Trump is weeding out the Swamp. And they aren’t happy about it.

Now Homeland Security pulled out the lie detector test on these unelected bureaucrats.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is doubling down on its no-nonsense approach to ferreting out leakers, proudly standing by its use of lie-detector tests to safeguard sensitive information. Fox News Digital got the scoop on how DHS is tackling internal breaches with gusto, showing it’s ready to protect national interests at all costs.

“Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers that undermine national security,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS’ assistant secretary for public affairs, told Fox News Digital on Monday.

“We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment or status as a career civil servant – we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Her words carry a clear message: no one’s off-limits when it comes to keeping the agency’s secrets safe.

This hardline stance comes into sharper focus after Politico dropped a report last Friday about FEMA Chief Cameron Hamilton facing a polygraph test in March.

The test followed a sit-down between DHS and Corey Lewandowski, a key advisor to President Donald Trump, who’s been vocal about shaking things up.

The meeting reportedly centered on Trump’s push to “eliminate” FEMA—an agency he’s slammed for dropping the ball on disaster relief.

Hamilton passed the test, proving he wasn’t the source of any leaks, but the incident underscores DHS’s determination to plug holes amid Trump’s bold agenda.

Polygraphs aren’t some shiny new toy for DHS—they’re a well-worn tool across agencies like the FBI, CIA, and ATF, used for everything from vetting new hires to sniffing out security risks.

The FBI, for instance, ramped up its use of lie detectors after the 2001 arrest of Robert Hanssen, a rogue agent caught spying for Russia.

The Pentagon, too, jumped on the bandwagon in March, launching a probe into leaks that might involve polygraphs for Defense Department staff, as Fox Digital previously noted. It’s a tried-and-true method, and DHS is leaning in hard.

McLaughlin’s been vocal about this mission before, taking to X in February to affirm DHS’s stance after chatter about polygraphing staff over immigration raid leaks. “The Department of Homeland Security is a national security agency,” she posted. “We can, should, and will polygraph personnel.”

That same month, Secretary Kristi Noem laid down the law with an internal directive, mandating that polygraph questions zero in on unauthorized media or nonprofit contacts, per Bloomberg Government. It’s a sign DHS means business, especially with Trump’s team pushing for tighter control.

The stakes got real when Border Czar Tom Homan speculated in February that a leak had tipped off illegal immigrants about ICE raids in Colorado and California. That slip allegedly let Tren de Aragua gang members dodge arrest—a frustrating setback that only fuels DHS’s resolve.

The agency’s already got polygraphs baked into its hiring process for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, ensuring they’re fit to serve. “The federal government uses the polygraph exam to understand an applicants’ past behavior, personal connections and personal integrity,” DHS explains online. “Almost every Border Patrol Agent, Customs and Border Protection Officer, and Air and Marine Operations Agent who has joined CBP has taken, and passed, a Polygraph Exam.”

With Trump’s influence steering the ship, DHS isn’t just playing defense—it’s going on offense to lock down leaks and back up his vision. From FEMA critiques to border security, the agency’s signaling it’s all in on delivering results, polygraph in hand.

The Left doesn’t like being called out on their shenanigans. When they do, they lose their minds.

And now Jake Tapper had a deranged meltdown on CNN after a guest said this one sentence.

Tapper Pushes Back on Political Labels

In a lively Sunday exchange on CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper bristled at being pegged as a leftist while grilling Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins about President Donald Trump’s bold tariff moves.

The conversation took a sharp turn when Tapper pressed Rollins on the timeline for the tariff shake-up.

“So how long do you anticipate this tariff chaos is going to be going on? Thirty days, 60 days, 90 days?” he asked, his tone suggesting skepticism about the administration’s game plan.

Rollins, unfazed, shot back with context. “I think it’s really important to realize that last Wednesday was when the president announced this new American order, the new American economic plan,” she said.

“We’re now two days in. You’ve got two days of data, everyone, especially on your side, on the left, is freaking out.”

Tapper didn’t miss a beat, cutting in with, “I’m not on the left,” sparking a chuckle from Rollins. “All right, Jake, thank you,” she replied, clearly enjoying the moment.

Tapper’s quick denial might raise eyebrows, especially among those who’ve watched him since he joined CNN in 2013. Conservatives have long called him out for what they see as a relentless edge against Republicans and Trump, though the network staunchly defends him as a straight shooter.

It’s a familiar dance—Tapper dodging labels while critics question whether his coverage leans harder one way than he lets on.

Trump’s Tariff Play Unfolds

The tariff plan at the heart of the debate is no small tweak. Trump’s administration has rolled out a 10% baseline tariff on all U.S. imports, effective as of Saturday, with tailored rates hitting countries that slap higher tariffs on American goods—set to kick in on April 9.

It’s a muscular move, one that’s already stirring the pot globally and giving talking heads plenty to chew on. Rollins framed it as a long-overdue reset, a chance to flex America’s economic might and put its interests first.

“This whole concept is about rebuilding an American economy around American goods, around American industry,” she explained, painting a picture of a nation tired of playing by others’ rules.

“We do already live under a tariff regime in this country, but it’s the tariff regime of China, of Mexico, of Brazil, of Australia, of countries that, Mexico won’t take our corn, Australia won’t take our beef. The country of Honduras takes more pork than the entire European Union does — American pork, I should say.” Her point? The old system’s been lopsided, and Trump’s flipping the script.

A Case for Change—and Results

Rollins didn’t stop at diagnostics; she doubled down on why this shift matters. “We already have 50 countries that have come to the table over the last few days, over the last weeks, that are willing and desperate to talk to us,” she said, hinting at early wins.

“We are the economic engine of the world, and it’s finally time that someone, President Trump, stood up for America.” Her optimism stood in stark contrast to the hand-wringing from some corners—perhaps the same ones Tapper’s network often amplifies—predicting “chaos” instead of opportunity.

For Rollins, it’s about time for a shake-up. “It was time for a change” in how America handles tariffs, she insisted, projecting confidence that Trump’s gambit would soon pay off with a “positive outcome.” While CNN might keep the spotlight on potential pitfalls, Rollins’ take suggests there’s more to the story—a narrative of American grit and leverage that’s already got the world knocking on the U.S.’s door. Whether that holds up, or it’s just Cabinet cheerleading, remains the million-dollar question.

Harris has been quiet since being thrashed by Donald Trump. But now she’s back in the spotlight and not for good reason.

Because she resurfaced to make the most humiliatingly moronic statement.

In a stunning twist, former Vice President Kamala Harris was reportedly caught off guard by her 2024 election drubbing at the hands of President Donald Trump, having swallowed the hype that victory was in the bag, according to a revealing new book.

“She was completely shocked, and [Harris’ running mate] Tim Walz was shocked,” The Hill’s Amie Parnes dished on the podcast “Somebody’s Gotta Win with Tara Palmeri,” which dropped Thursday.

Parnes unpacked the juicy details from her latest book, FIGHT: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, co-written with NBC’s Jonathan Allen. The tome dives into the chaotic 2024 presidential race, spotlighting the upheaval after former President Biden bailed on his re-election bid, leaving Harris to helm the Democratic ticket amid a storm of uncertainty.

Painting a vivid picture of election night disarray, Parnes described Walz holed up in his hotel room, “stunned.”

“He has no words. And people are kind of explaining to him, same thing with her. And she’s like, are you sure? Have we done a recount? Should we do a recount?” Parnes recounted on the podcast, capturing the disbelief that gripped Harris and Walz as their dreams crumbled.

“They thought that they were going to win. And so, you know, when they come back now and say, ‘Oh no, we didn’t really have a chance.’ No, that’s not what they were thinking. They thought they were going to win,” she emphasized, dismantling any post-loss spin.

Parnes revealed that Harris campaign staffers felt “gaslit” by their higher-ups, who’d fed them rosy assurances that “things were looking good” for Harris—only to watch it all fall apart.

Harris herself “bought the hype” that she was outperforming reality, Parnes noted, pointing to a campaign intoxicated by its own buzz.

“Kamala Harris was looking at her crowd size, and they felt like the vibe was strong and people were saying, ‘Oh, we have more boots on the ground. We’re doing better in fundraising,’” Parnes explained. “And she bought all of that. She bought the hype, and so did a lot of people in the campaign.”

The book dishes that Harris later griped to pals, insisting she could’ve clinched it with more time—or if Biden hadn’t hogged the spotlight by running again.

“She could have won, she told friends, if only the election was later in the calendar — or she got in earlier. In other words, Joe Biden was to blame,” the authors penned, subtly framing Harris as quick to dodge accountability.

Some of Harris’ buddies agreed, whispering that Biden’s baggage and her late start doomed her shot—though not everyone was sold on the time excuse.

“That is f—ing bonkers,” one Harris confidant reportedly scoffed. “If Election Day was October first, we might have actually somehow pulled it off. Shorter was actually better, not longer.”

A Harris advisor cut deeper, arguing the real issue wasn’t the clock—it was her lack of heft.

“I don’t think we needed more time… We needed more substance. And she did not have more substance,” the advisor bluntly stated in the book, a quiet jab at Harris’ lightweight tenure.

Adding fuel to the fire, the book spills that former President Obama wasn’t sold on Harris either, dragging his feet on an endorsement because he doubted she could take down Trump.

“He didn’t think that she was the best choice for Democrats, and he worked really behind the scenes for a long time to try to have a mini-primary, or an open convention, or a mini-primary leading to an open convention, did not have faith in her ability to win the election,” co-author Jonathan Allen told MSNBC this week.

“As it turned out, she didn’t win, but he was really working against her,” Allen added, hinting at a party elite skeptical of Harris’ hype-driven rise.

The rot in the federal government runs deep. No one can escape its reach.

Now a top Democrat risked their life with a shocking confession about the deep state.

This week, Mayor Eric Adams boldly embraced the idea of a “deep state” lurking in the shadows—sounding a lot like President Trump and his MAGA crew.

“I don’t want to sound conspiracy theory, but there’s a permanent government,” Adams confessed to comedian Andrew Schulz on the “Flagrant Podcast” Wednesday.

“There are people that see presidents and mayors come and go. Their attitudes will wait you out.”

Adams’ self-proclaimed tin-foil-hat moment landed the same day a judge threw out the federal corruption case that’s been haunting him since September.

After Manhattan federal Judge Dale Ho squashed the charges for good on Wednesday, Adams capped a triumphant speech outside Gracie Mansion by brandishing a copy of “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy,” penned by Trump ally and current FBI Director Kash Patel.

The Democratic mayor—who revealed Thursday he’s gunning for re-election as an independent come November—raved about the book in follow-up chats, claiming it blew the lid off what he insists went down in his own saga.

“Everybody should read the book,” Adams urged Schulz.

“Of course, of course, we like Kash. But is this like what people refer to? And I think this word has been used too much, but like the deep state or whatever it is,” Schulz prodded.

“It’s not used too much. It’s real, brother,” Adams shot back.

He barreled on, “(Patel) comes with this wealth of knowledge and the way he breaks it down, it’s just unbelievable what this deep state is about and why it’s so important for Americans that we cannot have a weaponizing of our prosecutorial powers.”

Adams has long argued that Southern District of New York prosecutors zeroed in on him after he called out former President Joe Biden’s handling of the migrant mess.

He admitted on the podcast that it’s a plight that hit home for Trump, who’s insisted his laundry list of legal woes stems from political payback.

“He didn’t have to come out on his campaign trail and say, this is wrong what they’re doing to Eric,” Adams said, appreciative of Trump’s support. “He did it at rallies.”

The feds kicked off their corruption dig into Adams back in 2021—before he even took the mayor’s seat and before waves of migrants flooded New York City.

The groundbreaking indictment painted Adams as pocketing bribes from Turkish nationals, disguised as swanky travel perks like flight upgrades.

While Adams spilled the beans about the deep state to Schulz, he didn’t totally let loose with the podcast star.

Schulz tossed out a playful jab, asking what’s the top “bodega boner pill.”

“If I answer that, I’ll be on the front page of The Post,” Adams quipped.

The Obamas, Bidens, and Clintons never seem to go away. They always rear their heads at some point.

And now Barack Obama emerged out of the shadows for this sinister purpose.

Obama Urges Sacrifice to Counter Trump’s Bold Moves

Former President Barack Obama addressed a crowd at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, on Thursday night, suggesting that resisting President Donald Trump’s decisive policies might require some tough sacrifices.

As reported by the Washington Post, Obama framed the Trump administration as a force unraveling the post-World War II international order—a charge that paints Trump as a fearless disruptor, shaking up a system some see as overdue for a refresh.

A Challenge to Step Up—Or Step Aside

Obama didn’t shy away from calling out Trump’s approach, labeling it “contrary to the basic compact we have as Americans.”

He urged students to dig deeper, saying, “It has been easy during most of our lifetimes to say you are a progressive, or say you are for social justice, or say you are for free speech, and not have to pay a price for it…And now we’re in one of those moments when…it’s not enough just to say you’re for something. You may actually have to do something and possibly sacrifice a little bit.”

For Trump supporters, this might sound like a desperate rallying cry against a president unafraid to put America’s interests front and center, even if it ruffles feathers.

He also called on law firms and universities to jump into the fray, arguing they’d push back hard if targeted.

“It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a whole bunch of my predecessors,” Obama said, implying Trump’s getting a freer hand to lead than he ever did.

To those cheering Trump’s no-nonsense style, it’s a sign he’s breaking through the old guard’s resistance—and winning.

Guarding a Past Trump’s Ready to Reshape

Obama’s concern hit a high note as he warned, “All of you have grown up in an international order that was created by America after World War II. … This is an important moment because in the last two months, the U.S. government has been trying to destroy that order.”

He added, “Democracy is pretty recent in its vintage. An international order where you cooperate instead of fight is new. It’s fragile.”

He even voiced alarm over “a federal government that threatens universities if they don’t give up students who are exercising their right to free speech”—a jab at Trump’s tough stance that some see as a necessary push to restore order over chaos.

For Trump’s base, this “destruction” might just be the bold reset America’s been craving, not a loss to mourn.

The unrecorded speech left plenty of room for interpretation, but one thing’s clear: Obama’s framing Trump as a wrecking ball—and not everyone’s mad about it.

The courts are out to get Republicans. And they’re just getting started.

Now a federal judge handed Trump a devastating ruling he never expected.

A Bold Vision Meets Judicial Pushback

President Trump’s immigration stance, deeply rooted in his signature “America First” philosophy, took a hit this week when a federal judge stepped in to challenge it. Judge Edward Chen put a halt to the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to end a deportation amnesty for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.

The decision, driven by Secretary Kristi Noem’s nod to Trump’s guiding principle, was labeled by Chen as showing illegal and racist “animus” toward immigrants—a claim that’s stirring debate about the balance between national priorities and judicial overreach.

Defending the Heart of “America First”

The White House didn’t hesitate to fire back. Spokesman Kush Desai told The Washington Times, “President Trump’s commitment to putting Americans and America First has only to do with his love for our country and our citizens, not animus against anyone else.”

It’s a sentiment that resonates with those who see Trump’s policies as a refreshing focus on the homeland.

Meanwhile, Mike Davis, a key figure from Trump’s first term and founder of the Article III Project, took aim at Chen, asking, “After San Francisco Obama Judge Chen ruled it’s illegal for the president to put America first, which country is Judge Chen putting first?”

Davis didn’t stop there, calling Chen part of a “Democrat enclave” bent on “sabotaging the duly elected president’s constitutional duty to protect our homeland from foreign invasion.”

A Policy Battle with Deep Roots

At the core of the clash is Noem’s attempt to roll back a Biden-era extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans—a move that could’ve seen 350,000 face deportation this month without Chen’s intervention.

The judge, an Obama appointee in Northern California, argued Noem didn’t justify the shift adequately and pointed to “unconstitutional animus,” tying it to Trump’s colorful rhetoric.

From his first campaign in 2016, Trump’s “America First” mantra has been a rallying cry—later fueling groups like the America First Policy Institute and Stephen Miller’s America First Legal. This term, it’s the backbone of an agenda tackling immigration, trade, and global commitments with a no-nonsense edge.

Chen’s ruling leans heavily on Trump’s past words—like his alleged “s—-hole” comment from his first term, or campaign trail zingers about Haitian migrants eating dogs and Venezuelan “criminals” flooding the border. The judge even cited an Axios tally showing Trump mentioned Venezuelan “criminals” 70 times in 13 months before the election.

Critics like Ahilan Arulanantham of the National TPS Alliance cheered the decision, saying, “The government had every opportunity to defend any of those statements using evidence, but it failed to do so.”

He added, “If an employer made any one of these statements about people from some country and then fired its workers from that country, that would make for a very straightforward employment discrimination case.”

Yet for Trump’s supporters, this is less about prejudice and more about a leader unafraid to call it like he sees it.

Judge Chen, who’s tangled with “America First” before in a 2018 TPS case, once pressed government lawyers to define it—only to get no clear answer. To Trump, it’s simple: “I like the sound of the phrase.” And for a base tired of endless foreign entanglements, that’s more than enough.

The Left is eating their own. There’s no telling how far they’ll go.

And now a former Biden staffer ripped into Democrats for one despicable move.

Debate Prep Revelations Spark Outrage

A bombshell book about the 2024 presidential campaign has left former Biden campaign aide Ashley Allison reeling. On Wednesday, she candidly shared her sense of betrayal, saying she felt “lied to” after reading claims from ex-Biden White House chief of staff Ron Klain. According to Klain, former President Biden was visibly “exhausted” and “out of it” while gearing up for the pivotal June debate.

CNN host Abby Phillip pressed Allison, who contributed to the Biden-Harris 2020 effort, asking, “Do you feel lied to?” Allison didn’t mince words: “Yes. I think I hadn’t been around the president before that debate, and I worked for Joe Biden. And if the people around him knew that he was not capable, it is unacceptable to me that they allowed him to go onto that stage. I deserve better as a voter, not even as a Democrat, as a voter and as an American, I do.”

Insider Accounts Paint a Troubling Picture

The allegations stem from Chris Whipple’s latest book, with excerpts published by The Guardian revealing Klain’s stark observations. He described Biden as “fatigued, befuddled, and disengaged” during debate prep, admitting to Whipple that he was “startled” by the former president’s exhaustion.

Klain reportedly noted Biden seemed “out of it,” a far cry from the sharp leader expected in such a high-stakes moment.

The account has fueled a firestorm of reactions, raising questions about what Biden’s inner circle knew—and when. Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton didn’t hold back, labeling it a blatant “cover-up” that obscured the truth from the public.

Allies Grapple with Biden’s Debate Fallout

On CNN, Phillip turned to “The View” co-host Ana Navarro, a longtime Biden ally, for her take. Highlighting a bizarre detail from the book, Phillip noted, “Ana, I know that Joe Biden is a friend.

But in this excerpt, the part about the pool, he went off – this is in the middle of the debate prep – went off to the pool, and he took a nap. And that was before the biggest debate of this campaign. That’s not even the governance of the country.”

She continued, “So Joe Biden, maybe he has the best intentions. I’m sure that you believe that. But the right decision, it seems pretty unequivocally, is that he should not have run for reelection.” Navarro, who’d been texting with Klain, pushed back, saying his words were misconstrued.

She insisted something odd occurred around the debate, recalling, “I’ve known Joe Biden for over 25 years. Certainly, the Joe Biden today is not the Joe Biden of five years ago, 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 25 years ago. It’s not. But also, I will tell you, and I think that comes out also in the book and the excerpt that I read, something clearly happened that day, around those days, that was not the case the day after.”

Navarro added, “I saw Joe Biden, 24 hours after that debate, here in New York. He was a completely different person.”

She later reflected, “I saw Joe Biden when he came to ‘The View’ after he dropped out, and he was a completely different person than what we saw at that debate. What happened around those days, I don’t know. And can I tell you something? I don’t care, because I want to talk about the future and how we fight Donald Trump and how we get rid of Donald Trump.”

Meanwhile, Allison doubled down, declaring, “What we are hearing right now is unacceptable to me, and I am a Democrat. That night of the debate was terrifying for many, many, it was scary.

It hurt my heart, but it was very clear that that might not have been the first time. And I find that unacceptable. I would find that unacceptable in a Trump Administration, in an Obama Administration, in a Bush administration and in a Biden administration.”

The truth will set you free. But not everyone is happy about it.

And now a whistleblower is set to expose a major cover-up in front of Congress.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., dropped a bombshell Thursday on Fox News, revealing that Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former insider, is set to spill the beans next week before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.

She’ll unpack the social media titan’s murky internal culture and its questionable overseas dealings—the very issues that got her explosive memoir yanked from shelves earlier this year.

In a fiery statement to Fox News Digital, Hawley didn’t hold back, branding Meta “an amoral and corrupt company that crafted a custom censorship system for Communist China.” He also slammed their efforts to gag a truth-teller.

“Sarah Wynn-Williams alleges that Facebook is an amoral and corrupt company that crafted a custom censorship system for Communist China,” Hawley told Fox News Digital.

“Is it a surprise to anyone that Meta secured a gag order against her? Censorship is what Big Tech does best, and since Facebook is trying to quash her story, my subcommittee is going to officially investigate it,” he vowed, signaling a no-nonsense probe.

Her shelved memoir, Careless People, aimed to expose what Wynn-Williams calls Facebook’s cozy ties with regimes like China’s Communist Party, including “plans to build censorship tools, punish dissidents, and make American user data available to the CCP.”

Hawley, a key player on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, personally invited Wynn-Williams to testify after Meta killed her book. On X, he promised she’d go “in public, under oath” to lay out the “explosive” details that never saw daylight.

Insiders told Fox News Digital the hearing is a workaround to air her claims while dodging the arbitration chokehold Meta slapped on her.

The scoop, first broken to Fox News Digital, follows Meta’s move earlier this year to block Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism—a six-year insider’s account that had buzzed as one of 2024’s most anticipated reads, racking up early praise from the New York Times and beyond. It even hit pre-sale on Amazon before Meta pulled the plug.

The book promised a raw look at Meta’s internal rot—alleged harassment reaching the top brass—and its dealings with shady regimes.

But in March, Meta flexed its legal muscle, winning an arbitration fight to bury it, citing Wynn-Williams’ nondisclosure agreements. They’ve since painted her as a “disgruntled employee.”

Meta’s Dani Lever shot back to Fox News Digital, insisting, “We do not operate our services in China today,” echoing Mark Zuckerberg’s 2019 pivot away from expansion there. Lever admitted past interest was no secret—part of Facebook’s old “connect the world” spiel—but said it’s ancient history.

Still, Hawley and GOP panel allies aren’t buying it. Just a day before, they kicked off an investigation into Meta’s China ties, zeroing in on AI tools possibly handed to the CCP. They’ve demanded Meta cough up “records and communications pertaining to Meta’s operations within China, including the potential use of AI models developed by or in collaboration with the CCP.”

Senate Republicans aren’t letting Meta’s muzzle slow them down. Citing internal docs, they claim Facebook’s playbook “reportedly included more engagement with the CCP, and later included plans to partner with a Chinese company to build censorship tools and provide the CCP with user data.”

Worse, they say, “Facebook’s censorship efforts on behalf of the CCP allegedly extended to dissidents outside of China, including in the United States.”

Next week’s testimony could light a fuse under Meta’s carefully curated image—and Hawley’s ready to strike the match.

Social Security is a massive program affecting millions of Americans. Now there’s a major update.

Because Elon Musk made an announcement about Social Security that is dropping jaws.

Musk Unveils Shocking Social Security Surge

Elon Musk, the dynamo leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), dropped a bombshell Sunday with a jaw-dropping chart that lays bare a staggering spike in Social Security numbers handed out to illegal immigrants during the Biden years.

The reveal came hot off the presses at a Wisconsin town hall, where Musk teamed up with DOGE partner Antonio Gracias to call out what they see as a calculated move to tilt the scales of American democracy.

Accusing Biden of an Electoral Overhaul

“It was a massive, large-scale program to import as many illegals as possible, ultimately, to change the entire voting map of the United States and disenfranchise the American people and make it a permanent, deep blue one-party state from which there would be no escape,” Gracias charged, dropping the accusation just a day before Wisconsin’s high-stakes Supreme Court election.

It’s a fiery claim that frames the Biden era as a deliberate power grab—one Musk and Gracias are determined to unravel.

Their evidence? A turbocharged expansion of the Enumeration Beyond Entry (EBE) program in 2024, which fast-tracked Social Security numbers for immigrants. The numbers don’t lie, they say: issuances to noncitizens rocketed from 270,425 in fiscal year 2021 to a whopping 2 million in 2024.

Musk’s latest exposé builds on DOGE’s February bombshell, which uncovered tens of millions of Social Security records for people supposedly over 100 years old—a red flag waving in the wind.

Gracias painted a vivid picture of Biden-era border policies: illegal crossings brushed off as mere paperwork slip-ups, letting migrants linger in the U.S. for years awaiting court dates.

Then, he said, the Social Security Administration would just pop a number in the mail—no interview, no ID check, no fuss. The result? “We found 1.3 million of them already on Medicaid,” Gracias revealed, hinting at a broader flood into public programs that’s raising eyebrows.

Exposing Voting Risks and Human Cost

But the real kicker for Musk and Gracias is the voting angle. “We actually just took a sample and looked at voter registration records, and we found people here registered to vote. In this population,” Gracias said.

“We have referred them to prosecution at the Homeland Security Investigation Service.” It’s a bold move to clean house, though online skeptics were quick to counter on Musk’s social media post that a Social Security number doesn’t automatically mean illegal votes were cast.

Beyond the electoral fireworks, Gracias zeroed in on a darker fallout: a humanitarian mess at the border. He pointed to ICE stats showing 270,000 migrant kids lost in the shuffle, never getting court notices and still prey to traffickers. “The human tragedy this created is extraordinary,” he said, pegging human trafficking profits at $13–15 billion thanks to U.S. policy loopholes.

“We created a system here that created an incentive for people to come and be taken advantage of by these traffickers,” Gracias lamented.

“That’s the real problem. This is America. We don’t do this here in America.” It’s a stinging rebuke of the past—and a call to action that aligns with a tougher, Trump-style resolve to fix what’s broken.

The Islamic state has a checkered history. Much of it is an exercise in funding terrorists.

But now Iran is finally exposed for putting the crosshairs on Donald Trump.

Iranian military brass are reportedly mulling a daring preemptive strike on a joint U.S.-U.K. base on Chagos Island in the Indian Ocean, aiming to throw a wrench in President Donald Trump’s plans should he greenlight an attack on Tehran.

The Telegraph first broke the story, spotlighting Iran’s latest gambit to flex its muscles against a resolute American leader.

“Like any Iranian military threat, the art is to determine what is bluster and what is real,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital when pressed on Tehran’s strategy. He sees through the smoke and mirrors: “Deception is a propaganda tool used to bolster deterrence and prevent a conventionally weak regime from having to fight.”

Taleblu added, “By threatening everywhere, the regime hopes to have to fight nowhere – meaning its revolutionary foreign policy gets to remain uncontested.” It’s a crafty play, but one that hinges on keeping foes guessing.

Fox News Digital hasn’t independently verified the threat against Diego Garcia, a strategic outpost 2,400 miles south of Iran.

Still, Iran watchers are sounding the alarm—Tehran might not need direct missile reach to rattle U.S. interests.

Taleblu noted on X that Iran caps its ballistic range at about 1,200 miles, but its IRGC could stretch that to 1,800 miles with the Khorramshahr-2 missile.

Then there’s the upgraded Khorramshahr-4, dubbed the Kheibar, rumored to push even further, though its full punch remains untested.

Even if 2,400 miles is a stretch, Iran’s proven it’s got tricks up its sleeve. From turning merchant ships and oil tankers into floating arsenals to wielding Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, Tehran’s shown it can extend its reach.

“There’s always the chance of using a foreign-procured container launched cruise missile from even an unconverted tanker or commercial vessel at sea,” Taleblu explained in his X post, nodding to tactics honed since the Iran-Iraq War.

Iran could also lean on its terrorist allies, smuggling missile tech to chaotic hotspots like Yemen to gain an 800-mile boost southward into the Indian Ocean.

“While all these options would make Iran’s launch platforms, especially at sea, easy targets for a counterstrike, they mean that Tehran does have options to strike further afield than expected,” Taleblu said. It’s a high-stakes chess move—one that could backfire spectacularly.

Trump’s been turning up the heat, issuing stern warnings to Iran in recent days. He’s made it clear: arming the Houthi terrorists or pushing its nuclear ambitions could spark a direct showdown.

The U.S. response to an attack on its forces remains a wild card, but Tehran’s shaky defenses—laid bare by Israel’s past strikes—suggest it might not like the odds.

Iran, meanwhile, dashed off a complaint to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, griping about Trump’s “reckless and belligerent” rhetoric.

Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani wrote, per Reuters, that Tehran “strongly warns against any military adventurism and will respond swiftly and decisively to any act of aggression or attack by the United States or its proxy, the Israeli regime, against its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national interests.”

The media has it out for Trump. But this administration isn’t going to take it.

Now the White House Press Secretary went nuclear on this mainstream media stooge.

Leavitt Clashes with Press Over Gang Crackdown

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t hold back Monday, tearing into a reporter who questioned whether President Donald Trump’s team was singling out alleged gang members for deportation based purely on their wardrobe.

The fiery exchange unfolded during a press gaggle, spotlighting the administration’s aggressive push to root out danger.

Reporter Questions Deportation Criteria

The reporter pressed on how the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were pinpointing members of the brutal Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua—many now facing deportation to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act.

He pointed to tattoos, symbols, and clothing as part of the criteria, suggesting, “That alone is enough to get someone classified as TdA and sent to El Salvador,” even after admitting earlier that eight distinct markers were required for that label.

Leavitt wasn’t having it.

“That’s not true, actually,” she fired back, cutting through the claim with precision.

“According to this document, it is,” the reporter doubled down.

“No, according to the Department of Homeland Security and the agents—have you talked to the agents who have been putting their lives on the line to detain these foreign terrorists who have been terrorizing our communities?!” Leavitt countered, her voice rising with conviction.

Defending Trump’s Tough Stance

She didn’t stop there. “TDA is a vicious gang that has taken the lives of American women!” she declared.

“And our agents on the front lines take deporting these people with the utmost seriousness, and there is a litany of criteria that they use to ensure that these individuals qualify as foreign terrorists and to ensure that they qualify for deportation!”

Leavitt then turned the tables, tying it to Trump’s bigger vision.

“And the president made it incredibly clear to the American public that there would be a mass deportation campaign—of not just foreign terrorists, but also illegal criminal aliens who have been wreaking havoc on American communities,” she said.

“And shame on you and shame on the mainstream media for trying to cover for these individuals—this is a vicious gang … this is a vicious gang that has taken the lives of American women!”

WATCH:

🔥HOLY SMOKES! White House @PressSec Karoline Leavitt just TORCHED a "reporter" for claiming that illegal immigrants are being PROFILED and deported for nothing more than their clothing choice:

"That's not true, actually…Have you talked to the agents who have been putting… pic.twitter.com/cz0pRLXQsh

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 31, 2025

The Left is going to extreme measures. But no one thought they’d go this far.

Now a top Republican is sounding the alarm on an imminent coup d’état threat.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) is gearing up to deliver a sharp warning to Congress on Tuesday, spotlighting what he calls a “potential judicial coup d’etat” driven by overzealous federal judges.

His prepared remarks, obtained by The Daily Wire, set the stage for a fiery congressional hearing on judicial overreach and its impact on President Donald Trump’s bold agenda.

Gingrich will take the stand at a joint session of two House Judiciary Committee subcommittees, tackling the growing tension in America’s judicial system and offering solutions to rein in the sweeping court orders that have stalled Trump’s initiatives.

From axing probationary hires to deporting suspected gang members, federal judges have unleashed a barrage of nationwide injunctions, throwing roadblocks in the administration’s path.

“There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the Judicial Branch’s effort to fully override the Legislative and Executive branches,” reads a draft of Gingrich’s testimony.

“Fifteen District Judges effectively seized control of various Executive Branch duties in the first six weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d’etat. It clearly violates the Constitution and more than 200 years of American history.”

Joining Gingrich are Heritage Foundation legal expert Paul Larkin and Cindy Romero, a victim of the Tren de Aragua gang, in a hearing hosted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government and the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.

In his testimony, Gingrich underscores a striking stat: since Trump took office on January 20, 2025, federal courts have slapped his administration with 15 nationwide injunctions—outpacing the six against George W. Bush, 12 against Barack Obama, and 14 against Joe Biden across their entire terms.

He notes that 92% of these rulings come from judges appointed by Democratic presidents, raising questions about impartiality.

“The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the Executive Branch – and override a Commander in Chief who received 77.3 million votes – should trouble every American,” Gingrich asserts, nodding to Trump’s resounding electoral support.

He’s pushing for action, urging Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to step in with a rule mandating immediate Supreme Court review for any nationwide injunction from a lower court.

Gingrich also threw his weight behind the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” a bill from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)—who leads the Constitution subcommittee alongside Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—that would limit judges to issuing injunctions only for the specific parties in a case.

Paul Larkin’s written statement, also obtained by The Daily Wire, dives into the historical roots of judicial power.

“The practice of entering nationwide injunctions against the federal government in any case not properly certified as a nationwide class action is both unlawful and unwise,” his draft remarks state.

“Neither the Constitution, the Judicial Code, nor common-law principles of issue or claim preclusion authorizes a federal court to award relief to individuals who are not parties to a particular ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy.’”

The Trump administration has been knocking on the Supreme Court’s door, seeking relief from these district court battles.

While the high court has mostly stayed quiet, it did step in to overturn a ruling forcing the administration to fork over $2 billion to foreign aid contractors—a win for Trump’s team in an otherwise uphill fight.