Four-term Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was beaten decisively in the Republican primary for Texas’s 2nd Congressional District on Tuesday.

Crenshaw comes behind state Rep. Steve Toth by a wide margin, a stunning reversal for a lawmaker who entered Congress in 2019 as one of the GOP’s most prominent rising stars. With 94% of the votes counted on Wednesday morning, Toth won 56% to Crenshaw’s 40.5%, according to the Associated Press.

Crenshaw was first elected in 2018, succeeding retiring Republican Rep. Ted Poe in the suburban Houston-based district. A former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in Afghanistan, Crenshaw quickly became a fixture on cable news and conservative media, gaining national attention during his first campaign and building a reputation as a sharp, combative communicator.

In Congress, he positioned himself as a national security-focused conservative, serving on key committees and often emphasizing border security, energy production, and military readiness. He cultivated an image as a policy-oriented Republican willing to engage across factions of the party, though that positioning increasingly placed him at odds with its populist wing.

Crenshaw survived prior primary challenges, but not without turbulence. While he maintained comfortable general election victories in the solidly Republican district, he faced criticism from grassroots activists who viewed him as insufficiently aligned with the party. His votes on certain spending measures and foreign aid packages drew scrutiny from the right, and he occasionally clashed publicly with conservative commentators and fellow Republicans.

Over time, those fissures widened. As the Republican Party shifted further toward a more combative, populist posture under President Donald Trump, Crenshaw’s brand of hawkish, institutional conservatism lost ground among segments of the primary electorate. His criticism of some Trump-aligned figures and his support for certain bipartisan legislative efforts fueled the perception among critics that he was out of step with the party’s grassroots base.

That discontent has coalesced around Toth, a longtime Texas state legislator with strong ties to the state’s conservative activist network. Toth ran a campaign positioning himself as a more reliable ally of the Trump-aligned wing of the GOP, emphasizing border security, opposition to federal spending, and what he described as the need to send a fighter to Washington.

Crenshaw’s defeat marks one of the most high-profile primary losses of the cycle, especially in a safe Republican seat where the decisive battle is likely the primary. Toth will face Democrat Shaun Finnie, an investment banker, in November. Finnie ran unopposed in the Democratic primary. However, Texas’s 2nd District has remained firmly Republican in recent cycles, and the GOP nominee will be heavily favored in the general election barring a dramatic shift in turnout or national conditions.

Crenshaw’s trajectory mirrors a broader pattern within the GOP: lawmakers who rose during the pre-2020 era and sought to balance establishment conservatism with populist energy have increasingly found themselves squeezed by challengers promising clearer alignment with the party’s current center of gravity.

For Crenshaw, the loss closes a six-year chapter that began with national momentum and ends amid a changing party landscape. Whether he seeks another path in public life remains to be seen. But, Texas’s 2nd District will likely send a new Republican to Washington — and one whose ascent underscores just how much the party’s internal politics have shifted since 2018.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Four-term Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was beaten decisively in the Republican primary for Texas’s 2nd Congressional District on Tuesday.

Crenshaw comes behind state Rep. Steve Toth by a wide margin, a stunning reversal for a lawmaker who entered Congress in 2019 as one of the GOP’s most prominent rising stars. With 94% of the votes counted on Wednesday morning, Toth won 56% to Crenshaw’s 40.5%, according to the Associated Press.

Crenshaw was first elected in 2018, succeeding retiring Republican Rep. Ted Poe in the suburban Houston-based district. A former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in Afghanistan, Crenshaw quickly became a fixture on cable news and conservative media, gaining national attention during his first campaign and building a reputation as a sharp, combative communicator.

In Congress, he positioned himself as a national security-focused conservative, serving on key committees and often emphasizing border security, energy production, and military readiness. He cultivated an image as a policy-oriented Republican willing to engage across factions of the party, though that positioning increasingly placed him at odds with its populist wing.

Crenshaw survived prior primary challenges, but not without turbulence. While he maintained comfortable general election victories in the solidly Republican district, he faced criticism from grassroots activists who viewed him as insufficiently aligned with the party. His votes on certain spending measures and foreign aid packages drew scrutiny from the right, and he occasionally clashed publicly with conservative commentators and fellow Republicans.

Over time, those fissures widened. As the Republican Party shifted further toward a more combative, populist posture under President Donald Trump, Crenshaw’s brand of hawkish, institutional conservatism lost ground among segments of the primary electorate. His criticism of some Trump-aligned figures and his support for certain bipartisan legislative efforts fueled the perception among critics that he was out of step with the party’s grassroots base.

That discontent has coalesced around Toth, a longtime Texas state legislator with strong ties to the state’s conservative activist network. Toth ran a campaign positioning himself as a more reliable ally of the Trump-aligned wing of the GOP, emphasizing border security, opposition to federal spending, and what he described as the need to send a fighter to Washington.

Crenshaw’s defeat marks one of the most high-profile primary losses of the cycle, especially in a safe Republican seat where the decisive battle is likely the primary. Toth will face Democrat Shaun Finnie, an investment banker, in November. Finnie ran unopposed in the Democratic primary. However, Texas’s 2nd District has remained firmly Republican in recent cycles, and the GOP nominee will be heavily favored in the general election barring a dramatic shift in turnout or national conditions.

Crenshaw’s trajectory mirrors a broader pattern within the GOP: lawmakers who rose during the pre-2020 era and sought to balance establishment conservatism with populist energy have increasingly found themselves squeezed by challengers promising clearer alignment with the party’s current center of gravity.

For Crenshaw, the loss closes a six-year chapter that began with national momentum and ends amid a changing party landscape. Whether he seeks another path in public life remains to be seen. But, Texas’s 2nd District will likely send a new Republican to Washington — and one whose ascent underscores just how much the party’s internal politics have shifted since 2018.

“}]] 

The post Dan Crenshaw Defeated: Four-Term Texas Incumbent Goes Down In Primary appeared first on Spin Politico.

The Iran Conflict and the Growing Threat of Domestic Terrorism: America’s Real Security Challenge

A Nation at War, A Nation at Risk

The United States has once again found itself entangled in a foreign conflict, this time with Iran. The decision to launch a military offensive against Iran has sparked fierce debate, not just about the wisdom of the operation, but about its potential consequences for domestic security. While the administration has justified the strikes as necessary to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, many experts warn that the greatest threat to America may not come from Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing, but from within its own borders.

The growing reality is that domestic terrorism—fueled by radical ideologies, foreign influence, and unchecked immigration—poses a more immediate and lethal threat to the United States than any foreign adversary. As the war in Iran escalates, the U.S. must confront the uncomfortable truth that its most pressing security challenges lie at home.

The Escalation with Iran: A Precarious Path

The recent military action against Iran was framed as a preemptive measure to neutralize an imminent threat. According to officials, intelligence indicated that Iran was on the verge of making its nuclear program impervious to attack[^1^]. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, long a vocal proponent of a hardline stance against Iran, played a key role in persuading President Trump to act decisively[^2^].

However, skepticism abounds. Senator Ted Cruz publicly stated that there was no intelligence to suggest Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons[^3^]. Meanwhile, conflicting accounts from White House officials have only deepened doubts about the true motivations behind the war[^4^].

While the geopolitical implications of the conflict are significant, the focus on Iran has overshadowed the immediate and growing threat of domestic terrorism. The U.S. has, in recent years, faced an alarming rise in homegrown extremist activity, much of it fueled by radical ideologies from abroad. This raises a critical question: Are we prepared to address the threats within our own borders?

The Domestic Terrorism Threat: A Clear and Present Danger

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has repeatedly warned that domestic violent extremists (DVEs) pose the most persistent and lethal threat to the United States[^5^]. These individuals, often radicalized online or influenced by foreign propaganda, are motivated by a range of ideologies, including white supremacy, anti-government sentiment, and extremism rooted in religious or political beliefs.

The war in Iran has heightened concerns about retaliatory attacks by Iranian operatives or sympathizers already living in the United States. Iran has a proven track record of leveraging proxy groups and sleeper cells to carry out attacks against its adversaries. In 2022, for example, the FBI foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate former National Security Advisor John Bolton[^6^]. The incident underscored the regime’s willingness to target individuals on U.S. soil.

Moreover, the U.S. has seen an increase in homegrown radicalization, particularly among individuals with ties to extremist networks. This includes both foreign-born individuals and U.S.-born citizens who have been influenced by radical ideologies. The Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers—ethnic Chechens who were granted asylum in the U.S.—is a chilling reminder of the dangers posed by homegrown terrorism[^7^].

The Role of Immigration in National Security

Immigration has long been a contentious issue in the United States, but the current geopolitical climate has brought renewed scrutiny to the intersection of immigration and national security. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has admitted significant numbers of refugees and immigrants from countries experiencing political instability and conflict, including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Somalia[^8^].

While the vast majority of immigrants are law-abiding individuals seeking better opportunities, a small minority have been involved in acts of terrorism. For instance, in 2021, an Afghan refugee who had been resettled in the U.S. was arrested for plotting to blow up a synagogue in Colorado[^9^]. Similarly, Abdul Jalloh, an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone with a lengthy criminal record, was charged with the murder of a woman in Virginia earlier this year[^10^].

These incidents highlight the need for more robust vetting processes and a reevaluation of immigration policies. The war in Iran has the potential to exacerbate these challenges, as heightened tensions could lead to an increase in radicalization among individuals already living in the U.S.

The Role of Online Radicalization

One of the most significant drivers of domestic terrorism is online radicalization. Extremist groups have increasingly turned to social media platforms and encrypted messaging apps to spread propaganda, recruit followers, and plan attacks. This has made it easier for individuals to become radicalized without ever leaving their homes.

The war in Iran could provide fertile ground for extremist groups to exploit grievances and recruit new members. Anti-American sentiment, fueled by the conflict, could lead to an uptick in online propaganda targeting vulnerable individuals. Law enforcement agencies must be prepared to counter this threat by monitoring online activity and disrupting extremist networks.

The Intersection of Foreign and Domestic Threats

While the focus of the current conflict is on Iran, the U.S. must also remain vigilant about the role of foreign adversaries like Russia and China in fueling domestic unrest. Both nations have been accused of using disinformation campaigns to sow division and amplify extremist narratives within the United States[^11^].

For example, during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Russian operatives targeted American social media users with divisive content aimed at exacerbating political polarization[^12^]. Similarly, China has been accused of using social media platforms to spread propaganda and misinformation to undermine U.S. democracy[^13^].

The combination of foreign interference and domestic radicalization creates a volatile environment that could be exploited by both state and non-state actors. This underscores the need for a comprehensive national security strategy that addresses the interconnected nature of these threats.

What Can Be Done?

To effectively address the growing threat of domestic terrorism, the United States must adopt a multifaceted approach that includes the following measures:

1. Strengthening Intelligence and Law Enforcement Capabilities:
   Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must work together to identify and disrupt domestic terrorist plots. This includes investing in advanced surveillance technologies, enhancing information-sharing networks, and providing specialized training for law enforcement personnel.
2. Combating Online Radicalization:
   Social media companies must be held accountable for the content on their platforms. This includes implementing stricter measures to identify and remove extremist content, as well as working with law enforcement to track and disrupt online networks.
3. Reevaluating Immigration Policies:
   The U.S. must strike a balance between providing humanitarian aid to refugees and ensuring national security. This includes implementing more rigorous vetting processes for immigrants and asylum seekers, as well as revisiting policies that allow for mass migration from regions with high levels of extremist activity.
4. Community Engagement and Integration:
   To prevent radicalization, it is essential to invest in programs that promote community integration and address the root causes of extremism. This includes initiatives that foster cultural understanding, provide economic opportunities, and support mental health services.
5. Focusing on Domestic Priorities:
   While foreign policy is an important aspect of national security, the U.S. must not lose sight of the challenges at home. Addressing issues like immigration reform, border security, and domestic terrorism should be top priorities for the administration.

The war in Iran has thrust the United States into another high-stakes conflict, raising questions about the nation’s foreign policy priorities and its commitment to the principles of “America First.” While the administration has justified the war as a necessary measure to protect U.S. interests, the growing threat of domestic terrorism suggests that America’s most pressing security challenges lie within its own borders.

As the U.S. continues to navigate this complex and dangerous situation, it must take a hard look at its national security strategy. The war in Iran may have strategic importance, but it should not come at the expense of addressing the clear and present dangers posed by domestic terrorism.

The United States is at a crossroads. The decisions made in the coming months will not only determine the outcome of the conflict in Iran but will also shape the future of America’s security and identity. It is imperative that the administration prioritizes the safety and well-being of its citizens by addressing the threats that exist within its own borders. Only then can America truly be made great again.

Sources:

1. Donald Trump’s 2016 Announcement Speech, Time
2. New York Times: Trump and Netanyahu’s Push for War
3. Marco Rubio’s Statement on Iran, @RapidResponse47/X.com
4. Ted Cruz on Iran Nuclear Weapons, @AuronMacintyre/X.com
5. DHS: Domestic Violent Extremism Report
6. Migration Policy Institute: Refugee Demographics
7. NY Post: Stephanie Minter Murder
8. Boston Marathon Bombing Case, NPR
9. Clash Report: Steve Witkoff on Iran Negotiations
10. Russia’s Disinformation Campaigns, Reuters
11. China’s Influence Operations, BBC

The post The Biggest Threat To Our Country Is Inside Our Borders appeared first on Spin Politico.

The United States struck a “terrorist” target in Ecuador on Tuesday, flexing its military might while simultaneously carrying out full-scale war against Iran.

On Tuesday, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced that U.S. and Ecuadorian military forces launched joint operations against “Designated Terrorist Organizations in Ecuador,” saying the narco-terrorist group had “long inflicted terror, violence, and corruption on citizens throughout the hemisphere.”

This announcement marks a significant shift from training missions to active engagement. SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan praised the “unwavering commitment” and “courage” of the Ecuadorian armed forces, characterizing the collaboration as a decisive strike against the “scourge of narco-terrorism” that has destabilized the hemisphere through violence and systemic corruption.

On March 3, Ecuadorian and U.S. military forces launched operations against Designated Terrorist Organizations in Ecuador. The operations are a powerful example of the commitment of partners in Latin America and the Caribbean to combat the scourge of narco-terrorism.

Together,… pic.twitter.com/MrkKZcrDbs

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) March 4, 2026

The joint operation is the culmination of a strategic move by Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa. Since taking office in 2023 and securing a full four-year term in April 2025, the Miami-born, pro-Trump conservative has consistently campaigned for international intervention. Noboa argued that what began as local gangs had evolved into international narco-terrorist groups who were responsible for roughly 70% of the world’s cocaine transit.

To facilitate this military cooperation, the U.S. government took several formal steps throughout 2025: In September 2025, the United States officially designated major Ecuadorian gangs Los Choneros and Los Lobos as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). These joined the February 2025 FTO designations of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua and the Mexican Sinaloa and CJNG cartels, all of which maintain significant operations within Ecuador.

In July 2025, the leader of Los Choneros, José Adolfo Macías Villamar (alias “Fito”), was extradited to the United States.

There has been a staggering rise in violence in Ecuador. Despite Noboa’s “no-holds-barred” strategies—including declaring an “internal armed conflict” in 2024—Ecuador has struggled with the highest murder rate in Latin America. In 2024 alone, the country recorded nearly 7,000 homicides, forcing approximately 95,000 citizens to flee the country.

While previous leftist administrations, such as that of Rafael Correa, expelled the U.S. military in 2014, Noboa has actively courted a U.S. presence, even expressing interest in hosting a permanent U.S. military base.

For the United States, a stable, pro-American Ecuador is viewed as a critical bulwark against the influence of ideological groups opposed to the United States.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The United States struck a “terrorist” target in Ecuador on Tuesday, flexing its military might while simultaneously carrying out full-scale war against Iran.

On Tuesday, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced that U.S. and Ecuadorian military forces launched joint operations against “Designated Terrorist Organizations in Ecuador,” saying the narco-terrorist group had “long inflicted terror, violence, and corruption on citizens throughout the hemisphere.”

This announcement marks a significant shift from training missions to active engagement. SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan praised the “unwavering commitment” and “courage” of the Ecuadorian armed forces, characterizing the collaboration as a decisive strike against the “scourge of narco-terrorism” that has destabilized the hemisphere through violence and systemic corruption.

On March 3, Ecuadorian and U.S. military forces launched operations against Designated Terrorist Organizations in Ecuador. The operations are a powerful example of the commitment of partners in Latin America and the Caribbean to combat the scourge of narco-terrorism.

Together,… pic.twitter.com/MrkKZcrDbs

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) March 4, 2026

The joint operation is the culmination of a strategic move by Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa. Since taking office in 2023 and securing a full four-year term in April 2025, the Miami-born, pro-Trump conservative has consistently campaigned for international intervention. Noboa argued that what began as local gangs had evolved into international narco-terrorist groups who were responsible for roughly 70% of the world’s cocaine transit.

To facilitate this military cooperation, the U.S. government took several formal steps throughout 2025: In September 2025, the United States officially designated major Ecuadorian gangs Los Choneros and Los Lobos as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). These joined the February 2025 FTO designations of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua and the Mexican Sinaloa and CJNG cartels, all of which maintain significant operations within Ecuador.

In July 2025, the leader of Los Choneros, José Adolfo Macías Villamar (alias “Fito”), was extradited to the United States.

There has been a staggering rise in violence in Ecuador. Despite Noboa’s “no-holds-barred” strategies—including declaring an “internal armed conflict” in 2024—Ecuador has struggled with the highest murder rate in Latin America. In 2024 alone, the country recorded nearly 7,000 homicides, forcing approximately 95,000 citizens to flee the country.

While previous leftist administrations, such as that of Rafael Correa, expelled the U.S. military in 2014, Noboa has actively courted a U.S. presence, even expressing interest in hosting a permanent U.S. military base.

For the United States, a stable, pro-American Ecuador is viewed as a critical bulwark against the influence of ideological groups opposed to the United States.

“}]] 

The post WATCH: U.S. Military Strikes ‘Designated Terrorist’ Target In Ecuador appeared first on Spin Politico.

State Sen. James Talarico leads Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Texas. As of 11:20 p.m. ET, with 67% of the vote in, DecisionDesk showed Talarico with 51.5% to Crockett’s 47.2%.

Whichever candidate wins the Democratic primary will face off against either Attorney General Ken Paxton or Sen. John Cornyn, who are themselves scheduled for a May 26 runoff election after neither candidate could crack the 50% barrier on Tuesday.

The Cook Political Report ranks the race as “Likely Republican” as of Tuesday, with the Kalishi prediction market showing that Republicans have the upper hand in the race.

Although the Republican primary has been messy, the Democrats have had a brutal fight in their own regard.

The campaign trail has been marked with several heated moments, including when Talarico claimed that the Trump administration was responsible for nixing his interview with Stephen Colbert from hitting the airwaves over Equal Time Rule concerns, The Daily Wire reported.

“This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see,” Talarico claimed. “His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas.” The interview was ultimately posted online and gave a major publicity boost to his campaign.

“You had a Democrat candidate who understood the way that the news media works, and he took advantage of all of your sort of prior conceptions to run a hoax, apparently for the purpose of raising money and getting clicks,” Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr fired back at a press conference last month after Talarico’s claims.

Former Rep. Colin Allred also played a role in the race, as he dropped out and instead pursued another bid for Congress, but he waded in over rumors that Talarico said privately that he “signed up to run against a mediocre Black man, not a formidable, intelligent Black woman,” according to Politico.

Allred posted a video slamming Talarico’s reported comments, saying, “Thank you for telling us who you really are and what you really think, and goodbye.”

“Don’t come for me unless I send for you, okay James? And keep my name out of your mouth while you’re at it,” he added, while also telling people to vote for Crockett instead. Allred lost to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the 2024 Senate race.

“In my praise of Congresswoman Crockett, I described Congressman Allred’s method of campaigning as mediocre – but his life and service are not. I would never attack him on the basis of race,” the state senator said in a statement to Politico at the time.

Crockett also garnered the endorsement of former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost Texas to Trump in 2024, and lawmakers like Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD).

“Texas has the chance to send a fighter like Jasmine Crockett to the United States Senate,” Harris said in a call promoting Crockett’s campaign last week, according to the Texas Tribune. “Jasmine has the experience and record to hold Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies accountable.”

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

State Sen. James Talarico leads Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Texas. As of 11:20 p.m. ET, with 67% of the vote in, DecisionDesk showed Talarico with 51.5% to Crockett’s 47.2%.

Whichever candidate wins the Democratic primary will face off against either Attorney General Ken Paxton or Sen. John Cornyn, who are themselves scheduled for a May 26 runoff election after neither candidate could crack the 50% barrier on Tuesday.

The Cook Political Report ranks the race as “Likely Republican” as of Tuesday, with the Kalishi prediction market showing that Republicans have the upper hand in the race.

Although the Republican primary has been messy, the Democrats have had a brutal fight in their own regard.

The campaign trail has been marked with several heated moments, including when Talarico claimed that the Trump administration was responsible for nixing his interview with Stephen Colbert from hitting the airwaves over Equal Time Rule concerns, The Daily Wire reported.

“This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see,” Talarico claimed. “His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas.” The interview was ultimately posted online and gave a major publicity boost to his campaign.

“You had a Democrat candidate who understood the way that the news media works, and he took advantage of all of your sort of prior conceptions to run a hoax, apparently for the purpose of raising money and getting clicks,” Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr fired back at a press conference last month after Talarico’s claims.

Former Rep. Colin Allred also played a role in the race, as he dropped out and instead pursued another bid for Congress, but he waded in over rumors that Talarico said privately that he “signed up to run against a mediocre Black man, not a formidable, intelligent Black woman,” according to Politico.

Allred posted a video slamming Talarico’s reported comments, saying, “Thank you for telling us who you really are and what you really think, and goodbye.”

“Don’t come for me unless I send for you, okay James? And keep my name out of your mouth while you’re at it,” he added, while also telling people to vote for Crockett instead. Allred lost to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the 2024 Senate race.

“In my praise of Congresswoman Crockett, I described Congressman Allred’s method of campaigning as mediocre – but his life and service are not. I would never attack him on the basis of race,” the state senator said in a statement to Politico at the time.

Crockett also garnered the endorsement of former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost Texas to Trump in 2024, and lawmakers like Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD).

“Texas has the chance to send a fighter like Jasmine Crockett to the United States Senate,” Harris said in a call promoting Crockett’s campaign last week, according to the Texas Tribune. “Jasmine has the experience and record to hold Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies accountable.”

“}]] 

The post Talarico Leads Crockett in Too-Close-To-Call Texas Dem Senate Primary appeared first on Spin Politico.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn will advance to the May 26 runoff election in the Texas Senate Republican primary, results indicated as of Tuesday night.

DecisionDesk projected the runoff at around 10:25 p.m. ET, with Cornyn at about 43.2% to Paxton’s 40.3%.

Rep. Wesley Hunt, who was also campaigning for the seat, was in a distant third place as of Tuesday night. In the Lone Star State, a candidate needs to crack 50% of the vote in order to avoid a runoff election.

None of the candidates was able to snag an endorsement from President Donald Trump that was unique to them, but the president did note that he backed “all three.”

“I just haven’t made a decision on that race yet. It’s got a ways to go, and I haven’t. [Cornyn’s] a good man. John is a good — I like all three of them, actually,” the president said in mid-February. “They’ve all supported me. They’re all good and you’re supposed to pick one. So, we’ll see what happens. But I support all three.”

It’s unclear if the president will endorse a candidate for the runoff election.

All three candidates were in attendance at an energy-focused event led by the president in Corpus Christi, Texas, last Friday. However, the election was overshadowed this weekend by a shooting at an Austin bar where two people were killed and over a dozen were injured – as the alleged shooter wore a “Property of Allah” hoodie and apparel with the Iranian flag on it.

The candidates engaged in a brutal and, at many times, personal fight for the nomination. Accusations flew about Cornyn’s political record, Paxton’s personal history, and Hunt’s attendance in Congress – all while trying to make the case that they would be the best individuals to carry out Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his second term.

Whoever advances to the general election will face off against either Rep. Jasmine Crockett or state Sen. James Talarico in November, depending on the final outcome of the Democratic primary.

Sen. Ted Cruz has remained neutral in the primary race, but his own electoral history could provide a window in the 2026 contest. Cruz defeated former Rep. Colin Allred in 2024 with 53% of the vote, and the Republican also beat former Rep. Beto O’Rourke in 2018.

The Cook Political Report ranks the general election race as “Likely Republican” as of Tuesday night, as the Kalshi prediction market has the odds of Republicans winning the general election at 60%.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn will advance to the May 26 runoff election in the Texas Senate Republican primary, results indicated as of Tuesday night.

DecisionDesk projected the runoff at around 10:25 p.m. ET, with Cornyn at about 43.2% to Paxton’s 40.3%.

Rep. Wesley Hunt, who was also campaigning for the seat, was in a distant third place as of Tuesday night. In the Lone Star State, a candidate needs to crack 50% of the vote in order to avoid a runoff election.

None of the candidates was able to snag an endorsement from President Donald Trump that was unique to them, but the president did note that he backed “all three.”

“I just haven’t made a decision on that race yet. It’s got a ways to go, and I haven’t. [Cornyn’s] a good man. John is a good — I like all three of them, actually,” the president said in mid-February. “They’ve all supported me. They’re all good and you’re supposed to pick one. So, we’ll see what happens. But I support all three.”

It’s unclear if the president will endorse a candidate for the runoff election.

All three candidates were in attendance at an energy-focused event led by the president in Corpus Christi, Texas, last Friday. However, the election was overshadowed this weekend by a shooting at an Austin bar where two people were killed and over a dozen were injured – as the alleged shooter wore a “Property of Allah” hoodie and apparel with the Iranian flag on it.

The candidates engaged in a brutal and, at many times, personal fight for the nomination. Accusations flew about Cornyn’s political record, Paxton’s personal history, and Hunt’s attendance in Congress – all while trying to make the case that they would be the best individuals to carry out Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his second term.

Whoever advances to the general election will face off against either Rep. Jasmine Crockett or state Sen. James Talarico in November, depending on the final outcome of the Democratic primary.

Sen. Ted Cruz has remained neutral in the primary race, but his own electoral history could provide a window in the 2026 contest. Cruz defeated former Rep. Colin Allred in 2024 with 53% of the vote, and the Republican also beat former Rep. Beto O’Rourke in 2018.

The Cook Political Report ranks the general election race as “Likely Republican” as of Tuesday night, as the Kalshi prediction market has the odds of Republicans winning the general election at 60%.

“}]] 

The post Texas GOP Battle Between Cornyn And Paxton Will Head To Runoff appeared first on Spin Politico.

While critics of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy push the narrative that his Iran strikes are dividing MAGA, a closer look at the data suggests that any cracks are at the surface rather than deep in the president’s Republican base.

The RealClearPolitics Average showed that overall support for Operation Epic Fury, the joint military campaign undertaken by the United States and Israel over the weekend, had the president underwater a bit with 39% approving of the action and 52% disapproving.

A breakdown of some of the individual polls showed that Republicans were united on the issue, with no one poll showing more than 18% opposing military action in Iran. The vast majority of the disapproval came from Democrats — who were also fairly united — and, to a lesser extent, independents.

A CBS/YouGov poll taken between March 2 and March 3, for example, showed that just 10% of Democrats approved of military action in Iran and 90% disapproved. Among independents, 63% opposed the action and 37% were in favor. A majority of Republicans (85%) supported military action and just 15% did not.

A similar result came from a Washington Post poll taken on March 1, which showed Democrat opposition at 87% and support at 9%. On the Republican side, 81% approved and 12% did not — and independents once again fell in the middle, with 59% against military action and 28% in favor of it.

A Reuters/Ipsos survey followed the same pattern, with 5% of Democrats supporting military action in Iran and 95% against it. Republicans came out largely in favor of military action, showing 82% approving and 18% disapproving. Among independents, 67% disapproved and 29% supported the action.

The apparent outlier included in the average was a poll from InsiderAdvantage taken on February 28, but it still showed similar numbers from Republicans: 79.3% in favor and 12% opposed. The numbers for Democrats shifted slightly, with 62.5% disapproving and 32.1% approving. Independents also showed much higher numbers in favor of military action, with 45.3% supporting and 40.3% opposing.

Sentiments had been moving in Trump’s favor, if only slightly, just prior to the first strikes, however. A CBS/YouGov poll taken on February 24 showed 47% in favor of Trump taking military action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and 53% opposed. Just three days later, 51% were in favor and 49% opposed.

A Fox News poll conducted between February 28 and March 2 showed overall approval and disapproval deadlocked at 50% on either side — but also showed that a majority (61%) view Iran as a national security threat.

Among Republicans, as in the other polls, the sentiment lies primarily (84%) on the side of taking military action against Iran. Among independents, support for military action was just under half, at 40% — and only 20% of Democrats were in favor.

The Fox News poll went a bit deeper as well, noting that among those who had served in the military, a majority (59%) favored the campaign against the Iranian regime and 39% opposed it.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

While critics of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy push the narrative that his Iran strikes are dividing MAGA, a closer look at the data suggests that any cracks are at the surface rather than deep in the president’s Republican base.

The RealClearPolitics Average showed that overall support for Operation Epic Fury, the joint military campaign undertaken by the United States and Israel over the weekend, had the president underwater a bit with 39% approving of the action and 52% disapproving.

A breakdown of some of the individual polls showed that Republicans were united on the issue, with no one poll showing more than 18% opposing military action in Iran. The vast majority of the disapproval came from Democrats — who were also fairly united — and, to a lesser extent, independents.

A CBS/YouGov poll taken between March 2 and March 3, for example, showed that just 10% of Democrats approved of military action in Iran and 90% disapproved. Among independents, 63% opposed the action and 37% were in favor. A majority of Republicans (85%) supported military action and just 15% did not.

A similar result came from a Washington Post poll taken on March 1, which showed Democrat opposition at 87% and support at 9%. On the Republican side, 81% approved and 12% did not — and independents once again fell in the middle, with 59% against military action and 28% in favor of it.

A Reuters/Ipsos survey followed the same pattern, with 5% of Democrats supporting military action in Iran and 95% against it. Republicans came out largely in favor of military action, showing 82% approving and 18% disapproving. Among independents, 67% disapproved and 29% supported the action.

The apparent outlier included in the average was a poll from InsiderAdvantage taken on February 28, but it still showed similar numbers from Republicans: 79.3% in favor and 12% opposed. The numbers for Democrats shifted slightly, with 62.5% disapproving and 32.1% approving. Independents also showed much higher numbers in favor of military action, with 45.3% supporting and 40.3% opposing.

Sentiments had been moving in Trump’s favor, if only slightly, just prior to the first strikes, however. A CBS/YouGov poll taken on February 24 showed 47% in favor of Trump taking military action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and 53% opposed. Just three days later, 51% were in favor and 49% opposed.

A Fox News poll conducted between February 28 and March 2 showed overall approval and disapproval deadlocked at 50% on either side — but also showed that a majority (61%) view Iran as a national security threat.

Among Republicans, as in the other polls, the sentiment lies primarily (84%) on the side of taking military action against Iran. Among independents, support for military action was just under half, at 40% — and only 20% of Democrats were in favor.

The Fox News poll went a bit deeper as well, noting that among those who had served in the military, a majority (59%) favored the campaign against the Iranian regime and 39% opposed it.

“}]] 

The post MAGA Unity: Polls Show Republicans Opposed To Trump’s Iran Strikes Are Loud, Small Minority appeared first on Spin Politico.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Tuesday that he didn’t understand a reporter’s question comparing President Donald Trump’s recent military action in Iran with former President Barack Obama’s military action in Libya in 2011.

Jeffries took the question from Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin, who referenced 2011 comments from then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). At the time, Pelosi had insisted that Obama did not need prior authorization from Congress to strike Libya, nor did he need authorization to continue military action there.

WATCH:

NEW: I asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) about Nancy Pelosi saying in 2011 that President Obama didn’t need Congressional approval to bomb Libya, but Dems now say President Trump needs approval to bomb Iran?

Jeffries said Iran is “very different” & told me “I… pic.twitter.com/SkLr1R5wr1

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) March 3, 2026

“House Democrats say Trump needs that approval to bomb Iran,” Melugin said. “What’s the difference?”

“Well, obviously, Libya and the circumstances connected to that were very different than the circumstance that we face in Iran right now,” Jeffries said, adding, “I mean, I don’t even understand the genesis or basis of that question, not suggesting you’re asking it in bad faith.”

“Libya went on for seven months,” Melugin pointed out.

“But I’ve said — as I’ve indicated — first of all, I was not in Congress at the time, so we’re dealing with what we’re dealing with right now, which is a catastrophic endless war as Donald Trump has characterized it,” Jeffries claimed despite the fact that the current operation was just over 72 hours old and Trump’s initial prediction was that the mission could be accomplished in a matter of weeks.

Jeffries went on to complain that the Trump administration had acted without intelligence indicating “a preeminent attack on the United States” or American interests and claimed that if such action was necessary, it meant that the president had not been telling the truth when he said that the airstrikes last year had completely wiped out Iran’s nuclear program.

Multiple Democrats — including Jeffries — have criticized Trump for authorizing action against Iran without first consulting Congress for authorization. Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the Gang of Eight had been informed, and then cited the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to assert that the Trump administration had done things by the book.

The War Powers Resolution states that the president can engage in military action for up to 48 hours without informing Congress, and can continue to wage war for up to 60 days — with an additional 30 days for any necessary troop drawdowns — without going to Congress for authorization. As Rubio also noted, no presidential administration — Republican or Democrat — has ever accepted the War Powers Resolution as constitutional.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Tuesday that he didn’t understand a reporter’s question comparing President Donald Trump’s recent military action in Iran with former President Barack Obama’s military action in Libya in 2011.

Jeffries took the question from Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin, who referenced 2011 comments from then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). At the time, Pelosi had insisted that Obama did not need prior authorization from Congress to strike Libya, nor did he need authorization to continue military action there.

WATCH:

NEW: I asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) about Nancy Pelosi saying in 2011 that President Obama didn’t need Congressional approval to bomb Libya, but Dems now say President Trump needs approval to bomb Iran?

Jeffries said Iran is “very different” & told me “I… pic.twitter.com/SkLr1R5wr1

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) March 3, 2026

“House Democrats say Trump needs that approval to bomb Iran,” Melugin said. “What’s the difference?”

“Well, obviously, Libya and the circumstances connected to that were very different than the circumstance that we face in Iran right now,” Jeffries said, adding, “I mean, I don’t even understand the genesis or basis of that question, not suggesting you’re asking it in bad faith.”

“Libya went on for seven months,” Melugin pointed out.

“But I’ve said — as I’ve indicated — first of all, I was not in Congress at the time, so we’re dealing with what we’re dealing with right now, which is a catastrophic endless war as Donald Trump has characterized it,” Jeffries claimed despite the fact that the current operation was just over 72 hours old and Trump’s initial prediction was that the mission could be accomplished in a matter of weeks.

Jeffries went on to complain that the Trump administration had acted without intelligence indicating “a preeminent attack on the United States” or American interests and claimed that if such action was necessary, it meant that the president had not been telling the truth when he said that the airstrikes last year had completely wiped out Iran’s nuclear program.

Multiple Democrats — including Jeffries — have criticized Trump for authorizing action against Iran without first consulting Congress for authorization. Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the Gang of Eight had been informed, and then cited the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to assert that the Trump administration had done things by the book.

The War Powers Resolution states that the president can engage in military action for up to 48 hours without informing Congress, and can continue to wage war for up to 60 days — with an additional 30 days for any necessary troop drawdowns — without going to Congress for authorization. As Rubio also noted, no presidential administration — Republican or Democrat — has ever accepted the War Powers Resolution as constitutional.

“}]] 

The post Top Dem Squirms When Obama Libya Flashback Collides With Iran Strike Outrage appeared first on Spin Politico.

The Department of War released the names of four U.S. Army Reserve soldiers killed in an Iranian attack in Kuwait over the weekend.

Those fallen include Capt. Cody A. Khork, 35, Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, 42, Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor, 39, and Sgt. Declan J. Coady, 20, according to the Pentagon.

All four of the soldiers were assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command, Des Moines, Iowa, and were supporting Operation Epic Fury.

The department is continuing to investigate the incident that occurred in Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, during an unmanned aircraft system attack.

Initially, three service members were reported killed in the strike. A fourth later died from injuries sustained in the attack. Four other service members are reportedly “seriously wounded.”

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Monday that the troops were killed after an Iranian missile slipped through U.S. air defenses during heavy incoming fire.

“You have air defenses and a lot coming in — and you hit most of it,” Hegseth said. “Every once in a while, you might have one — unfortunately, we call it a ‘squirter’ — that makes its way through.”

“These are powerful weapons,” he added.

President Donald Trump expressed his gratitude to the fallen, but said “there will likely be more” before the operation ends.

“We honor our fallen heroes, who served fearlessly and selflessly in defense of our nation. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of their families, will never be forgotten,” Lt. Gen. Robert Harter, chief of Army Reserve and commanding general of U.S. Army Reserve Command, said.

Capt. Cody Khork

Khork, a resident of Lakeland, Florida, first joined the National Guard in 2009, where he worked as a 13P (Multiple Launch Rocket System / Fire Direction Specialist). In 2014, he became a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve, serving as a Military Police officer. Over the course of his service, he deployed to Saudi Arabia in 2018, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2021, and Poland in 2024.

Khork’s awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Superior Unit Award, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with 10 Year Device and “M” Device, and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal.

Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor

Amor, a resident of White Bear Lake, Minnesota, enlisted in the National Guard as a 92A (Automated Logistics Specialist) in 2005. She transferred to the Army Reserve in 2006 and deployed to Kuwait and Iraq in 2019.

Amor’s awards and decorations include the Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Service Medal, NCO Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” Device.

Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens

Tietjens, a resident of Bellevue, Nebraska, enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2006 as a 91B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic). He had two deployments to Kuwait in 2009 and 2019.

Tietjens’ awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” Device.

Sgt. Declan J. Coady

Coady, posthumously promoted from specialist, was a resident of Des Moines, Iowa. He enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2023 as a 25B (Army Information Technology Specialist).

Coady’s awards and decorations include the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

“To the families and teammates of these Cactus Nation soldiers: you have my deepest sympathy and my respect,” Maj. Gen. Todd Erskine, commanding general, 79th Theater Sustainment Command, said. “Our nation is kept safe by folks like these — brave men and women who put it all on the line every single day. They represent the heart of America. We will remember their names, their service, and their sacrifice.”

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The Department of War released the names of four U.S. Army Reserve soldiers killed in an Iranian attack in Kuwait over the weekend.

Those fallen include Capt. Cody A. Khork, 35, Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, 42, Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor, 39, and Sgt. Declan J. Coady, 20, according to the Pentagon.

All four of the soldiers were assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command, Des Moines, Iowa, and were supporting Operation Epic Fury.

The department is continuing to investigate the incident that occurred in Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, during an unmanned aircraft system attack.

Initially, three service members were reported killed in the strike. A fourth later died from injuries sustained in the attack. Four other service members are reportedly “seriously wounded.”

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Monday that the troops were killed after an Iranian missile slipped through U.S. air defenses during heavy incoming fire.

“You have air defenses and a lot coming in — and you hit most of it,” Hegseth said. “Every once in a while, you might have one — unfortunately, we call it a ‘squirter’ — that makes its way through.”

“These are powerful weapons,” he added.

President Donald Trump expressed his gratitude to the fallen, but said “there will likely be more” before the operation ends.

“We honor our fallen heroes, who served fearlessly and selflessly in defense of our nation. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of their families, will never be forgotten,” Lt. Gen. Robert Harter, chief of Army Reserve and commanding general of U.S. Army Reserve Command, said.

Capt. Cody Khork

Khork, a resident of Lakeland, Florida, first joined the National Guard in 2009, where he worked as a 13P (Multiple Launch Rocket System / Fire Direction Specialist). In 2014, he became a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve, serving as a Military Police officer. Over the course of his service, he deployed to Saudi Arabia in 2018, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2021, and Poland in 2024.

Khork’s awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Superior Unit Award, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with 10 Year Device and “M” Device, and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal.

Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor

Amor, a resident of White Bear Lake, Minnesota, enlisted in the National Guard as a 92A (Automated Logistics Specialist) in 2005. She transferred to the Army Reserve in 2006 and deployed to Kuwait and Iraq in 2019.

Amor’s awards and decorations include the Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Service Medal, NCO Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” Device.

Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens

Tietjens, a resident of Bellevue, Nebraska, enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2006 as a 91B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic). He had two deployments to Kuwait in 2009 and 2019.

Tietjens’ awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” Device.

Sgt. Declan J. Coady

Coady, posthumously promoted from specialist, was a resident of Des Moines, Iowa. He enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2023 as a 25B (Army Information Technology Specialist).

Coady’s awards and decorations include the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

“To the families and teammates of these Cactus Nation soldiers: you have my deepest sympathy and my respect,” Maj. Gen. Todd Erskine, commanding general, 79th Theater Sustainment Command, said. “Our nation is kept safe by folks like these — brave men and women who put it all on the line every single day. They represent the heart of America. We will remember their names, their service, and their sacrifice.”

“}]] 

The post Pentagon Identifies Four Army Reserve Soldiers Killed In Iranian Attack: ‘Served Fearlessly And Selflessly’ appeared first on Spin Politico.

A new report is adding fuel to Republican efforts to frame 2026 as the opening salvo in President Donald Trump’s so-called “War on Fraud,” just days before House lawmakers are set to question Minnesota’s top officials over what the president has described as one of the largest public-fraud scandals in the country.

The State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) report, released Tuesday morning, claims that 40 conservative state treasurers, auditors, and comptrollers across 28 states recovered or returned $28 billion in taxpayer funds this year through efforts targeting waste, fraud, abuse, unclaimed property, and investment mismanagement. The organization says the report will be issued annually.

In a letter accompanying the report, SFOF CEO OJ Oleka wrote to Vice President JD Vance, who was tasked during the State of the Union with helping lead the administration’s anti-fraud initiative, pledging state-level cooperation with federal enforcement efforts. The letter was also sent to Associate Deputy Attorney General Colin McDonald, recently nominated by Trump to serve as the first Assistant Attorney General for National Fraud Enforcement at the Justice Department, a role supporters have dubbed the administration’s “fraud czar.”

It comes at an auspicious time for the administration and his supporters. The United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability is preparing to question Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison over oversight failures connected to a sweeping pandemic-era fraud case involving a federally funded child nutrition program in Minnesota.

During his State of the Union address, Trump singled out Minnesota as a “stunning example” of systemic fraud, alleging that billions in taxpayer funds were siphoned off through fraudulent schemes. Federal prosecutors have previously charged dozens of individuals in connection with the case, which centered on misuse of COVID-relief funds intended to feed low-income children. Court filings have detailed large sums improperly obtained, though the precise dollar totals remain the subject of ongoing legal proceedings.

Republicans argue the case reflects broader governance failures in Democratic-led states. In a statement obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire ahead of the Oversight hearing, Republican Minnesota State Senator Jordan Rasmusson said taxpayers “deserve answers on why billions of taxpayer dollars were stolen through fraudulent schemes under the failed leadership of Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison,” adding that federal intervention has been critical in prosecuting offenders.

Oleka framed the Minnesota case as a cautionary tale. In his statement, also exclusively obtained by The Daily Wire,  he called it “a criminal heist of historic proportions” and argued that eliminating the state treasurer’s office in Minnesota diffused financial oversight authority. Minnesota voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1998 abolishing the elected treasurer position, consolidating certain duties under other state offices.

Supporters of Walz and Ellison have previously maintained that the fraud was uncovered through state and federal cooperation and that prosecutions demonstrate the system ultimately worked. The governor’s office has said it has implemented additional oversight mechanisms since the scandal emerged.

The SFOF report contrasts what it describes as aggressive fraud recovery efforts in red states with what it characterizes as lax oversight in states like Minnesota.

The new report from the State Financial Officers Foundation details what it describes as a coordinated effort by conservative financial officers to aggressively police public spending and return money to taxpayers.

According to SFOF, its members uncovered $5.7 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse in 2025 alone, while generating or returning another $22.3 billion through investment earnings and unclaimed property programs, totaling $28 billion in what the organization calls protected or restored taxpayer funds.

Among the largest waste and fraud findings highlighted in the report were in Florida, where Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia identified roughly $1.86 billion in what SFOF described as excessive or wasteful local government spending, and in Kentucky, Auditor Allison Ball flagged approximately $1 billion in Medicaid waste and lapsed education funds.

Whether the upcoming Oversight hearing produces new disclosures remains to be seen. But with the White House publicly elevating fraud enforcement as a national priority, and state financial officers positioning themselves as frontline partners, the Minnesota case is likely to serve as a test of competing narratives: one arguing systemic executive failure necessitating strong preemptive action, the other pointing to eventual detection and reaction as evidence of accountability.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

A new report is adding fuel to Republican efforts to frame 2026 as the opening salvo in President Donald Trump’s so-called “War on Fraud,” just days before House lawmakers are set to question Minnesota’s top officials over what the president has described as one of the largest public-fraud scandals in the country.

The State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) report, released Tuesday morning, claims that 40 conservative state treasurers, auditors, and comptrollers across 28 states recovered or returned $28 billion in taxpayer funds this year through efforts targeting waste, fraud, abuse, unclaimed property, and investment mismanagement. The organization says the report will be issued annually.

In a letter accompanying the report, SFOF CEO OJ Oleka wrote to Vice President JD Vance, who was tasked during the State of the Union with helping lead the administration’s anti-fraud initiative, pledging state-level cooperation with federal enforcement efforts. The letter was also sent to Associate Deputy Attorney General Colin McDonald, recently nominated by Trump to serve as the first Assistant Attorney General for National Fraud Enforcement at the Justice Department, a role supporters have dubbed the administration’s “fraud czar.”

It comes at an auspicious time for the administration and his supporters. The United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability is preparing to question Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison over oversight failures connected to a sweeping pandemic-era fraud case involving a federally funded child nutrition program in Minnesota.

During his State of the Union address, Trump singled out Minnesota as a “stunning example” of systemic fraud, alleging that billions in taxpayer funds were siphoned off through fraudulent schemes. Federal prosecutors have previously charged dozens of individuals in connection with the case, which centered on misuse of COVID-relief funds intended to feed low-income children. Court filings have detailed large sums improperly obtained, though the precise dollar totals remain the subject of ongoing legal proceedings.

Republicans argue the case reflects broader governance failures in Democratic-led states. In a statement obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire ahead of the Oversight hearing, Republican Minnesota State Senator Jordan Rasmusson said taxpayers “deserve answers on why billions of taxpayer dollars were stolen through fraudulent schemes under the failed leadership of Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison,” adding that federal intervention has been critical in prosecuting offenders.

Oleka framed the Minnesota case as a cautionary tale. In his statement, also exclusively obtained by The Daily Wire,  he called it “a criminal heist of historic proportions” and argued that eliminating the state treasurer’s office in Minnesota diffused financial oversight authority. Minnesota voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1998 abolishing the elected treasurer position, consolidating certain duties under other state offices.

Supporters of Walz and Ellison have previously maintained that the fraud was uncovered through state and federal cooperation and that prosecutions demonstrate the system ultimately worked. The governor’s office has said it has implemented additional oversight mechanisms since the scandal emerged.

The SFOF report contrasts what it describes as aggressive fraud recovery efforts in red states with what it characterizes as lax oversight in states like Minnesota.

The new report from the State Financial Officers Foundation details what it describes as a coordinated effort by conservative financial officers to aggressively police public spending and return money to taxpayers.

According to SFOF, its members uncovered $5.7 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse in 2025 alone, while generating or returning another $22.3 billion through investment earnings and unclaimed property programs, totaling $28 billion in what the organization calls protected or restored taxpayer funds.

Among the largest waste and fraud findings highlighted in the report were in Florida, where Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia identified roughly $1.86 billion in what SFOF described as excessive or wasteful local government spending, and in Kentucky, Auditor Allison Ball flagged approximately $1 billion in Medicaid waste and lapsed education funds.

Whether the upcoming Oversight hearing produces new disclosures remains to be seen. But with the White House publicly elevating fraud enforcement as a national priority, and state financial officers positioning themselves as frontline partners, the Minnesota case is likely to serve as a test of competing narratives: one arguing systemic executive failure necessitating strong preemptive action, the other pointing to eventual detection and reaction as evidence of accountability.

“}]] 

The post New Report Contrasts Minnesota Fraud With Big Wins For Red State Taxpayers appeared first on Spin Politico.

The Iranian women’s national soccer team made a statement Monday night as they stood silently during the playing of their country’s national anthem.

Their silence spoke volumes ahead of the opening match of the Women’s Asian Cup in Queensland, Australia. None of the women sang as the song was played, choosing instead to look ahead with serious expressions. The crowd applauded at the conclusion of the song, and the team manager, Marziyeh Jafari, was spotted smiling on the sidelines. 

She was later approached by reporters but had no comment, The Guardian reported.

The team lost its game against South Korea 3-0, the outlet noted. This was their first game since air strikes began in the Middle East, killing the nation’s longtime Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“Our heart goes out to them and their families. It’s a difficult situation, and it’s really brave of them to be able to be here and to perform,” Australian player Amy Sayer said. “They put on a really strong performance, even with the political climate that’s going on and the struggles that they might be going through.”

President Trump has estimated that Operation Epic Fury could last four to five weeks, but has said it could continue longer to permanently eliminate Iran’s capacity to have a nuclear weapon. America’s intervention has had mixed reactions at home, but was celebrated in the streets of Iran after it was announced that Khamenei had been killed.

Many reactions to the women’s soccer team refusing to sing the anthem focused on how poorly the regime treated women of their nation, noting that their silent protest was what “real feminism” looked like.

“A defying silence… the Iranian women’s football national team REFUSED to sing the anthem of the Islamic regime. Side note: By the time their next game comes up, they probably don’t even have to wear those hijabs anymore,” one commenter wrote.

“These brave women risk a lot with this display,” another person chimed in. “After having been treated worse than dirt for years by their country, thanks to President Trump, they may have a chance at a much better future. Meanwhile ‘freedom loving’ severe left wing women & men in our country cheer for the oppressive Iranian regime who has murdered 10’s of thousands of their fellow countryman. What is wrong with this picture?”

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The Iranian women’s national soccer team made a statement Monday night as they stood silently during the playing of their country’s national anthem.

Their silence spoke volumes ahead of the opening match of the Women’s Asian Cup in Queensland, Australia. None of the women sang as the song was played, choosing instead to look ahead with serious expressions. The crowd applauded at the conclusion of the song, and the team manager, Marziyeh Jafari, was spotted smiling on the sidelines. 

She was later approached by reporters but had no comment, The Guardian reported.

The team lost its game against South Korea 3-0, the outlet noted. This was their first game since air strikes began in the Middle East, killing the nation’s longtime Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“Our heart goes out to them and their families. It’s a difficult situation, and it’s really brave of them to be able to be here and to perform,” Australian player Amy Sayer said. “They put on a really strong performance, even with the political climate that’s going on and the struggles that they might be going through.”

President Trump has estimated that Operation Epic Fury could last four to five weeks, but has said it could continue longer to permanently eliminate Iran’s capacity to have a nuclear weapon. America’s intervention has had mixed reactions at home, but was celebrated in the streets of Iran after it was announced that Khamenei had been killed.

Many reactions to the women’s soccer team refusing to sing the anthem focused on how poorly the regime treated women of their nation, noting that their silent protest was what “real feminism” looked like.

“A defying silence… the Iranian women’s football national team REFUSED to sing the anthem of the Islamic regime. Side note: By the time their next game comes up, they probably don’t even have to wear those hijabs anymore,” one commenter wrote.

“These brave women risk a lot with this display,” another person chimed in. “After having been treated worse than dirt for years by their country, thanks to President Trump, they may have a chance at a much better future. Meanwhile ‘freedom loving’ severe left wing women & men in our country cheer for the oppressive Iranian regime who has murdered 10’s of thousands of their fellow countryman. What is wrong with this picture?”

“}]] 

The post Iranian Women’s Soccer Team Stands Silent During National Anthem appeared first on Spin Politico.

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show.

* * *

There are a lot of people out there in the online chattering class, including Trump supporters, who are saying,

This is ridiculous. We were told “no new wars.” We were told we certainly wouldn’t go to war with Iran. This is a complete betrayal of MAGA and America First.

Some are even arguing that if voters had known America was going to war with Iran, especially if we were going to get dragged into it by Israel, they never would have voted for Trump. He’s a liar, this is a betrayal.

Hold on.

President Trump has been clear for a decade that he is not going to let Iran get a nuclear weapon and that he is going to oppose the Iranian regime. He has also made it pretty clear that he does not like the fact that Iran has repeatedly tried to kill him.

But let’s go deeper than Trump’s rhetoric. Let’s look at what Vice President JD Vance has said.

Back in October 2024, during the vice-presidential debate, Vance was directly asked about a preemptive strike involving Israel and Iran. He was asked this exact question, and he gave an excellent answer:

“Look, it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe. And we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.”

Whether you agree or disagree with Vance’s statement, you cannot accuse the Trump administration of flip-flopping on this issue. You cannot accuse the Trump administration of hiding the ball or deceiving voters.

They promised to do exactly what they are doing now. And they have been very clearly telegraphing it for the past two months, with the military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

That doctrine was not invented last week. It was spelled out in a debate on national television.

Vance gave a similar answer to Sean Hannity back in July of 2024 when he articulated what he called the core of the Trump doctrine in foreign policy — you don’t commit America’s troops unless you really have to. But when you do, you “punch hard.”

“If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard,” Vance told Hannity. “And that’s what he did. We took out Soleimani, by the way. That action, people said that it would lead to a broader war. It actually brought peace. It actually checked the Iranians and slowed them down a little bit.”

And if that weren’t enough, the administration telegraphed its intentions in another way: the military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

For the past two months, the United States has been gradually but severely building up military assets outside of Iran. Aircraft carriers. Strike groups. Strategic positioning. That kind of buildup does not happen overnight because a foreign leader calls and says, “Hey, we’re going in tomorrow. Do whatever you want.”

The notion that Israel sprang this on Washington at the last minute simply does not square with the scale and duration of that preparation.

Now, it may be true that Israeli action influenced the timing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said as much: Israel was going to strike, and Iran was going to retaliate against U.S. forces, whether we liked it or not. That forced a decision about whether to preemptively strike before American casualties mounted.

But that is not the same thing as saying the United States was dragged, kicking and screaming, into a war it never intended to fight.

There is a difference between timing and intent.

WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show on DailyWire+

The administration’s position, whether you agree with it or not, is coherent. Iran’s missile and drone capabilities were advancing rapidly. Secretary Rubio has argued that within a year or so, Iran could cross a “threshold of immunity” — meaning it would have so many short-range missiles and drones that it could hold the region hostage.

That is the case they are making.

You can argue that intelligence is flawed. You can argue that the risk calculus is wrong. You can argue that the costs will outweigh the benefits. But you cannot say this was a surprise.

If you voted for this administration, and you were not aware that it took a hard line on Iran, that it supported Israel’s right to strike, and that it believed in overwhelming force when force is used — then you were not paying attention. That’s on you.

That is not an insult; it is an observation.

The Trump foreign policy doctrine has never been isolationist. It has never been “America hides under the covers.” It has been “America First,” which means pursuing American interests pragmatically and forcefully when necessary.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether this particular strike was wise, especially when people have different levels of information about whether or not the strike is a good idea. But in terms of the grand strategy, I don’t think there’s much room for disagreement.

The administration did not flip overnight; they campaigned on confronting Iran. They defended preemptive action in principle. They promised to “punch hard” if they had to. And then they did exactly that.

You can call it reckless. You can call it bold. You can call it dangerous.

But you cannot call it hidden.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show.

* * *

There are a lot of people out there in the online chattering class, including Trump supporters, who are saying,

This is ridiculous. We were told “no new wars.” We were told we certainly wouldn’t go to war with Iran. This is a complete betrayal of MAGA and America First.

Some are even arguing that if voters had known America was going to war with Iran, especially if we were going to get dragged into it by Israel, they never would have voted for Trump. He’s a liar, this is a betrayal.

Hold on.

President Trump has been clear for a decade that he is not going to let Iran get a nuclear weapon and that he is going to oppose the Iranian regime. He has also made it pretty clear that he does not like the fact that Iran has repeatedly tried to kill him.

But let’s go deeper than Trump’s rhetoric. Let’s look at what Vice President JD Vance has said.

Back in October 2024, during the vice-presidential debate, Vance was directly asked about a preemptive strike involving Israel and Iran. He was asked this exact question, and he gave an excellent answer:

“Look, it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe. And we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.”

Whether you agree or disagree with Vance’s statement, you cannot accuse the Trump administration of flip-flopping on this issue. You cannot accuse the Trump administration of hiding the ball or deceiving voters.

They promised to do exactly what they are doing now. And they have been very clearly telegraphing it for the past two months, with the military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

That doctrine was not invented last week. It was spelled out in a debate on national television.

Vance gave a similar answer to Sean Hannity back in July of 2024 when he articulated what he called the core of the Trump doctrine in foreign policy — you don’t commit America’s troops unless you really have to. But when you do, you “punch hard.”

“If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard,” Vance told Hannity. “And that’s what he did. We took out Soleimani, by the way. That action, people said that it would lead to a broader war. It actually brought peace. It actually checked the Iranians and slowed them down a little bit.”

And if that weren’t enough, the administration telegraphed its intentions in another way: the military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

For the past two months, the United States has been gradually but severely building up military assets outside of Iran. Aircraft carriers. Strike groups. Strategic positioning. That kind of buildup does not happen overnight because a foreign leader calls and says, “Hey, we’re going in tomorrow. Do whatever you want.”

The notion that Israel sprang this on Washington at the last minute simply does not square with the scale and duration of that preparation.

Now, it may be true that Israeli action influenced the timing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said as much: Israel was going to strike, and Iran was going to retaliate against U.S. forces, whether we liked it or not. That forced a decision about whether to preemptively strike before American casualties mounted.

But that is not the same thing as saying the United States was dragged, kicking and screaming, into a war it never intended to fight.

There is a difference between timing and intent.

WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show on DailyWire+

The administration’s position, whether you agree with it or not, is coherent. Iran’s missile and drone capabilities were advancing rapidly. Secretary Rubio has argued that within a year or so, Iran could cross a “threshold of immunity” — meaning it would have so many short-range missiles and drones that it could hold the region hostage.

That is the case they are making.

You can argue that intelligence is flawed. You can argue that the risk calculus is wrong. You can argue that the costs will outweigh the benefits. But you cannot say this was a surprise.

If you voted for this administration, and you were not aware that it took a hard line on Iran, that it supported Israel’s right to strike, and that it believed in overwhelming force when force is used — then you were not paying attention. That’s on you.

That is not an insult; it is an observation.

The Trump foreign policy doctrine has never been isolationist. It has never been “America hides under the covers.” It has been “America First,” which means pursuing American interests pragmatically and forcefully when necessary.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether this particular strike was wise, especially when people have different levels of information about whether or not the strike is a good idea. But in terms of the grand strategy, I don’t think there’s much room for disagreement.

The administration did not flip overnight; they campaigned on confronting Iran. They defended preemptive action in principle. They promised to “punch hard” if they had to. And then they did exactly that.

You can call it reckless. You can call it bold. You can call it dangerous.

But you cannot call it hidden.

“}]] 

The post No One Was Deceived: The Iran Strike Was Telegraphed For Months appeared first on Spin Politico.

Former President Bill Clinton visibly froze when he was asked to explain why the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein might have said that he “likes them young.”

Clinton, deposed by several members of Congress in the ongoing Epstein probe, appeared to freeze the moment the question was asked about Epstein before his attorney jumped in quickly to rephrase the question for him before he answered.

WATCH:

Asked about Jeffrey Epstein allegedly saying that Bill Clinton “likes them young,” Clinton denies having any interest in “young” girls.

Q: Is an intern young?

Clinton: Yes. pic.twitter.com/0aEym00yjP

— Decensored News (@decensorednews) March 3, 2026

“Did you know one of the witnesses who testified in the Epstein cases said that you, quote, ‘like them young.’ Why would Epstein say that about you?” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) posed the question.

Clinton stared straight ahead, but his attorney pounced immediately: “Are you asking his opinion? Are you asking him to think about why Mr. Epstein would say something about him?”

“Correct. Why would Epstein say that about the president?” Mace pressed.

The attorney jumped into motion again, quickly reframing the question before Clinton could begin to answer, saying, “So she’s asking you to try to be in Mr. Epstein’s mind and guess at what Mr. Epstein would have thought about —”

“First of all —” Clinton began, but was cut off as Mace interrupted.

“‘Clinton likes them young,’ referring to girls,” she repeated.

After a long pause, Clinton tried again.

“First of all,” he said, and then paused again before adding, “That’s not true.”

“What’s not true?” Mace asked.

“That I have any interest in underage girls,” Clinton said.

“I didn’t say underage, Mr. President,” Mace interjected. “I said young.”

“That’s still not true,” Clinton said, his voice rising slightly as he pushed back from the table.

Mace’s follow-up question, clearly referencing his former intern Monica Lewinsky, also appeared to take the former president off guard: “Is an intern young?”

“Yes,” Clinton conceded, but quickly added, “At my age, anybody younger than I am is young.”

Lewinsky was just 22 and working as an intern in the White House when Clinton, then 49, began an extramarital affair with her. The affair lasted 18 months and when their relationship became a public scandal in 1998, Clinton initially denied everything.

The former president, throughout the deposition, insisted that he had never witnessed Epstein doing anything that would have led him to believe that the late convicted pedophile had ever been involved in trafficking underage girls.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Former President Bill Clinton visibly froze when he was asked to explain why the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein might have said that he “likes them young.”

Clinton, deposed by several members of Congress in the ongoing Epstein probe, appeared to freeze the moment the question was asked about Epstein before his attorney jumped in quickly to rephrase the question for him before he answered.

WATCH:

Asked about Jeffrey Epstein allegedly saying that Bill Clinton “likes them young,” Clinton denies having any interest in “young” girls.

Q: Is an intern young?

Clinton: Yes. pic.twitter.com/0aEym00yjP

— Decensored News (@decensorednews) March 3, 2026

“Did you know one of the witnesses who testified in the Epstein cases said that you, quote, ‘like them young.’ Why would Epstein say that about you?” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) posed the question.

Clinton stared straight ahead, but his attorney pounced immediately: “Are you asking his opinion? Are you asking him to think about why Mr. Epstein would say something about him?”

“Correct. Why would Epstein say that about the president?” Mace pressed.

The attorney jumped into motion again, quickly reframing the question before Clinton could begin to answer, saying, “So she’s asking you to try to be in Mr. Epstein’s mind and guess at what Mr. Epstein would have thought about —”

“First of all —” Clinton began, but was cut off as Mace interrupted.

“‘Clinton likes them young,’ referring to girls,” she repeated.

After a long pause, Clinton tried again.

“First of all,” he said, and then paused again before adding, “That’s not true.”

“What’s not true?” Mace asked.

“That I have any interest in underage girls,” Clinton said.

“I didn’t say underage, Mr. President,” Mace interjected. “I said young.”

“That’s still not true,” Clinton said, his voice rising slightly as he pushed back from the table.

Mace’s follow-up question, clearly referencing his former intern Monica Lewinsky, also appeared to take the former president off guard: “Is an intern young?”

“Yes,” Clinton conceded, but quickly added, “At my age, anybody younger than I am is young.”

Lewinsky was just 22 and working as an intern in the White House when Clinton, then 49, began an extramarital affair with her. The affair lasted 18 months and when their relationship became a public scandal in 1998, Clinton initially denied everything.

The former president, throughout the deposition, insisted that he had never witnessed Epstein doing anything that would have led him to believe that the late convicted pedophile had ever been involved in trafficking underage girls.

“}]] 

The post WATCH: Clinton Denies He ‘Likes Them Young’ — Then Comes The Lewinsky Question appeared first on Spin Politico.

Police body-camera footage has been released showing the moments after a former “American Idol” contestant and worship pastor allegedly killed his wife in the early morning hours of February 16 in Tipp City, Ohio, just north of Dayton.

Caleb Flynn is in jail on a $2 million bond after being charged with the murder of his wife, Ashley. The newly released video shows the Tipp City Police responding to what they believed was a burglary call that ended with Ashley being shot. Now, officials say Caleb shot his wife and staged the burglary scene.

“Is she gone?” Caleb, who once raved on “American Idol” about how much he loved his wife, asked investigators as they canvassed the crime scene.

Caleb seemed in pure shock that his wife was dead. Investigators asked Caleb if he had any weapons. He said he had guns in the house and referenced one specifically in his truck’s glove compartment.

Hours of body-cam footage were released this week as the investigation into Caleb continues. In one of the videos, Caleb is confiding in another woman, believed to be Ashley’s mother, in the yard as officers work to secure the scene.

“She told me to sleep on the couch … I shouldn’t have listened,” Caleb said.

The father of two was wailing and even throwing up at one point during the police’s initial search of the home. Caleb and Ashley’s daughters were inside during the alleged shooting.

Caleb Flynn, a former American Idol contestant, is accused of staging a burglary and killing his wife. Newly released body cam footage shows him sobbing at the scene.#CalebFlynn #AmericanIdol #CrimeNews #BodyCamFootage #CourtCase #fyp #explorepage pic.twitter.com/eNa47faFGm

— MEAWW (@meawwofficial) March 3, 2026

Later that morning, the footage shows Caleb agreeing to go to the police station for questioning. While sitting at the station, he asked about getting his phone back as well as where Ashley was.

“Where did you take her?” Caleb asked the detective. The detective responded by saying Ashley’s body was still at the house as investigators were “scouring” everything.

Three days after Caleb voluntarily went in for questioning, he was arrested and transported to the Miami County jail, where he remains on charges of homicide, two counts of felonious assault, and two counts of tampering with evidence.

After Caleb’s arrest, Ashley’s family released this statement: “Our hearts are shattered. Ashley brought endless light to our world and we are trying to navigate this immense loss. Our family believes this arrest was made carefully and not without serious consideration. After speaking with both local police and federal authorities, we trust the proper steps were taken and the process is being handled appropriately. We kindly ask for privacy as we work through this complex situation. We are clinging to our faith – just as Ashley did each and every day.”

Prior to Caleb’s arrest, Ashley was set to have a public celebration of life, but because of the tragic circumstances, she was laid to rest privately.

Caleb is being represented by Patrick Mulligan, who spoke out about his client’s $2 million bond.

Per the Dayton Daily News, Mulligan said the bond was unnecessary. “It denies him the opportunity to be at the funeral for his wife, which is an unspeakable tragedy,” Mulligan said at the time.

Caleb made his first court appearance on February 20, where he told the judge, “I just want to take care of my daughters, I’m not a risk.”

Caleb’s preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for March 26.

The 39-year-old competed on Season 12 of “American Idol.” He described himself as a devoted husband, worship pastor, and Christian.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Police body-camera footage has been released showing the moments after a former “American Idol” contestant and worship pastor allegedly killed his wife in the early morning hours of February 16 in Tipp City, Ohio, just north of Dayton.

Caleb Flynn is in jail on a $2 million bond after being charged with the murder of his wife, Ashley. The newly released video shows the Tipp City Police responding to what they believed was a burglary call that ended with Ashley being shot. Now, officials say Caleb shot his wife and staged the burglary scene.

“Is she gone?” Caleb, who once raved on “American Idol” about how much he loved his wife, asked investigators as they canvassed the crime scene.

Caleb seemed in pure shock that his wife was dead. Investigators asked Caleb if he had any weapons. He said he had guns in the house and referenced one specifically in his truck’s glove compartment.

Hours of body-cam footage were released this week as the investigation into Caleb continues. In one of the videos, Caleb is confiding in another woman, believed to be Ashley’s mother, in the yard as officers work to secure the scene.

“She told me to sleep on the couch … I shouldn’t have listened,” Caleb said.

The father of two was wailing and even throwing up at one point during the police’s initial search of the home. Caleb and Ashley’s daughters were inside during the alleged shooting.

Caleb Flynn, a former American Idol contestant, is accused of staging a burglary and killing his wife. Newly released body cam footage shows him sobbing at the scene.#CalebFlynn #AmericanIdol #CrimeNews #BodyCamFootage #CourtCase #fyp #explorepage pic.twitter.com/eNa47faFGm

— MEAWW (@meawwofficial) March 3, 2026

Later that morning, the footage shows Caleb agreeing to go to the police station for questioning. While sitting at the station, he asked about getting his phone back as well as where Ashley was.

“Where did you take her?” Caleb asked the detective. The detective responded by saying Ashley’s body was still at the house as investigators were “scouring” everything.

Three days after Caleb voluntarily went in for questioning, he was arrested and transported to the Miami County jail, where he remains on charges of homicide, two counts of felonious assault, and two counts of tampering with evidence.

After Caleb’s arrest, Ashley’s family released this statement: “Our hearts are shattered. Ashley brought endless light to our world and we are trying to navigate this immense loss. Our family believes this arrest was made carefully and not without serious consideration. After speaking with both local police and federal authorities, we trust the proper steps were taken and the process is being handled appropriately. We kindly ask for privacy as we work through this complex situation. We are clinging to our faith – just as Ashley did each and every day.”

Prior to Caleb’s arrest, Ashley was set to have a public celebration of life, but because of the tragic circumstances, she was laid to rest privately.

Caleb is being represented by Patrick Mulligan, who spoke out about his client’s $2 million bond.

Per the Dayton Daily News, Mulligan said the bond was unnecessary. “It denies him the opportunity to be at the funeral for his wife, which is an unspeakable tragedy,” Mulligan said at the time.

Caleb made his first court appearance on February 20, where he told the judge, “I just want to take care of my daughters, I’m not a risk.”

Caleb’s preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for March 26.

The 39-year-old competed on Season 12 of “American Idol.” He described himself as a devoted husband, worship pastor, and Christian.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

“}]] 

The post ‘Is She Gone?’: Body-Cam Footage Reveals Husband’s Behavior Following Suspected Murder of His Wife appeared first on Spin Politico.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick agreed to testify on his connection to Jeffrey Epstein as part of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into Epstein and his circle of powerful friends.

Lutnick told Axios on Tuesday that he volunteered for the Epstein deposition, maintaining that he did “nothing wrong” and wants “to set the record straight.” President Donald Trump’s Commerce secretary once lived next door to Epstein in Manhattan and visited Epstein’s infamous Caribbean island in 2012, four years after Epstein pled guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution. Lutnick has not been accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s sex crimes.

Lutnick is set to testify before the Republican-led Oversight Committee in the coming weeks, with the hearing taking place behind closed doors, similar to the hearings of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who were grilled by lawmakers over their connection to Epstein last week.

“Secretary Lutnick has proactively agreed to appear voluntarily before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,” committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) said. “I commend his demonstrated commitment to transparency and appreciate his willingness to engage with the Committee. I look forward to his testimony.”

The deposition will likely focus heavily on Lutnick’s lunch with Epstein on the financier’s island on Christmas Eve in 2012. Last month, Lutnick testified under oath during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing that he visited Epstein’s Little Saint James island while on vacation with his family.

“My wife was with me as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple — they were there as well with their children — and we had lunch on the island. That is true, for an hour, and then we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together,” Lutnick said.

A photo showing Lutnick with Epstein on Little Saint James was released as part of the Justice Department’s Epstein files dump in January, but the image was removed after it was made public. The Justice Department then released the photo again last week. A DOJ spokeswoman told CBS News that the photo was flagged for nudity and taken down, but later restored after it was reviewed.

Justice Department

Lutnick was criticized for failing to mention the 2012 lunch on Epstein’s island when he told the New York Post’s Miranda Devine last year that after he and his wife first met Epstein in 2005, he vowed to never be in the same room as him. Lutnick suggested he and his wife were unnerved after Epstein gave them a tour of his home in Manhattan and pointed out a massage table “in the middle” of his home, making remarks about getting the “right kind of massage.”

“In the six or eight steps that it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again,” Lutnick told Devine last October. “So I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) grilled Lutnick over his relationship with Epstein last month, saying, “Secretary Lutnick, I think you understand the root of concern here. It’s the way you described, very emphatically, your first encounter with him … [and] said you were disgusted and would never have any contact with him again.”

Lutnick told senators that he doesn’t remember “why we did it,” referring to the lunch with Epstein on his island, but said it was false “to suggest there was anything untoward about that.” The Trump official also said that he did not witness anything inappropriate when he was on the island with Epstein.

When asked about a potential Lutnick deposition, President Trump said last Friday that “Howard would go in and do whatever he has to say.”

“He’s a very innocent guy — doing a good job,” Trump added.

The White House told The Daily Wire last month that President Donald Trump remains confident in Lutnick’s ability to lead the Commerce Department.

“President Trump has assembled the best and most transformative cabinet in modern history. The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House Spokesman Kush Desai said.

Lutnick’s quick agreement to testify before the House Oversight Committee is a sharp contrast with the Clintons’ months-long fight with the committee as they fought subpoenas sent by Comer and did not show up for their scheduled deposition in January. The Clintons only agreed to testify after the House began contempt proceedings.

House Democrats have also called for President Trump to testify before the Oversight Committee, arguing that Republicans “set a new precedent” when they subpoenaed the Clintons.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick agreed to testify on his connection to Jeffrey Epstein as part of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into Epstein and his circle of powerful friends.

Lutnick told Axios on Tuesday that he volunteered for the Epstein deposition, maintaining that he did “nothing wrong” and wants “to set the record straight.” President Donald Trump’s Commerce secretary once lived next door to Epstein in Manhattan and visited Epstein’s infamous Caribbean island in 2012, four years after Epstein pled guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution. Lutnick has not been accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s sex crimes.

Lutnick is set to testify before the Republican-led Oversight Committee in the coming weeks, with the hearing taking place behind closed doors, similar to the hearings of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who were grilled by lawmakers over their connection to Epstein last week.

“Secretary Lutnick has proactively agreed to appear voluntarily before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,” committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) said. “I commend his demonstrated commitment to transparency and appreciate his willingness to engage with the Committee. I look forward to his testimony.”

The deposition will likely focus heavily on Lutnick’s lunch with Epstein on the financier’s island on Christmas Eve in 2012. Last month, Lutnick testified under oath during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing that he visited Epstein’s Little Saint James island while on vacation with his family.

“My wife was with me as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple — they were there as well with their children — and we had lunch on the island. That is true, for an hour, and then we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together,” Lutnick said.

A photo showing Lutnick with Epstein on Little Saint James was released as part of the Justice Department’s Epstein files dump in January, but the image was removed after it was made public. The Justice Department then released the photo again last week. A DOJ spokeswoman told CBS News that the photo was flagged for nudity and taken down, but later restored after it was reviewed.

Justice Department

Lutnick was criticized for failing to mention the 2012 lunch on Epstein’s island when he told the New York Post’s Miranda Devine last year that after he and his wife first met Epstein in 2005, he vowed to never be in the same room as him. Lutnick suggested he and his wife were unnerved after Epstein gave them a tour of his home in Manhattan and pointed out a massage table “in the middle” of his home, making remarks about getting the “right kind of massage.”

“In the six or eight steps that it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again,” Lutnick told Devine last October. “So I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) grilled Lutnick over his relationship with Epstein last month, saying, “Secretary Lutnick, I think you understand the root of concern here. It’s the way you described, very emphatically, your first encounter with him … [and] said you were disgusted and would never have any contact with him again.”

Lutnick told senators that he doesn’t remember “why we did it,” referring to the lunch with Epstein on his island, but said it was false “to suggest there was anything untoward about that.” The Trump official also said that he did not witness anything inappropriate when he was on the island with Epstein.

When asked about a potential Lutnick deposition, President Trump said last Friday that “Howard would go in and do whatever he has to say.”

“He’s a very innocent guy — doing a good job,” Trump added.

The White House told The Daily Wire last month that President Donald Trump remains confident in Lutnick’s ability to lead the Commerce Department.

“President Trump has assembled the best and most transformative cabinet in modern history. The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House Spokesman Kush Desai said.

Lutnick’s quick agreement to testify before the House Oversight Committee is a sharp contrast with the Clintons’ months-long fight with the committee as they fought subpoenas sent by Comer and did not show up for their scheduled deposition in January. The Clintons only agreed to testify after the House began contempt proceedings.

House Democrats have also called for President Trump to testify before the Oversight Committee, arguing that Republicans “set a new precedent” when they subpoenaed the Clintons.

“}]] 

The post Howard Lutnick Enters The On-Deck Circle, Will Testify On Epstein Following Clinton Grilling appeared first on Spin Politico.

Democratic lawmakers are twisting the federal judiciary’s arm to restore a controversial climate science chapter that was recently removed from its flagship reference guide for judges, a move that comes amid broader scrutiny over the intersection of climate litigation, judicial education, and political advocacy.

At stake is not merely a single chapter in a reference book, but the perception of neutrality in how federal judges are trained to evaluate complex scientific claims, particularly when those claims sit at the center of high-dollar, politically charged litigation campaigns still unfolding in courts across the country.

According to reporting from Politico, a group of Senate Democrats led by Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter Friday urging the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reinstate a deleted climate chapter from the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The lawmakers argued that removing the chapter “sends a clear and chilling message that the federal judiciary is susceptible to partisan political pressure.”

The FJC is the research and education wing of the judicial branch. It guides and trains federal judges, gives resources, publishes materials, and maintains resources on federal judicial history and procedures.

The Reference Manual is widely used by federal judges as a guide to evaluating complex scientific and technical evidence. The now-removed climate section had drawn objections from a group of state attorneys general who argued that it adopted contested climate attribution methodologies and liability theories that mirror arguments currently being advanced in active climate lawsuits against energy companies. Critics contended that including such material in an official judicial reference guide risked lending institutional credibility to one side of ongoing litigation.

The FJC has not publicly characterized the removal as politically motivated, but the timing followed the objections, prompting Democrats to frame the move as capitulation to outside pressure.

Senator Wyden’s advocacy for restoring the chapter has also drawn attention because of his financial and public ties to a climate litigation attorney whose courtroom tactics have faced scrutiny.

Federal Election Commission records show Wyden has received approximately $11,000 in campaign contributions from Roger Worthington, an Oregon-based attorney involved in climate liability cases.

Worthington has been associated with legal strategies seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages. He has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to democratic campaigns and causes in the reliably blue state over his career.

Worthington’s litigation conduct has itself become a point of ethics concerns. As reported by National Review, a court filing alleged that Worthington introduced scientific studies in litigation that he had helped fund without disclosing his involvement, presenting them instead as independent research. During a hearing on the matter, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Benjamin Souede rebuked the lack of transparency, stating, “It is not acceptable to submit a declaration by an expert that is based in part on a reliance on a scientific article that plaintiff’s counsel helped to fund without pointing out to the Court that that is so.”

The judge added that “no lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence thought it appropriate to submit an expert declaration relying on an article that the plaintiff’s lawyer helped buy.”

Additional reporting noted that a draft of a climate liability study appeared on Worthington’s firm’s website prior to publication and was later cited in court filings. The draft contained a watermark reading “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE UNDER REVIEW” while the link was later removed, the archived version is accessible online to verify this. The motion cited in that reporting argued the circumstances suggested involvement beyond that of a neutral observer.

As an attorney with a specialized background in climate litigation, Worthington has much to gain, as do other donors like him, from the reinstatement of the chapter. This dense web of donations, misdirection, and unethical behavior forms just a small part of the broader national backdrop to the dispute over the climate chapter’s inclusion in the Reference Manual.

The core question now confronting the judiciary’s education wing is whether incorporating new, novel, and actively litigated climate liability theories into official guidance risks blurring the line between neutral scientific explanation and advocacy-aligned framing.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Democratic lawmakers are twisting the federal judiciary’s arm to restore a controversial climate science chapter that was recently removed from its flagship reference guide for judges, a move that comes amid broader scrutiny over the intersection of climate litigation, judicial education, and political advocacy.

At stake is not merely a single chapter in a reference book, but the perception of neutrality in how federal judges are trained to evaluate complex scientific claims, particularly when those claims sit at the center of high-dollar, politically charged litigation campaigns still unfolding in courts across the country.

According to reporting from Politico, a group of Senate Democrats led by Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter Friday urging the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reinstate a deleted climate chapter from the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The lawmakers argued that removing the chapter “sends a clear and chilling message that the federal judiciary is susceptible to partisan political pressure.”

The FJC is the research and education wing of the judicial branch. It guides and trains federal judges, gives resources, publishes materials, and maintains resources on federal judicial history and procedures.

The Reference Manual is widely used by federal judges as a guide to evaluating complex scientific and technical evidence. The now-removed climate section had drawn objections from a group of state attorneys general who argued that it adopted contested climate attribution methodologies and liability theories that mirror arguments currently being advanced in active climate lawsuits against energy companies. Critics contended that including such material in an official judicial reference guide risked lending institutional credibility to one side of ongoing litigation.

The FJC has not publicly characterized the removal as politically motivated, but the timing followed the objections, prompting Democrats to frame the move as capitulation to outside pressure.

Senator Wyden’s advocacy for restoring the chapter has also drawn attention because of his financial and public ties to a climate litigation attorney whose courtroom tactics have faced scrutiny.

Federal Election Commission records show Wyden has received approximately $11,000 in campaign contributions from Roger Worthington, an Oregon-based attorney involved in climate liability cases.

Worthington has been associated with legal strategies seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages. He has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to democratic campaigns and causes in the reliably blue state over his career.

Worthington’s litigation conduct has itself become a point of ethics concerns. As reported by National Review, a court filing alleged that Worthington introduced scientific studies in litigation that he had helped fund without disclosing his involvement, presenting them instead as independent research. During a hearing on the matter, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Benjamin Souede rebuked the lack of transparency, stating, “It is not acceptable to submit a declaration by an expert that is based in part on a reliance on a scientific article that plaintiff’s counsel helped to fund without pointing out to the Court that that is so.”

The judge added that “no lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence thought it appropriate to submit an expert declaration relying on an article that the plaintiff’s lawyer helped buy.”

Additional reporting noted that a draft of a climate liability study appeared on Worthington’s firm’s website prior to publication and was later cited in court filings. The draft contained a watermark reading “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE UNDER REVIEW” while the link was later removed, the archived version is accessible online to verify this. The motion cited in that reporting argued the circumstances suggested involvement beyond that of a neutral observer.

As an attorney with a specialized background in climate litigation, Worthington has much to gain, as do other donors like him, from the reinstatement of the chapter. This dense web of donations, misdirection, and unethical behavior forms just a small part of the broader national backdrop to the dispute over the climate chapter’s inclusion in the Reference Manual.

The core question now confronting the judiciary’s education wing is whether incorporating new, novel, and actively litigated climate liability theories into official guidance risks blurring the line between neutral scientific explanation and advocacy-aligned framing.

“}]] 

The post Fight Over Climate Chapter Exposes Tensions Between Judicial Neutrality And Activist Lawfare appeared first on Spin Politico.

The United States is winning.

Anyone who is telling you differently right now is either ignorant or lying. And the people who are lying to you would like for us to lose.

Iran is counting on these people. They’re counting on the lying from people who despise President Trump. Those would be the Democrats and their legacy media allies, except for John Fetterman, the senator from Pennsylvania.

Iran is also counting on the horseshoe Right, who believe that we’re losing just by destroying the Iranian regime. These people believe that a weaker America on the world stage is inherently good. Many of them just despise Israel. Many of these people also know they can make a ton of money by grifting and telling you they’ve uncovered a great, mysterious conspiracy, and only they can protect you from it.

But the only way they can maintain that line is if the United States loses.

These are not the people who are asking real questions. Real questions and skepticism can be okay. Real questions have real answers, and people deserve real answers.

But the first answer is that we are winning.

The United States is winning because we have defenestrated the top levels of the Iranian regime. We have cracked it right down the middle: we have dismantled their ballistic missile capacity almost entirely, we are wrecking their nuclear infrastructure, and we are reducing their entire regime to rubble.

That’s because President Trump was brave enough, courageous enough, to keep a promise we’ve been making to our own citizens for nearly 50 years, when no other president would.

That is not losing. That is winning. And anyone who’s telling you differently is lying to you or ignorant.

News broke this morning that Israeli operations struck the parliament building where Iran was selecting a new successor, destroying a wide swathe of the next layer of the Iranian government.

Meanwhile, the United States was dropping heavy airstrikes on pretty much every IRGC facility that they can find, as well as the ballistic missiles that Iran was building and that it was attempting to deploy. These were wiped out at very, very low cost to the United States.

In terms of actual casualties, of course, every death is a tragedy. We wish that we could lose zero soldiers in the middle of a war.

But it is worth noting that war, over time, has gotten significantly less deadly for Americans.

In the Gulf War, we lost 294 soldiers. The war in Afghanistan: 2,300. The Iraq War: 4,500. Operation Inherent Resolve, which was the operation to take out ISIS: 120.

The United States has lost six soldiers in the current Operation Epic Fury. What does that mean?

It means that the United States is really, really, really good at this. We are demonstrating that we are incredible at this. This is not 1968. It is not Vietnam. It’s not thousands of American body bags coming home, or hundreds or even at this point, thank God, dozens, which, in light of the scale of this operation, is not only unbelievable and remarkable, it is a testament to America’s overwhelming power and the weakness of Iran’s defenses.

The situation was not going to be the same one year from now.

This is not going to turn into some Vietnam-like quagmire.

What, exactly, is Iran going to do about all this? They are getting absolutely destroyed. The Iranian government is being absolutely destroyed. The Israeli Air Force has flown roughly 1,200 sorties in three days with zero combat losses. The United States has done far more than that with zero losses in theater.

We had losses because there was a missile that fell in Kuwait. That’s where all the casualties came from. The United States has lost no material over Iran.

What will the Iranian government do? What will the ayatollahs do?

They have one play and one play only: They are counting on the coalition between the lying Left in the United States and the horseshoe Right to undermine the United States and Israel.

The entire game is to try to withdraw domestic support for the operation. That’s nothing new. Our military enemies invariably count on their useful allies and useful idiots to push their agenda.

The Germans, in the lead-up to World War II, counted on the American Bund, and they celebrated as the Lindbergh Right gained credibility in the United States. They deployed Lord Haw-Haw against the Brits. The Japanese activated Tokyo Rose to undermine American combat morale during World War II. The Viet Cong, who lost on the battlefield, counted on the American legacy media to convince Americans to abandon our victories in Vietnam. The KGB, the NKVD, routinely utilized idiots in the United States to spread their propaganda, going all the way back to the New York Times in the early part of the 1930s with Walter Duranty. Even Baghdad Bob tried to tell the American public everything was fine in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was falling.

The bizarre confluence of the lying Left Democrats who protest that we’re not winning, that we can’t possibly win, there’s no way we can win, and the horseshoe Right, conspiracy theorists, morons, isolationists, anti-American devotees of Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy, is the stuff the ayatollahs are counting on. It’s what the remainder of the Iranian government is counting on.

You can tell because they are clearly, clearly messaging directly to them. Abbas Araghchi, who is the foreign minister in Iran, is directing tweets in English directly at these people. That is his goal. He is counting on the lying Left and the horseshoe Right to save him. That is the entire strategy at this point.

They have no military strategy. They have nothing. They are firing the drone at Qatar and Cyprus in the vain hope that countries are going to talk President Trump into ending the operation before the defenestration of the Iranian government.

Araghchi posted on X:

Mr. Rubio admitted what we all knew: U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian “threat”.

Shedding of both American and Iranian blood is thus on Israel Firsters.

American people deserve better and should take back their country.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) March 3, 2026

Source: @araghchi/X.com

He’s making three arguments: First, Iran was never a threat. Everything was fine. They could have been our allies; in fact, they could have been our best friends. Second, Iran was negotiating, and the United States attacked out of pique, and because it was manipulated by the Jews. And third, only the Jews, and particularly the Israelis, cucked America into doing this.

The claim that Iran was not a threat is a lie. Not only was Iran building up its ballistic missile facilities; not only did it have a wide variety of short-range missiles; not only was it developing nuclear weapons, it was also doing all of those things and spreading terrorism throughout the region. The urgency was because Iran was building underground facilities designed to withstand bombing. The window of opportunity was closing again.

Steve Witkoff said:

They have 10,000, roughly, kilograms of fissionable material. That’s broken up into roughly 460 kilograms of 60%enriched uranium, another 1,000 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and the balance is at 3.67. They manufacture their own centrifuges to enrich this material, so there’s almost no stopping them. They have an endless supply of it. 50% material, can be brought to 90%. That’s weapon grade, weapons grade, in roughly one week, maybe 10 days. At the outside, the 20 percent can be brought to weapons grade inside of three to four weeks.

And let me say this, because I forgot this small little detail: In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with no shame that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%. And they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance. They were proud of it.

That is, leaving aside the ballistic missile development, the short-range missile development, it disregards the support for terrorist groups. The idea that Iran was not a threat and was not becoming a more serious threat by hardening its sources is idiocy.

Then there’s the lie that Iran was negotiating in good faith. This is put forward by some members of the international community, the U.N., the French, and the rest of the world.

Witkoff stated, “We discussed with them ten years of no enrichment whatsoever, and we would pay for the fuel, and it was flatly rejected. And the president sent us in there to have a good faith negotiation.”

“Pardon me. You’re saying that we would give it to them?” Fox News Sean Hannity asked.

“And they rejected that. We actually had that. And they rejected that, which told us at that very moment that they had no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing,” Witkoff answered.

The third claim is the one that, of course, is directed at the podcast bro’s and gals, the class of grifters who are eager to lap up Iranian propaganda for the clicks and for the money, and because, of course, it is worthwhile for them to take a position against the administration, not out of some sort of honest disagreement, but because they actually are perfectly willing to watch Iran go nuclear.

This argument is that the Jews cucked America, that President Trump isn’t responsible for any of his own decisions. Somehow Bibi Netanyahu worked his secret magic.

Secretary of State Rubio stated, “Number one is: no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That’s the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran, in about a year or a year and a half, would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage. Look at the damage they’re doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.”

The United States is winning.

And don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The United States is winning.

Anyone who is telling you differently right now is either ignorant or lying. And the people who are lying to you would like for us to lose.

Iran is counting on these people. They’re counting on the lying from people who despise President Trump. Those would be the Democrats and their legacy media allies, except for John Fetterman, the senator from Pennsylvania.

Iran is also counting on the horseshoe Right, who believe that we’re losing just by destroying the Iranian regime. These people believe that a weaker America on the world stage is inherently good. Many of them just despise Israel. Many of these people also know they can make a ton of money by grifting and telling you they’ve uncovered a great, mysterious conspiracy, and only they can protect you from it.

But the only way they can maintain that line is if the United States loses.

These are not the people who are asking real questions. Real questions and skepticism can be okay. Real questions have real answers, and people deserve real answers.

But the first answer is that we are winning.

The United States is winning because we have defenestrated the top levels of the Iranian regime. We have cracked it right down the middle: we have dismantled their ballistic missile capacity almost entirely, we are wrecking their nuclear infrastructure, and we are reducing their entire regime to rubble.

That’s because President Trump was brave enough, courageous enough, to keep a promise we’ve been making to our own citizens for nearly 50 years, when no other president would.

That is not losing. That is winning. And anyone who’s telling you differently is lying to you or ignorant.

News broke this morning that Israeli operations struck the parliament building where Iran was selecting a new successor, destroying a wide swathe of the next layer of the Iranian government.

Meanwhile, the United States was dropping heavy airstrikes on pretty much every IRGC facility that they can find, as well as the ballistic missiles that Iran was building and that it was attempting to deploy. These were wiped out at very, very low cost to the United States.

In terms of actual casualties, of course, every death is a tragedy. We wish that we could lose zero soldiers in the middle of a war.

But it is worth noting that war, over time, has gotten significantly less deadly for Americans.

In the Gulf War, we lost 294 soldiers. The war in Afghanistan: 2,300. The Iraq War: 4,500. Operation Inherent Resolve, which was the operation to take out ISIS: 120.

The United States has lost six soldiers in the current Operation Epic Fury. What does that mean?

It means that the United States is really, really, really good at this. We are demonstrating that we are incredible at this. This is not 1968. It is not Vietnam. It’s not thousands of American body bags coming home, or hundreds or even at this point, thank God, dozens, which, in light of the scale of this operation, is not only unbelievable and remarkable, it is a testament to America’s overwhelming power and the weakness of Iran’s defenses.

The situation was not going to be the same one year from now.

This is not going to turn into some Vietnam-like quagmire.

What, exactly, is Iran going to do about all this? They are getting absolutely destroyed. The Iranian government is being absolutely destroyed. The Israeli Air Force has flown roughly 1,200 sorties in three days with zero combat losses. The United States has done far more than that with zero losses in theater.

We had losses because there was a missile that fell in Kuwait. That’s where all the casualties came from. The United States has lost no material over Iran.

What will the Iranian government do? What will the ayatollahs do?

They have one play and one play only: They are counting on the coalition between the lying Left in the United States and the horseshoe Right to undermine the United States and Israel.

The entire game is to try to withdraw domestic support for the operation. That’s nothing new. Our military enemies invariably count on their useful allies and useful idiots to push their agenda.

The Germans, in the lead-up to World War II, counted on the American Bund, and they celebrated as the Lindbergh Right gained credibility in the United States. They deployed Lord Haw-Haw against the Brits. The Japanese activated Tokyo Rose to undermine American combat morale during World War II. The Viet Cong, who lost on the battlefield, counted on the American legacy media to convince Americans to abandon our victories in Vietnam. The KGB, the NKVD, routinely utilized idiots in the United States to spread their propaganda, going all the way back to the New York Times in the early part of the 1930s with Walter Duranty. Even Baghdad Bob tried to tell the American public everything was fine in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was falling.

The bizarre confluence of the lying Left Democrats who protest that we’re not winning, that we can’t possibly win, there’s no way we can win, and the horseshoe Right, conspiracy theorists, morons, isolationists, anti-American devotees of Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy, is the stuff the ayatollahs are counting on. It’s what the remainder of the Iranian government is counting on.

You can tell because they are clearly, clearly messaging directly to them. Abbas Araghchi, who is the foreign minister in Iran, is directing tweets in English directly at these people. That is his goal. He is counting on the lying Left and the horseshoe Right to save him. That is the entire strategy at this point.

They have no military strategy. They have nothing. They are firing the drone at Qatar and Cyprus in the vain hope that countries are going to talk President Trump into ending the operation before the defenestration of the Iranian government.

Araghchi posted on X:

Mr. Rubio admitted what we all knew: U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian “threat”.

Shedding of both American and Iranian blood is thus on Israel Firsters.

American people deserve better and should take back their country.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) March 3, 2026

Source: @araghchi/X.com

He’s making three arguments: First, Iran was never a threat. Everything was fine. They could have been our allies; in fact, they could have been our best friends. Second, Iran was negotiating, and the United States attacked out of pique, and because it was manipulated by the Jews. And third, only the Jews, and particularly the Israelis, cucked America into doing this.

The claim that Iran was not a threat is a lie. Not only was Iran building up its ballistic missile facilities; not only did it have a wide variety of short-range missiles; not only was it developing nuclear weapons, it was also doing all of those things and spreading terrorism throughout the region. The urgency was because Iran was building underground facilities designed to withstand bombing. The window of opportunity was closing again.

Steve Witkoff said:

They have 10,000, roughly, kilograms of fissionable material. That’s broken up into roughly 460 kilograms of 60%enriched uranium, another 1,000 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and the balance is at 3.67. They manufacture their own centrifuges to enrich this material, so there’s almost no stopping them. They have an endless supply of it. 50% material, can be brought to 90%. That’s weapon grade, weapons grade, in roughly one week, maybe 10 days. At the outside, the 20 percent can be brought to weapons grade inside of three to four weeks.

And let me say this, because I forgot this small little detail: In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with no shame that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%. And they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance. They were proud of it.

That is, leaving aside the ballistic missile development, the short-range missile development, it disregards the support for terrorist groups. The idea that Iran was not a threat and was not becoming a more serious threat by hardening its sources is idiocy.

Then there’s the lie that Iran was negotiating in good faith. This is put forward by some members of the international community, the U.N., the French, and the rest of the world.

Witkoff stated, “We discussed with them ten years of no enrichment whatsoever, and we would pay for the fuel, and it was flatly rejected. And the president sent us in there to have a good faith negotiation.”

“Pardon me. You’re saying that we would give it to them?” Fox News Sean Hannity asked.

“And they rejected that. We actually had that. And they rejected that, which told us at that very moment that they had no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing,” Witkoff answered.

The third claim is the one that, of course, is directed at the podcast bro’s and gals, the class of grifters who are eager to lap up Iranian propaganda for the clicks and for the money, and because, of course, it is worthwhile for them to take a position against the administration, not out of some sort of honest disagreement, but because they actually are perfectly willing to watch Iran go nuclear.

This argument is that the Jews cucked America, that President Trump isn’t responsible for any of his own decisions. Somehow Bibi Netanyahu worked his secret magic.

Secretary of State Rubio stated, “Number one is: no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That’s the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran, in about a year or a year and a half, would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage. Look at the damage they’re doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.”

The United States is winning.

And don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

“}]] 

The post The Cuck Coalition: Iran Counts On American Leftists And The Horseshoe Right appeared first on Spin Politico.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced heated questions from Republican senators while testifying on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

Noem’s testimony was the first time she appeared for questioning after two earlier shootings in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents that resulted in the deaths of two anti-ICE activists, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy was the first Republican to press Noem, grilling her about the ads she’s running to encourage illegal immigrants to self-deport and the contracts behind them.

“I believe you have a policy, Madam Secretary, that you have to approve all contracts at your department over $100 million,” Kennedy said.

Noem denied the claim, saying, “I have a policy in place that I review contracts,” adding, “My deputy chiefs have the ability to review anything under five million, above that I evaluate …”

The secretary also claimed that the policy was “extremely effective” in saving taxpayer dollars.

Kennedy, however, continued to push, asking how she squares “that concern for waste … with the fact that you have spent $220 million running television advertisements that feature you prominently.”

Noem responded that “the president tasked” her “with getting the message out to the country and other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from with putting commercials out that told them if they were in this country illegally that they needed to leave or we would detain them and remove them and they would not get the chance to come back to America the right way.”

“That has been extremely effective,” she added.

Kennedy then asked if she “bid out” the contracts for the companies that produced the ads, alluding to a potential conflict of interest.

A company known as The Strategy Group ran the ad campaign. The company had helped with Noem’s 2022 gubernatorial campaign in South Dakota and is run by the husband of the secretary’s recently-departed spokesperson, according to ProPublica.

The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS.

We had a subcontract with Safe America for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

If you’re going to try…

— The Strategy Group Co. (@StrategyGroupCo) March 3, 2026

In a statement Tuesday, The Strategy Group said it “has never had a contract with DHS,” adding that “We had a subcontract with Safe America for limited production services.”

“Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements, and 6 produced radio advertisements,” the company said.

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence – we did,” the statement concluded.

The Strategy Group’s ad work is the first known example of money flowing from Noem’s agency to businesses controlled by her allies and friends.

“Yes, they did, they went out to a competitive bid and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials,” Noem said.

“And the people that you ended up picking were people who had formerly done your political work in South Dakota, is that right?” Kennedy followed.

Noem replied: “No, that’s not correct, sir.”

To which Kennedy asserted, “I think it is.”

Noem insisted it wasn’t the case, and career employees had chosen the firms.

Kennedy then asked if Trump himself approved the $220 million ads “ahead of time.”

Noem eventually said he did, adding, “And one thing senator I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communication has been …”

Kennedy then gave a scathing response, saying: “Well they were effective in your name recognition … to me it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot and I’m not saying you’re not telling the truth, it’s just hard for me to believe … that he would’ve agreed to that … it’s something that we have to defend, I’m on the appropriations committee.”

“My research shows that you did not bid them out. In fact, one of the people you picked … was a company formed eleven days before you picked them and that the strategy group got most of the money,” Kennedy continued. “The head of that is married to your former spokesperson,” he said, adding, “It troubles me. A fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money when we’re scratching for every penny, and we’re fighting over [unintelligible] packages. I just can’t agree with Madam Secretary.”

Still, Noem insisted she didn’t have any say in the contracts.

Kennedy then pivoted to the fatal shootings in Minneapolis, asking about Noem’s assertion that the deceased were committing “acts of domestic terrorism.”

“It appeared to be,” she said.

Noem faced heat for getting ahead of any investigations by making the statement.

That led Noem to blame “Mr. Stephen Miller at the White House” for making her jump the gun, Kennedy said.

Noem, however, denied that and said Kennedy received that information from “a news article of anonymous sources” who “say a lot of things.”

But Kennedy continued to press the issue, saying, “Well, here’s what you said on the record, I’m gonna read you your words, ‘Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen.’”

Noem asked Kennedy for the source of that statement.

“You said that on January 27 of 2026, did I read your words accurately?” the senator asked.

“I enjoy working with the president and with Stephen Miller, and that day we were working to get as much information to the American people as possible … that is what we’ll continue to do,” Noem responded.

Kennedy asked Noem if she thought “it was fair to blame” Miller.

Noem, however, continued to deny making the statement.

“Are you denying that you said that?” he asked.

“Sir, I’m not going to speak to a situation that is relayed on anonymous sources that no one has heard me say that,” she said.

Still, Kennedy said “it was you” and that the news article was “quoting” Noem “on the record saying it’s Stephen’s fault.”

Later in the hearing, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis used his time to give Noem what he called a “performance evaluation” while renewing his previous calls for her resignation.

Tillis opened his questioning by railing against Noem for the arrest quotas that were thrust upon federal immigration agents.

“We just want numbers, we want 1,000 a day, 6,000 a day, 9,000 a day because numbers matter, right? No, they don’t matter. Quality matters, not quantity. Quality. And what we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem.”

Tillis then took issue with her handling of the Minneapolis shootings, saying she should admit to the mistakes made by her officers.

“I believe the president recognized that you weren’t getting it done in Minneapolis, and you’re putting us further away from pointing to this. We’re beginning to give the American people to think that deporting people is wrong, it’s the exact opposite. The way you’re going about deporting them is wrong. The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like, under investigation, is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back,” Tillis said.

“Law enforcement needs to learn from that,” the North Carolina Republican said. “You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts. Not only should the FBI be investigating it, but every single law enforcement agency in that jurisdiction should be invited to it, so our law enforcement officers don’t have this fog cast upon them. One of the reasons that ICE officers are having threats and damn the people that threaten ICE officers because so many of them are doing a good job is because you’ve cast a pall on them by acting like we should investigate things differently.”

“Law enforcement, we’ve gotta have their back, we’ve got to make it clear when they make a mistake, then they get corrected for it, but you don’t walk away from it, and you’ve done it too many times,” he added.

TILLIS slams NOEM for Minneapolis:

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks
like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back.” pic.twitter.com/UPRwb4wBxp

— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) March 3, 2026

Tillis said he also recently read Noem’s earlier book, where she revealed she shot her 14-month-old dog. Noem earlier defended the action, saying it was due to the dog’s aggression and that it was untrainable.

He slammed them as “bad decisions made in the heat of the moment, not unlike what happened up in Minneapolis.”

TILLIS brings up NOEM’s book, saying her choices to shoot a dog and later a goat “are bad decisions made in the heat of the moment, not unlike what happened up in Minneapolis.” pic.twitter.com/JKO4jjvpJU

— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) March 3, 2026

Tillis also threatened Noem over the department’s failure to respond to his month-old inquiry about federal immigration raids in Charlotte.

“If I don’t get an answer to these questions … as of today, I’ll be informing leadership that I’m putting a hold on any unblocked nominations until I get a response. And in two weeks, if I don’t get a response, I’m gonna deny quorum and markup in as many committees as I can until I get a response,” he said.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced heated questions from Republican senators while testifying on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

Noem’s testimony was the first time she appeared for questioning after two earlier shootings in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents that resulted in the deaths of two anti-ICE activists, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy was the first Republican to press Noem, grilling her about the ads she’s running to encourage illegal immigrants to self-deport and the contracts behind them.

“I believe you have a policy, Madam Secretary, that you have to approve all contracts at your department over $100 million,” Kennedy said.

Noem denied the claim, saying, “I have a policy in place that I review contracts,” adding, “My deputy chiefs have the ability to review anything under five million, above that I evaluate …”

The secretary also claimed that the policy was “extremely effective” in saving taxpayer dollars.

Kennedy, however, continued to push, asking how she squares “that concern for waste … with the fact that you have spent $220 million running television advertisements that feature you prominently.”

Noem responded that “the president tasked” her “with getting the message out to the country and other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from with putting commercials out that told them if they were in this country illegally that they needed to leave or we would detain them and remove them and they would not get the chance to come back to America the right way.”

“That has been extremely effective,” she added.

Kennedy then asked if she “bid out” the contracts for the companies that produced the ads, alluding to a potential conflict of interest.

A company known as The Strategy Group ran the ad campaign. The company had helped with Noem’s 2022 gubernatorial campaign in South Dakota and is run by the husband of the secretary’s recently-departed spokesperson, according to ProPublica.

The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS.

We had a subcontract with Safe America for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

If you’re going to try…

— The Strategy Group Co. (@StrategyGroupCo) March 3, 2026

In a statement Tuesday, The Strategy Group said it “has never had a contract with DHS,” adding that “We had a subcontract with Safe America for limited production services.”

“Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements, and 6 produced radio advertisements,” the company said.

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence – we did,” the statement concluded.

The Strategy Group’s ad work is the first known example of money flowing from Noem’s agency to businesses controlled by her allies and friends.

“Yes, they did, they went out to a competitive bid and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials,” Noem said.

“And the people that you ended up picking were people who had formerly done your political work in South Dakota, is that right?” Kennedy followed.

Noem replied: “No, that’s not correct, sir.”

To which Kennedy asserted, “I think it is.”

Noem insisted it wasn’t the case, and career employees had chosen the firms.

Kennedy then asked if Trump himself approved the $220 million ads “ahead of time.”

Noem eventually said he did, adding, “And one thing senator I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communication has been …”

Kennedy then gave a scathing response, saying: “Well they were effective in your name recognition … to me it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot and I’m not saying you’re not telling the truth, it’s just hard for me to believe … that he would’ve agreed to that … it’s something that we have to defend, I’m on the appropriations committee.”

“My research shows that you did not bid them out. In fact, one of the people you picked … was a company formed eleven days before you picked them and that the strategy group got most of the money,” Kennedy continued. “The head of that is married to your former spokesperson,” he said, adding, “It troubles me. A fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money when we’re scratching for every penny, and we’re fighting over [unintelligible] packages. I just can’t agree with Madam Secretary.”

Still, Noem insisted she didn’t have any say in the contracts.

Kennedy then pivoted to the fatal shootings in Minneapolis, asking about Noem’s assertion that the deceased were committing “acts of domestic terrorism.”

“It appeared to be,” she said.

Noem faced heat for getting ahead of any investigations by making the statement.

That led Noem to blame “Mr. Stephen Miller at the White House” for making her jump the gun, Kennedy said.

Noem, however, denied that and said Kennedy received that information from “a news article of anonymous sources” who “say a lot of things.”

But Kennedy continued to press the issue, saying, “Well, here’s what you said on the record, I’m gonna read you your words, ‘Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen.’”

Noem asked Kennedy for the source of that statement.

“You said that on January 27 of 2026, did I read your words accurately?” the senator asked.

“I enjoy working with the president and with Stephen Miller, and that day we were working to get as much information to the American people as possible … that is what we’ll continue to do,” Noem responded.

Kennedy asked Noem if she thought “it was fair to blame” Miller.

Noem, however, continued to deny making the statement.

“Are you denying that you said that?” he asked.

“Sir, I’m not going to speak to a situation that is relayed on anonymous sources that no one has heard me say that,” she said.

Still, Kennedy said “it was you” and that the news article was “quoting” Noem “on the record saying it’s Stephen’s fault.”

Later in the hearing, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis used his time to give Noem what he called a “performance evaluation” while renewing his previous calls for her resignation.

Tillis opened his questioning by railing against Noem for the arrest quotas that were thrust upon federal immigration agents.

“We just want numbers, we want 1,000 a day, 6,000 a day, 9,000 a day because numbers matter, right? No, they don’t matter. Quality matters, not quantity. Quality. And what we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem.”

Tillis then took issue with her handling of the Minneapolis shootings, saying she should admit to the mistakes made by her officers.

“I believe the president recognized that you weren’t getting it done in Minneapolis, and you’re putting us further away from pointing to this. We’re beginning to give the American people to think that deporting people is wrong, it’s the exact opposite. The way you’re going about deporting them is wrong. The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like, under investigation, is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back,” Tillis said.

“Law enforcement needs to learn from that,” the North Carolina Republican said. “You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts. Not only should the FBI be investigating it, but every single law enforcement agency in that jurisdiction should be invited to it, so our law enforcement officers don’t have this fog cast upon them. One of the reasons that ICE officers are having threats and damn the people that threaten ICE officers because so many of them are doing a good job is because you’ve cast a pall on them by acting like we should investigate things differently.”

“Law enforcement, we’ve gotta have their back, we’ve got to make it clear when they make a mistake, then they get corrected for it, but you don’t walk away from it, and you’ve done it too many times,” he added.

TILLIS slams NOEM for Minneapolis:

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks
like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back.” pic.twitter.com/UPRwb4wBxp

— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) March 3, 2026

Tillis said he also recently read Noem’s earlier book, where she revealed she shot her 14-month-old dog. Noem earlier defended the action, saying it was due to the dog’s aggression and that it was untrainable.

He slammed them as “bad decisions made in the heat of the moment, not unlike what happened up in Minneapolis.”

TILLIS brings up NOEM’s book, saying her choices to shoot a dog and later a goat “are bad decisions made in the heat of the moment, not unlike what happened up in Minneapolis.” pic.twitter.com/JKO4jjvpJU

— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) March 3, 2026

Tillis also threatened Noem over the department’s failure to respond to his month-old inquiry about federal immigration raids in Charlotte.

“If I don’t get an answer to these questions … as of today, I’ll be informing leadership that I’m putting a hold on any unblocked nominations until I get a response. And in two weeks, if I don’t get a response, I’m gonna deny quorum and markup in as many committees as I can until I get a response,” he said.

“}]] 

The post Noem Pressed As Republican Senators Demand Answers In Heated Senate Hearing appeared first on Spin Politico.

As the conflict in the Middle East continues, social media platform X announced on Tuesday that it will suspend users from collecting ad revenue if they post “videos of armed conflict” generated by artificial intelligence without disclosing that the video is not authentic.

Nikita Bier, the head of product at the Elon Musk-owned social media platform, said X is changing its policies to crack down on users making money through X’s revenue sharing program by misleading the public during a time of war. Beginning on Tuesday, users who post AI-generated content depicting war without a disclosure will not be able to make money on their posts for 90 days, and a second violation would result in a permanent ban from the program.

“During times of war, it is critical that people have access to authentic information on the ground. With today’s AI technologies, it is trivial to create content that can mislead people,” Bier said.

Bier said that X will rely on its public fact-checking system known as Community Notes and a post’s metadata to flag whether a video is AI-generated. X’s move does not prohibit users from posting AI-generated videos depicting war. Bier explained that if content creators want to post an AI-generated video, they should add a “Made with AI” label that X provides in its options before someone posts.

The social media company’s move was widely praised by X users who argue that the explosion of AI-generated content in recent months risks misinforming the public when major events, such as the conflict in the Middle East, take place.

Since the conflict began over the weekend, pro-Iran accounts have posted AI-generated content claiming to show the USS Abraham Lincoln getting destroyed by Iranian missiles.

U.S. Central Command responded on Sunday to false claims that the USS Abraham Lincoln was hit by Iranian missiles.

“Iran’s IRGC claims to have struck USS Abraham Lincoln with ballistic missiles. LIE,” CENTCOM stated. “The Lincoln was not hit. The missiles launched didn’t even come close. The Lincoln continues to launch aircraft in support of CENTCOM’s relentless campaign to defend the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime.”

Other pro-Iran accounts have also posted dated or manipulated footage that have exaggerated the damage caused by missiles the regime fired at Israel in recent days. At least one AI-generated video falsely claiming to show rockets raining down on Tel Aviv spread on X on Tuesday. As of publication, the video had not been labeled as AI by Community Notes, despite numerous users pointing out the clear signs that the video was fake, such as the identical designs of the roofs of all the buildings seen in the video.

X’s revenue sharing program allows users to collect some of the ad revenue generated from their posts if they get enough engagement. As AI tools improve, however, some users are making money off of AI-generated videos that appear to show breaking news events or global conflicts.

The U.S.-Iran conflict is not the first time AI-generated videos have duped social media users. Throughout the Ukraine-Russia war, fake videos have popped up on social media. Most recently, AI-generated videos depicted Ukrainian soldiers surrendering on the front lines.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

As the conflict in the Middle East continues, social media platform X announced on Tuesday that it will suspend users from collecting ad revenue if they post “videos of armed conflict” generated by artificial intelligence without disclosing that the video is not authentic.

Nikita Bier, the head of product at the Elon Musk-owned social media platform, said X is changing its policies to crack down on users making money through X’s revenue sharing program by misleading the public during a time of war. Beginning on Tuesday, users who post AI-generated content depicting war without a disclosure will not be able to make money on their posts for 90 days, and a second violation would result in a permanent ban from the program.

“During times of war, it is critical that people have access to authentic information on the ground. With today’s AI technologies, it is trivial to create content that can mislead people,” Bier said.

Bier said that X will rely on its public fact-checking system known as Community Notes and a post’s metadata to flag whether a video is AI-generated. X’s move does not prohibit users from posting AI-generated videos depicting war. Bier explained that if content creators want to post an AI-generated video, they should add a “Made with AI” label that X provides in its options before someone posts.

The social media company’s move was widely praised by X users who argue that the explosion of AI-generated content in recent months risks misinforming the public when major events, such as the conflict in the Middle East, take place.

Since the conflict began over the weekend, pro-Iran accounts have posted AI-generated content claiming to show the USS Abraham Lincoln getting destroyed by Iranian missiles.

U.S. Central Command responded on Sunday to false claims that the USS Abraham Lincoln was hit by Iranian missiles.

“Iran’s IRGC claims to have struck USS Abraham Lincoln with ballistic missiles. LIE,” CENTCOM stated. “The Lincoln was not hit. The missiles launched didn’t even come close. The Lincoln continues to launch aircraft in support of CENTCOM’s relentless campaign to defend the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime.”

Other pro-Iran accounts have also posted dated or manipulated footage that have exaggerated the damage caused by missiles the regime fired at Israel in recent days. At least one AI-generated video falsely claiming to show rockets raining down on Tel Aviv spread on X on Tuesday. As of publication, the video had not been labeled as AI by Community Notes, despite numerous users pointing out the clear signs that the video was fake, such as the identical designs of the roofs of all the buildings seen in the video.

X’s revenue sharing program allows users to collect some of the ad revenue generated from their posts if they get enough engagement. As AI tools improve, however, some users are making money off of AI-generated videos that appear to show breaking news events or global conflicts.

The U.S.-Iran conflict is not the first time AI-generated videos have duped social media users. Throughout the Ukraine-Russia war, fake videos have popped up on social media. Most recently, AI-generated videos depicted Ukrainian soldiers surrendering on the front lines.

“}]] 

The post X Will Suspend Users Who Post AI-Generated Videos Of War Without Disclosure appeared first on Spin Politico.

The latest video from United States Central Command (CENTCOM) shows a montage of missile launches, displaying the “unrelenting overwhelming firepower” unleashed by American naval destroyers since the beginning of Operation Epic Fury over the weekend.

The United States — in conjunction with Israel — began a full-scale military operation against the Iranian regime on Saturday, and CENTCOM’s video gave a brief picture of the sheer force being exerted by American military assets abroad.

WATCH:

U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are delivering unrelenting, overwhelming firepower from regional waters. DAY and NIGHT. pic.twitter.com/3YTiFkFc1V

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 3, 2026

“U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are delivering unrelenting, overwhelming firepower from regional waters. DAY and NIGHT,” the caption reads. The video clocks in at just 51 seconds long, and delivers nine consecutive missile launches from U.S. Navy destroyers.

Since Operation Epic Fury launched on Saturday, CENTCOM has been keeping the world apprised of its actions via a series of videos posted to X. Just an hour prior to the video showing the missile launches, CENTCOM shared another video showing American weapons taking out Iranian mobile missile launchers.

“U.S. forces are hunting these threats down and without apology or hesitation, we are taking them out,” the caption read, in part.

The Iranian regime is using mobile launchers to indiscriminately fire missiles in an attempt to inflict maximum harm across the region. U.S. forces are hunting these threats down and without apology or hesitation, we are taking them out. pic.twitter.com/gv1SfKCrk4

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 3, 2026

Another video shared on Monday showed United States military assets taking out Iranian ships in the Gulf of Oman — where traditionally, Iranian naval vessels would harass any ships attempting to use the international shipping lanes — and declared a quick and decisive end to Iran’s days of controlling the Gulf.

“Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over,” CENTCOM declared.

Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global… pic.twitter.com/nzdkMVMqZC

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 2, 2026

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The latest video from United States Central Command (CENTCOM) shows a montage of missile launches, displaying the “unrelenting overwhelming firepower” unleashed by American naval destroyers since the beginning of Operation Epic Fury over the weekend.

The United States — in conjunction with Israel — began a full-scale military operation against the Iranian regime on Saturday, and CENTCOM’s video gave a brief picture of the sheer force being exerted by American military assets abroad.

WATCH:

U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are delivering unrelenting, overwhelming firepower from regional waters. DAY and NIGHT. pic.twitter.com/3YTiFkFc1V

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 3, 2026

“U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are delivering unrelenting, overwhelming firepower from regional waters. DAY and NIGHT,” the caption reads. The video clocks in at just 51 seconds long, and delivers nine consecutive missile launches from U.S. Navy destroyers.

Since Operation Epic Fury launched on Saturday, CENTCOM has been keeping the world apprised of its actions via a series of videos posted to X. Just an hour prior to the video showing the missile launches, CENTCOM shared another video showing American weapons taking out Iranian mobile missile launchers.

“U.S. forces are hunting these threats down and without apology or hesitation, we are taking them out,” the caption read, in part.

The Iranian regime is using mobile launchers to indiscriminately fire missiles in an attempt to inflict maximum harm across the region. U.S. forces are hunting these threats down and without apology or hesitation, we are taking them out. pic.twitter.com/gv1SfKCrk4

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 3, 2026

Another video shared on Monday showed United States military assets taking out Iranian ships in the Gulf of Oman — where traditionally, Iranian naval vessels would harass any ships attempting to use the international shipping lanes — and declared a quick and decisive end to Iran’s days of controlling the Gulf.

“Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over,” CENTCOM declared.

Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global… pic.twitter.com/nzdkMVMqZC

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 2, 2026

“}]] 

The post U.S. Military Drops New Iran Strike Video — And The BOOM Looks Bigger Than Ever appeared first on Spin Politico.

Captain Rick Shelford, star of the popular Discovery Channel reality series “Deadliest Catch,” revealed on Monday that his 25-year-old deckhand, Todd Meadows, died in a fishing accident.

“February 25, 2026 was the most tragic day in the history of the Aleutian Lady on the Bering Sea,” Shelford said in a Facebook post, which included photos of Meadows. “We lost our brother, Todd Meadows. Todd was the newest member of our crew, he quickly became family. His love for fishing and his strong work ethic earned everyone’s respect right away. His smile was contagious, and the sound of his laughter coming up the wheelhouse stairs or over the deck hailer is something we will carry with us always.”

“Deadliest Catch” premiered in 2005 and remains a popular series for the network. It follows crab fishermen working in the Bering Sea during the Alaskan king crab and snow crab fishing seasons, documenting the dangers of the job along the way. 

Alaskan crab fishing is considered to be one of the most dangerous jobs in the world.

“Todd’s love for his children, his family, and his life was evident in everything he did. He worked hard, loved deeply, and brought joy to those around him,” the post went on. “Right now, our hearts are broken in a way that words can’t fully express. We ask that you lift Todd’s children and family in prayer and keep them in your thoughts as they face the days ahead without him. Todd will forever be part of this boat, this crew, and this brotherhood. Though we lost him far too soon, his legacy will live on through his children and in every memory we carry of him. Rest easy brother, till we meet again.”

A GoFundMe campaign was set up for Meadows’ family. The description mentioned that the deckhand was fishing at the time of his death. “We are heartbroken to share the sudden passing of Todd Morgan Meadows, a beloved 25-year-old father, son, brother and friend, who left us far too soon while doing what he loved — crabbing out on Alaskan waters,” the GoFundMe page read.

“We are deeply saddened by the tragic passing of Todd Meadows,” a statement from Discovery said, per NBC. “This is a devastating loss, and our hearts are with his loved ones, his crewmates, and the entire fishing community during this incredibly difficult time.” 

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Captain Rick Shelford, star of the popular Discovery Channel reality series “Deadliest Catch,” revealed on Monday that his 25-year-old deckhand, Todd Meadows, died in a fishing accident.

“February 25, 2026 was the most tragic day in the history of the Aleutian Lady on the Bering Sea,” Shelford said in a Facebook post, which included photos of Meadows. “We lost our brother, Todd Meadows. Todd was the newest member of our crew, he quickly became family. His love for fishing and his strong work ethic earned everyone’s respect right away. His smile was contagious, and the sound of his laughter coming up the wheelhouse stairs or over the deck hailer is something we will carry with us always.”

“Deadliest Catch” premiered in 2005 and remains a popular series for the network. It follows crab fishermen working in the Bering Sea during the Alaskan king crab and snow crab fishing seasons, documenting the dangers of the job along the way. 

Alaskan crab fishing is considered to be one of the most dangerous jobs in the world.

“Todd’s love for his children, his family, and his life was evident in everything he did. He worked hard, loved deeply, and brought joy to those around him,” the post went on. “Right now, our hearts are broken in a way that words can’t fully express. We ask that you lift Todd’s children and family in prayer and keep them in your thoughts as they face the days ahead without him. Todd will forever be part of this boat, this crew, and this brotherhood. Though we lost him far too soon, his legacy will live on through his children and in every memory we carry of him. Rest easy brother, till we meet again.”

A GoFundMe campaign was set up for Meadows’ family. The description mentioned that the deckhand was fishing at the time of his death. “We are heartbroken to share the sudden passing of Todd Morgan Meadows, a beloved 25-year-old father, son, brother and friend, who left us far too soon while doing what he loved — crabbing out on Alaskan waters,” the GoFundMe page read.

“We are deeply saddened by the tragic passing of Todd Meadows,” a statement from Discovery said, per NBC. “This is a devastating loss, and our hearts are with his loved ones, his crewmates, and the entire fishing community during this incredibly difficult time.” 

“}]] 

The post ‘Deadliest Catch’ Deckhand Dies On Alaskan Fishing Boat appeared first on Spin Politico.