Rep. John James hammers Michigan GOP over political failures: 'What are we even talking about?'



Republican candidates have not fared well lately in key races in one of the most important swing states in the country: Michigan. Rep. John James (R) of Michigan did not mince words when talking to Blaze News about their lackluster performances, insisting that they demonstrate why he should be the party's nominee for the open governor race in 2026.

James, 43, rose to national prominence in 2018, when he unsuccessfully attempted to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has since retired. Two years later, James lost another Senate race, this time to incumbent Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.

In January, Peters unexpectedly announced that he would not seek another term, prompting some to speculate that James, who was elected in 2022 to represent the 10th Congressional District of Michigan and re-elected in 2024, might make another run for the Senate.

However, James made a surprise move of his own, announcing in early April that he would make a bid for Michigan governor instead.

'Michigan's a state that deserves to have a leader who's been knocked down a couple times and refuses to give up.'

Last week, James sat down with Blaze News and explained that his breadth of experience in the business world and in combat has prepared him for executive leadership.

"The time that I've had as a legislator, as a lawmaker, as a representative has actually been the longest period of my life that I haven't been in an executive role," he stated.

"I'm a combat veteran, and I led two Apache platoons," continued James, a Ranger-qualified aviation officer who served in operations in Iraq from 2007 to 2009, according to his congressional website.

"I understand what it takes to keep Americans safe because I've done it before."

James also noted that in the last several years, Republican candidates in Michigan have lost winnable races. To demonstrate, he referred to then-Attorney General Bill Schuette's failed gubernatorial bid against former state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) in 2018, followed by Tudor Dixon's loss to Whitmer in 2022 despite Whitmer's questionable track record regarding COVID lockdowns and nursing home deaths.

James warned that if that "circular firing squad" continues among Michigan Republicans, a leftist could succeed Whitmer next year.

"We can be cute, we can talk, but if you can't win, what are we even talking about?" James asked rhetorically. "If we're not going to put the strongest candidate at the top of the ticket, what are we even talking about?"

Schuette and the Michigan Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.

RELATED: Mike Rogers launches Senate campaign to replace retiring Democrat

Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Tudor Dixon, who has teased another run for governor as well as a possible Senate bid, quickly fired back against James' provocative remarks.

"It's interesting to see a declared candidate lashing out at someone who has not even announced a run for office yet," Dixon said in a statement to Blaze News. "I will not comment on his two statewide failures, but instead recommend he start to share his plans about how to make people's lives here in Michigan better."

When Blaze News pressed James about his failed senatorial bids, he explained that unseating an incumbent is particularly challenging. Since Whitmer is term-limited, he believes he has a good shot of winning the governorship, especially after eight years of her radical policies.

He also admitted to Blaze News that he learned some valuable lessons from those disappointing electoral losses. "Number one, don't run during a global pandemic," he said, referring to the 2020 race against Peters.

James added that even though he didn't win, those two U.S. Senate races did provide some unforeseen benefits: statewide name recognition as well as the opportunity to demonstrate to voters his fortitude and toughness.

"Michigan's a state that deserves to have a leader who's been knocked down a couple times and refuses to give up," he said.

For now, James has much in his favor. Though state Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt (R-Lawton), who has also announced his candidacy for governor, is likewise a well-known name and may give him fits in the Republican primary, at the moment, much of the state media attention has been focused on the campaign missteps of Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

RELATED: 16 noncitizens apparently voted in Michigan in 2024 — and liberals are cheering about it

Photo by Rey Del Rio/Getty Images

James also pointed out that he has long-standing ties to President Donald Trump, who carried Michigan handily in the 2024 presidential election and who endorsed James in his previous runs for Senate and Congress. However, at least one Michigan-based Republican communications operative disputed the strength of James' current relationship with Trump, suggesting to Blaze News that it has been "shaky" recently.

So far, Trump has not weighed in on the upcoming gubernatorial race in Michigan. When Blaze News asked James whether he has discussed the topic of endorsement with Trump lately, James deftly changed the subject to his current focus of helping the president pass the "big, beautiful bill" in the House.

"We as Republicans, we have the best ideas. We have the best policies — and they work," he said.

"But none of it makes a lick of difference if ... we don't elect the candidate who can win."

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

Recent Democrat Deaths May Have Helped Mike Johnson Get Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Over Finish Line

'one big, beautiful bill'

Trump signs bipartisan bill tackling 'horrific' revenge porn, AI deepfakes



President Donald Trump signed the Take It Down Act into law on Monday, a bill that toughens penalties for the distribution of revenge porn and AI-generated deepfakes.

The bill was first introduced by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota before it was additionally spearheaded by first lady Melania Trump. The bill, which passed both the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, aims to hold both individuals and platforms accountable for distributing nonconsensual materials.

'This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused.'

RELATED: Fiscal hawks send warning as 'big, beautiful bill' clears high-stakes vote: 'We have to do more to deliver'

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

"The TAKE IT DOWN Act gives victims of revenge and deepfake pornography — many of whom are young girls — the ability to fight back," Cruz said in a statement. "Under our bipartisan bill, those who knowingly spread this vile material will face criminal charges, and Big Tech companies must remove exploitative content without delay."

"As we worked on the TAKE IT DOWN Act, more victims courageously came forward to share their stories to help end this horrific online abuse," Cruz added.

The bill criminalizes individuals and platforms that "knowingly publish" deepfakes or revenge porn and requires platforms to remove the materials within 48 hours of notification. Although the majority of states already have laws prohibiting the dissemination of this nonconsensual content, the Take It Down Act implements these regulations at the federal level.

"This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused," Melania Trump said at a press conference before the bill signing.

RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to 'get serious' about codifying DOGE cuts

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

"As a father of three young girls, I’m deeply concerned about the rise of deepfakes and nonconsensual intimate images in our country. It is sickening, it is harmful, and it must be stopped — and this law is a major step forward in protecting victims and restoring online accountability," Republican Rep. August Pfluger of Texas told Blaze News.

"I was proud to co-lead this legislation in the House and commend Rep. Salazar, Senator Cruz, and first lady Melania Trump for their leadership in driving it across the finish line," Pfluger added. "I also thank President Trump for taking decisive action to cement this legislation into law."

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

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!