Republicans can’t stop winning. It’s looking like it’s going to be a good four years under Trump.

And this massive federal court ruling throws Democrats’ plans directly in the trash.

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major decision on Friday, affirming that the U.S. government has the authority to deport illegal immigrants and override local attempts to obstruct federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from operating in their jurisdictions.

Judges Daniel Bress, Michael Hawkins, and Richard Clinton issued the ruling in a 29-page decision, upholding the district court’s summary judgment in the case.

According to The Center Square, the case stemmed from a 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine in Washington. The order aimed to block ICE from utilizing a local Boeing airfield for deportation operations. The outlet explained:

Constantine’s order prohibited King County International Airport from supporting “the transportation and deportation of immigration detainees in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, either traveling within or arriving or departing the United States or its territories.”

The Boeing airfield, located near Seattle, a self-declared “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, is also close to ICE-Seattle’s operational hub. The Trump administration sued King County in 2019, arguing that Constantine’s order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the administration cited the clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine and a “World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement,” which guaranteed federal access to the airfield.

The Trump administration prevailed in the initial lawsuit, prompting King County to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Instrument of Transfer agreement explicitly states:

“The United States of America . . . through any of its employees or agents shall at all times have the right to make nonexclusive use of the landing area of the airport at which any of the property transferred by this instrument is located or used, without charge.”

In his opinion, Judge Bress, joined by Judges Hawkins and Clinton, found that Constantine’s order interfered with the Instrument of Transfer clause by obstructing ICE operations at the airfield. The order imposed the following:

Among other things, King County officials shall “[t]ake appropriate actions, consistent with the County’s federal obligations, to minimize County cooperation with, facilitation of, and permission for, operations associated with transportation of immigration detainees.”

In addition, and importantly, County officials shall Ensure that all future leases, operating permits, and other authorizations for commercial activity at King County International Airport contain a prohibition against providing aeronautical or nonaeronautical services to enterprises engaged in the business of deporting immigration detainees (except for federal government aircraft), to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.

As a result, ICE contractors faced discrimination, forcing the agency to move its operations from King County to Yakima, Washington. This relocation introduced security risks and additional expenses.

The court ruled that the King County order “improperly regulated the way in which the federal government transported noncitizen detainees by preventing ICE from using private FBO contractors at Boeing Field, and on its face discriminated against the United States by singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment.”

The court also detailed how the order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine under the Supremacy Clause:

In recognition of the federal government’s independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from “interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 596 U.S. at 838. It does so by proscribing “state laws that either ‘regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals’ (e.g., contractors).”

Judge Bress concluded, “We hold that the Executive Order violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine and that the anticommandeering and market participant doctrines do not apply.

King County’s Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO breached the Instrument of Transfer and violated the Supremacy Clause. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

It remains unclear if King County will escalate the case to the Supreme Court.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Partisanship has infected the judicial system. But rarely is it this blatant.

And now two federal judges just hit Donald Trump with a devastating loss.

Here’s a fresh rewrite with all quotes unchanged:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell took aim Monday at two federal judges who reversed their retirement plans following former President Trump’s re-election in November.

McConnell, R-Ky., criticized what he described as “partisan Democrat district judges” for their decision to “unretire” after “the American people voted to fire Democrats last month.”

“Looking to history, only two judges have ever unretired after a presidential election. One Democrat in 2004 and one Republican in 2009. But now, in just a matter of weeks, Democrats have already met that all-time record. It’s hard to conclude that this is anything other than open partisanship,” McConnell remarked during a Senate floor speech.

The controversy centers on U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of Ohio and U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn of North Carolina.

Both judges had announced plans to step down and assume senior status before the election, allowing them to take reduced caseloads while awaiting replacements.

However, after President Biden failed to nominate their successors before the election results, both judges decided to rescind their retirement plans.

In mid-November, Judge Marbley, who was appointed by President Clinton, informed Biden of his decision to stay on the bench, stating, “I have therefore decided to remain on active status and carry out the full duties and obligations of the office.”

Similarly, Judge Cogburn, a President Obama appointee, also reversed his retirement plans, as reported by *Reuters*.

McConnell pointed to their decisions as evidence of partisan motivations, describing it as “a political finger on the scale.” He urged the incoming Trump administration to “explore all available recusal options with these judges.”

McConnell also issued a warning to other judges who might consider similar moves, emphasizing that no circuit court judge has ever reversed a retirement decision following a presidential election.

“Never before has a circuit judge unretired after a presidential election. It’s literally unprecedented. And to create such a precedent would fly in the face of a rare bipartisan compromise on the disposition of these vacancies,” McConnell stated.

His remarks referred to a recent bipartisan agreement on judicial nominations. In this deal, Republicans agreed to allow Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to hold votes on nine of Biden’s district court nominees before Thanksgiving.

In return, Democrats agreed to withdraw four circuit court nominees who lacked the votes for confirmation, enabling Trump to fill those vacancies after taking office in January.

A Democratic source, however, told Fox News Digital that only two of the circuit court vacancies are guaranteed, while the other two judges may decide not to retire after all.

McConnell didn’t mince words about potential consequences, warning that “significant ethics complaints” could follow if any judges reversed their retirement plans simply because Trump had won re-election.

“As I repeatedly warned the judiciary in other matters, if you play political games, expect political prizes. So let’s hope these judges do the right thing and enjoy their well-earned retirement and leave the politics to the political branches,” McConnell concluded.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The tides are changing. And there’s nothing the Left can do.

And now a Big tech CEO broke with Democrats to team up with Donald Trump.

One of billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s key executives recently revealed that the Meta CEO is eager to take on an “active role” in shaping technology policy under the Trump administration.

Nick Clegg, Meta’s President of Global Affairs, made these remarks less than a week after Zuckerberg had dinner with President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

Zuckerberg wants to be “an active participant in the debates that any administration needs to have about maintaining America’s leadership in the technological sphere,” Clegg told journalists, as reported by the Financial Times.

He emphasized that U.S. dominance in technology is “tremendously important given all the geostrategic uncertainties around the world, and particularly the pivotal role that AI [artificial intelligence] will play.”

In a rare admission, Clegg acknowledged that Meta “overdid it a bit” when it came to censoring posts about COVID.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has faced criticism over its handling of content moderation in recent years.

The Trump-Zuckerberg dynamic has been complicated. During Trump’s first term, he was banned from both Facebook and Instagram in January 2021. However, Meta reinstated Trump’s accounts just two years later, paving the way for his return to the platforms.

According to the Financial Times, “Clegg’s comments come as Silicon Valley leaders are jockeying to curry favor with Trump, who in the past has repeatedly clashed with what he considers a left-leaning constituency that has funded his opponents and censored him.”

Clegg, a former UK Deputy Prime Minister from 2010 to 2015, transitioned to the U.S. after losing his parliamentary seat in 2017.

The New York Post reported that Zuckerberg’s meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago was arranged at the Meta CEO’s request to discuss “the incoming administration.”

A Meta spokesperson described the dinner as a crucial moment, saying, “It’s an important time for the future of American innovation.

Mark was grateful for the invitation to join President Trump for dinner and the opportunity to meet with members of his team about the incoming Administration.”

Incoming White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller praised Zuckerberg’s approach during an interview with Laura Ingraham on FOX News, stating:

“Mark Zuckerberg has been very clear about his desire to be a supporter of and a partnership in this change that we’re seeing all around America, all around the world, with this reform movement that Donald Trump is leading.”

Miller further added, “Mark Zuckerberg, like so many business leaders, understands that President Trump is an agent of change, an agent of prosperity.”

As of this week, Zuckerberg holds the title of the fourth-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $212 billion, according to Forbes.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk, tapped to co-chair Trump’s upcoming advisory commission, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), remains the world’s wealthiest individual with a staggering net worth of $333 billion.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The American government has turned its back on our military. They don’t appreciate the sacrifice they make.

And now US soldiers’ lives are on the line after what the US Senate just approved.

Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue, famously captured in the viral night-vision photograph as the last American soldier to leave Kabul during the chaotic 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, has quietly been confirmed by the Senate to lead U.S. Army forces in Europe and Africa.

Donahue, who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division during the withdrawal, was nominated by President Biden for promotion to four-star general.

However, his confirmation was notably absent from a batch of over 100 military promotions approved by the Senate ahead of its Thanksgiving recess, due to a procedural hold by one senator, Politico reported.

Multiple outlets identified Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as the lawmaker responsible for the delay.

Mullin, an outspoken critic of the Biden administration’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, has repeatedly condemned the disastrous operation, which included the tragic Abbey Gate suicide bombing that claimed the lives of 13 U.S. service members and around 170 Afghan civilians.

Donahue oversaw the 82nd Airborne Division’s mission to secure Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport during the frenzied evacuations as Afghanistan fell to the Taliban.

On the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate bombing, Mullin directly called out Donahue and other officials for a lack of accountability.

“Three years later, not one person has been held accountable for the disaster—not Gen. Milley, Gen. McKenzie, Gen. Donahue, U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan John Pommersheim, or anyone at the State Department,” Mullin said on August 24, 2024.

“To this day, no one has testified before Congress as to who gave this directive. No one has been held accountable for the 13 brave American heroes who died at Abbey Gate, or the countless Americans who lost their lives trying to escape Kabul.”

Donahue’s nomination had its defenders, including former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who urged the Senate to move forward.

“Responsibility for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 rests with the White House, not the Defense Dept, and certainly not with the uniformed leaders who faithfully executed Pres Biden’s misbegotten decisions,” Esper posted on X.

On the campaign trail, President-elect Trump had vowed to hold senior military leaders accountable for the withdrawal but did not specifically mention Donahue.

Reports suggested Trump’s transition team was considering court-martialing certain military officials over the chaotic exit from Afghanistan.

Despite the controversy, Donahue’s promotion to commander of U.S. Army Europe-Africa was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Monday after the hold was dropped.

Mullin did not issue any public comments about his decision to lift the procedural block.

Donahue, who has led the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, since 2022, brings extensive experience to his new role.

He previously served as leader of the Special Operations Joint Task Force Afghanistan and as the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s deputy director for special operations and counterterrorism.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

We knew the Left didn’t love this country. But this goes beyond the pale.

And now Biden lined the pockets of terrorists according to this bombshell report.

Here’s the rewritten version:

Mahmoud Al Hafyan, a Syrian national, faces serious charges for defrauding the U.S. government by funneling over $9 million in humanitarian aid to a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, as detailed by the Department of Justice.

On November 19, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia revealed that funds meant to provide food and medical relief for Syrian refugees were instead used to bolster the Al-Nusrah Front, a known terrorist organization, and to line Al Hafyan’s pockets.

According to the Washington Times, “Court documents didn’t name the NGO but listed the federal grant numbers involved. Those grants were traced back to Catholic Relief Services.”

Despite mounting allegations, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has remained silent, neither responding to the Washington Times nor CatholicVote, which has also reached out for comment.

“Not only was Al Hafyan supporting violent terrorists, but he was stealing money from the U.S. government that was meant for humanitarian efforts,” said Sanjay Virmani, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office Counterterrorism Division, in the DOJ’s press release.

Al Hafyan, tasked with managing the NGO’s operations in Syria, allegedly falsified records, inflated beneficiary lists, and redirected food supplies to Al-Nusrah Front operatives.

An estimated 380,000 meal kits — valued between $9.3 million and $10.1 million — were misappropriated, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Inspector General and the NGO.

The Washington Times noted that the fraud surfaced thanks to whistleblowers within the NGO who flagged suspicious activity. Witnesses reported seeing Al-Nusrah Front militants displaying their flags and seizing food kits meant for refugees. USAID’s on-ground inspections eventually confirmed the scam, leading to the program’s shutdown in late 2017.

Though Al Hafyan claimed coercion and staged a fake kidnapping to deflect suspicion, investigators uncovered spreadsheets detailing food allocations directly to Al-Nusrah Front members.

Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, sharply criticized USAID and the NGO’s lack of oversight in Syria.

“The NGO that received the USAID grant is reported to be a large international aid agency and, as with others like it, apparently had no independent oversight on the ground in Syria,” Shea said in an email to CatholicVote.

“It presumably unwittingly relied on a man it didn’t know very well to distribute millions of dollars of US taxpayer funds, and he funneled the money to the local al-Qaeda branch franchise — the very terrorists American troops have been fighting in the Middle East.

“So this is a double travesty,” she added. “Innocent Syrian refugees were deprived of the US aid, and our enemy was strengthened.”

Shea pointed out that this isn’t the first time U.S. aid has been diverted from those in need in the Middle East.

“We saw this as a big problem in Iraq eight years ago when the U.S. gave generous aid to the UN, which diverted it away from Christian and Yezidi victims of ISIS,” Shea noted.

“The latest Syria case is yet another outrageous example of USAID handing over massive sums of our money to large international agencies without them having adequate oversight on the ground. This is counterproductive and hurts American interests.”

Shea called for a change, urging USAID to prioritize partnerships with local civic groups, including churches, to ensure that aid reaches its intended recipients rather than being exploited by those who seek to harm American interests.

Meanwhile, CRS has yet to address the accusations or its role in the oversight breakdown. Although its grant allocations were intended for humanitarian relief, the absence of rigorous monitoring allowed Al Hafyan to manipulate the system.

The Washington Times reports that Al Hafyan remains at large, with his last known location being Gaziantep, Turkey.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Being Biden’s press secretary has to be hard. Lying through your teeth can get exhausting.

And now Karine Jean-Pierre ducked behind the podium after being asked this one question.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced a barrage of tough questions Monday, her first time addressing the press since President Biden’s controversial decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden.

The move has sparked outrage, especially after both Biden and Jean-Pierre repeatedly and emphatically ruled out any possibility of a pardon in the past.

One reporter zeroed in on the administration’s credibility, asking Jean-Pierre if prior denials of a pardon “could be seen as lies” to the American people.

Jean-Pierre deflected, claiming, “One thing the president believes is to always be truthful with the American people,” while insisting that Biden “wrestled with [the decision].”

Her responses offered little new insight, as she stuck closely to Sunday night’s statement from Biden, where the president argued that Hunter had been “singled out politically.”

Jean-Pierre echoed the claim that Hunter’s prosecution was motivated by his last name and repeated that Biden believed, “enough is enough.”

But the press secretary also raised eyebrows by hinting at the possibility of further pardons.

“There’s a process in place, obviously,” Jean-Pierre said.

“And so, I’m not going to get ahead of the president on this, but you could expect more announcements, more pardons, clemency at the end of this term.”

Jean-Pierre doubled down on portraying Hunter as a victim, claiming prosecutors targeted him “because he was the president’s son” and sought to “break his son in order to break him.”

This defensive posture comes as Biden embarks on a trip to Africa to promote a U.S.-backed railway project aimed at countering China’s growing influence on the continent.

Meanwhile, critics at home are questioning why the president prioritized Hunter’s pardon during such a critical moment for the nation.

Adding fuel to the controversy is Jean-Pierre’s documented history of denying any consideration of a pardon, even as Hunter faced serious legal troubles.

Since July 2023, Jean-Pierre publicly dismissed the idea at least six times.

As recently as November—just days after President-elect Trump’s stunning election victory—she told reporters, “Our answer stands, which is no.”

Now, with Biden’s complete reversal, those repeated denials are coming under fire as deceptive.

The timing of the pardon, issued just weeks before Hunter’s sentencing, has drawn sharp criticism for its blatant disregard of Biden’s previous promises to let the justice system run its course.

The decision has left Democrats scrambling to defend what many see as an indefensible act, further highlighting the Biden administration’s crumbling credibility at a time when Republicans are poised to dominate Washington.

For an administration that promised transparency and accountability, this episode only underscores the deepening doubts about Biden’s leadership and integrity.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Democrat party may be heading towards a schism. It doesn’t look like there is any reconciling anymore.

And now Top Democrats announced they are jumping ship after this despicable act from Joe Biden.

Still reeling from their bruising November defeats, Democrats now face another political crisis: President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, for federal crimes.

The move has left the party grappling with accusations of hypocrisy after years of portraying Donald Trump as a lawless threat to democracy.

Late Sunday, Biden issued a sweeping pardon for Hunter, covering more than a decade of potential federal crimes. The clemency, which includes charges of tax evasion and lying on a federal gun purchase form, marked a reversal of Biden’s previous vows.

The 82-year-old president defended his decision by calling the charges “politically motivated.”

“He believes in the justice system, but he also believes that politics infected the process and led to a miscarriage of justice,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. For months, Jean-Pierre, Biden, and other officials had insisted that Hunter would not receive a pardon.

The pardon has infuriated some Democrats, who argue it undermines their ability to confront Trump, who has claimed his own legal troubles stem from politically motivated prosecutions by Biden’s Justice Department.

“This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation,” Colorado Governor Jared Polis wrote on X.

He added, “Hunter brought the legal trouble he faced on himself, and one can sympathize with his struggles while also acknowledging that no one is above the law, not a President and not a President’s son.”

Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) echoed that sentiment, posting on X, “This wasn’t a politically motivated prosecution. Hunter committed felonies and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”

Still, Biden has his defenders within the party, many of whom pointed to Trump’s history of using presidential clemency to shield allies.

Democratic fundraiser Jon Cooper highlighted Trump’s pardons for figures like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and Paul Manafort, writing, “Sorry, but Biden was right to pardon his son Hunter to protect him against Kash Patel’s weaponized FBI.” Patel is a Trump ally who has proposed using the FBI to target political opponents.

First Lady Jill Biden also stood by her husband’s decision, telling reporters, “Of course I support the pardon of my son.”

The controversy comes as Democrats prepare for a daunting political landscape. Following Trump’s November victory, the GOP will control the presidency, the Senate, and the House.

Democrats had hoped to make Trump’s legal troubles—stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 election and a state fraud conviction—central to their attacks. But with many of those cases now delayed or dismissed after Trump’s win, Biden’s pardon complicates their narrative.

Adding to the backlash is Biden’s own history of ruling out clemency for his son. In June, as Hunter faced trial, Biden said, “I will do that and I will not pardon him.”

As recently as Nov. 8, White House press secretary Jean-Pierre reiterated that position, saying, “Our answer stands, which is no.”

But the president’s abrupt reversal comes just weeks before Hunter’s sentencing in his gun case and his guilty plea on tax charges. The pardon not only covers these crimes but any federal offenses Hunter may have committed from January 2014 to December 2024.

Hunter Biden’s legal troubles began in 2020, when he revealed he was under federal investigation shortly after his father’s election.

In June, he was convicted in federal court of lying on a 2018 gun purchase form by denying he was using drugs. He also faced a California trial for failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes, but he pleaded guilty to multiple charges just as jury selection was set to begin.

In a statement defending his decision, Biden argued that such cases are rarely prosecuted with the same intensity as Hunter’s.

“The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election,” he said. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son. … I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

As Democrats wrestle with the fallout, one thing is clear: the president’s decision has reshaped the political landscape, creating fresh challenges for a party already on the defensive.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has never been accused of being conservative. But he’s making new allies no one saw coming.

And now Bernie Sanders shocked all with a sudden team-up with Donald Trump.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a prominent progressive, surprised many on Sunday by voicing support for President-elect Donald Trump’s newly announced Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—as long as it targets the Pentagon’s bloated budget.

“Elon Musk is right. The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions,” the 83-year-old Vermont senator posted on X.

“Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud. That must change,” Sanders added, holding his ground against what he’s often criticized as unchecked defense spending.

Trump, who swept last month’s election, quickly unveiled DOGE as a key initiative, appointing tech icon Elon Musk, 53, and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, 39, to spearhead the effort.

Although its name plays on cryptocurrency culture, DOGE is not an official government department but a lean, external organization designed to partner with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to slash wasteful government spending.

Sanders’ willingness to back the plan aligns with his longstanding criticism of excessive defense budgets. For years, he has slammed Pentagon spending as “bloated and wasteful,” arguing the money could better serve social programs.

His stance seems validated by last month’s admission from the Department of Defense: it failed its seventh consecutive independent audit, raising bipartisan concerns over its handling of taxpayer funds. The Pentagon received $824.3 billion in funding for the 2024 fiscal year despite these failures.

Pentagon CFO Mike McCord tried to downplay concerns, claiming the audits revealed no significant fraud and assuring the public that a clean audit might be achievable “in several years.” But critics, including some Democrats, aren’t convinced.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) echoed Sanders’ sentiments, signaling bipartisan interest in working with DOGE.

“When it comes to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse and opening the 5 primes to more competition, there are Democrats on [the House Armed Services Committee] who will work with @elonmusk and @DOGE,” Khanna posted on X. Meanwhile, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) suggested DOGE should also scrutinize the Department of Homeland Security’s operations.

Trump, who has championed military expansion throughout his career, seems to believe DOGE’s efficiency reforms can coexist with his vision of a stronger military. Musk, who has spent considerable time at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate since the election, reinforced this message.

Replying to Sanders’ post with several American flag emojis, Musk’s America super PAC declared, “Sensible spending is not a partisan issue. The general public supports @DOGE holding government accountable to spend taxpayer money more wisely.”

The initiative has already stirred reactions across the political spectrum. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) sarcastically welcomed Sanders aboard, posting, “Welcome home, Bernie.” The End Wokeness account quipped, “Has hell frozen over?”

Meanwhile, Collin Rugg of Trending Politics noted, “Glad you realized Elon Musk is not the problem. The problem is the federal government which has wasted and lost trillions of dollars of taxpayer money.”

Ramaswamy and Musk, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, teased their ambitious DOGE agenda. Their goals include pushing executive actions to cut bureaucratic fat and aggressively challenging opposition in court.

Both predict that DOGE will not only streamline government but also ignite economic growth by dismantling red tape.

While the left and right rarely see eye to eye, DOGE’s potential to expose waste and fraud at the Pentagon may signal a rare opportunity for common ground. For now, all eyes are on whether Sanders and Trump’s surprising overlap can translate into real reform—or just more political theater.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The vice president probably wishes she could crawl under a rock. She has a while to ride out this storm.

And now Kamala Harris got a final dose of reality that could send her over the edge.

Kamala Harris’ failed bid to connect with mainstream and non-political media continues to make headlines, as her campaign team revealed this week that the popular YouTube show Hot Ones rejected her request to appear during her presidential campaign. The reason? The show wanted to avoid politics altogether.

Harris aides shared the embarrassing anecdote during an appearance on Pod Save America, where they dissected what went wrong during the campaign.

“Hot Ones, which is a great show, they didn’t wanna do any politics, so they weren’t going to take us or him,” senior adviser Stephanie Cutter admitted, according to the New York Post.

“So that was the issue.”

The show, known for featuring celebrities eating progressively hotter chicken wings while answering questions, apparently didn’t see Harris as a good fit. But it wasn’t just Hot Ones.

Cutter acknowledged that Harris’ team faced similar challenges trying to book other non-political media appearances.

In stark contrast, then-candidate Donald Trump managed to break through on these platforms, leveraging his larger-than-life personality and cultural appeal.

“I don’t think he had the same problem,” said Harris’ campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon.

She conceded that Trump “certainly was able to tap into some cultural elements in ways that we couldn’t.”

Perhaps the most striking comment came from Pod Save America co-host Dan Pfeiffer, who insisted Harris was “better suited” for Hot Ones than any other candidate in history. Pfeiffer took the rejection as a political slight, remarking:

“The idea that it would be more politically problematic to have on Kamala Harris, the sitting vice president of the United States, than Donald Trump, a man who’s been convicted of a crime and tried to violently overthrow the election.”

The Harris team also addressed why their candidate skipped The Joe Rogan Experience, the world’s most popular podcast with a massive young male audience—a demographic where Harris notoriously underperformed.

Despite an invitation, the campaign ultimately passed, and senior adviser David Plouffe floated a bizarre theory about Rogan’s motives.

“So what’s clear is we offered to do it in Austin, people should know that,” Plouffe said. “It didn’t work out. Maybe they leveraged that to get Trump in studio, I don’t know.”

The campaign’s reluctance to engage with Rogan, who boasts a politically diverse audience, now seems like a missed opportunity, especially given Trump’s ability to dominate such cultural spaces.

Meanwhile, Harris’ inability to resonate with non-political platforms highlights a broader problem: her difficulty connecting with everyday Americans outside the D.C. bubble.

Whether it’s being outshined by Trump’s media-savvy moves or being passed over by shows like Hot Ones, Harris’ struggles to connect culturally underscore her campaign’s uphill battle—and her own political challenges.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Freedom of speech and religion are paramount to a free society. But not everyone agrees.

And now this underhanded move to cancel the First Amendment is rattling Americans.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres openly called on governments worldwide Tuesday to adopt a global censorship framework, urging them to “rein in hate speech and disinformation spreading online.”

While the U.N. frames these efforts as a defense against harmful content, critics have pointed out that such actions directly conflict with foundational freedoms, including the First Amendment rights Americans hold dear.

Guterres warned that “unchecked digital platforms” are fueling what he called “the worst impulses of humanity,” allegedly jeopardizing global stability. To counter this, he championed U.N.-backed initiatives like the “Global Digital Compact” to silence speech deemed undesirable.

The timing coincided with UNESCO’s announcement of an “urgent” need to train social media influencers to conform to U.N. speech standards and combat “misinformation,” a move many view as a thinly veiled attempt to control online discourse.

UNESCO has equated unwanted online speech to “insects thriving in the dark” and is leading a global push for censorship regulations. While these initiatives are branded as necessary for combating “hate,” they represent a slippery slope toward suppressing dissent and eroding free expression, particularly in nations like the United States, where the First Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas.

Guterres presented his case during the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations global forum in Portugal, where he listed combating online “disinformation” as a top priority. “We must rein in hate speech and disinformation spreading online,” he proclaimed. “Hate-filled frenzies are perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Misinformation and outright lies are fueling repulsive antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry and attacks on minority Christian communities, among others.”

The U.N. chief blamed artificial intelligence for accelerating the spread of so-called “hate speech” and urged countries to adopt global initiatives like the “Global Principles for Information Integrity” and the “Global Digital Compact.” These frameworks, however, go beyond targeting genuine threats—they propose granting the U.N. power to regulate what people can say online, a stark contradiction to the constitutional protections Americans enjoy.

“The proliferation of hate and lies in the digital space is causing grave global harm,” Guterres said when introducing the Compact in 2023. “This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. We don’t have a moment to lose.” The Compact includes measures to control online conversations and enforce “accountability criteria” on digital platforms, even suggesting a role for the U.N. in policing disinformation during elections—a direct attack on the free speech principles enshrined in America’s Bill of Rights.

UNESCO has similarly intensified its efforts, focusing Tuesday on social media influencers, whom it accuses of failing to “fact-check” their content rigorously.

“The low prevalence of factchecking highlights their vulnerability to misinformation, which can have far-reaching consequences for public discourse and trust in media,” UNESCO said, pushing for mandatory media literacy programs to align influencers with its guidelines.

In parallel, UNESCO launched its “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” at the G20 summit, a program co-sponsored by Brazil’s leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The initiative aims to suppress dissenting opinions on climate policy, adding another layer to the global censorship agenda.

Lula, notorious for his aggressive crackdown on conservative voices in Brazil, condemned “denialism and disinformation” at the event.

Under his administration, Brazil has expanded censorship, banning Twitter temporarily until owner Elon Musk complied with government demands and silencing dissent through police raids and harsh court rulings.

The G20’s joint declaration echoed these sentiments, citing the dangers of “misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and other forms of online harms.” It called for stricter regulations on digital platforms, all while ignoring the inherent dangers of governments deciding what constitutes “truth.”

Critics argue these U.N. initiatives signal a coordinated effort to undermine free speech worldwide, posing a direct threat to Americans’ First Amendment rights. The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect free expression, even if it is controversial or unpopular. Granting the U.N. or any global body authority to control speech represents a chilling precedent, opening the door to authoritarian overreach.

As Guterres concluded his speech, he called for “strengthening global governance,” asserting, “In these turbulent times, too many people are convinced that differences must define us. But the most powerful force of all is the recognition that we are more united by our common fate than divided by our distinct identities.”

His remarks, however, offer little comfort to those who see such global censorship as a direct assault on the freedoms that define democratic societies.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left has plenty of bad actors in their ranks. But rarely is it put on display for all to see.

And now a leading Democrat was caught using taxpayer funds for this egregious action.

The Democrat mayor of Frederick, Maryland, has announced plans to use taxpayer dollars to help migrants fight deportation under President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, a move that has sparked sharp debate within the community.

Mayor Michael O’Connor committed to creating a “Legal Advocacy Fund” to assist migrants facing deportation, stating the funds would come from his budget.

He explained the goal was to provide legal support for those impacted by Trump’s proposed mass deportation efforts.

“Ensuring they have the legal support they need to stand strong and remain in this community they have chosen to call home,” O’Connor said.

According to Fox Baltimore, the mayor plans to allocate the money to “organizations already providing similar legal services,” enabling them to expand their reach and assist more individuals.

Facing criticism for his proposal, O’Connor’s office emphasized that the fund would be available to “any resident in our community.”

“This fund will provide resources to community partners for Frederick residents who may be harmed by policies from the new administration, ensuring they have the legal support they need to stand strong and remain in this community they have chosen to call home,” the mayor’s office clarified.

“This could support any resident in our community, and while we will never get everyone to agree on everything, working to support residents who may be fearful through trusted community partners is worth advocating for,” the statement continued.

Reactions from Frederick residents were mixed.

“I believe a lot of immigrant people also contribute to the country,” resident Rita Darko told Fox Baltimore, while admitting she felt “torn” about using taxpayer money for migrant legal aid.

Rachel Pett, another local resident, was more critical. “I don’t like the idea. I’d rather our taxpayer money go towards American citizens,” she said.

Ryan Head echoed her concerns, adding, “You break the law, it’s just what happens. Nobody helped me pay for my attorney fees when I break the law. So, why should we be paying for theirs out of taxpayer money?”

O’Connor’s pledge follows a broader trend of Democrat mayors across the U.S. vowing to resist Trump’s immigration policies. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, for example, made headlines with dramatic rhetoric opposing deportations, claiming:

“You’d have 50,000 Denverites there. It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants. And you do not want to mess with them.”

Johnston later walked back his comments following backlash from Republicans, including Trump’s incoming border chief.

He clarified that Denver would not actively enforce federal immigration laws but encouraged his constituents to protest against the administration’s policies.

As the debate over deportations intensifies, O’Connor’s fund highlights the growing divide between Democrats’ opposition to Trump’s immigration plans and concerns from taxpayers about how their money is spent.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Trump is already making waves abroad. He’s poised to make America respected again.

And you won’t believe which foreign leader came begging to Donald Trump on his knees.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wasted no time reaching out to President-elect Donald Trump on Monday night, hours after Trump issued a fiery statement threatening steep tariffs on Canada over border security concerns.

“Shortly after Trump’s post, Trudeau contacted Trump, and the two leaders spoke by phone,” Bloomberg reporter Brian Platt revealed.

“According to a source, they talked border security, and it was a ‘constructive call.’ Trudeau pointed out that the issues at the Canadian border are minuscule compared to the US/Mexico border.”

Trump’s statement earlier in the day signaled an aggressive stance on trade and border security, targeting Canada, Mexico, and China with proposed tariffs as part of his crackdown on illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

“As everyone is aware, thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before,” Trump stated.

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders.”

He added:

“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long-simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”

The threat sent shockwaves across Canada, with provincial leaders urging swift action from Trudeau.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took to X, formerly Twitter, warning of the economic fallout:

“A 25 per cent tariff would be devastating to workers and jobs in both Canada and the U.S. The federal government needs to take the situation at our border seriously. We need a Team Canada approach and response—and we need it now. Prime Minister Trudeau must call an urgent meeting with all premiers.”

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith echoed Ford’s concerns but acknowledged Trump’s underlying grievances.

“The incoming US @realDonaldTrump administration has valid concerns related to illegal activities at our shared border. We are calling on the federal government to work with the incoming administration to resolve these issues immediately, thereby avoiding any unnecessary tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S.,” Smith posted.

She also sought to reassure Trump about Alberta’s energy sector, emphasizing its secure operations:

“Fortunately, the vast majority of Alberta’s energy exports to the U.S. are delivered through secure and safe pipelines which do not in any way contribute to these illegal activities at the border. As the largest exporter of oil and gas to the U.S., we look forward to working with the new administration to strengthen energy security for both the U.S. and Canada.”

Trudeau’s quick response to Trump’s tariff warning highlights the high stakes for Canada as it grapples with a potential trade battle under the incoming U.S. administration. Whether the phone call helps cool tensions remains to be seen.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.