It's high time to unlock Americans’ phones



Can populism and optimism mix? These days, the contentious AI debate is fueling the false impression that the answer is no. But recent polling convincingly shows that there’s one important tech issue on which an overwhelming majority of Americans support an empowering, freedom-enhancing change: unlocking mobile phones.

In comparison to the titanic struggle over things like data centers, the simple act of requiring providers to let consumers take their cell phones with them — without penalties or fees — might, at first glance, seem like small ball. Take a moment to look at the numbers, however, and the truth is revealed.

In the shorter term, unlocking the nation’s phones unlocks potentially life-changing savings for most Americans. In the longer term, the move helps establish a crucial baseline for applying pro-freedom, pro-ownership device policy to the myriad next-gen devices — even more powerful than smartphones — soon to fill up our everyday lives.

The momentum for change isn’t confined to consumers crying out for relief.

Start with the polls. A startling nine in 10 consumers, regardless of partisan affiliation, support the right to take their phones with them when changing service producers. But the real stunner is why.

More than a mere preference (who wouldn’t default toward more choice?), consumers are highlighting a hidden pain point that hasn’t seemed to catch the eye of analysts without much to worry about at the kitchen table. Phone locking doesn’t just block customers — and today, who isn’t a smartphone customer? — from taking their phones with them. It blocks them from shopping freely for better, more affordable deals.

We’re not talking couch-change savings here. Switching plans can save thousands. In a household with just two phone lines, a savvy switch cashes out to as much as $1,200 per year, according to the Internet and Television Association.

And for most families, of course, two smartphones are table stakes. A Consumer Affairs report shows the typical household has an average of around 20 connected devices. Almost all children receive their own phones by age 15. Most Americans ages 18 to 29 live in a household with three or more phones. Consumer research from WhistleOut concludes a truer estimate of household cost savings from unlocking consumer phones is closer to $2,000 a year — and as high as $2,200.

Saving enough to save a life

Let’s pause to emphasize what that means in real-world terms. For average American households, $2,000 represents 2.5% of their annual budget — fully one-third of their monthly budget, roughly equal to their entire average housing cost per month. Meanwhile, fewer than half of U.S. households have the cash or savings to cover a $2,000 emergency expense, according to household economics and decision-making data from the Federal Reserve.

The savings unlocked by the simple regulatory act of unlocking smartphones aren’t chump change. They’re enough to change lives — or save them.

And it doesn’t stop there. Locked phones are a rip-off when it comes to resale value, dinging sellers 20% to 40% of their value compared to the same phone unlocked. That’s around $125 to $150 in lost value for the seller of a locked iPhone likely to sell today. If the seller can’t unlock the phone, he'll have to consider buying a new one earlier than desired, adding hundreds more to costs.

Calculating conservatively, the total cost phone locking imposed on American households pencils out to around $2,400 or higher — more than they pay monthly on average for housing and over twice their monthly outlay on transportation, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys.

RELATED: Social media scams are up 700%. Here’s how to stay safe.

Media Trading Ltd/Getty Images

Not a pretty picture. And little excuse. The good news is that the momentum for change isn’t confined to consumers crying out for relief. Led by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), key senators are throwing their political weight behind the idea and asking the FCC to unlock our phones.

Although phone lock reform has been held back in the past by valid fraud concerns, as Lummis and her co-signers write in a recent letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, they’re “confident … that the Commission will be able to appropriately balance those concerns by adopting a reasonable waiting period — e.g., 180 days – before a device must be unlocked. Such a period addresses concerns of fraud while still achieving the important objectives that unlocking delivers, including expanding consumer choice, preserving competition, and improving affordability.”

All in all, it’s a slam-dunk policy shift — the kind of low-hanging fruit that easily delivers outsized and long-overdue relief for millions.

Today our phones, tomorrow our bots?

But to bring us back to the bigger picture of transformative technological change in America, unlock reform is more than a one-and-done change. It’s a crucial marker laid down just in time to help set the tone for a freedom-forward, pro-ownership approach to the next-gen devices about to proliferate across American business and private life — drones, robots, the works. In all likelihood, these devices will fall under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, but, taken together, the principled logic behind mobile unlocking and the FTC’s work preventing smart-home device bricking and forced ecosystem lock-in shows a clear and powerful synergy. Together, the commissions can and should advance a strategic populist policy of ensuring that producers’ software restrictions don’t limit consumers’ physical ownership rights.

At this critical juncture, unlocking the phones is the next step in tech policymaking that preserves American rights while saving Americans money. What could be more American than that?

Why Britain’s Elections Portend Trouble For America

Britain is fracturing along ethnic lines, steadily marching toward civil war along with the entire western world — including the United States.

Trump Fundamentally Changed Congressional Republicans In Terms Of Ideology, New Study Shows

'movement not in rhetoric but in voting behavior'

Liberals celebrate election results for Trump-endorsed 'fighter' Viktor Orbán: 'Hungary has chosen Europe'



Liberals around Europe are raising their glasses in celebration after seeing the results of the election in Hungary on Sunday.

With nearly 99% of the votes counted, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party had secured only 55 of the 199 seats in the Hungarian parliament, bringing Orbán's 16-year stint as prime minister to an end despite an endorsement last week from President Donald Trump.

'Hungary has sent a very clear signal against right-wing populism.'

"He is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — VIKTOR ORBÁN WILL NEVER LET THE GREAT PEOPLE OF HUNGARY DOWN," Trump wrote Tuesday.

Tisza, the party led by Orbán's former underling Peter Magyar, managed to secure 138 seats. Our Homeland Movement, a conservative nationalist party, won six seats.

Tisza's supermajority — won in an election in which approximately 77.8% of eligible voters participated — will enable Magyar and his party to alter the country's constitution and possibly undo the Fidesz party's legacy.

Tisza's manifesto reportedly advocates for a more pro-EU, pro-NATO approach and commits to expediting Hungary's embrace of the euro as its official currency.

Liberal leaders in Europe were apparently ecstatic over the end of Orbán's rule and his Christian, nationalist, "migrant-free, pro-family" agenda — an agenda that delivered domestic results that prompted the European Union to deny Hungary billions of euros in funding.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whom a recent survey showed had the lowest approval rating among 24 democratically elected world leaders, characterized the result as a "heavy defeat" for "right-wing populism," reported Deutsche Welle.

RELATED: Trump lashes out at crumbling NATO alliance following 'frank' closed-door meeting

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

"Hungary has sent a very clear signal against right-wing populism across the whole world. In that respect, yesterday was ... a good day," said Merz. "This demonstrates that our democratic societies are evidently much more resilient to Russian propaganda and further external interference in such elections."

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, stated, "Hungary has chosen Europe. Europe has always chosen Hungary. A country reclaims its European path. The Union grows stronger."

French President Emmanuel Macron said that "France welcomes the victory of democratic participation, the Hungarian people's commitment to the values of the European Union, and Hungary's commitment to Europe."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who threatened Orbán on March 5, also celebrated Tisza's rise to power. "Ukraine has always strived for good-neighborly relations with every European country, and we are ready to advance our cooperation with Hungary. Europe and every European nation must strengthen; millions of Europeans yearn for cooperation and stability."

The Orbán government angered the European liberal establishment in part with its rejection of LGBT cultural imperialism, its refusal to implement the EU's radical migration policies, and its refusal to "fulfill Ukraine's demands."

Magyar said on Facebook that he will "work for a free, European, functional and humane Hungary in the next four years."

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

Mocking Jesus and the Virgin Mary? Scandal strikes again for Maine Democrat Senate candidate who may have had a Nazi tattoo



Graham Platner, a middle-aged oyster farmer and Marine veteran, is running as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate in Maine, hoping to beat Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in the June 9 primary and to ultimately unseat the Republican incumbent, Sen. Susan Collins, in the general election.

Platner — who says he's "running against the billionaire class that owns [Susan Collins] and all of Washington" — has not only survived but thrived in the face of numerous scandals of his own making.

Now it appears that critics have found yet another damning social media post from the candidate.

'The left will love him more.'

An apparent screenshot of a 2012 Reddit post now making the rounds on X shows the following commentary from user P-Hustle, Platner's old handle:

I've spent 8 years in the infantry, Marine Corps and Army, and I've been about as crudely atheist as one can be the entire time (zombie jesus jokes and Mary sucking at covering up being a skank, as examples). Promotion came like normal, and most of my fellow grunts had a similarly cynical attitude towards religion. Sure, there have been a few bible thumpers I've run into, but it was certainly never systemic.

The comment appears to be in response to the case of Jeremy Hall, an atheist who accused the military of becoming a Christian organization.

Blaze News reached out to Platner's campaign for confirmation and comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee said in response to Platner's alleged mockery of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, "Just when you think Graham Platner can't get any worse."

The Maine Republican Party said in response to the post attributed to Platner, "This SHOULD be disqualifying but Maine's leftist base has given Platner a pass on literally everything."

RELATED: Senate Republicans tried to cave on Trump's agenda

Sofia Aldinio/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Last year, numerous other inflammatory Reddit posts came to light, including posts in which Platner apparently identified as a communist, branded rural white Americans as racists, suggested service members worried about being raped should buy "Kevlar underwear," and smeared all police officers as "bastards."

Within days of Platner apologizing for his past posts and blaming them on a state of "disillusionment" following his return from Afghanistan, the Democratic candidate was outed for having an apparent "totenkopf" tattoo on his chest — a skull image popularized by Adolf Hitler's Schutzstaffel elite guard and adopted as the symbol of the SS-Totenkopfverbande, the branch that guarded the concentration camps.

Although Platner appears to have had the tattoo covered up, members of his campaign still jumped ship. Leftist lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.) continued, however, to support Platner's campaign.

Nazi tattoo and rape jokes notwithstanding, he even picked up a few endorsements. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for instance, endorsed Platner late last month, noting in a video statement, "Graham Platner has the grit to go against the grain and to fight for what is right."

"Nazi tattoo; blaming rape victims; voters are dumb and racist; fake oyster biz financed by an Epstein associate; says black people don't tip; former mercenary; etc etc etc," wrote the Maine GOP. "Now this. But the left will love him more."

Justin Davis, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, tweeted, "Maine by the numbers: 22% of voting Mainers are Catholic. Roughly 50% are Republican[.] Roughly 50% are Democrats[.] 100% of them will not take kindly to @grahamformaine calling the blessed Mother Mary a 'skank.'"

Prior to the resurfacing of his alleged anti-Christian remarks, polling indicated that Platner was poised to clean up in the Democratic primary.

An Emerson College poll conducted last week found that Platner led Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) by 27 percentage points, 55% to 28%. A recent poll conducted by Impact Research put the left-leaning populist even further ahead, leading Mills 66% to 28%.

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

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



To say the conservative movement has come off the rails would comically understate the damage. Wild accusations bounce from show to show. Members of Congress pick petty fights on social media. President Trump even waded into internet drama while another war rages in the Persian Gulf.

Plenty of commentators blame podcasts for this new disorder, and the new ecosystem gives them no shortage of bad behavior to cite. But that diagnosis misses the deeper cause. Establishment conservatives treated their audiences the same way the legacy press did: as a resource to be managed, manipulated, and occasionally milked. A movement that spent decades being lied to will not be stitched back together by scolding the people who finally stopped listening.

Conservative audiences will not return to reality through scolding. They will return through honesty.

After Democrats lost in 2024 to a resurgent Donald Trump, they went hunting for culprits. They blamed a new breed of podcasters who cracked the information monopoly progressives had grown used to enjoying. Talk radio always bothered the left, but it remained a kind of cultural ghetto for older conservatives. Podcasts like Joe Rogan’s reached a younger, largely male audience that rarely participated in politics at all. Democrats screamed about “disinformation,” warned about the danger of free speech, then launched research projects designed to replicate what they claimed to hate.

The right cheered the upheaval. Establishment conservatives, however, never fully grasped what the shift meant for them. The left’s control of mainstream media gave it a weapon of enormous magnitude, but Fox News and talk radio served a parallel purpose on the right: discipline the acceptable narrative, keep Republican voters inside a manageable story, and punish those who stepped too far outside it.

Institutional conservatives also abused that power. They sold narratives that served donors, careers, and comfortable assumptions. They treated their base as a captive audience. This behavior helped fuel the Trumpian revolution in the first place. Trump did not rise only as a battering ram against progressive media. He rose as a middle finger to a conservative establishment that had earned the people’s contempt.

That plan worked, then kept working in ways many people did not anticipate. The democratization of information that destroyed the progressive narrative machine has now turned its solvent on the conservative one. Populism behaves like universal acid. It rarely dissolves only the targets you prefer.

Conservative gatekeepers now display the same panicked reflexes the left showed: warnings about “dangerous rhetoric,” demands for deplatforming, and pleas for “responsible” voices to regain control. These instincts never belonged to one ideology. They belong to institutions that sense their monopoly slipping away.

RELATED: America First can’t survive an Iran quagmire

Blaze Media Illustration

Podcast distribution changes the game. Commentators once required the reach of major networks and the production value that came with large teams. Now anyone with a microphone, a ring light, and an internet connection can reach millions.

It turns out that younger audiences value relatability and long-form conversation more than professional polish. Even established names found the freedom of the podcast more attractive than a coveted cable slot.

The low barrier of entry produces obvious downsides. Wild speculation spreads faster than corrections. Personal feuds drive engagement more reliably than careful analysis. The audience rewards charisma and intensity, not always judgment. The result looks ridiculous at times. This week, the president inserted himself into a juvenile online dispute while U.S. forces struck Iran, a perfect example of how unserious the culture can become when attention becomes the currency and everyone fights for a share of it.

But all the moralizing in the world will not restore the old order. Mainstream conservatives cannot lecture podcast audiences about “responsible broadcasting” after years of manipulating their own viewers. The level of mistrust runs too deep.

Censorship will fail too. Shaming and platform policing did not rebuild credibility for Democrats. It will not rebuild Republicans’ credibility.

RELATED: The SAVE Act is the hill voters will die on

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

This is the part conservative leadership does not want to hear. The path out requires admitting that the problem did not begin with podcasts. The problem began with institutions that treated truth as a tool. Restoring coherence demands that conservative leaders stop trying to reassert narrative control and start rebuilding trust. That means fewer games, fewer insinuations, fewer anonymous smears, and more willingness to say, “We were wrong,” and explain why.

Conservative audiences will not return to reality through scolding. They will return through honesty. That will require a different posture from conservative leaders: less control, more candor; fewer moral lectures, more receipts; fewer slogans, more clarity about what can be done and what cannot. The movement will stumble until it learns that discipline beats drama.

So expect things to get worse before they get better. Conservative media spent years breaking trust. The bill has come due. And now the only way out is through.

Six questions Trump and conservatives can no longer dodge in ’26



For conservatives, January 2025 felt like an auspicious moment to be alive. Donald Trump sat atop the world with a bully pulpit larger than any media outlet and the power to drive virtually any narrative he chose. Yet instead of using that power, we spent the year arguing over the power the GOP supposedly lacked.

Almost no legislation was passed. Many of the most transformational policies Trump enacted through executive action now sit mired in the courts.

Where is our Mamdani?

Fast-forward to January 2026. The economy looks grim. Democrats are crushing Republicans in special elections. It feels like a different universe.

Republicans tend to operate on a familiar two-year cycle. After a victory, the first year involves explaining why campaign promises cannot be fulfilled. The second year, ending in November elections, turns into defensive posturing: As disappointed as voters may be, they must remember that Democrats represent instant political death.

The implication stays constant. Voters must dutifully back the GOP, ignore the fact that Republicans currently hold power, and politely bypass the primary process out of fear of weakening resistance to Democrats.

As we enter the new year, we have reached the “rally around the GOP to stop the Democrats” phase of the cycle once again.

But reality intrudes. No matter how faithfully the base rallies, Republicans will likely lose in November because of the economy. Absent a dramatic national reset, Democrats will retake the House, probably with a substantial majority.

That makes the present moment decisive. With trifecta control still intact for now, Republicans must use what power they have to improve daily life, enact changes harder to undo, and reinforce red-state America so the coming blue wave does not obliterate the remaining red firewall.

Whether Republicans break free from their familiar cycle of election-failure theater comes down to the answers to these six questions.

1. Will the red firewall hold?

Republicans will likely lose the House and surrender residual power in battleground states such as Georgia and Arizona. Independents have abandoned the GOP, and that trend will accelerate as economic conditions worsen.

The question is whether Republicans will give their voters something worth turning out for. Base turnout alone will not flip purple territory, but it could stop the bleeding deep into red states and keep races such as the Iowa and Ohio governorships out of reach.

This past year made clear that Republicans are losing races they never should have had to defend. A deeper economic downturn would push that line even farther.

2. How toxic do AI data centers become — and will Republicans notice?

By the end of 2025, opposition to data centers surged across ideological lines. Communities worry about water use, power strain, housing values, and secondary effects.

Democrats have begun embracing that resistance as Trump elevates data centers and tech interests as pillars of his economic agenda. Will this issue fracture Republicans’ coalition or even force a break with Trump?

3. What will Republicans do with health care?

Democrats engineered a trap that forces Republicans to address health care, the single largest driver of deficits, inflation, and household pain.

Obamacare made unsubsidized insurance unaffordable for most Americans. Democrats then timed the expiration of expanded subsidies to land on Trump’s watch, ensuring that voters blame him rather than the law’s architects.

Anything Trump does — or refuses to do — will be pinned on him. That reality argues for pushing a genuinely free-market repeal-and-replace that lowers costs. History suggests that outcome remains unlikely. I’m not holding my breath, anyway.

4. Will Trump finally ignore a lawless court?

Could a powerless judge issue a ruling so egregious that it would prompt Trump to defy it at long last?

I am not holding my breath on that one, either.

RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen

Photo by Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

5. Will Trump clear the decks on his promises dating back to 2015?

Democrats will likely control one or both chambers for the remainder of Trump’s term. Regardless of strategy, they probably win the midterms.

That means Trump has nothing to lose by executing fully on his original agenda now. Immigration moratoria, judicial reform, welfare devolution, bans on the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Antifa — these changes should be forced through every “must-pass” bill available.

An all-out approach carries policy upside and political clarity.

6. Will Trump stop making bad primary endorsements?

This year’s primaries matter far more than the general election. They will determine whether red states have leaders willing to defend their prerogatives when Democrats reclaim federal power.

If Trump continues endorsing lackluster governors and candidates such as Byron Donalds in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and Brad Little in Idaho, conservatives will have nowhere to retreat when figures like Zohran Mamdani dominate national politics.

RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026

Photo by Amir Hamja-Pool/Getty Images

Mamdani’s takeover of New York and his appointment of Ramzi Kassem — a 9/11 al-Qaeda defense lawyer — as chief counsel drew outrage on the right. At his inauguration, Mamdani declared, “We’ll replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Rather than merely lamenting how Marxists consolidate power in deep-blue America, conservatives should let that example ignite action where they actually govern. If the left can floor the gas pedal in its strongholds, why can’t we?

Where is our Mamdani?

This moment demands urgency. GOP power has become a “use it or lose it” proposition. Trump must finally become the right-wing disruptor his supporters were promised.

If he cannot — or will not — then Republicans deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

How data centers could spark the next populist revolt



Everyone keeps promising that artificial intelligence will deliver wonders beyond imagination — medical breakthroughs, massive productivity gains, boundless prosperity. Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. But one outcome is already clear: If data centers keep driving up Americans’ electricity bills, AI will quickly become a political liability.

Across the country, data center expansion has already helped push electricity prices up 13% over the past year, and voters are starting to push back.

Handled correctly, AI can strengthen America. Handled poorly — by letting data centers overwhelm the grid and drive families toward energy poverty — it will accelerate decline.

In recent months, plans for massive new data centers in Virginia, Maryland, Texas, and Arizona have stalled or collapsed under local backlash. Ordinary Americans have packed town halls and flooded city councils, demanding protection from corporate projects that devour land, drain water supplies, and strain already fragile power grids.

These communities are not rejecting technology. They are rejecting exploitation. As one local official in Chandler, Arizona, told a developer bluntly, “If you can’t show me what’s in it for Chandler, then we’re not having a conversation.”

The problem runs deeper than zoning fights or aesthetics. America’s monopoly utility model shields data centers from the true cost of the strain they impose on the grid. When a facility requires new substations, transmission lines, or transformers — or when its relentless demand drives up electricity prices — utilities spread those costs across every household and small business in the service area.

That arrangement socializes the costs of Big Tech’s growth while privatizing the gains. It also breeds populist anger.

A better approach sits within reach: neighborhood battery programs that put communities first.

Whole-home battery systems continue to gain traction. Rooftop solar panels, small generators, or off-peak grid power can recharge them. Batteries store electricity when it’s cheap and abundant, then release it when demand spikes or outages hit. They protect families from blackouts, lower monthly utility bills, and sometimes allow homeowners to sell power back to the grid.

One policy shift should become non-negotiable: Approval for new data centers should hinge on funding neighborhood battery programs in the communities they impact.

In practice, that requirement would push tech companies to help install home battery systems in nearby neighborhoods, delivering backup power, grid stability, and real relief on electric bills. These distributed batteries would form a flexible, local energy reserve — absorbing peak demand instead of worsening it.

RELATED: Your laptop is about to become a casualty of the AI grift

Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Most importantly, this model reverses the flow of benefits. Working families would no longer subsidize Big Tech’s expansion while receiving nothing in return. Communities would share directly in the upside.

Access to local land, water, and electricity should come with obligations. Companies that consume enormous public resources should invest in the people who live alongside them — not leave residents stranded when the grid buckles.

Politicians who ignore this gathering backlash risk sleepwalking into a revolt. The choice is straightforward: Build an energy system that serves citizens who keep the country running, or face their fury when they realize they have been sacrificed for someone else’s high-tech gold rush.

Handled correctly, AI can strengthen America. Handled poorly — by letting data centers overwhelm the grid and drive families toward energy poverty — it will accelerate decline.

We still have time to choose. Let’s choose wisely.

A payout scheme for senators deepens the gap between DC and the rest of us



During the final hours of the shutdown fight earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) slipped a toxic provision into the continuing resolution that reopened the government. The clause created a special pathway for select senators to sue the federal government, bypass its usual legal defenses, and claim large payouts if their records were subpoenaed during the Arctic Frost investigation.

The result? About eight senators could demand $500,000 for every “instance” of seized data. Those instances could stack, pushing potential payouts into the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. That is not an exaggeration. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has all but celebrated the prospect.

Graham said he wanted ‘tens of millions of dollars’ for seized records while victims of weaponization still face shattered lives.

No one else would qualify for compensation. Only senators. Anyone who spent years helping victims of political weaponization — often pro bono, while prestige law firms chased billable hours — can see the corruption in plain view. The message this provision sends on the central Trump-era promise of accountability could not be weaker: screw the people, pay the pols.

The surveillance of senators was wrong. It should never have happened. But senators did not face what ordinary Americans endured. Senators maintain large campaign accounts to hire top lawyers. They operate out of official offices, armed with constitutional protections such as the Speech and Debate Clause. They do not lose their homes, jobs, savings, or businesses. Thousands of Americans did. Many still face legal bills, ruined livelihoods, and ongoing cases. They deserve restitution — not the politicians who failed them.

Graham helped push this provision forward. As public criticism grew, he defended it. On Sean Hannity’s show the other day, he said: “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue.” Hannity asked how much. Graham replied: “Tens of millions of dollars.”

Democrats will replay that clip across every battleground in the country going into an uphill midterm battle in 2026.

Graham embodies the worst messenger for this fight. He helped fuel weaponization long before he claimed victimhood. He urged the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to pass the Steele dossier to the FBI. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did nothing to slow the Justice Department and FBI as they pursued political targets. He even supported many of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees who later embraced aggressive lawfare tactics. If anyone owed restitution to victims, Graham sits high on the list.

RELATED: Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Fortunately, enough Republicans recognize the political and moral disaster of funneling taxpayer funds to senators while real victims remain abandoned. The House advanced a measure today to repeal the provision. Led by Reps. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas), the House forced the Senate to address in public what it attempted to smuggle through in private.

Thune defended the measure in comments to Axios. He argued that only senators suffered statutory violations and said the provision was crafted to avoid covering House members. He did not explain why any House member who was illegally surveilled should receive no remedy.

The Senate leader also claimed the financial penalty would deter a future Justice Department from targeting lawmakers, citing the actions of special counsel Jack Smith. His emphasis on “future” misconduct glossed over a critical fact: The provision is retroactive and would cover past abuses.

That defense cannot survive daylight. Repeal requires 60 Senate votes, and not a single Democrat will fight to preserve a payout for Graham. Republicans should not try either. Efforts to strike the measure need to begin immediately. Senators — especially Thune — should commit to an up-or-down vote. If they want to send tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Graham, they should do it in public, with the country watching.

Washington already reeks of grift and self-dealing this year. If senators protect this provision, that smell will spread nationwide.

'You know what really p**ses people off?' Vance identifies what's at heart of 'populist resentment' in Appalachia



Vice President JD Vance joined Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Make America Healthy Again summit on Wednesday in discussing the Trump administration's revolution against the unworkable state of affairs and orthodoxies that have left so many Americans sick, censored, poor, and behind.

After the duo discussed President Donald Trump's penchant for taking "a bulldozer to Overton windows," Kennedy raised the matter of the dire health and social conditions in Appalachia, noting that Vance's incredible success serves as a "tragic reminder of the lost potential of almost everybody else in Appalachia."

'Their loved ones are dying much sooner than everybody else.'

"It's got the worst health data of any region in the country — the highest cardiac disease, the highest obesity, the highest diabetes, the highest stroke rates — but also addiction, alcoholism, and suicide," said Kennedy.

Although dubbed a "golden child of Appalachia" by the HHS secretary, Vance emphasized his firsthand familiarity with the bleak conditions experienced by so many in the region, noting that he was hard-pressed to identify a single important male family figure who lived past the age of 70.

"You want to talk about, like, 'populism'? And you want to talk about people being pissed off? Well, yeah, people are pissed off when they don't have good jobs; and people are pissed off when things disappear and move overseas; and people are pissed off when they feel like, you know, other countries are being prioritized over the United States of America," said Vance. "All of that is part of the populist resentment of the past 20 or 30 years in American politics."

RELATED: Vance identifies the perfect mascot for the Democrats — then outlines what America actually needs

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

"But you know what really pisses people off?" continued the vice president. "When they realize that their loved ones are dying much sooner than everybody else."

Life expectancy has long been lower and infant mortality higher in Appalachia than in the rest of the country.

Vance noted that while on the one hand, he feels guilty that so many of his fellow Appalachians have not enjoyed the opportunities for economic and familial stability that he has enjoyed, he also feels "a great sense of anger because we never should have gotten to the point that we are today, and the reason that we have is because of failed leadership — and it's failed leadership over generations."

The vice president stressed that one of the reasons he strongly supports Kennedy's health initiatives is because therein lies a major opportunity to do right by Appalachian residents who have been "left behind by this country's leadership."

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