is worse’ doesn't work anymore.”

Widespread disaffection “is here,” he warns.

MAGA, Glenn argues, isn’t just about Trump. It’s about commonsense policies and national strength.

“[Trump] was just the first major candidate that said, ‘You know, we're not done as a nation, and I'm not going to manage the decline.’ That's what people want,” he exclaims. “A healthy and commonsense-driven country that doesn't destroy their faith and their family and their freedoms.”

Glenn then turns his focus to conservative voters.

“When somebody like Tucker walks, when the next one walks (and there will be a next one), people are going to come and say, ‘Circle the wagons. You've got to defend the party.’ No ... don't rush to defend the GOP,” he entreats.

“Every time you defend them for free, they teach you that betrayal is survivable, that they can ignore you and keep you,” he continues. “The only language a comfortable incumbent understands is the sound of the door closing behind a voter who's done.”

This doesn’t mean we stop fighting the “authoritarian and crazy left.” We just have to “find the Republicans or whatever that stand for something,” he pleads.

Glenn pivots to Washington again: “You're not going to survive this. And I don't mean a tough cycle coming your way. I mean, you are building with your own hands a movement aimed directly at you, and you deserve it.”

No amount of spending or messaging will slow or divert the train that’s coming, he warns.

There is only one good way to stop the GOP exodus, says Glenn: “Simply remove the reason it exists.”

“And the only way to do that is to start listening to the people who sent you there and then actually do the thing they sent you to do. That's it. That's the secret in the sauce.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The AI gold rush could become an incumbent graveyard

Thomas Jefferson warned that factions could subvert the public good once they captured the public councils. “Bribery corrupts them,” he wrote, and, “Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents.”

That warning fits the data center fight now spreading across America. On this issue, the establishments of both parties have largely sided with Big Tech against communities that do not want their land, power, water, and quality of life sacrificed for the artificial intelligence gold rush.

Politicians who continue following the flow of corporate election cash may serve their puppet masters a little while longer. But the grassroots rebellion beneath them is growing.

The politicians appear to be betting that the campaign cash will outweigh voter anger. Are they right?

When I began covering the data center issue, opposition mostly came from scattered homeowners in rural communities. They fought these surveillance centers at county council meetings with rudimentary petition websites, homemade lawn signs, and four-figure local budgets.

Two years later, data center proposals have spread into nearly every corner of the country. So has the opposition. It is passionate, surprisingly bipartisan, and increasingly organized. A national election is also approaching.

Politico analyzed several dozen of the most competitive House races that will determine control of the chamber and found more than 200 data centers planned in those districts alone. In total, 1,500 data centers are planned or under construction in 232 congressional districts, although in my estimation, more of the mega-hyperscale facilities are in Republican districts.

That scale shows how ubiquitous the land grab has become. It also shows how potent this issue could be in the most consequential federal races.

Most competitive seats are held by Republicans, but many GOP incumbents have been cagey, even oleaginous, when asked about data centers. They avoid the issue as long as possible. When pressed at a town hall or by the media, they offer boilerplate about the need to “beat China” in innovation, then toss out an empty and impossible promise to protect consumers from higher electricity rates.

U.S. Rep. Brad Finstad (R-Minn.) gave Politico the cookie-cutter, split-the-baby response.

“AI data centers, like those proposed in southern Minnesota, can play an important role in both our economic future and our national security,” Finstad said. “At the same time, it’s important that communities have a full understanding of what these projects mean locally — including their energy demands, environmental impacts, job creation, and potential tax benefits. As we look toward the future of data-center development, we also need an honest conversation about whether our current energy infrastructure and power grid are prepared to support the growing demands of AI technology.”

OK, Brad. Seven projects are proposed in your district alone. Tell voters where you stand. Yes or no: Are you fine with Big Tech owning and repurposing this much farmland?

Moor Studio/Getty Images

Republicans face major headwinds this November. But if any issue could help them power through that adversity, it would be standing with their constituents against the Big Tech land grab.

The reason they do not is obvious. The campaign cash has to come from somewhere.

“They’re between a rock and a hard place,” Texas-based GOP consultant Brendan Steinhauser, whose clients have included Sen. John Cornyn (R) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R), told Politico. “Politically, it’s not a very smart move to come out and be seen as too close to Big Tech or doing the bidding of Big Tech, but a lot of the money is flying to them through that.”

Meanwhile, in one of the few districts where an incumbent Democrat is vulnerable this cycle, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has actually listened to her communities.

“There’s more political signs against AI in our region than for candidates in the upcoming races,” Kaptur said during a hearing this spring. “The public opposition that is arising, it’s spontaneous combustion coming up from the grassroots.”

But no one should mistake that for Democratic seriousness. Nothing is as righteous as a Democrat in the minority.

Virginia is the first state this cycle where Democrats have already flipped the levers of government and taken power. Abigail Spanberger ran on reining in the shocking colonization of Virginia by data centers. Now that she is governor, her urgency has faded.

Some backbenchers in both parties have pushed bills to limit tax breaks, but Spanberger and her allies in House leadership are blocking real reforms. So far, she has created a blue-ribbon commission to study the issue — a panel stacked with industry hired hands.

In Ohio, lawmakers recently learned that Big Tech tax breaks cost the state $2 billion in just one year, exponentially more than originally projected. Despite the GOP promise to repeal those tax breaks, the relevant committee adjourned for the last time until November without taking action. Even the proposal on the table would only have reduced the abatement prospectively, yet the industry still lobbied against it.

That “rock and hard place” keeps doing its work.

Brendan SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

At the top of the political food chain, leaders of both parties are selling out to data centers. At the grassroots, voters on the right and left are fighting back.

In blue Maine and New York, legislative majorities passed versions of data center moratoriums. But Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed the bill, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has so far declined to sign hers. The squeeze from corporate money gets tighter the higher a politician climbs and the more money it takes to win.

Conversely, small counties and cities have begun enacting local bans. Coffee County, Tennessee, and the city of McMinnville in adjacent Warren County recently passed 18-month data center moratoriums. Warren County, Knox County, and Nashville are debating similar measures.

Again, the opposition is bipartisan. Nashville is deep blue, but Trump won Coffee County by 55 points and Warren County by 56 points.

Left-wing environmentalists tend to oppose growth and therefore naturally oppose this sort of resource stripping. But grassroots conservatives also understand that farmland, rural heritage, local sovereignty, and digital privacy are worth defending. Sometimes those interests converge.

Politicians who continue following the flow of corporate election cash may serve their puppet masters a little while longer. But the grassroots rebellion beneath them is growing. It is bipartisan, local, organized, and increasingly impossible to contain.

Trump signs Iran deal, blasts 'fools' after meltdowns by Sens. Cruz and Cassidy

President Donald Trump was originally scheduled to sign a hard copy of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, but evidently sealing the deal and reopening the Strait of Hormuz couldn't wait.

Flanked by French President Emmanuel Macron and French first lady Brigitte Macron and with Secretary of State Marco Rubio looming behind him, Trump signed the deal at the Palace of Versailles on Wednesday night, stating, "This was not easy, I can tell you."

'Reagan is rolling over in his grave.'

Pakistani President Shehbaz Sharif, a key mediator during the peace talks, subsequently noted that the agreement is now in effect, meaning — as a first step — Iran will "instantly reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the United States of America will immediately lift the naval blockade."

The White House hailed the agreement as a great achievement.

"Following the historic destruction of Iran's military capabilities through the successful Operation Epic Fury, President Trump and his negotiating team have brokered an excellent, performance-based MOU that advances the interests of the United States by ending the fighting, reopening the Strait of Hormuz to significantly lower energy prices, and forcing Iran to commit to abandon its nuclear ambitions," stated White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Following the signing, gasoline prices dropped and U.S. Treasury and stock futures rebounded.

Democrats in Congress, Iran hawks, and several Israeli officials have complained incessantly in recent days about the agreement. On Wednesday, however, Republican lawmakers were among the loudest critics of the textual prelude to a final peace agreement.

After sharing critiques by others troubled by the peace deal, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told The Hill, "History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal."

Cruz seems to have been referring to the sixth of the agreement's 14 points, which states, "The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Cruz recycled these remarks in an interview with the Daily Wire, where he emphasized his support for Trump's decision "to initiate military action against Iran."

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican who finished a distant third in the Louisiana GOP Senate primary last month, similarly chimed in on Wednesday, writing, "Reagan is rolling over in his grave."

"Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future," continued Cassidy. "Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal."

"This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades," added the departing senator.

Failed presidential candidate Nikki Haley and Sen. Thom Tillis — the retiring North Carolina Republican whom Trump called a "loser" and an "angry man" earlier this month — also aired their concerns.

Tillis suggested that the U.S. was "equivocating" on some of the goals set earlier in the conflict; emphasized the need for "accountability for Iran"; insinuated that the agreement is the result of the administration "getting a bit skittish over the economic consequences of going to war to begin with"; and said he prefers a deal that won't just last through the remainder of Trump's terms but for multiple generations.

"Hitting Iran’s nuclear and missile sites was the right move," wrote Haley.

"Now, we plan to unlock billions of dollars and lift sanctions, with the promise of even more money. They will use that money the way they always do — to further their nuclear ambitions and on terrorist proxies against us. It’s a huge mistake to pay to rebuild the threat we just destroyed."

Not all champions of the war, however, condemned the deal.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote, "It is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the Strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop."

While casting doubt on whether a final deal could be reached, Graham emphasized that signing the agreement constituted an "essential step" to creating economic stability for the U.S., the region, and the world, a step he regards as a prerequisite for "the expansion of the Abraham Accords and normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel."

Trump evidently caught wind of all the pearl-clutching and weighed in on Thursday morning, stating on Truth Social, "These fools, who think I haven't been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are 'tumbling' down, are either jealous, bad people, or stupid. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

According to AAA's tracker, the national average gas price fell to $3.99 per gallon on Thursday — the lowest it has been in over two and a half months.

Brent crude futures are down to just over $78.28 per barrel — down from highs north of $110 in recent wartime months.

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

The right to life cannot depend on a baby’s zip code

Four years after the Dobbs decision, the pro-life movement faces a sobering crossroads. The end of Roe v. Wade was a historic victory. But abortion remains the leading cause of death in the United States, and the most vulnerable among us are still denied the basic human right to life.

Dobbs held that the people’s representatives at every level of government may pass laws protecting unborn children. That includes national leaders. Half the states have enacted pro-life laws since Dobbs, yet abortions have gone up, not down. A “states-only” strategy does not merely fail. It abandons unborn children in blue states to the same logic that once treated fundamental human rights as a local question.

We must extend equal protection and the right to life to all Americans, in every state, no matter how small.

As America marks its 250th anniversary, the pro-life movement and the Republican Party must move beyond half-measures. They should embrace national leadership for the right to life.

A national minimum standard — whether tied to a baby’s detectable heartbeat or the point at which a baby can feel pain — would not replace stronger state pro-life laws. It would set a floor for the whole country, including blue states, while allowing pro-life states to protect life more aggressively.

The Democratic Party has made abortion with no limits its de facto position. But public opinion is not with them. Only 10% of voters support abortion until birth. Fifteen states allow abortion at any point in pregnancy, including the seventh, eighth, and ninth months. The United States is one of only eight countries that allow all-trimester abortion, a list that includes China and Vietnam.

This is not hypothetical. Second- and third-trimester abortions happen in blue states. Babies who can feel pain and survive outside the womb are being killed.

In Washington, D.C., the bodies of five full-term babies were found in medical waste boxes outside the Washington Surgi-Clinic abortion facility. They are now known as the D.C. Five. Several abortion businesses openly advertise third-trimester abortions, including the DuPont Clinic in Washington, D.C.; RISE Collective in Colorado; Partners in Abortion Care in Maryland; and Hope Clinic in Illinois.

Planned Parenthood performs late-term abortions as well, and women have died alongside unborn children. An 18-year-old girl in Colorado died last year after a late-term abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility. According to her family, Fort Collins Planned Parenthood did not call an ambulance immediately and specifically requested no sirens on the way to the hospital.

DREW ANGERER/AFP/Getty Images

The other side has a national strategy, and it is no secret. If Democrats gain power, they will try to pass the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act. That bill would block states from enforcing pro-life laws and push the country beyond the Roe status quo. In practice, it would make abortion available at any time, for any reason, in all 50 states. Almost every elected Democrat in Congress has voted for the bill, and party leaders have committed to eliminating the filibuster to pass it.

A leave-it-to-the-states strategy will not stop them. No great human rights cause in American history has been won that way. The GOP must commit to pro-life action at the national level.

The first step is to elect leaders who believe unborn children deserve protection no matter where they live. Those leaders must pledge to help America turn the page on its ugly chapter of late-term abortion. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is beginning that work by dedicating $160 million in 2026 and 2028 to elect candidates who will take pro-life action nationally.

After the midterms, the pro-life movement must rally around a presidential candidate who will take up this fight and fiercely defend mothers and their unborn children. That leader must act on the consensus of the American people and sign the most ambitious national protection for life possible.

On America’s 250th anniversary, we should remember that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution inspired great human rights triumphs, including the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage. With 1.1 million Americans losing their lives to abortion every year, this is the moment to confront the greatest human rights violation of our time.

We must extend equal protection and the right to life to all Americans, in every state, no matter how small.

Disney Exec Phone Call Details Revealed & the Next Threat to Conservatives | Ron DeSantis

Trump’s mass-deportation promise needs receipts

Trump’s central promise

The amnesty lobby needs inflated numbers

The numbers don’t add up

Tucker Carlson declares ‘I’m out’ of the GOP — Glenn Beck issues urgent warning

Want more from Glenn Beck?

The AI gold rush could become an incumbent graveyard

Trump signs Iran deal, blasts 'fools' after meltdowns by Sens. Cruz and Cassidy

The right to life cannot depend on a baby’s zip code

Disney Exec Phone Call Details Revealed & the Next Threat to Conservatives | Ron DeSantis

Key Gov’t Agencies Should Be Defunded, Abolished If They ‘Do Not Come To Heel,’ Rep. Matt Gaetz Says

USA Today Prepares Fact-Challenged Hit Piece On Gun Industry Ahead Of ATF Director Nomination Hearing

Elderly couple hired 17-year-old to do odd jobs at their home — before he robbed and brutally murdered them, cops say

Leaving NATO Stronger As Putin Eyes an Attack

‘A dangerous movie’: Glenn Beck warns ‘Citizen Vigilante’ signals a dark moral shift after Germany bans it

The long defeat: What William Wilberforce can teach American Christians

'F**k this fascist regime': Texas bakery hit with boycott after calling MAGA 'rabid' and 'immoral' in Fourth of July post

Trump’s central promise

The amnesty lobby needs inflated numbers

The numbers don’t add up

Want more from Glenn Beck?

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.