The Mississippi Senate Finance Committee unanimously killed a House-passed bill that would have made college athletes' Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) earnings tax-exempt. The reason? State Senator Dean Kirby heard from actual voters who weren't thrilled about giving special tax privileges to student-athletes while everyone else keeps paying.

When Politicians Actually Listen

"I don't know about the rest of you on this committee," Sen. Dean Kirby (R-Pearl) told his colleagues on March 16, "but I've had several constituents that have called me that are not happy at all about this bill."

That was it. No long debate. No parliamentary procedure games. Just a Republican senator saying his voters spoke up, and he listened.

The bill died unanimously.

The Special Deal Nobody Asked For

The legislation would have exempted college athletes' NIL earnings from state income tax, retroactive to January 1. In other words, while regular Mississippians keep paying state income taxes until the phase-out kicks in, college athletes would get a special carve-out.

Rep. Trey Lamar (R-Senatobia), who championed the bill in the House, argued it was about keeping Mississippi competitive. "NIL is taking the country and coming by storm," Lamar said. "Other states are doing it, and I believe it's time that Mississippi starts doing this as well."

He's not wrong about the competitive pressure. Five other SEC schools can already offer athletes tax-free NIL deals, either because their states passed similar laws or because they eliminated income tax altogether.

But here's where grassroots accountability matters: being competitive and being fair to your own taxpayers aren't the same thing.

The Fairness Question

Let's be clear about what this bill represented: a special tax privilege for one specific group of people who are already receiving benefits (scholarships, training, facilities) that most taxpayers will never see.

Mississippi voters saw through that. They called their senators. They said, "Hold on. Why do they get a tax break we don't get?"

And their senators listened.

This isn't about being anti-athlete or anti-NIL. College sports matter to Mississippi communities. But tax policy should be fair. If you want to eliminate income tax, eliminate it for everyone. If you want to keep it, apply it consistently.

What Grassroots Accountability Looks Like

This story matters because it shows how the system is supposed to work:

• Legislators propose something • Constituents pay attention and speak up • Elected officials listen to the people who put them in office • Bad policy gets stopped before it becomes law

Too often, we see the opposite. Special interest groups push for carve-outs. Legislators go along to get along. Taxpayers find out later what happened.

Mississippi voters broke that cycle. They caught this early. They made their voices heard. And their senators had the backbone to listen, even when it meant disappointing university athletics departments.

The Real Competition

Here's what Rep. Lamar and other NIL tax exemption supporters might consider: the real competition isn't just about recruiting athletes. It's about recruiting families, businesses, and taxpayers.

Mississippi is already working toward eliminating state income tax entirely. That's a good policy because it treats everyone equally. It makes the state more competitive for all residents and businesses, not just college athletes.

Special carve-outs for specific groups undermine that broader goal. They create a two-tier tax system where some people get privileges others don't. That's not conservative policy. That's crony capitalism.

The Lesson

Senator Kirby and the Mississippi Senate Finance Committee got this right. They listened to constituents who understood that fair tax policy doesn't pick winners and losers based on what sport you play or how much money you can make from your name.

The lesson for legislators everywhere: your constituents are watching. They understand the difference between sound policy and special deals. And when they speak up, you'd better listen.

Because that's what representative government is supposed to look like.

Further Reading

• Clarion Ledger: Mississippi Senate committee kills bill to make NIL money tax exempt • Breitbart: Mississippi Senate Committee Kills Bill to Make NIL Money Tax Exempt

Seattle businessman Marc Barros just gave Washington State a masterclass in unintended consequences. After the legislature passed their shiny new 9.9% income tax on millionaires, Barros announced he's packing up his photography equipment company and moving it to Wyoming.

Plot twist: he's not even a millionaire.

"I'm not even a millionaire affected by this tax," Barros posted on X. "But when you add up all the costs to run a business in WA we can't afford it."

That sound you're hearing? It's the law of unintended consequences laughing at progressive tax policy.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Here's what Barros is actually escaping:

• 10.5% city sales tax (because Seattle needs more money for... reasons)

• City property taxes (your building costs money just to exist)

• State capital gains and estate taxes (they want a cut when you sell, and when you die)

• Business and occupation taxes (the privilege of employing people)

• Digital advertising tax that just kicked in this year

That last one is the kicker. Barros says it's costing his company $200,000 per year. The state is even taxing ads his company runs in Germany.

"Overnight that is a $200K a year tax that did not exist last year," he said. "Again it's not even based on where your ads run or where your team is. Incorporated in WA state? You will pay this tax."

Translation: if you have the audacity to be incorporated in Washington, they own you wherever you do business.

The Exodus Has a Name

Seattle attorney Joe Wallin, who represents startups and testified against the income tax bill, put it simply: "The new income tax, scheduled to go into effect in 2029, will definitely cause some businesses to leave."

Some will stay because they're too invested to move. Others will quietly slip away to places where government doesn't treat success like a crime.

But here's the part that should worry every Washington taxpayer: "Some of the bill's effects will be invisible because new companies won't come to Seattle or the state of Washington in the first place."

You can't count the businesses that never show up. You can't tax the jobs that never get created. You can't fund programs with revenue from companies that set up shop in Texas instead.

The Numbers Don't Lie

Want to know how well this strategy is working? Seattle's office vacancy rate hit 30% in the last quarter of 2025. That's a record high.

Amazon, the company that basically built modern Seattle, has been quietly moving thousands of employees from Seattle to Bellevue. Why? According to Downtown Seattle Association President Jon Scholes, it's "directly attributable to an increase in local taxes on businesses."

When Amazon is fleeing your tax policies, maybe it's time to reconsider your approach.

The Conservative Alternative

Meanwhile, states like Wyoming, Texas, and Florida are rolling out the red carpet. No state income tax. No capital gains tax. No digital advertising tax. Just a simple message: bring your business here, create jobs, and we'll leave you alone.

Barros can "build a remote team and re-open in Wyoming, removing all of these costs." His company Movement is making the move this month.

Wyoming gets the jobs. Wyoming gets the tax revenue from what taxes they do have. Wyoming gets a successful business owner who chose freedom over fiscal punishment.

Washington gets to keep its 9.9% millionaire tax and wonder where all the millionaires went.

The Real Question

This isn't just about one businessman or one tax. It's about a fundamental choice between two competing visions of America.

One vision says success should be punished, wealth should be redistributed, and government knows better how to spend your money than you do.

The other vision says success should be rewarded, entrepreneurs should be celebrated, and government should get out of the way of people trying to build something.

Marc Barros just voted with his feet. How many more will follow before Washington figures out that you can't tax your way to prosperity?

The millionaire tax doesn't take effect until 2029. But businesses are already making their escape plans.

Because smart money doesn't wait around to get robbed.

According to reporting from Townhall and The Detroit News, former Wayne County deputy treasurer Kevin Kelly is accused of helping run a scheme that pulled properties off the county tax foreclosure list through bribes, fake paperwork, and insider access. Prosecutors say Kelly acquired at least 15 properties with a combined value of about $1,033,800.

That is not a bookkeeping error. That is not a paperwork mix-up. That is a system people trusted being used against them.

What Federal Prosecutors Say Happened

The alleged scheme centered on Wayne County's tax foreclosure process, which already gives government enormous power over people who fall behind on property taxes. Prosecutors say Kelly worked with Jontae Jackson, a former taxpayer assistant in the Wayne County Treasurer's Office, and Zina Thomas, the director of home ownership programs for the United Community Housing Coalition.

According to the allegations, Thomas supplied fraudulent documents that were uploaded into the county property tax administration system. Jackson then used his access to remove selected properties from the foreclosure list. Those homes could then be diverted, sold, or transferred for private gain.

Prosecutors say Kelly paid for that access and used it to target specific properties.

The numbers that matter

• 3 people have now been charged in the widening federal case

• 15 properties were allegedly acquired by Kelly through the scheme

• $1,033,800 is the reported aggregate value of those homes

• The conspiracy allegedly ran from May 2023 through October 2023

• The federal charge against Kelly carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison

You do not need a think tank paper to understand the problem here. Give government insiders control over who keeps a home and who loses one, then mix in corruption, and this is where you end up.

Why This Hits So Hard in Detroit

Detroit homeowners have spent years dealing with the fallout of tax foreclosure abuse, confusing notices, inflated assessments, and bureaucracies that always seem to have a form ready when it is time to take from regular people. So when prosecutors say county insiders may have manipulated that machinery to grab homes from struggling residents, it lands hard.

Especially because one of the people charged worked for a nonprofit that was supposed to help keep low-income residents in their homes.

Because of course it did.

That is the part that should make every Michigan voter stop and stare for a second. The public office existed to administer the system. The nonprofit role was supposed to help vulnerable people navigate it. And prosecutors say both sides were allegedly involved in turning that process into an opportunity.

The Real Scandal Is the System Behind It

Property taxes already put homeowners in a strange relationship with government. You can pay off your house, mow your lawn, fix the roof, raise your kids there, and still be told you do not fully control it if the tax bill gets missed or mishandled.

This case is a reminder that concentrated government power does not stay clean just because the paperwork looks official.

When local officials can decide which property gets flagged, which record gets changed, and which home quietly disappears from one list and appears in somebody else's hands, the temptation is obvious. The opportunity is obvious too.

And if insiders were really using fake documents and title maneuvers to clear the way for resale, then this was not just bureaucratic incompetence. It was an alleged business model.

Questions Michigan officials should answer

• How many homeowners were affected beyond the 15 properties named in the federal allegations?

• What internal controls failed inside the Wayne County Treasurer's Office?

• How did fraudulent documents get into the system without immediate detection?

• What oversight existed for nonprofit partners interacting with foreclosure relief cases?

• How many similar transactions should now be reexamined?

If you live in Michigan, those are not abstract questions. Those are your local institutions. Your county records. Your property rights.

What Happens Next

Kelly's charge expands a case that federal prosecutors are still clearly building out. More records will matter. More transaction trails will matter. More internal communications will matter. And Wayne County officials are going to have to explain how a foreclosure system touching vulnerable homeowners was allegedly used this way in the first place.

There is also a bigger lesson here for conservatives who care about local government accountability. Washington gets the headlines, but county offices can do real damage fast when nobody is watching. The closer government gets to your deed, your taxes, and your title, the more dangerous corruption becomes.

"During the scheme, Kelly acquired at least 15 properties off the foreclosure list with an aggregate value of approximately $1,033,800," federal prosecutors alleged, according to reporting cited by Townhall.

That quote tells you plenty.

A million-dollar home-grab scandal does not happen because one bad actor had one bad afternoon. It happens when a system has too much discretion, too little oversight, and too few people willing to ask hard questions before families get hurt.

Further Reading

• Townhall: Local Democrat Officials Busted for Stealing Homes From Struggling Homeowners

• The Detroit News: Wayne County bribery scandal widens as feds charge third person

• U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Michigan: Office homepage and case announcements

If the allegations hold up, this is not just another local corruption story. It is a warning. When government gets too comfortable deciding who keeps property and who loses it, somebody always figures out how to rig the table.

What the New Poll Shows

According to a new Fabrizio, Lee & Associates poll provided to Breitbart News, Rep. Barry Moore has moved into first place in Alabama's Republican Senate primary. Moore now sits at 23 percent, while Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is at 16 percent. Jared Hudson trails at 9 percent, and a huge 49 percent of likely GOP primary voters remain undecided.

That undecided number matters. A lot. This race is not over. But momentum is real, and right now it belongs to Moore.

The same poll shows an even clearer shift in a head-to-head matchup. Moore leads Marshall 33 percent to 28 percent. Back in January, Marshall led that same matchup 34 percent to 22 percent. That is not a rounding error. That is a genuine swing.

The Trump Endorsement Finally Hit the Airwaves

Here's the thing nobody's talking about enough: endorsements do not help much if voters never actually hear about them.

Breitbart previously reported that Defend American Jobs, a crypto-aligned super PAC affiliated with Fairshake, poured $5 million into Alabama advertising that highlighted President Trump's endorsement of Moore. Fabrizio's memo says that cash infusion gave Moore a major boost.

Because of course it did.

If you are running in a Republican primary in Alabama and your biggest asset is Trump's backing, maybe it helps when millions of dollars are spent making sure Republican voters know it.

According to Breitbart's report on the poll:

"The large cash infusion from Defend American Jobs was a boon for Barry Moore, propelling him into the lead in the Alabama U.S. Senate GOP primary."

That is the pollster's summary, not campaign spin.

Why This Race Matters Beyond Alabama

This is not just a local squabble between Republicans. Alabama is one of the most reliably red states in the country, which means the GOP primary is functionally the main event. The winner will be heavily favored in November to replace Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is leaving the Senate to run for governor.

So yes, this matters nationally.

It matters because Senate primaries shape the kind of Republican conference voters get in Washington. It matters because endorsements still matter in Republican politics, especially when they come from a president with broad grassroots loyalty. And it matters because outside money is not some abstract talking point when it can move a race by double digits in a matter of weeks.

The Numbers That Should Get Your Attention

A few points stand out from the Fabrizio survey:

• Moore leads the primary field at 23 percent

• Marshall is second at 16 percent

• Hudson sits at 9 percent

• Nearly half of voters, 49 percent, are still undecided

• In a Moore-Marshall head-to-head, Moore leads 33 percent to 28 percent

• The poll surveyed 600 likely GOP primary voters on March 18-19

• The reported margin of error is 4 percent

That last number matters too. A 7-point lead is not microscopic. Even with a decent-sized undecided bloc, Moore has plainly improved his standing.

What Steve Marshall's Camp Should Be Worried About

If you are Marshall, the bad news is not just that Moore is ahead right now. The bad news is how he got there.

Moore's rise appears tied to a message that is simple, clear, and hard to miss: Trump endorsed him.

That kind of message is powerful because it cuts through the clutter. Voters do not need a white paper to understand it. They do not need three consultant memos and a 47-slide presentation. They hear Trump is with Moore, and they adjust accordingly.

Meanwhile, nearly half the electorate is still up for grabs. That means Marshall still has a path. But it also means Moore's ceiling may be higher than the current topline suggests if the endorsement message keeps landing.

What This Says About the GOP Base

For all the chatter from establishment types about post-Trump politics, Republican primary voters keep sending the same message. They still care what Trump thinks. They still respond when his endorsement is made visible. And they are still willing to move quickly when new information hits.

That does not mean every endorsement guarantees victory. Politics is not that tidy. But in this case, the sequence looks hard to ignore:

• Moore had Trump's endorsement

• Outside money amplified that endorsement

• Moore surged into the lead

You do not need a PhD to spot the pattern.

What Happens Next

The Alabama Republican primary is set for May 19, which means there is still time for this race to twist again. With 49 percent undecided, nobody should pretend the contest is settled.

But this poll changes the conversation.

Before, Moore was the candidate trying to catch Marshall. Now he is the candidate with the lead, the momentum, and the clearest proof that Trump's endorsement still moves real voters in a deep-red state.

That is not a small development. That is the story.

And if you are one of the consultants who spent the last few years insisting grassroots Republicans had cooled on Trump-backed candidates, Alabama just handed you another reminder: maybe the base knows exactly what it is doing.

Further Reading

• Breitbart: Barry Moore Takes Lead in Alabama Senate Primary After Crypto Cash Infusion

• Breitbart: Crypto PAC Pumps Millions Into Alabama Senate Race to Support Trump-Backed Barry Moore

That is the part the gun-control crowd never wants to sit with for very long. The law did not stop the attacker. It stopped the people who obey laws.

According to Breitbart's report and the underlying opinion in *Ziegenfuss v. Martin*, U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled that Texas may continue banning carry in bars, racetracks, and certain sporting events. The court acknowledged that carrying for self-defense in those places does fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment. Then it upheld the ban anyway by leaning on historical analogies under the *Bruen* framework.

Because of course it did.

The Law Worked Perfectly. For the Criminal

Texas' 51 percent law applies to establishments that derive at least 51 percent of their revenue from alcohol sold for on-premises consumption. In practice, that means ordinary, licensed citizens are disarmed at the door while the thug who plans to ignore murder laws is apparently expected to tremble before a red sign.

Breitbart noted that on March 1, 2026, a 53-year-old attacker wearing a "Property of Allah" hoodie opened fire inside an Austin bar, killing two patrons. The bar's no-guns status did not save those victims. It guaranteed they were less able to fight back.

That is the real-world problem with these "sensitive place" theories. They sound tidy in a courtroom. They look a lot uglier in an ambulance report.

What the Judge Actually Said

The Ammoland analysis of the decision highlighted the most maddening part. Judge Pittman did not say the Second Amendment stops existing in these locations. Quite the opposite. The court recognized the right is implicated.

Here is the key line from the ruling as quoted in the reporting:

"There is no carve out" for sensitive places from the Bruen framework.

That should matter. If there is no carveout, the state has to prove its restriction fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pittman concluded Texas did enough of that by pointing to older laws and customs involving fairs, amusements, social venues, alcohol settings, and public-order concerns.

The Scribd-hosted opinion also shows the court stressing that plaintiffs bringing a facial challenge had a heavy burden. That procedural reality mattered. Still, from a constitutional perspective, the bottom line is simple: the court admitted the right is there, admitted the law burdens it, and still found enough history to leave Texans disarmed in places where danger is not exactly theoretical.

The Problem With Stretching "Sensitive Places"

This is where conservatives should pay attention.

If a school event can be treated like a school, and a sports venue can be treated like every crowded fairground in American history, what cannot be labeled sensitive? That category starts expanding fast.

Ammoland laid out the concern plainly. Once courts start broadening the doctrine by analogy, the exception can swallow the rule.

Here are the practical consequences of that mindset:

• Law-abiding citizens lose the ability to defend themselves in more and more public places

• Criminals keep choosing soft targets because signs do not shoot back

• Courts treat broad historical similarities as enough to uphold modern restrictions

• The burden lands on the decent person who followed the rules, not the predator who ignored them

That last point is the roast, and the numbers do it without much help. Two dead patrons. One armed attacker. Zero defensive gunfire from the people the state disarmed.

Rights Are Not Supposed to Depend on Government Mood

Pittman reportedly closed by suggesting Texans who dislike these restrictions can change them through the political process. Fine. Voters absolutely should pressure lawmakers on this.

But constitutional rights are not supposed to survive only when a legislature feels generous. That is the whole point of having constitutional rights.

The court's own reasoning creates the uncomfortable question: if the Second Amendment plainly covers carry for self-defense in public, why does the burden keep falling on the citizen who actually obeys the law?

And if bars can be off-limits because alcohol is present, even when the carrier is sober and licensed, what is the limiting principle? Are we protecting rights here, or just inventing more exceptions until the right becomes decorative?

You already know where this is going. Blue states will watch rulings like this and try to turn every crowded venue, every downtown block, and every politically disfavored gathering spot into another "sensitive place." Texas should know better than to hand them the blueprint.

What Texas Conservatives Should Demand Next

There are at least three straightforward questions state lawmakers and grassroots gun owners should be asking now:

• Why should licensed carriers be disarmed in venues where criminals have every incentive to ignore the law?

• Why should self-defense rights disappear because a business crosses an arbitrary revenue threshold tied to alcohol sales?

• If the courts will not draw a firmer line, will the Legislature step in and do it?

Reasonable people can debate details like signage, private-property rights, and penalties for carrying while intoxicated. That is not the same thing as accepting a blanket rule that leaves responsible citizens helpless while criminals enjoy a monopoly on force.

There is a better approach. Punish violent offenders. Punish intoxicated misuse of firearms. Protect private property rights. But stop pretending a red sign creates safety where evil men are already planning murder.

The Bottom Line

The Austin attack exposed the obvious flaw in gun-free-zone thinking. The killer carried. The victims did not. Then a federal judge upheld the policy that helped create that imbalance.

This is exactly why the right to keep and bear arms matters. Not for slogans. Not for bumper stickers. For the moment when seconds count and the state is nowhere in sight.

Texas calls itself a pro-Second Amendment state. Good. Then it should stop treating law-abiding Texans like the problem.

Further Reading

• Breitbart: Federal Judge Upholds TX Gun Control Banning Handguns in Bars

• Ammoland: Federal Judge Upholds Texas Carry Bans at Bars, Sporting Events and Racetracks

• Scribd: Ziegenfuss v. Martin Opinion

According to Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, what investigators found in Minnesota may be just the appetizer. California, he said, could be ten times worse.

What Comer Actually Said

During an appearance on Fox News' *Hannity*, Comer pointed to independent journalist Nick Shirley's reporting in Minnesota and said California appears to be operating on a much larger scale. His focus was not some obscure bookkeeping mistake. It was hospice billing, one of the most sensitive corners of the public safety net.

"You could multiply what we found in Minnesota probably by 10 in California. That's how bad it is."

He then gave the number that ought to make every taxpayer stop and stare.

"Hospice alone, $3.5 billion just in Los Angeles County."

Comer added that Los Angeles County represented 18 percent of all hospice billing in America last year. Not 18 percent of California. Not 18 percent of the West Coast. Eighteen percent of the national total.

The Number That Roasts the System All by Itself

You do not need an advanced degree to see the problem.

• Los Angeles County is a large county, yes

• Los Angeles County is not 18 percent of the U.S. population

• Hospice care is supposed to serve people in their final days, not become a golden pipeline for billing games

• If one county is soaking up that much of the total, somebody should have been asking questions a long time ago

And that is the part that keeps surfacing in story after story. The warning signs were not subtle. They were flashing neon.

Why This Hits Harder Than the Usual Waste Story

Government waste is common enough that a lot of Americans have become numb to it. A bloated contract here. A useless program there. But hospice fraud is different because it hides inside one of the most emotionally protected parts of health care.

Who wants to sound cynical about hospice? Nobody. That is why bad actors love protected categories. The moral shield is built in. Raise concerns and you risk sounding heartless. Stay quiet and the money keeps moving.

Comer made that point in plain English. There is broad public support for hospice because families understand what it means to care for people at the end of life. That support is deserved. What is not deserved is using that compassion as cover for industrial-scale abuse.

Newsom's California Keeps Having This Problem

Comer did not hedge on where he thinks responsibility lands. He said Gov. Gavin Newsom knew about the fraud and "hasn't done a thing about it."

That charge matters because California Democrats love presenting themselves as the adults in the room. They regulate everything. They tax everything. They lecture every red state within range. Yet when fraud explodes under their own noses, suddenly accountability gets very hard to find.

This is exactly why grassroots conservatives keep hammering the same point. Bigger government does not automatically mean better government. More spending does not guarantee compassion. And a state government that cannot spot obvious billing irregularities is in no position to mock anybody else's management.

Why whistleblowers matter now

Comer said the investigation is looking for the same thing it got in Minnesota: insiders willing to come forward, sit for transcribed interviews, and identify who approved what. That is how these schemes usually crack open. Not because the system polices itself, but because somebody inside gets tired of pretending the numbers make sense.

If that happens in California, this story could get much uglier very quickly.

The Bigger Conservative Lesson

This is not just a California story. It is a warning about what happens when enormous public spending systems grow faster than oversight, and when political leaders are more interested in image management than basic accountability.

Conservatives have been told for years that skepticism about sprawling bureaucracies is somehow mean-spirited. Really? A county producing 18 percent of all hospice billing in America is not an argument against skepticism. It is an argument for more of it.

Because here is the thing nobody should ignore: every fraudulent dollar is money diverted from legitimate care, stolen from taxpayers, and used to justify even more spending later. The scam becomes the excuse for a larger budget. Of course it does.

What Comes Next

The Oversight Committee's next move will matter. So will whether California officials cooperate, stonewall, or suddenly discover the miracle of concern now that the cameras are on.

For now, the facts already look bad enough:

• Comer says California fraud may dwarf the Minnesota scandal

• Los Angeles County allegedly accounted for $3.5 billion in hospice billing

• That figure represented 18 percent of the national hospice total, according to Comer

• The committee is seeking whistleblowers who can trace responsibility

If those numbers hold up under further investigation, this is not a paperwork story. It is a corruption story. A governance story. A moral story.

And if California's ruling class really did watch this happen and shrug, then the problem is not just fraud. The problem is a political culture that treats taxpayer money like free money until somebody forces a public reckoning.

That is the cost of government without accountability.

Further Reading

• Breitbart: 'You Could Multiply What We Found in Minnesota Probably by 10 in California'

• Fox News *Hannity* coverage and House Oversight follow-up statements as the investigation develops

#California #GovernmentWaste #Oversight

Reitz, who previously ran in the same contest and pulled in more than 250,000 votes before exiting, said the next attorney general needs three things: loyalty to President Trump, a willingness to continue Ken Paxton's fighting style, and a clear-eyed understanding that Texas is in a political and cultural fight for its future. His conclusion was simple. Middleton checks those boxes. Roy does not.

That matters because this is not just another Texas primary squabble. This is a runoff for one of the most important legal jobs in America. The Texas attorney general is often the point man when states challenge federal overreach, defend election laws, fight border chaos, and push back on the Left's latest bright idea. So yes, voters are going to care who is ready to fight and who is mostly giving interviews about fighting.

Why Reitz Says Middleton Fits the Job

According to Breitbart's report on Reitz's endorsement, the former deputy AG said Middleton has stayed aligned with President Trump and has built a record around the same core issues grassroots conservatives care about most.

Those issues include:

• border security

• election integrity

• protecting girls' sports and private spaces

• stopping hostile foreign actors from buying Texas land

• pushing back on the radical Left's agenda

That lines up with Middleton's own campaign message. On his campaign site, Middleton presents himself as a hard-line conservative focused on enforcing voter ID laws, defending the border, protecting women and girls, holding rogue district attorneys accountable, and rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government.

In other words, he is not running as a mushy consultant-built candidate whose platform reads like it was approved by twelve nervous donors and a focus group in Austin. He is running as a culture-war conservative who actually seems to know there is a culture war.

The Trump Question Is Not a Side Issue

Reitz's endorsement zeroed in on something Republican primary voters in 2026 are not likely to shrug off: where these candidates have stood on President Trump.

Reitz contrasted Middleton's support for Trump with Roy's history of criticizing him, especially during past fights inside the Republican coalition. That argument is aimed directly at runoff voters who do not want another Republican officeholder acting bold at home and wobbly when it is time to back the movement's leader.

And let's be honest. In today's GOP, loyalty to Trump is not some weird little footnote the consultants can bury under tax-policy bullet points. It is a basic trust test. Republican voters want to know whether a candidate will stand with the president when the media mob starts screaming, or whether he will suddenly discover a deep concern for elite opinion.

That is the lane Reitz is driving straight down.

What Roy Brings to the Race

To be fair, Roy is hardly running as a moderate. His own campaign site calls him a proven conservative fighter focused on defending Texas, enforcing the rule of law, and taking on government overreach. He has a strong profile with many conservative voters and plenty of name recognition.

But endorsements are often about contrast, not biography. Reitz is telling voters that this race is not about who can talk conservative for a mailer. It is about who can be trusted to carry forward the Paxton-style posture at the attorney general's office.

That is a specific argument, and a potent one in Texas Republican politics.

Why the Paxton Legacy Still Matters

Ken Paxton's long tenure has shaped what many conservative voters now expect from a Republican attorney general in Texas:

• aggressive lawsuits against federal overreach

• unapologetic defense of conservative state laws

• willingness to take political heat

• no interest in getting invited to polite bipartisan cocktail hour

For voters who liked that approach, Reitz is essentially saying Middleton is the continuity candidate.

Roy's supporters will obviously disagree. But this endorsement gives Middleton something valuable in a runoff: a validation from someone who worked inside the attorney general's office and knows what the job looks like up close.

Why This Runoff Matters Beyond Texas

You do not have to live in Texas to see why this matters. Republican attorneys general have become some of the most consequential figures in national politics. They sue administrations, block federal rules, defend state sovereignty, and often become the last line of resistance when Washington decides the Constitution is more of a suggestion.

So when Texas Republicans pick their next AG, they are not just choosing a legal technician. They are choosing a fighter. Or at least they should be.

Reitz has now made his opinion very clear. He says Middleton is the candidate who will back Trump, continue Paxton's combativeness, and treat the Left's agenda like a real threat instead of a messaging opportunity.

Texas voters will decide on May 26. But the shape of the race is getting clearer. This runoff is becoming a test of who grassroots Republicans believe will actually use the office like it matters. In Texas, it does.

Further Reading

• Breitbart: Aaron Reitz endorses Mayes Middleton in Texas AG runoff

• Mayes Middleton campaign website: platform and priorities

• Chip Roy campaign website: attorney general campaign overview

The Big Claim Meets Basic Paperwork

At a February United Auto Workers conference, El-Sayed told the crowd he did not take a "politician's arrest" during a 2018 minimum wage protest in Detroit.

"I put my body on the line and took an arrest. And I didn't take the politician's arrest, where they, like, turn around and drop you off. No, I took the whole arrest. Did my time."

That is the kind of line built for applause. It is also the kind of line that falls apart once somebody checks the records.

According to a Detroit police incident report cited by the Washington Free Beacon, El-Sayed and other protesters were arrested after blocking a traffic lane outside a McDonald's on Woodward Avenue during a Fight for $15 demonstration on October 2, 2018. The report says the group set up a table and chairs in the street, refused repeated police orders to move, and was arrested without incident. They were transported to the Detroit Detention Center, issued citations, and released. The report also notes they were not fingerprinted.

That is not "doing time." That is getting processed, handed paperwork, and sent on your way.

What Happened at the Protest

Public reporting from the Detroit News and Motor City Muckraker fills in the scene. Protesters marched for a $15 minimum wage and union rights, then occupied part of Woodward outside a Midtown McDonald's. Some sat at a table in the street after police warned arrests were coming. Police then moved in.

Motor City Muckraker later reported that El-Sayed and 17 others were sentenced in December 2018 for disorderly conduct tied to the protest. Judge Adrienne Hinnant-Johnson gave each defendant:

• A $200 fine

• 20 hours of community service

• Three months of probation

That is still not "doing time." It is a misdemeanor protest case. Big difference.

And according to the Free Beacon's review of court records, the charges were later dropped after El-Sayed had been ordered to pay a $200 fine. However you slice the procedural history, this was not some long, grueling jail ordeal. It was a protest arrest that turned into a ticket-level story dressed up like hard time.

Why This Matters in a Senate Race

Normally, an old protest arrest would be little more than campaign scrapbook material. But El-Sayed is using this story now, in 2026, while running in Michigan's Democratic primary for the open U.S. Senate seat. That changes the equation.

Candidates tell stories for a reason. They are trying to signal courage, authenticity, solidarity, and ideological commitment. Fine. Politics has always involved a little stagecraft. But there is a line between emphasizing the dramatic part of an event and turning a brief detention into a prison memoir.

You can already see what the campaign was aiming for:

• El-Sayed as the activist who truly suffered for the cause

• El-Sayed as the labor ally who stood shoulder to shoulder with workers

• El-Sayed as the outsider who did not get special treatment

Except the record undercuts that pitch. Fast.

This is where the sarcasm writes itself. Michigan Democrats are being asked to treat a same-day release as though it were a chapter from the Acts of the Apostles. Because of course they are.

The Theater Problem on the Left

This episode says something broader about progressive politics. So much of it is performance first, details later. Get the viral line. Build the myth. Hope nobody pulls the police report.

The report matters because it strips away the fog machine. El-Sayed was not buried in the system for days. He was not thrown into some prolonged legal nightmare. He was cited and released. News footage from the day reportedly showed him smiling, joking with officers, and talking to reporters. WXYZ also reported he gave a lecture to students at Oakland University just hours later.

That last detail is especially useful. People who have actually "done time" usually do not wrap up by heading to a speaking engagement a few hours later.

What Michigan Voters Should Watch

If you are a Michigan voter, the question is not whether politicians use dramatic language. Of course they do. The question is whether the dramatic language is anchored to reality.

El-Sayed is free to argue that he stood with workers. He did. He is free to say he was arrested. He was. But when "I got arrested at a protest" turns into "did my time," voters should hear the spin machine whirring.

This Senate race is going to feature a lot of ideological branding, activist credentials, and carefully polished biographical moments. Fair enough. Just remember that some of those moments get a lot less impressive once the documents show up.

Michigan deserves candidates who can tell the truth without inflating themselves into legend. That should not be a high bar. Yet here we are.

Further Reading

• Washington Free Beacon: Michigan's El-Sayed Said He Did 'Time' After His Arrest at a Minimum Wage Protest. He Got a Ticket, Records Show

• Detroit News photo coverage: Several people detained during Fight For $15 rally on Woodward Ave.

• Motor City Muckraker: Abdul El-Sayed, 17 others sentenced for disorderly conduct during Detroit protest

#Michigan #StateWatch

According to unofficial results from Palm Beach County, Democrat Emily Gregory defeated Republican Jon Maples in Florida House District 87 with 51.19 percent of the vote to Maples' 48.81 percent. The district includes Mar-a-Lago. President Trump carried it by roughly 10 points in November, and the outgoing Republican lawmaker won it by a far larger margin before leaving for another office.

So yes, Republicans still hold a commanding majority in the Florida House. But this race was a flashing warning light. And ignoring warning lights is how parties sleepwalk into avoidable trouble.

What Happened in District 87

The seat opened after Republican Mike Caruso left the legislature to become Palm Beach County Clerk. That should have set Republicans up for a straightforward hold in a district they know well.

Instead, Democrats found a path.

Daily Wire reported that Gregory built an early advantage through mail voting, while Maples held only a slight edge in early in-person turnout. Palm Beach County's election dashboard showed 33,470 ballots cast out of 116,128 registered voters, good for 28.82 percent turnout. In other words, this was exactly the kind of low-turnout special election where organization matters more than yard signs, endorsements, and chest-thumping.

Nobody expects a special election to mirror a presidential cycle. That is not the point.

The point is that Republicans had a favorable district, the Trump name, and home-field symbolism. Democrats still walked away with the seat.

Trump's Endorsement Was Not the Problem

Let's be clear before the media starts doing its usual little dance. This was not some grand rejection of President Trump. The president endorsed Jon Maples the night before the election and remains overwhelmingly popular with Republican voters. The district itself was carried by Trump just months ago.

What this result shows is something more basic and far less dramatic: turnout machinery matters. Candidate quality matters. Local ground games matter. Special elections punish complacency.

That should not be controversial.

If anything, this race is a reminder that the MAGA coalition still needs disciplined local execution. A presidential endorsement is powerful. It is not a substitute for banking votes early, working absentee ballots, and making sure your side actually shows up in an off-cycle contest.

The Mail Ballot Gap Should Get Republican Attention

Here is the part Republicans should stare at for a while.

• Gregory reportedly built her edge through vote-by-mail

• Maples performed somewhat better with in-person voters

• Total turnout stayed under 29 percent

• The seat had previously been considered safely Republican

You already know where this is going.

When one side treats vote harvesting, absentee chasing, and ballot curing like a military operation while the other side assumes district fundamentals will save them, bad surprises happen. Republicans do not need to imitate Democratic election culture. They do need to stop surrendering mechanics that decide close races.

That is not surrender to the system. That is learning how to win inside the system you actually have.

Why This Still Matters Even in Ruby-Red Florida

Florida has become the state Republicans point to when they want to show what competent conservative governance looks like. Fair enough. Under Republican leadership, the state has become a refuge from progressive insanity on schools, crime, and endless cultural warfare against normal people.

That is exactly why this result matters.

If Democrats can flip a seat in a district this red, in a county this symbolic, with turnout this low, then local Republicans need to tighten up before the next round of state and congressional contests. Not panic. Tighten up.

Because the left will absolutely try to turn this into a national morality play. They always do. One local upset becomes a prophecy. One narrow win becomes a sermon. One special election becomes proof that the whole country is supposedly rising up.

Please.

A low-turnout state House race is not a verdict on the presidency. But it is a verdict on whether your side handled that specific election well.

And in this case, the answer is obvious.

What Republicans Should Learn From It

This loss does not call for despair. It calls for competence.

Four lessons Republicans can take right now

• Treat every special election like the other side is desperate to make a statement, because they are

• Build early-vote and absentee programs that match the urgency of Election Day turnout

• Do not assume a district's partisan lean will do the work for you

• Use losses like this to sharpen the machine, not to start circular firing squads

"A low-turnout state House special election is a snapshot of local quirks, candidate dynamics, and turnout math, not some grand verdict," Republican National Committee senior adviser Danielle Alvarez said, according to Daily Wire.

That is true as far as it goes.

But snapshots can still show you something real. Sometimes they show a structural weakness before a bigger race exposes it in public.

The Bottom Line

Republicans are not losing Florida. President Trump is not the villain here. And Democrats did not suddenly discover some unstoppable Palm Beach revolution.

What happened is simpler than that. Republicans had a winnable seat in a favorable district and let Democrats outwork them in the kind of election where details decide everything.

That is fixable. But only if the party tells itself the truth.

You can either write this off as a weird little Tuesday, or you can use it as a wake-up call to get serious about the mechanics of winning. Smart conservatives should choose the second option.

Further Reading

• Daily Wire: A Special Election In Trump's Backyard Shows What's At Stake For Republicans

• Palm Beach County Election Results: 2026 Special General Election House District 87

#Florida

A Primary That Actually Changed Something

For 15 years, Berger has been the center of gravity in the North Carolina Senate. He helped drive tax reform, school choice, election law changes, anti-DEI fights, pro-life legislation, and the broader conservative shift that turned North Carolina into a model for Republican governance. Even political opponents knew exactly who was running the chamber.

Then came Sam Page.

According to RedState and the North State Journal, Page held a razor-thin lead on primary night, stayed ahead through canvassing, then survived both a machine recount and a 3 percent hand-to-eye sample recount without losing his edge. Berger conceded after the results remained unchanged.

That matters. In an era when every close election turns into a month-long legal circus, North Carolina voters got a clear result and a concession. Imagine that.

What the Recount Actually Showed

The hand recount covered selected precincts in Guilford and Rockingham counties. According to the North State Journal, those ballots still left Page ahead by the same 23-vote margin.

Here is the simple version:

• Primary night showed a near-dead heat

• Canvassing expanded Page's lead to 23 votes

• A machine recount changed nothing meaningful

• A partial hand recount also left the margin intact

• Berger conceded rather than drag the race into a legal trench war

That is how the process is supposed to work.

Berger's Exit Was Gracious

Berger said, "While this was a close race, the voters have spoken, and I congratulate Sheriff Page on his victory."

He also pointed to the larger conservative record built under Republican control of the General Assembly, saying Republicans had "fundamentally redefined our state's outlook and reputation."

That is not spin. It is basically the North Carolina political story of the last decade and a half.

Why Did a Giant Fall?

This is where the race gets interesting.

RedState argued that Page's win likely came from a mix of factors: genuine MAGA credibility, years in local law enforcement, frustration over a budget stalemate, and lingering anger over Berger's 2023 casino push. In other words, this was not simply an anti-incumbent mood swing. It looked more like a district-level revolt against a powerful leader some voters believed had drifted too far from the grassroots.

Page also had a biography Republican primary voters can understand instantly. Sheriff. Longtime conservative. Early Trump supporter. Local credibility. No consultant has to explain that résumé to normal voters.

Berger, for his part, was not some squishy establishment placeholder. He has been one of the most effective conservative lawmakers in the country at the state level. That is what makes this result so striking. This was not conservatives throwing out a liberal Republican. This was a movement primary where one kind of conservative beat another.

And yes, President Trump had backed Berger. But coverage of the race also noted that Page had been with Trump early, long before it was fashionable in polite Republican circles. So this was not Trump versus the grassroots. It was a local fight inside a broadly pro-Trump coalition.

What It Means for North Carolina Republicans

The immediate question is obvious: what happens when the most influential Republican in Raleigh is suddenly headed for the exit?

According to the North State Journal, Berger leaves behind a massive record:

• Tax and economic reforms

• Debt reduction and reserve building

• School choice expansion

• Election law tightening

• Pushback against left-wing education ideology

• Stronger legislative authority against activist governors

That legacy does not disappear because one primary went sideways. But power vacuums are real, and North Carolina Republicans are about to find out whether Berger's coalition can hold without Berger himself at the center of it.

This Was a Grassroots Message

If you are a Republican incumbent anywhere in America, here is the warning label. Voters are not impressed by your title. They care whether you still sound like them, fight like them, and remember who sent you there.

Twenty-three votes ended a 15-year reign. That should get some attention.

The Bigger Conservative Takeaway

Reasonable conservatives can disagree on whether this was good news. Berger was effective. Very effective. Losing proven leadership is not automatically a win. But Page's victory also shows that grassroots voters still have a pulse and still know how to use it.

That is not chaos. That is accountability.

And for all the media chatter that Republican voters are supposedly passive followers waiting for instructions from the top, this race told a different story. Local relationships, turnout, trust, and credibility still matter. A lot.

Further Reading

• RedState: It's Over: Powerful North Carolina Senate Leader Concedes GOP Primary Race in Shocking Defeat

• North State Journal: Berger concedes after vote gap remains after partial hand recount

North Carolina conservatives just got a reminder that no office is permanent and no majority runs on autopilot. Berger helped build the modern Republican machine in Raleigh. Page just proved the grassroots can still walk in and rearrange the furniture.

If you have been watching the redistricting wars across the country, you already know what this is really about. Control. Seats. Timing. And who gets to lock in political advantage before the 2026 midterms.

What the Court Actually Said

According to RedState's review of the ruling, the court rejected the argument that Missouri lawmakers only get one shot at congressional redistricting after each census. The majority said the state constitution requires redistricting after the census, but it does not explicitly forbid lawmakers from revisiting the map later.

The key line, quoted from the majority opinion, was simple and devastating for the plaintiffs: "The obligation to legislate congressional districts once a decade does not limit the General Assembly's power to redistrict more frequently than once a decade. Simply put, 'when' does not mean 'only when.'"

That is the ballgame in this phase of the case.

The ruling means House Bill 1, the 2025 law that redrew the state's congressional lines, does not violate Missouri's constitutional timing rules. Four judges agreed. Three dissented. For now, that is enough to keep the map on the books.

Why This Matters

Missouri had been using a 6-2 congressional map after the post-2020 census round. Republicans talked at the time about pushing for a 7-1 map, but stopped short. That changed in 2025, when GOP lawmakers came back and finished the job.

The practical effect was straightforward:

• The old map left Democrats with seats in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas

• The new map keeps the St. Louis district blue but fractures the Kansas City based district

• That turns Missouri from a 6-2 map into a 7-1 Republican map

• Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's Kansas City area stronghold is the seat most directly affected

So yes, Democrats are calling it a power grab. But politics is full of power grabs disguised as high principle. Republicans had the votes, passed the law, and now they have a state supreme court ruling saying the legislature had the authority to do it.

The Legal Question Was Narrow. The Political Stakes Are Not.

This case was not about whether the map is beautiful, compact, or likely to win awards from civics teachers. It was about whether Missouri lawmakers had the constitutional authority to redraw the lines mid-decade.

The court said yes.

That does not end the broader fight. It just ends one Democrat argument.

According to the reporting summarized by RedState, other challenges are still alive, including claims tied to compactness and an effort by Missouri Democrats to freeze the map through a referendum process. In other words, the left is still shopping for another way to stop a map it could not stop in this round of court review.

Because of course it is.

Timing Is Everything

This is where the ruling gets more important than the headline.

Candidate filing for Missouri's 2026 primaries opened on February 24 and closes on March 31. The primary itself is scheduled for August 4. That election calendar matters. Even if Democrats keep pushing other legal theories, the clock is not exactly their friend.

Courts move when they move. Ballots have to be prepared. Candidates need to know where they are running. Voters need to know what district they live in. At some point, the practical need for election stability starts crowding out last-minute legal chaos.

That does not guarantee the 7-1 map survives every remaining challenge. It does mean Republicans have the advantage right now, and right now is when campaigns are making real decisions.

What Conservatives Should Notice

There are a few takeaways here that matter far beyond Missouri.

Legislatures still matter

A lot of conservatives have spent years watching activist judges, federal agencies, and blue state machines act like legislatures are optional. Missouri's ruling is a reminder that elected lawmakers still have real constitutional authority unless the text clearly says otherwise.

Precision matters in constitutional fights

The majority did not invent a sweeping new doctrine. It leaned on the plain meaning of the state constitution. If the document says lawmakers must act after a census, that does not automatically mean they are banned from acting later too. Text matters. Words matter. Judges do not get to smuggle in limits that are not there.

Democrats are not going to stop contesting maps they do not like

No shock there. When Republicans draw maps, it is called a threat to democracy. When Democrats do it, it is community protection or representation justice or some other consultant-tested phrase. Translation: if a map helps conservatives, expect endless litigation.

The Bottom Line

Missouri Republicans wanted a 7-1 congressional map. They passed one. Democrats sued. The state's highest court just said the legislature had the authority to do what it did.

That is not the end of the war, but it is a real win.

And if you are wondering why redistricting battles never seem to end, here is your answer: every seat matters, every deadline matters, and nobody gives up power voluntarily. Missouri just proved that when Republicans are willing to fight through the noise, they can still win where it counts.

Further Reading

• RedState: GOP Scores Redistricting Win With MO Supreme Court Ruling

• RedState: Missouri Judge Upholds GOP Redistricting Plan, but Supreme Court Showdown Looms

And yes, he said it plainly.

"The president cannot pardon you. I will put you in handcuffs. And if necessary, I will put you in a jail cell."

That quote, reported by Townhall from remarks circulating online, is the kind of thing that tells you exactly where the modern Left is on immigration enforcement. They do not just oppose deportations. They increasingly talk as if the people carrying out federal law are the problem.

What Krasner Actually Said

According to Townhall, Krasner argued that any crimes allegedly committed by ICE agents inside the city and county of Philadelphia would be prosecuted by his office. He repeated that President Trump could not simply call and make those charges disappear.

That line matters because it shows the strategy. This is not just rhetoric for activists. It sounds a lot like a warning shot aimed at federal officers: do your job, and we will try to bury you in local prosecutions.

Krasner also referenced Minneapolis and suggested the airport floor would not become like "what you did in the streets of Minneapolis." That comparison is doing a lot of work for him. It tries to turn immigration enforcement officers into villains first, then lets the legal argument come later.

Because of course it does.

The Real Conflict Here Is Federal vs. Local Power

Here is the part your average cable segment will probably skip. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. ICE is not some rogue volunteer group freelancing at baggage claim. These are federal officers operating under federal authority.

That does not mean federal agents can do literally anything they want. Nobody is arguing that. But there is a major difference between prosecuting actual criminal misconduct and threatening federal law enforcement as a category because you oppose the administration's immigration agenda.

That is where this gets interesting.

If a local progressive prosecutor can effectively intimidate immigration officers any time they operate in a blue city, then federal law becomes optional wherever local ideologues dislike it. And if federal law becomes optional, you no longer have equal enforcement. You have political enforcement.

• Red states are expected to cooperate with Washington when Democrats are in charge

• Blue cities feel free to resist when Republicans are in charge

• Federal officers become targets instead of criminals becoming targets

Translation: the issue is not law. The issue is control.

The Optics Are Even Worse When You Look at Philadelphia

Critics of Krasner have hammered him for years over violent crime, lax prosecution, and an ideological approach to law and order that somehow always seems to fall hardest on the wrong people. Townhall pointed to the case of repeat offender Keon King, saying Krasner's office previously dropped charges including assault and kidnapping before King later abducted and murdered Kada Scott.

That is the backdrop here. A prosecutor accused of going soft on violent offenders is suddenly sounding very tough when the target is federal immigration enforcement.

Who gets the hard line. Who gets the second chance. Who gets the press conference. You already know where this is going.

The contrast is brutal:

• Violent repeat offenders get leniency

• Federal immigration officers get threats

• Sanctuary politics gets dressed up as legal principle

And Philadelphia residents are supposed to believe this is about public safety?

Why This Matters Beyond One Airport

This story is bigger than Larry Krasner and bigger than Philadelphia International Airport. It gets at a question conservatives have been asking for years: can local officials nullify federal immigration law simply by making enforcement politically and legally painful?

The Left's preferred approach is often not repeal. It is obstruction. They do not always try to win the argument honestly in Congress. They try to make enforcement so costly, so chaotic, and so controversial that the law becomes a dead letter without ever being formally removed.

That is why the airport detail matters. Airports are security-sensitive locations with overlapping local and federal interests. If a district attorney is threatening to slap cuffs on federal officers there, what message does that send everywhere else?

It sends this message: in progressive jurisdictions, political theater may matter more than the plain duty to uphold the law.

The Conservative Question

If local prosecutors can openly threaten federal immigration agents, what exactly are they saying to the millions of Americans who want the border secured and immigration law enforced?

They are saying your laws count only when the Left approves of them.

That is not how constitutional government works. It is not how public safety works. And it is definitely not how a country survives when basic enforcement becomes a partisan food fight.

President Trump was elected with a mandate to restore order at the border and enforce immigration law. Reasonable people can debate tactics. What they cannot honestly defend is treating federal agents like political enemies for carrying out lawful orders.

Further Reading

• Townhall: Larry Krasner vows to arrest ICE agents working at airports

• Prior reporting on Krasner's earlier comments about targeting ICE agents after Trump leaves office

• Supreme Court coverage involving Democratic plans to prosecute immigration officers through state-level tactics

The question now is simple. Will Philadelphia's district attorney spend more energy threatening ICE than protecting ordinary people from the criminals already terrorizing the city? If you know anything about progressive prosecution, you probably know the answer already.

According to CNBC and Breitbart's reporting on the case, jurors found Meta willfully violated New Mexico's unfair practices law after a trial centered on whether the company misled users about safety on its platforms. Translation: the jury did not buy the polished corporate line.

How New Mexico Built the Case

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez sued Meta in 2023 after an undercover operation involving a fake profile for a 13-year-old girl. The state's allegation was straightforward and ugly. Once that account went live, it was quickly flooded with sexual content and targeted solicitations from predators.

Because of course it was.

The state's lawyers argued that Meta did not just miss a few bad actors. They argued the company built and maintained a system that failed children while publicly presenting itself as a responsible steward of online safety. Jurors apparently agreed.

"The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety," Torrez said in a statement reported by CNBC and Breitbart.

That is the kind of line prosecutors use when they know the facts landed.

The Number That Matters

New Mexico reportedly asked for penalties that could have topped $2 billion. The jury came back with $375 million. That is lower than the state's maximum ask, but let's not pretend this is pocket change. For a state-level child safety case, it is a thunderclap.

Here is why this matters beyond one courtroom in Santa Fe:

• A jury found Meta willfully violated state law

• The damages total reached $375 million

• The case survived Section 230 defenses that usually shield tech platforms

• A second phase could still force platform changes and additional remedies

That last part matters. The money hurts. The precedent may hurt more.

What the Evidence Suggested

The trial did not happen in a vacuum. Earlier reporting tied to the same litigation showed internal Meta testing raising serious questions about child safety controls. Breitbart, citing court testimony and Axios reporting, noted that an unreleased Meta chatbot product allegedly failed child sexual exploitation safety checks in roughly 66.8 percent of test scenarios.

If your own internal testing is throwing up numbers like that, maybe the correct move is not another corporate statement about how seriously you take safety.

Prosecutors also highlighted internal concerns about encrypted communications and how design choices could limit the reporting of child sexual abuse material to law enforcement. That gets to the heart of the broader fight: are these companies neutral platforms, or are they making design decisions that predictably make abuse easier to hide?

Reasonable people can debate where the legal lines should be drawn. Parents are not debating whether the problem is real.

Meta's Defense

Meta says it will appeal. The company told Breitbart and CNBC it disagrees with the verdict and insists it works hard to keep teens safe online.

"We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal," a Meta spokesperson said. "We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms."

That is the standard script. Work hard. Take safety seriously. Constantly improving. You have heard it before.

The problem for Meta is that juries tend to notice when public messaging sounds better than the underlying facts. If New Mexico convinced twelve people that the company knew more than it admitted and did less than it should have, other states are going to notice.

Why Conservatives Should Pay Attention

This story is not about cheering bigger government or pretending blue-state prosecutors suddenly became heroes. It is about accountability in a sector that has spent years acting untouchable.

Conservatives have warned for a long time that massive institutions, whether corporate or governmental, stop behaving responsibly when nobody believes they can be checked. Big Tech has enjoyed that luxury for years. Meanwhile, families have been told to trust the same platforms that keep failing at the most basic job imaginable: keeping predators away from children.

And that is where this case gets interesting. New Mexico is not just chasing cash. The next phase of the trial could push for practical changes such as stronger age verification, removing predators more aggressively, and limiting features that shield bad actors from law enforcement scrutiny.

Who could possibly object to making it harder for predators to find kids online? Well, companies whose business models depend on frictionless growth, endless engagement, and as little liability as possible.

What Comes Next

A judge will now handle the trial's second phase starting in May, including whether Meta created a public nuisance and whether it should be forced to fund programs addressing the harm. That means this fight is not over.

Not even close.

If other states follow New Mexico's playbook, Big Tech may finally discover that "trust us" is not a legal strategy. And parents who have spent years being told the apps are safe may finally get the accountability they were promised but never saw.

That is not censorship. That is consequences.

Further Reading

• CNBC: Meta must pay $375 million for violating New Mexico law in child exploitation case

• Breitbart: New Mexico jury rules Zuckerberg's Meta failed to protect children

• Breitbart: Meta's internal tests reveal AI failed child safety checks

According to Americans for Tax Reform, nine states saw income tax cuts take effect on January 1, 2026: Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oklahoma. Hot Air, citing Wall Street Journal reporting, noted that 23 Republican-led states have lowered their top income tax rates since 2021. That is not a blip. That is a trend. And voters are noticing.

The Red-State Tax Revolt Is Real

This is not just one governor trying to score headlines. This is a multistate race to become more attractive to families, workers, entrepreneurs, and retirees.

Here is what changed at the start of 2026, according to Americans for Tax Reform:

• Georgia lowered its rate from 5.19 percent to 5.09 percent

• Indiana lowered its flat tax from 3.0 percent to 2.95 percent

• Kentucky lowered its flat tax from 4.0 percent to 3.5 percent

• Mississippi lowered its rate from 4.4 percent to 4.0 percent as part of a phaseout plan

• Montana lowered its top rate from 5.9 percent to 5.65 percent

• Nebraska lowered its top rate from 5.2 percent to 4.55 percent

• North Carolina lowered its flat tax from 4.25 percent to 3.99 percent

• Ohio completed its move to a 2.75 percent flat tax on income over $26,050

• Oklahoma lowered its top rate from 4.75 percent to 4.5 percent

That is nine states in one year. Not one. Nine.

Tax Foundation data shows how broad the movement has become. As of 2026, 15 states now use a single-rate flat income tax, while eight states levy no individual income tax at all. Ohio is now among the flat-tax states, joining a larger bloc of states telling taxpayers a simple truth: you should not need an accountant and a headache just to understand what your state government is taking.

Why This Matters More Than Politicians Admit

Tax policy is not just about spreadsheets. It is about whether your state sees you as a citizen to serve or a revenue source to squeeze.

When states lower and simplify income taxes, they send a message. Come build here. Come hire here. Come stay here. Keep more of what you earn. That is not radical. That is common sense.

And the data matters. Tax Foundation notes that individual income taxes accounted for 33 percent of state tax collections in fiscal year 2024. So when lawmakers cut rates, they are not trimming around the edges. They are making a real policy choice about the size and appetite of government.

That is where the divide gets interesting.

Red states are generally betting that growth, migration, investment, and discipline will do more for their future than chasing every possible dollar out of high earners. Blue states are betting the opposite. Who do you think has the better read on how normal people and job creators actually behave?

Ohio Shows Where This Is Going

Ohio may be the cleanest example of the larger shift.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, Ohio completed its transition to a flat income tax this year, with a 2.75 percent rate applying to income over $26,050. That made Ohio the 14th state to adopt a flat tax and pushed the number of states with either a flat tax or zero income tax to 24.

That matters because flat-tax states tend to offer a clearer, simpler case to businesses and families deciding where to put down roots. No gimmicks. No maze of brackets. No ideological sermon about how much of your success belongs to the state.

Simplicity Is a Policy Choice

The left often talks as if complexity is inevitable. It is not. Complexity is a choice. High rates are a choice. Punishing productivity is a choice.

So is the alternative.

Ohio chose it. North Carolina chose it. Mississippi is moving toward it. South Carolina lawmakers have also pushed to accelerate and deepen their tax cuts, according to ATR. Once one state moves, the pressure builds on its neighbors. Nobody wants to be the state people flee from.

Blue States Still Think Higher Taxes Are Compassion

Wall Street Journal reporting cited by Hot Air says Democratic-controlled states are moving the other direction, pushing higher taxes on top earners to fight inequality and fill expected budget gaps.

That talking point always sounds noble right up until people move, businesses relocate, and the tax base starts acting like it has feet. Which, inconveniently for progressive planners, it does.

Tax Foundation's 2026 state tax data underlines how steep the blue-state model can get. California's top marginal income tax rate remains 13.3 percent, and the group of high-tax jurisdictions still includes states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. If your state government treats success like a problem to be solved, do not be shocked when successful people solve the problem by leaving.

Republican-led states are racing each other to flatten, cut, and eliminate individual income taxes. Democratic-controlled states are moving the opposite way. That contrast is not theory anymore. It is the map.

What Conservatives Should Take From This

There is a reason this trend keeps spreading.

• Lower taxes reward work instead of penalizing it

• Simpler taxes make government more transparent

• Competitive taxes help states attract families and employers

• Fiscal discipline beats endless demands for new revenue

And yes, there is a moral dimension here too. Government should be limited. Families should be strong. Work should be honored. Bureaucracies do not have a sacred claim on every extra dollar a person earns.

Further Reading

• Hot Air on the growing income tax divide between red and blue states: https://hotair.com/headlines/2026/03/25/a-great-state-income-tax-divorce-is-underway-and-its-a-beautiful-thing-n3813178

• Americans for Tax Reform on the nine state income tax cuts that took effect in 2026: https://atr.org/income-tax-cuts-take-effect-in-nine-states-on-new-years-day/

• Tax Foundation 2026 state income tax rates and brackets: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-income-tax-rates-2026/

The split is getting sharper. One side wants to compete for your future. The other still thinks your paycheck belongs to them first. That is not just a policy debate. It is a vision of government. And voters in red America seem to know exactly which vision they prefer.

The University of Southern California canceled a high-profile governor primary debate just before it was set to air after Democrat lawmakers and excluded candidates objected to the lineup. USC said its invitations were based on a data-driven formula using polling and fundraising. That formula produced a stage with six white candidates: Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, plus Democrats Tom Steyer, Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Matt Mahan.

Then came the backlash. Several prominent Democrat candidates of color, including Antonio Villaraigosa, Xavier Becerra, Betty Yee, and Tony Thurmond, were left off the stage. Legislative leaders demanded USC expand the debate. When organizers could not reach agreement, the whole thing was scrapped. Because of course it was.

What Actually Happened

According to AP, USC initially defended the selection method as an independently developed academic formula based on polling and fundraising. A group of 50 public policy and social science scholars even urged the university to stand firm against political pressure.

That did not hold for long.

California legislative leaders, including chairs of the Black and Latino caucuses, sent a letter arguing the outcome was unacceptable because every excluded leading candidate was a person of color. They went a step further and called on voters to boycott the debate if USC refused to change the lineup.

“If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”

USC then reversed course and canceled the event, saying concerns over the criteria had become a distraction from the issues that matter to voters.

Translation: the process was fine until the politics got loud enough.

Why This Matters for Voters

California uses a top-two primary system. Every candidate appears on the same ballot, and only the top two advance, regardless of party. In a crowded field, debates matter. Name recognition matters. Exposure matters.

That is exactly why this fight blew up.

Recent polling compiled by 270toWin shows no candidate dominating the race. The average of recent polls puts Steve Hilton at 15.6%, Chad Bianco at 14.6%, Eric Swalwell at 14.0%, Katie Porter at 11.4%, and Tom Steyer at 10.4%. The excluded candidates trail well behind in those same recent averages, with Xavier Becerra at 4.2%, Antonio Villaraigosa at 3.8%, Matt Mahan at 3.0%, Betty Yee at 2.4%, and Tony Thurmond at 1.2%.

So yes, debate access matters. But if the event criteria were polling and fundraising, then the honest question is simple: should organizers ignore their own standards the moment the result becomes politically inconvenient?

If the answer is yes, then the formula was never really the formula.

The Mahan Problem That Sparked the Fire

Much of the uproar focused on San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. He was included despite entering the race later than several better-known statewide Democrats. That immediately raised eyebrows.

Local News Matters reported that Mahan built an early fundraising base with major support from Silicon Valley donors, including Sergey Brin, Joe Lonsdale, Garry Tan, Rick Caruso, and other wealthy backers. In other words, even if his polling numbers were modest, his fundraising gave him enough juice to qualify under a formula that counted money as well as polls.

That may frustrate rivals, but frustration is not discrimination.

Here is the part nobody should miss:

• USC said the criteria were based on polling and fundraising

• Mahan had significant fundraising strength, despite late entry

• Recent polling still showed a fragmented race with no clear front-runner

• Democrat leaders objected after seeing who was excluded

• The final result was not a broader debate. It was no debate at all

That last point is the real punchline. California voters did not get more information. They got less.

Identity Politics Eats the Debate Stage

There is a difference between arguing a formula is imperfect and insisting the racial makeup of the result automatically invalidates the process. Those are not the same thing.

Nobody is saying debate criteria must be beyond criticism. In a massive field, any cutoff system will be messy. But once the argument becomes, "this outcome cannot stand because the wrong identities were included or excluded," the debate is no longer about voter information. It is about political optics.

And that is where this whole episode tells on itself.

A university created a supposedly objective process. Scholars defended it. Politicians pressured it. The institution folded. The voters lost. Welcome to modern California, where even a debate about governor candidates can be canceled if the diversity spreadsheet is unhappy.

Further Reading

• AP: University cancels California governor debate after bias allegations

• Daily Wire: USC backs out of governor debate over lack of diversity

• 270toWin: 2026 California governor polling averages

• Local News Matters: Why billionaire techies are betting big on Matt Mahan

If that sounds like dry regulatory soup, here is the plain-English version: this is a battle over whether unelected bureaucrats get to keep using a 2009 finding to regulate carbon dioxide across huge chunks of the American economy, including cars and trucks. TPPF and the coalition it represents want to help defend the rollback and push arguments the EPA itself chose not to press.

What TPPF Is Actually Doing

According to TPPF, the groups seeking to intervene are the Western States Trucking Association, the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Liberty Packing Company, and Merit Oil Company. Their argument is simple. If the EPA has finally pulled back a sweeping regulatory regime, those directly affected by it should have a seat at the table when left-wing states and advocacy groups rush to court to stop the rollback.

The EPA's February final rule rescinded the 2009 greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding and the vehicle emissions standards built on top of it. The agency said the move would save Americans more than $1.3 trillion and reduce the price of a new vehicle by an average of $2,400.

That is not pocket change. That is the kind of number that hits families, truckers, small businesses, and anyone wondering why every new rule somehow ends up making basic life more expensive.

Why the 2009 Finding Matters So Much

The 2009 Endangerment Finding became the legal lever for the federal government's greenhouse gas regime under the Clean Air Act. Once that finding was in place, EPA could argue that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be treated as pollutants under the statute for purposes of motor vehicle regulation.

TPPF's filing argues that this decision handed the agency power over what one of its attorneys called "virtually every nook and cranny of the nation's economy." That is the kind of phrase people use when they are not talking about a narrow rule dispute. They are talking about an administrative state power grab.

The coalition's core arguments

• The 2009 Endangerment Finding should be set aside because EPA allegedly failed to share the proposal with its Science Advisory Board

• The Clean Air Act is being stretched beyond its best reading to cover greenhouse gases in ways Congress never clearly authorized

• The Supreme Court's older Massachusetts v. EPA precedent should be revisited

• More recent Supreme Court cases have narrowed agencies' ability to make major policy on their own

And that is where this gets interesting.

The Legal Angle the EPA Did Not Fully Press

TPPF says its coalition is not just defending the rescission in broad terms. It is also advancing arguments that EPA declined to make. One of those arguments is that the original 2009 Endangerment Finding was unlawful because the agency did not submit the proposal to its Science Advisory Board.

Another is that Massachusetts v. EPA should be overturned or at least sharply limited. That 2007 Supreme Court ruling opened the door to greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. TPPF argues that later cases, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA, make that older framework look a whole lot shakier than climate regulators would like to admit.

"By making the Endangerment Finding in 2009, EPA impermissibly arrogated to itself enormous powers over virtually every nook and cranny of the nation's economy in an effort to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous natural substance essential to life on Earth," TPPF Senior Attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich said.

"Rescinding the Endangerment Finding provides the Supreme Court a perfect opportunity to revisit erroneous precedent," TPPF attorney Eric Heigis said.

That is not cautious bureaucrat language. That is a direct invitation for the courts to take another look at one of the foundational climate rulings of the last two decades.

Why Conservatives Are Watching This Case Closely

This fight is bigger than one rule. It is about whether agencies can keep discovering massive new powers in old statutes whenever Congress will not vote for the policy they want.

For grassroots conservatives, the issue is familiar:

• Bureaucrats expand their authority

• Consumers pay more

• Industry gets squeezed

• Courts are asked to clean up the mess years later

Because of course it was set up that way.

The EPA's own final rule framed the rescission as both a legal correction and an economic relief measure. The agency said the rollback would lower costs and unwind standards that had driven up vehicle prices. TPPF's coalition wants to make sure that rollback survives in court and, if possible, goes even further by challenging the legal foundation beneath the whole regime.

What Comes Next

The immediate question is whether the D.C. Circuit will allow the coalition to intervene. If it does, the court will hear from parties that say they were directly burdened by the prior regime and that the government should not have the last word on how aggressively to defend the rollback.

The bigger question is whether this case becomes the vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit how far the Clean Air Act can be stretched. If that happens, the Endangerment Finding may turn from untouchable climate dogma into something judges finally scrutinize like any other agency action.

Further Reading

• TPPF press release

• EPA final rule in the Federal Register

• TPPF motion to intervene PDF

According to The Center Square, HUD Assistant Secretary Craig Trainor told the Washington State Housing Finance Commission that publicly available information suggests the program may violate the Fair Housing Act. HUD Secretary Scott Turner put it even more plainly: DEI is dead at HUD. That is not just a slogan. It is now an enforcement posture.

What the program actually does

Washington lawmakers created the Covenant Homeownership Program in 2023 and later expanded it in 2025. The state says it is trying to address the legacy of racially restrictive housing covenants and other historic discrimination. That is the justification. The actual structure is where things get interesting.

According to the program’s public materials and the reporting, eligible buyers can receive:

• Zero-interest loans for down payment assistance

• Help with closing costs

• Expanded eligibility up to 120 percent of area median income in some cases

• Loan forgiveness after five years for some lower-income participants

The catch is not small. To qualify, a buyer must have a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent who lived in Washington before 1968 and who fits one of the state’s listed racial or ethnic categories, including Black, Hispanic, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Korean, or Asian Indian.

So yes, this is exactly the sort of race-based sorting the federal government is now challenging.

The numbers do the roasting

Washington’s own materials make the scale hard to ignore.

The Center Square reported that the commission handed out $60.2 million in loans to 547 homebuyers in the program’s first year. Those loans are funded by a $100 document-recording assessment charged on real estate transactions. The program’s own FAQ says that fee generates roughly $75 million to $100 million each year.

Think about that for a second.

A state fee imposed broadly across the market. A benefit allocated narrowly by ancestry and race. And officials are surprised federal civil rights lawyers are taking a look.

That is the part progressives always skip. They talk about justice in the abstract, then design programs that treat equal protection like an annoying technicality.

Why HUD says this matters

Trainor’s reported letter did not dance around the issue. According to The Center Square, he wrote that the program appears to dole out benefits based on race and ancestry, and he cited the Fair Housing Act’s ban on discrimination in real estate.

He also invoked Chief Justice John Roberts’ line that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Hard to improve on that. It was true when the Supreme Court said it. It is still true when Washington progressives decide their preferred discrimination is morally upgraded discrimination.

HUD’s position appears to be simple:

• The state may not use race as a shortcut for public policy

• Historical wrongs do not create a blank check for new racial preferences

• Housing assistance has to comply with federal civil rights law

That is not radical. That is called reading the law.

Washington’s argument, and the problem with it

The state program’s website frames the policy as a corrective to Washington’s history of racist covenants and redlining. That history is real. Nobody needs to pretend otherwise. But acknowledging past injustice is not the same thing as giving government permission to resurrect racial classifications in a shinier package.

The state’s own FAQ reportedly says some groups were chosen because researchers found lower homeownership rates and stronger documentation of historical harm. Other groups, such as Jewish residents, were not included because the data was more limited.

Read that again.

Government officials are effectively deciding which ancestry groups count enough, which ones do not, and which families get access to taxpayer-backed housing aid. If that sounds like a terrible power for government to have, that is because it is.

And from a Christian and conservative perspective, the moral problem is obvious. The answer to old favoritism is not new favoritism. The answer to past discrimination is equal treatment under the law. Anything else becomes a permanent machine for political sorting.

The bigger political message

This story also matters because it shows what the Trump administration is trying to do across federal agencies. For years, blue states and bureaucracies hid race-preference policies behind euphemisms like equity, targeted investment, and restorative opportunity. Same engine. Better marketing.

Now HUD under President Trump is saying the quiet part out loud: if your program excludes Americans on the basis of race or ancestry, expect scrutiny.

Secretary Turner’s statement, as reported by The Center Square, made that clear:

"I will not stand for illegal racial and ethnic preferences that deny Americans their right to equal protection under the law."

That is the right posture. Fair housing should mean fair housing. Not fair housing for the categories the state likes this year.

What happens next

The Washington State Housing Finance Commission is already facing a separate federal lawsuit over the program, and a judge reportedly denied a preliminary injunction earlier this year. That means the program has kept moving while the legal fight continues. HUD’s investigation raises the stakes.

If federal investigators conclude the commission violated fair housing law, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity could file a complaint and pursue charges. At minimum, Washington now has to defend a policy that many Americans will recognize immediately for what it is: race-based government favoritism with nicer branding.

And that is the larger lesson here. Once government starts deciding who gets help based on skin color, ancestry, or approved grievance categories, equal protection stops being a principle and becomes a prop.

That may play well in a DEI workshop. It plays a lot worse when federal investigators show up with the Fair Housing Act.

Further Reading

• The Center Square: HUD launches investigation into race-based Washington housing program

• Washington State Covenant Homeownership Program site

• Washington House bill report on the Covenant Homeownership Act

According to The Center Square, the Phoenix City Council scheduled a vote on a measure that would block federal law enforcement from using city property for staging operations, processing detainees, or carrying out civil enforcement actions without approval from the city manager. The proposal carves out exceptions for judicial warrants, emergency circumstances, ongoing pursuits, public streets, airports, and the municipal court. In other words, the city is trying to look tough while admitting up front that it cannot actually control most of what matters.

That is what makes this story interesting. It is not just another symbolic city hall gesture. It is a test of whether local progressive officials can posture against immigration enforcement while state law says the opposite.

What Phoenix Wants To Do

The Phoenix resolution, as described in the reporting and the city documents linked with it, would do several things at once:

• Require prior city approval before federal officers use certain city-owned property for civil immigration enforcement

• Force city departments to identify properties that federal agencies have used before or might use again

• Require signage on those properties warning that federal civil enforcement use is not allowed without permission

• Create department-level points of contact for reporting alleged violations

• Keep the policy in place through March 25, 2029

That is a lot of bureaucracy for something Senate Republicans say cannot legally stand.

And that is before you get to the political theater baked into the thing. Signs. Reporting channels. Points of contact. Because of course if you cannot stop federal immigration enforcement outright, the next best thing is to wrap city property in enough red tape to make activists clap at the council meeting.

Arizona Law Says Local Governments Cannot Restrict Immigration Enforcement

Here is the part that matters most.

Arizona Revised Statutes 11-1051 says: "No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

That language is not subtle. It does not say cities may cooperate when convenient. It does not say they can cooperate unless the council wants to send a message. It says they may not limit or restrict enforcement below the full extent allowed by federal law.

The same statute also allows Arizona residents to challenge such policies in court and provides for civil penalties if a court finds a violation. That is why Kavanagh warned Phoenix could be inviting a complaint and even risking state-shared revenue. Whether that exact penalty lands will depend on the legal path that follows, but the threat is not coming out of thin air.

Kavanagh's argument

Kavanagh told The Center Square the Phoenix proposal is "illegal" and "grandstanding virtue signaling." He also said Phoenix should be using its resources to help immigration enforcement rather than obstruct it.

That is blunt. It is also consistent with the law on the books.

He added that ICE is likely to ignore the political performance anyway, especially in public areas where the city has little leverage. Translation: Phoenix may get the headlines it wants, but not the practical result.

Why This Fight Matters Beyond Phoenix

Immigration is one of the clearest policy contrasts in American politics right now. President Trump has broad support among conservatives for restoring border enforcement and ending the lawless mess Washington tolerated for years. So when a major city tries to place new barriers in front of federal immigration officers, people notice.

They should.

This is not just a dispute over municipal procedure. It is about whether local officials can effectively create soft sanctuary policies in a state that has already decided it does not want them.

Here is the bigger picture:

• Arizona law leans toward cooperation with federal immigration enforcement

• Phoenix leadership is leaning toward restriction and delay

• Federal officers still retain authority in many public spaces and under warrant or emergency conditions

• Any court fight could become a broader test of how far cities can go in resisting enforcement

If you are an Arizona voter, the question is pretty simple: who is supposed to be in charge here, the law or the press release?

The Resolution Looks Stronger on Paper Than in Practice

Even the proposal's own exceptions tell the story.

It does not apply when officers are executing a judicial warrant. It does not apply in emergencies. It does not apply during ongoing pursuits. It does not apply on public streets, at airports, or at the municipal court.

So what is left? Mostly city-owned spaces where officials can make a political point and activists can say they "did something." That may be enough to score applause from the usual crowd. It is not much of an immigration policy.

And once you realize the resolution also requires signs and internal reporting structures, the whole thing starts to read less like public safety and more like municipal cosplay.

Let the numbers and text do the roasting

The proposal would stay in effect until 2029.

Arizona law says cities may not restrict immigration enforcement below the full extent permitted by federal law.

That is the collision course in one glance.

What Comes Next

If Phoenix passes the resolution, there are a few obvious possibilities.

First, ICE keeps operating where federal law clearly allows it and the city discovers symbolic resistance is still symbolic. Second, Arizona lawmakers or residents challenge the policy in court under state law. Third, the city ends up spending taxpayer money defending a policy that was mostly designed to make a political statement in the first place.

None of those outcomes exactly scream "good governance."

Conservatives have been warning for years that local sanctuary-style maneuvering does not solve the border crisis. It shifts costs, weakens cooperation, and sends the message that the law is optional if the right activists are loud enough. Phoenix now seems eager to test that theory one more time.

The voters should pay attention. When city leaders spend their energy trying to manage where federal agents may stand instead of supporting enforcement, they are telling you what matters to them. And it is not order.

That is why this fight matters. It is not just about Phoenix. It is about whether states that still believe in immigration enforcement are willing to let their biggest cities sabotage it with a smile and a sign.

Further Reading

• The Center Square: Arizona Senate majority leader blasts Phoenix resolution limiting ICE operations

• Arizona Revised Statutes 11-1051: Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws

• Phoenix City Council resolution document

In a ruling that could ripple well beyond Maryland, the Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed lawsuits filed by three Democrat-run jurisdictions against major oil and gas companies including BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. The local governments wanted damages for climate-related harms, arguing the companies misled the public about the risks tied to fossil fuels. The court was not buying it.

What the court actually said

The majority opinion, written by Justice Brynja Booth, said the lawsuits tried to stretch state law far beyond anything Maryland courts have traditionally allowed.

"No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm."

That line gets to the heart of it. Baltimore and friends tried to dress this up as a local deception case, but the court looked at the substance rather than the packaging. The underlying target was global greenhouse gas emissions and the worldwide use of fossil fuels. That is not a city-council issue. It is not even a single-state issue. It is a national and international issue.

According to the court's opinion, the lawsuits asserted five Maryland-law claims:

• Public nuisance

• Private nuisance

• Trespass

• Negligent failure to warn

• Strict liability failure to warn

The justices held that those claims were displaced or preempted by federal law. They also said that even if federal law did not block the suits, the claims still failed under Maryland law.

Why this matters beyond Maryland

This was not just a technical ruling about filing paperwork in the wrong court. It was a rejection of a growing legal strategy pushed by blue cities and blue states around the country.

That strategy goes like this: if you cannot get Congress to impose your preferred climate regime, and if federal law does not hand local politicians the power they want, then sue energy companies and ask state courts to do the job instead.

The Maryland court said no.

Reuters reported that the ruling came as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review a similar climate case out of Boulder, Colorado. That means this fight is far from over. But Maryland just gave the country a clear roadmap for why these cases run off the rails.

Climate litigation activists want courts to function like unelected super-legislatures. The Maryland ruling pushed back on that. Hard.

The common-sense problem with these lawsuits

The court noted that for more than a century, courts have treated interstate pollution disputes as matters of federal law. That matters because climate change claims are not about smoke drifting over one fence line. They are about worldwide emissions, worldwide energy consumption, and worldwide political tradeoffs.

You do not solve that through Baltimore tort claims.

And if local governments could rewrite energy policy through nuisance law, where would it stop?

• Could one city punish companies for worldwide emissions?

• Could another county demand different warning labels?

• Could fifty states and hundreds of local governments invent their own liability regimes?

That is exactly the kind of legal chaos federal preemption is supposed to prevent.

The court also rejected the idea that Maryland tort law should be stretched to fit these claims. On trespass, the justices said the connection between the companies and specific storms or rainfall was far too attenuated. On failure to warn, the court said the duty the local governments sought to impose was basically a duty to warn the entire human race about climate change. That is not tort law. That is policy theater in a lawyer suit.

The dissent said the case was really about deception

Not everyone on the court agreed. Reuters and other legal coverage noted that there was dissent over the preemption analysis. Justice Peter Killough argued the municipalities were really advancing deception and fraud-based claims, not trying to regulate emissions directly.

That is the cleaner talking point for the plaintiffs, sure. But the majority looked past the slogans and examined what the lawsuits would actually do. If the remedy depends on judging worldwide fossil fuel production, marketing, and use, then you are not dealing with a narrow local fraud dispute. You are trying to use state law to police global conduct.

Again, common sense.

Why conservatives should pay attention

This case matters because it is about more than climate rhetoric. It is about who governs.

Do you want energy policy made through elected lawmakers accountable to voters? Or do you want activist lawyers and sympathetic courts reshaping the economy one creative lawsuit at a time?

Maryland's top court did not sign up for the second option.

That matters for working families too. Every one of these lawsuits carries the same quiet assumption: that the people who produce and sell the energy powering your car, your church, your school, your groceries, and your heat should be treated like public enemies. Then, of course, when energy costs rise, the same crowd acts shocked.

Because of course it does.

The conservative position here is not that companies are above the law. It is that courts are not magical climate ministries. If lawmakers want to change energy policy, they can vote on it in the open and face the voters afterward. That is how self-government works.

Further Reading

• The Center Square: Maryland Supreme Court tosses Blue cities' climate lawsuits against energy companies

• Reuters: Maryland top court rejects climate change lawsuits against oil companies

• Climate in the Courts: Maryland's Top Court Rules In Favor Of Oil Companies, Nixes Climate Tort Suits

• Maryland Supreme Court opinion PDF

Maryland's ruling will not end the climate-lawfare industry overnight. But it did something Washington rarely does these days. It stated the obvious out loud. Local governments cannot hijack state law to run the world's energy system.