Washington, D.C., Feels Neither Safe Nor Clean Because It’s Not
When your daily life in a city is marked by a series of fearsome conversations, signs of squalor, and dangerous encounters, no rational person can call it safe.When your daily life in a city is marked by a series of fearsome conversations, signs of squalor, and dangerous encounters, no rational person can call it safe.The same people who took your shoes now want your face
The Trump administration recently ended the Transportation Security Administration’s outdated shoe-removal rule — a long-overdue rollback of post-9/11 security theater. But at the same time, it’s resisting a bipartisan push to rein in something far more intrusive: the agency’s unregulated use of facial recognition technology at airports.
The Traveler Privacy Protection Act — co-sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) — would set limits on the TSA’s biometric surveillance program at airports.
Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether.
Here’s what the bill does:
- Restores consent: Manual ID checks would become the default again. Passengers would have to opt in to facial recognition. The TSA would be required to notify travelers clearly that they can opt out.
- Limits retention: Most biometric data would have to be deleted within 24 hours.
- Restricts sharing: The TSA could no longer hand over biometric data to other federal agencies or private entities, except in very narrow circumstances.
The legislation follows a bipartisan letter sent in November 2023 to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, requesting a full audit of the TSA’s biometric collection, retention, deletion, and cybersecurity protocols. The letter was co-authored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
“TSA has not provided Congress with evidence that facial recognition technology is necessary to catch fraudulent documents, decrease wait times, or stop terrorists from boarding planes,” the senators wrote.
Despite that, the TSA appears to be quietly lobbying against the bill.
When asked directly whether the TSA was fighting the legislation, Kennedy said: “The short answer is yes; the long answer is hell yes.”
Behind-the-scenes pressure
The Senate Commerce Committee had planned to mark up the bill just before the August recess. But at the last minute, the legislation was pulled from the docket.
Officially, the travel industry raised concerns. But Politico reported that behind the scenes, TSA leadership — backed by political appointees — played a central role in derailing the bill. Republican staffers familiar with the process said the agency helped coordinate opposition that ultimately killed the markup.
It’s not hard to see why TSA brass would resist oversight.
Acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill previously served as TSA chief of staff during part of Trump’s first term. After leaving government, she joined BigBear.ai, a company specializing in facial recognition and identity verification powered by artificial intelligence. She eventually became the firm’s president.
Now she’s back — nominated to lead the TSA for the duration of Trump’s administration.
AI, contracts, and civil liberties
Under McNeill’s leadership, the TSA has pushed to expand its use of AI-powered surveillance tools. In 2023, officials openly discussed plans to eliminate boarding passes and photo IDs altogether in favor of biometric scans.
“Imagine embarking on a journey where the seamless orchestration of technology transforms traditional security checkpoints,” said Kristin Ruiz, the TSA’s deputy chief information officer, at an AI summit last year. “AI-powered advancements signify an evolution driven by data science, analytics, and intelligent automation.”
That vision may sound efficient. But it’s also a red flag for anyone who doesn’t want American airports to become nodes in a Chinese-style surveillance state.
The TSA isn’t alone. The Department of Homeland Security has been inking massive contracts with tech companies specializing in surveillance.
Palantir Technologies, co-founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel, has landed a $1 billion contract with the DHS. The company also has similar contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Pentagon, now worth a combined $10 billion.
RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal
Palantir’s market cap now exceeds $400 billion — bigger than Home Depot or Coca-Cola. Since its first DHS deal was announced in April, the company’s stock price has jumped 131%.
It doesn’t need a marketing team. The federal government is its customer.
Palantir has also benefited from the revolving door.
- Gregory Barbaccia, Palantir’s former head of intelligence, now serves as the chief information officer of the federal government.
- Clark Minor, a longtime Palantir employee, now holds the same role at HHS.
- Jacob Helberg, a senior adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, was appointed to lead the State Department’s economic and trade policy.
This is the ecosystem driving the TSA’s resistance to reform: private contractors, political insiders, and intelligence bureaucrats profiting from biometric surveillance — at your expense.
The stakes
Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether. And if this bill fails, there may be no legal limit to how far the agency can go.
Congress has a choice: Protect passengers or protect the Big Tech-Big Government industrial complex.
At the very least, senators should not confirm McNeill without hard, enforceable commitments: clear opt-outs, data deletion requirements, and strict limits on sharing and retention. The federal government should not be harvesting and storing your face just so a contractor can hit its quarterly earnings target.
You don’t build a free society by handing over the keys to Big Tech and hoping the companies don’t abuse them.
Anonymous, Gun-Themed Website Targeting Rep. Hageman Referred To The FEC
The website's cookies can see you, but you can’t communicate with it or know anything about the humans behind it.'You can come here': Secret Service officer allegedly compromises White House security, mocks Trump to woo stranger
President Donald Trump was struck by a would-be assassin's bullet this time last year in an attack that injured two others and claimed the life of Corey Comperatore. The U.S. Secret Service has since been under intense scrutiny.
Two reports released over the weekend highlighted the agency's deadly failures in Butler — saying nothing of the agency's other potential failures with regard to the alleged attempt on Trump's life 64 days later at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.
The first report, which was requested by U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and released by the Government Accountability Office on Saturday, highlighted numerous USSS procedural and planning errors that helped set the stage for the July 13 shooting.
'I'm liberal, voted that way since I was 18.'
The second report, released Sunday by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, described the events at the bloody Pennsylvania rally as a "cascade of preventable failures that nearly cost President Trump his life" and emphasized that the "consequences imposed for the failures so far do not reflect the severity of the situation."
Project Veritas provided a damning indication this week that the USSS has yet to learn its lesson and shape up.
According to the investigative journalism outfit, an officer violated Secret Service protocol, possibly compromised White House security, and disparaged the president, all in an apparent attempt to woo a stranger he met on a dating site who turned out to be an undercover reporter.
The Bold.pro profile for Marc Hendrickson Jr. indicates that he is a USSS uniformed division officer who "provides protection and access control for all White House events to include official state visits and state dinners, congressional events, bilateral meetings, bill signings, receptions, daily tours etc." and whose protectees include the president, the first lady, the vice president, and Cabinet members.
Hendrickson has supposedly been with the agency since July 2021.
Project Veritas alleges that Hendrickson, without knowing the identity of the female journalist, invited her on a dating app — which appears to be Bumble — to "come here" and see him at the White House; sent a photo from the White House, boasting that he works there "every day"; disclosed potentially sensitive operational details; and denigrated the president.
'Nothing is more important to the Secret Service than the safety and security of our protectees.'
Hendrickson allegedly texted, "If you want, I can show you where I am right now for work," then shared a picture taken on the White House South Lawn.
In another message, the agent confirmed that he was at the White House.
Hendrickson allegedly stated in another message thread, "I'm liberal, voted that way since I was 18."
When the female journalist later wrote, "I can't stand the felon in office," Hendrickson allegedly responded, "Yeah he's doing a lot of whacky [sic] s**t right now," adding, "It seems like everyday [sic] it's something new."
— (@)
"Hendrickson's reckless actions — inviting an unknown individual to the White House, sharing sensitive photos, and disclosing operational details — expose a severe lapse in judgment and a dangerous breach of security," said Project Veritas. "This behavior reveals how easily he could be compromised or manipulated by adversaries, potentially granting hostile actors critical access or intelligence that jeopardizes the safety of President Trump and the nation."
The USSS reportedly told Project Veritas that the matter is under review.
Blaze News has reached out to the White House, to the USSS, and to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.
"Nothing is more important to the Secret Service than the safety and security of our protectees," Secret Service Director Sean Curran said in a statement last week. "As director, I am committed to ensuring our agency is fully equipped, resourced, and aligned to carry out our important mission each and every day."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal
Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.
Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.
The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.
An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.
Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.
The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.
Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.
A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.
Federalism isn’t a suggestion
The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.
For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.
If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.
A federal case for caution
David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.
— (@)
Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.
But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.
America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.
Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.
States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.
AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.
State regulation is necessary
The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.
In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.
RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo
From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.
These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.
The real danger: Doing nothing
This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.
If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.
Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.
It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.
Every Church Needs A Security Plan Fortified By The Second Amendment
Until Jesus comes back, churches should anticipate the persistence of crime, tragedy, and death and arm themselves accordingly.After The Terrorist Attack In Boulder, Congress Must Reform Visitor Visas
Nearly half of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. initially entered legally with visitor visas and then overstayed their permitted time.The reckless left is turning ICE agents into cartel targets
Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) recently took aim at Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents for covering their faces during immigration raids, framing the practice as both a lack of transparency and an authoritarian overreach. Jeffries went so far as to vow to “unmask every single ICE agent,” declaring, “This is America, not the Soviet Union.”
This reckless rhetoric will lead to innocent people being harmed or killed if it continues.
By posting videos online or sharing personal details, activists provide cartels with a roadmap to retribution.
ICE agents cover their faces to protect both themselves and their families from violent retribution by human trafficking cartels, a threat exacerbated by the unprecedented lawlessness of the former Biden administration’s border policies.
The words of Jeffries, Goldman, and their activist allies not only endanger lives but also expose their inability to grasp the seriousness of the illegal immigration crisis. Such comments disqualify them as honest brokers on the subject.
Masks save lives
ICE agents operate in a high-stakes environment where their identities are a liability. Human trafficking cartels, particularly those tied to groups like MS-13 or Sinaloa, thrive on fear and retaliation. These organizations don’t just smuggle people across borders — they exploit, extort, and kill.
When ICE agents conduct raids to apprehend illegal aliens, many of whom are entangled with these cartels, they themselves become targets. Cartels have the resources and networks to track down agents’ personal information — addresses, family members, daily routines, and so on.
A single photo of an agent’s face, circulated online or sold to the wrong hands, can lead to harassment, assault, or worse. Border czar Tom Homan recently said that agents are being “doxxed all over the place,” with their pictures posted on telephone poles in major cities.
Masking is not a power play — it’s a necessity to protect agents and their families.
— (@)
Doxxing could be a death sentence
Activists who film these raids and attempt to expose agents’ identities are not champions of transparency — they’re overzealous enablers of violence. By posting videos online or sharing personal details, they provide cartels with a roadmap to retribution.
This is not speculation; it is happening. Agents have faced death threats, their children have been harassed, and their homes have been targeted.
The precautions agents take stem directly from the Biden administration’s catastrophic negligence on the southern border. Over the past four years, millions of illegal immigrants have crossed into the United States, overwhelming border facilities and local communities.
The previous administration’s policies — from stopping border wall construction to limiting deportations — created a vacuum that cartels have exploited. Human trafficking, drug smuggling, and violent crime all surged as a direct result of these policies.
Biden made raids necessary
ICE raids don’t create problems — they respond to them. Agents now face the task of cleaning up a border disaster the last administration let spiral out of control, and they’re doing it at great personal risk.
If Democrats like Jeffries and Goldman understood the threat cartels pose, they wouldn’t push policies that put federal agents in danger. If they grasped the scale of the crisis — millions crossing unchecked, with thousands of criminals among them — they wouldn’t waste time posturing about “transparency” while ignoring the lawlessness that forced ICE to act in the first place.
Their obsession with exposing agents reflects a dangerous unseriousness. It disqualifies them from offering any credible solution.
ICE agents are not faceless storm troopers; they are public servants enforcing laws that Congress itself passed. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, still in effect, mandates strict enforcement measures, including deportations. Jeffries and Goldman, as lawmakers, should be aware of this. Yet, their rhetoric aligns more with activist talking points than with the reality of law enforcement.
Strong leadership needed
To solve the illegal immigration crisis, we need leaders who acknowledge its severity and prioritize the safety of both American citizens and law enforcement. Jeffries and Goldman have shown they are not those leaders.
Honest brokers would address the root causes — lax policies, cartel exploitation, and unchecked migration — rather than scapegoating the agents tasked with upholding the law. Until they demonstrate a willingness to confront these realities, their voices in this debate are not only unhelpful but also part of the problem. Our ICE agents, their families, and our communities demand better.
'Insane': GOP condemns Gov. Hobbs for killing bill that would prevent Chinese communists from owning land near military bases
The Arizona Senate passed legislation in a 17-11 party-line vote last month that would prohibit the communist Chinese regime or one of the enterprises under its direct control from purchasing, owning, or acquiring an ownership interest of 30% or more of property in the state, including property of strategic significance around U.S. military sites.
Lawmakers stressed within the text of the bill that it was necessary to "halt or reverse the influence operation of the Chinese Communist Party that poses a risk to the national security of the United States"; "to protect the critical infrastructure of this state"; and to protect Arizona's "military, commercial and agricultural assets from foreign espionage and sabotage" in order to "place this state in a significantly stronger position to withstand national security threats."
'Governor Katie Hobbs continues to violate her oath of office.'
Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs evidently disagreed — and that disagreement has earned her more disgust from Arizona Republicans.
RELATED: Agroterrorism plot? Chinese nationals arrested for smuggling potential bioweapon into US: FBI
Hobbs vetoed the bill sponsored by Arizona Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp, claiming it was "ineffective at counter-espionage and does not directly protect our military assets."
The governor added that the bill "lacks clear implementation criteria and opens the door to arbitrary enforcement."
Shamp lashed out at Hobbs over her decision, noting that "with every politically motivated veto of public safety legislation put on her desk by Republicans, Governor Katie Hobbs continues to violate her oath of office she swore to uphold by endangering the lives and livelihoods of all Arizonans."
"SB 1109 was a commonsense security measure to ensure enemies of the United States would not have easy access to our military bases and critical infrastructure to carry out harm," Shamp continued.
"It is utterly insane that Arizona's top elected official would rather be an obstructionist against safeguarding our citizens from threats than to sign legislation giving our state a fighting chance at proactively preventing attacks," she added.
Beijing has provided America with plenty of cause in recent years to suspect ill will and continued sabotage.
China has, for instance, sent spy craft over the U.S. mainland; operated illegal police stations on American soil; threatened diplomats; dispatched agents to execute espionage and political destabilization missions; reportedly provided terrorist cartels with illicit fentanyl precursor chemicals and pill press equipment; admitted to orchestrating significant cyberattacks on American institutions and critical infrastructure; engaged in numerous military provocations; and watched with interest as party members gobble up American properties.
According to the Annual Threat Assessment report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in March, "China stands out as the actor most capable of threatening U.S. interests globally."
The America First Policy Institute noted last year that the communist Chinese regime's acquisition of American land is accelerating, and Arizona might be a prime target on account of the military installations it is home to, including Barry M. Goldwater Range, Davis-Monthan, and Luke Air Force bases.
'Governor Hobbs’ veto of SB 1109 hangs an "Open for the CCP" sign on Arizona’s front door.'
"Hobbs is a total disgrace," added Shamp.
A statement posted to the X account of U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) similarly suggested that Hobbs' "latest insane veto leaves Arizona’s critical infrastructure, including Luke Air Force Base, vulnerable to espionage and surveillance risks from nearby foreign-owned farmland." The statement suggested that state Republicans' goal could alternatively be realized at the federal level.
RELATED: Rubio to 'aggressively' revoke Chinese nationals' student visas to eviscerate CCP's spy invasion
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) introduced the No American Land for Communist China Act in February. The bill, which presently appears to be inert, would prohibit any agent of the Chinese regime and any business under its control from purchasing real estate located adjacent to covered federal lands.
Various other bills have been introduced in recent years that would prevent elements of the Chinese regime from acquiring land, in most cases farmland or land near military sites.
Karrin Taylor Robson, a Republican attorney who is running to unseat Hobbs in next year's gubernatorial election, vowed to prevent the Chinese Communist Party from getting "a single acre" if elected governor.
Michael Lucci, the founder and CEO of State Armor, a foreign policy outfit that helps states combat the influence of the CCP, said in a statement to Fox News, "Governor Hobbs’ veto of SB 1109 hangs an 'Open for the CCP' sign on Arizona’s front door, allowing Communist China to buy up American land near critical assets like Luke Air Force Base, Palo Verde nuclear power plant, and Taiwan Semiconductor’s growing fabrication footprint."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Japan considers support for Trump's Golden Dome project as tariffs weigh heavily on nation
Following two phone calls between U.S. President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Nikkei Asia has reported that Japan is “exploring support” for the United States’ proposed “Golden Dome” project in the coming years. This potential cooperation comes in light of the global tariffs imposed by President Trump as well as a mutual ongoing commitment to promote a U.S.-Japan “golden age,” according to a White House press briefing.
The White House briefing reported that Japan and the U.S. have been in talks since February in an effort to reaffirm “bilateral security and defense” commitments between the two countries. At the end of last month, Trump and Ishiba discussed their views on the tariffs, “economic security cooperation,” and “diplomatic and security challenges,” per a report from Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Some, including the original Nikkei report, have speculated that Japan may use its involvement in the project as a “bargaining chip” in economic negotiations. Prime Minister Ishiba has since noted in a press conference that Japan has “consistently advocated for an ‘investment rather than tariffs’” approach in cooperation.
The Golden Dome, modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, is set to cost an estimated $175 billion, with some long-term estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reaching as high as $831 billion.
Trump has tapped U.S. Space Force General Michael Guetlein to oversee this project, which he hopes to complete by the end of his term in 2029. The state-of-the-art Golden Dome will be a “network of satellites, sensors, and interceptors to prevent aerial attacks on the U.S. mainland,” Time magazine reports. Proponents have insisted that the system is intended only as a deterrent.
Critics have expressed concerns that this project may push adversaries and even aligned nations into what Carnegie Politika called a “new arms race” against the U.S. in the space and defense industries. The building of the Golden Dome system may be taken as a threat by nations like China, Russia, and North Korea. Japan’s involvement in the project may raise concerns in the region.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com