FBI pushed 'false narrative' about leftist terrorist's shooting of Scalise, GOP baseball practice: House report



Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and several other Republican lawmakers were practicing for a charity baseball game on June 14, 2017, when a leftist terrorist took aim at them and opened fire. Alexandria police officers and U.S. Capitol police officers were able to permanently neutralize the shooter, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — but not before he hit Scalise and three others.

Days after the shooting, the FBI acknowledged that the shooter, James Hodgkinson, had repeatedly espoused "anti-Republican views"; identified six members of Congress as targets; prepared for months; and ensured that the individuals on the field were Republicans before his attack. However, the FBI concluded there was "no nexus to terrorism" and ultimately spun the attack as suicide by cop.

A newly released congressional report claims that the bureau "used false statements, manipulation of known facts, and biased and butchered analysis to support a narrative that Hodgkinson committed suicide by cop without any nexus to domestic terrorism."

The majority staff report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released Tuesday noted that years after this mischaracterization, "based upon no new information or evidence gathering, the FBI changed its previous decision that this case was a purely criminal matter involving suicide by cop," and recognized the attack as a "domestic terrorism event."

'This report definitively shows the FBI completely mishandled the investigation.'

"The FBI arrived at the obvious conclusion four years too late," continued the report. "Unfortunately, the timing of the changed position indicates politics rather than Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity by an agency that should be guided by an apolitical commitment to uphold the Constitution."

Scalise, who took a bullet to the hip and suffered fractured bones, damaged organs, and severe bleeding, said in a statement, "This report definitively shows the FBI completely mishandled the investigation into the Congressional baseball shooting of 2017 — ignoring crucial and obvious facts in order to sell a false narrative that the shooting was not politically motivated."

Scalise thanked FBI Director Kash Patel and the committee "for finally getting to the truth of the matter: this was a deliberate and planned act of domestic terrorism toward Republican Members of Congress."

Patel enabled the committee to review the FBI case file, which congressional investigators received in two tranches, altogether amounting to roughly 4,400 pages.

Congressional investigators determined on the basis of the case file that the FBI investigation failed to substantively interview eyewitnesses to the shooting, failed to develop a comprehensive timeline of events, and improperly classified the file at the Secret level, "which may have assisted the FBI in obfuscating its substandard investigative efforts and analysis."

'Based upon one erroneous factual conclusion and two false premises.'

The House report also picked apart the FBI's preferred narrative as well as some of the bureau's public statements, noting for instance that:

  • whereas the FBI publicly stated Hodgkinson told a family member he was traveling to Washington, D.C., but had not provided "any additional information on his travel," the case file indicates the bureau had by that time interviewed five of the terrorist's family members, "all of whom provided considerable additional information";
  • the FBI gave undue weight to the suggestion by Hodgkinson's brother that the terrorist wanted to commit suicide by cop, which was apparently based not on a discussion with his brother but on a post-action opinion on his brother's "poor markmanship during the attack";
  • "since there were no uniformed officers present at the time of the attack and Hodgkinson had no reason to believe there were police present, the suicide by cop determination does not make sense" especially since he took "several actions that may indicate he hoped to survive the firefight";
  • a desire to die is not mutually exclusive with domestic terrorism — after all, "suicide bombs are a routine tactic of terrorism";
  • whereas the FBI claimed "no context was included" on Hodgkinson's kill list, the list included physical descriptions of Republican lawmakers as well as the names of two Republicans on the congressional baseball team present for the fateful practice;
  • the FBI's assertion that "Hodgkinson's list of six congressmen found in his vehicle does not appear to be a 'hit list'" is "based upon one erroneous factual conclusion and two false premises";
  • the FBI intimated there were only two documents in the terrorist's possession when in fact there were pages of notes "demonstrating his political thoughts and motivations";
  • the FBI claimed the terrorist "was not a member of any extremist organization and did not have contact with individuals who were affiliated with extremist organizations" but glossed over his membership in a Facebook group called "Terminate The Republican Party"; and
  • the FBI claimed it "found no information to indicate Hodgkinson chose to act to impact government policy or the political system" despite the terrorist claiming before leaving Illinois with his weapons that he was going to D.C. to protest government policy.

The committee recommended that Patel figure out how the FBI arrived at its 2017 decision to frame the attack as suicide by cop — as well as whether then-acting Director Andrew McCabe or another senior leader pushed for that conclusion.

The committee also suggested the possibility of pursuing legislation that "establishes criminal liability for the politicization of intelligence analysis."

Democrats on the committee agreed with the majority's finding that the shooting was a "domestic terror attack motivated at least in part by political animus" and suggested the FBI should have made that determination sooner. However, the Democratic members cast doubt on whether political considerations factored into the FBI's failure to immediately recognize the attack as domestic terrorism and advocated against considering criminal charges against intelligence analysts.

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

House Members Want Bipartisan Paid Leave In Trump’s ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’

'A flexible federal strategy'

House tries to limit overreach by activist federal district judges: 'We're shutting down the judicial coup'



The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 passed the U.S. House in a 219-213 vote along party lines on Wednesday.

The bill would amend chapter 85, title 8 of the U.S. Code to prohibit a U.S. district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who introduced the legislation in February, noted that the Trump-endorsed bill "would impose important limits on nationwide injunctions, which activist Federal courts are weaponizing in an attempt to undermine President Trump's legitimate powers under Article II of the Constitution."

While the legislation will likely fail in the U.S. Senate, where a handful of Democrats would have to come on board in order to reach the 60-vote threshold, the passage of the bill in Congress nevertheless signals mounting frustration with judicial overreach, particularly by Democrat-appointed district judges such as:

  • Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed foreign-born lesbian judge who worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military;
  • James Boasberg, an Obama judge who temporarily blocked summary deportations of apparent Tren de Aragua terrorists by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act;
  • Leo Sorokin, an Obama judge who blocked the Trump administration's enactment of the president's birthright citizenship order;
  • Brendan Hurson, a Biden judge who issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Trump's executive orders targeting federal funding for the promotion of gender ideology; and
  • Loren AliKhan, a radical Biden judge who temporarily blocked Trump's federal spending freeze.

The Congressional Research Service indicated in a March 28 report that the "Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump administration" as of February 2020.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

The CRS said there had already been at least 17 cases of national injunctions during the second Trump administration between Jan. 20 and March 27.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, is among the louder critics of this apparent effort by Democrat-appointed judges to prevent the execution of the president's agenda. He asked in the wake of one district judge's injunction, "Is there no end to this madness?"

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," Miller wrote last month. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness."

'It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.'

The House Judiciary GOP noted that the No Rogue Rulings Act "limits activist judges' power and ensures policy decisions stay with elected officials, not unelected judges."

"No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President's constitutional powers," wrote Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas). "We're shutting down the judicial coup."

While Democrats uniformly voted against the bill in the House and may do so again in the Senate, Issa made clear that activist judges and judicial overreach could be a problem for everyone eventually.

"In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds," Issa said on the House floor Tuesday, reported Politico. "This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan."

It appears Democrats are thinking short-term, content to let judges set federal policy.

"Here's a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable."

"When a ruling goes against the Administration, injunctions work as a check and balance against an administration bent on bullying the bench to its will," said Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey (D). "This isn’t baseball; it can be a matter of life and liberty versus incarceration and impoverishment and should be a matter for serious and thoughtful consideration."

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

Leftist Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Keeping Power In Liberals’ Hands

Backed by wealthy socialists, liberal candidate Susan Crawford beat conservative Brad Schimel in Tuesday's pivotal election.

House Republicans Zero In On 26 ‘Vulnerable’ Democratic Incumbents

'Painfully out of touch'

Democrat civil war brews as Schumer caves on looming shutdown



Democrats have once again found themselves in disarray as the party attempts to navigate the impending shutdown.

After the House Republicans passed their continuing resolution Tuesday almost along party lines, all eyes have been on Senate Democrats. In order to bring the CR to the floor, the Senate must first clear a procedural vote called cloture, which requires 60 senators to pass.

The GOP holds 53 seats, and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has already said he will vote against the CR, which means at least eight Democrats will have to reach across the aisle and vote to pass the bill if they want to avoid a shutdown. Up until yesterday, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat who said he would vote in favor of the CR.

'While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse.'

At the same time, the CR is studded with anomalies that Democrats have opposed, such as extra funds for ICE and cuts to community projects.

This leaves Democrats with a seemingly impossible choice to either fund the government with President Donald Trump's funding bill or shut it down altogether. While Republicans have remained relatively united, this conundrum is actively fracturing the Democratic Party.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) initially signaled that he was in support of a shutdown, with many other Democrats joining him and digging their heels in. But since then, Schumer has had an 11th-hour conversion, announcing Thursday evening that he would be voting in favor of the CR, sending the Democratic Party into a frenzy.

"It's not really a decision; it's a Hobson's choice," Schumer said in a floor speech. "Either proceed with the bill before us, or risk Donald Trump rowing America into the chaos of a shutdown. This, in my view, is no choice at all. While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse."

President Trump later thanked Schumer on social media for demonstrating "courage" and pledging to support the CR.

"Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took 'guts' and courage! The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

"Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning!"

High-profile Democrats immediately began to tear into Schumer following his reversal. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) called his decision a "betrayal," and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) also expressed strong opposition without explicitly naming Schumer.

Some reports are even suggesting that Democrats will prop up primary opponents to unseat Schumer following his stunt.

"There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territories in the United States, who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people ... just to see some Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk," Ocasio-Cortez told reporters. "I think it is a huge slap in the face, and I think that there's a wide sense of betrayal."

"House Democrats will not be complicit," Jeffries said. "We remain strongly opposed to the partisan spending bill under consideration in the Senate."

House and Senate Democrats originally devised an alternative funding bill that would extend funding for 30 days and theoretically allow them to craft a CR they could support. That being said, this strategy has been a tough sell for Democrats, as they are in the minority in both the House and the Senate, giving them little to no bargaining power.

Even still, Schumer's surrender has been a sore outlier for the Democratic Party, with several senators insisting that they won't cave the way their leader did. Some reports are even suggesting that Democrats will prop up primary opponents — perhaps even AOC — to unseat Schumer following his stunt.

So while House and Senate Democrats were left seething, Schumer seems keen on avoiding a shutdown. We will have to wait and see whether anyone else bends the knee.

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

Democrats in damage-control mode as Schumer shutdown approaches



The government is barreling toward a shutdown on Friday, and Democrats will have to shoulder the blame.

With the party in full panic mode, Democrats are trying to pull out all the stops to avoid a shutdown without giving Republicans a win.

House Republicans first passed their 99-page continuing resolution Tuesday evening in a near-party-line vote, marking another legislative victory in Louisiana Republican Speaker Mike Johnson's belt. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is also moving forward with the CR, but Democrats are digging their heels in.

Democrats are now in a nightmare scenario in which they have to choose between voting for the Trump-backed CR or shutting down the government.

"While Senate Republicans are working hard to prevent a government shutdown, it will ultimately be up to Senate Democrats to decide whether or not they turn out the lights on the federal government," Thune said.

"The House has done its job and passed a clean CR to fund the federal government," Johnson said. "If Senate Democrats block an up-or-down vote on this, then it’s crystal clear: THEY want to shut down the government. Period. Full stop."

The CR needs to pass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture and proceed with the vote. Republicans have a 53-seat majority, but Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky vowed to vote against the CR, requiring at least eight Democrats to reach across the aisle to pass the funding bill.

'I hope Senate Democrats understand there is nothing clever about setting up a fake failed 30 day CR first to turn around & vote for cloture on the GOP spending bill.'

Democrats are now in a nightmare scenario in which they have to choose between voting for the Trump-backed CR or shutting down the government.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has desperately tried to pin the blame on Republicans and offered up an alternative 30-day stopgap that several other Democrats have supported.

However, Schumer's CR is essentially dead on arrival given Democrats' electoral disadvantage in both the House and the Senate. Even if every single Democrat voted in favor of the resolution, it would not pass either the House or the Senate. Schumer's proposed stopgap rather provides Democrats with the opportunity to say that they tried to course-correct before turning around and voting for the Republicans' CR.

Republicans have now called Democrats' bluff.

Schumer's attempted off-ramp was not received well by prominent Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

"I hope Senate Democrats understand there is nothing clever about setting up a fake failed 30 day CR first to turn around & vote for cloture on the GOP spending bill," Ocasio-Cortez said. "Those games won’t fool anyone. It won’t trick voters, it won’t trick House members. People will not forget it."

Republicans have now called Democrats' bluff. Thune scheduled the cloture vote for Friday, forcing Democrats to decide if they will keep the government open just hours before the shutdown deadline. Although several Democrats are outwardly demanding a shutdown, we will have to wait and see if they ultimately fold.

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

Senate Republicans identify tool White House can use to make spending cuts stick — but there's a catch



The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by the Trump administration on Wednesday to void an order by a Biden judge to pay roughly $2 billion to foreign aid organizations.

Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissenting opinion that he was "stunned" that the majority — which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — apparently thinks that a "single district-court judge who likely lacks the jurisdiction [has] the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars."

'Let's get over the impoundment idea.'

Facing the prospect of more judicial activism and overreach, Republican lawmakers suggested to Elon Musk during a closed-door meeting Wednesday that there is a way the White House can ensure further DOGE-championed spending cuts and federal workforce reductions are successful: a rescission package.

The catch, however, is that the White House will need virtually all Senate Republicans to be on board — something President Donald Trump couldn't count on the last time around and may not want to bank on now.

When the first Trump administration sent Congress a $15.4 billion rescissions request in 2018, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and former Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) joined Democrats in voting against the cuts, sinking the bill. CNN noted at the time that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a nominal Republican who has proven more than willing to work against Trump, nearly voted against the bill as well, stating, "I don't support any of this."

Citing the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Wednesday and its implications for Trump's impoundment authority — the president's ability to delay or avoid spending funds appropriated by Congress — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters after the meeting, "To make it real, to make it go beyond the moment of the day, it needs to come back in the form of a rescission package," reported The Hill.

"I love all the stuff they're doing, but we got to vote on it. My message to Elon was: Let's get over the impoundment idea and let's send it back as a rescission package," continued Paul, who Roll Call indicated asked Musk to consider a rescissions bill of at least $100 billion.

'Certainly a possibility and one that we would entertain.'

To execute a rescission — a presidential tool under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 — the president must identify an appropriated federal program he feels should undergo a budget reduction or elimination, then notify both houses of Congress specifying the amounts he would like rescinded, the impacted agencies or programs, the reasons for rescission, and other relevant details.

The House and the Senate, now both controlled by Republicans, then have 45 days to vote on whether to proceed with the proposed rescission. All that is needed is a simple majority vote in both chambers.

Senate Republicans indicated that Musk was "elated" by Paul's indication that the process of rescission would circumvent the Senate's 60-vote filibuster, reported Reuters.

Every president from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton successfully rescinded funds.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, noted on X, "It is now time for the White House to put together a rescissions package so that Congress can turn DOGE's work product into law and save money for the American people."

"Elon seemed to be very enthusiastic over the prospect of a rescissions package — I couldn't agree more." added Graham.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reportedly expressed an openness to a rescissions bill, noting that it is "certainly a possibility and one that we would entertain, if it's appropriate."

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

Female former athlete permanently injured by transvestite calls out pink-clad Dems for hypocrisy



Congressman Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and dozens of his female compatriots wore bright pink outfits to President Donald Trump's address to Congress Tuesday evening.

New Mexico Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D) told Time magazine that the pink costumes were supposed to signal their opposition to "Trump's policies which are negatively impacting women and families."

Critics have suggested that the low-effort protest ultimately served another purpose: to highlight Democratic lawmakers' hypocrisy as well as the emptiness of their rhetoric about women.

Payton McNabb, who Trump honored in his speech and is an ambassador for the Independent Women's Forum, told Fox News, "Last night, I thought that the pink suits and everyone matching was real cute when, of course, the day before, zero Democrats voted for the protection of women and girls, and then zero Democrats stood and applauded when I was getting recognized for my injury."

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act is a piece of legislation that would have prohibited federally funded school athletic programs from allowing men to invade programs intended for women or girls.

In January, 206 House Democrats voted against the bill, and on Monday, Democrats blocked the corresponding bill in the U.S. Senate even though the supermajority of Americans — 79%, according to a recent New York Times/Ipsos poll — want to see athletes compete in sports teams that conform to their sex.

McNabb knows firsthand the consequences of pink-clad Democrats' preferred policies.

McNabb was a member of the Hiwassee Dam High School girls' volleyball team in Cherokee County, North Carolina, until a male cross-dresser playing for Highlands High School cut her dreams down in September 2022.

The male Highlands player, who towered over his female opponents at 5'11'', spiked the ball into McNabb's face, leaving the then-17-year-old unconscious for 30 seconds and leaving her with a brain bleed, a concussion, and whiplash.

The young woman was ultimately left with brain damage, vision issues, and paralysis on her right side — injuries that prevented her from pursuing her dream of securing a volleyball college scholarship.

Although unable to pursue her original dream, McNabb has worked hard in recent years to ensure that other women and girls don't have their dreams similarly stolen from them by opportunistic men emboldened by Democrat-championed policies.

'Democrats hate women.'

"Three years ago, Payton McNabb was an all-star high school athlete, one of the best, preparing for a future in college sports," Trump noted in his speech Tuesday. "But when her girls' volleyball match was invaded by a man, he smashed the ball so hard in Payton's face, causing traumatic brain injury, partially paralyzing her right side and ending her athletic career. It was a shot like she's never seen before."

Trump told McNabb, "From now on, schools will kick the men off the girls' team or they will lose all federal funding."

The president added that the inclusion of men in women's sports is "demeaning for women, and it's very bad for our country. We're not going to put up with it any longer."

The Democrats in pink — including Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and McBride, a cross-dresser who has sought access to women's bathrooms — remained seated and, in many cases, scowling, while others supportive of protections for girls and women stood and applauded.

"They couldn't be any more anti-woman," said McNabb, "and frankly, they're anti-American. They really embarrassed themselves all night."

McNabb was not alone in calling out the pink-clad Democrats for their apparent hypocrisy.

BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler tweeted, "I'm sorry, didn't all the Democrats who are wearing pink to highlight 'women’s rights' all vote NO on banning men in women's sports? Frauds."

Wheeler noted further, "Democrats didn't stand for Laken Riley. Democrats didn't stand for Jocelyn Nungaray. Democrats refused to vote to ban boys from girls sports. Democrats are currently parading in their caucus a man wearing a pink dress pretending to be a woman. Democrats hate women."

Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) wrote in advance of Trump's address, "When you see Democrats wearing pink for the TV cameras tonight, remember that 45 of them voted for men to invade women's sports just yesterday. It's all an act."

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) noted to the pink-clad Democrats that "it's hard to be the party of women if you can't even tell us what a woman is."

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

Congressional Republicans Must Codify Trump’s Executive Orders To Make Them Permanent

In his first weeks holding office, President Donald Trump has done far more than any Republican in recent history to restore the justice system, eliminate radical DEI, and dismantle the unelected bureaucracy. But what would stop a future Democrat president from undoing this? Executive orders can simply be reversed — which can be good, since […]