On April 23, just two days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jimmy Kimmel released a skit parodying the event, during which he joked that Melania Trump had "a glow like an expectant widow.”

Of course, at the actual WHCD, President Trump and others in the administration were victims of yet another assassination attempt.

But instead of apologizing for his comment, which Melania called “hateful and violent rhetoric” and cause for his firing, Kimmel doubled down.

“[It] obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am,” the late-night host said. “It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination, and they know that.”

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t buying Kimmel’s excuses. This time, she argues, he may have pushed his luck too far.

- YouTube

“Jimmy Kimmel: His time might finally be up,” says Sara, pointing to Kimmel’s history of making deliberately inflammatory comments.

In September 2025, immediately following the murder of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made a comment many viewed as insensitive or politicizing the killing, sparking massive backlash, threats from the FCC chairman, affiliate stations pulling his show, and ABC temporarily suspending “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

“After everything had happened and after all of the blowback that he had had, has he learned anything?” asks Sara. “The answer is no. They never do.”

She highlights the left’s glaring double standard when it comes to humor.

“They are outraged any time President Trump ever tells [a joke]. ... In fact, nobody on the right can ever tell a joke without them being just horrified, without them clutching their pearls,” she rails.

Sara also makes fun of the left’s obsession with cancel culture, only to turn around and whine about it when it affects one of their own.

“The left has never engaged in cancel culture and called for people to be fired. They only created the damn game,” she scoffs, pointing to recent headlines from CBS News, People, and Poynter defending Kimmel against calls from President Trump and Melania for his firing.

But despite mainstream media coming to his rescue, Sara is hopeful that Kimmel will actually be canned this time.

“There is a new sheriff in town at Disney,” she says, referring to Josh D’Amaro, who replaced Bob Iger as CEO of Disney in March this year.

D’Amaro, she says, may do things differently to avoid the scandals that pushed Iger out the door.

“This is going to be his first test of going head-to-head with President Trump, and the same sort of drama took down a former Disney CEO, so … you would imagine he’s going to want to stay on President Trump’s good side,” she speculates.

But on top of playing nice with Trump, there’s also the issue of Kimmel’s unpopularity.

“I mean, when you look at his ratings, he doesn't seem to be worth saving,” says Sara, displaying a chart of Kimmel’s cataclysmic fall from peak popularity in 2015 to all-time lows in 2026.

“I'm just trying to will [Kimmel’s firing] into existence. … Can you blame me?” she asks. “I just want these people to … have a taste of their own medicine.”

To hear more and watch the Kimmel clips, check out the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

"Dances with Wolves" actor Nathan Chasing Horse — once hailed as a spiritual healer — learned his fate after he was found guilty of sexually abusing girls and women for years.

Nevada 8th Judicial District Court Judge Jessica Peterson on Monday sentenced Chasing Horse to life in prison, the Associated Press reported, adding that he'll be eligible for parole after 37 years.

'He took away my sense of safety, even within my own mind.'

Chasing Horse's defense attorney argued for the statutory minimum of 25 years to life, according to USA Today.

Craig A. Mueller, Chasing Horse's lawyer, told TMZ he plans to appeal.

The 49-year-old actor maintained his innocence during the sentencing hearing: "I did not do these things. This is a miscarriage of justice."

But Judge Peterson told Chasing Horse, "You preyed on these women's trusts and their spirituality, and you manipulated them for your own personal gratification," the AP reported.

As Blaze News previously reported, a Nevada grand jury indicted Chasing Horse in February 2023.

The actor — best known for playing the "Smiles a Lot" character in the Oscar-winning Kevin Costner film "Dances with Wolves" — pleaded not guilty to all of the 21 charges against him.

However, a jury in January 2026 convicted him of 13 charges related to sexual assaults.

KTNV-TV reported that Chasing Horse was found guilty of 10 counts of sexual assault of a minor under 16, one count of open/gross lewdness, one count of sexual assault, and one count of possession of visual presentation depicting sexual conduct of a child.

RELATED: 8 arrested on rape, sex trafficking charges in case of 14-year-old girl suffering '25 days of hell'

Deputy District Attorney Bianca Pucci told the jury that Chasing Horse "spun a web of abuse" for nearly 20 years, according to PBS.

Pucci told the courtroom that Chasing Horse previously manipulated a 14-year-old girl named Corena Leone-LaCroix by weaponizing his status as a purported Lakota medicine man with spiritual influence.

Pucci alleged that Chasing Horse told the girl the spirits wanted her to give up her virginity to him in order to save her mother who had been diagnosed with cancer.

Pucci said Chasing Horse sexually assaulted her and told her that if she told anyone, her mother would die, according to PBS.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that Leone-LaCroix recalled Chasing Horse telling her, "A life for a life."

"That is the promise he made me make all those years ago when I didn't understand the extent of what he was asking me. I think it's only fitting that you ask the same of him here today," Leone-LaCroix told the judge.

"There is no way to get back the youth, the childhood loss, my first time, my first kiss, the graduation I never got to have," Leone-LaCroix said, according to PBS. "The life that little girl could have lived has been taken from me forever."

The survivor's mother, Melissa Leone, called Chasing Horse "the Epstein of Indian Country."

The mom told Judge Peterson, "The crimes he has been convicted of, like Epstein, are not even the tip of the iceberg."

Siera Begaye, another victim of Chasing Horse, told the jury she suffered from trauma caused by his "psychological control," according to USA Today.

"He took away my sense of safety, even within my own mind. I believe I didn't have privacy in my own thoughts," Begaye stated. "Living with that kind of psychological control has had lasting effects on my ability to trust others and to fully express myself."

Begaye added, "The trauma delayed important parts of my life."

Chief Deputy District Attorney William Rowles and Pucci told KSNV-TV:

We think it was very important to ensure that each victim was represented separate and distinct in the sentence. We are very happy the judge agreed with the assessment as each victim survived their own trauma. The defendant should be held accountable for each victim separately. We want to thank Judge Peterson for her professionalism throughout the trial, particularly in the way she conducted herself in balancing the rights of a defendant and the privacy rights of sexual assault survivors.

The Press Democrat reported that Chasing Horse also has been charged in Canada, and prosecutors in British Columbia said once he has exhausted all of his appeals in the United States, they will move forward with assessing next steps for a 2018 sexual assault charge in Keremeos — a village about four hours east of Vancouver.

Chasing Horse has six acting credits to his name, and his last acting appearance was in the 2007 HBO film "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," which won six Emmys.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Beloved '90s comedy "Friends" may have been one big lovefest on screen — but behind the scenes, it was a toxic stew of verbal abuse and sexual harassment.

At least, this is according to one of the stars of the blockbuster ensemble sitcom, which ran on NBC from 1994 to 2004.

'We know that back in the room the guys would be up late discussing their sexual fantasies.'

Gag orders

Apparently, the same writers who came up with now-iconic lines like, "We were on a break" and "How you doin'?" had brutally high standards for how their work was performed — and weren't afraid to say so in profanity-laden tirades.

"Don't forget we were recording in front of a live audience of 400, and if you messed up one of these writers' lines or it didn't get the perfect response, they could be like, 'Can't the b***h f**king read? She's not even trying. She f**ked up my line,'" actress Lisa Kudrow told the Times.

Kudrow also claimed that the male writers openly leered over her comely co-stars.

Central perks

"We know that back in the room the guys would be up late discussing their sexual fantasies about Jennifer [Aniston] and Courteney [Cox]. It was intense," she stated.

Kudrow added that the dozen or so writers making up the staff were "mostly men."

"Oh, it could be brutal, but these guys — and it was mostly men in there — were sitting up until 3 a.m. trying to write the show, so my attitude was, 'Say what you like about me behind my back because then it doesn't matter.'"

RELATED: California doles out over $100M in taxpayer money to massive film studios

Jim Smeal/Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images

Don't call it a 'Comeback'

Kudrow made the comments while promoting the third season of her HBO series "The Comeback," which depicts the humiliating misadventures of a washed-up sitcom actress trying to reignite her career.

Kudrow said that when it debuted in 2005, HBO worried that viewers would reject its unsparing depiction of its desperate protagonist — and the pathetic lengths to which she'd go for a shot at success.

"That was news to me, because I thought women could be just as ambitious as men. But a producer on another show said it's like making jokes about disabled people. Obviously you don't do it, and at that time, women were seen as victims."

"The Comeback" was canceled after one season but returned for another in 2014.

MeToo soon?

The current season may surprise viewers with scenes mocking "gender-inclusive" language and a reference to making "illegal" jokes, but Kudrow explicitly denied that the show was hitting back at "woke" comedy or the MeToo movement.

RELATED: 'Against the Machine' offers playbook for battling leftist lies

Gary Null/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal/Getty Images

"No, because the MeToo movement was great," she said, although she did allow that "there came a point where you couldn't joke about anything. It felt like comedy was dying."

Kudrow may not always have enjoyed making "Friends," but the massive residuals she earns would put a smile on anyone's face.

The Times reported Kudrow and her castmates each still earn approximately $20 million per year.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

"Family Guy" does a spoof of "Return of the Jedi" that always makes me laugh. The characters travel the universe to meet with Rebel Alliance leader Mon Mothma, who they are surprised to discover is female.

"Hey, check it out," says Han Solo. "Another chick! The only other chick in the galaxy!"

Princess Leia looks her over, folds her arms, and says, "I don’t like her."

Feminism promised freedom; instead, it has left many woman imprisoned by their own high expectations and simmering resentment.

It’s a throwaway gag, but it nails a fundamental truth that rarely makes it into polite conversation: Feel-good female solidarity is often just a cover for fierce intra-sexual competition.

Frenemies forever

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a pub with a friend when a group of young women came in to celebrate one of them landing her dream job.

As soon as the newly employed girl went to the bathroom, the "friends" morphed into mean girls, and the gossiping began.

Understanding Gen Z colloquialisms is hard at the best of times, let alone in a noisy pub, but they were loud enough that we came to understand much about the young woman's lack of fashion sense as well as her proclivity to sleep her way into job opportunities.

The woman returned from the toilets in tears; had she somehow sensed she was being discussed? No, it turned out another "friend" had posted something nasty about her in a private group chat. Comforting words quickly ensued.

Anyone who witnessed such dynamics in the wild would not be surprised by recent findings from the British think tank Demos that half of all "misogynistic" X posts are authored by the fairer sex.

Mad about you

But this isn’t just about women being catty in bars or nasty on social media. There’s a deeper, more corrosive issue at play: a generation of women who have been indoctrinated to be angry toward everyone — especially men.

This cultural shift was recently brought to light by the left-wing New Statesman in its April cover story, “Meet the Angry Young Women.” The investigation, for which the magazine commissioned the polling firm Merlin Strategy, explores an emergent counterpart to the much-discussed manosphere: the "femosphere," in which hostility toward men is not just accepted, but encouraged.

According to the Gallup World Poll, women have been getting steadily angrier for a decade, with the gap between the sexes widening every year. But this isn’t just about righteous fury against a glass ceiling — it’s about a generation of women who have been sold a feminist dream, only to find themselves in a nightmare of their own making.

Chromosomal cartel

This transformation is clearly reflected in the latest data from King’s College London and Ipsos. The research highlights a staggering generational divide: Gen Z women are now significantly more likely to identify as feminists than any previous generation. In America, this divide is particularly acute, with 53% of Gen Z women identifying as feminists, compared to just 32% of their male counterparts. This 21-point gap — the largest of any generation in America — indicates a fundamental breakdown in the ability to find peace with the opposite sex.

We are witnessing the birth of two distinct tribes that no longer speak the same language. While young men are retreating into digital enclaves, young women have secured the high ground in the institutional capture of culture. A major study of the American publishing industry found that women hold 74% of editorial roles, 78% of literary agent positions, and 71% of publishing jobs overall, with women occupying six in 10 jobs at the executive level.

This chromosomal cartel has fostered a monoculture, leaving young male writers increasingly sidelined in an industry that often demonizes masculinity. The result? A literary and cultural landscape dominated by an embittered female perspective.

The Merlin Strategy data shows that only 35% of women under 25 have a positive opinion of men. For the youngest cohort — those under 25 — this figure drops to just 11%. Let that sink in: Nine out of 10 young women view half the population with suspicion or outright disdain.

RELATED: Did feminism create wokeness?

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Dating disaster

Feminism’s reach is now so pervasive that relationships are routinely sacrificed on the altar of political purity. According to the Merlin data, 74% of Gen Z women say they would find it difficult to date someone who did not share their views on social justice. By turning politics into a prerequisite for romance, women are effectively shrinking their dating pool to a puddle. They self-select for loneliness, then wonder why the good men have vanished into the ether.

Meanwhile, young men are reacting to this hostility by checking out entirely. The KCL data supports this: 57% of Gen Z men believe efforts to promote women’s equality have gone so far that they now discriminate against men. This isn’t incel rhetoric, it’s a rational response to a culture that treats their very existence as a problem — something to be either avoided or mocked and ridiculed into obsolescence. Additionally, the data shows a shift back to traditionalism, with 31% of these young men now agreeing that a "wife should always obey her husband."

While the media wrings its hands over this supposed "right-wing" turn, it misses the reality: This is a counterreaction. If progressive women offer only self-righteous lectures and open hostility toward men, is it any wonder men are seeking the stability of traditional social contracts?

Man down

Or even opting out of the market entirely. “Men, Where Have You Gone?” asked a middle-aged woman lamenting her paltry dating life in the New York Times last year. For many men, the essay suggested another rhetorical question in response: Why attempt to woo someone who sees you as a born oppressor?

The irony is painful. Feminism promised freedom; instead, it has left many woman imprisoned by their own high expectations and simmering resentment. Told that their anger is a source of power, they are coming to realize it can also be a force of destruction.

If it’s a truism that men need women as a civilizing influence, we spend far less time acknowledging the cruelty that can run unchecked in all-female spaces. Men and women need each other. They are natural allies — and the further apart they drift, the more disordered things become.

Former President Barack Obama is among the many liberals who had conniptions Wednesday over the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in Louisiana.

While such critics have largely spun the ruling as a setback for racial minority representation in American politics, it appears they are chiefly concerned with how the ruling might affect Democrats politically in the the midterm elections and beyond.

How it started

Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 consensus, which then-House Speaker Pro Tempore Tanner Magee (R) claimed honored "traditional boundaries."

'This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century.'

Dissatisfied that only one of the Bayou State's six congressional districts had a black majority, a group of black voters sued the state, alleging that the new 2022 congressional map diluted black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A federal judge appointed by Democrat former President Barack Obama ruled that the map likely violated the VRA and ordered the Louisiana legislature to add a second majority-black district.

Pursuant to this ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana created a map with a second majority-black district — this time prompting a legal challenge by "non-African American" voters who recognized the new map both as a racial gerrymander and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Their case, Louisiana v. Callais, ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on Wednesday that "because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

RELATED: 'Trump is racist' arguments seem to fall on deaf ears at SCOTUS TPS hearing about Haiti and Syria

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Beyond striking down the racial gerrymander in its 6-3 decision, the court provided some much-needed clarity on "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting."

Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion for the court, for example, that "interpreting §2 of the Voting Rights Act to outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the Amendment does not protect. And such an interpretation would run headlong into the Act’s express disclaimer against racial proportionality."

Alito noted further that "§2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race."

Although the court's clarifications appear aimed at providing states with guidance on how to comply with Section 2 of the VRA without unduly discriminating on the basis of race and violating the U.S. Constitution, Justice Elena Kagan alerted fellow travelers in her dissent — which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — that the ruling will supposedly impact "racial equality in electoral opportunity."

"The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter," wrote Kagan.

"If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline."

Alito found Kagan's dissent to be "unabashedly at war with key precedents."

How it's going

Obama, a champion of Virginia's recent legally dubious gerrymander whose appointee's decision in 2022 unwittingly set the stage for the SCOTUS ruling, complained on social media, "Today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of 'partisanship' rather than explicit 'racial bias.'"

Obama accused the Supreme Court's conservative majority of "abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach" and hinted that the decision could affect the upcoming midterms.

He added that "such setbacks can be overcome" but only if "citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers."

Twice-failed Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris similarly bemoaned the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it "an outrage" that "turns back the clock on the foundational promise of equality and fairness in our election systems" and that is "part of an agenda that conservatives set in place decades ago to steal power from everyday people."

'This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states.'

Like Obama, Harris expressed concern about the midterm elections and the possibility that red states will "rush to redraw districts" before voting begins.

Democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City also threw a fit online, calling the decision a "direct assault on the promise of the Voting Rights Act" that threatens to disenfranchise "millions of Americans along racial lines."

Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, a Democrat who said in 2021 that her district needs to bring in migrants to increase the population in time for redistricting, claimed in a joint statement with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus that "with the stroke of a pen, this rogue, unaccountable Court has effectively signed the death certificate of the Voting Rights Act, undoing decades of Black progress."

"Not since Jim Crow have we seen this level of systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters," said the joint statement.

Failed Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — the founder of a voter turnout group slapped last year with what the Georgia State Ethics commission said was the largest fine it has ever imposed — said in an alarmist op-ed for MS NOW that the ruling was a "direct hit" to the "fragile promise that every American's vote should carry equal weight."

"This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century," whined NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke.

"This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states to target and eradicate districts that have provided Black Americans a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice, and they will do so with the blessing of this Court."

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, characterized the 6-3 decision as "cruel" and a "significant setback for our multiracial democracy."

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat who benefited from the Bayou State's racially gerrymandered map struck down by the Supreme Court, condemned the ruling and suggested that while Louisiana now has the authority to adopt a new map, "redrawing maps at this stage would not be prudent."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fights erupted and sheriff's deputies were hurt after more than 1,000 teenagers over the weekend descended upon a Florida amusement park in a planned "takeover."

The location of the takeover was ICON Park in Orlando, and it occurred Saturday evening, WOFL-TV reported. As is often the case with such teenage takeovers of public places, word spread online about the ICON Park takeover.

'Massive amount of teenagers just flooding the streets.'

The Orange County Sheriff's Office told the station that numerous fights broke out among the teens and deputies had to step in and break them up.

Nine teenagers between the ages of 13 and 16 were arrested on charges ranging from trespassing and resisting to battery on a law enforcement officer, WOFL said.

Two deputies were hurt, taken to the hospital, and released, the station said, adding that the sheriff's office said the deputies are expected to be OK.

The sheriff’s office said that it was "aware" that some sort of event had been planned for Saturday evening at ICON Park and that several deputies were assigned there in anticipation of it, WOFL reported in a separate story.

RELATED: 'We was bored!' Hundreds of teens rampage Bronx mall, tangle with cops in planned Presidents' Day 'takeover'

Witness Virgil Goodson told the station he saw a "massive amount of teenagers just flooding the streets. The sheriff's office chasing some down, seemed chaotic in some areas; other areas, teens just walking around aimlessly."

Goodson told WOFL he noticed at one point hundreds of teens running away from the park, and he said he "didn't know if it was an active shooter." Others were unnerved, he told the station, and took cover and ran inside businesses.

Another consequence stemming from the teen takeover is a new ICON Park chaperone policy requiring adult supervision for minors, the station said.

Park attendees 17 and younger must have a parent or guardian who is at least 21 years old with them to enter and stay at ICON Park, WOFL said. One chaperone can accompany up to six kids into the park and must stay with them during the entire visit, the station said.

What's more, ICON Park warned parents and guardians that they may be held legally liable for what minors do while under their supervision, WOFL said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Senate race in Maine just got a surprise shakeup as election season draws near.

Incumbent Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills announced on Thursday that she will be dropping out of the Senate race.

'I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources.'

Mills announced that she will be suspending her campaign while touting her achievements, which she said have ultimately been frustrated "by a Republican administration that is blind to science, deaf to the cries of those in need of medical care, and ignorant of the needs of regular families."

In her statement, she continued: "While I have the drive and passion, commitment and experience, and above all else — the fight — to continue on, I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources. That is why today I have made the incredibly difficult decision to suspend my campaign for the United States Senate."

RELATED: 2 more staffers ditch Graham Platner's troubled Senate campaign amid Nazi, communism scandals

Graham PlatnerSophie Park/Getty Images

Janet Mills is currently 78 years old. Had she been elected, she would have been one of the oldest freshman senators in history.

Despite being a favorite at the beginning of the race, Mills fell behind in the polls and in fundraising compared to her Democratic primary opponent, far-left progressive candidate Graham Platner. The Maine primary election is scheduled for June 9.

Mills stepping away from the race likely sets up Platner to face Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins in the general election.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A battle over America's roads is unfolding in the Supreme Court, where demands for accountability clash with efforts to deregulate the industry, as the national spotlight remains on accidents caused by non-domiciled, non-English-speaking truck drivers.

The court's ruling could have major implications for the more than 150,000 Americans injured and the over 5,000 killed in large truck accidents each year, by potentially stripping or safeguarding the legal recourse available to victims and their families.

'Remove any legal accountability for brokers, and you remove the incentive for them to care.'

SCOTUS heard oral arguments on March 4 in the case of Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, which involves a December 2017 collision between two semi-trucks: one operated by the plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, and the other by an individual employed by Caribe Transport II, a small motor carrier hired by broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide.

The complaint explains that Montgomery was parked on the shoulder of Interstate Highway 70 in Cumberland County, Illinois, when another truck rear-ended his vehicle at high speed, resulting in severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of Montgomery's leg.

Montgomery's lawsuit was filed against the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson. He accused C.H. Robinson of "negligent hiring," citing Illinois common law. His case reached the Supreme Court after a lower court moved to dismiss it, arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act bars state-level negligence suits against brokers — third-party providers that connect shippers with carriers without owning trucks or hauling freight themselves — for their carrier selections.

The ongoing case has caught the attention of those in the trucking industry who are concerned that a SCOTUS ruling in favor of C.H. Robinson would set a precedent that prevents crash victims and their families from seeking legal recourse against brokers.

While President Donald Trump's administration has been receptive to concerns about reforming the nation's broken trucking industry, the U.S. position in the Montgomery v. Caribe case indicates a potential shift.

RELATED: DOT's Duffy earns high praise from American truckers for turning industry concerns into real policy wins

Luke Sharrett/Getty Images

Trump's Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief supporting C.H. Robinson, arguing that the FAAAA preempts any state law related to the "price, route, or service" of a broker. This, the DOJ claimed, includes how brokers select carriers. Although the rule carves out a safety exception allowing states to enforce such laws, the U.S. government contended that the exception does not apply to this case.

The U.S. argues that brokers are already required to select an authorized motor carrier, which means that the carrier has met the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's "rigorous safety standards." Allowing such lawsuits against freight brokers would "require brokers to second-guess federal registration decisions and independently evaluate the safety history of the carriers they select."

"A judgment for petitioner on that claim would thus necessarily impugn Caribe's overall operations, thereby undermining FMCSA's determination that Caribe satisfies federal registration requirements, including rigorous safety requirements," the U.S. amicus brief reads.

American Truckers United, an advocacy group, warned that if SCOTUS agreed with the U.S. government's argument and ruled in favor of the respondent, it could allow freight brokers to have "blanket immunity" when selecting unsafe and high-risk carriers, leading to a "race to the bottom."

ATU filed its own amicus brief, urging SCOTUS to side with Montgomery.

"If brokers are immunized from tort liability, they will have an unrestrained incentive to hire the cheapest motor carriers available for every load, regardless of poor safety records, regulatory non-compliance, defective equipment, and other red flags. Low-cost, low-quality carriers will completely displace safe carriers in the market," ATU wrote.

ATU noted that many carriers maintain only the minimum required liability insurance, which covers just a small portion of the cost for crash victims and their families. The group also pointed out the FMCSA's lack of resources to keep up with the "chameleon carrier" crisis, explaining that when carriers lose their operating authority due to noncompliance, they "dissolve, reincarnate themselves under new identities, and reenter the market."

A separate amicus brief filed by the Institute for Safer Trucking on behalf of Montgomery wrote, "The reality of the compliance-review scheme is bleak. FMCSA is apparently unable to conduct compliance reviews of carriers within a reasonable time. More than ninety-four percent of all active interstate freight carriers remain 'unrated' as of 2023."

The FMCSA has previously admitted its limitations. In a 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FMCSA stated that it "has resources to issue safety ratings to only a small percentage of motor carriers each year," adding that the agency's rating "does not necessarily reflect the current safety posture of a motor carrier."

FMCSA officials said that "they do not have the resources to vet all for-hire carriers that apply for new operating authority," according to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report.

The Truck Safety Coalition, a network of victim and survivor volunteers, also filed an amicus brief supporting Montgomery that referred to freight brokers as “gatekeepers in determining who hauls freight on the roadways and who doesn’t.” The TSC stated that the industry has exploded in recent decades, from just 70 brokers in 1975 to over 28,000 today.

Rena Leizerman, from the Law Firm for Truck Safety and co-counsel for Montgomery, told Blaze News in a statement, “Broker negligence lawsuits aren't filed in every crash. They get filed when there's evidence that a broker hired someone with a known, serious safety history and chose to look the other way.”

“C.H. Robinson argued to the court that it should be completely off the hook for negligence. No exceptions. Not even if it knowingly hires a carrier with no insurance. Not even if the carrier isn't legally registered to operate. Not even if it already knows the carrier has a dangerous record. Zero accountability, no matter what,” Leizerman’s statement continued.

“Brokers make money on the gap between what shippers pay them and what they pay the carrier. The wider the gap, the more profit. So they push carrier rates down, and carriers survive by cutting costs — driver screening, safety training, equipment upkeep, insurance — until the day everything goes wrong.

“Remove any legal accountability for brokers, and you remove the incentive for them to care. Safe carriers, the ones who invest in doing things right, end up getting underbid by carriers who skip basic safety. It's a race to the bottom, and it's the rest of us sharing the road who pay the price,” she added.

Dorothy Capers, chief legal officer at C.H. Robinson, also provided a statement to Blaze News.

"A single, uniform federal framework is essential to keeping interstate commerce safe, efficient, and consistent with Congress' design," Capers said. "Allowing a patchwork of state tort laws to regulate broker services would undermine that system, increase uncertainty, and disrupt the flow of goods Americans rely on every day."

RELATED: 'Use my daughter as an example': Trump DHS cheers as bill to stop illegal alien truck drivers crosses major hurdle

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Real-world impact

The stakes of the pending Montgomery case are already playing out in the nation’s courtrooms.

On May 24, 2024, a semi-truck driver allegedly blew through a stop sign on U.S. 84 in Texas, killing 28-year-old Tiana Moore and her mother, Tanya Maria King. Moore’s family sued the driver, the carrier, and the freight broker that had hired the carrier.

When the case was about to go to trial, the broker, citing the ongoing Montgomery case before the Supreme Court, requested and received a stay, leaving the family in limbo.

Moore's father, David Moore, spoke to Blaze News about the tragic accident. He expressed his goal of raising awareness to inspire policy changes and help the American public understand how regulations affecting the trucking industry impact lives nationwide.

"The impact that it's really had on our lives, and even this ongoing process, it's been, obviously, the most difficult thing that I've ever had to deal with — and not just me, but my family," David Moore said.

Ultimately, the Moore case was closed a short time later when the parties reached a confidential settlement. While in this instance the family was able to reach an agreement outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Montgomery case will determine whether crash victims and their families retain or lose a major avenue for accountability in the future.

SCOTUS is expected to give a decision in the Montgomery case by June.

The Department of Transportation deferred comment to the Department of Justice, which stated it had no further remarks beyond its amicus brief.

Legal counsel for Caribe Transport II did not respond to requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An illegal immigrant was able to fool U.S. Border Patrol into thinking he was one of them before they nabbed him for impersonating a federal officer.

Fifty-two-year-old Jaime Ernesto Alvarez-Gonzalez is a Mexican national who overstayed his tourist visa decades ago, but he dressed up to appear like a federal agent and drove a truck that was taken to be the real deal.

He 'shouted obscenities and demanded agents leave ...' before other cars arrived to chase and harass agents.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California said that on January 8, Alvarez-Gonzalez followed a Border Patrol agent in San Diego, which led to disruption of the mission.

The legitimate BP agent falsely believed the truck behind him was being driven by other federal officers, but Alvarez-Gonzalez was actually driving it.

After Alvarez-Gonzalez was confronted by legitimate officers, he "shouted obscenities and demanded agents leave the community of Linda Vista" before other cars arrived to chase and harass agents, the attorney's office press release said.

Alvarez-Gonzalez admitted on video what he had done and claimed to have called in his "reinforcements."

Prosecutors said he had an FBI badge and had outfitted his black F-150 truck with a fake antenna, handcuffs dangling from the rearview mirror, and a Border Patrol sticker in the windshield. The license plate frame also could have tipped off the real officers because it read, "Ferderal Truck."

A week after the incident, he was arrested over his illegal immigration status and pleaded guilty on Tuesday to numerous charges related to the incident.

He was found to be illegally in possession of two pistols and an AR-style rifle.

Alvarez-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to three charges of illegally possessing firearms and one count of impersonating a federal agent. He faces a fine of up to $500,000 as well as 18 years in prison.

RELATED: Church worker pretended to be ICE agent to extort $500 from massage therapist, police say

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters have been organizing to interrupt federal immigration operations, but in two cases in Minnesota, the ultimate outcomes were lethal.

Alex Pretti and Renee Good were shot and killed by agents in separate incidents when they tried to interfere with immigration operations. The incidents led to an agreement between local officials and the Trump administration to end the federal surge in the state.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Discussing America's obesity epidemic feels as fresh as a gas-station sushi roll. We've had the headlines, the task forces, the Michelle Obama gardens, the lurid rise and fall of Jared-from-Subway. Every few years, medicine rediscovers the problem like a dog finding the same buried bone and acting stunned.

But researchers in Europe recently dug up something new. They studied hundreds of patients and found that obesity doesn't affect men and women the same way. It may be the same condition, but it runs on a different operating system and has a different damage report.

In short, men carry the problem where a tape measure finds it. Women carry it where only a lab result does.

Gut feeling

Men tend to pack fat deep in the abdomen. I’m talking about visceral fat, the kind that wraps around your organs like a tenant who stopped paying rent and refuses to leave. That fat is clinically nasty. It hammers the liver and wrecks metabolic function; it lays the groundwork for cardiovascular disease and has been convincingly linked to several cancers.

Women, by contrast, carry less of that abdominal load but show higher cholesterol and elevated inflammatory markers. Essentially, immune signals run hotter than they should and the biochemical alarm system never fully shuts off. The damage is systemic rather than structural. It’s less visible, but no less serious.

In short, men carry the problem where a tape measure finds it. Women carry it where only a lab result does.

If that sounds abstract, just picture your last family reunion. Or, if you want a more vivid case study, picture mine.

Family size

Obesity runs deep on both sides of my family. I mean that genetically, medically, and architecturally. Planning any gathering requires a kind of pre-event logistics that most people reserve for moving furniture or evacuating a small country. I have relatives who have single-handedly retired the booth as a viable seating option.

Virtually every family has the same cast, even if the staging varies. There's the uncle who describes himself as "big-boned" with the confidence of someone who has never once questioned that assessment. He has a belt buckle working well beyond its original job description and a firm belief that his blood pressure is "probably fine." There's the aunt who demolished two bowls of pasta, declared herself "stuffed," and is now on her third glass of wine, eyeing that slice of cake with the focused intensity of someone who has already decided.

His and hers

Conversations about self-respect and restraint matter. So does the fact that American health culture has failed both sexes spectacularly. We have had decades of treating obesity as a single, uniform problem with a single, uniform fix: Eat less. Move more. Have you considered a run? A juice cleanse? Intermittent fasting? Have you tried being less stressed? Have you tried drinking more water? Have you tried just trying harder?

The endless questions and secondhand advice land with the precision of a motivational poster and the clinical usefulness of a fortune cookie, while ignoring what estrogen and testosterone are actually doing to fat distribution and inflammation.

The European researchers make the obvious point that treatment should probably reflect this — targeted clinical approaches rather than the one-size-fits-all pamphlet model that has served us so poorly for so long. Men may need earlier metabolic intervention. Women may need more attention paid to the signals that get waved off as stress, hormones, or simply the price of admission for being female.

RELATED: Sick and tired of the lies? Here are 14 food brands you can trust.

Blaze Media

Heavy going

Today, roughly 43% of American adults are obese. By the end of the decade, that number is expected to climb to nearly half, including close to one in four who will have severe obesity.

The children are worth mentioning. Around one-third of American kids between 6 and 17 are living with obesity or excess weight. Fat children tend to become even fatter adults, and the research on that pipeline is neither new nor ambiguous. These statistics arrive with enormous economic weight. Hundreds of billions in health care costs, lost productivity, and a medical system already struggling to keep pace with demand. This is a genuine crisis, and it deserves a serious response.

The study's real contribution isn't discovering that obesity exists, but insisting that obesity has never been one thing. It has always been at least two — running parallel, wearing the same label, causing different problems on different timelines in different bodies.

That distinction matters in the clinic. It matters in the conversation. And it matters every time someone who once lost eight pounds on a juice cleanse corners people at a cookout with personalized nutrition guidance that nobody requested and biology can’t honor. Good intentions and bad information have always made a combustible combination. In this case, they have been making policy for decades.

When NewsNation anchor Katie Pavlich sat down at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, she was not expecting to end up on the ground as yet another would-be assassin attempted to take the president out.

And looking back on the events of that night, Pavlich tells Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Program” that she’s feeling “anger and frustration that this continues to happen.”

“Being in the room and watching Karoline Leavitt, who’s nine months pregnant, have to be taken out of the room because there’s someone outside trying to assassinate her boss and the people she works with and … it’s just infuriating that this continues to be something that is acceptable,” she explains.

Pavlich also notes that the security surrounding the dinner was not nearly strong enough.

“I thought going into the night that security was going to be tough, that it would take me an hour to get into the hotel. It was not tough at all,” she tells Glenn. “I walked by those same protesters … with their Palestinian flags, and they were screaming that they hoped our dresses were ruined, that our night was ruined, that we were fascists.”

While security was lacking, Pavlich did notice that the president was evacuated “very quickly” and the situation seemed to be under control moments after it began.

“When I heard the shots, to me, it sounded like a controlled situation, because it ended quickly. There was not a real exchange of gunfire. It was not something that continued. There were five shots, when you listened to the audio, and it was over,” Pavlich explains.

“So, to me, that indicated that Secret Service or some other law enforcement agency that was there had handled the situation and it was not in the room,” she continues, pointing out that there was also some “sporadic” Wi-Fi access.

“When the president is in the room, they usually shut all of that stuff down so nobody can activate a bomb using cell service,” Glenn chimes in.

“There’s so many questions here about the security,” Pavlich agrees.

“I just think it’s a miracle that he was an amateur,” she adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Christians were told in the first century that the world that hated and persecuted their Savior would similarly hate and persecute them. This divine counsel certainly holds up two millennia later.

'The Biden administration was willing to tolerate Christians up to a point.'

According to the watchdog group Open Doors, over 315 million Christians today face very high or extreme persecution, with thousands murdered yearly over their faith. While the top 10 worst countries for Christians are all in Africa, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, Christians are also routinely subjected to violent attacks, discrimination, and state suppression in purportedly civilized Western nations.

In America, for instance, hostility toward Christians, their faith, and their institutions came to a head during the Biden administration, which not only turned a blind eye to a rash of anti-Christian attacks but adopted policies that formalized the underlying animus.

Seeking to "end the anti-Christian weaponization of government and unlawful conduct targeting Christians" and rectify the wrongs committed by his predecessor's government, President Donald Trump established the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias last year.

Camille Varone, senior counsel at the Justice Department, gave Allie Beth Stuckey, host of BlazeTV's "Relatable," an exclusive look this week at the culmination of the task force's efforts to date: a damning report detailing both the anti-Christian bias propagated by the federal government during the Biden administration and what the Trump administration has done and is doing to protect Americans' religious liberties.

"The Biden administration used transgenderism as an excuse, as a justification, for discriminating against Christian doctors, medical facilities, against churches, against Catholic schools, specifically," Stuckey said in summary. "And then, of course, there was the targeting of the pro-lifers. Even within the DOJ, there was an attitude of anti-Christian discrimination and the feeling that Christians really didn't count as a protected class, and that manifested itself in very real, illegal prejudice against Christians."

RELATED: The anti-Christian myth of First Amendment 'neutrality'

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

"What we found is that across the board, the Biden administration was willing to tolerate Christians up to a point, and that was when they held their views privately or in the four walls of their churches," Varone told Stuckey.

"When Christians were trying to live out their faith — to see where the Bible, where religious tradition should inform how they actually, you know, went to school, went to work — that's where they ran into policy issues."

Varone — drawing from the findings of the 200-page written report, which is accompanied by over 300 pages of receipts plus thousands of footnotes — highlighted in her conversation with Stuckey numerous anti-Christian governmental abuses and policies advanced under President Joe Biden, who professes to be Catholic, including how Biden's

• DOJ pursued aggressive prosecutions against nonviolent, pro-life Christian demonstrators under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act while taking a markedly less enthusiastic approach to holding leftists, such as members of Jane's Revenge, responsible for attacks against pregnancy resource centers;
• Internal Revenue Service apparently targeted churches and Christian organizations whose religious values aligned with conservative political views but did not similarly hound churches where progressive views and Democratic causes were championed;
• administration, working off a liberal reading of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, sought to mandate the adoption of its views on sexual preferences and gender ideology; and
• administration ran roughshod over "sincere religious objections" to the COVID-19 vaccines.

The report also details how Biden's

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented a rule requiring employers — including Christian organizations — to accommodate workers' efforts to abort their unborn children;
• FBI investigated, surveilled, and stigmatized law-abiding traditional Catholics, in part due to bogus claims from the scandal-plagued Southern Poverty Law Center; and
• Department of Health and Human Services attempted to bar Christian providers and would-be parents who hold biblical and scientifically grounded views about sex and marriage from the foster-care system.

The task force reached the conclusion that "in its zealous pursuit of its preferred policies and constituents, the Biden administration engaged in anti-Christian bias, seeking to limit Christians’ ability to act in concert with their sincerely held beliefs in their homes, in the workplace, and in the public square. At times, it went still further, leading Christians to reportedly choose between their beliefs and compliance with federal law."

Stuckey asserted that "this should really disturb everyone" regardless of whether they're a Christian.

Varone agreed, reiterating, "What we found here really should disturb everyone who holds religious beliefs because if the government can do that against a majority group, nobody's rights are safe under that kind of system."

"No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, chair of the task force, said in a statement.

"As our report lays out, the Biden administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans," continued Blanche. "That devastation ended with President Trump. The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith."

Stuckey expressed gratitude that people are being "aware that things like this are happening," in part because it "encourages us to know our constitutional rights, and that can only be a win."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republicans are raising alarms about new vehicle safety requirements that could introduce intrusive monitoring technology — including systems capable of disabling a car against a driver’s will.

The mandate stems from a provision in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, made law under President Biden, which requires automakers to install advanced impaired-driving prevention technology in new vehicles by 2027.

'The car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner.'

Critics argue that the implications go far beyond safety.

Judge, jury, and executioner

“The car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been one of the most vocal opponents of the measure.

Section 24220 of the law — titled “Advanced Impaired Driving Technology” — directs regulators to require systems designed to prevent drunk-driving fatalities. As Blaze News has previously reported, the technology under consideration includes both passive and active monitoring tools, many powered by artificial intelligence.

These may include infrared cameras that track a driver’s eye movements and pupil dilation, as well as “cockpit-embedded sensors” capable of analyzing a driver’s breath to estimate blood alcohol levels. Other proposed methods include touch-based sensors that use tissue spectroscopy to detect alcohol through the skin of a finger or palm.

“I voted against this,” said Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), criticizing the measure. “Unfortunately, too many Republicans sided with Democrats and it passed.”

RELATED: Creepy new laws will mean your car monitors you 24/7 — eyes, skin, even breath

I voted against this. Unfortunately, too many Republicans sided with Democrats and it passed. https://t.co/phZLQJAZ0d
— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) April 27, 2026Designated driver

Massie has warned that the technology could extend beyond detecting impairment to evaluating driving behavior more broadly.

“The car itself will monitor your driving. And if the car thinks that you're not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself,” he said in remarks to Congress.

“How do you appeal your sentence once your car ... has judged you to be incapable of driving? ... Do you press a button on the dashboard? Do you start talking to an AI?”

He also questioned how authorities would respond to false positives, asking whether law enforcement would be dispatched to assist drivers whose vehicles are mistakenly disabled.

“The technology is unworkable,” Massie said.

RELATED: FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock

- YouTube

Kill bill

He later introduced legislation to block federal funding for the provision, including any requirements that could enable so-called “kill switch” capabilities in vehicles.

The bill failed in the House, with 57 Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. Four Democrats — Luis Correa (Calif.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Valerie Hoyle (Ore.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) — voted in favor.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

They're starting to fall like dominoes in North Carolina.

A second North Carolina state representative from Mecklenburg County, Rep. Nasif Majeed, has officially left the Democratic Party. Last week, news broke that state Rep. Carla Cunningham had changed her voter registration to "unaffiliated."

'I have witnessed and experienced actions within the political landscape that I believe could be perceived as misleading or inconsistent with the spirit of fair elections.'

On Monday, Majeed confirmed that he has followed suit.

"After deep reflection and conversations with constituents across District 99, I have made the decision to disaffiliate from the Democratic Party and serve as an Independent," he said in a press release, according to WBTV.

"This decision is rooted in my responsibility to represent people — not party agendas — and to remain grounded in integrity, fairness, and truth," he added.

"I have witnessed and experienced actions within the political landscape that I believe could be perceived as misleading or inconsistent with the spirit of fair elections. I cannot, in good conscience, remain aligned where those concerns are not adequately addressed."

Like Cunningham, Majeed is viewed as a more conservative Democrat, voting to override vetoes from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein. Cunningham voted to override a veto of the Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act, while Majeed voted to override the veto of a bill condemned by LGBTQ+ activists because it formally recognizes only two genders.

Both of those veto-overrides were successful, and the bills are now law in North Carolina.

RELATED: Elected Democrat leaves party after standing up for Americans over illegal aliens

Also like Cunningham, Majeed lost his re-election bid last month when he was trounced in the Democratic primary for the District 99 seat. Challenger Valeria Levy garnered 69% of the vote to Majeed's paltry 26%.

Majeed has represented District 99 since 2019. Cunningham has represented District 106 since 2013. Both will serve out their terms but will be unable to run as an independent candidate for their respective districts in November.

North Carolina House Democratic Leader Robert Reives suggested he harbors no hard feelings over the defections.

"During their years in public office Representatives Majeed and Cunningham have voted on bills according to their values and I expect they will continue to do so," Reives said in a statement released Monday, according to NC Newsline. "I value their friendship and look forward to continuing to serve with them."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fairfax, Virginia, has had four homicides so far in 2026. Three out of the four were committed by illegal immigrants.

One, the case of Abdul Jalloh, underlines everything wrong with the approach the left has taken to illegal immigration. Jalloh, who hails from Sierra Leone, illegally entered the United States in 2012 and proceeded to commit dozens of crimes, including assault, rape, and theft.

Eventually, he was caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and locked up for roughly two years while awaiting deportation. But in 2020, a judge ruled he could not be deported to his home country. He was free to go, as ICE could not find someone willing to take him.

It is a recognition that Aztec-style sacrifice of the innocent is not necessary to make the rain fall that has empowered nationalists across the West.

Six years later, he killed Stephanie Minter, a mom waiting at a bus stop.

In the aftermath, Minter’s family and Republicans turned their attention to Fairfax County’s District Attorney Steve Descano for having refused to work with ICE and for his extraordinarily light sentences for illegal immigrants, with many highlighting his statement, “If two people commit the same crime, but only one’s punishment includes deportation, that’s a perversion of justice.”

Descano has been called to testify in front of Congress in mid-May to explain his policies. During his hearing, a particular term may be mentioned: suicidal empathy.

Suicidal empathy is a term, popularized by Dr. Gad Saad, commonly used by the Western right as a catch-all for the liberal idea that the importation of potentially dangerous immigrants is a good thing because not doing so would be cruel.

If you do not support mass immigration, legal or otherwise, the thinking goes, you don’t have a heart.

Politicians have been espousing this sentiment for a long time. In 2014, Jeb Bush famously called illegal immigration “an act of love.”

This way of thinking has also dominated Western establishments for some time, even though concerns were obvious. Right from the start of the migration crisis in 2015, new arrivals were causing trouble. Assaults, rapes, and murders that would never have occurred started happening with frightening regularity. Now 11 years later, migrant rape stories have become a part of life there.

And yet, establishments resist any sort of mass deportation because the countries from which they come are “unsafe,” and it would be inhumane to send them there.

Conservatives do themselves and their societies a disservice by portraying this supposed empathy as “suicidal.” It’s not: It’s homicidal. “Suicidal empathy” invokes self-sacrifice. The people are so empathetic that they are willing to risk their lives — the chance that invading migrants may hurt or kill them — or destroy their society.

But this is not really true, as your average pro-migrant liberal is likely not risking his or her life. While migrants rape and kill at startlingly high rates — as just one example, in 2023, foreigners committed 100% of “serious sexual crimes” in Frankfurt, Germany — the odds of any liberal voter being the person who is targeted is relatively low.

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

For example, rape in England and Wales was once consistently low. But right when mass migration happened, it skyrocketed, rising over 300%. In 2024, non-German suspects committed nearly 40% of all rapes, over 4,430 — roughly 12 women a day. But because there are millions of English and German women, the odds of any single person being attacked is small.

However, it is going to happen to someone. Those who oppose mass deportations understand this on some level. But they dismiss its importance, as they believe it is the only way for society to function.

Conservatives often misunderstand where this thinking comes from, chalking it up to a secret plot by a combination of George Soros, his son, and other Antifa funders. To be clear, these networks exist. But they are not why your average liberal is OK with mass rape and murder having arrived on their shores.

To understand why, one must look to history. Specifically, the Aztecs.

The Aztecs sacrificed tens of thousands of people, often cutting the hearts out of still-living individuals. This was done to please the gods and to ensure everything continued as necessary. Children, burned alive, were first tortured so that they would cry, as their tears were believed to satiate the needs of the rain god.

Today’s liberal internationalism — the driving force behind allowing mass migration — is based on the same principles. Mass migration allows for UberEATS and Door Dash. It lets you hire cheap labor. The women of "The View" asking conservatives who will clean their toilets are not representatives of the extreme left-wing: They are in lock-step with the ideology that has ruled the West for the past 30 years.

RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide

Blaze Media Illustration

In the minds of liberal internationalists, the UberEATS driver and the lawn mower have a better life because of their minimum wage (or lower) jobs. The Vietnamese child in the shoe factory is making 10 cents a day — five cents more than if he were working another job!

So it is with those who are sacrificed to migration. Yes, those few who are raped or killed are unfortunates, but they at least get to live in a melting pot after they’ve been sexually assaulted. As Piers Morgan recently argued, he gets to live in a society with tikka masala. (Morgan, of course, has paid security guards and is under no threat.)

It is a recognition that Aztec-style sacrifice of the innocent is not necessary to make the rain fall that has empowered nationalists across the West. Even when they have lost, in places like Poland or Hungary, their successors have mostly kept strict anti-migrant policies intact.

Abdul Jalloh should never have been in the United States, and deportation should have been easy. If Sierra Leone did not want him back, it should not have mattered.

The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world. If Washington wants to return criminals to their home countries, it has the power to do so.

This homicidal empathy has real victims, and their numbers increase by the day. The right must not let its left-wing opposites get away with viewing themselves as suicidal. They are not risking their own lives. They are arguing for the homicide of others.

A former cheerleading coach has been sentenced to nearly 200 years in prison after being convicted for sexual abuse of 10 girls, the youngest of which was 9 years old.

Erick Joseph Kristianson sexually assaulted the girls in Orange County, California, beginning as far back as 1998, according to prosecutors.

'Because of the rejection and stonewalling, I spiraled. ... I wanted to die. I hated myself.'

Kristianson was convicted of 23 felony counts of child sexual assault and faced 105 years in prison, according to a previous statement from Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, as previously reported by Blaze News.

After considering the facts of the case, Kristianson was sentenced to 174 years and 4 months in prison by Orange County Superior Court Judge Kevin Haskins.

Kristianson's accusers began to speak out about their abuse after he was arrested for similar charges against four children between 11 and 13 years old in Daytona Beach, Florida, in 2022. The victims were all members of a competitive cheer club he coached.

Some of the victims were targeted while they were on cheerleading squads at Trabuco Hills High School as well as the Magic All-Stars in California.

One victim testified about the emotional toll from the sexual abuse by Kristianson when she was 14 years old.

"One minute I was the happiest I've ever been in love, and the next moment, I was discarded," the victim said.

"Because of the rejection and stonewalling, I spiraled. ... I wanted to die. I hated myself," she added.

Another victim called him a "monster" and a "wolf in sheep's clothing." At least two of the victims fell into drug and alcohol abuse as a result of the sexual assault they suffered.

Kristianson's family members asked for lenience based on the ages of the crimes as well as his reported good behavior in Indiana, where he resided since his arrest.

His mother claimed, "He is a caring, loving person,'' and said he shouldn't be judged on actions from "twenty-some years ago.''

RELATED: 4 teachers and 1 cop in small Alabama town arrested over child pornography, police say

Deputy District Attorney Juliet Oliver argued against them, saying, "Despite the amount of time passed, the trauma these victims have experienced is real."

Kristianson was originally from Antioch, Tennessee.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is back again with yet another case of suspected H-1B fraud in the state of Texas.

This investigation took Sara to the city of Allen to a day care called “Allen Infant Care Center” and its neighboring autism behavioral therapy clinic, “DFW ABA Center” — both of which are owned by Golden Qi Holdings LLC.

When Sara visited these two locations, she witnessed the same thing she’s been seeing in these investigations: nothing — no people, no operations, no anything but empty facilities.

And yet according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, collectively these two businesses have sponsored at least 37 H-1B workers and filed more than 50 labor condition applications since their openings.

“The thing that is so curious about this one, when you go digging in the data and the LCAs, is that you wouldn't think that a day-care center would need market research analysts or supply chain analysts,” says Sara, “and yet this company actually told the United States government that they needed foreign workers to fill those jobs.”

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara brings her audience along as she busts what appears to be another potential H-1B scam in Texas.

During her investigation, Sara happened to run into a whistleblower, who gave her the insider scoop on the alleged sham companies.

The whistleblower claims a man named Yao is behind a pay-to-play visa scheme, allegedly selling visas to foreigners.

“I know that he has sponsored people with visas, and then he gets them to work for him for next to nothing,” the whistleblower said, noting that these recipients are from “families of means” and are able to pay $20,000 for their visas.

“Someone's paying their rent, paying their car payments and all of that stuff, because when they’re working here, they're not earning enough to make rent. So the arrangement is made in China. … Once they get here, he either puts them to work for cheap, or they set about trying to find work where someone will genuinely sponsor them,” the whistleblower continued, adding that most of these people are young, highly educated women here on student visas.

The whistleblower also told Sara that Mr. Yao’s father is “high up in the [Chinese] government.”

“What turned me was seeing how much — I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars — for PPP loans. … Then there was another handout from Texas Workforce Commission for child care centers,” the whistleblower continues.

But despite these substantial government assistance programs, Mr. Yao, argues the whistleblower, has used “none of it” on anything related to the day care or autism center.

Sara then did what she always does: confront the alleged culprit.

In the next part of the video, she speaks with Mr. Yao, who is driving a metallic BMW sports car, and asks him to explain his visa sponsorships and share his public access files.

After an unsuccessful back-and-forth, Mr. Yao failed to answer any questions and promised his attorney would call.

Afterward, Sara did some more digging and found even more suspicious information.

“They had PPP loans in both the first and second round of the loans given and forgiven upwards of $100,000. They had a 2022 bankruptcy filing. On top of that, a lot of their employees are listed elsewhere, including Los Angeles, California,” she says. “I'm not sure what someone living in L.A. could actually do for a day-care center, but I'd like to find out.”

“Interestingly enough, there was one LCA that was filed that, I guess, would fit the vibe of this place for a kindergarten teacher, but then the obvious question becomes: Why would you need to import a foreign kindergarten teacher? You can't find any here?” she asks.

Sara vows to send all of the information she has gathered on Mr. Yao and his businesses to her contacts at the USCIS and the Department of Labor.

“We’re going to get you,” she warned Mr. Yao as he drove away.

To see the footage of Sara’s reporting, watch the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Donald Trump has survived another assassination attempt from a deranged progressive. Thankfully, Cole Allen was never able to get a clear shot at the president, but the fact that another radical leftist managed to smuggle a long gun into the event site should alarm everyone. Despite multiple attempts on Trump’s life and the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, progressives have only intensified their rhetoric, including open calls for violence. Democrats are not interested in turning down the temperature or abandoning political violence; they are only disappointed that the “lone wolves” they inspired have been unsuccessful. Progressives see political violence as their birthright and will not stop deploying it unless they are stopped with immediate and severe consequences.

While Democrats will deliver tired platitudes about political violence having no place in our country, the truth is that violence has been central to their strategy for a long time. From the race riots of the 1960s to the terror bombings of the 1970s to modern-day assassinations, leftists have regularly wielded violence. It is comforting to pretend that our political system is one in which peaceful negotiation and intellectual debate drive every outcome, but that simply is not the case. Whether it’s the intimidation of Supreme Court justices or the shooting of members of Congress, Democrats understand the power of violence and do not hesitate to use it.

The Trump administration has not undertaken any serious action after multiple attempts on the president’s life or the successful murder of Charlie Kirk.

Violence is the ultimate political argument, the most powerful tool one can deploy in furthering one's cause. This is why our founding fathers referred to the revolution as an "Appeal to Heaven," the final attempt to secure their rights as Englishmen when all else had failed. Violence is powerful but destabilizing; no one wants to live in a constant state of war, where every political and personal disagreement is resolved by force. That is why the first duty of the state is to secure a monopoly on sanctioned violence, taking that powerful but dangerous weapon off the table.

Some political systems believe the civil magistrate has been granted stewardship over violence by God; others see it as a social contract in which we collectively give up our right to violence in exchange for the protection of the state. However you frame it, a monopoly on violence is critical to maintaining order. A country that allows other entities inside its jurisdiction to use violence, like gangs or cartels, is generally considered a failed state because the citizens cannot rely on the government to maintain order. The population will feel compelled to go outside the sanctioned system to meet their security needs, and whoever reliably delivers on those needs tends to become the new government.

This might all sound obvious, but in the modern world, it must be repeated because we have lost touch with this basic truth. America and much of the Western world have been safe and stable for so long that we have forgotten the historical norm. Free debate and inquiry leading to a democratic consensus that is then peacefully enacted by a civilian government is fantastic, but it is far from the standard throughout history. Amazingly, we have been able to enjoy this extended period of stability, but it can also blind us to reality when the nature of our situation changes.

The cliché is that violence is never the answer; the truth is that violence is the ultimate answer, and we forget that at our own peril. That is why the state must take violence off the table by maintaining its monopoly on violence. Once violence is introduced into the equation, it quickly spreads across all domains because it outcompetes all other political strategies. In an orderly society, political violence must carry the ultimate taboo, not because it does not work, but because it works all too well.

The January 6 protest was far from the violent insurrection the media portrayed it as; those entering the Capitol did not have guns, but the Biden administration did not play games. The regime did not stop at arresting those who entered the building; they arrested people outside, they arrested people who had discussions with those who went in, they arrested people who were hundreds of miles away but could tangentially be connected. One can disagree with those arrests, but the message was clear — we have the monopoly on violence, and if you even imply that you will take some form of kinetic action, you will be crushed.

The Trump administration has not undertaken any serious action after multiple attempts on the president’s life or the successful murder of Charlie Kirk. In fact, the murder of Kirk might have been the most successful political assassination in American history. It threw the right into disarray, derailing the MAGA agenda and causing conservatives to collapse into a civil war. The fact that the latest assassination attempt came just days after the administration finally took its first serious action against a progressive organization like the Southern Poverty Law Center cannot go unnoticed.

Many conservatives seem to have already internalized regular assassination attempts as part of day-to-day American politics in the same way they have accepted frequent race riots deployed by the left. Lazy speeches about double standards and hypocrisy are delivered to shame the left into better behavior, but this is delusional. Democrats have had a monopoly on political violence for decades, and they are fully aware of what an enormous advantage that is. There is zero chance of progressives yielding such a powerful tool simply because someone delivered a lecture on the importance of democratic norms. The left will stop being violent when it pays a January 6-style price for it and not one minute before.

In all fairness to the Trump administration, this is a problem it inherited, not one it created. The left has had the exclusive right to domestic political violence for at least 70 years, and except for Richard Nixon, no Republican president has taken that issue seriously. Progressives now see exclusive access to violence as their natural birthright, and many conservatives seem to agree. But while Trump did not create this state of affairs, he also cannot allow it to remain in place. Something must change, and it must change drastically, because leftists are now ramping up the frequency and severity of the violent outbursts they feel entitled to.

Political violence is a fire that will expand and consume everything if it is allowed to. After progressive assassins failed to kill Trump multiple times, they pivoted to targets with less security like Charlie Kirk. How many more failed attempts at killing the president will it take before a leftist terrorist decides that crowds of Trump supporters would be an easier target? The 250th anniversary of America is rapidly approaching, where thousands of patriotic Trump supporters will be gathering across the country. If you think this has escaped the notice of domestic terror networks like Antifa, you are sadly mistaken. The Trump administration needs to drop a mighty hammer on the left to let them know that violence is off the table. Failure to take action will ensure that things become much, much worse.

A Democratic politician vying for one of the U.S. Senate seats for Michigan is facing intense criticism after her deleted tweets disparaging Middle America and pining for California were unearthed.

Mallory McMorrow responded positively to another social media user who called Americans outside California "morons" and also posted evidence that she fudged the truth about her residency.

'These are normal tweets by a normal person.'

McMorrow deleted thousands of posts on the X platform, according to a CNN report.

"I had a dream that the US amicably broke off into The Ring (coasts+Can+Mex+parts Mich/Tex) and Middle America," she wrote after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

"Oh and The Ring nominated Obama as Prime Minister and everyone was given $1000 and 6 months to pick a side," she added.

The campaign brushed off the concern that McMorrow claimed to have permanently moved to Michigan in 2014 while her posts indicated that she continued to vote in California.

"These are normal tweets by a normal person," said Hannah Lindow, the communications director for McMorrow.

In another post from 2017, McMorrow responded to a user who ridiculed the "morons" outside California, which would include the voters in Michigan.

"California should have its own diplomats" to "make sure we don't get nuked because of morons from the other side of the country," the post from another user read.

"There are days like these that make me miss California even more," Morrow responded.

RELATED: Meet the Millennial influencer running to be Michigan’s next US senator

McMorrow is currently a member of the Michigan state Senate. She gained national attention when a speech she gave in the Michigan Senate went viral in April 2022.

She is one of three Democrats competing for the seat left vacant by Gary Peters, and the damaging posts from her past will likely help one of her opponents seize the nomination.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A pregnancy center is accused of facilitating the birth of children to Chinese nationals in order to take advantage of current birthright citizenship laws, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Paxton said the De’Ai Postpartum Care Center was violating Texas law by "unlawfully facilitating the invasion of Chinese nationals into Texas for the sole purpose of birthing children."

'Birthright citizenship is a scam that threatens national security, and I will do everything in my power to stop unlawful "birth tourism" schemes like this one.'

The proprietors of the center bragged on Chinese social media platforms and websites that they had overseen the births of "1,000+ American-born babies," according to Paxton.

The investigation found that the center was operating in at least four locations that hosted mulitple families at each site and faciliated up to 20 births per day. The sites were identified in Sugar Land, Houston, Richmond, and Rosenberg.

The company also allegedly coached its Chinese clients on how to evade immigration laws when seeking visas and citizenship for the children and their families.

"America is for Americans, not foreigners trying to cheat the system to claim citizenship," reads a statement from Paxton.

"The Center's scheme not only facilitated an invasion of Texas, but it also involved shielding and facilitating violations of immigration law," he added. "Birthright citizenship is a scam that threatens national security, and I will do everything in my power to stop unlawful 'birth tourism' schemes like this one."

Paxton accused the business operators of "deceptive trade practices, tampering with governmental records, unlawful harboring and concealment, and other violations of Texas law."

The issue of birthright citizenship is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Trump administration ordered government offices to no longer recognize the citizenship rights of children born to foreigners on U.S. soil.

Critics have accused the administration of being motivated by racism and xenophobia, but opponents of birthright citizenship argue that years of precedence is based on a faulty understanding of the 13th Amendment.

"There is a tourism industry surrounding this whole birthright citizenship. Women come here before they give birth so that they can just give birth here, and then their babies become United States citizens," said Sara Gonzales of "Sara Gonzales Unfiltered" on BlazeTV. "That's nuts, and to [Trump's] point, nobody else does this."

RELATED: US Catholic bishops call on SCOTUS to shut down Trump birthright citizenship order and protect 'human dignity'

Paxton is locked in a tight race with incumbent Sen. John Cornyn for the Republican nomination for one of the U.S. Senate seats from Texas.

President Donald Trump has threatened to choose between the two candidates in order to quell the competition and lessen the chances of the seat falling into Democratic control and tipping the balance of the Senate.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!