A secret Instagram group of 8,500 LAPD officers is sounding the alarm on Los Angeles’ descent into chaos amid violent protests and political meddling. The “Defend the LAPD” club, a digital refuge for cops and supporters, exposes a city crippled by progressive policies and underfunded policing, as the Daily Mail reports. Their revelations paint a grim picture of a force stretched thin and betrayed by local leaders.
In Los Angeles, America’s second-largest city with nearly 4 million residents, clashes over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown have turned streets into battlegrounds. The private group reveals officers’ frustrations with Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who they accuse of undermining law enforcement while protests rage against federal immigration raids. This digital uprising highlights a deep rift between the LAPD and California’s Democratic Party elite.
Street demonstrations erupted Friday in Southern California, with activists clashing against sheriff’s deputies during federal anti-immigration operations targeting foreign-born and Latino communities. Protesters swarmed a government immigration lockup, escalating tensions in a city already on edge. The chaos, say group members, was a disaster foretold by years of neglect.
A 38-page report from “Defend the LAPD,” compiled with input from over 300 officers, details a police force gutted by “quiet defunding” since the 2020 George Floyd protests. The LAPD, short thousands of officers, is unprepared for large-scale unrest, hamstrung by progressive politicians’ constraints. “The Department was not prepared,” a group spokesperson declared, blaming “poor planning” and “inefficient deployment.”
Officers in the group vent their fury at Bass for allegedly seizing control of the LAPD control room, delaying deployments. This “unprecedented interference,” a group post claims, breached the chain of command, endangering federal agents and civilians. Bass’s office, predictably silent, offers no defense against these damning accusations.
The group also accuses local media outlets such as KTLA of peddling biased narratives, spotlighting police actions while ignoring rioters’ violence, such as Molotov cocktails hurled at officers. “The media is not reporting honestly,” a post fumes, exposing the progressive press’s selective outrage. Such coverage, they argue, fuels public mistrust while shielding dangerous activists.
Trump, unapologetic, has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and active-duty U.S. Marines to quell Los Angeles’ unrest. “Everyone supports all the help they can get,” a “Defend the LAPD” spokesperson said, praising federal backup for a city overwhelmed. Officers cheer Trump’s vow to “hit harder” against protesters, a stark contrast to local leaders’ dithering.
Trump’s strategy, part of his second-term immigration crackdown, aims to deport record numbers and lock down the U.S.-Mexico border, with ICE targeting 3,000 daily arrests. The LAPD group backs this federal muscle, arguing it compensates for their own depleted ranks. “We need the help,” a spokesperson admitted, “because we can’t handle it.”
Newsom, ever the grandstander, calls the National Guard deployment a “manufactured crisis” and “un-American.” “Not true,” snaps a group spokesperson, crediting federal forces with keeping streets safe. Newsom’s posturing, they argue, ignores the real crisis: a city leadership that prioritizes optics over order.
Posts in the “Defend the LAPD” group accuse Bass of delaying LAPD support, putting Department of Homeland Security officers and FBI agents at risk. “This breach of the chain of command,” one post states, “prevented crucial operations decisions.” Such meddling, officers warn, turns Los Angeles into a tinderbox where safety is sacrificed for political points.
The group also blasts L.A. City Council member Ysabel Jurado, a progressive lawyer, for allegedly cursing police during her campaign. Jurado’s silence on the unverified claim only fuels officers’ distrust of woke crusaders. These slights, real or perceived, deepen the divide between cops and city hall.
Officers report being assaulted with bottles, concrete, and fireworks while ordered to stand down. “It’s clear the current leadership is prioritizing optics over officer safety,” a spokesperson said, condemning this cowardice. The betrayal stings worse when progressive policies leave cops defenseless against mob violence.
“That dysfunction is no longer theoretical,” a “Defend the LAPD” spokesperson warned, as street chaos proves their warnings true. The group’s report, a cry for help ignored by City Hall, predicted this unraveling. Now, with federal forces stepping in, Los Angeles’ leaders face a reckoning for their failures.
Trump’s threat to arrest Newsom, who decries federal intervention as dictatorial, underscores the political chasm. Officers, aligned with Trump’s no-nonsense approach, see Newsom’s protests as empty rhetoric from a governor out of touch. The clash between state and federal power only intensifies the city’s turmoil.
“Defend the LAPD” stands as a grassroots rebellion against a city elite that’s left officers out to dry. Their 8,500-strong voice, now amplified by the Daily Mail, demands accountability from Bass, Newsom, and a media complicit in their failures. As Los Angeles burns, this secret club’s warnings echo louder than ever.
Over 100 House Democrats just thumbed their noses at condemning an antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado. This week, 113 Democrats voted against a Republican resolution denouncing the June 1 firebombing that injured 15 people, as the New York Post reports. The resolution, led by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO) also took aim at Colorado’s sanctuary state policies.
The attack, allegedly perpetrated by Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa, targeted peaceful marchers demanding the release of Hamas-held hostages in Gaza, leaving 15 injured. Soliman reportedly used Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower while shouting “Free Palestine.” House Democrats’ refusal to back the resolution, which passed 280-113 with 75 Democrats joining Republicans, has sparked fierce backlash.
Soliman’s attack on June 1 shook the town of Boulder, targeting a march in support of hostage release with brutal efficiency. The National Republican Congressional Committee didn’t mince words, accusing the 113 Democrats of “siding with terrorists” and opposing law enforcement. Their vote against the resolution, which praised ICE and local police, suggests a troubling priorities list.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called the resolution a political stunt, sneering, “This is not a serious effort.” His dismissal of Evans’ measure as insincere ignores the 15 victims burned in Boulder’s streets. Jeffries’ sanctimonious tone reeks of dodging accountability for his party’s vote.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) himself a Jewish lawmaker, also voted no, claiming on the House floor, “We Jews are sick of being used as pawns.” Goldman’s theatrics sidestep the resolution’s core: condemning a clear antisemitic attack. His vote aligns with progressive posturing over practical solutions.
The resolution’s passage, despite Democrats' resistance, affirms support for law enforcement collaboration to prevent future attacks. Evans, a former police officer, argued that it ensures “free and open” cooperation between state and federal authorities. Yet 113 Democrats seem more concerned with sanctuary state dogma than public safety.
Evans didn’t hold back, blasting Democrats’ refusal to condemn the attack as proof that the “Left is unserious about solutions.” His floor speech tied Colorado’s sanctuary laws to enabling “antisemitic terrorists like Soliman” to strike. The data backs him: Soliman, an overstayed visa holder, exploited lax policies.
“Condemning terrorism is not a joking matter,” Evans declared, rebuking Jeffries’ flippant critique. The NRCC echoed this, branding Democrats the “pro-terrorist, anti-cop” caucus on X. Hyperbole aside, the vote split exposes a Democratic Party struggling to confront antisemitism head-on.
Democrats griped about the resolution’s nod to ICE, claiming that it politicized a tragedy. Their objection conveniently overlooks the ways in which federal-state cooperation could have flagged Soliman earlier. It’s a classic progressive dodge: cry foul over language to avoid the issue.
A separate resolution, introduced by Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) and Joe Neguse (D-CO) sailed through 400-0. It broadly denounced rising antisemitic attacks across the U.S. without touching sanctuary policies or ICE. Funny how Democrats found their spines when the stakes were less policy-specific.
Evans, undeterred, stood firm: “The passing of my resolution ensures we condemn all acts of antisemitism.” His measure’s focus on law enforcement and sanctuary laws hit a nerve that Democrats couldn’t stomach. The contrast with the unanimous resolution highlights their selective outrage.
Jeffries doubled down, accusing Evans of “weaponizing” antisemitism politically. His pearl-clutching rings hollow when 113 Democrats couldn’t muster a vote against a firebombing terrorist. The hypocrisy is glaring: call out policy failures, and suddenly it’s “not serious.”
The Boulder attack’s victims -- 15 marchers burned for demanding that hostages be freed -- deserve better than Democratic Party deflections. Goldman’s claim that Jews are “sick of being pawns” might resonate if his vote didn’t undermine condemning a clear antisemitic act. Actions speak louder than floor speeches.
Evans’ resolution, while pointed, addressed a real issue: sanctuary policies that shield visa overstayers like Soliman. Democrats’ refusal to engage on this point suggests they’d rather play woke word games than protect communities. It’s a dangerous precedent in an era of rising antisemitic violence.
The House’s 280-113 vote proves most lawmakers see the urgency, but 113 Democrats beg to differ. Their no votes signal a troubling comfort with half-measures on antisemitism and public safety. Boulder’s marchers and America deserve a Congress that doesn’t flinch in calling evil by its name.
Americans are rallying behind President Donald Trump’s deportation program, with cracks showing in the progressive narrative. A recent CBS News poll reveals net positive approval for the administration's initiative, driven by a belief that it targets dangerous criminals. Yet, the left’s hand-wringing over “fairness” is muddying the waters for some.
The poll, completed before Saturday’s Los Angeles protests, shows strong Republican support, though independents are cooling compared to months ago. Half of Americans think Trump’s deportations exceed his 2024 campaign promises, and most in this group disapprove. This suggests a disconnect between MAGA’s bold vision and the moderates’ squeamishness.
Many Americans see the program as a shield, believing that it makes the U.S. safer by focusing on criminals. Those who endorse this view back the effort wholeheartedly, while skeptics -- often swayed by woke talking points -- lose enthusiasm. The data slaps down claims that safety isn’t the priority.
The deportation push is increasingly a GOP affair, with only the party base showing overwhelming support. Democrats, predictably, clutch their pearls, doubting their party’s ability to counter Trump’s policies. Their minority status in Congress doesn’t help the left's situation.
Americans who think immigrants steal jobs from citizens cheer the program, taking a stance tied to ideology over income. Conversely, those who see immigrants filling unwanted jobs -- think fruit pickers, not tech bros -- worry that it’ll tank the economy. The left’s “open borders” mantra isn’t winning here.
More Americans believe that the program weakens the economy than strengthens it, a point progressives will surely amplify. Yet, the same poll shows stabilized economic views in 2025, suggesting the public isn’t buying the doomsday rhetoric. Trump’s immigration approval outshines his economic scores, a win for his base.
A majority finds it unacceptable for legal residents to be mistakenly deported, though MAGA Republicans are split. Even the staunchest patriots often draw a line at sloppy execution. This nuance exposes the left’s caricature of conservatives as heartless.
Those shocked by the program’s scale demand hearings and due process for deportees. The “more than expected” crowd -- likely fed by media hysterics -- leans this way, wary of overreach. Trump’s team must tighten the screws to keep public trust.
Support for the program’s goals outpaces approval of its methods, a classic case of good intentions meeting messy reality. Americans see that Trump’s heart is in the right place -- securing borders, not chasing headlines. The woke crowd, meanwhile, obsesses over optics.
Trump’s new tariffs face net negative approval, with fears that they’ll spike prices short- and long-term. Critics call them a tax on consumers, but supporters argue they bolster U.S. manufacturing. The left’s “tariffs hurt the poor” narrative is predictable but not universal.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, still under debate, confuses most Americans, much like Biden’s Build Back Better flop in 2021. Those claiming to know its details -- probably cable news junkies -- think it’ll raise taxes and hurt them. Yet, a majority bets it’ll preserve Trump’s tax cuts, a plus for the middle class.
Only a third believe the bill helps the working class, and most say it’ll harm the poor. The left will pounce, painting Trump as a corporate shill, but the bill’s aim to keep tax cuts resonates. Doubts about helping “people like you” linger across party lines.
Americans fear the bill will cut health insurance coverage and balloon the federal deficit. Republicans, ever optimistic, are less convinced about the deficit hit. The left’s “Trump hates the vulnerable” trope is in overdrive, but voters aren’t fully sold.
Trump’s overall job approval holds steady, with immigration as his strongest suit. No group -- Trump, GOP, or Democrats -- wins majority trust for “fighting for you,” but Trump leads. The left’s inability to connect here is their fault, not Trump’s.
The deportation program’s success hinges on execution, not just intent. Americans want safety and order, not chaos or economic pain. Trump’s challenge is proving he can deliver without feeding the progressive outrage machine.
Karine Jean-Pierre’s defection from the Democratic Party has unleashed a firestorm of criticism from her former White House colleagues, as the Daily Mail reports. The former press secretary, who served until January 2025, announced her departure alongside a book deal that’s being called a shameless cash grab. Her move has sparked outrage among Democrats, who are grappling with a host of current concerns.
Jean-Pierre, once a key Biden spokesperson, is poised to release Independent, a book touted as an “urgent” critique of a “broken White House.” Its shattered-glass cover and promotional claims of Democratic betrayal have raised eyebrows. Critics argue she’s prioritizing personal profit over party unity at a critical time.
Before her stint at the White House, Jean-Pierre worked as a political director for former President Barack Obama and the progressive group MoveOn. Her tenure as Biden's press secretary, however, drew sharp rebukes from colleagues who called her “ineffectual” and “unprepared.” One former official quipped that coddling her consumed “astronomical” time better spent on real issues.
“What is the goal here? Is the goal here to sell a book?” a former White House official told DailyMail.com. Such pointed questions underscore the skepticism surrounding Jean-Pierre’s motives. Her book’s focus on Biden’s decision to abandon a second term in January 2025 feels like a betrayal to many.
The Democratic Party is reeling from Vice President Kamala Harris’ election loss to Donald Trump after Biden stepped aside from his re-election bid. Jean-Pierre’s book, which claims the White House was “broken,” adds fuel to an already divided party. Former officials see her actions as a distraction from urgent fights over health insurance losses and deportations.
“We’re fighting against 10.9 million people losing their health insurance,” one ex-colleague fumed to DailyMail.com. The same official decried potential citizen deportations to El Salvador, slamming Jean-Pierre’s messaging as tone-deaf. Her pivot to “independence” is seen as a weak excuse for abandoning ship.
Unlike her predecessor, Jen Psaki, who secured a hosting job at MSNBC, Jean-Pierre has struggled to secure high-profile media gigs. ABC’s The View reportedly rejected her professional overtures, a stark contrast to her time as press secretary. One official sneered that her “selfish stunt” is a desperate bid for relevance.
“She lost whatever media cachet she had,” a former colleague told DailyMail.com. The official suggested that Jean-Pierre’s book is a last-ditch effort to stay in the spotlight. Her failure to read the room has only deepened the scorn from her peers.
Former Democrat Rep. Dean Phillips, who challenged Biden in the primaries, took a subtle jab at Jean-Pierre’s book deal. “I just share my perspective and advocate for common sense without charging anyone for it,” he said. His dig highlights the perception that Jean-Pierre is profiting off party turmoil.
Former White House aides didn’t hold back on X, where group chats buzzed with reactions. “A lot of group chats were revived today,” Symone Sanders-Townsend posted, while Vedant Patel noted “13” chats on his end. Jeremy Edwards simply replied, “Lol,” capturing the collective eye-roll.
Jean-Pierre defended her move on Instagram, claiming strangers stop her daily for her insights on “preserving our democracy.” “I’m choosing what I champion based on my own compass,” she wrote. Her lofty rhetoric rings hollow to colleagues who see it as self-serving.
“Her becoming independent because they were mean to her boss is the lamest s--- I’ve ever heard,” one official told DailyMail.com. The sentiment reflects a broader frustration with Jean-Pierre’s leadership and message delivery. Her tenure was marked by chaos, not clarity.
Axios reporter Alex Thompson and CNN’s Jake Tapper, in their recent book Original Sin, criticized the Biden White House for hiding the president’s decline. Jean-Pierre’s book echoes this narrative, but her colleagues aren’t buying it. They argue she’s deflecting from her shortcomings as a leader.
“Probably best to purge the party of our most delusional and self-serving personalities,” a former official told DailyMail.com. The harsh words reflect a desire to move past Jean-Pierre’s drama. Her critics want to focus on policy battles, not personal vendettas.
Jean-Pierre’s fall from grace is a cautionary tale of misplaced priorities. While Democrats fight to protect millions from policy upheavals, her book deal and party exit signal a focus on fame over substance. The backlash from her peers shows a party eager to shed dead weight.
Columbia University’s woke policies just got a reality check from the Trump administration. On Wednesday, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights declared the institution in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, putting its accreditation at risk, as the Washington Free Beacon reports. The move signals a broader push to hold universities accountable for failing to protect Jewish students.
The Trump administration notified Columbia’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, that the university failed to comply with civil rights laws. This follows a May 22 finding by the Education and Health and Human Services departments that Columbia showed deliberate indifference to discriminatory harassment against Jewish students. In one sentence: Columbia’s accreditation hangs in the balance after the Trump administration exposed its failure to address anti-Semitism, violating federal law and risking federal funding.
Back in April, campus radicals at Columbia stormed a library, hospitalized two security guards, and glorified Hamas’s violence in pamphlets. They even renamed the building after Bassel al-Araj, a Palestinian terrorist killed in 2017. These weren’t first-time offenders -- six arrested students had priors for violent campus disruptions, per the Washington Free Beacon.
Columbia’s response? Promises to “deal more aggressively” with agitators. Yet, the university’s track record suggests more talk than action, as Jewish students continue facing harassment. The Trump administration isn’t buying the empty rhetoric.
The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights found Columbia’s inaction violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects students based on national origin, including shared ancestry. Secretary Linda McMahon didn’t mince words: “Columbia’s deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students is not only immoral, but also unlawful.” That’s a polite way of saying Columbia’s leadership has been asleep at the wheel.
Accreditation isn’t just a badge of honor -- it’s a lifeline. Without it, Columbia loses access to federal financial aid, including student loans, and its degrees turn into very expensive wallpaper. The Middle States Commission’s policies demand compliance with all government laws, and Columbia’s failure puts its standing in jeopardy.
McMahon laid it out clearly: “Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid.” She’s right -- accreditors decide which schools get taxpayer-backed loans and grants. Columbia’s progressive posturing might thrill the faculty lounge, but it’s failing the students it’s supposed to protect.
Universities rarely lose accreditation, but President Trump is shaking things up. On April 23, he signed an executive order simplifying the process for universities to switch accreditors and for new accreditors to gain federal recognition. It’s a direct shot at the cozy, left-leaning accreditation system that’s been rubber-stamping campus overreach for years.
The Trump administration has also frozen over $430 million in funding and pushed for new disciplinary measures to tackle campus anti-Semitism. This isn’t just about Columbia -- it’s a warning to every university coddling radicals while ignoring Jewish students’ safety. The days of sweeping anti-Semitism under the rug are over.
Columbia’s spokesperson claimed the university is “deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus.” Really? Tell that to the Jewish students dodging harassment while administrators clutch their pearls and issue press releases.
The spokesperson added, “We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.” That sounds like bureaucratic damage control, not a plan to fix the problem. Columbia’s been caught red-handed, and now it’s scrambling to appease its accreditor.
The university insists it’s addressing the Education Department’s concerns with the Middle States Commission. But after months of inaction, it’s hard to take their promises seriously. Jewish students deserve better than lip service from administrators more interested in DEI optics than actual safety.
Accreditation used to focus on education quality, but accreditors, under the Education Department’s oversight, now weigh factors like DEI policies. McMahon nailed it: “University accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards.” Columbia’s failure to meet those standards isn’t just a paperwork issue -- it’s a moral one.
The Trump administration’s push to reform accreditation is a long-overdue wake-up call. By tying federal funding to compliance with civil rights laws, the administration is forcing universities to prioritize students over ideology. Columbia’s predicament is a test case for whether accreditors will finally grow a spine.
For too long, universities like Columbia have hidden behind progressive platitudes while Jewish students bear the brunt of unchecked radicalism. The Trump administration’s crackdown is a bold step toward restoring sanity on campus. If Columbia wants to keep its accreditation, it’s time to stop pandering to agitators and start protecting all students equally.
A makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails turned a quiet Colorado day into a fiery nightmare, courtesy of a man who shouldn’t have been here. Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an unauthorized migrant, now faces charges of attempted murder and assault after attacking twelve elderly victims, as Breitbart reports. His story exposes the gaping holes in America’s immigration system.
Soliman, who injured twelve people aged 52 to 88 with burns ranging from minor to severe, arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa in August 2022. The assault against a group peacefully marching in support of hostages held by Hamas, was executed with chilling precision and left all victims hospitalized. This single sentence captures the chaos: one man, illegally overstaying, unleashed terror on Boulder’s vulnerable.
The man's overstay of his initial visa, which was valid only until February 2023, was ignored as he lingered unlawfully. Shockingly, the Biden administration granted him a work permit in March 2023, despite his expired visa status. That permit, now expired since March 2024, raises questions about bureaucratic negligence.
Soliman’s history with U.S. immigration is a red flag waved in vain. Twenty years ago, he was denied a visa, yet he slipped through in 2022. The system’s failure to track overstays let him roam free until his violent outburst.
Now in custody in Colorado, Soliman faces a $10 million cash bond, a figure prosecutors hope will keep him locked up. His attack, police say, was a solo act, with no evidence thus far that his wife or five children knew his plans. A phone left in a desk drawer with messages to his family suggests he acted in secrecy.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed Tuesday that Soliman’s wife and children are in custody. “We are investigating to what extent his family knew about this heinous attack,” Noem said. Her words hint at a broader probe, but so far, the family’s ignorance seems plausible.
The White House has signaled the likelihood deportation for Soliman’s family, a move that underscores the consequences of illegal presence. Noem’s scrutiny of their involvement is a necessary step but deporting them without evidence of complicity feels to some like justice with a heavy hand. Still, the law demands accountability.
Soliman’s daughter, recently celebrated by a Colorado Springs newspaper with a scholarship, painted a rosy picture of her American dream. “Coming to the USA has fundamentally changed me,” she wrote in her application. That change, it seems, didn’t extend to her father’s disregard for the law.
She also gushed, “I came to appreciate that family is the unchanging support.” Her words, dripping with irony, clash with her father’s covert violence. Scholarships don’t erase the stain of a parent’s crimes.
The Biden administration’s decision to grant Soliman a work permit despite his illegal status is a head-scratcher. It’s as if the left hand of government didn’t know what the right was doing -- or didn’t care. This lapse let a ticking time bomb walk free.
Twelve elderly victims, now scarred by burns, are the human cost of this oversight. Their ages -- 52 to 88 -- highlight the cruelty of targeting the defenseless. Soliman’s choice of weapons, a flamethrower and Molotov cocktails, reeks of premeditated malice.
Prosecutors’ $10 million bond demand reflects the gravity of Soliman’s actions. Colorado’s courts aren’t playing games with a man who turned a quiet community into a war zone. Justice, at least for now, is holding firm.
Soliman’s undetected overstay since February 2023 points to a porous immigration system. How does someone denied entry two decades ago waltz in and stay without a whisper of enforcement? The answer lies in a bureaucracy bogged down by progressive policies that prioritize feelings over facts.
His family’s detention, while legally sound, stirs debate about collective punishment. If they truly knew nothing, as police documents suggest, their deportation might fuel the left’s narrative of a heartless system. But laws aren’t suggestions -- they’re mandates.
Boulder’s wounds will heal, but the scars of this attack run deeper than skin. Soliman’s rampage is a wake-up call: secure borders and rigorous enforcement aren’t optional. America deserves better than a system that lets chaos slip through the cracks.
Operation Patriot, the largest ICE sweep in history, shook Massachusetts to its core, rounding up 1,461 unauthorized migrants in a single month, as Fox News reports. The operation, which wrapped up on May 31, 2025, targeted criminals freely roaming the streets of Boston and beyond, exposing the chaos of sanctuary policies. It’s a wake-up call for a state that’s been hitting the snooze button on border security.
In the month of May, ICE, backed by the FBI, DEA, and ATF, arrested 1,461 unauthorized migrants across Massachusetts, including 790 with criminal convictions and 277 with final deportation orders, despite resistance from sanctuary jurisdictions. The operation dwarfed the previous record set by Florida’s Operation Tidal Wave, which nabbed 1,120. Massachusetts’ lack of cooperation made this sweep a logistical beast, but ICE got it done.
Throughout May, ICE teams from across the Northeast descended on Greater Boston and other Massachusetts cities. Sanctuary policies meant local authorities often released criminals despite ICE detainers, forcing federal agents to hunt them down. Anti-ICE activists added daily headaches, but the feds pushed through.
Last week, Fox News rode along with ICE Boston, witnessing arrests that read like a horror novel: a murderer, two child rapists, a fentanyl trafficker, an adult rapist, and a child sexual assault perpetrator\ -- all in a few hours. One child rapist lived next to a playground, a chilling reminder of sanctuary policies’ fallout. These weren’t “model citizens” but predators shielded by local defiance.
The operation’s scale exposed Massachusetts’s sanctuary jurisdictions as magnets for chaos. Hundreds of arrested migrants had been cut loose by local authorities, ignoring ICE’s pleas to hold them. Jon Fetherston, a former Massachusetts migrant shelter director, nailed it: “That’s not compassion -- it’s recklessness.”
Fetherston also warned that shielding criminals creates “a climate of lawlessness.” He’s right -- when convicted felons roam free, it’s not just ICE agents at risk; it’s every resident. Sanctuary policies aren’t noble; they’re a gamble with public safety.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey fumed over the arrest of Marcelo Gomes, an 18-year-old unauthorized migrant and Milford High School junior, on Sunday. “I am disturbed and outraged,” Healey declared, demanding “answers immediately.” Her selective outrage ignores the 790 criminals nabbed, focusing instead on one sympathetic case to dodge the bigger issue.
Healey’s claim that the operation makes communities “less safe” is a head-scratcher. Letting murderers and rapists walk free isn’t exactly a recipe for safety. Her rhetoric sounds like a progressive talking point, not a plan to protect Massachusetts residents.
On Monday, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons fired back at a press conference, slamming sanctuary policies. “If sanctuary cities would change their policies and turn these violent criminal aliens over to us, we wouldn’t have to go out to the communities,” Lyons said. He has a point -- cooperation would streamline justice and keep agents out of the crosshairs.
Also on June 2, Lorenzo Lopez Alcario, an unauthorized migrant, faced arraignment for allegedly raping a child with force, with the victim reportedly tied up. This horrific case underscores why ICE’s mission matters. Sanctuary policies didn’t stop this crime; they enabled the suspect’s freedom until his arrest.
Lyons vowed ICE would “keep coming back” to protect communities from “sex offenders and criminal aliens.” His resolve is a stark contrast to local leaders who seem more interested in optics than outcomes. Massachusetts residents deserve better than leaders who prioritize feelings over felons.
Fetherston’s warning about “a climate of lawlessness” rings louder with each arrest. Shielding criminals doesn’t just defy federal law; it erodes trust in the system. When local jails ignore detainers, they’re rolling the dice on who gets hurt next.
Operation Patriot’s success, despite Massachusetts’ obstruction, proves ICE’s determination to uphold the law. The operation’s 1,461 arrests dwarf Florida’s Tidal Wave, showing the scale of the problem in sanctuary states. Local resistance only makes the job harder, not impossible.
Healey’s outrage and activist interference highlight a deeper issue: a progressive agenda that puts politics over people. Protecting communities means prioritizing safety, not sanctuary status. Anything less is a betrayal of the public’s trust.
Operation Patriot isn’t just a record-breaker; it’s a warning shot. Massachusetts can either cooperate with ICE or brace for more sweeps. The choice is clear, but will local leaders listen, or will they keep playing roulette with public safety?
Fentanyl seizures at the U.S. border have nosedived, signaling a rare win for law enforcement. Federal authorities report a sharp decline in the deadly drug crossing from Mexico in 2025, slicing monthly averages from 1,700 pounds in 2024 to just 746 pounds, as NewsNation reports. This drop suggests tougher policies might finally be hitting the cartels where it hurts.
In 2024, border agents were drowning in fentanyl, seizing an average of 1,700 pounds monthly, but 2025’s 30% reduction, as noted by the Washington Post, points to a shift. The Trump administration’s hardline stance, including branding fentanyl trafficking a national security threat, has forced Mexico to act. Meanwhile, the Sinaloa Cartel’s internal chaos could be weakening its members' grip.
The administration didn’t stop at tough talk. Threats of tariffs on Mexico lit a fire under the country's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who deployed 10,000 troops to the northern border. Progressive critics might call this heavy-handed, but results don’t lie.
Mexico’s response wasn’t just symbolic. U.S. and Mexican agencies teamed up to torch three major synthetic drug labs in Sinaloa, a cartel stronghold. These weren’t small-time operations -- think industrial-scale death factories.
One busted super lab in Sinaloa was pumping out two tons of fentanyl weekly, raking in $80 million from the product. Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw crowed about the takedown, and for good reason. Shutting down that kind of operation is a gut punch to the cartels.
But let’s not pop the champagne yet. The Sinaloa Cartel’s civil war between rival factions might be disrupting their supply chain, but it’s also making them more desperate. Chaos breeds unpredictability, not surrender.
The cartel’s infighting is a double-edged sword. While it’s helping choke off fentanyl at the border, the drug remains dirt-cheap and plentiful in U.S. cities. Enforcement wins are real, but the streets tell a darker story.
Back in 2024, the fentanyl flood was relentless, with 1,700 pounds seized monthly -- a drop in the bucket compared to what got through. Fast forward to 2025, and the 746-pound monthly average shows progress, but not victory. The cartels are down, not out.
The Trump administration’s tariff threats were a masterclass in leverage. Mexico’s troop surge wasn’t born of goodwill -- it was a response to economic pressure. Woke diplomats might clutch their pearls, but this is how you get results.
The Sinaloa lab busts prove that cross-border teamwork can work. Three labs dismantled in one fell swoop isn’t just a headline -- it’s a blueprint for starving the cartels’ cash flow. Cooperation, not coddling, is the key.
Still, fentanyl’s availability in the U.S. is a stubborn problem. Despite the seizure drop, dealers aren’t exactly rationing their stock. This suggests the cartels have deeper reserves or sneakier routes.
Rep. Crenshaw’s report on the $80 million super lab bust is a reminder of the stakes. Two tons a week from one lab alone could flood entire states. That’s not a supply chain -- it’s a weapon of mass destruction.
The Sinaloa Cartel’s civil war might be a lucky break for law enforcement. A house divided can’t flood the border as effectively, but it’s still a house armed to the teeth. Don’t expect them to wave a white flag.
Mexico’s 10,000 troops are a start, but boots on the ground won’t solve everything. The cartels have spent decades building networks that laugh at border walls and checkpoints. Enforcement needs to stay relentless.
The 30% seizure drop is worth celebrating, but only cautiously. Fentanyl’s cheap price tag and wide reach in the U.S. prove the fight’s far from over. Tough talk and tougher action must keep the pressure on.
Elon Musk’s Washington adventure just hit an attempted Democrat-led roadblock. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) accused Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of potential criminal activity during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC’s The Weeknight, as Breitbart reports. The allegations center on DOGE’s installation of servers in the White House complex.
Subramanyam claims that Musk’s DOGE team, tied to the office of presidential personnel, embedded itself across government agencies and may have broken laws over the past few months. Democrats are gearing up to investigate, with Subramanyam hinting at subpoenas if and when his party regains power. Meanwhile, reports suggest that Musk is packing his bags and leaving Washington.
The lawmaker's accusations kicked off on MSNBC, where host Symone Sanders raised concerns about DOGE’s reach. She noted that DOGE’s servers, believed to still be in the White House, gave Musk’s team access to every agency through the personnel office. This setup, Sanders implied, smells like a scandal waiting to be unpacked.
“Those servers are a big issue,” Subramanyam declared, vowing to dig deeper. But where’s the evidence of crimes? His vague claims of wrongdoing over “3 or 4 months” sound like a fishing expedition, not a slam-dunk case.
DOGE’s White House servers, installed during Musk’s stint, are at the heart of the controversy. Subramanyam’s team seems convinced these machines hold secrets that could tarnish Musk’s reputation and put him in legal jeopardy. Yet, without specifics, it’s hard to see this as more than political posturing.
The Virginia Democrat’s call for subpoenas feels like a preemptive strike. If Democrats regain control of the legislature, they’ll likely drag Musk before Congress to explain DOGE’s every move. Actions have consequences, but so do overzealous witch hunts.
Musk’s reported departure from Washington adds fuel to the fire. Subramanyam sneered that Musk is on an “image repair tour,” suggesting he’s dodging accountability. But maybe Musk’s just done with D.C.’s bureaucratic quicksand.
“The best way for him to repair his image is to reverse all the damage he did,” Subramanyam said. Damage? That’s a bold claim when the only “crime” mentioned is installing servers for government efficiency.
Sanders framed DOGE’s influence as insidious, with “tentacles” in every agency. Her dramatic flair paints Musk as some sort of Bond villain, but the reality might be far less cinematic. Streamlining government isn’t inherently evil, despite the left’s hysterics.
Democrats’ plans to investigate hinge on the party's ability to reclaim power, a not-so-subtle nod to political timing. Subramanyam’s promise to “find out” what happened suggests a long, drawn-out probe. Taxpayers might wonder if this is the best use of Congress’s time.
The servers, still allegedly in the White House, are what Democrats believe could be their golden ticket. They’re betting these machines hold evidence of Musk overstepping his bounds. But without public proof, it’s all speculation dressed up as justice.
Subramanyam’s rhetoric about crimes “coming to light” is confident but light on details. If he’s got the goods, he should spill them now, not tease a future inquisition. Transparency cuts both ways, congressman.
Musk’s DOGE was meant to trim government fat, not add to Washington’s drama. Subramanyam’s accusations risk turning a bureaucratic spat into a partisan circus. The MAGA crowd will see this as another swipe at a reformer challenging the swamp.
Sanders’ question about “what Democrats are going to do about the data” assumes there’s a smoking gun. But assumptions aren’t evidence, and DOGE’s servers might just be tools for efficiency, not espionage. The left’s eagerness to vilify Musk feels like a script they’ve run before.
Subramanyam’s crusade might rally his base, but it’s a risky bet. If the investigation flops, Democrats will look like they’re chasing shadows while Musk laughs all the way to X. Sometimes, the real crime is wasting everyone’s time.
Elon Musk just threw a wrench into the Republican spending party. The billionaire, heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) advisory board, blasted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act for ballooning the federal deficit, as CNBC reports. His sharp critique, aired in a Washington Post interview Tuesday, exposes a rift in the MAGA camp.
Musk, the world’s richest man, leads DOGE, which has slashed $170 billion in taxpayer costs since January by targeting bureaucratic bloat. The Republican-backed bill, passed in a House vote, is projected to add $3.8 trillion to the deficit over a decade, per the Congressional Budget Office. This clash pits Musk’s efficiency crusade against Trump’s big-spending vision.
“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill,” Musk said. He’s right -- piling on debt while preaching fiscal restraint is a head-scratcher. The bill’s name, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, sounds like a pageant title, not a budget fix.
Musk’s DOGE has gutted redundancies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, but at a cost. Roughly 275,000 government layoffs, reported by consultancy firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, have sparked backlash. Streamlining is bold, but axing jobs en masse isn’t exactly a crowd-pleaser.
“The federal bureaucracy is much worse than I realized,” Musk admitted. His shock at the system’s rot validates every conservative’s gripe about Washington’s waste. Yet, his cuts have made DOGE “the whipping boy for everything,” as he put it.
The national debt, already at $36.2 trillion, looms large. With the 2025 deficit nearing $2 trillion, Musk’s push for lean government makes sense. Throwing trillions more on the tab undermines his work and fuels progressive spending fantasies.
Trump and congressional Republicans claim the bill trims key areas and spurs growth to offset tax cuts. Sounds nice, but the Congressional Budget Office’s $3.8 trillion deficit hike tells a different story. Growth doesn’t magically erase debt when spending runs wild.
“I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful, but I don’t know if it could be both,” Musk quipped. His wit cuts through the bill’s lofty branding. A “beautiful” budget doesn’t bury the nation deeper in red ink.
The bill now faces a Senate gauntlet, where resistance is expected to be fierce. Republicans may have won the House vote, but pushing this behemoth through won’t be a cakewalk. Musk’s public jab could embolden fiscal hawks to dig in.
Musk, a frequent White House fixture since Trump’s election, has been DOGE’s driving force. His upcoming CBS Sunday Morning interview, airing June 1, will likely amplify his critique. But don’t expect him to linger in the political spotlight.
He’s already scaling back DOGE involvement to focus on X, Tesla, and SpaceX. Running companies that innovate beats wrestling with Washington’s swamp creatures any day. Smart move -- bureaucracy chews up visionaries.
Still, Musk’s DOGE stint exposed the federal machine’s inefficiencies. His $170 billion in savings is no small feat, even if it ruffled feathers. Actions have consequences, and his layoffs, while harsh, aimed to curb a bloated system.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s deficit spike is a gut punch to fiscal conservatives. Trump’s team insists it’s a growth engine, but banking on future gains to fix today’s overspending is a gamble. Musk’s frustration resonates with anyone tired of kicking the debt can down the road.
With the Senate fight looming, the bill’s fate hangs in the balance. Musk’s critique might rally deficit hawks, but Trump’s clout could steamroll opposition. Either way, the $36.2 trillion national debt isn’t shrinking anytime soon.
Elon Musk’s DOGE experiment proves the government can be leaner, but it’s no match for a spending spree dressed up as reform. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act may have passed the House, but its “beautiful” label is starting to look to many like lipstick on a pig. Time will tell if the Senate sees through the glitz.
