One of the Biggest Fraud Rings You Never Heard of: Social Adult Daycares — Billions in NYC alone

As a taxpayer I am sickened at the abuse and contempt of hardworking Americans.

CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz joined investigative influencer Nick Shirley in New York City to confront operators of suspected Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes. Visiting elderly daycare centers and medical equipment companies, there are major red flags,  including three medical supply companies allegedly operating out of a single apartment with no inventory. Calling the suspected scams a massive theft of taxpayer dollars, Oz said the government has failed to stop fraudsters who he claimed are making millions each month through bogus billing operations.

In NYC alone billions in fraud, sanctioned by Democrat politicians who are voting themselves massive raises, have been discovered.

‘Major Red Flags’: Dr. Oz Joins MAGA Influencer Nick Shirley to Confront Alleged Fraudsters

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz joined MAGA influencer Nick Shirley to confront alleged fraudsters in New York City, with Oz stressing that the experience showed “major red flags” in a video posted on Friday.

Oz, a member of President Donald Trump’s administration, accompanied Shirley to a variety of different elderly daycare centers and medical equipment companies across the city, confronting folks who they say are committing both Medicare and Medicaid fraud — many of whom either did not speak English or seemed hesitant to answer questions about the services they provide.

“One of the largest fraud schemes in America is taking place in New York City as billions of dollars are being defrauded by organized Korean and Chinese mafias, along with other foreigners operating and stealing taxpayer dollars,” Shirley claimed.

“It’s almost certainly fraud,” Oz said of an apartment they visited where three durable medical companies allegedly operate from, purporting that the benefactors make “$2 to $8 million a month.”

“These guys grow like vermin,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator continued. “There are twice as many durable medical suppliers in South Florida as McDonald’s, because it’s easier to open one than a bank account,” alleging that there, “the Cuban government is involved.”

His and Shirley’s conversation continued:

OZ: To open three in one apartment makes no sense, especially when there’s no product there. All you’re doing is gaming the system, and the fact that we didn’t audit it, didn’t catch it, didn’t stop it, and they’re probably out there making money infuriates me. It should bother folks out there, ’cause it’s your tax dollars paying for this

SHIRLEY: So, it’s literally impossible for someone to be operating a durable medical company outside — inside of an apartment?

OZ: Inside of an apartment with no goods and two other durable medical equipment suppliers? That’s a major red flag — the kind you walk into battle with.

In one NYC neighborhood, dozens of adult daycares bill millions to taxpayers. Now the feds have questions.

By Laura Geller, Rachel Gold, Tom Hanson, CBS News, July 1, 2026:

Dozens of Medicaid-funded social adult daycare centers are packed into one New York City neighborhood, a CBS News data analysis has found.

The proliferation of the facilities has caught the attention of federal authorities, who confirmed they are investigating across New York whether the rapid spread of centers catering to seniors is indicative of fraud.

“[It] begs the question: How many social adult daycare centers do you need?” Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told CBS News.

Social daycare facilities offer meals, personal care, social activities and other assistance to seniors and people with disabilities. Those services are then billed to the state government and covered by federal and state tax dollars.

The costs have been rising — especially in New York state, a CBS News data analysis found. Medicaid paid adult daycare providers $3.35 billion nationwide in 2024, and 17% of that money went to the 375 facilities across New York state — more than any other state. New York spending on these adult daycares ballooned in recent years, with the bill to taxpayers nearly quadrupling from 2018 to 2024.

The facilities in Flushing bill Medicaid for the equivalent of more than 90% of local Medicaid-eligible seniors.

Those numbers have not gone unnoticed. Investigations are underway into some social adult daycare centers across New York with potential federal action against them anticipated, CBS News has learned.

The epicenter of the spike in spending is the bustling neighborhood of Flushing, Queens, the densest cluster of social adult daycare facilities in the country: 64 within a one-mile radius, according to a CBS News analysis of Medicaid data.

Dr Oz currently leads a sweeping federal crackdown on Medicare and Medicaid fraud in his role as the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here’s his latest:

And this:

Nick Shirley: Here is the full 53 minutes of my crew and I exposing New York fraud, we uncovered over $190,000,000 in fraud as these fraudsters use the elderly and needy to commit fraud through adult and personal home care scams in NYC. Your tax dollars are paying for elderly Koreans and Chinese to play ping pong and do tai chi, while the fraudsters give $ kickbacks to those who enroll. Like it and share this video, the fraud must STOP.

We ALL work way too hard and pay too much in taxes for fraudsters to steal from our pockets. These fraudsters have been able to defraud American taxpayers for years without any pushback from the public and politicians. Time is up.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Dems Fight Trump’s Push to Secure Mail-In Ballots

After a year-long redistricting blitz, Republicans have moved on to phase two of their election strategy: securing Americans’ ballots. After the Supreme Court delivered a surprising blow to the GOP in June, allowing mail-in votes to be counted almost a week after Election Day, there’s an understandable concern that the upcoming midterms will be ripe for fraud. While conservatives are making a desperate push for the SAVE America Act to address some of that panic, that’s not the only play in the Right’s book.

President Trump, frustrated by the tight margins in the House and Senate that are bogging down these bills, has gotten creative with the problems plaguing our elections — issuing several executive orders and rules that would close the loopholes Democrats are using to undermine legitimate voters. Of course, the courts have put the brakes on some of the White House’s ideas, including one very interesting plan to involve the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).

Piggybacking on a March 31 EO, the administration instructed the USPS to oversee and streamline the states’ mail-in ballots, putting it in charge of “standardiz[ing] envelope design for mailed ballots” and helping states use “a unique barcode to track ballots, thus significantly reducing the chain-of-custody problem” that makes it easier to cheat. “The rule would also create, for the first time, a standardized, nationwide auditing mechanism for mail-in voting,” Alabama’s attorney general’s office points out.

Part of Trump’s order also required state governments to provide their voter rolls to the federal government. “This provision will help determine adherence to federal law and facilitate law enforcement efforts,” USPS noted. “For example, the provided lists will evidence how many ballots have been mailed, and allow law enforcement officials to compare the total number of mailed ballots to the total number of received ballots to detect potential issues meriting further investigation.” If a blue state refused to comply, it wouldn’t have access to mail-in ballots.

A federal judge in Washington claimed that the order would give the federal government too much control over elections and put the order on ice. That infuriated several state attorneys general, who argue that mail-in voting has compromised election results and destroyed trust. Led by Alabama’s Steve Marshall, 13 of those AGs rallied behind the rule in a letter that emphasizes the USPS’s role in protecting ballots across the country.

“States are the leaders in regulating elections,” Marshall underscored, “and yet despite our best efforts to enact policies to deter and detect fraud, voter fraud continues to be a problem. We appreciate the federal government lending a helping hand to shore up our elections and help states provide Americans with confidence in our system,” he and his counterparts continued. “We support the Service’s proposed rule in full. It addresses real vulnerabilities inherent in mail-in voting, responds to legitimate and widespread public concerns about federal election integrity, and equips states with tools that strengthen their own oversight capabilities without displacing their authority. We urge the Service to promptly finalize the rule.”

Katherine Robertson, the chief counsel to AG Marshall, lamented that this is remotely controversial. “I think it’s very clear by the litigation against this rule so far that it has really become a red state, blue state issue,” she told “Washington Watch” guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice. “And you hate to think that election integrity is so polarizing and so partisan, but that is clearly the case. You saw a bevy of blue states immediately come in and sue. And you have to ask yourself, why is that? Why is it that the red states want election integrity, and the blue states don’t? And I think, you know, unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that.”

As FRC Action’s Matt Carpenter told The Washington Stand, “Mail-in ballots are the main area of concern for Americans worried about the integrity of our elections. During the COVID era, we saw their use increase dramatically as emergency rules were implemented to expand access to them. Since then,” he continued, “we have seen proposals, and in some states, new laws, to enhance voter identification for those using mail-in ballots, and now we have a solid proposal to enhance the chain of custody issues at the heart of fraud with mail-in ballots. This move by Attorney General Marshall would immediately give Americans who choose to use mail-in ballots confidence that their votes will not just make it into the final count, but also will not be offset by potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots.”

Incredibly, 24 blue and purple state AGs are going to the mat to stop the USPS — or any government agency — from safeguarding the midterm elections in court. Oregon’s Dan Rayfield (D) griped that “President Trump wants to turn letter carriers into election gatekeepers,” and according to him, “that’s not a role the Postal Service was built for.”

Robertson disagrees, explaining that this is one of the powers the president has. “You know, he’s waiting on Congress to act on the SAVE Act, but he’s got tools at his disposal as the leader of our executive branch of government. And so, this particular rule is designed to utilize the authority of the United States Postal Service to strengthen the integrity of that part of voting. Obviously,” she acknowledged, “lots of ballots are cast by mail, absentee ballots, and otherwise. And so, what he’s proposed to do is to keep a national list, a national voter registry, that has to be checked before a ballot can be mailed out. And then he has proposed a barcode system that would help track ballots to ensure that they’re getting from point A to point B in a way that maintains ballot security. The states’ reaction to that — or at least the 13 states that joined our letter, is to say, ‘Thank you for being willing to do the part … that we cannot secure on our own.’”

In the meantime, multiple lawsuits over the idea are already in process in the most radically leftist states. “So there’s a long road ahead,” Robertson concedes. “[And] what’s interesting about this rule is that it is still in the comment period. This rule has not even been finalized yet. And yet, they’ve rushed in to prejudge.”

Regardless, she and others persist. “I think the goal would be to get this rule implemented and implemented quickly. But this is a fight not just for the next election. It’s a fight for future elections. … So we’re here for the long run,” Robertson vowed.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Platner Drops Out of Maine Senate Race following Sexual Assault Allegations

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Continues Its Election Integrity Offensive

The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is going on the offensive on election integrity, deploying election monitors to 12 jurisdictions as the 2026 midterms fast approach.

The push mirrors work already underway at the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has built out its own election integrity division, pressuring states to clean up voter rolls and tighten mail-in voting rules. The DOJ and RNC don’t coordinate directly, but the two are pursuing similar priorities.

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, told the Daily Caller in an interview how her division plans to secure the 2026 midterms and beyond.

“It is our duty here at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and I think all of my colleagues here at DOJ and Senate-confirmed positions would agree, that we’re here to represent and protect all Americans, and do so on a nonpartisan basis, and that’s really how we focused our election work,” Dhillon said.

Since the start of the administration, the division has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., over their failure to clean up voter rolls. In these cases, Dhillon told the Caller, they’ve found hundreds of thousands, of dead people and noncitizens still registered to vote.

Just this week, the DOJ notified 12 jurisdictions that it will deploy election monitors to their polling locations for their upcoming primaries, the Caller learned.

The jurisdictions include: Maricopa County, Pima County, and Apache County in Arizona; the City of New Bedford and City of Boston in Massachusetts; the City of Lansing, City of East Lansing and the City of Detroit in Michigan; Hennepin County and Ramsey in Minnesota; the City of Manchester and the City of Nashua in New Hampshire; and Fairfax County and Prince William County in Virginia.

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a DOJ spokesperson told the Caller.

Some states have cooperated in cleaning up their voter rolls, Dhillon said, though there’s lingering whiplash from the Biden administration, which tried to prevent states from implementing even the most basic election integrity measures.

“States are not doing their job to remove people from the voter rolls, and I don’t blame the states — in part because sometimes they’ve tried to do it. Like Georgia passed a law after the 2020 election that improved their list maintenance, and they immediately got sued by the Department of Justice for taking people off the voter rolls. So it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” she told the Caller.

The battle for election integrity recently hit a snag after the Supreme Court ruled in Watson v. RNC that states can count non-military mail-in ballots received days, and even weeks, after the polls close.

Fourteen states currently allow non-military mail-in ballots received after Election Day to count, as long as they were postmarked in time. The deadlines vary widely: Texas allows one extra day, while Washington allows up to three weeks.

“I think people who care about this issue must go to Congress,” she told the Caller. “I’m not here to advocate for any kind of legislation — of course, that would be beyond my scope as a person here at DOJ — but I think that’s where the court is really pointing people: to close this loophole about what is Election Day, Congress can fix that. So they should, in my opinion.”

The Civil Rights Division’s election work extends beyond voter rolls, as well, including redistricting cases and efforts to ensure Americans overseas can vote.

“We’ve been weighing in where we think redistricting is unconstitutionally race-based. We are in litigation in California, for example, in their Prop 50 litigation, which was explicitly drawn on race-based lines. So we’re challenging that as an intervenor, and we’re extremely active on that front,” Dhillon told the Caller.

But the division doesn’t just aim to enforce laws, though the priority, Dhillon told the Caller, her team is helping states apply those laws, providing guidance and providing our expertise.

“Here we have decades of expertise in the Civil Rights Division, and I view it as a really sacred trust. To get this right, so really proud of the work we’re doing on this front, and proud of the lawyers who come from all over the country to join this effort, and it is very important to the Department of Justice to get it right, and we’ve dedicated resources appropriately,” she said.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Trump To Crack Down On Mail-In Voting With New Executive Order

Inside The RNC’s Push To Stop Virginia Redistricting — And Why It Still Fell Short

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

America’s Founders Show Us How to Defeat Socialism

Sacred Honor: The Declaration That Defines a Nation

Can America survive if the next generation meant to preserve it believes our best days are behind us? As the Daily Signal has worked on a special project for America’s 250th birthday, I’ve been fixating on this question and struggling to answer it.

But we might soon know the answer.

A recent study from Pew Research found that just 4 in 10 Americans ages 18 to 29 believe America’s best years are ahead of it.

I’ve always wondered what Pew or Gallup or other polls would have found if they existed in America’s founding era. What would the colonists have said on July 4, 1776, if asked if their best days were still ahead?

It’s very possible poll results in 1776 would look very similar to 2026 if the Founding Fathers’ letters serve as any indication. “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?” Benjamin Rush wrote in a July 1811 letter to John Adams.

Rush was just 30 years old when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, the document’s principal author, was 33. Several signers of the Declaration were younger than both.

With scant cause for optimism beyond hope in God’s providence, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in support of the Declaration and to one another. They picked up that quill and signed their own death warrants as the world’s greatest superpower prepared to invade.

Two hundred and fifty years later, America faces different yet very serious challenges. Our prosperity, liberties, and way of life are threatened from within and without.

We’re at an inflection point, but we don’t yet know if it is a peak or a valley. Our choices are social revival or socialist revolution. America’s Founding Fathers are not the only ones who prove the young are capable of immense political change. When they authored “The Communist Manifesto,” Karl Marx was 29 and Friedrich Engels was 27. Fidel Castro was 30 and Che Guevara was 27 when they led the Communist revolution in Cuba.

My generation must choose the way of the statesman or the socialist. The way of the socialist is easy. It unleashes the passions, encourages violence, inflates the ego, and relentlessly pursues power.

The way of the statesman is hard. It places prudence over passion, politics over violence, sacrifice over selfishness, and sublimates its power to God.

Before we can act as statesmen, we must first learn how to think like them. The Daily Signal is out with a new documentary that encourages viewers to think, and inspires them to act, like America’s Founding Fathers.

“Sacred Honor: The Declaration That Defines a Nation” takes its audience inside one of the greatest political dramas in history that culminates in America’s Declaration of Independence. America’s independence was not inevitable. It is born out of a fierce contest of ideas, convictions, and interests between men whose actions would give rise to the greatest civilization the world has ever seen.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, Victor Davis Hanson, Heritage Foundation President Dr. Kevin Roberts, and many others help the Daily Signal tell this story of statesmanship.

For 250 years, the Declaration of Independence has given Americans a cause worth fighting for. Every generation, in its own time, has been called to make the Founders’ pledge in support of our Declaration of Independence.

Now it’s our turn. If we too pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to America, its best days may still yet be ahead.

AUTHOR

Bradley Devlin

Politics Editor. Follow on X bradleydevlin

RELATED VIDEO: Zohran Mamdani bans all from attending an America 250 ball drop in the heart of NYC

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Russian Gas Stations are Out of Gas

Gas lines. In Russia. And they stretch on for miles.

Even Czar Vlad had to admit this week there was a slight “penury” in fuel, “maybe 5 percent.” I guess some people did some thing to Russia’s refineries.

The gigantic gas station with nukes that is today’s Russia is running out of gas. It’s quite remarkable to see. Russia is now importing gasoline from Kazakhstan.

It also reminds us that war is not just fought with kinetic weapons, although they sure do make a difference when they work. It is also fought on the economic front. Just ask Donald Trump. (More on that later).

There are increasing signs that Russia’s war in Ukraine is heading toward disaster.

Sure, there was the soldier’s video who demanded an audience with Putin to explain the war to him from a soldier’s perspective, or else the army would turn on him. That video got twenty million views, and Putin responded characteristically: he had the guy arrested.

Until the next one appears.

The June casualty rate among Russian soldiers reportedly rose in June to 40,000, well above the 25,000 troops Putin can raise monthly through ordinary conscription. That is simply astonishing. And for all those losses, the Russians hardly advanced on the ground.

And then, there are the rumors. I hear them all them time on French television, which is known for preferring rumor to news. Putin has fled to a bunker, maybe the one north of Moscow, where Zelensky claims he has moved critical air defense assets. True? I doubt it. But who knows?

Another: that Putin’s 93 meter yacht, the Graceful, has been seen under heavy Russian naval escort in the seas off of Denmark. Why? To protect it from getting hit at port by a Ukrainian drone.

And then, there are the facts. The Ukrainians continue to pound Russian oil refineries and storage depots, even within visual range of the Kremlin, and this has brought the war home to ordinary Russians who might otherwise not care.

Another: Zelensky this week warned Belarus president Lukashenko not to throw his military behind Putin in the Ukraine war.  Calling him a “captive ally” of Russia, he threatened him with a drone barrage if he didn’t immediately cut off support for the Russian military.

What did Lukashenko do? He took a quick trip to Beijing, to kiss the ring of President Xi (Yes, Mr Lukashenko, you really are the president of a sovereign nation, not a Putin vassal).

All is not well for Czar Vlad at home or abroad. All of his former allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the replacement of the Warsaw Pact, told him this week he was on his own in Ukraine. (It’s not just effete NATO Euros who are ingrates, Vlad).

The word is, Putin is now looking for an offramp thanks to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who indicated this week that they can handle two negotiations at one time, especially when one of them, with the Iranians, is not going so well.

Speaking of those effete Euros, Trump reminded them in a Truth social post on Thursday just how ungrateful they really are. “The United States spends more money on NATO than any other country, by far, to protect them, without getting any benefit from so doing.” In fact, the U.S. spends more than 10X the amount of the next biggest NATO spender, the UK, $999 billion to $90.5 billion.

The President is just warming up for the NATO summit in Turkey next week and wants the 32 member countries to remember just how furious he still is over their failure to provide any assistance whatsoever to the US during the Iran war. Italy, Germany, France, and initially Britain, wouldn’t even allow us to overfly their airspace to bring equipment to theater!

Today in Iran began the week-long ceremonies to bury the late and unlamented Ali Khamenei. After two days in Tehran, the show moves to Qom, traditional seat of Iran’s clergy, and for a two-day wanderlust to Najaf and Karbala in Iraq. Most people don’t realize that Iranian shiite clergy venerate those two Iraqi cities as much as they do Qom and Mashad. And many of Iran’s current crop of leaders were actually born in Iraq.

The one person who won’t be attending: Mojtaba, the Gayatollah who, we are told, replaced Daddy. How’s that for filial piety?

That of course has fed the rumor mill in Tehran that he is, in fact, a former non-ayatollah (aka, a naya-tollah”) who was killed during the same February 28 air strikes that took out Dad.

And all those written proclamations? Written in an underground room either by Qalbaf or Pezeshkian. It’s not me saying this, but hard-line members of the Iranian parliament who believe that Qalibaf and Pezeshkian have conducted a quiet coup, replacing the clergy with a newly-empowered Supreme Council on National Security they control.

I discuss this, as well as Trump’s increasingly frank statements that the Iran MoU was all about stabilizing oil markets and rebuilding our military stockpiles, on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend.

As always, you can listen live on Saturday, July 4, at 1 PM, on 550 AM or 104.9 FM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area, or by using the Way Radio application.

Happy 250th, America! May we prove wrong all the nay-sayers and lefties who predict our imminent demise.

PS: and in case you missed my brief “wrestling with a squid” segment on Newsmax last week, you can watch it here: https://x.com/KenTimmerman/status/2070178197690339804?s=20

©2026 . All rights reserved.


Website: kentimmerman.com

Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue, can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here. 

Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.

No Path, No Votes: Inside the GOP Revolt Threatening Trump’s SAVE America Act

Election integrity has been a priority for President Donald Trump for years. In his second administration, that priority took legislative form in the SAVE America Act, which would require Americans to show ID to vote, along with a host of other safeguards.

But for months, the bill has stalled in the Senate, even as the president rages about it on Truth Social and to reporters in the Oval Office. Trump traveled to Capitol Hill last Thursday for a tense lunch with Senate Republicans over the legislation. It was a meeting that, according to one source, only set things back further. Around the same time, Trump shelved plans to sign a housing bill, a move some sources see as tied to his frustration with the Senate.

Now, the SAVE America Act appears to be in more limbo than ever.

Sources familiar with the situation tell the Caller that the legislation will likely never have the votes to move forward. Still, one White House official told the Caller that the administration is exploring every possible path to get it done, because for this president, it remains a priority he is determined to see through.

“…our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY,” Trump said on Truth Social of those keeping the legislation from moving forward. “There can be no more excuses!”

Multiple sources told the Caller that, as the legislation currently stands, it doesn’t have the votes, and that the senators Trump named are unlikely to come on board. Killing the filibuster, which the president has also floated as a way to force the bill through, runs into the same wall, those sources said.

The path forward doesn’t run through the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, either. If Trump vetoes that legislation, one source said, Congress has the votes to override him. But a source familiar with the president’s thinking said a veto won’t be necessary; Trump isn’t expected to reject the bill.

“It’s a yawn,” Trump said on Monday of the housing legislation. “To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

Speaker Mike Johnson has floated putting the legislation into a reconciliation bill. The House voted down a procedural measure Tuesday that would have allowed debate on tying the bill to the National Defense Authorization Act. It is a legislation Congress is expected to take up alongside a reauthorization of FISA Section 702 and annual appropriations bills.

That FISA fight has become its own flashpoint. When Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, resigned to care for her husband amid his cancer diagnosis, the president temporarily installed FHFA Director Bill Pulte atop the agency.

The move that set off alarms in the Senate, with Democrats threatening to block a FISA renewal over Pulte’s appointment. Trump later nominated Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the ODNI post, but killed a path to a quick confirmation hearing, leaving Pulte in place longer than expected.

One source familiar with Senate dynamics said the ODNI standoff and the back-and-forth over Clayton are being interpreted on the Hill as Trump’s way of making senators pay for failing to pass the SAVE America Act. A White House official pushed back on that characterization.

Even as his team searches for a way forward, the president himself seems unsure the bill will ever pass. One White House official said Trump’s passion for the issue stems from the campaign trail, where he’s heard from Americans across the country who want to see it become law.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has absorbed much of the blame for the bill’s collapse. Trump himself told the Caller he was “disappointed” in Thune for failing to either kill the filibuster or pass the legislation.

But a source familiar with the president’s thinking said that frustration isn’t really about Thune. Trump likes him and knows his members do too. The president’s irritation, the source said, is with the individual senators who won’t get on board.

“The SAVE America Act has always been a top priority for President Trump, and it remains one. This is commonsense legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans that will secure our elections for generations to come,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, told the Caller.

“The President knows how critical this issue is for the American people, and he will not stop fighting until it is passed,” she added.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Arrests Illegal Alien For Voting In Federal Election

Federal authorities arrested and charged an illegal alien in New Jersey for voting in a federal election, the Daily Caller has learned.

Marian Charitun, a 62-year-old from Slovakia, was charged with illegally voting in a federal election as well as making false statements while applying for U.S. citizenship, according to information shared with the Caller. Charitun allegedly registered to vote in New Jersey and falsely stated that he was a U.S. citizen when doing so. He then went on to vote in the 2022 midterm elections, according to the information provided to the Caller. 

Charitun also applied for U.S. citizenship and allegedly claimed he never voted in a federal election, the Caller learned. Charitun never obtained citizenship as his voting history was discovered during the application process and he was denied, an official told the Caller.

If convicted, Charitun could face a maximum of one year in prison. The count of voting by an alien in a federal election carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison. The count of unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

This case was brought under the United States Attorney’s Office’s Election Integrity Task Force. 

In May, four green card holders living in New Jersey were separately charged with illegally voting in federal elections and falsely claiming they never did such a thing while applying for U.S. citizenship, officials said.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to vote in federal elections, has stalled in Congress with no clear path forward.

While some studies have found that illegal aliens voting in elections is rare, others have shown that it can still impact the results of elections.

Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News on Sunday that House Republicans could put the SAVE America Act into a reconciliation bill.

“This time we’re going to try to put it on a reconciliation bill, and the reason that’s so important, Maria [Bartiromo], as you know, is it prevents the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate,” Johnson said. “The Democrats want no part of this, and remember, this is very basic stuff.”

“We’re just going to make sure you have to have proof of citizenship to register to vote and then show an ID when you turn out at the ballot box,” he added. “These are 90-10 public opinion issues, and more than 70 percent of Democrats want to do it, but not the Democrats in the House and Senate, and so we’ve got to go around them.”

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hill GOP Erupts Over Birthright Citizenship Decision

Congressional conservatives are slamming the Supreme Court of the United States after it ruled to strike down a request from the president to redefine birthright citizenship.

The 6-3 decision comes after President Donald Trump’s administration argued that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applied to descendants of slaves in the 1800s, and not to the chain migration the United States has been subject to in recent decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurs in part in the judgment and dissents in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissent.

“Neither the Founding Fathers, nor the authors of the 14th Amendment, nor the millions of Americans who fought and died for their country through the ages intended to establish a nation whose citizenship could so easily be purchased, whether through birth tourism of China’s communist party members or an invasion of millions enabled by faithless presidents,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told the Daily Signal.

The clause in the 14th Amendment attracted controversy after U.S. births from noncitizens, especially illegal aliens, increased tremendously in recent years. The U.S. Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that in 2023 alone, between 225,000 and 250,000 births stemmed directly from illegal immigration.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, expanded on Lee’s remarks and told the Daily Signal that the “Supreme Court failed the American people.”

“The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way stands for the proposition of creating a dangerous cottage industry of traveling to our soil to manufacture United States citizenship,” Roy continued. “The Supreme Court today should have said so explicitly and ended this damaging exploitation of our laws.”

Roy has now called on Congress to “immediately do at least two things it should have done long ago,” which include “defin[ing] the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ very specifically to make clear that citizenship is tied to the citizenship of the parent, not the soil,” and “completely restrict[ing] funding from [the Department of Homeland Security] or any other agency or state that provides documentation and status to anyone not subject to the ‘jurisdiction thereof.’”

“In other words, Congress must act immediately and must not hide behind the fiction that it must amend the Constitution to fix this abuse of our laws,” Roy continued. “To do otherwise would be an abject failure of the United States Congress.”

In a statement to the Daily Signal, Rep. Keith Self added that the ruling comes as a “catastrophic defeat” to “every American citizen, our national sovereignty, and the very future of our Republic.”

Self added that “American citizenship is a sacred privilege—not a participation trophy handed out to those who violate our laws.”

“The 14th Amendment was never meant to reward illegal aliens with the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship for breaking into our country,” he continued.

The members’ remarks reflect those of the president.

Prior to the decision, President Donald Trump advocated against birthright citizenship, writing on Truth Social that “we are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., agrees with the president’s remarks, and wrote on X that the decision comes as a call to action for conservative members of Congress to pass legislation that’ll align with their views on the 14th Amendment, while preventing illegal immigration from exploiting the American immigration system.

“Congress needs to respond,” Scott wrote. “We need to make sure illegal aliens don’t come into our country and EXPLOIT our immigration system.”

“That means closing EVERY. SINGLE. LOOPHOLE,” Scott continued. “I have a bill, the SAFE KIDS Act, to combat the exploitation of U.S. surrogacy laws for birthright citizenship.”

“We also need to codify President Trump’s border actions so a future Democrat administration can’t undo them,” Scott added, calling on his colleagues to vote “on these EVERY WEEK until we provide the American people with an answer for this question.”

This story will be updated with further congressional reaction.

AUTHOR

Pedro Rodriguez 

Pedro Boccalato Rodriguez-Aparicio is a journalism fellow at the Daily Signal. Follow on X pedrobrodrigue7.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Reacts to Birthright Citizenship Ruling

Birthright Tourism Bills Surge After SCOTUS Ruling

‘MEDIEVAL’: Justices Thomas, Alito Argue ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Ruling Reverses the Declaration of Independence on Its 250th Anniversary

Clarence Thomas Goes Scorches Earth On Birthright Decision, Says It ‘Devalues American Citizenship’

RELATED VIDEO: BREAKING: Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Fiasco, Fuel Shortage Riots, SAVE America Act Fight

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The SAVE America Act is More Important than Ever Before!

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act is a proposed federal bill that would mandate proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Supporters argue this is a necessary step to secure elections, while critics raise concerns about the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Arguments around the legislation often center on the following core areas:

Key Provisions

Proof of Citizenship: Replaces the current system of self-attestation with a requirement to provide documentation, such as a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or adoption papers, when registering to vote.

Photo ID: Requires voters to present a valid photo identification at polling places.

Voter Rolls: Directs states to remove non-citizens from their voter registration lists.

Arguments for the Act

Election Integrity: Proponents argue that tying voter eligibility to strict proof of citizenship prevents non-citizens from participating in federal elections.

Public Confidence: Supporters believe these requirements build widespread trust in the accuracy and fairness of election outcomes.

Common Sense: Backers maintain that requiring a photo ID and proof of citizenship is a common-sense measure used by many other democracies worldwide.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee laid out how former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s battle to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has important implications for the adoption of the SAVE America Act during an interview with the Daily Caller on Monday.

Lee, a leading advocate and sponsor of the SAVE America Act — landmark election integrity legislation supported by President Donald Trump — cited the Senate’s handling of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a historical example of how major legislation can advance even when the votes for cloture are not initially in place.

The Utah Senator explained that when the bill arrived in the Senate from the House in March 1964, supporters of the bill were still significantly short of the votes needed to invoke cloture — roughly 30 votes, though he noted even at the time the exact count was uncertain. As Lee explained, “It’s a good example because they were clearly not close to achieving cloture when it arrived.”

US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

Drawing a parallel to his efforts to invoke the same talking filibuster to advance the SAVE America Act, Lee noted that then-President Johnson — a vocal supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — backed an aggressive floor strategy during the debate. At the time, Johnson urged Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield to keep the Senate in continuous, round-the-clock session to wear down opposition, a tactic LBJ had previously used as majority leader to advance civil rights legislation, according to a U.S. Senate historical report.

Mansfield, however, rejected the proposal.

He argued that marathon sessions would turn the Senate into “a circus or a sideshow,” warning that the sight of senators appearing in “bedroom slippers, without neckties, with hair uncombed and pajama tops sticking out” would diminish the chamber’s dignity.

Rather than forcing continuous debate, Mansfield allowed the fight over the legislation to unfold over more than 50 days, insisting on preserving the Senate’s “dignity and decorum” while keeping the bill on the floor until supporters ultimately secured enough votes to invoke cloture. In effect, grinding most other Senate business to a halt.

Rather than personally managing every moment of the floor fight, like Johnson, Mansfield delegated much of the day-to-day debate to key allies, including soon-to-be Vice President Hubert Humphrey — then still a Democrat senator for Minnesota — and Democratic California Senator Thomas Kuchel, while he coordinated the broader legislative strategy behind the scenes.

Mansfield believed the lengthy debate served an important purpose. With many senators still undecided, he viewed the Senate as a deliberative body where extended discussion could persuade Democrat lawmakers and help opponents ultimately “accept the legitimacy of the outcome,” according to the Senator.

Asked whether he sees parallels between Mansfield’s strategy and the approach the current GOP Senate should take to advance election integrity legislation, Lee said he does, though he noted there are important differences between Mansfield’s effort and the current Senate under Republican Majority Leader John Thune.

“I mean, you did have the majority leader who was saying, ‘I’m willing to do this, and that is what it takes.’ In the modern Senate, you do need the support, active involvement, and engagement by the Senate Majority Leader in order for this to work,” Lee said.

Lee went on to note that one of the “distinct privileges” of the leader is to set the chamber’s schedule, and a talking filibuster is a “significant scheduling commitment.”

Lee said that during the 1964 legislative debate, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield reinforced his commitment to ensuring passage by making it clear the chamber would remain on the bill for as long as necessary. To Lee’s understanding, Mansfield told senators, “We’re going to do this. We’re going to pass it, and we’re going to debate this for as many weeks as it takes in order to pass it. And they stayed in week in, week out.”

Noting he believes the Senate often debated on Saturdays and typically recessed on Sundays for church attendance, but otherwise remained in continuous session, he said it became increasingly clear Mansfield would not back down, “And they saw that he meant it, especially when you get into it that far. When you get weeks into it, it’s, ‘oh my gosh, he’s not messing around. This is serious.’”

With national attention focused on the Senate, supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used the prolonged floor debate to build momentum for the legislation, while opponents relied on extended debate tactics in an effort to delay or weaken the bill.

When the bill’s supporters briefly failed to produce enough senators for a quorum call, Mansfield privately admonished colleagues, reminding them that “there comes a point in time when certain procedures must, in the best interest of the Senate, be laid down.” Attendance quickly improved.

Lee, who has faced pushback from his own party for his support for this approach, responded to criticism over why the Senate should prioritize the measure even with GOP control of both the legislative and executive branches. The Senator, responding to Thune and Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s argument that Republicans lack the votes, told the Caller that cloture is just one way to break a filibuster — and when you use only that method of breaking the filibuster — after a while, you can become convinced that it’s the only way. But it’s not the only way.”

The talking filibuster employed against the Civil Rights Act only lasted roughly 54–60 working days, or up to about 75 calendar days by some counts, beginning in late March 1964 and ending with final Senate passage on June 19, 1964.

Lee cites the episode and use of the talking filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a blueprint for how sustained floor debate and prolonged pressure can still, more than six decades later, be used to advance major legislation like the SAVE America Act.

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Senior Politics Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Cancels Housing Bill Signing Over SAVE America Act

House Cancels Votes As GOP Holdouts Revolt Over Failure To Pass SAVE America Act

‘Cluster F*ck’: Trump’s Dramatic Feud With Senate Republicans Boils Over

Senate Ditches Town Early For Two-Week Recess As Save America Act Remains On Ice

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Crime Drops as More Americans Pack Heat

Not at all surprising!


Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops as More Americans Pack Heat

Alessandra Coote was walking on a trail with her 2-year-old daughter and dog two-and-a-half years ago when a man began yelling at her and threatened to kill her dog. When the petite single mom made it back to her Utah home, she decided she needed a firearm for protection.

A few months later, while living in what she described as a “shady part of town,” a homeless man threatened her. After that encounter, she began regularly carrying a firearm under Utah’s Constitutional Carry law.

Coote, who just graduated this spring from the University of Utah, says carrying the gun has given her the confidence to feel safe in public. “It’s been life-changing,” she told RealClearInvestigations (RCI). Although she has never had to draw or fire the weapon, she has faced a threatening individual when she was armed, but stopped the attack by merely letting the man know she was carrying.

Coote is part of a growing trend of strapped Americans. A new survey of 1,000 general election voters conducted last month by McLaughlin & Associates found that almost 30 percent of respondents said they carry a firearm. More specifically, the survey found that 13.2 percent respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6 percent said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5 percent increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024.
Both polls were commissioned by the group I lead, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Since 2021, 13 states, covering 34 percent of the U.S. population, have adopted constitutional carry laws. As a result, 29 states do not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. A little less than two-thirds of those who are carrying a concealed handgun in these states have a permit.

The survey is the latest evidence challenging claims linking firearms and violent crime. As data show both the number of firearms and the percentage of people carrying them is increasing, preliminary estimates show the U.S. murder rate is likely to hit a record low in 2025—at least 10 percent below the previous record low.

“It doesn’t surprise me that while the country is experiencing record-low murder and violent crime rates, we are also experiencing a record high number of people legally carrying concealed handguns for self-protection,” Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told RCI.

Bradford County, Fla., Sheriff Gordon Smith said lowering crime rates “isn’t rocket science.” He told RCI, “You reduce crime by putting more cops on the street, increasing arrest and conviction rates, and imposing meaningful prison sentences. But you also cut crime by empowering law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families through constitutional carry.”

Gun control groups—Everytown, Brady United, and Giffords Law Center—declined repeated requests to respond to the survey data and crime statistics.

Blacks, Hispanics & Women

The CPRC survey also found that politically engaged citizens are more likely to carry firearms. Respondents who identified as general election voters were twice as likely to have concealed handgun permits as other adults.

Blacks and Hispanics also carry at disproportionately high rates. Black people make up 11.0 percent of likely voters but account for 15.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. Hispanics are even higher, accounting for 18.8 percent of frequent carriers despite comprising only 11.0 percent of likely voters. By contrast, whites and Asians carry at rates below their shares of likely voters. Whites constitute 72 percent of likely voters but only 62.6 percent of those who carry all or most of the time, while Asians account for 4.0 percent of likely voters but just 2.0 percent of frequent carriers.

Audrey Bodiford, a 5’2” black woman living in Lansing, Michigan, told RCI she owes her life to her handgun and having a concealed handgun permit. On Valentine’s Day in 2022, she said, the over 6-foot-tall man she had been dating “kind of went crazy,” threatened to kill her, and pulled a knife on her. Fearing for her life, she shot him in self-defense.

Because she lives in what she describes as a “not good” neighborhood, this was not the only time she relied on her firearm for protection. In another incident, she said she accidentally let a door slip from her hand while trying to hold it open for a man leaving a store. The man became verbally abusive, followed her, and aggressively closed in on her. She turned slightly so he could see that she was armed. He immediately backed off, ending the confrontation. Asked if carrying has given her more confidence: “I feel more safe, definitely,” she said.

The survey found relatively small differences between men and women. While women make up 52 percent of general election voters, they comprise 45.1 percent of Americans carrying concealed weapons; men are 48 percent of the electorate and 54.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. The breakdown for Constitutional Carry states is relatively higher for women, with 47.5 percent of those carrying all/most of the time being women and 52.5 percent men. Constitutional Carry may benefit women who suddenly face threats from a stalker or former partner and often do not feel they can wait the months it takes for officials to approve a permit application.

Research shows that two groups benefit the most from carrying firearms: physically weaker individuals, such as women and the elderly, and those most likely to become crime victims, such as poor blacks living in high-crime urban areas. These groups have also experienced the largest percentage increases in concealed handgun permits over the last decade (2015–2024). During that period, permits for women increased 112 percent faster than permits for men, while permits for blacks increased 284 percent faster than permits for whites.

“A firearm dramatically increases a woman’s ability to defend herself,” Professor Carl Moody, a crime researcher at the College of William & Mary, told RCI. “Without a firearm, a woman is almost always at a significant disadvantage if attacked by a man. With a firearm, she can avoid an unfair fight with an opponent who usually has a size and strength advantage. Almost always, it is only necessary to announce or display the weapon to dissuade the attacker.”

More Guns, Fewer Violent Crimes

After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued.

In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.

Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states. The murder rate in New Jersey fell from 3.9 per 100,000 people in 2022 to 2.4 in 2024, and the preliminary numbers show it falling to as low as two per 100,000 in 2025.

A press release from New Jersey’s attorney general announced a “Historic Low in Gun Violence for 2025.” Some attribute the drop to the increase in permits. “Today, more than 58,000 law-abiding New Jerseyans can exercise their right to carry a firearm. And while some warned this would turn our streets into the Wild West, the reality has been far different,” Republican New Jersey Assemblyman Greg Myhre claimed.

An easier thing to measure is that permit holders are exceptionally law-abiding. States revoke their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths or even tens of thousandths of a percentage point. Police officers rarely commit crimes, yet concealed handgun permit holders prove even more law-abiding than cops. Permit holders are convicted for firearms offenses at just one-twelfth the rate at which police are convicted of comparable firearm-related crimes.

“The data clearly show that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest and most responsible users of firearms,” David Mustard, a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia who researches extensively on crime, told RCI. Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith confirmed that this is his experience with Constitutional Carry: “The data is clear: The vast majority of concealed carriers are among our most responsible residents, not the problem.”

Despite the fears raised by gun-control advocates, over 91 percent of street police officers support concealed handgun laws. Law enforcement professionals understand that self-defense is a key element of public safety, in part because they know they usually arrive only after criminals commit crimes. An overwhelming body of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

This is especially true for women, who often struggle to defend themselves against much larger and stronger men, who also tend to run faster. While both men and women benefit from carrying a concealed handgun, research shows that each additional woman who carries a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by roughly three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

“Too often, women who are being stalked or threatened are told to limit their movements, alter their routines, or rely on a piece of paper to stop someone determined to harm them,” Robyn Sandoval, the president of A Girl & A Gun, told RCI. “Women deserve better than living in fear. By learning to responsibly carry a firearm, they can gain the confidence and means to protect themselves and live their lives without fear.”

“Every day, more law-abiding citizens choose to legally carry firearms because they refuse to be victimized by criminals and thugs,” Brevard County, FL, Sheriff Wayne Ivey told RCI. “Responsible gun owners know that even the best police response times takes minutes, while violent criminals can take a life in seconds!”

AUTHOR

John R. Lott Jr.

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “Gun Control Myths” (2020), “Dumbing Down the Courts,” and “Freedomnomics.”

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: DOJ Launches $300 Million Initiative to Transform Public Safety in American Cities

Karen Bass’ Brother Joins Spencer Pratt in Lawsuit Against Los Angeles

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is facing legal action from an unlikely source: her own brother, who has joined Spencer Pratt and thousands of other fire victims in a sweeping lawsuit against the city over its handling of the Palisades Fire.

Kenneth Bass, 78, and his wife, who lost their Malibu home in January 2025, are joining Pratt in a massive lawsuit against the city, the Department of Water and Power, and others for alleged negligence.

Among the claims is that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, which holds roughly 117 million gallons of water, was empty when the fire broke out, contributing to low water pressure in some neighborhoods as firefighters battled the blaze.

The Palisades Fire was one of the most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles’ history, with more than 6,800 structures destroyed, 12 dead, and damage estimates exceeding $30 billion, fueling ongoing questions about whether city officials were adequately prepared for a wildfire threat.

The addition of the mayor’s brother to the lawsuit creates an unusual political dynamic for Karen Bass, whose handling of the disaster has faced intense scrutiny from residents who lost homes and businesses.

Pratt, who ran for mayor largely on criticism of Bass’ response, highlighted the unlikely alliance with a comment on X about awkward family Thanksgivings.

In a comment to ABC 7, the mayor’s press secretary seemed to not be concerned.

“There’s nothing new here—Mayor Bass has spoken of her brother’s loss publicly since January of 2025. Thousands of people are plaintiffs in this action.”

The city has repeatedly defended its response to the fires, arguing that unprecedented weather conditions and extreme fire behavior created challenges for emergency responders across the region.

This morning, Pratt shared on X that Californians should expect to learn “shocking details” in the coming weeks about California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Bass’ handling of the fires.

The development adds a striking twist to the fallout from the fire: even the mayor’s own brother is seeking to hold the city accountable in court.

The case is expected to move through the courts over the coming months as plaintiffs seek to determine what role, if any, city officials, utility managers, and emergency planning decisions played in the scale of the destruction.

AUTHOR

Angelina Delfin

Angelina Delfin is California correspondent for the Daily Signal. Follow on X angelina_talks.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newsom Accuses Trump, DOJ Of Retaliation After Probe Targets Him And His Wife

Judge Denies Motion to Compel Abigail Spanberger to Testify in Defamation Case

Sen. Kennedy Predicts Schumer Shutdown Before Midterms

RELATED VIDEO: Judge Blocked Cameras in Karmelo Anthony Trial. Now We Know Why.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SHOT TO THE HEART OF DEI: How the Trump Admin Is Dismantling the Legal Basis for Government-Endorsed Discrimination

The Department of Justice under President Donald Trump just took a pivotal step toward removing government-endorsed discrimination from America’s legal system and undermining the institutional apparatus of critical race theory.

Critical race theory teaches that America is systemically racist and that even racially neutral policies are truly racist if they result in better outcomes for members of one race than for members of another. That’s the exact same logic as the legal theory known as “disparate impact.”

Cornell Law School defines disparate impact as a policy or rule “that seems neutral but has a negative impact on a specific protected class of persons.”

Government should strive to adopt policies that allow all Americans to flourish, regardless of race, but Democrat administrations have applied disparate impact theory to encourage “reverse” discrimination.

For instance, the Justice Department and the Department of Education under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued guidance warning that if a school disciplines students of one race more than students of another race, that is evidence of racial discrimination, even if the school’s policy is race-neutral. It doesn’t matter if particular students cause more trouble than other students—what matters is the racial breakdown of who gets punished.

In one particularly revealing case, a woman sued the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming disparate impact from the department’s requirement that people take the driver’s license exam in English. She said the English-only requirement had a disparate impact on people who don’t speak English, even though the road signs in Alabama are in English. While lower courts found in her favor, the Supreme Court struck down her claim in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001).

Just as critical race theory teaches that American society is inherently racist against blacks and for whites, so the leftist reading of disparate impact theory finds fault with colorblind policies for their unintended consequences.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy released a memo Tuesday that restores sanity, however.

The DOJ Disparate Impact Memo

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency tasked with preventing racial discrimination in employment, requested legal advice on disparate impact theory, and the DOJ responded with a far better approach to the law.

EEOC’s current disparate impact guidelines “are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressure employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

Gaiser explained that if employers can demonstrate that the challenged policy “rationally serves a valid business practice,” that will constitute a valid response to a discrimination claim.

“Workplace requirements and selection procedures—such as background checks, aptitude tests, and SAT scores—are presumptively job-related,” he added. “Only irrational or arbitrary practices with no plausible job-relatedness can create disparate-impact liability.”

Finally, employees suing for disparate impact “must establish both that the challenged employment practice specifically caused the alleged disparate impact and provide evidence that an equally effective alternative practice causes less disparate impact.”

These guidelines represent a return to common sense. No longer can potential employees of certain races sue for discrimination if a firm refuses to hire them for failing aptitude tests. This undermines the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement that has pressured companies to hire and promote racial minorities, arguably at the expense of more qualified candidates.

Trump’s War on DEI

This important memo represents one more step in the Trump administration’s efforts to reject the DEI movement and restore sanity.

Trump signed an executive order “restoring equality of opportunity and meritocracy” in April 2025, rejecting disparate impact liability.

The EEOC moved to close most disparate impact cases by Sept. 30, according to an internal memo.

The Office of Legal Counsel memo is not a court filing, but it does represent the legal stance of the Justice Department on the issue.

Election Integrity and Disparate Impact

The memo also comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, where the court found that legislatures violate the law when they draw congressional redistricting maps on the basis of race. Justice Samuel Alito rejected a disparate impact argument in favor of racial redistricting.

This may bode ill for leftist arguments against voter ID requirements. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down Texas’ voter ID law, finding that the law had a disparate impact on minorities.

Democrats have baselessly condemned the mere requirement of a legal ID to vote as an imposition of “Jim Crow 2.0,” claiming that it is more difficult for racial minorities to obtain a photo ID. According to the approach of the new DOJ guidance, a commonsense requirement that a person prove he is who he says he is in order to vote would not be presumptively unconstitutional due to some ridiculous claim of discrimination.

This guidance represents one more step toward restoring sanity after Democrat-led administrations imposed critical race theory via misreadings of the law.

AUTHOR

Tyler O’Neil

Tyler O’Neil is senior investigative reporter at the Daily Signal and the author of two books, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” Follow on X Tyler2ONeil.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ICE Relies on “Honor System” to Track Paroled Migrants Because CBP Doesn’t Share Data

In a significant security lapse that has occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the government failed to track millions of illegal aliens admitted into the United States under a temporary parole because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agency that processed the migrants failed to provide identifying information to the DHS agency responsible for monitoring them. The unbelievable breach involves Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the 60,000-employee frontline border agency charged with keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the premier federal law enforcement agency of around 20,000 that preserves national security and public safety by enforcing immigration laws. In a shameful admission ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) reveals that it relies on the “honor system” to ensure parolees in the country illegally report to field offices as directed, according to a scathing federal audit.

The probe was conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, and reveals that from October 2018 through May 2025, CBP granted around 2.4 million illegal aliens humanitarian parole, many with criminal records and over half of them from Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela. The agency expanded the use of the temporary humanitarian measure to mitigate a huge increase of migrants crossing into the U.S. along the southwest border, which amounted to around 10.4 million during the period examined. A few months into the Biden presidency, CBP authorized agents to parole apprehended migrants on a case-by-case basis under certain conditions, such as limited immigration detention space, which was pervasive. A few years later the Biden administration greatly expanded access to illegal migration with a special mobile application called CBP One that rewarded nearly all applicants—97%—parole, the GAO found. “Once noncitizens are paroled at the southwest border, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for monitoring them to ensure they adhere to the conditions of their release,” the report states.

In fact, last year DHS and ICE issued guidance that emphasized the importance of ICE reviewing parole cases to determine whether further enforcement action is appropriate. The problem is the immigration enforcement agency does not have the information it needs to readily identify the illegal aliens that CBP paroled at the border. Sounds like a joke, but it is yet another example of government inefficiency, of how individual federal agencies fail to communicate even when national security, and most likely public safety, is at stake. Congressional investigators confirm that ICE ERO “is not conducting its required monitoring of all noncitizens CBP paroled at the southwest border” and that the laughable “honor system” it relies on is clearly not efficient because not all paroled migrants report at least once a year as required. In 2024 alone ICE lost track of a starling 70% of illegal immigrants paroled by CBP and it is not clear what efforts are being made to track them down in communities throughout the U.S.

The good news is that illegal immigration is at a historic low under President Trump and last spring the administration directed DHS to review cases of paroled migrants and terminate the temporary reprieve of approximately 654,000. Tracking them down remains a problem, the GAO found, because the agency that enforces the measure still does not know where the offenders are. “Although DHS and ICE guidance emphasizes the importance of ICE’s monitoring and enforcement efforts for paroled noncitizens, ICE is not well-positioned to carry out these responsibilities because it does not have readily accessible information about noncitizens’ parole status,” the report states. “According to ICE officials, while ICE obtains information from CBP on noncitizens it places in removal proceedings, this information does not include the parole status of noncitizens who should be monitored, including those whose parole was terminated by CBP through the April 2025 notices.” Congressional investigators point out that, while CBP systems have data fields that provide readily accessible information about parole status, officials at ICE’s ERO headquarters maintain its internal systems do not have those specific data fields and therefore the agency has no access to the critical information.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The H-1B Visa Fraud Network

The H-1B visa program, originally designed by the United States to attract the world’s brightest minds and bridge critical high-skilled labor gaps, has morphed into a playground for systemic manipulation. At the epicenter of this distortion is a highly sophisticated network of IT consulting firms, staff augmentation agencies, and body shops operating primarily out of India or managed by Indian-origin syndicates in the U.S. What was conceived as a pipeline for specialized talent — the software architects, researchers, and engineers capable of driving global innovation — has instead been choked by a deluge of coordinated deception, designed to monopolize a finite public resource at the expense of legitimate professionals worldwide.

The mechanics of this exploitation were laid bare during recent lottery cycles, exposing a staggering disparity between honest applicant volume and coordinated fraud. Because the annual allocation of H-1B visas is strictly capped by Congress at 65,000 caps, alongside a 20,000 master’s degree exemption, the selection process relies on a random computer lottery. For fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recorded an unprecedented, mathematical anomaly of 781,000 total registrations. Shockingly, more than 408,000 of those entries were multiple registrations submitted on behalf of the exact same individuals. A shadowy conglomerate of shell companies and interlocking IT consultancies colluded to file dozens of duplicate applications for single candidates. By artificially inflating their numbers, these bad actors drastically reduced the selection odds for independent applicants to a dismal percentage, effectively hijacking the lottery through sheer volume.

The architecture of this fraud relies on a multi-tiered system of smoke and mirrors. Rather than offering real, specialized positions at established enterprises, these fraudulent operators utilize ghost offices — empty storefronts and mail-forwarding addresses scattered across states like Texas and California — to create the illusion of local demand. These entities submit legally binding attestations to the U.S. government affirming that a specific, specialized job awaits the foreign national. In reality, these positions are entirely fabricated. A prominent case recently prosecuted by the Department of Justice involved Indian-origin executives who went so far as to falsely promise placement at prestigious institutions, like the University of California, (allegedly) utilizing fraudulent employment contracts to siphon visas for non-existent projects. Once these visas are successfully obtained through deceit, the beneficiaries are benched — held in employment limbo without legal pay — until the firm can contract them out to actual American businesses as cut-rate contractors, undercutting the domestic labor market and violating federal wage protections.

The corruption is not limited to small-scale fraudulent rings; it extends historic roots into some of the largest tech conglomerates originating from the Indian subcontinent. To bypass the stringent oversight and numerical limits of the H-1B program, massive outsourcing giants have historically weaponized alternative visa pipelines, establishing a blueprint for systematic evasion. This institutional misconduct was punctuated when Infosys paid a record-shattering $34 million civil settlement to immigration authorities following allegations of systemic visa fraud. Federal investigators discovered that the company was systematically using B-1 visitor visas — intended for short-term business meetings — to deploy foreign nationals for full-time, hands-on software development work in the United States. To pull this off, the corporation explicitly distributed internal “Dos and Don’ts” memos, coaching foreign employees to deliberately lie to U.S. consular officers, and scrub their correspondence of revealing technical words like implementation, design, or testing that would indicate they were arriving to perform actual local employment.

The damage inflicted by this institutionalized gaming of the system is vast and multifaceted. It breeds a culture of exploitation where the foreign workers themselves are trapped by predatory employers who hold absolute power over their legal status, often taking kickbacks or withholding wages. Simultaneously, it locks out genuine global talent — brilliant scientists, medical professionals, and innovators, who possess genuine job offers from premier institutions but are shut out by a lottery system stacked against them by automated fraud rings. This rampant gaming of federal regulations finally forced USCIS to dismantle its old framework, moving to a strict beneficiary-centric selection model for the fiscal year 2025 and 2026 cycles, an intervention that saw fraudulent multiple registrations plummet from over 400,000 down to fewer than 8,000.

While these tighter guardrails have begun to stem the flow of duplicate registry scams, the legacy of this deception casts a long shadow. Decades of unpunished exploitation have permanently distorted the public perception of skilled immigration, fueling valid domestic skepticism and provoking aggressive regulatory crackdowns, including sweeping executive restrictions on entry. The widespread fraud originating from India’s predatory IT shell sector has not just broken American immigration laws; it has actively betrayed the global community of honest professionals, turning a merit-based ideal into a game of corporate numbers where the only true winners are the cartels pulling the strings.

©2026 . All rights reserved.