A Texas political shock Republicans can’t ignore



Until Saturday night, Texas Senate District 9 had been represented by a Republican for over 30 years. In 2022, Kelly Hancock won the seat by 20 points. Last November, Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris in the district by 17 points. So when Hancock stepped down to accept the appointment as controller, Republicans had little reason to think the seat would be in jeopardy.

But on Saturday, Democrat Taylor Rehmet trounced his Republican opponent by over 14 points — a 31-point swing since the 2024 election. The results have sent shock waves through the Texas Republican establishment.

For the last two decades, Republican leaders have governed the state to satisfy their base — pandering to the issues important to those voters and ignoring what most Texans wanted.

Some Republican pundits have discounted the results because it was a special election with a very low turnout. It is certainly true that the turnout in Saturday’s election was much lower than last November (15% versus 64%). But the results are consistent with polling over the last year, signaling that Texans have been turning increasingly negative on the Republican leadership of the state.

Over the last year, the University of Texas Polling Project has conducted seven polls asking voters whether they approved or disapproved of the job various state leaders were doing. Trump and all statewide Republican leaders began the year with positive approval ratings. By the end of the year, all were in negative territory. The average move downward was 24 points.

The crosstabs in the polls show that the groups who have turned most negative are independents, Latinos, and young people. Of course, there is considerable overlap between these because Latinos and young people eschew both parties at higher rates than other groups. Nonetheless, the moves within these groups in 2025 were breathtaking.

Even more startling is that Trump’s approval rating with Republicans dropped by 17 points (from 88% to 71%) — and this was before the debacle that has played out in Minnesota or his threat to invade Greenland. One political operative I spoke with, who closely followed the Tarrant County race, estimated that 15%-20% of Republicans voted for the Democrat candidate.

RELATED: Conservatives can’t barbecue their way through national collapse

Blaze Media Illustration

I think the poll’s questions on what issues Texas voters are most concerned about are telling. The issues garnering the most response were “political corruption/leadership” (18%), inflation (16%), and the economy (14%). Another 67% said they were very concerned about the cost of health care. Two-thirds of Texans believe that Trump’s tariffs are leading to higher prices. Texans also disapprove of state leaders’ handling of abortion (-17), regulation of marijuana/THC (-20), and public education (-23).

Let me tell you what was not on the list at all: the danger that Sharia law would take over the state.

For the last two decades, Republican leaders have governed the state to satisfy their base — pandering to the issues important to those voters and ignoring what most Texans wanted. That was largely because independents, even though they frequently disagreed with the positions state leaders were taking, found Democrat candidates even farther outside their comfort zone.

But the Tarrant County results and the polling trends over the last year suggest Republican leaders may have gone so far that independents now view Democrats as the lesser of the two evils.

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

It’s Time For Trump To Win The West’s Civil War

In history, it is usually difficult to find a specific date when a civilization died. In this case, the world has an exact date.

Starmer’s Pathetic China Debut Is A Lesson For All Western Leaders

Europe must learn that Xi Jinping only plays nice when faced with resolute strength, not bowing and scraping.

Trump ‘needs to be honest’: Tariffs, the court, and a housing market built on lies



The Supreme Court’s latest delay in its tariff case is fueling speculation that justices are trying to craft a behind-the-scenes compromise to avoid market shock — even if it means quietly curbing presidential trade authority.

But Daniel Horowitz explains that the tariff ruling may be less important than the remedy itself, especially as another crisis tightens its grip on Americans: a frozen, inflated housing market that government policy continues to prop up instead of letting it reset.

“I think what they’re trying to do is two things. ... One is, they want to do it with as little disruption as possible. So they’re trying to think how that remedy works. And number two, I think particularly maybe for Thomas and Alito, they’re trying to figure out how not to get involved in a political question,” Horowitz tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace on the “Steve Deace Show.”


“And that’s really where I am. As you well know, I don’t believe the court should ever be the arbiter of a fundamental political disagreement. If it’s a problem, Congress should oppose and deal with it,” he continues.

Trump has also announced his plan to go after residential homes being bought up by global corporations like BlackRock, which sounds great to everyday Americans, but Horowitz believes the solution is even simpler.

“It was announced, no more, you know, BlackRock owning of homes, residential, you know, mass production of, or acquisition, I should say, of residential homes, things of that nature,” Deace says.

“This is a primary thing that the young male demographic that voted our way in the last election cares about. It’s a primary driver of the current situation in the economy. Not to mention the fact it’s the greatest source for individual liquidation that exists right now to the average American,” he continues.

“We’re sitting on all this liquid that could go back into the economy if we can get the housing market moving. What should they be doing, do you think?” Deace asks.

“Very simple. Let the bubble pop. And I know it sounds very simplistic, but it’s something that they refuse to do, and everything that they’re proposing will further fuel it. Corporate ownership is a symptom of the problem, not the problem,” Horowitz responds.

“The president needs to be honest with people. The biggest problem with the president economically is he doesn’t understand the mutual exclusivity of things. So, he wants insurance to cover everything, but he wants premiums to go down, right? He wants the welfare state, but he doesn’t want inflation. He wants seniors to have a checking account in the form of fake housing on unrealized gains, but he wants young people to be able to afford them,” he continues.

“If you want to actually get the economy back to what we all said we did, which is a broad-based income economy rather than an asset bubble, you’ve got to pull the plugs on all the things doing this. And it’s the exact opposite of what the president is saying,” he adds.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The US-Japan alliance keeps China from bullying the world into higher prices



China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific no longer comes in bursts. It has become dangerous and systematic for America.

A recent long-range patrol by Chinese forces, conducted alongside Russia, prompted Japan to scramble fighter jets. It marked the latest in a string of incidents after months of heightened Chinese military activity around the Senkaku Islands.

If Washington and Tokyo keep strengthening this partnership, they can make the Indo-Pacific more difficult for Beijing to bully and far more stable for everyone who depends on it.

These shows of force don’t happen by accident. China uses them to normalize military pressure, probe red lines, and test the unity of U.S.-led alliances.

This latest episode also made one thing clear, at least: The Trump administration is watching closely.

In a visible show of solidarity with Tokyo, U.S. strategic bombers joined Japanese fighter aircraft for high-profile drills. Days earlier, Chinese military aircraft conducted takeoffs and landings inside Japan’s air defense identification zone and shadowed Japanese aircraft with their radar off near Okinawa. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s State Department expressed concern and reaffirmed its commitment to a “strong and more united” U.S.-Japan alliance.

Washington increasingly recognizes what Tokyo has understood for years: China’s behavior doesn’t just destabilize the region. It challenges the security order that has kept the Indo-Pacific from tipping into open conflict.

That reality puts a premium on reliable partnerships. No partnership matters more than the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Nowhere does that matter more than Taiwan. China’s large-scale military exercises, dubbed Justice Mission 2025, have pushed tensions in the Taiwan Strait to the highest levels in decades. Beijing aims to intimidate Taipei, warn off “external interference,” and alter the status quo through pressure rather than persuasion.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy arrived in that environment. While headlines still focus on Europe and the Middle East, the document makes the administration’s priorities clear: The Indo-Pacific remains central to U.S. strategy.

The NSS describes the Indo-Pacific as a critical economic hub that accounts for nearly half of global GDP. It commits the United States to a “free and open” Indo-Pacific by securing sea lanes and upholding international law.

RELATED: Inside China’s plan to beat the US at big tech forever

MF3d via iStock/Getty Images

That framework didn’t start in Washington. Japan first advanced the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific, and the region later adopted it through partnerships such as the Quad — the informal grouping of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.

Rather than announcing a new direction, the NSS reinforces a familiar one: Alliances form the core of deterring China. Unlike the Trump playbook in Ukraine, the administration treats alliances as the bedrock of Indo-Pacific security against Beijing’s expanding military reach.

Japan sits at the heart of that network.

China pressures Japan across its waters and airspace, making Tokyo a frontline state. Japan also serves as the United States’ indispensable partner in the region, with basing, interoperability, and shared strategy that no other ally can match at the same scale. Under new conservative leadership, Japan has begun acting with urgency.

Japan’s defense minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, has emphasized that urgency, warning that the country now faces its most severe security environment since World War II. Japan has deepened coordination with the U.S. and other like-minded partners while strengthening its military capabilities by accelerating security reforms and easing restrictions on defense equipment transfers.

Japan has also moved up its plan to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP — from 2027 to now. That headline matters less than where the money goes.

Tokyo has prioritized capabilities suited for a long-term, high-risk environment: unmanned aerial vehicles, expanded surveillance platforms, and submarines equipped with vertical-launch missile systems.

RELATED: Hypersonic missiles are the new arms race. Can America catch up?

Photo by GREG BAKER/AFP via Getty Images

Japan’s objective looks straightforward. It aims to become a more capable military partner that complements U.S. forces rather than relying on them by default. That shift aligns with President Trump’s demand that allies reduce dependence on American power by strengthening their own defense industries and readiness.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has also moved beyond drills and declarations toward defense-industrial cooperation. Expanded maintenance and repair coordination, along with eased export controls, have begun laying the groundwork for a durable security partnership.

This collaboration marks a shift from rhetoric to endurance. Aligning strategy with industrial capacity won’t eliminate risk. It will raise the cost of Chinese coercion and reduce the chances that Beijing miscalculates.

Koizumi has stressed that 80 years after World War II, the U.S.-Japan alliance still embodies reconciliation and remains the best instrument to deter China’s rising aggression.

If Washington and Tokyo keep strengthening this partnership — in capability, production, and resolve — they can make the Indo-Pacific more difficult for Beijing to bully and far more stable for everyone who depends on it.

The Latest Democratic Impeachment Dream Has To Be Heard To Be Believed

'That has to be the day one priority'

Glenn Beck: Trump’s tariffs and Greenland push have a hidden meaning — and it’s bigger than you realize



President Donald Trump has recently intensified his push to acquire Greenland for U.S. national security reasons, refusing to rule out military force or economic coercion, including tariffs on Denmark and European allies. The U.S. will get control of Greenland "one way or the other,” he told reporters on Air Force One on January 11.

Yesterday at a White House news conference, when asked how far he would go to obtain the ice-covered island, he cryptically replied, "You'll find out."

His determination to acquire Greenland has sparked significant backlash, including strong rejections from Denmark's and Greenland's leaders. Many call it a power-grab that will strain NATO ties and potentially ignite a war.

But Glenn Beck says we have to be smart about the way we think about this. “If you know anything about Donald Trump, he's been against war his whole life,” he says.

Trump’s latest moves, he argues, don’t indicate a desire for war; they indicate a desire to survive an inevitable one.

“What he's acting like is a man who believes the world is dying anyway. The old world is dying and that it's better to break it deliberately and ... grab the wreckage than inherit it by surprise and have to be fighting for the scraps,” he explains, reminding that history repeatedly shows that “only the disruptors ... have a chance of saving their nation.”

Glenn echoes Trump’s words that Denmark “cannot be responsible for the security of the northern hemisphere,” especially against the threat of Russia and China.

“The Danes and the EU are not going to be the ones that prevent war or protect the northern hemisphere. It must be the United States, so we must have control of Greenland,” he says, displaying a map of the country that highlights its strategic location in the Arctic.

Because it straddles the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-U.K.) between North America and Europe, Greenland is vital for monitoring Russian and Chinese submarines and missiles, providing early warning against attacks on the U.S., controlling access to emerging northern shipping routes, and securing the northern approaches to North America.

For these reasons, the United States has been expressing interest in controlling Greenland since the 1950s, says Glenn, but President Trump — in light of the swelling threat of China and Russia and the weakening of NATO — is actually trying to make it happen.

But this need for hemispheric control extends beyond Greenland.

Glenn suspects that Trump’s tariffs weren’t just economic tools but deliberate “stress tests” on allies and potential partners. By applying pressure equally, even on NATO members like Denmark or close neighbors like Canada, Trump forces the world to answer: Who stands with the West, and who is drifting toward adversaries like China?

Glenn plays recent clips of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney boasting about exporting massive LNG shipments to Asia — “By 2030, Canada will produce 50 million tons of LNG each year, all of which will be destined for Asian markets” — as an example of how tariffs have forced nations to show their true colors.

People might not like Trump’s tariffs or his push for Greenland, but they’re failing to see the big picture.

“The president sees war, and he's preparing for it,” says Glenn.

To hear more of Glenn’s commentary and predictions, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Tariff king’: Trump considers imposing economic pressures to secure Greenland



President Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment on Friday to the U.S. acquiring Greenland, hinting that he may impose economic pressure on reluctant nations to secure their backing.

Trump has argued that the acquisition of Greenland is imperative to America’s national security and stated that he would consider imposing steep tariffs on countries that do not support the U.S. taking control of the island.

'We’re talking to NATO.'

Trump participated in a roundtable on Friday morning, during which he said he had pressured President Emmanuel Macron of France to raise prescription drug prices. If Macron refuses to comply, Trump has threatened to place a 25% tariff on all French imports.

Trump, who declared himself the "tariff king," explained that he made the same threat to the “top 10 countries,” including Germany, to lower U.S. drug prices. He stated that the tariff hike would have been roughly seven times more than what the countries would pay by raising their drug prices. He noted that all of the countries he contacted agreed to his request, securing “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing.

“And I may do that for Greenland too,” Trump remarked. “I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that.”

RELATED: Rubio reportedly reveals Trump's plan to acquire Greenland to bolster US defense

Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images

In separate comments on Friday outside of the White House, Trump told reporters, “NATO has been dealing with us on Greenland. We need Greenland for national security very badly.”

“If we don’t have it, we have a big hole in national security, especially when it comes to what we’re doing in terms of the Golden Dome and all of the other things. We have a lot of investments in military,” he added.

“We’re talking to NATO.”

RELATED: JD Vance visits Greenland to make the case for annexation: 'We can't just bury our head in the sand'

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the administration has aspirations to purchase Greenland from Denmark.

“The United States is eager to build lasting commercial relationships that benefit Americans and the people of Greenland,” a State Department spokesperson previously told Blaze News. “Our common adversaries have been increasingly active in the Arctic. That is a concern that the United States, the Kingdom of Denmark, and NATO Allies share.”

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

How Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Delivering 120 ‘Marshall Plans’ To The U.S.

An estimated $20 trillion has been spent in a coordinated effort by the developed world to decarbonize the global economy.

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



One of the most consequential developments of 2025 has received far less scrutiny than it deserves: the steady surrender of executive authority to an unelected judiciary.

President Trump was elected to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, yet his administration increasingly behaves as if federal judges hold final authority over every major policy decision — including those squarely within the president’s constitutional and statutory powers.

Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.

By backing down whenever district courts issue sweeping injunctions, the administration is reinforcing a dangerous precedent: that no executive action is legitimate until the judiciary permits it. That assumption has no basis in the Constitution, but it is rapidly becoming the governing norm.

The problem became unmistakable when federal judges began granting standing to abstract plaintiffs challenging Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to protect ICE agents under attack. Many assumed such cases would collapse on appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court last week declined to lift an injunction blocking the Guard’s deployment in Illinois, signaling that the judiciary now claims authority to second-guess core commander-in-chief decisions.

Over the dissent of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, the court allowed the Seventh Circuit’s decision to stand. That ruling held that violent attacks on ICE agents in Chicago did not amount to a “danger of rebellion” sufficient to justify Guard deployment and did not “significantly impede” the execution of federal immigration law.

That conclusion alone should alarm anyone who still believes in separation of powers.

No individual plaintiff alleged personal injury by a Guardsman. No constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiff was the state of Illinois itself, objecting to a political determination made by the president under statutory authority granted by Congress. Courts are not empowered to adjudicate such abstract disputes over executive judgment.

Even if judges disagree with the president’s assessment of the threat environment, their opinion carries no greater constitutional weight than his. The commander in chief is charged with executing the laws and protecting federal personnel. Courts are not.

If judges can decide who has standing, define the scope of their own authority, and then determine the limits of executive power, constitutional separation of powers collapses entirely. What remains is not judicial review but judicial supremacy.

And that is precisely what we are witnessing.

Courts now routinely insert themselves into immigration enforcement, national security decisions, tariff policy, federal grants, personnel disputes, and even the content of government websites. The unelected, life-tenured branch increasingly functions as a super-legislature and shadow executive, vetoing or mandating policy at will.

RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it

Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images

What, then, remains for the people acting through elections?

If judges control immigration, spending, enforcement priorities, and foreign policy, why bother holding congressional or presidential elections at all? The Constitution’s framers never intended courts to serve as the ultimate policymakers. They were designed to be the weakest branch, confined to resolving concrete cases involving actual injuries.

Trump’s defenders often argue that patience and compliance will eventually produce favorable rulings. That belief is not only naïve — it is destructive.

For every narrow win Trump secures on appeal, the so-called institutionalist bloc on the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — uses it to justify adverse outcomes elsewhere. Worse, because lower courts enjoin nearly every significant action, the administration rarely reaches the Supreme Court on clean constitutional grounds. The damage is done long before review occurs.

Consider the clearest example of all: the power of the purse.

Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill explicitly defunding Planned Parenthood. The bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law. Under the Constitution, appropriations decisions belong exclusively to Congress.

Yet multiple federal judges have enjoined that provision, effectively ordering the executive branch to continue sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers in defiance of enacted law. Courts have not merely interpreted the statute; they have overridden it.

That raises an unavoidable question: Does the president have a duty to enforce the laws of Congress — or to obey judicial demands that contradict them?

Continuing to fund Planned Parenthood after Congress prohibited it is not neutrality. It is executive acquiescence to judicial nullification of legislative power.

The same pattern appears elsewhere.

Security clearances fall squarely within executive authority, yet the first Muslim federal judge recently attempted to block the president from denying clearance to a politically connected lawyer. Immigration, long recognized as a sovereign prerogative, has been transformed by courts into a maze of invented rights for noncitizens — including a supposed First Amendment right to remain in the country while promoting Hamas.

States fare no better. When West Virginia sought to ban artificial dyes from its food supply, an Obama-appointed federal judge intervened. When states enact laws complementing federal immigration enforcement, courts strike them down. But sanctuary laws that obstruct federal authority often receive judicial protection.

Heads, illegal aliens win. Tails, the people lose.

RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

What we are witnessing is adverse possession — squatter’s rights — of constitutional power. As Congress passes fewer laws and the executive hesitates to assert its authority, courts eagerly fill the vacuum. In 2025, Congress enacted fewer laws than in any year since at least 1989. Meanwhile, judges effectively “passed” nationwide policies affecting millions of Americans.

This did not happen overnight. Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.

It is not.

Trump cannot comply his way out of this crisis. No president can. A system in which courts claim final authority over every function of government is incompatible with republican self-rule.

The Constitution does not enforce itself. Separation of powers exists only if each branch is willing to defend its role.

Right now, the presidency is failing that test.