California’s Bid To Unmask ICE Agents Goes Down In Flames
Law "attempts to directly regulate the United States"
Media, 29 Federal Judges Freak Out Over Rude Words In Dissent Attacking Trans Child Abuse
Federal courts have done the worst damage to themselves with a century of outrageous and abusive rulings like this one from the Ninth Circuit.'Case about swinging d**ks': Fed-up Trump judge tears apart woke colleagues for forcing Christian female spa to admit men
A federal judge minced no words in his dissenting opinion regarding the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' refusal on Thursday to rehear the case of a Christian-owned women's spa forced by Washington state into admitting men.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote, "This is a case about swinging d**ks."
''Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds.'
"The Christian owners of Olympus Spa — a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa — understandably don't want them in their spa," VanDyke continued. "Their female employees and female clients don't want them in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit."
The family-owned spa was accused of discrimination in 2020 for refusing access to a trans-identifying male whose penis was intact, and has been fighting an uphill legal battle ever since. In May, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled against the spa, holding that the First Amendment rights of its owners had not been violated by the state.
The spa subsequently petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a panel rehearing and/or a full-court rehearing of the case. Those were denied, prompting VanDyke to go nuclear:
Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds. Woke regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls. Yet if harmful and unfortunate consequences were all this case was about, we’d have to shrug and say: "That’s what comes with living in a democracy." Unless the Constitution is implicated, we get what we voted for “good and hard."
But some fundamental rights, like the right to the free exercise of religion, are constitutionally protected precisely to avoid majoritarian infringement. Unfortunately, in this case the panel majority has allowed Washington State bureaucrats to trample on such rights long secured by the Constitution.
VanDyke tore apart his colleagues' reasoning, stating that:
- "[Washington Law Against Discrimination] is not generally applicable because it treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Olympus Spa's religiously motivated activity";
- "WLAD's application is not neutral because it facially differentiates among religions based on theological choices by granting an exemption to only a small set of favored religious activities"; and
- "WLAD's woke redefinition of 'sex' undermines the hard-fought legal protections granted to women as a class and undercuts established criminal laws against voyeurism and indecent exposure."
Some of the Trump judge's colleagues couldn't handle his criticism and frank language.
RELATED: WATCH: Talarico self-owns when he warns fascism will 'be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross'
Mary Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton who previously ruled against the spa, said in a statement that was joined by over 25 other Ninth Circuit judges that the American legal system is "not a place for vulgar barroom talk" or a "place to suggest that fellow judges have 'collectively lost their minds,' or that they are 'woke judges' 'complicit' in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans."
McKeown claimed that VanDyke's language — not her decisions — "undermines public trust in the courts."
VanDyke said in response to his colleagues' pearl-clutching:
My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words in my opinion, yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague Judge Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself. The public deserves a court that is actually trustworthy. We should be earning that trust, not demanding it like petty tyrants.
"Sometimes 'dignified and civil' words are employed to mask a legal abomination. ... Sometimes coarse and ugly words bear the truth," VanDyke added.
Go deeper
The spa, owned by a theologically conservative Christian family, is modeled on jjimjilbang, sex-segregated bathhouses in Korea, and requires that guests be nude inside the pool area.
Court documents state the spa required that entrants "physically present in the nude as ... female," further noting, "Biological women are welcome." Under the rules, female-identifying males were welcome just so long as they had "gone through post-operative sex confirmation surgery." In other words, penises weren't permitted.
In 2020, Caleb Richmond — a trans-identifying male who was once married to a woman and now goes by Haven Wilvich — attempted to use the Washington Law Against Discrimination to gain access to the spa. The spa reportedly denied the man access, prompting him to file a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission.
When the WSHRC notified the spa that it had received a discrimination complaint, the spa asserted that its "biological women"-only policy was in keeping with state law and "essential for the safety, legal protection, and well-being of our customers and employees," court documents said.
'Washington has perversely distorted a law that was enacted to safeguard women's rights to strip women of protections.'
Although initially defiant, the spa signed a pre-finding settlement agreement requiring compliance with WLAD while reserving the right to mount a constitutional challenge.
Richmond reportedly boasted online that he had successfully found a way to legally invade the women's sanctuary. He wrote, "I did it," adding he got "the main naked lady spa in the area to change their policies and allow all self-identified women access regardless of surgery and genitals."
Richmond further suggested that he was "more woman" than any of his female critics because he is "an intentional woman whereas they are only incidental."
Myoon Woon Lee, the owner of the spa, sued the WSHRC, claiming that the WLAD, as enforced, impinged upon his "traditional, theologically conservative" Christian values and put his female clientele at risk.
A Washington District Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice in 2023, but Lee appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
A three-judge panel ruled in May 2025 that the spa cannot sue the WSHRC on First Amendment grounds. The majority held that the enforcement of WLAD "did not impermissibly burden the Spa's free speech," that the spa is "not an expressive association," and that "eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status is a legitimate government purpose."
Judge McKeown stated in her May opinion for the majority, "The HRC's enforcement action against Olympus Spa was a straightforward application of Washington's statutory scheme."
Judge Kenneth Lee, a Trump appointee, said in his dissenting opinion, "Washington has perversely distorted a law that was enacted to safeguard women's rights to strip women of protections. The women and girls of Washington state deserve better."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
America has immigration laws — just not in these courtrooms
If Donald Trump put on a black robe tomorrow and issued an opinion in an intellectual property dispute between two tech companies, no one would treat it as binding law. So why are we expected to treat judicial policymaking on immigration and national security as untouchable — especially when lower courts now openly defy higher courts?
One of the most damaging misconceptions in American government holds that the Supreme Court is “supreme” over the political branches in all things. At most, its supremacy runs within the judicial hierarchy: It can overrule lower federal courts. The same goes for the courts of appeals, which are supposed to bind district courts within their circuits.
If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?
That system, however, increasingly operates as a one-way ratchet for left-wing political outcomes.
On February 6, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally reaffirmed a basic legal principle: Illegal aliens seeking admission are not entitled to enter the country, demand release, and then litigate their way into residency while living freely inside the United States. The court upheld long-standing precedent and the plain text of U.S. immigration law, which requires detention of inadmissible aliens pending disposition of their cases.
Congress enacted that provision in 1996 for an obvious reason: to prevent people from entering illegally, receiving a notice to appear, and then disappearing into the interior.
Unlike American criminals who are entitled to bond hearings, illegal aliens are not being prosecuted for a crime. They can always voluntarily depart and live freely in their home countries. Being detained is a consequence of their initial invasion and their desire to litigate their way into our country.
Then came the district courts.
Just three days after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso-based George W. Bush appointee, ordered the release of aliens in five cases on the theory that they had “established roots” in the United States. What, then, was the point of the Fifth Circuit ruling? Cardone claimed in one case that it “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”
Likewise, on February 9, Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote — about an illegal alien who entered the country in 2024.
Pause there.
The Fifth Circuit had just ruled that detention is mandated by statute even in cases involving aliens who entered long ago (including plaintiffs from 2001 and 2009). Yet a district judge somehow concluded that ruling does not apply to someone who crossed illegally in 2024. Worse, how can a district judge claim the Fifth Circuit did not account for the “constitutional” question when the appeals court’s ruling necessarily presumes ICE’s conduct is constitutional?
RELATED: The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory
These judges are cherry-picking language from select Supreme Court opinions about aliens with “established ties” while ignoring the far stronger body of law recognizing that illegal entrants have no right to remain in the country against the national will. The idea that someone can break into the country, evade enforcement long enough to create “ties,” and then use that evasion as a legal shield makes a mockery of popular sovereignty and of the Declaration’s first principles.
This also demonstrates, again, why the Trump administration cannot comply its way out of judicial supremacism. Even when it wins in higher courts, lower-court judges can repackage the same result in a new case and keep obstructing enforcement. Why should Trump defer reflexively to congressionally created judges who refuse to defer even to their own superiors within the judiciary?
That point came into focus in Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent from his court’s decision to halt the deportation of a Peruvian family while the appeal proceeds. Referring to the Ninth Circuit as a “wackadoo” court, VanDyke described what he said has become an automatic practice: granting stays of removal even when Supreme Court immigration precedent clearly points the other way.
In effect, he argued, the court uses procedural orders and an ever-expanding shadow docket to nullify precedent without formally issuing rulings that openly defy it.
Because of the circuit’s heavy caseload, VanDyke wrote, judges adopted a “convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting preliminary relief in the form of administrative stays pending review. Those stays often remain in place until the merits are decided. The result, he said, is a system that “disregard[s] Supreme Court precedent and award[s] automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”
Defenders of the Ninth Circuit might say the court is overloaded and must rely on lengthy interim stays. VanDyke’s point, however, is that this indulgence appears uniquely generous in deportation cases. As he put it, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds like “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.”
His satirical version of the court’s approach was devastating:
We are… ("You get a stay!")… sincerely shocked… ("You get a stay!")… by the… ("You get a stay!")… number of… ("You get a stay!")… utterly… ("You get a stay!")… meritless… ("You get a stay!")… immigration petitions… ("You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!")… that are filed… ("You get a stay!")… in our court. ("Everyone gets a stay!").
That is the point. When it comes to many liberal judges — who still dominate too many panels — law is often just a vehicle for politics. They will reach the result they want by whatever procedural route is available. You cannot simply “out-appeal” a judiciary willing to ignore controlling law while pretending not to.
RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?
A Politico review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected ICE’s broader detention policies in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed those policies in about 130 cases. The overwhelming pattern is plain: Judges are sidelining the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Supreme Court’s plenary power doctrine, which affirms broad executive authority over the detention and removal of illegal aliens.
No Supreme Court ruling, by itself, will stop judges committed to creative procedural sabotage.
Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is grimly fitting that in an era when invaders are encouraged to dictate terms to citizens, inferior courts now side with them while dictating terms to superior courts.
If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?
Stop pretending Posse Comitatus neuters the president
President Trump drew heavy criticism for calling up the California National Guard to confront anti-ICE rioting in Los Angeles in July. On Sept. 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer blocked the move, claiming it violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. He delayed his order until Sept. 12, but the administration immediately appealed, and the Ninth Circuit has already granted a partial stay while the case moves forward.
Critics insist Trump is misusing the military as some kind of “secret police.” They invoke the Posse Comitatus Act as if it were an absolute ban on military involvement in domestic affairs. That is flatly wrong. The Act does not prohibit the president from using the Army, Marines, or National Guard to enforce federal law. It simply requires that such forces be deployed under the president’s authority, not at the whim of a sheriff or local marshal.
The real danger comes not from Trump’s use of the National Guard, but from a judiciary willing to invent limits the Constitution never imposed.
The Constitution itself grants the president this power. Article IV, Section 4 reads:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Congress reinforced that authority in the Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorized the president to use the Army when it became “impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” In short: When mobs threaten federal law, the president has the duty — and the power — to act.
What Posse Comitatus really meant
Before 1878, federal marshals could deputize Army units as a local posse. That pulled soldiers out of their chain of command and placed them under partisan officials. Officers objected, rightly fearing the practice would corrupt the Army. They welcomed congressional intervention.
The Posse Comitatus Act corrected that flaw. It barred the military from being drafted by civil authorities except when the Constitution or Congress explicitly authorized it. The Act did not strip the president of power. It reaffirmed that only the president, acting under constitutional authority, could commit troops to restore order.
History bears this out. The U.S. military has intervened in domestic affairs 167 times since America’s founding. Soldiers put down the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s, enforced fugitive slave laws in the 1850s, and captured John Brown at Harpers Ferry in 1859. After the Civil War, troops secured polling places so freedmen could vote. The Act was not written to stop such uses, but to prevent local abuse.
As scholar John Brinkerhoff explained in 2002, “All that [the Posse Comitatus Act] really did was to repeal a doctrine whose only substantial foundation was an opinion by an attorney general. ... The president’s power to use both regulars and militia remained undisturbed.”
Why Breyer is wrong
Judge Breyer’s ruling misreads both history and law. By treating Posse Comitatus as a blanket prohibition, he ignores the Constitution and the Insurrection Act. His injunction assumes any federal troop support is unlawful. But the law says otherwise: Troops cannot be used under lesser authority than the president’s. Trump acted as president. That is the highest authority the law contemplates.
The Ninth Circuit has already acknowledged the seriousness of the case by issuing a partial stay. That matters. Pulling remaining troops before the courts finish their review risks chaos. Keeping them in place while the appeal proceeds protects public order.
RELATED:A president’s job is to stop the burning if governors won’t
Prudence, not prohibition
The Posse Comitatus Act never emasculated the presidency. It preserved the president’s authority while removing soldiers from the clutches of local sheriffs. The only real limitation is prudence. Presidents must decide when the threat justifies force and when restraint serves the nation better.
I have opposed proposals to use the military in the so-called war on drugs and other ill-considered campaigns. Prudence matters. But the Constitution is clear: When federal law is under assault, the president can act.
The real danger comes not from Trump’s use of the National Guard, but from a judiciary willing to invent limits the Constitution never imposed. Los Angeles cannot be allowed to burn while mobs terrorize federal officers. The president has the duty to restore order.
That is why the administration is right to appeal. The courts should correct this error and reaffirm what the Constitution already guarantees: the president’s authority to protect the republic against domestic violence.
Why Trump’s Deployment Of The National Guard In California Was Perfectly Legal
The administration argues, correctly, that the Posse Comitatus Act didn’t apply to President Trump’s deployment of the Guard to California.Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president
How much longer will Congress and the executive branch keep bowing to rogue judges?
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered the federal government to continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. She warned that cutting funding could cause women to “suffer adverse health consequences,” face more unintended pregnancies, and go without treatment for sexually transmitted infections.
The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power.
Congress had already voted to end the funding. The law is on the books. It went through the full legislative process and was signed by the president. But Judge Talwani believes her opinion overrides all of that. She not only reinterpreted the law, she ordered the appropriation of funds to a private abortion business.
That crosses a major constitutional line.
Judges don’t have the power of the purse. They can’t spend money. They can’t fund private organizations. Only Congress can do that. Yet that core principle of the separation of powers now seems optional. We are left with a system where unelected judges act as legislators, executives, and arbiters — and no one challenges them.
Too many conservatives hesitate to confront this reality. They’ll cheer when Trump ignores Congress on TikTok but wring their hands when he considers defying an unlawful court ruling. But judicial opinions don’t carry binding force simply because a judge wrote them. Presidents and lawmakers swear the same oath to the Constitution as judges do. They don’t swear loyalty to the judiciary.
If a court orders the government to fund Planned Parenthood in direct defiance of a law passed by Congress, and the executive branch complies, then we no longer have a functioning constitutional system. We have a judiciary with a veto power over the other branches.
This didn’t start with Talwani’s ruling, and it won’t end here. Judges now routinely issue sweeping decisions that affect the entire country, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that supposedly reined in nationwide injunctions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito warned that lower courts would continue to defy precedent unless checked. They were right.
The time for deference is over. If Trump continues to honor every lawless edict from every federal judge, he only encourages more of the same. He entrenches the notion that judges make law and everyone else must obey.
RELATED: Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them
Imagine Congress passes and Trump signs a reconciliation bill that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or Planned Parenthood funding. Under Judge Talwani’s logic, the courts could simply declare the law unconstitutional and order the executive branch to act against it — up to and including spending money Congress never appropriated. That’s not judicial review. That’s a judge acting like a one-woman super-legislature with a gavel and a god complex. Where does it end?
It never ends. Earlier this month, a judge in California ruled that ICE cannot carry out “roving” immigration enforcement in parts of the state’s Central Valley. The ruling lacked any constitutional basis. The judge simply decided too many illegal immigrants were being arrested and declared the enforcement itself a violation of rights — despite no evidence that a single American citizen had been wrongfully detained.
Rather than overturn the decision, the Ninth Circuit grilled government attorneys about whether ICE had an arrest quota. The implication was clear: Immigration enforcement itself is now suspect.
The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power. Congress holds the purse strings. The executive enforces the law. Judges interpret the law in individual cases. That’s the constitutional design.
Abraham Lincoln, in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, warned against treating court opinions as absolute. If citizens and lawmakers accept every ruling without question, Lincoln said, they prepare themselves to accept the next decision “without any inquiry.”
That mindset leads to tyranny. Not suddenly, but step by step.
The judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. It was designed that way. It has no army. It has no budget. Its legitimacy depends on its restraint. When judges cast that aside, the other branches must respond.
Otherwise, we will find ourselves governed not by the Constitution but by the whims of unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure.
If Trump does not confront the courts, we will be obliged to implement any rule from any judge who shares the same beliefs as Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d hate to see what the next decision looks like.
5 things Trump must do to fulfill his mass deportation mandate
Conservatives face a “use it or lose it” moment on immigration enforcement and deportations. They’ve never had a stronger case — or more support, even as public opinion flags — for aggressive removals. They have the rationale, the electoral mandate, and now the federal funding. If they fail to act, the left — and even Donald Trump, who’s already flirting with amnesty for non-criminal aliens — will seize the opportunity.
Their argument will go like this: “We tried your way. Mass deportation doesn’t work. Now we need a ‘legal pathway’ for those who haven’t committed serious crimes.” That’s the amnesty trap. To avoid it, conservatives must escalate interior enforcement — fast.
No more excuses. Immigration reform by reconciliation is possible — if the political will exists.
Illegal immigration remains a policy problem, not a funding problem. Throwing money at it won’t solve anything if the rules stay broken. Congress could pour $1 trillion into ICE operations, but if every removal gets litigated case by case, Trump’s second term will end before we even scratch the surface of Biden’s four-year importation binge.
Since February, ICE has averaged just 14,700 removals per month. That’s roughly 176,000 a year — or barely 700,000 over a full term. Even with increased arrests, that pace won’t clear the backlog of criminal aliens, let alone the 7.7 million undetained cases on ICE’s docket, the 8 to 10 million admitted under Biden, or the broader illegal population likely numbering in the tens of millions.
The system can’t even expel one known gang member — Kilmar Abrego Garcia — without months of delay. Instead of removing him, the Justice Department has been forced into court defending itself against claims that it “defied” a judge by taking too long to return him from El Salvador.
And that’s just one case. The Justice Department has also spent untold resources fighting Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil, who now walks free — and is suing the government for $22 million. Yes, Khalil held a green card. But that doesn’t give him a right to stay in the United States while openly supporting terrorism in violation of federal law.
Despite Supreme Court rulings aimed at narrowing judicial overreach, federal courts continue to block nearly every facet of immigration enforcement. Two weeks ago, a district judge in California effectively shut down most ICE operations in Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit declined to reverse the order.
That leaves no doubt: Even with the Supreme Court on record and billions in new appropriations to support removals, the system remains broken. If the Trump administration keeps obeying these court orders, something must change — and fast.
Here’s the danger: If deportations continue at a glacial pace and Democrats reclaim the House in 2027, Trump may throw in the towel. He’ll say, “Even I couldn’t make it work,” and cut a deal for amnesty, justifying it as the only realistic path forward. In effect, he’ll codify the de facto amnesty already in place.
So what should we do?
Strip jurisdiction in budget reconciliation 2.0
With Senate leaders floating another reconciliation bill, Trump should make judicial reform the centerpiece. The content, the campaign, the messaging — all of it must focus on dismantling judicial roadblocks to immigration enforcement.
Republicans won’t unify around cutting meaningful spending beyond the deal struck in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. So Trump should spend every ounce of his remaining political capital on something transformational: ending judicial sabotage of deportations.
He should demand that all removal orders for noncitizens — or at least non-green card holders — become final, with no Article III court review. That change alone would defund millions of court cases and carry a direct budgetary effect. In the same bill, Congress should block federal courts from reviewing state-based immigration laws, leaving the final word to state judiciaries.
Trump must not let Senate leadership hide behind procedural excuses like the Byrd Rule. We’ve already seen how easily they override it when they want to. During the last reconciliation debate, Trump and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) ignored the parliamentarian to push through their tax strategy.
To extend the 2017 tax cuts without scoring them as new spending, the GOP simply redefined “current policy” as “current law.” When Sen. Bernie Moreno (D-Ohio) presided over the chamber, he ruled the provision in order — without even consulting the parliamentarian, who would have almost certainly objected.
Trump should demand that same treatment now. No more excuses. Immigration reform by reconciliation is possible — if the political will exists.
Call in the Guard
Trump should also deploy the National Guard to support ICE and the Department of Homeland Security directly. Use them to build temporary detention facilities, assist in arrests, and provide operational security. If Antifa resumes its terror campaign, arrests will stall before they even reach the courtroom.
The Justice Department and FBI need to move aggressively to disrupt and prosecute the groups organizing these attacks. If left unchecked, they will shield the illegal population from enforcement and grind federal operations to a halt.
RELATED: What do you call 12 Antifa radicals in body armor?
Establish a Homeland Security Reserve Corps
Former ICE official Dan Cadman has proposed forming a Homeland Security Reserve Corps composed of retired or former immigration enforcement officers. Trump should adopt the idea at once.
Rather than relying solely on new, untested agents — each bringing long-term benefit obligations — this reserve force would provide a cost-effective and experienced backup. Trained personnel could be rapidly deployed when enforcement surges, without the lag time of recruitment or training.
As Cadman put it, the reserve would cost less “to initiate and maintain ... than will be spent trying to fill out the ranks with newly minted but untested officers.” State and local law enforcement also offer a deep bench of willing partners.
Send them back by ship
Once legal and street-level interference is neutralized, the next hurdle becomes logistics. Deportations by commercial air remain expensive and inefficient.
Trump should leverage maritime resources — ships over planes. Water transport moves more people at less cost, and the federal government already controls the tools. The Navy, Coast Guard, FEMA, and the Department of Transportation all have assets that can scale removals quickly. There’s no reason not to use them.
Target identity theft
Illegal aliens don’t just trespass borders — they break laws to stay employed. Identity fraud, document forgery, and fake Social Security numbers keep the jobs magnet humming.
Rather than flirt with amnesty, Trump should target this criminal network directly. He should order the Social Security Administration to resume sending no-match letters to employers when an employee’s name doesn’t align with the Social Security number on file.
These letters would compel businesses to terminate ineligible workers and refer them to ICE. The effect would be swift and far-reaching.
The truth? Both parties have long ignored this problem because major donors want cheap labor. But if document fraud laws were enforced consistently, the jobs magnet would shut off — and self-deportation would surge.
If Trump continues lauding these workers as “impossible to replace,” he risks creating moral and political inertia. That narrative will lower enforcement morale and momentum, fueling the next bipartisan push for amnesty.
One thing is certain: Trump won’t get another shot at this mandate. If he fails to deliver on his promise, the amnesty lobby will claim permanent victory — and entrench it. The consequences won’t be temporary. They’ll shape immigration policy for a generation. We should all consider — and fear — what comes afterward.
This Supreme Court Is Woefully Weak On The Second Amendment
When firearms are involved, originalism is ignored and basic principles of statutory interpretation are overlooked.9th Circuit: Local Authorities In Washington State Can’t Block Feds From Deporting Illegals
A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government has the authority to deport illegal immigrants even if local leaders try to impede the process. The case arose after King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order in 2019 that instructed county officials to prohibit “fixed base operators” […]Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com