The Swamp is in desperate need of draining. This GOP lawmaker may finally have the solution to it.

And the Washington, D.C. Swamp is on fire after this Republican senator announces a new bill to drain it.

Sen. Joni Ernst Proposes Bill to Relocate 30% of Federal Workforce Nationwide

Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) has introduced a bold new legislative proposal aimed at redistributing federal agency workforces currently centralized in Washington, D.C.

The Decentralizing and Reorganizing Agency Infrastructure Nationwide to Harness Efficient Services, Workforce Administration, and Management Practices Act—or the DRAIN THE SWAMP Act—seeks to relocate at least 30% of federal employees headquartered in the nation’s capital to various locations across the United States.

“Actions speak louder than words, and bureaucrats have sent a resounding message that they don’t want to work in Washington,” Ernst explained. “In the Christmas spirit, I am happy to make their wish reality by relocating them. DOGE has a lot of work to do and draining the swamp is a great place to start.”

Under the proposed legislation, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would oversee the effort to decentralize federal agency workforces, ensuring the reassignment of a significant portion of employees to regions across the country.

For those employees who remain in Washington, remote work would be eliminated, requiring full in-office attendance. Additionally, the bill mandates the sale of unused or underutilized federal office space, ensuring all office facilities operate at full capacity.

This initiative builds upon Ernst’s earlier legislative efforts, including a bill targeting the relocation of 30% of the Small Business Administration (SBA) workforce.

The rationale behind the SBA bill was rooted in data showing that even with full in-person attendance, only two-thirds of the agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters capacity would be utilized. Ernst is now applying that framework to the broader federal workforce.

The proposed relocations aim to “promote geographical diversity, including consideration of rural markets,” and to “ensure adequate staffing throughout the regions of the Administration, to promote in-person customer service,” as stated in the bill. Ernst argues that redistributing federal employees would bring them closer to the communities they serve, fostering a stronger connection to the public.

“If mom-and-pop shops had the work ethic of SBA bureaucrats, they would be forced to close immediately,” Ernst said in support of her SBA proposal.

She emphasized the need for federal agencies to emulate the customer-first approach of small businesses, stating, “Connecting with an agency employee should not be a rare occurrence worthy of celebrating. There is no better way to fix the broken culture at the SBA than to bring them closer to the people they serve so that they perform more like a family business and less like a bloated bureaucracy.”

Ernst has long championed initiatives aimed at curbing government waste. Through her work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), she has consistently pushed for reforms to streamline federal operations.

Earlier this month, during the first DOGE caucus meeting, Ernst released a detailed report highlighting the financial and operational impacts of telework in federal agencies.

According to the report, telework has surged since the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 6% of federal workers now reporting to the office full-time and one-third working entirely remotely.

The report pointed to concerning trends, including instances of workers engaging in non-work-related activities while on the clock. It also detailed the financial burden of maintaining underused office spaces, estimating that the federal government spends $8 billion annually on leasing and maintaining office buildings and an additional $7.7 billion on energy costs.

Moreover, it noted the existence of nearly 8,000 vacant government buildings and over 2,000 partially empty facilities.

By decentralizing federal workforces and reducing excess office space, Ernst’s DRAIN THE SWAMP Act seeks to address these inefficiencies while fostering a more geographically diverse federal workforce. The proposal reflects her broader mission to make government more efficient, accountable, and connected to the people it serves.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Leftists across the country continue to take their lumps. It’s been a rough month for them since the 2024 elections.

And a leading Democrat congresswoman suffers a humiliating defeat she may never recover from.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has lost her bid to become the leading Democrat on the powerful House Oversight Committee after falling short in two crucial votes to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA).

The outcome marks a setback for progressive Democrats and younger lawmakers who have pushed for generational change within the party after the 2024 election.

Frustrated by losses in key races and dwindling blue-collar support for President-elect Donald Trump, many Democrats hoped Ocasio-Cortez’s leadership would signal a turning point.

Ocasio-Cortez’s defeat began Monday night when the Democratic steering committee selected Connolly, 74, over the New York congresswoman. Connolly enjoyed strong backing from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a major force within the party.

Traditionally, the full Democratic caucus follows the steering committee’s recommendation. However, Ocasio-Cortez, 35, rallied hard ahead of Tuesday’s vote, encouraging colleagues to break with tradition.

“We are still in this,” she wrote on social media. “We do not give up.”

Despite her efforts, the full Democratic conference handed Connolly a decisive victory, voting 131-84 to make him the ranking member on the Oversight Committee. One member confirmed the result to the Washington Examiner.

Speaking after the vote, Ocasio-Cortez accepted the outcome. “The party made its choice,” she told the Washington Examiner Tuesday afternoon.

Connolly, who has served on the Oversight Committee for 16 years, explained to reporters that his win came about because his colleagues measured “their votes by who’s got experience, who [is] seasoned, who can be trusted, who’s capable, and who’s got a record of productivity. And I think that prevailed.”

Ocasio-Cortez had garnered significant support from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Meanwhile, Connolly drew backing from the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Pelosi, despite recovering from a hip fracture over the weekend, reportedly lobbied on Connolly’s behalf, which likely solidified his win.

This defeat represents a blow to younger Democrats who have been advocating for new leadership within the party.

Recent contests had shown some success in this effort: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), 62, secured the ranking member role on the House Judiciary Committee, unseating veteran Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Additionally, Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), 52, won leadership of the Agriculture Committee over Rep. David Scott (D-GA), while Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) is set to replace longtime leader Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

However, Connolly’s victory signals resistance within the Democratic caucus to fully embrace the change pushed by younger progressives and “Squad” members.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) downplayed the leadership contests’ broader implications, describing the results as “part of our organizational process electing ranking members.”

“We’re in the Democratic caucus,” Aguilar told reporters. “There are different ideas and viewpoints within the caucus, but we’re moving forward, and this is part of our internal process. We will now populate committees and get ready for the 119th Congress.”

As ranking member, Connolly will take on a high-profile role, serving as the chief Democratic counterweight to Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) in the new Congress.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Harris suffered a brutal defeat to Donald Trump in the presidential election. Her team is just now putting together the pieces as to why that happened.

And the Kamala Harris campaign finally reveals one reason why they lost the 2024 election.

Kamala Harris Campaign Stumbles in Sports Media Landscape as Cultural Shifts Favor Conservatives

Kamala Harris’ digital manager recently opened up about the surprising challenges the Harris campaign faced in trying to engage with sports media—a space that, despite traditionally left-leaning voices, has become increasingly resistant to political messaging.

In an interview with Semafor, Rob Flaherty, a Harris campaign operative, admitted that Donald Trump’s team proved far more skilled at tapping into audiences disillusioned with traditional media outlets.

Trump’s success in reaching these cultural pockets underscored a larger shift in America’s media landscape. Flaherty observed that sports—once a neutral zone—have become increasingly tied to red America, even as left-leaning sports personalities struggle to navigate the preferences of their audiences.

Flaherty revealed that Harris’ campaign outreach was met with unexpected resistance. “Sports and culture have sort of merged together,” Flaherty said. “And as sports and culture became more publicly and sort of natively associated with this Trump-conservative set of values, it got more complicated for athletes to come out in favor of us.”

Hosts of prominent sports shows—spanning TV, radio, and podcasts—reportedly turned down interview requests with Harris, fearing backlash from their audiences. “It got more complicated for sports personalities to take us on their shows because they didn’t want to ‘do politics,’” Flaherty explained.

Although figures like Steph Curry, Steve Kerr, and LeBron James continued to voice their support for Kamala Harris, Flaherty acknowledged that reaching sports fans had become an uphill battle.

“That’s not to say Steph Curry and Steve Kerr and LeBron and all them coming out wasn’t impactful or important,” Flaherty said. “It was more impactful because it had gotten so much harder. But certainly, the culture that has been associated with heavy sports-watching has become associated with right-wing culture in a way that makes it harder for [Democrats] to reach people.”

The campaign’s difficulties highlighted a broader challenge: Democrats are struggling to maintain their grip on culture. Flaherty conceded that high-profile sports commentators—including figures like Colin Cowherd, Bill Simmons, and the Kelce Brothers—chose to steer clear of the Harris campaign, seemingly “afraid of their audience.”

This hesitancy reflects a larger trend. Over the past decade, Democrats have seen their dominance over cultural platforms—news media, entertainment, and sports—steadily erode.

“You don’t get a national eight-point shift to the right without losing hold of culture,” Flaherty admitted.

The issue isn’t confined to politics. Sports personalities themselves have noticed this cultural shift. Colin Cowherd, for example, recently remarked on the decline of NBA television ratings, attributing it to the league’s heavy involvement in left-wing activism.

Drawing a parallel to the political sphere, Cowherd argued that the Democrats suffered a similar fate by alienating “regular people” in recent elections.

For Flaherty, the lesson is clear: Democrats need to adapt to the changing media environment. He emphasized the need to create a progressive equivalent to Joe Rogan—a figure capable of building a robust, left-leaning online ecosystem of shows and podcasts.

Yet history suggests that such efforts often fall flat. Manufactured platforms rarely resonate with audiences in the way organic, authentic voices do, and trust in establishment-friendly media continues to wane.

Flaherty’s assessment, however, rings true: the cultural hill Democrats must now climb is steep.

The days of controlling the media landscape appear to be over, and with the rise of decentralized, personalized internet media, the Democrats’ path to regaining cultural influence has never looked more uncertain.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is losing their grip on America. They don’t know what to do.

And now Democrats are panicking after a huge ally jumped ship.

Here’s the fresh rewrite, keeping all quotes unchanged and sharpening the tone:

—

A top labor union leader stunned many by lavishing praise on President-elect Donald Trump, admitting Trump proved him wrong and showed that Republicans can, in fact, stand up for the working class.

Dennis Daggett, executive vice president of the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) — the union that brought ports to a halt with a strike earlier this year — described his recent meeting with Trump as *“an experience I never imagined in my wildest dreams.”*

“This man truly wants to fight for America and its working class. In over 25 years of working in Washington, I have never seen a Republican take up the mantle for working-class people. President-elect Trump proved me wrong yesterday,” Daggett wrote on Facebook.

“He didn’t just tell us in private that he supports workers — he made it clear to the whole world.”

Daggett, previously hesitant to voice his thoughts on Trump, is part of a union that traditionally aligns with Democrats.

Daggett and his father, ILA President Harold Daggett, met with Trump last Thursday to discuss ongoing negotiations between the union and the U.S. Maritime Alliance, which represents port operators, shipping companies, and other major employers.

“It’s rare to meet a leader who truly listens, and even rarer to find one who is willing to act,” Daggett said.

“[Trump] was not just attentive to our concerns; he was receptive and genuinely engaged in a discussion about the existential threat automation poses — not only to the Longshore sector but to our communities and the very fabric of this great nation.”

True to form, Trump didn’t stop at words; he quickly zeroed in on one of the union’s biggest grievances — automation.

“I’ve studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social following the meeting.

“The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen. Foreign companies have made a fortune in the U.S. by giving them access to our markets.”

The ILA had flexed its muscles in October with a three-day strike before securing a temporary agreement that extends contracts until January 15. Sticking points in negotiations remain wages and automation.

Historically, Republicans have been wary of unions, arguing that aggressive labor demands stifle job creation and harm the broader economy. But Trump’s presidency has rewritten the playbook, shifting the Republican Party closer to the working class and adopting a more protectionist stance on trade.

Trump’s outreach to unions has been unmistakable. He made headlines in July by inviting Teamsters boss Sean O’Brien to speak at the Republican National Convention — a historic first for the union at the GOP’s flagship event.

By September, the Teamsters broke with decades of tradition by refusing to endorse a Democrat for president, a move that sent shockwaves through the political establishment. Internal polling revealed why: a majority of Teamsters’ rank-and-file members backed Trump. While local chapters endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, furious Democrats lashed out at the national leadership for the snub.

Trump continued earning labor’s respect in November when he nominated Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) to lead the Department of Labor.

Chavez-DeRemer is a unique figure in the Republican Party — the only House Republican to sponsor the *Protecting the Right to Organize Act,* which expands benefits for union workers and pushes back against state right-to-work laws that prevent mandatory union membership.

Once again, Trump is defying political norms, earning praise where no Republican has before — from union leaders and working Americans alike.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Mainstream outlets have it out for Trump. And now they’re done for.

Because Trump was handed a major victory that put the left-wing media on its heels.

ABC News and its lead anchor George Stephanopoulos have settled a defamation lawsuit brought by President-elect Donald Trump, agreeing to a $15 million payout.

The settlement, filed on Saturday, avoids a high-profile trial and requires ABC News to make a $15 million charitable contribution toward a “Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past.”

Additionally, the network must pay $1 million to cover Trump’s legal fees.

As part of the deal, Stephanopoulos and ABC News issued statements of “regret” in an editor’s note appended to a March 10, 2024, article. The note states:

“ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024.”

ABC News attempted to spin the outcome, with a spokesperson telling Fox News Digital, “We are pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing.”

The lawsuit stemmed from Stephanopoulos’ false statements during a heated interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., where he claimed that Trump had been found “liable for r*pe” in a civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll.

Stephanopoulos grilled Mace, saying, “Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for r*pe and for defaming the victim of that r*pe.” This assertion was repeated ten times during the interview, despite the jury’s actual finding that Trump was liable for “s*xual abuse,” a legally distinct term under New York law.

In a later ruling, Judge Lewis Kaplan acknowledged the jury’s decision, noting that while Carroll failed to prove r*pe under New York Penal Law, the word “r*pe” might still apply as commonly understood.

Nonetheless, Stephanopoulos’ repeated mischaracterization formed the basis of Trump’s defamation case.

Initially dismissive of the lawsuit, Stephanopoulos doubled down during an interview with Stephen Colbert, stating, “Trump sued me because I used the word ‘r*pe,’ even though a judge said that’s in fact what did happen. We filed a motion to dismiss.”

However, momentum shifted when U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid ordered both parties to sit for depositions, with a Dec. 24 deadline looming for a motion for summary judgment. Facing the prospect of a trial, ABC News ultimately agreed to settle.

Trump was represented by Florida attorneys Alejandro Brito and Richard Klugh. The settlement, filed in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court, is another victory in a growing list of legal wins for the president-elect and his legal team, led by senior adviser Boris Epshteyn.

These successes include Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case related to the 2020 election and Smith abandoning his appeal in the classified records case after a federal judge ruled his appointment unlawful.

In New York, Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump’s motion to dismiss charges from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case and removed sentencing from the schedule.

Trump isn’t stopping there. He’s pursuing a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News, alleging the network engaged in “deceptive conduct” to interfere with the election during an October interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The settlement with ABC News underscores Trump’s ability to hold media outlets accountable, turning baseless attacks into decisive victories as he moves closer to his return to the Oval Office.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Pelosi likes to style herself as a devout Catholic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And now this Catholic Archbishop eviscerated Nancy Pelosi with an unprecedented announcement.

In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Pelosi dismissed the Archbishop’s instruction, saying:

“I received Communion anyway. That’s his problem, not mine. My Catholic faith is, Christ is my savior. It has nothing to do with the bishops.”

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone addressed Nancy Pelosi’s recent remarks about continuing to receive Communion despite his directive that she abstain until repenting for her pro-abortion stance.

Archbishop Cordileone issued a response on December 10, urging prayers for Pelosi’s change of heart on the sanctity of life.

“First and foremost, I would like to renew my request for prayers for the Speaker’s conversion on the issue of human life in the womb, that it be consistent with the respect for human dignity she displays in so many other contexts.”

He also cited Ezekiel 3:20-21 as guiding his actions as a spiritual leader.

In the passage, the Lord warns Ezekiel that failing to admonish sinners puts their blood on his hands.

“As a pastor of souls, my overriding concern and chief responsibility is the salvation of souls,” Cordileone wrote.

“And as Ezekiel reminds us, for a pastor to fulfill his calling, he has the duty not only to teach, console, heal and forgive, but also, when necessary, to correct, admonish and call to conversion.”

The Archbishop extended an invitation for dialogue, emphasizing its power to foster understanding and reconciliation.

He wrote, “Such dialogue can dispel misperceptions and melt away hostilities, and build new bonds of friendship.”

Cordileone expressed hope for discussions on both their areas of disagreement and alignment, stating:

“I ask this not only to dialogue in areas of disagreement, such as if and when it can ever be morally permissible to kill innocent human life, but also in other critical areas where our views on behalf of human life and dignity are aligned.”

Concluding his message, the Archbishop reiterated a cornerstone of Catholic faith: “This should not be a problem, as Catholics are not afraid of the truth.”

But no one should be surprised by her disregard for her own Church’s directions.

She also supports abortion up until the point of birth and LGBTQ marriage, two things the Catholic Church has spoken vehemently against.

At the end of the day, to her, she is her own authority.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

It’s hard to believe our politicians can be this dense. Unfortunately, it’s the truth.

And now Congress erupted in chaos for the the dumbest reason imaginable.

The House approved its annual defense bill on Wednesday, delivering a major pay raise for junior enlisted troops and targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at the Pentagon.

The bill passed with a 281-140 vote, revealing sharp partisan divides. Sixteen Republicans opposed the legislation, while only 81 Democrats supported it, with 124 voting no—a stark departure from past bipartisan consensus.

Key opposition from Democrats centered on a controversial provision restricting coverage for transgender treatments for minors.

The bill now heads to the Senate before landing on President Biden’s desk for signature.

The 1,800-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allocates $895.2 billion for defense and national security, a modest 1% increase over last year’s budget. The legislation, delayed more than two months into the fiscal year, outlines critical defense spending but fell short of the larger increases sought by defense hawks.

A central focus of this year’s bill is improving service members’ quality of life amid persistent recruitment struggles. Key measures include a historic 14.5% pay increase for junior enlisted troops, expanded child care access, and job support for military spouses. Additionally, all service members will see a 4.5% across-the-board pay raise starting January 1.

While typically bipartisan, this year’s NDAA has been contentious due to its focus on eliminating so-called “woke” policies. Democrats balked at provisions like the prohibition on Tricare covering transgender services for minors, a move House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., decried as harmful.

“Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong,” Smith said. “This provision injected a level of partisanship not traditionally seen in defense bills.”

The proposal aims to prevent medical interventions that could result in sterilization of minors. However, broader bans on gender transition surgeries for adults and mask mandates did not make it into the final bill.

Other provisions in the NDAA address pressing national security concerns. The bill authorizes deploying the National Guard to the southern border to aid in apprehending illegal immigrants and curbing drug trafficking.

It also includes a quirky directive for the Air Force to consider a pilot program allowing airmen and Space Force personnel to grow beards. The secretary of the Air Force must brief lawmakers on the feasibility of this initiative.

Democrats voiced frustration over omissions in the bill, including expanded access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for service members. Currently, military health care only covers IVF if infertility stems from service-related injuries or illness.

Meanwhile, the NDAA retains a Pentagon policy reimbursing service members for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions.

The bill places a hiring freeze on DEI-related positions pending an investigation into the Pentagon’s DEI programs and bans contracts with advertising companies that blacklist conservative news outlets.

Additionally, it guts funding for the Biden administration’s “Countering Extremist Activity Working Group” and prohibits climate change programs or climate-based guidance on weapons systems.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., highlighted $31 billion in savings achieved through cuts to “inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and bloated Pentagon bureaucracy.”

Despite its comprehensive scope, the compromise NDAA establishes policies for the nation’s largest government agency, but a separate defense spending bill is required to fund its initiatives.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The cracks in the Democrat Party are only getting bigger. And it’s no surprise why.

Now Senator John Fetterman blindsided Democrats with one surprising betrayal.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), known for frequently stepping away from the Left’s standard playbook, did so again recently by condemning leftists on social media who cheered the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Thompson was tragically shot and killed on December 4 near the entrance of the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan.

Following the arrest of a suspect in the case, some left-wing commentators celebrated the killing online.

“He’s the ahole that’s going to die in prison,” Fetterman remarked, addressing the toxic reaction.

“Congratulations if you want to celebrate that. A sewer is going to sewer. That’s what social media is about. And I don’t know why the media wants to turn that into a story, just with these trolls saying these kinds of things anonymously like that. I don’t know why that’s news. Remember, he has two children that are going to grow up without their father… It’s vile. And if you’ve gunned someone down that you don’t happen to agree with their views or the business that they’re in, hey, you know, I’m next, they’re next, he’s next, she’s next.”

Fetterman’s willingness to challenge leftist orthodoxy is nothing new. In May, during a commencement speech at Yeshiva University, he dramatically removed his Harvard University collar in protest.

Speaking as a Harvard alumnus and staunch supporter of Israel following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre that left over 1,200 Israelis dead, Fetterman stated:

“I have been profoundly disappointed in the way — Harvard’s inability to stand up for the Jewish community after October 7. And for me personally, I do not fundamentally believe that it is right for me to wear this today.”

In April, he voiced strong support for law enforcement, denouncing squatter rights in comments to the New York Post.

Fetterman said:

“Squatters have no rights. How can you even pretend that this is anything other than you’re just breaking the law? … I am not woke. … It’s wild that if you go away on a long trip, for 30 days, and someone breaks into your home and suddenly they have rights. This is crazy. Like if somebody stole your car, and then they held it for 30 days, then somehow you now have some rights?”

However, Fetterman hasn’t always distanced himself from the Left.

Just before the November election, he lashed out at critics of the Democrats’ radical transgender agenda, labeling them “ahole[s].”

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union, Fetterman criticized political ads from the Trump campaign targeting transgender issues. He said:

“If your political capital comes from picking on trans kids or gay kids or anything like that, that’s — you’re just bankrupt throughout all of this. … My version of being a being a man is, it’s like, hey, I like ribeyes, I like Motorhead, and I’m never going to pick on trans kids and gay kids or things. And it’s just sad that the other side chooses to kind of pick on members of those communities. And, again, it’s just — it’s just a warped version of — it doesn’t make you tough. It doesn’t make you a man to pick on trans or gay kids. … It just makes you an ahole.”

Fetterman’s complex political persona continues to baffle both allies and opponents, showcasing a mix of bold independence and staunch progressive advocacy depending on the issue.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Everyone is jumping ship. No one wants to be around when Trump comes back into his own.

And now major resignation news from the White House is dropping jaws

FBI Director Christopher Wray announced his plans to step down at the conclusion of the Biden administration, marking the end of a tenure that many conservatives viewed as emblematic of the Bureau’s politicization under Democrat leadership.

Fox News obtained exclusive information just before Wray’s announcement, revealing he would break the news during an FBI town hall in Washington, D.C., attended virtually by thousands of FBI employees nationwide.

“After weeks of careful thought, I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Wray said during the town hall.

“My goal is to keep the focus on our mission — the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day. In my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.”

Wray painted his decision as one rooted in service and integrity, emphasizing his love for the FBI and its mission.

However, critics have questioned his ability to steer the agency away from political bias during the Biden years, citing controversies ranging from the handling of Hunter Biden’s laptop investigation to accusations of selective enforcement on January 6 defendants.

“When you look at where the threats are headed, it’s clear that the importance of our work — keeping Americans safe and upholding the Constitution — will not change,” Wray said. “And what absolutely cannot, must not change is our commitment to doing the right thing, the right way, every time.”

Wray also touted the FBI’s adherence to its “core values” and “dedication to independence and objectivity,” though these claims may ring hollow to those who view the agency as having lost public trust under his leadership.

“Our adherence to our core values, our dedication to independence and objectivity and our defense of the rule of law — those fundamental aspects of who we are must never change.

That’s the real strength of the FBI — the importance of our mission, the quality of our people and their dedication to service over self.

“It’s an unshakeable foundation that’s stood the test of time and cannot be easily moved. And it — you, the men and women of the FBI — are why the bureau will endure and remain successful long into the future,” Wray said.

Wray, seven years into his 10-year term, was appointed by President Trump in 2017 following the dismissal of former Director James Comey. However, Wray’s leadership has often drawn criticism from conservatives for his perceived alignment with the deep-state status quo.

Now that President Trump has been re-elected, Wray faces an ultimatum: leave on his own terms or face replacement.

Trump has already announced his nomination of Kash Patel, a trusted ally and vocal critic of the FBI’s handling of the Russia collusion hoax, to take the helm. Patel’s confirmation would mark a pivotal shift for the Bureau.

Wray is expected to step down in January, just ahead of Trump’s inauguration. Deputy Director Paul Abbate, a longtime Bureau insider, will serve as acting director until Patel’s confirmation.

Abbate, who reportedly planned to retire in the new year, is unlikely to hold the post for long.

As Wray prepares to exit, many Republicans are eager to see a new FBI leadership dedicated to restoring public trust, rooting out partisanship, and ensuring equal application of the law — a stark departure from the agency’s direction during Wray’s tenure.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is bleeding support. Even their own members are jumping ship.

And now this Democrat dropped jaws by suddenly switching parties.

House Speaker Daniel “Danny” Perez, R-Miami, celebrated the newest addition to the Republican supermajority on Monday as Rep. Susan Valdes, R-Tampa, announced her abrupt switch from the Democratic Party to the GOP.

“I’m thrilled to welcome @SusanLValdesFL to the House Republican supermajority,” Perez shared on social media, signaling a significant political shakeup in Florida’s state legislature.

The timing of Valdes’ defection has raised eyebrows, as she was just reelected last month as a Democrat in House District 64, which spans part of Hillsborough County. In that race, Valdes defeated Republican challenger Maura Cruz Lanz by five points.

She also bested Cruz Lanz as a Democrat in 2022 by seven points. However, with term limits preventing her from seeking reelection in her current seat, Valdes’ move appears to be a pivot for her political future.

Valdes’ decision follows her failed bid to lead the Hillsborough County Democratic Party, where she lost to progressive candidate Vanessa Lester.

This loss may have marked a turning point for Valdes, who described her reasons for the party switch in a statement.

“Effective immediately, I will change my registration from a Democrat to Republican and will join the Republican Conference in the Florida House of Representatives,” Valdes announced.

“Our Speaker, Rep. Daniel Perez, has laid out a vision for the House that focuses on empowering House members to work on real problems facing our communities.”

Hillsborough County’s political landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years.

hile Democrats still outnumber Republicans by approximately 3,300 registered voters, Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Hillsborough County by nearly 21,000 votes in the 2024 presidential election, a stark reversal from Joe Biden’s seven-point win in 2020.

Valdes framed her move as a step toward achieving tangible results for her constituents.

“I want to be part of solving problems for West Tampa. I’m tired of being the party of protesting when I got into politics to be part of the party of progress,” she explained.

“I know that I won’t agree with my fellow Republican House members on every issue, but I know that in their caucus, I will be welcomed and treated with respect.”

Governor Ron DeSantis also welcomed Valdes to the Republican fold, echoing Perez’s enthusiasm. Valdes affirmed her commitment to her community, stating, “I love my community, and I will continue to fight every day to benefit the people of West Tampa, Hillsborough County, and the state of Florida. And in my heart, I know the best way to do that is to stand with Speaker Perez and join the Republican supermajority in the Florida House of Representatives.”

Valdes’ decision solidifies the GOP’s dominance in the Florida House, expanding their supermajority to 86 seats out of 120, while reducing the Democratic caucus to just 34 members.

Democratic House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell, also representing Tampa, expressed disappointment over Valdes’ departure. “I was surprised and disappointed today at the announcement by Representative Susan Valdes that she would be leaving the Democratic Caucus to join the Republican Caucus,” Driskell said.

“Rep. Valdes was elected by her constituents as a Democrat to fight for our shared values here in Tallahassee and has consistently and publicly shared that she feels the Republican Party does not adequately represent her constituents or beliefs. It is sad she has elevated her own aspirations above the needs of her district.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The radical Left are trying to Trump-proof the next four years. But they aren’t getting away with it that easily.

And now Republicans are furious after the White House made this shocking announcement.

The House is poised to vote Wednesday on a bill that would significantly expand the number of district court judges, but the measure faces a potential veto from President Biden, turning what was once a bipartisan effort into a contentious political battle.

The legislation, introduced by Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, is known as the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act, or JUDGES Act. The bill, which sailed through the Senate with unanimous approval earlier this year, proposes adding 63 permanent district court judgeships and three temporary positions over the next decade.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana championed the bill during his weekly press conference, highlighting the dire need to alleviate the overwhelming caseload burdening the federal judiciary.

“More judges means more Americans can access equal and impartial justice without waiting years to get it,” Johnson said. “I’m excited to see this bill pass. I used to be a federal court litigator, and I can tell you, it’s desperately needed.”

Indeed, the creation of new judgeships has been overdue. Congress hasn’t added any new district court positions in over two decades and hasn’t undertaken an expansion on the scale proposed by the JUDGES Act in more than 30 years.

In that time, district court filings have surged by 30%, and as of last spring, nearly 700,000 cases were pending across the nation’s 94 district courts, which currently operate with 677 judgeships, including 10 temporary posts.

The bill’s rollout staggers the appointment of judges over several years, with President-elect Donald Trump set to nominate 22 new district court judges during his upcoming term.

This allocation has sparked a partisan clash, with Democrats accusing Republicans of timing the bill to benefit their party’s incoming administration.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, blasted House Republicans for delaying the bill’s vote until after Election Day, undermining what he described as the bipartisan agreement behind the legislation.

“The Senate did its part and passed the bill last summer, but House Republican leadership was unwilling to take a chance on their own candidate and refused to bring the bill to the floor until now, after the election,” Nadler said during a House Rules Committee meeting.

“Thus, the agreement central to the JUDGES Act—that the opportunity to appoint new judges be given to an unknown future president—is now broken.”

The White House echoed Nadler’s concerns in a veto threat issued by the Office of Management and Budget, accusing Republicans of ulterior motives.

The administration’s statement suggested the timing was intended to allow Trump to fill newly created judgeships while bypassing broader concerns about judicial efficiency and fairness.

“Hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated,” the statement read.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky dismissed the White House’s position, arguing that a veto would be purely partisan.

“It’s almost inconceivable that a lame-duck president could consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite,” McConnell said.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio also dismissed Biden’s veto threat, pointing out that half of the appointments Trump would make are in states with two Democratic senators, ensuring bipartisan input in the selection process.

States like Delaware, California, and New Jersey would gain new judgeships in the coming years if the bill passes. “I don’t know what could be more fair,” Jordan said.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Our founders made the branches of government as a system of checks and balances. Not everyone is happy about that.

And now a Democrat Senator declared all out war on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., are spearheading a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on future Supreme Court justices, aiming to address concerns over lifetime appointments and their impact on public trust.

Currently, Supreme Court justices enjoy lifetime tenure as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, which states they “… shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …”

The proposed amendment would limit future justices to 18-year terms, with new terms starting every two years.

However, this change would only apply to justices appointed after the amendment’s ratification. Current justices would retain the option to serve as long as they choose.

“The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire,” Manchin’s press release explains.

“During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench. Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court.”

Manchin, who has represented West Virginia in the Senate since 2010 and recently announced he would not seek re-election, is set to conclude his term in less than a month.

“I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court.

“The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land,” Manchin said in the press release.”

“Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system.”

A key feature of the amendment would codify the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, a figure established by the Judiciary Act of 1869 but not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court’s website, that number has remained unchanged since then.

Currently, three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, while only one was appointed by President Joe Biden.

Welch echoed Manchin’s sentiments, emphasizing the need for reform to restore public confidence in the judiciary.

“Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans,” Welch said in the press release.

“I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin that will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.