Sanctuary cities’ get-out-of-jail fail



Advocates sell sanctuary policies as a public-safety boon. Keep local police out of immigration enforcement, they argue, and immigrant communities will trust cops, report crime, and make everyone safer. But New York, Fairfax County, Virginia, and Chicago tell a different story.

When local authorities refuse to transfer removable criminal aliens already in jail, they do not neutralize danger. They return it to the streets, where law-abiding residents become prey.

Order requires one standard in the jail and courthouse, not a local veto over federal custody. Sanctuary policies reverse those priorities.

New York is making a strong bid to become America’s leading sanctuary snake pit. In May, Governor Kathy Hochul (D) signed the “Local Cops, Local Crimes Act,” which bans 287(g) agreements and contracts to house civil immigration detainees. These jail partnerships do not authorize “street raids.” They let local officials screen people already booked on local charges and transfer removable offenders to ICE in a secure setting.

The law also established an Orwellian “Office of Immigrant Trust” in Attorney General Letitia James’ office to enforce compliance. James warned the 12 law enforcement agencies that still had 287(g) agreements and sued the Rensselaer County sheriff after his office refused to terminate its agreement. Fifteen elected sheriffs, represented by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, filed a federal lawsuit, while Hochul dared opponents to “bring it on.”

The “Local Cops, Local Crimes Act” will not deliver the community safety its backers claim to seek. Ending 287(g) does not keep “local cops focused on local crimes.” If ICE later arrests the same person, agents must find and arrest him at large, using more officers and accepting more uncertainty and danger than a transfer from custody would require. Albany’s law forbids the orderly custody transfers that these agreements facilitate. It has also pushed veteran sheriffs into federal court to defend tools they use to protect their communities.

Fairfax County, Virginia, shows what happens when the sanctuary slogan becomes operating procedure. Sheriff Stacey Kincaid refuses to hold an inmate past a local release date based solely on an administrative ICE detainer. Her office requires a judicial warrant before it will extend local custody, though ICE issues detainers as administrative requests. Records from the sheriff’s office show that Fairfax declined 615 transfers over 16 months — 448 in 2025 and 167 in the first four months of 2026 — while transferring only 11 people to ICE.

RELATED: The mass-deportation promise is disappearing

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

The Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation into Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano’s plea-bargaining, charging, and sentencing policy, which directs prosecutors to consider immigration consequences. The department is investigating whether that policy discriminates against U.S. citizens. It has not reached a conclusion.

A House subcommittee later questioned Descano and Kincaid under oath. The record includes people whom Fairfax released despite ICE detainers and whom authorities later charged with new crimes, including murder. Fairfax and ICE dispute responsibility for at least one such release.

Defenders respond that Fairfax is not “harboring” anyone because ICE can still make street arrests. But jail transfers give agents the safest opportunity to assume custody; street arrests expose officers, suspects, and bystanders to more risk. When a county rejects hundreds of detainers, it does not prove illegal aliens commit less crime. It releases people federal officers have identified as removable and leaves ICE to find them elsewhere.

Prosecutors compound the problem when they shape charging or plea decisions to avoid deportation. A justice system that treats otherwise comparable cases differently based on immigration consequences creates a two-track courthouse. The Justice Department is investigating whether Descano’s office gave noncitizen defendants preferential treatment that citizens did not receive; it has not yet answered that question.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) has used executive orders and litigation to limit police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

RELATED: Democrats move to make ICE agents unemployable in California

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

During the migrant surge that defined his early term, Chicago spent $639.6 million to house and serve 46,282 arrivals; 42%, about $269 million, came from the city’s corporate fund. Chicago now faces an $882.4 million budget gap for 2027, although city officials cite several drivers unrelated to migrant spending.

Chicago already has plenty of homegrown problems. What did residents gain from spending $639.6 million on a crisis that strained police stations and city services? Johnson offers platitudes and accusations of racism to anyone who asks.

Communities are safer when jailers transfer a removable offender from local custody instead of releasing him and forcing federal agents to hunt him later. Cities protect their budgets when they put lifelong residents ahead of noncitizens.

Order requires one standard in the jail and courthouse, not a local veto over federal custody. Sanctuary policies reverse those priorities. Lawmakers and voters must remove this pox from America.

Bill O’Reilly Goes Viral w/ His Dark Prediction for What Happens Next
play icon

Bill O’Reilly Goes Viral w/ His Dark Prediction for What Happens Next

Zohran Mamdani Just Got Scared After Border Czar’s Latest Threat to Him
play icon

Zohran Mamdani Just Got Scared After Border Czar’s Latest Threat to Him

'Working hard to get the Arab Vote': Trump's hijab jab sends Hochul into a rage



The governor of New York is lashing out at the president and accusing him of Islamophobia after he criticized her for wearing a hijab at a Muslim event.

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul spoke at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Friday, and video from the event showed her covering her head in observance with traditional Islamic customs.

'The whole thing is CRAZY!'

President Donald Trump mocked Hochul Tuesday in a post on Truth Social.

"Kathy Hochul, considered the Worst Governor in the Country, in a recent picture working hard to get the Arab Vote, even though they can’t stand her!" he wrote. "Congestion Pricing in Manhattan is hurting her with everybody, but especially the people for whom she wears the hijab. The whole thing is CRAZY!"

The president referred to a policy of taxing drivers in Manhattan at the busiest traffic times in order to reduce traffic.

The governor lashed out at the president and his supporters in response.

"I was a guest in a Muslim house of worship and showed respect for the people who welcomed me," she wrote Tuesday. "That used to be standard in this country before you came along. I’ll never apologize for treating people of any faith with dignity, no matter how Islamophobic you and your enablers are."

Others pounced on the opportunity to ridicule Hochul.

"You stand with the oppressors of women — no one forced you to wear the garment that millions of women worldwide get murdered for not wearing. You are just disgusting Kathy," responded Ellie Cohanim of the U.S. mission to the U.N.

"Democrats will bend the knee to political Islam while pretending its most hardline values don’t contradict everything they claim to stand for. Women’s rights. Gay rights. Free speech. Religious freedom. The irony is unbelievable," replied online commentator Liz Benichou.

"That’s not respect that’s a surrender of women’s rights, how dare you? When women are stoned to death when they take it off?" read the response from one X user.

"New York Governor Kathy Hochul identifies as a feminist – yet she has no problem submitting to Islam when it is politically advantageous," responded Patrick Casey.

"The left's coalition might seem incoherent, but it makes sense when you recognize that it's united by hatred of our civilization," he added.

Others noted that Hochul's appearance at the Islamic center occurred just a few days before the 25th commemoration of the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks.

RELATED: NY gov. BEGS millionaires to move back and fund welfare — after telling Republicans to leave

A Hochul spokesperson said she "has enormous respect for all the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, which is why she will proudly stand alongside them at this year’s commemoration."

The spokesperson added, "Make no mistake: Muslim New Yorkers, like people from every walk of life, served as first responders and helped unite the city in the aftermath of 9/11. The Governor knows we can respect these families while being clear that Islamophobia has no place in New York."

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

Federal court SLAPS down New York and hands victory to Trump and ICE



A federal court issued a preliminary ruling that blocked New York officials from banning federal immigration agents from wearing masks and other coverings.

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Face Covering and Identification Acts in May in order to rein in ICE operations in the state.

'We stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.'

The Department of Justice sued against the order and argued that it violated the "sovereign function" of the United States.

Linda Fang of the New York State Attorney General's office argued that the law did not contradict any law issued by the federal government.

"When the federal government has not spoken, it can be subject to general rules that impact its function," Fang said.

U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino sided with the government in the ruling Monday.

"The United States has demonstrated a likelihood that it will succeed on its claim that the Face Covering and Identification Acts directly regulate federal officers in violation of the Supremacy Clause," D'Agostino wrote.

However, D'Agostino allowed New York to continue banning cooperation agreements between local governments and ICE.

The judge described the ban as the "appropriate means of furthering New York's legitimate interests in protecting public welfare and choosing how state and local resources are expended."

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Gov. Hochul released a joint statement about the ruling.

"As we have said from the start, New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe. Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE," the joint statement reads.

"While the court enjoined enforcement of New York's mask ban, we stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time," they added.

RELATED: Trump is reportedly FURIOUS at Jeanine Pirro — and may fire her

Democratic New York state Sen. Patricia Fahy said officials were likely to appeal the decision.

"We always knew there was a constitutional debate on this," said Fahy. "But either way, we know that the push from us, along with others, has been effective in sending the message that this was totally outrageous — the actions of ICE."

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

Hochul’s Halt of Data Center Construction in New York Is Met With Dismay

The decision of the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, to halt data-center development statewide for a year is prompting a backlash from those who say it will further damage upstate New York’s already sagging economy.

The post Hochul’s Halt of Data Center Construction in New York Is Met With Dismay appeared first on .

In a stunning first, New York bans large data centers statewide



The United States has by far the most data centers of any country in the world, but that growth will slow for least some time in New York state.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) weighed in on one of the most controversial topics of the modern tech era this week, saying data centers create a high degree of uncertainty for her constituents.

'New York will lead the way.'

Hochul signed an executive order on Tuesday, making her position on the current status of data centers clear.

"As data center development threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers, it's my responsibility to take action and lead," the governor said, per Politico.

Hochul and New York will block the construction of any new large data centers for up to one year, which, as reported by Reuters, is classified as any data center using 50 megawatts or more of power.

The purpose is to allow New York state to create the framework surrounding environmental and energy regulation in relation to the data centers.

"New York will lead the way in creating the strongest standards in the nation for data center development, ensuring that when companies succeed because of New York, New Yorkers succeed too," Hochul added.

RELATED: US company will use Chinese humanoid robots at Michigan data center

Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty Images

At the same time, the state will develop a "community investment framework" that has the stated intention of helping local communities access "economic benefits" that mitigate "potential negative effects" of new data centers.

The framework would create an investment fund that data center developers would put money into to help pay for energy costs and public services. In addition, the data center developers would have to allow labor unions to weigh in on construction, local hiring, and workforce development.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, Hochul's Republican counterpart in the gubernatorial election, opposes the statewide moratorium. The Associated Press reported that Blakeman said local governments should be allowed to make deals with companies on their own accord if the projects promise sufficient economic benefits.

RELATED: Cattle rancher battles Amazon data center accused of poisoning water supply, causing miscarriages

Mario Tama/Getty Images

New York has seen significant resistance to data centers in areas like Rockland County, where residents packed the town hall to the rafters in opposition to DataBank's Orangeburg Campus, which is about 25 miles north of Manhattan.

The United States leads the world in data centers, with over 4,400, according to Statista. The second-highest nation is the United Kingdom with over 550, then Germany with more than 520.

However, Cleanview reports there are only about 1,200 operating data centers in the United States, with another 1,700 planned, bringing the total of current and future sites to just under 3,000.

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

New York’s home-care fraud scandal exposes Medicaid’s rotten incentives



Medicaid is federally funded and state-run, but the program’s beneficiaries often have the least say in who provides their care and what that care costs.

That’s a built-in flaw. States have every incentive to maximize federal matching funds while federal taxpayers bear much of the cost. The result pits state bureaucrats against Washington’s need to control Medicaid spending — and against taxpayers’ interest in stopping providers, insurers, and contractors from cashing in on weak oversight.

New York’s home-care scandal is not merely a contracting failure. It is a warning about Medicaid’s overall design.

That is why cosmetic Medicaid reforms so often produce more spending, more inefficiency, and more fraud.

Just look at New York.

Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration botched the reform of its roughly $11 billion Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, a Medicaid-financed home-care benefit, so badly that federal prosecutors came knocking.

The U.S. Justice Department recently sued the New York State Department of Health and Public Partnerships LLC, the program’s sole fiscal intermediary since 2025. Prosecutors allege that New York’s CDPAP reform, supposedly designed to reduce waste in a billion-dollar program, instead created conditions for an ongoing Medicaid fraud scheme.

Personal care — nonmedical long-term care provided in the homes of elderly and disabled patients — is especially vulnerable to waste and abuse. The reason? It’s difficult to verify that caregivers worked the hours billed or provided the services claimed.

“The service is delivered by unlicensed caregivers in private residences, usually with no on-site supervision,” Bill Hammond of the Empire Center has explained. “The risk is heightened when the aide is a friend or family member of the patient, which is allowed under the popular and rapidly growing [CDPAP].”

New York’s numbers show the scale of the problem.

In 2021, the state employed 138 home-health and personal care aides per 1,000 residents age 65 or older — more than double the national average. New York City employed 236 aides per 1,000 older residents. By 2024, the statewide rate had climbed to 171 aides per 1,000 older residents.

Home care was supposed to reduce New Yorkers’ reliance on nursing homes. Yet the share of elderly New Yorkers living in nursing homes declined more slowly than in almost every other state, while New York’s per capita Medicaid spending on nursing homes remained the highest in the nation and more than double the U.S. average.

RELATED: Medicare red tape turned insurers into villains

NoDerog/Getty Images

Over the decade leading up to 2025, hundreds of fiscal intermediaries emerged to process payroll for CDPAP lay caregivers and perform other administrative duties. These intermediaries eagerly tapped loosely supervised Medicaid dollars.

Many aggressively advertised the opportunity to become a CDPAP caregiver and get paid by Medicaid to care for a family member — eventually at the same legally mandated minimum pay as professionally trained home-care aides.

That helped fuel what Hammond described as “seemingly bottomless and unchecked demand for a costly Medicaid benefit, which has been rising almost 10 times faster than the growth of the state’s elderly population.”

In 2024, New York passed legislation consolidating CDPAP management under a single statewide contractor. The state awarded that role to PPL.

By then, CDPAP relied on nearly 600 intermediary firms, and enrollment had exploded from roughly 12,000 to more than 250,000 between 2015 and 2023.

By shrinking the bureaucracy, New York lawmakers claimed they would restrain CDPAP’s soaring costs. Once again, they promised greater accountability and hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

They did not deliver.

According to the Justice Department, the procurement process for “one of the most lucrative contracts for administering a Medicaid program in the nation” was compromised from the beginning. Prosecutors allege that “PPL was preselected as the winner through a sham bid process.”

The transition from hundreds of intermediaries to PPL was also disorderly. An unrealistic timeline, evident to both PPL and the Department of Health, disrupted patient care.

Most important, prosecutors allege that “PPL and New York, without explanation, have disregarded key limits the contract imposed on the revenues and profits PPL was entitled to.” Those limits were “central to the goal of saving hundreds of millions of dollars through the CDPAP transition.”

PPL allegedly “siphoned millions of dollars of Medicaid funding,” with the state Department of Health complicit in the ongoing scheme.

RELATED: SNAP may be paying for manicures, bongs, and an obesity epidemic — on your dime

Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg/Getty Images

PPL can be replaced. But another company eager to rent-seek will inevitably take its place unless the incentive structure changes.

As long as federal taxpayers contribute anywhere from $1 to $9 for every $1 New York contributes to fund Medicaid for New Yorkers, state administrations and health officials will remain too complacent about the misuse of taxpayer money.

Any money recovered from this alleged scheme would be dwarfed by Medicaid’s broader improper spending crisis, which may have exceeded $1 trillion over the past decade.

New York’s home-care scandal is not merely a contracting failure. It is a warning about Medicaid’s overall design.

The program rewards states for spending more, obscures responsibility for waste, and leaves taxpayers chasing fraud after the money is gone. Overhauling Medicaid to restore accountability is long overdue.

The latest 'solution' to reckless driving could limit freedom for all of us



If a driver is so dangerous that the government needs to electronically control his car, why is he still allowed to drive?

That's the question New York lawmakers don't seem interested in answering.

Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently signed legislation requiring certain repeat speeding offenders to install GPS-based speed-limiting technology in their vehicles. Under the new law, drivers who rack up 16 or more speed-camera violations within a year can be ordered to install an Intelligent Speed Limiter that prevents their vehicle from exceeding posted speed limits. Drivers who refuse can ultimately lose their vehicle registration.

Reckless legislation

At first glance, the proposal sounds reasonable. Most Americans agree that chronic reckless drivers should face serious consequences. But the real question is not whether dangerous drivers deserve punishment. The real question is why someone with 16 speeding violations still has driving privileges in the first place.

New York already has speeding laws. It already has fines, insurance penalties, license points, court appearances, and suspension mechanisms. If a driver has accumulated enough violations to be considered such a serious threat that the state now wants to electronically control their vehicle, then why weren't existing laws sufficient to remove that driver from the road?

That question goes directly to the heart of the issue. Rather than addressing the apparent failure of existing enforcement systems, lawmakers have chosen to create an entirely new layer of technology, surveillance, and government oversight. Instead of asking why repeat offenders remain licensed, they're asking the public to accept the idea that government should have a greater role in controlling privately owned vehicles.

That's a significant shift, and it deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.

Pre-crime preview

The legislation relies on Intelligent Speed Assistance technology, commonly referred to as ISA. The system uses GPS data and digital mapping to determine the posted speed limit on a roadway and can prevent a vehicle from exceeding that speed. Unlike traditional enforcement, where a driver is punished after breaking the law, this technology is designed to intervene before the driver can make the decision.

The automotive industry is already moving toward an unprecedented level of connectivity. Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of information. They receive over-the-air software updates, communicate with manufacturers, monitor driving behavior, and increasingly operate as rolling computers. Consumers have already watched vehicle ownership evolve into something that looks increasingly like a subscription service, with features activated remotely and software determining how products function.

Now government is entering the equation with technology designed to control how a vehicle operates.

That should concern anyone who values personal privacy and consumer rights.

Starting small

Supporters insist the law applies only to a small group of repeat offenders. That's true today. The problem is that government programs rarely remain confined to their original scope. Nearly every major regulatory program begins with a narrowly defined target. Politicians identify a group that few people are willing to defend, implement a new policy, and assure the public that the measure will be limited. Once the infrastructure exists, however, expanding it becomes significantly easier than creating it.

Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10. Later it could be expanded to fleet vehicles, commercial operators, or other categories of drivers. Once the principle is accepted, the debate shifts from whether government should have this authority to how broadly it should be applied.

Imperfect technology

The practical questions surrounding this law are equally troubling. GPS technology is useful, but it is not infallible. Speed-limit databases are not always current. Construction zones change. Temporary restrictions appear. Road conditions evolve faster than mapping systems can update.

What happens when the speed-limit database is wrong? What happens when a roadway has recently changed and the system hasn't been updated? What happens when a driver needs rapid acceleration to avoid an accident?

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the types of real-world situations automotive engineers consider every day. Yet lawmakers frequently discuss speed-limiting technology as though vehicles operate in a controlled environment where every situation can be anticipated by software. The reality is far more complicated.

RELATED: Gone in 60 seconds: How high-tech thieves can steal your car

Jeff Greenberg/Getty Images

Punishing cars, not drivers

Then there is the issue of fairness.

One of the most overlooked aspects of this legislation is its reliance on camera enforcement. Traditional traffic stops identify the driver. Automated camera systems identify the vehicle. Those are not the same thing. Families share cars. Businesses operate fleets. Vehicles are borrowed, rented, and loaned every day. Yet policymakers continue to build enforcement systems around the vehicle itself rather than the individual behind the wheel.

That distinction matters because accountability should be directed at the person responsible for the behavior, not simply the machine involved.

There is also a financial component that deserves attention. Installation costs for these systems can run into the thousands of dollars, with additional fees for monitoring, maintenance, administration, and compliance. Government officials often frame these costs as penalties for offenders, but every new regulatory program creates opportunities for vendors, contractors, software providers, installers, and administrators.

Whenever government mandates a new technology, there is almost always an industry waiting to benefit from it.

New York is hardly alone in pursuing this approach. Washington State has adopted its own Intelligent Speed Assistance requirements for certain offenders. Virginia and Washington, D.C., have moved in a similar direction, while Illinois lawmakers have advanced proposals involving mandatory speed-limiting technology. What once appeared to be an isolated experiment is rapidly becoming a national trend.

As more states adopt similar programs, lawmakers should answer a basic question: Why create a technological workaround instead of enforcing the penalties already available under existing law?

Accountability ... or control?

The answer may be uncomfortable. Suspending licenses removes the driver from the system. Technological monitoring keeps the driver in the system while creating new layers of oversight and control. One approach focuses on accountability. The other focuses on management.

Those are fundamentally different philosophies.

New York's "super speeder" law is being sold as a narrowly targeted safety measure. Maybe that's how it begins. The larger concern is where it ends. Once government gains the authority to electronically regulate how privately owned vehicles operate, future expansions become much easier to justify.

The most important question isn't whether a driver with 16 violations deserves punishment. It's whether Americans are comfortable creating the technological infrastructure that allows government to control how a privately owned vehicle operates.

Today, lawmakers call it a solution for super speeders. Tomorrow, it could become something much broader.

NYC Councilman Urges Probe of Mamdani for Giving an Official Vehicle, Security to Fellow Socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier for Primary Campaign’s Final Days

A New York City councilman has filed an ethics complaint against Mayor Zohran Mamdani for giving socialist House candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier one of his official vehicles as well as NYPD security to make campaign stops on the eve of Tuesday’s Democratic primary vote.

The post NYC Councilman Urges Probe of Mamdani for Giving an Official Vehicle, Security to Fellow Socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier for Primary Campaign’s Final Days appeared first on .