Republicans are leading the field in the California governor race



Steve Hilton, the leading candidate for governor of California despite his status as an unapologetic Republican, called it a perfect metaphor for the state’s spate of recent failures.

After the University of Southern California abruptly canceled its televised gubernatorial debate less than 24 hours before it was set to take place, Democrats scrambled to come up with an alternative forum. Despite the frantic reaction, the crowded field of Democratic candidates couldn’t agree to the proposed ground rules.

As candidates scrambled to regroup after USC canceled the debate, the large field of Democrats still couldn’t agree on a commitment to continue including all the candidates in future debates.

The debate implosion and the subsequent failure to quickly reorganize played right into the leading GOP contender’s hands.

“This is just so symptomatic of everything that's wrong with California,” Hilton told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday in the aftermath of the debate’s cancellation. “Everything is broken, from the high-speed rail, where they haven't laid any tracks. Then last week we saw that $100 million butterfly bridge to nowhere. Nothing works. Everything’s broken. It’s all a shambles. They can’t even organize a debate.”

Decades ago, USC was considered a conservative alternative to public academic institutions across the state. More recently, the private university has become indistinguishable from the rest — at least when it comes to cancel culture.

All of the candidates the university had decided to invite to participate in the planned debate, hosted by Univision and KABC, are white. All of the candidates left out are minorities who also happened to be polling in the single digits: California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (D), former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), and former California State Controller Betty Yee (D) were not invited after the university said they had not met their debate criteria.

Those invited included former Fox News host Steve Hilton (R), Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco (R), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D), former Rep. Katie Porter (D), businessman Tom Steyer (D), and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (D).

“We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow’s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters,” the university said in a statement. “Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates. ... As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.”

The university would not commit to a new date for the debate.

Hilton and Bianco have been leading the crowded pack of candidates for months, stirring up panic amid veteran Democratic Party operatives that they could both emerge from the June 2 primary to run against one another and shut out Democrats entirely. Swalwell and Porter have been polling around 10%, with Steyer, despite spending tens of millions of dollars, a few points behind.

Under California’s “top-two” primary system, only the two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party, will advance to the general election. Democrats are concerned that Hilton and Bianco are poised to do so if the field of Democratic candidates doesn’t narrow down quickly.

It was Mahan’s invitation, however, that really stung among those sidelined from the stage. A white Democratic centrist candidate, Mahan had only recently entered the race and was polling in the single digits along with those excluded from the debate.

Still USC explained his inclusion by citing a new debate-inclusion criteria that valued intensive fundraising. The Democrats complaining about being left out didn’t buy the rationale and instead cited Mahan’s USC ties as evidence of special treatment.

RELATED: ‘Things will return to normal’ is not a serious policy

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu/Getty Images

Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, which was hosting the debate, had been, on a voluntary basis, advising an independent expenditure committee supporting Mahan. Yet Murphy claimed to have nothing to do with organizing the debate and pledged to temporarily step down from his university role if he decided to accept a paid position from any entity backing Mahan.

Over the weekend when Xavier Becerra (D), Thurmond, and others started complaining about Mahan’s inclusion, top Democratic legislators decided to weigh in.

The speaker of California’s Assembly, Robert Rivas, and the leader of the state Senate, Monique Limon, joined the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish, and women’s caucuses in writing a letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim demanding that they change their “biased criteria.”

“The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters,” the legislators wrote. “Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”

The debate was supposed to take place at a critical time — with two Republican candidates consistently running ahead of their Democratic counterparts, none of whom has broken out of a crowded field. It also was set to occur less than two months before the state planned to send ballots to every registered voter.

In early March, California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks published an open letter urging Democratic contenders to consider dropping out if they didn’t see a realistic path to a primary victory.

“If you do not have a viable path to make it to the general election, do not file to place your name on the ballot for the primary election,” Hicks wrote just days before the March 6 filing deadline. But no candidate decided to heed Hicks’ call, and the letter drew a scathing response from Thurmond, who asserted that it was aimed at pressuring “candidates of color” to end their gubernatorial bids.

“Our political system is rigged,” Thurmond said. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every candidate of color in the race for governor to drop out.”

Hicks rejected that criticism, noting the letter did not name any specific candidate.

As candidates scrambled to regroup after USC canceled the debate, the large field of Democrats still couldn’t agree on a commitment to continue including all the candidates in future debates.

Part of the group wanted all parties to abide by a pledge to participate in future debates only if all Democratic candidates are invited. But that idea fell apart when they couldn’t get a commitment from fellow Democratic candidates.

Still Becerra, one of the candidates who was not invited to the USC debate, celebrated the decision to quash it entirely in a post on X:

We fought. We won! We stood up against an unfair candidate debate set-up that prematurely chose winners and losers. Tonight USC made the right decision to cancel their March 24 gubernatorial forum ... so hopefully next time it’s done right. Thank you to everyone who stood up, raised hell and demanded justice. Never give up when you’re fighting for fairness!

The Democratic disarray on rescheduling handed an opportunity to Hilton and Bianco. Instead of taking the night off, Hilton held an X.com space with more than 300 people participating. Meanwhile Bianco spoke to supporters at an event in Los Angeles.

A Bianco campaign social media post crossed out the words “debate watch party” and blamed Democrats for the abrupt change.

“The Ds got the debate canceled, but we’re showing up anyway!” the post said. “See you tonight @sheriffbianco will be there.”

Hilton, who has been campaigning for roughly a year and has led in the polls for months, shared an X space forum with Elaine Culotti, an independent candidate for governor who is running under “NPP” — no party preference.

Culotti, a California real estate developer and interior designer who starred in the Discovery+ reality series “Undercover Billionaire,” appears poised to throw her support to Hilton if he wins the primary, even though she argues that her current participation in the race takes votes away from Swalwell.

The two more ideologically aligned candidates continued to criticize Democrats for blowing up the debate while laying out their own visions for reforming California, by not only stopping the U-Haul exodus of those moving out to find more affordable places to live but attracting more businesses to the state. Culotti said she would do so by reducing taxes to attract more than 100,000 businesses, leading to more jobs and more tax revenue.

Hilton said he would address affordability and businesses’ exodus from the state by opening up more oil and gas exploration, something he said could be done by executive order and by “kicking out all the climate fanatics” that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) placed in key positions in the government.

“Right now, they are denying the industry permits for every aspect of [oil and gas] operating in California, whether that’s maintaining existing wells or expanding them, or drilling new ones — all of that,” Hilton said.

RELATED: California’s next dumb tech idea: Show your papers to scroll

Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Hilton and Culotti also discussed the positive aspects of having a governor in Sacramento who could work with the Trump administration to implement a forest management plan that would help prevent devastating wildfires while providing billions more in federal funds to help the Palisades and Eaton wildfire victims rebuild.

“Whatever happens in the 2028 presidential election, we know we’re going to have two years where the next governor will overlap with the Trump administration,” Hilton said. “And that’s one of the things I'm most excited about. I’ve got good, good relationships with, you know, half the Cabinet.”

No one asked Hilton how he will contend with deep animosity toward Trump in a state where the number of registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly two to one.

Instead Hilton said he would prefer that Bianco drop out so he could consolidate the Republican support while working to turn out independents and Republicans in November in an election that includes ballot initiatives to institute voter ID and to maintain Proposition 13, a state constitutional amendment that imposes strict limits on property tax increases.

"You’ve got people in charge now who just don't think like this, and as we saw with the debate nonsense and raising the race card ... they’re just on a different planet," Hilton said. "But the underlying answer to how you deliver all of these things is just to take a sledgehammer to the massive, bloated nanny-state bureaucracy that is making everything so expensive and so difficult."

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

I saw the sky light up over Dubai. The real shock came next.



Two weeks ago, I was caught in Dubai for a layover when the war suddenly became very real. While driving back from a pleasant sunset walk along Dubai Creek, my Uber driver suddenly yelled, “Brother, look at the sky!” Peering through the windshield, we watched as the UAE air defense system lit up the sky orange as it intercepted multiple drones, one of which we would later learn struck near the U.S. consulate in Dubai, causing a fire; fortunately, it was quickly extinguished, and there were no fatalities.

To say that war in the Middle East has become a state of normality would be a profound and unfortunate understatement. As drones and missiles fly overhead, the majority of which are intercepted, people go about their day as if nothing has changed. In Dubai, I had the privilege of witnessing an exceptional demonstration of resilience, an unwillingness to give in to fear as the very clear and present danger grows with each passing day.

The resilience I saw in Dubai, where life continued amid ongoing attacks, now faces an even greater test as the global energy supply chain is under strain.

Operation Epic Fury is ongoing and will have long-lasting impacts that will reverberate not only across the region but also worldwide. Iran is one of the world's largest producers of crude oil and has some of the largest known reserves. Decades of sanctions have left the country with a very limited customer base for its oil, with the majority of it going to China at heavily discounted prices.

For this reason, with the possibility of regime change in Iran, China stands to lose a significant portion of its discounted oil supply, especially when combined with the shift in political direction in Venezuela, another vital source of heavily discounted seaborne imports for the Chinese Communist Party.

Additionally, as the Strait of Hormuz is not effectively closed, a halt of up to a fifth of the global oil and liquified natural gas supply, which comes from the other major regional suppliers like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, is now beginning to take its toll on energy prices across the world.

Dire Strait

Serving as the bridge between the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important strategic chokepoints in the world. With an astounding 20% of global petroleum liquid products flowing through the Strait, it plays a vital role in both the global economy and the economies of the Gulf states.

For example, of the total oil that moves through the Strait, 38% is sourced from Saudi Arabia, a nation where 53.4% of the government’s revenue came from oil in 2025. Furthermore Qatar exports all of its 9.3 billion cubic feet per day of liquid natural gas through the Strait, accounting for most of the LNG transiting through it.

These nations are heavily dependent on revenues earned from oil and gas exports, which is why Iran is targeting both the Strait and the Gulf nations’ energy supply chains. Unable to strike the U.S. mainland, Iran is attacking the Gulf states that support the ongoing U.S. military presence in the region.

The impact from closing the Strait will not be limited to the region. With a substantial amount of exports destined for Asia, upwards of 83% in 2024, including China, South Korea, Japan, India, and Taiwan, the cost of energy in these countries is at risk of rising, which, given the sizable amount of manufacturing that takes place there, could lead to price rises for multiple sectors.

For this reason, China is pressuring Iran to allow for tankers to pass through and to continue shipments, given that China has not yet fully diversified its seaborne oil supply chain away from Iran. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz, even if not by blockade but simply by shippers unwilling to take the risk of asset loss and rising insurance costs, will remain a global market issue rather than a regional challenge.

The lack of transit through the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility that the Houthis in Yemen begin impeding transit through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea in solidarity with Iran will lead to higher costs for everything shipped from the region and manufactured in East Asia.

Attacking energy infrastructure

Part of Iran’s strategy involves a willingness to openly attack any Gulf state with a connection to the U.S., with new attacks expanding to include Azerbaijan and reaching as far as Cyprus. Iran is doing so with a particular focus on energy infrastructure, recognizing the importance of the energy sector to the regional economy.

Multiple attacks have taken place targeting infrastructure in Qatar — impacting up to 17% of its LNG export capacity, the UAE, whose Shah gas field was struck, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia — which is putting pressure on a vital part of these countries’ economies.

If Iran is allowed to continue to inflict severe damage on the energy infrastructure of the Gulf states, while depleting their defensive stockpiles with a steady flow of drones and ballistic missile attacks, they will be placed into an even more vulnerable position both economically and militarily.

China’s reliance on Iranian oil

RELATED: The only Iran plan that doesn’t end with a 20-year hangover

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

China imports almost all of the oil Iran exports, over 80% of it. The strategy is simple: Purchase oil from a heavily sanctioned country with few or no other customers, and enjoy a significant discount. The same strategy was implemented with Venezuela, though not to the same extent as with Iran, in terms of the volume of oil purchased.

The combination of Iranian and Venezuelan seaborne oil imports regularly accounts for 17% of China’s seaborne imports; 13.4% from Iran and 4% to 4.5%. If the war continues to escalate, or perhaps if Kharg Island’s energy infrastructure, which processes 90% of Iran’s oil for export, is attacked or occupied, China could potentially lose close to 20% of its seaborne imports. If the war leads to a regime change in Iran more favorable toward the West, or Iran’s ability to export discounted oil to China is impacted by either military action or the lifting of sanctions, it will be forced to aggressively diversify its seaborne oil imports.

What it means

I am fortunate to be concluding this piece from the comfort of my home in Arizona after an evacuation flight to San Francisco, a commuter flight to Los Angeles, and a final long drive home. Operation Epic Fury has effectively disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, unleashed waves of attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure, and driven sharp increases in worldwide energy prices.

China stands to lose up to 20% of its discounted seaborne oil imports from Iran and Venezuela, while Asian economies face higher manufacturing costs that will be passed on to global consumers. The resilience I saw in Dubai, where life continued amid ongoing attacks, now faces an even greater test as the global energy supply chain is under strain. With escalation showing no signs of abating, volatility in oil, LNG, and gasoline prices has become the new normal, underscoring how deeply interconnected our world’s energy security truly is.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The Democrats unconditionally surrendered the shutdown — the GOP might screw it up anyway



Democrats unconditionally surrendered early Friday morning, passing funding for the Department of Homeland Security after their five-week shutdown ground airport security lines to a halt, stopped paychecks for TSA agents and other employees, and crippled the department’s ability to prepare security for the World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) promptly tried to claim victory anyway, posting on X: “After weeks of negotiations, Republicans caved to our demands to fund DHS without a blank check for ICE and CBP.”

House Republicans should not panic because Democrats staged a little theater for their own base. They should take the win.

That is false.

Republicans did not accept any Democrat demands, though they came close as recently as last weekend, had Democrats been willing to negotiate in good faith. And both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection already have billions in funding, with much more easily available by June through reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate.

So what exactly were Democrats demanding?

The minority party wanted judicial warrants, against court precedent, that would have crippled enforcement. Democrats also wanted to ban the face coverings agents use to protect their families from violent activists. They wanted to end patrols, stop enforcement at courthouses and other key locations, bar agents from relying on observations such as accent, occupation, or appearance, and place use-of-force investigations under the jurisdiction of often politicized local police departments.

They got none of it.

The remarkable part is that they could have walked away with something. As recently as last weekend, Republicans were still trying to bring Democrats to the table.

“We got on our front foot by negotiating in good faith last week and through the weekend and offering low-hanging concessions,” a senior White House official told the Beltway Brief. But Democrats wanted more and kept moving the goalposts.

As for ICE and CBP funding, the panic on the right is misplaced. Both agencies already have billions. Neither gave up a single enforcement tool. And now that the shutdown is over, both can be funded again through reconciliation.

That is the same process that already delivered more than $100 billion in funding to begin with and insulated both agencies from the Democrats’ theatrical shutdown. Reconciliation requires only a simple majority, though it can address only spending matters that directly affect the budget.

That is also why reconciliation cannot be used to pass new policy such as the SAVE America Act. The Senate parliamentarian enforces those rules. But she has already allowed ICE and CBP funding through reconciliation, and nothing suggests she would rule differently this time.

Democrats had an opening here. President Trump had no interest in handing the minority party concessions, but Senate Republicans were more open to it. Democrats refused because they wanted to tell their base they shut the government down and would not budge. Now that face-saving fiction is all they have left while funding resumes and ICE and CBP money likely arrives within the next two months, according to White House projections.

Then came the frustrating part.

Friday afternoon, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) found a way to snatch defeat from victory, issuing a forceful statement that the House would not accept this outcome. His hand is being forced by conservatives furious that the Senate stripped the funding from this measure and worried about the precedent. But that reaction misses the strategic reality.

They’re making a mistake.

House Republicans should not panic because Democrats staged a little theater for their own base. They should take the win. Democrats shut down the DHS, inflicted weeks of pain, gained nothing, and then surrendered.

Call it what it is: a Republican victory.

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze News editor in chief Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

The SAVE America Act won’t be enough to save the GOP from a midterm bloodbath



Turn on Fox News, scroll social media, or listen to talk radio, and one message comes through loud and clear: Many Republicans think the SAVE America Act is the key to saving the GOP in the November midterms.

It is not.

The SAVE America Act is not a magic wand. It will not erase 14 months of drift, dysfunction, and broken promises.

Yes, requiring proof of citizenship to register and identification to vote is necessary. Yes, most Americans, regardless of party, support the idea. But Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that alone will persuade voters to reward them in November.

The rot runs much deeper, and no “one simple trick” will fix it.

Trump surged to victory in 2024 on promises to change the country’s direction in dramatic ways. Fourteen months later, too many of those promises remain unfulfilled. Some died at the hands of weak and ineffective congressional leadership. Others were thwarted by feckless Cabinet officials, such as the new czarina of the Shield of the Americas, Kristi Noem. Others fell victim to Trump’s own choices.

The core promises were clear: mass deportations, a stronger economy, lower inflation, and no new long-term foreign entanglements. Those themes helped Trump assemble a broad coalition, including a majority of young men, and deliver the biggest Republican Electoral College victory since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Now, with just over seven months until the midterms, nearly all of those promises remain unmet or badly compromised. Facts aren’t partisan — they are just facts.

Start with immigration. For all the left’s hysteria over ICE raids, Trump has deported fewer people than Barack Obama did in the first year of his second term. That came after four years of unprecedented illegal immigration under Biden. The promise of mass deportation remains unfulfilled.

Congress hasn’t helped. Ineffective Republican leadership has let the Department of Homeland Security go without funding for over a month, slowing deportation efforts while creating chaos at airports as TSA employees go unpaid. The public sees dysfunction, not competence.

RELATED: Mullin inherits a mess at DHS. Here’s how he can still save Trump’s legacy.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Then comes the economy.

The cost of living has not gone down. Signs point the other way. Inflation could surge past 4% as energy prices rise because of the war with Iran. Food prices remain high and may climb higher as petroleum-based fertilizer gets more expensive just before planting season. Homes remain unaffordable to most Americans. The job market sits on the edge of an AI-fueled bust. The promised relief in the form of larger tax refund checks has not materialized.

The labor market struggles as rampant H-1B visa abuse keeps importing cheaper foreign labor into high-paying STEM jobs that Americans want and are trained to do. Trump and Republican leaders still talk about H-1B as though it were a strategic advantage rather than a direct threat to their own voters.

Guess what? Voters have noticed.

Recent polling shows Democrat James Talarico leading both Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn in Texas. Former Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper holds a commanding lead in the race to replace Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina. Even in Maine, the Democrat challenger accused of sporting a Nazi tattoo leads Sen. Susan Collins.

RELATED: Texas Democrats just gave Republicans a gift-wrapped hypocrisy story

Bob Daemmrich/Texas Tribune/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The bad numbers do not stop there. A glance at RealClearPolitics tells the terrifying tale.

Special elections are just as ugly. In those races, including the district that encompasses Mar-a-Lago, Democrats have run strongly among independent voters, the very bloc that helped solidify Trump’s 2024 coalition.

That is the problem Republicans refuse to face. The SAVE America Act is a common-sense bill, and Congress should pass it. Elections should be protected from ineligible voters. But the bill is not a magic wand. It will not erase 14 months of drift, dysfunction, and broken promises. It will not lower prices, deport illegal aliens, fix the job market, or persuade disillusioned independents to come back home.

Republicans do not face a midterm problem because they have failed to pass one bill. They face a midterm problem because they have failed to deliver on the reasons voters put them back in power.

Red-state inaction is the soft underbelly of border politics



Fourteen months into Trump’s second term, the verdict is in. No mass deportations. No major immigration reform. And if Democrats return to power, they will rip the doors off the hinges again.

Trump did slow the flow and put a dent in some outdated visa programs. But the results remain too small relative to the scale of what came before him and what may come after him.

One day, red states will need to enact these deterrents. The only question is timing.

That leaves one durable partial solution: Use red-state supermajorities to deter illegal aliens from settling in those states when the next wave comes. States may lack the power to deport illegal aliens outright, but they can make daily life harder. They can deny jobs and benefits, impose criminal penalties, and create a lasting deterrent that survives any one presidency.

Ron DeSantis appears to understand this in Florida. Almost no other Republican governor does.

Idaho offers the clearest example of the problem. On paper, it looks like the kind of state where serious immigration enforcement should be easy. Republicans hold 61-9 and 29-6 majorities in the House and Senate. Conservatives gained ground in the House thanks to the Freedom Caucus. Yet when the time came to pass meaningful reforms, the GOP establishment folded.

The House moved several bills. The Senate is quietly killing them. Gov. Brad Little (R) remains publicly silent, apparently hoping the issue dies in committee while he cruises to re-election under Trump’s preemptive endorsement and keeps his donor class happy.

The bills now stalled in Idaho expose the fraud.

H704 would mandate E-Verify for all public and private employers and give the state attorney general real enforcement power. It passed the House 43-26 despite opposition from 17 Republicans. It now sits dead in the Senate State Affairs Committee under Chairman Jim Guthrie and Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon.

H700 would make it a misdemeanor knowingly to hire illegal aliens without using E-Verify. That bill is also dead in the Senate, and 22 House Republicans opposed it.

H659 would require all counties and cities to cooperate with ICE through 287(g) agreements. In a state with barely any elected Democrats, one might assume mandatory ICE cooperation would be the easiest of calls. Instead, the bill passed the House 41-27, with 18 lukewarm Republicans joining Democrats in opposition, and now sits dead in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H660 would require police to inquire about immigration status after a lawful arrest and would mandate a twice-yearly report on crimes committed by illegal aliens. By definition, this involves people already suspected of some other offense. Even so, the bill passed only 40-30 and is now being blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

RELATED: The TSA showdown reveals a brutal truth about our politics

Blaze Media Illustration

H764 would create a state analogue to the federal statute that penalizes anyone who knowingly or recklessly conceals, harbors, transports, or materially assists illegal aliens. It includes misdemeanor and felony penalties, license revocations, and forfeiture provisions. In other words, it would build precisely the kind of standing deterrent red states will need when Democrats reopen the border. It has not even advanced out of committee.

S1318 would audit refugee-resettlement contractors in Idaho, including the number of refugees served, their demographic and language data, participation in language programs, housing use, geographic distribution, and relevant public-health statistics. It would also require disclosure if those entities aided illegal aliens. It remains blocked in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H592 would require the state to track how many illegal aliens receive hospital services and how much that costs taxpayers. It would not deny care. It would merely quantify the burden. A similar law in Florida led to a drop in illegal-alien use of the health care system. Idaho’s bill has not moved.

H656 would do the same basic thing in schools by auditing the number of illegal aliens enrolled. It has gone nowhere.

How does this happen in a state so red? The answer is simple: Many Republican officials remain functionally progressive on immigration.

Little is deeply unpopular with the grassroots, but he neutralized the threat of a primary by securing Trump’s endorsement. Everyone knows he opposes these bills. He simply does not want to say so out loud. Better to let them die quietly in committee than risk angering the base or the business interests that still demand cheap labor.

Call it political Murphy’s law. DeSantis is term-limited in Florida. Brad Little gets a third term.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images

Even Florida has not gone far enough. It already has E-Verify, but lawmakers failed to remove the 25-employee exception. Similar attempts to strengthen E-Verify have failed in West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, all solidly red states.

A few bright spots remain.

Tennessee may pass some worthwhile bills, though lawmakers gutted legislation to charge illegal aliens tuition. Arizona’s legislature is close to passing SB 1421, which would bar illegal aliens from opening bank accounts, cashing checks, or obtaining loans by prohibiting financial institutions from accepting foreign ID cards or ITINs as sole identification. It would make life in the United States much harder without legal status. The bill passed the Senate and awaits a House vote. Unfortunately, Arizona has a Democrat governor who will likely veto it.

That only raises the harder question: Why is this not already law in the 22 Republican trifecta states?

The same problem appears in commercial trucking. Amid the rash of crashes involving illegal-alien drivers, very few states have acted seriously. Oklahoma alone passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to reciprocate out-of-state commercial driver’s licenses. Florida appears to be the one state seriously enforcing the English-language requirement and checking for illegal aliens at truck stops.

Iowa let a bill die in committee that would have required driver’s license exams to be administered only in English. Indiana passed an English-only testing bill, but still failed to address out-of-state CDLs, even after two illegal aliens killed Indiana residents in separate incidents in less than two weeks in February.

One day, red states will need to enact these deterrents. The only question is timing. Will Republicans build them now, during the lull, or will they wait until hundreds of thousands of new invaders flood back in under a future President Gavin Newsom?

That choice will tell us whether Republicans ever meant a word they said about immigration.

America has a spending problem Congress refuses to fix



Washington Democrats just voted against the one rule every American family already lives by: balancing the budget. Last week, I brought my Balanced Budget Amendment to the House floor. It failed. Meanwhile the national debt has reached $39 trillion and counting.

My amendment would have required Washington to phase in a simple rule: Congress cannot spend more than it takes in.

Democrats would rather keep the autopilot running and the national credit card maxed out than make the tough decisions to bring spending in line with what Americans want and need.

Democrats once claimed to support that principle. Last week, only one voted yes. Let that sink in.

Opposing a balanced budget is not some noble policy disagreement. It is a refusal to confront a crisis. Interest on the national debt already costs more than national defense. By midcentury, interest payments are projected to double our defense spending.

This debate is not about making a spreadsheet look tidy. Revenues are not the problem. Overspending is. American families already understand the difference. They pay the mortgage and buy groceries first. They skip the extras. They live on what they earn.

That is far from radical. It’s common sense.

The debt passed $39 trillion on March 17, up $4.5 trillion in just two years. That works out to $289,000 per household. Interest payments alone are projected to hit $1.04 trillion this year, or about $7,700 per household, just to service Washington’s tab. By the time you finish reading this, the number will be higher.

And that is before you factor in the waste, fraud, and outright abuse.

Since 2003, the federal government has made nearly $3 trillion in improper payments. The states are hardly better. In Minnesota, a federal prosecutor said half or more of the roughly $18 billion in federal funds sent to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been stolen. Half or more. Billions of taxpayer dollars disappeared through fake autism centers, phony housing providers, and shell companies.

The federal government and the states are ripping you off.

We have known for years that government spending was out of control. But at this scale, waste no longer looks like a bug in the system. It looks like a feature.

RELATED: Running out the clock won’t save the majority

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Democrats’ refusal even to vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment shows they have no interest in fixing it. They would rather keep the autopilot running and the national credit card maxed out than make the tough decisions to bring spending in line with what American families want and need.

That refusal was on full display last week. Democrats chose more debt, more inflationary pressure, and more fiscal chaos. They are not worried about bankrupting the country.

But their "no" votes were not the only warning sign. Congress has already seen the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility and still refuses to change course.

The Biden-Harris years added trillions in new debt and helped deliver the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices surged while paychecks lagged. Working mothers stretching every grocery dollar felt it. Seniors on fixed incomes felt it. Families living paycheck to paycheck felt it.

That is the real-world price of refusing to balance the books.

I offered a real fix. My Balanced Budget Amendment would force Washington to do what every family already does: live on what comes in, pay the important bills first, cut the extras, and stop borrowing from the next generation to finance today’s spending.

This is not complicated. It is basic math. It is common sense. It is America First.

As we approach America’s 250th birthday, the best gift we can give the next generation is a government that finally lives by the same rule every family does and stops pretending this mountain of debt does not matter.

The environmental left will not admit what wind and solar destroy



Several studies by biologists and ornithologists are raising alarms about the toll so-called eco-friendly technologies are taking on birds and other wildlife. Many researchers who support alternative energy in principle are dropping the pretense that wind and solar are benign.

The problem begins with energy density. To generate the same reliable electricity as a natural gas plant or nuclear facility, wind and solar require thousands of additional acres. That is not ideology. It is physics. Yet in the rush to satisfy arbitrary “net zero” targets, the environment supposedly being protected gets destroyed.

The Mojave Desert tortoise, an ancient survivor of harsh conditions, is also losing to the solar boom.

Wind and solar facilities kill wildlife, fragment habitats, disrupt ecosystems, and leave ecological wreckage far beyond what the green lobby cares to admit. Politicians and well-funded environmental NGOs still sell wind and solar as the natural world’s saviors. The data shows something else entirely: These projects are not merely displacing wildlife. They are killing it on an industrial scale.

One shocking assessment found that wind and solar farms overlap with 2,310 threatened amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species globally, or 36% of the world’s threatened species. The green utopia is being built on the graves of the vulnerable.

Another study found that 2,206 operational renewable-energy facilities had degraded 886 protected areas, 749 key biodiversity areas, and 40 distinct wilderness areas. Researchers project that footprint will expand another 30% as more natural refuges are industrialized.

A review of 84 peer-reviewed studies of onshore wind installations documented 160 cases of species displacement affecting birds, bats, and various mammals.

For the golden eagle, the toll is measured in death. In the Western United States, documented mortalities more than doubled between 2013 and 2024, rising from 110 to 270.

An assessment of 42 African raptor species documented an 88% decline over 20 to 40 years and identified wind farms as a major factor. In China, the rush for wind power coincided with a nearly 10% decline in overall bird populations after wind-farm construction. In Changdao County, a critical migration route for 330 bird species, local communities reported reduced bird populations and increased pest activity. In a stunning admission of failure, officials demolished 80 wind turbines to save the ecosystem.

Solar power brings its own damage. Recent research shows that in humid regions, large-scale solar plants can trigger near-total vegetation collapse. Panels block sunlight, alter the microclimate, and destabilize soil. When roots disappear, the ecosystem’s foundation goes with them.

In desert ecosystems, solar arrays disrupt plant growth cycles and harm the microorganisms that keep the desert alive. In China, photovoltaic development has fragmented and degraded more than 2,100 square miles of agricultural, sandy, and grassy terrain.

Solar development also reduces species richness on intact landscapes. Perimeter fencing creates barriers that trap animals and block the genetic flow healthy populations need.

RELATED: America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself

Sean Rayford/Getty Images

In the United States alone, solar energy is estimated to cause between 37,800 and 138,600 bird deaths each year. One reason is the “lake effect”: From the air, vast fields of solar panels resemble water.

A study from Poland confirmed this effect, showing that photovoltaic farms attract waterfowl because of water-like reflections. Birds descend expecting a lake and instead collide with scorching glass. Researchers identified 70 bird species at risk across six sites, with the highest collision risk concentrated within 650 feet of the installations.

The Mojave Desert tortoise, an ancient survivor of harsh conditions, is also losing to the solar boom. From 2004 to 2014, its population fell 39%. Industrial-scale solar projects have destroyed roughly 100,000 acres of its habitat. We are pushing out a species that has lived in the Mojave for millions of years to make room for panels that will be obsolete in 20.

The reckless expansion of low-density energy projects into valuable ecosystems must stop. The green transition is running red with the blood of the creatures we’re supposed to protect.

The left’s Cesar Chavez problem is much bigger than Cesar Chavez



For decades, Cesar Chavez occupied near-canonical status in American universities. The United Farm Workers leader’s name adorned schools, his image filled lecture slides, and his story was told as secular hagiography: the humble labor leader who organized the oppressed, challenged exploitation, and embodied moral courage in the struggle for justice.

Now that image is cracking.

The reassessment of Chavez is not the end of something. It is the beginning of a broader reckoning.

A blockbuster New York Times story this month detailed serious allegations of sexual misconduct, including deeply disturbing claims that, if true, must force a fundamental reassessment of Chavez. The question is not only whether the allegations are true, but why this reckoning arrived only now.

What we are witnessing is not merely the fall of a man but the exposure of a pattern — one that reveals more about the moral framework of academic elites than about Chavez himself.

The manufactured hero

For years, Chavez has been presented, especially in university settings, as a hero of the proletariat. Not always in explicitly Marxist terms, of course. The language is smoother than that. But the structure is unmistakable: Chavez as the labor leader who stood against capital, exposed exploitation, and mobilized collective struggle in the name of justice.

Students are taught to see history as the story of structural oppression and economic conflict. Chavez became a usable symbol in that story. Because he served that function, his image was carefully curated.

What is now becoming clear is that the darker aspects of Chavez’s life were not entirely unknown. Reports of infidelity, domineering leadership, and abuses of power were not buried in some inaccessible archive. They were part of the broader historical record.

Silence around sin

Yet they were largely ignored.

That is how leftist professors handle their heroes. The facts that do not serve the narrative get minimized, reframed, or omitted. This is the first lesson of the current moment: The moral concern of the DEI professoriat is not truth but rather usefulness to the cause.

A figure is praised or condemned not by a consistent moral standard, but by whether he advances a political project. As long as Chavez could serve as a symbol of labor activism and anti-capitalist struggle, his sins remained background noise. Now that those sins threaten his usefulness, they have moved to the foreground.

No new moral conscience has emerged on the left. What we’re seeing is pure calculation.

RELATED: Labor group cancels Cesar Chavez events over 'profoundly shocking' new allegations

Tony Korody/Sygma/Getty Images

A narrow moral vision

The deeper problem goes beyond hypocrisy. The moral vision offered by Chavez’s academic admirers is radically narrow. It focuses almost entirely on one category of wrongdoing: economic injustice. Greed, real and serious as it is, gets elevated into the supreme moral concern. Entire departments and movements organize themselves around exposing and correcting it.

But what about lust? What about pride? What about the abuse of power in personal life, not just economic systems?

Those sins get treated as secondary or, worse, as distractions from the real work of social transformation. The result is a moral framework that is selective and shallow. It addresses external structures while neglecting the corruption of the human heart. Marxism 101 still teaches that if we revolt our way into a better system, we can somehow produce a better man.

But a philosophy with no coherent account of sin cannot solve sin.

From moralism to tyranny

That failure has predictable consequences. If the problem lies mainly in external systems, then the solution must also be external: regulation, enforcement, and conformity. Behavior must be monitored. Speech must be controlled. Dissent must be suppressed.

That is why academic environments that preach tolerance so often practice censorship. That is why calls for equity come paired with ideological compliance. Those who depart from the approved narrative do not get argued with. They get disciplined.

Until we recover a full account of human nature, one that takes sin seriously and looks beyond man for its cure, we will repeat this cycle again and again.

And that is why such movements, once they gain power, tilt toward tyranny. They do not govern by the standards of fairness they once demanded, because their moral framework never grounded those standards in the first place. It only deployed them when useful.

The fall of Chavez is not an anomaly. It is a case study. A movement that cannot account for sin will eventually be undone by it. Robespierre gets guillotined every time.

The deeper problem

At the heart of all this sits a basic misdiagnosis. Man’s greatest problem is not economic inequality. It is not structural oppression. It is not even political injustice, though all of those are real. Man’s greatest problem is sin.

It is the corruption of the heart that gives rise to every form of injustice, whether in the marketplace or the home, the factory or the family. No amount of social reorganization can fix that. You can redistribute wealth, rewrite laws, and restructure institutions and still end up with the same fallen human nature operating under new conditions.

That is why movements that promise moral transformation through politics end in disappointment. They try to fix what is internal by manipulating what is external. A Latin American studies professor once told a friend of mine, “Che su Christo.” Che is Christ.

RELATED: The lie that launched a thousand riots

Fitzgerald Whitney/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

The only real solution

But there is only one Christ and only one remedy for sin, and it is the one most conspicuously absent from the classrooms that long celebrated Chavez.

The answer is not a program or a policy. It is a person.

Christ does not merely demand outward reform. He gives a new heart. He restores sinners to communion with God. He addresses not only the consequences of sin, but its source. He transforms the inner man, and from that transformation flow justice, righteousness, and love.

That is precisely why He is excluded. A system built on human effort, collective struggle, and ideological conformity cannot tolerate a solution rooted in repentance, grace, and divine authority. It is the works-righteousness religion of our age.

The inevitable reckoning

The reassessment of Chavez is not the end of something. It is the beginning of a broader reckoning. If our heroes are chosen for usefulness rather than virtue, they will disappoint us. If our moral standards are selective, they will collapse under their own inconsistency.

And if we refuse to acknowledge the true nature of sin, we will keep acting surprised by its consequences. The real lesson of this moment is not that another historical figure has fallen. It is that a moral system built on partial truths and ideological commitments cannot bear the weight of reality.

Until we recover a full account of human nature, one that takes sin seriously and looks beyond man for its cure, we will repeat this cycle again and again.

The federal machine-gun ban rests on a dangerous constitutional theory



Think back to fourth-grade American history. We learned why the Articles of Confederation failed and why the Constitution replaced them. One major problem was that states struggled to trade with one another and often tried to protect local interests by taxing or restricting goods from other states.

That helps explain why the Constitutional Convention gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce in Article I.

The challenge to the machine-gun ban asks more than whether one statute survives. It asks whether the Constitution’s architecture still restrains power at all.

In grade school, the principle sounded straightforward enough. Two centuries of litigation have made it anything but. A basic question still hangs over the Commerce Clause: How much power does it actually give Congress?

Can Congress force you to buy health insurance? Can it stop you from growing wheat in your own garden to bake your own bread? Can it ban you from possessing a firearm?

Not buying a firearm, which plainly involves commerce. Not using one. Just possessing one.

And does the answer change if that firearm happens to be a machine gun?

In 1986, Congress made it illegal “for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun,” with narrow exceptions for military use and for machine guns lawfully possessed before the statute took effect. For everyone else, the ban is absolute.

One might expect Congress to have debated whether the Commerce Clause, or any other constitutional provision, gave legislators the power to ban mere possession of a machine gun. It did not. The only real justification for banning post-1986 machine guns came in a single House floor statement from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.), the amendment’s sponsor: “I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machine guns.”

Hughes did not offer a constitutional justification. He simply assumed Congress had the power and never bothered to prove it.

In reality, Congress does not possess a general police power. It cannot create a comprehensive national criminal code simply because it wants to. That authority belongs chiefly to the states. Congress may enact criminal laws only when they rest on one of its few enumerated powers.

That’s the essence of federalism.

RELATED: Want a machine gun? These states might soon make buying one easier

JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/Getty Images

So the real question remains: Does Congress have the power to prohibit mere possession of a machine gun, or does that authority remain with the states and the people?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has confronted the question before, but it has never answered it.

In 1997, the full court, sitting en banc, split evenly in United States v. Kirk. Sixteen of the 17 judges participated, and the court divided straight down the middle. Half concluded that the machine-gun ban exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. Half disagreed. Because no majority emerged, the district court’s judgment was affirmed by default, and the written opinions carried no precedential force.

Three months later, the court faced the issue again in United States v. Knutson. This time, the panel included three judges who believed Congress did have the power to ban machine guns. They upheld the law. The full court stayed silent, and Knutson remains binding precedent.

Two months ago, Judge Don Willett raised the issue again in a nonbinding concurrence in United States v. Wilson. Willett expressed serious doubt that Congress has constitutional authority to prohibit mere possession of a firearm. He walked through the Supreme Court’s three recognized categories of Commerce Clause authority: the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Mere possession of a firearm, he concluded, “fits uneasily within any of these categories.”

Willett’s observation gets to the heart of the problem.

If mere possession counts as interstate commerce, or as something Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause, then federal power no longer has a meaningful limiting principle. Congress can regulate nearly anything, so long as some lawyer can imagine a downstream economic effect.

That is not constitutional government. It is federal power without a boundary.

Now, nearly three decades after Knutson, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Temple Gun Club are prepared to press the issue again. Temple Gun Club is made up of law-abiding citizens who want machine-gun ownership made lawful for their members. The organization is not talking about weapons bought on some national market. It is talking about firearms the members would build themselves by converting guns they already lawfully own, firearms that never entered the stream of interstate commerce.

This case is about more than just machine guns. It is about whether the Commerce Clause still has limits. If Congress may ban possession of an item that was never bought, never sold, never exchanged across state lines, and has no substantial effect on interstate commerce, then Congress can regulate virtually every aspect of human life.

RELATED: When good guys carry, killers lose — and the media looks away

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/Denver Post/Getty Images

Willett made the point well in Wilson:

Far from viewing this sort of incremental, frog-boiling expansion of federal power as legitimate, the Founding generation saw it as the more insidious threat — a quiet, gradual erosion of liberty rather than a sudden seizure of it.

That’s right. The courts should return to first principles. They should revisit the machine-gun ban and ask the question Congress ducked in 1986: Does “regulate commerce” still mean something limited and intelligible, or has the phrase become a blank check for federal control?

The challenge to the machine-gun ban asks more than whether one statute survives. It asks whether the Constitution’s architecture still restrains power at all — or whether the 10th Amendment has been reduced to a historical footnote.

The TSA showdown reveals a brutal truth about our politics



America’s newest political battlefield runs through one of the most miserable places in the country: the airport.

Democrats have held up funding for the Department of Homeland Security amid their ongoing war over ICE, and after a month without pay, TSA employees have started refusing to come to work. The result has been crippling delays at major airports, with waits stretching four hours or more and turning an already degraded flying experience into something closer to a public humiliation ritual.

The GOP theoretically holds the levers of power, but in practice it remains terrified of disturbing the status quo.

The brutal truth is that one political party is willing to disrupt travel across the country to protect illegal immigrants and preserve a future voter pipeline. Even after assassination attempts, lawfare against political opponents, and an open push for demographic replacement, conservatives still hesitate to admit that our political battles have become existential.

In theory, the United States remains the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth. In practice, basic air travel now is a dysfunctional disaster. Seats are cramped, service is miserable, fellow passengers are often feral, and airlines charge extra for every scrap of convenience in the hope of squeezing one last dollar from exhausted travelers.

For a while, the indignity at least purchased speed. Flying still got you from one place to another faster than anything else. But incompetence, cost-cutting, and crumbling infrastructure have made significant delays routine. Travelers now regularly build an extra day into both ends of a trip because same-day arrival has become an increasingly reckless assumption.

Adding four-hour TSA lines to that ordeal is more than just another inconvenience. It’s simply insulting.

To his credit, President Trump has moved ICE officers into airports to assist with screening. It is less satisfying than watching those officers execute deportation raids, but early signs suggest the move has worked. Atlanta reportedly went from nearly five hours of screening delays to roughly five minutes. ICE officers appear to be in good spirits, and the agency itself seems to be recovering some badly needed public goodwill. Tom Homan has even said ICE agents will continue deportation operations while helping with TSA duties. It is not an ideal arrangement, but Trump has once again found a way to turn executive action into a political win.

RELATED: The right’s only way out of podcast chaos is radical honesty

Blaze Media Illustration

Still, the TSA mess raises a larger strategic question, one that extends well beyond airports.

During the COVID lockdowns, public schools across the country shut their doors. Conservatives had spent years correctly describing government education as a progressive propaganda machine and a patronage network for Democratic clients. Yet when the system buckled, the right did not use the opening to challenge the legitimacy of the whole structure. Republicans begged for schools to reopen as quickly as possible. Faced with a rare chance to dismantle an atrocious institution, conservatives instead demanded a “return to normal.” But normal was already a disaster.

The same pattern now applies to the TSA.

The agency did not even exist before 2001, and it has performed badly almost from the start. Most contraband still gets through screening. The TSA has not stopped a single terrorist attack. Like the public school system, it functions largely as a jobs program for Democrat clients while draining billions from taxpayers and making ordinary life demonstrably worse.

Republicans still act as though enduring a few nasty New York Times editorials is too high a price to pay to save the country.

Rather than using this crisis to argue for dismantling the TSA, Republicans have rushed to prove that it is indispensable. The short-term political benefit is obvious enough. No administration wants to own airport chaos. But every such rescue reinforces a deeper assumption shared by both parties: Any government program, once created, becomes permanent. No one is going to vote himself into a smaller state. The incentives do not allow it. America is far more likely to watch the regime collapse than to see it willingly scale itself back.

That failure of imagination points to a larger problem.

Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the presidency while holding a friendly Supreme Court, yet they still appear terrified to govern. Only Trump, in his early burst of executive orders, showed much appetite for using the moment. Even that momentum slowed once the administration ran into the courts and Congress refused to codify any serious part of the MAGA agenda. The GOP theoretically holds the levers of power, but in practice it remains terrified of disturbing the status quo.

RELATED: The taboo conservatives refuse to confront

Blaze Media Illustration

Democrats behave very differently. Even from a minority position, they are willing to shut down travel across the country for the explicit purpose of keeping illegal immigrants here. Members of the Democratic Party understand that their coalition depends on dissolving the old American nation and distributing its assets to clients in exchange for votes. That agenda is not particularly popular with the historic American population, but it is attractive to new arrivals who did not build the country and feel no inherited obligation toward it.

To remain electorally viable, Democrats need an ever-expanding pool of imported voters dependent on public wealth transfers to cancel out the votes of the native population. If they can replace enough of the country, they can govern it indefinitely. Progressives celebrate that possibility whenever they are not dismissing it as a conspiracy theory.

If one party is willing to grind national air travel to a halt to preserve its electoral advantage while the other will not pass basic legislation for fear of offending someone, the country has a big problem. Trump has pressed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act to strengthen election integrity and give Republicans a tactical advantage, yet the GOP continues to drag its feet. One party behaves as if politics actually matters. The other behaves as if politics is an embarrassing chore.

Democrats are willing to hold the nation hostage in airport security lines to secure victory. Republicans still act as though enduring a few nasty New York Times editorials is too high a price to pay to save the country. A movement that fears bad press more than national dispossession has surrendered the habits of self-government and forgotten what political power is for.