A former Florida high school special-education teacher is accused of sexually abusing an underage male, according to authorities.

Citing Brevard County court records, Florida Today reported that 41-year-old Michelle Lynn Hancock was charged with transmitting information harmful to minors, using a computer to seduce or solicit a child, traveling to meet after use of a computer to lure a child, lewd and lascivious touch, sexual battery of a victim, and an authority figure soliciting or engaging in conduct with a student.

According to a court affidavit cited by WESH-TV, the teenager visited Hancock at the Heritage High School campus 'a few times, and they kissed in her classroom.'

Hancock is being detained on a $525,000 bond, according to jail records.

Hancock, of Palm Bay, had been a special education teacher at Heritage High School in Brevard County.

A spokesperson for Brevard Public Schools confirmed to Florida Today that the district no longer employs Hancock.

"We are deeply troubled by these allegations," said Brevard Public Schools spokesperson Janet Murnaghan in a statement issued last week. "The district remains committed to providing a safe and supportive learning environment for all students."

The school district said it is "fully cooperating with law enforcement as they continue to conduct their investigation."

The district prior to her arrest did not renew Hancock's employment contract, the spokesperson stated.

Arrest records obtained by Florida Today said the investigation into Hancock began at approximately 1:30 a.m. June 23 when the Palm Bay Police Department was notified about a suspicious red pickup parked near an intersection.

Officers discovered Hancock and a 17-year-old boy inside the truck, according to arrest documents. The teacher and the teen both admitted to engaging in sexual activity, police said.

RELATED: Video allegedly shows female HS teacher wearing 'Jesus Loves You' shirt while having sex with student: Warrants

The teen informed investigators that he and Hancock had engaged in sexual activity between 10 and 20 times; Hancock said the pair had engaged in sexual activity "three or four times," according to the affidavit People magazine obtained.

The teen attended Heritage High School, according to Florida Today.

An affidavit WFTV-TV obtained said the teenager was not a student of Hancock, but she had taught his older brother.

The teacher had helped the alleged victim with schoolwork, according to the affidavit.

Last year, the teen transitioned to virtual classes after leaving the high school, according to an affidavit.

According to a court affidavit cited by WESH-TV, the teenager visited Hancock at the Heritage High School campus "a few times, and they kissed in her classroom."

Police noted that Hancock denied kissing the boy in her classroom, the affidavit said.

According to the affidavit, the pair had stopped communicating at some point, but "they started talking again via text message" two months ago — and "approximately one month ago, they started engaging in sexual activity."

The teen also told investigators that Hancock sent him photos that were "sexual in nature," the affidavit said.

The Palm Bay Police Department and Brevard Public Schools did not immediately return Blaze News' request 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!

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered on Tuesday its highly anticipated ruling in Trump v. Barbara — the contentious case concerning whether President Donald Trump's Jan. 20, 2025, executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is constitutional.

The court held that "children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause."

'Today's opinion devalues that citizenship.'

In the majority opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Chief Justice John Roberts began with a history lesson and concluded by writing that "citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' ... We keep that promise today."

The court found that the arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those legally living in the United States erred "in their definition of 'allegiance,' contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance (based on domicile) was required."

According to the high court, there was "scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view."

RELATED: Alito torches SCOTUS ruling in mail-in ballot case, warns of voter fraud

Swim ink 2/Corbis/Getty Images (L); John Moore/Getty Images (R)

In the opinion for the court, Roberts wrote that "if Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design."

Roberts noted further that words that appeared in Trump's executive order — including "mother," "father," "lawful," and "temporary" — were also absent from the language of the clause.

"And while the Clause does ensure state citizenship attaches for U.S. citizens in 'the State wherein they reside,' ... the explicit invocation of residence for state citizenship only highlights its absence from the criteria for U.S. citizenship," Roberts added.

Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a 91-page dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the majority diverged from historic American interpretations of the citizenship clause and that its account of how American citizenship came to be understood is "not historically accurate."

"The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President's Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Thomas wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."

In addition to stating that Trump's order had many potential applications which were "consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause," Thomas expressed uncertainty that "today's opinion will stand the test of time."

In closing, he wrote, "The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' ... Today's opinion devalues that citizenship."

Justice Samuel Alito echoed Thomas' sense of gravity and disappointment in his dissent, writing, "This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake."

"As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 'birth tourists,' women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home," Alito wrote. "Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way."

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

The Trump administration’s push to examine alleged political weaponization inside the Justice Department is not merely about looking backward. For many patriotic Americans, it is about people whose lives were turned upside down because the government decided to investigate them.

That is where the conversation often gets lost.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

Everyone focuses on the indictment, the headlines, and the courtroom drama. Far less attention goes to what comes before a verdict. It does not take a conviction to ruin someone’s life. Sometimes an accusation is enough.

Federal and congressional investigations are expensive. Responding to a subpoena is expensive. Hiring lawyers to review documents, prepare testimony, answer investigators, and defend your reputation can wipe out a lifetime of savings long before a judge or jury weighs the facts.

Winning years later does not restore your bank account. It does not rebuild your business. It does not give you back the years spent living under a cloud.

That reality has become increasingly familiar in Washington. During Donald Trump’s first term, congressional investigations became a defining feature of his presidency. House committees launched a steady stream of oversight inquiries into the administration, with then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) leading many of the most high-profile efforts.

Democrats argued they were fulfilling Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibilities. Republicans saw something else: a strategy to keep the administration tied up in investigations while forcing witnesses, aides, and associates to spend enormous sums defending themselves.

Whatever your politics, one fact remains undeniable. Every subpoena carries a price tag. Every interview requires lawyers. Every document request takes time. Every hearing pulls someone away from work, family, and ordinary life.

The financial toll rarely makes the evening news.

Former FBI Special Agent Mark Rossini recently offered a glimpse into that reality during a conversation with A.J. Rice on the “Dangerous Laughter” podcast. Rossini, who later received a presidential pardon after pleading to a misdemeanor in a case many conservatives see as part of the weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden, focused less on the legal outcome than on the years leading up to it.

“What a waste of time,” he said, describing what he called “three and a half, four years of this Kafkaesque experience.”

Then came the part that should resonate with anyone who has ever faced the weight of the federal government.

“No one will hire you. You get no phone calls. You lose your income. It’s just debilitating.”

Rossini also encouraged people to read the court filings instead of relying solely on commentary surrounding the case, arguing that public opinion too often forms before anyone examines the underlying record.

RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare

tomloel/iStock/Getty Images

His experience does not settle the whole debate, but it illustrates something too often overlooked: The process itself can become the punishment.

That is why discussions about alleged Justice Department weaponization have struck such a nerve among many conservatives. They are not simply asking whether every investigation was justified or unjustified. They are asking a more fundamental question: What happens when the immense power of government collides with the life of an ordinary citizen?

Government has a duty to investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. Those powers are essential in a constitutional republic.

But those powers also demand restraint.

When investigations stretch on for years, legal bills climb into six or seven figures, careers disappear, and families absorb the emotional and financial burden, Americans have every right to ask whether the system has accounted for those costs.

That is what makes the current conversation about Justice Department reform more significant than another round of partisan finger-pointing. It raises a basic question of public trust: Can Americans have confidence that extraordinary government powers will be exercised fairly and consistently, regardless of politics?

By the time an investigation ends, the damage may already be done. A dismissed case does not erase years of legal fees. A pardon does not restore lost income. Favorable headlines at the end of the story do not undo the quiet suffering that came before it.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

The Supreme Court has come down on the side of common sense when it comes to boys infiltrating girls' sports.

In a decision in which all nine justices concurred at least in part, the court ruled that laws in West Virginia and Idaho could limit sports teams to biological sex without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

'The challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status ... but instead on the basis of biological sex.'

"The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead on the basis of biological sex," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion released Tuesday in which six total justices concurred on the core issues.

"The classification at issue readily satisfies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that concurred in part and dissented in part.

Jackson also wrote a separate opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.

In his opinion, Thomas went further and affirmed that so-called transgender identity does not affect biological reality:

Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable “biological” characteristic, see ante, at 10; it is binary; and “man” and “woman,” “boy” and “girl,” are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. See A. Byrne, Are Women Adult Human Females? 177 Philosophical Studies 3783, 3786–3787 (2020). To use language to obscure reality — to show “indifference regarding the truth” — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens “as equal[s].”

This is a breaking story.

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

A Christian adoption agency just drew a major line in the sand.

Bethany Christian Trust has committed to prioritizing child welfare and biblical truth over adult identity by announcing it will only place children with families that align with its biblical statement of faith starting in June 2027.

And BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is thrilled, especially considering the research backs up the agency's belief that children should be raised by a mother and a father — not by homosexual couples.

“According to a study in 2012, a study by Regnerus, children of LGBT parents fare worse than other children on 77 out of 80 social outcome measures,” Stuckey begins.

“So according to the study, compared with children raised by their married, biological parents, children of homosexual parents attain lower levels of education, report less safety and security within their family of origin, experience greater ongoing negative effects from their family of origin, are more likely to struggle with depression, anxiety, have higher rates of arrest,” she says.

A separate study also “showed poor education outcomes for children of LGBT parents, finding they’re 35% less likely to progress normally through school” and “suffer emotional problems at twice the rate of children raised by a mother and father.”

“Child objectification is going to end now. You’re not going to be sacrificing your kids to the pagan gods anymore,” Stuckey says. “We’re going to stop that.”

“You’re not going to sacrifice your child on the altar of progressivism. No, no, no. Not as long as we have a say in it,” she continues.

“I’m very encouraged with just the allegiance to not only biblical morality but reality, too, because science statistics are always catching up with God,” she adds, “They’re always catching up with what the Bible says.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

For years, America’s immigration policy has been determined less by the elected branches of government than by a handful of federal district judges. Presidents proposed policies, Congress enacted statutes, and almost inevitably, a single judge somewhere in the country would issue an order purporting to suspend those policies nationwide.

That era may finally be drawing to a close.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president.

The Supreme Court’s two immigration decisions issued last week mark an important turning point — not simply because they uphold significant Trump administration immigration policies, but because they reaffirm a more fundamental constitutional principle: Immigration policy belongs primarily to the political branches, not the judiciary.

The court’s decisions addressed different questions: Mullin v. Doe concerned the executive’s authority over Temporary Protected Status, while Mullin v. Al Otro Lado involved the government’s ability to regulate when and how aliens arriving at the border may invoke asylum procedures.

Both opinions reject the increasingly common assumption that federal judges may freely substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress and the president in matters of immigration.

That conclusion should surprise no one familiar with the Constitution or with the current court’s commitment to adhere to its original meaning.

Article I gives Congress authority over naturalization and immigration. Article II charges the president with faithfully executing the immigration laws and conducting the nation’s foreign affairs. The judiciary’s role is different. Courts are supposed to resolve concrete legal disputes — not make immigration policy. For too long, however, that distinction has been blurred.

Beginning during the first Trump administration and accelerating in recent years, nationwide injunctions or nationwide class actions have become the preferred weapon of litigants seeking to defeat executive policies with which they disagree. A single district judge can effectively veto the actions of the elected branches for the entire nation, often within days of a complaint being filed and long before appellate review. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates such extraordinary judicial power.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president. Their authority extends only to deciding the cases before them and granting relief necessary to protect the specific parties before the court. They were never intended to function as a continuing supervisory council over every major policy dispute in the country. Last week’s decisions reflect a welcome recognition of that important constitutional principle.

Immigration, perhaps more than any other area of law, requires political judgment. Decisions concerning border security, humanitarian protection, foreign relations, labor markets, and national sovereignty inevitably involve competing policy considerations that courts are poorly equipped — and constitutionally unauthorized — to balance.

RELATED: Trump should force Congress to pass the SAVE America Act — now

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Reasonable people may disagree about how policy judgments in the area of immigration should be resolved. Americans have long debated the proper scope of asylum protections, the wisdom of Temporary Protected Status, and the best means of securing the southern border.

But under our constitutional system, such decisions are supposed to occur in Congress, at the White House, and ultimately at the ballot box — not through nationwide decrees issued by unelected trial judges.

Critics will undoubtedly portray the Supreme Court’s two rulings as victories for one political party or another. That misses the larger point. The real winner is the constitutional separation of powers.

When courts respect the limits of judicial authority, they strengthen rather than weaken the rule of law. Judicial modesty is not judicial abdication. Courts remain fully empowered to decide actual cases, interpret statutes, and enforce constitutional guarantees. What they are not empowered to do is assume responsibility for making national immigration policy, a distinction that protects everyone.

The precedents the Supreme Court established will not apply only to Republican presidents or conservative policies. They will constrain future courts considering the actions of Democrat administrations as well. Constitutional principles endure precisely because they are not dependent upon agreement with the policy of the moment.

The framers deliberately divided governmental power among three separate branches because concentrated power is dangerous regardless of who exercises it. Judicial overreach is no less inconsistent with constitutional government than executive overreach or legislative overreach.

The Supreme Court’s decisions on immigration represent an encouraging course correction. They remind lower courts that judges are not policymakers. They reaffirm that immigration decisions belong principally to the elected branches. And they take another step toward restoring the proper constitutional balance among the three branches of government.

That is good news not only for immigration policy, but also for the Constitution itself.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Democrats just lost the opportunity to gain three seats in the battle to control Congress after a state supreme court blocked their effort to redistrict the election maps.

The effort by a group called Coloradans for a Level Playing Field involved three separate ballot proposals, one of which would have changed the Colorado redistricting map for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles, if approved by the voters.

'While Trump and his MAGA allies regularly sidestep the law and ignore voters, efforts to respond have once again been dealt a legal setback over a technicality.'

Redistricting would have given Democrats the chance to pick up three extra seats. The Colorado Supreme Court said the effort violated the "single subject requirement" for ballot measures.

"Changing the constitutionally mandated frequency of redistricting — however temporary the change — is not merely a mechanism to administer the new congressional district map," wrote Chief Justice Monica Márquez in one of the unanimous decisions issued Monday. "Instead, it represents a seismic shift to Colorado’s longstanding redistricting process enshrined in the state constitution."

Curtis Hubbard, the spokesperson for the group sponsoring the bills, called the ruling "disappointing" in a statement on the group's website.

"While Trump and his MAGA allies regularly sidestep the law and ignore voters, efforts to respond have once again been dealt a legal setback over a technicality," he added.

National Republican Redistricting Trust President Adam Kincaid praised the ruling.

"Complete and total victory in Colorado!" he said on the X platform. "In a win for voters and the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Supreme Court resoundingly rejects Democrats' attempt to manipulate the initiative process."

RELATED: Trump is WINNING the redistricting battle against Democrats, CBS analysis finds

According to the Coloradans for a Level Playing Field's math, Republicans may be able to pick up as many as 11 seats in Congress now that the group's gerrymandering initiatives have been blocked.

The group will not have the opportunity to amend their initiatives and have them appear on the next election ballot, ending the effort in Colorado.

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

In New York City, three Democratic Socialists of America members recently won their primaries, pushing out two longtime incumbent Democrats. Far-left influencer Hasan Piker celebrated the victories by declaring, “It’s the decade of socialism. It’s coming to a neighborhood near you.”

Piker has called the Republican Party the world’s “biggest terrorist” and recently said Israel, in its current form, “does not have a right to exist.”

Far-left activists are using the education system to undermine Western institutions and advance a fundamentally different political vision.

Socialist and neo-communist partisans such as Piker and the DSA are gaining momentum in major cities. Many Americans do not realize that these far-left “people’s movements” often are not grassroots uprisings at all. They are driven by billionaire-funded activist organizations and progressives with elite academic backgrounds.

How did an anti-Western ideology gain such influence, especially among young people?

Part of the answer lies in the education system.

The radical left has turned American children, teachers, and K-12 schools into pieces of a political apparatus designed to build immediate and long-term power. From colleges of education to preschool lessons to youth activism, classrooms are increasingly used to advance an intentionally vague socialist “political revolution.”

The training begins before teachers ever enter the classroom.

Many colleges of education now treat anti-racism and social justice activism as core elements in the training of future and current educators. Schools of higher education also promote critical pedagogy as a “best practice.” That philosophy, rooted in cultural Marxism, treats teaching as inherently political and justifies far-left activism and diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout the education system as necessary tools to overcome supposed oppression.

What is taught in colleges of education never stays there.

The New York State Education Department’s Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework promotes critical pedagogy to help dismantle “systems of biases and inequities rooted in our country’s history, culture, and institutions.”

New York City schools have adopted this strategy. A key component is “critical consciousness,” or what many would call a woke mindset. This approach seeks to “identify and interrupt policies and practices that center on historically advantaged social/cultural groups.”

In other words, New York City teachers are expected to incorporate far-left political orthodoxy into teaching methods, curriculum development, lesson planning, and classroom activities.

RELATED: Who wants to eat a trillionaire?

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

New York is not alone.

In Joliet Public Schools in Illinois, the district’s “Teacher Evaluation Framework” says contracted staff can receive an “excellent” mark if they demonstrate critical consciousness in classroom interactions and performance.

Once these abstract concepts reach the classroom, they are woven into curricula such as ethnic studies, conditioning children to see society almost exclusively through the lens of oppressor and oppressed. Sold to school boards, parents, and communities as the study of history and culture, ethnic studies often functions as an activist training program rooted in critical pedagogy.

Some students are exposed to this framework as early as preschool. They are not merely taught to view the world through an anti-Western political lens. They are also encouraged, and in some cases required, to engage in activism or “action research” aimed at dismantling “systems of oppression” such as capitalism and the “patriarchy.”

Those seeds of politicization bore fruit last spring when schools across the country dealt with hundreds of student walkouts in support of far-left political causes and a “political revolution.”

These youth protests were not fully organic. They were often organized, promoted, or funded by activist organizations such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Sunrise Movement, and teachers' unions.

The most extreme example came from Chicago Public Schools, which gave in to the Chicago Teachers Union’s demand to use students and district resources for its May Day mass mobilization effort.

Regardless of political affiliation, Americans who care about the constitutional republic should recognize what is happening. Far-left activists are using the education system to undermine Western institutions and advance a fundamentally different political vision.

Thomas Paine wrote 250 years ago that “tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.” If this republic is to endure, it will require the same love of liberty and willingness to defend it that animated previous generations.

American children deserve the same opportunity for self-government enjoyed by those who came before them. That’s why the corruption of the education system in service of anti-Western ideology and political activism must end.

Law enforcement officials are expressing shock at the conditions that allegedly led to the death of a 7-year-old boy in Michigan.

Paramedics were called to the home in Flint Township on Nov. 4, 2025, over the report of a child in distress.

'It was just one of the most unbelievable scenes that the police have seen, that I've reviewed in my 22 years as prosecuting attorney.'

They found Casper O'Brien having difficulty breathing and unable to move because he weighed 255 pounds, according to the Genesee County Sheriff's Office.

His parents, Damien and Jessica O’Brien, had also packed the home with so many objects that it was difficult to move around. Police reported there was feces throughout the home because the toilet didn't work.

They also said the boy had "some of the worst open sores and rashes they've ever seen."

He died later that evening at a hospital.

His parents were charged with one count of second-degree murder, one count of torture, and three counts of second-degree child abuse.

Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said the autopsy showed the boy died of a heart muscle disease, and morbid obesity was listed as a contributing factor.

"What we allege is that he was not fed in a nutritious way," Leyton said. "He was neglected, and he was abused, and his diet is part of it, and not getting whatever help he needed because he was nonverbal as part of it. All that adds up to an extreme case of child abuse resulting in someone's death."

They also found a 5-year-old child who was morbidly obese. She was found naked outside by officers and was dirty, with knots in her hair.

Leyton gave a rundown of the evidence gathered in the case.

"We'll present the body camera footage," Leyton said. "We'll present the autopsy results. We'll present the fact that this child died from fairly natural causes brought on by the obesity and the lack of nutrition. And we'll present what we think as a case of neglect and abuse and torture."

RELATED: People so 'extremely obese' they were almost bedridden starved 14-year-old girl until she weighed 35 pounds, police say

The parents could face life in prison if convicted.

Leyton expressed disbelief at the parents' behavior because the father had a good job with health insurance but had only taken the boy to a doctor once.

"They had called the veterinarian about one of their pets. They knew what to do for the dog, but they didn't do it for their own child," he added. "Sadly, he died because of neglect."

Leyton said the case was difficult for the police — as well as Child Protective Services — to investigate.

"It was just one of the most unbelievable scenes that the police have seen, that I've reviewed in my 22 years as prosecuting attorney," Leyton added.

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 Christopher Rufo believes the Democrat Party machine and its woke politics is being replaced by something far more sinister: die-hard socialists and third worldism.

Just last week, three Zohran Mamdani-backed Democratic socialists — Claire Valdez (NY-7), Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13), and Brad Lander (NY-10) — won their Democratic congressional primaries, defeating establishment incumbents and candidates, including two sitting representatives.

“The Dem establishment is totally crushed, totally weak, totally ineffective,” says Rufo, “and in New York, we've seen this playing out now for about a year where they tried to run moderate Dem candidates ... trying to stop the DSA candidates from gaining so much power, but the DSA is really running the show.”

“They have control over the municipal government; they have control over the greater New York City congressional delegation; they have a permanent infrastructure,” he continues.

The Democrat establishment, Rufo argues, has virtually become a “misnomer” because the Democratic Socialists of America has really become the establishment power now. They’re the ones with “full-time activists, a full-time messaging apparatus, [and] a full-time get-out-the-vote operation.” They have mastered the art of “out-organizing” their opponents, he says.

Co-host Jonathan Keeperman doesn’t see the Democrat establishment vs. the DSA as a matter of “competing architectures,” however. He believes the left’s “lack of leadership” has allowed the DSA to begin “colonizing the old Democrat machine.”

“The Democrats have nothing even close to ... a singular figure who can point that constituency in a particular electoral direction,” he says, calling the Democrat Party “a totally rudderless ship.”

“[The Democrat Party is] up for contest,” says Rufo, “and it seems clear that the more radical left-wing factions within the Democratic Party feel like they have all of the energy; they have all of the momentum; and that they can ride it to the end point, which is changing the party from within.”

While he acknowledges that DSA power is still relatively confined — pocketed in deep-blue places like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — its ability to “take a minority faction in a larger political body, capture it, subvert it, bully it, and then get it to submit” is disturbing.

“I think you're going to see a lot of the DSA ideas trickling upward in the party. These activists are going to use their leverage, their star power, their charisma, and it's going to change the Democratic Party,” Rufo predicts.

And that’s a terrifying prospect because these ideas will be rooted not in wokeism, which is bad enough, but in “third worldism” — an even more “serious threat to life, liberty, and property.”

“The left has molted the dead skin of woke,” he says.

The push is no longer “the oppressor-oppressed narrative” that urges redistribution of goods and services to “oppressed groups.” The DSA promotes a far “harder-edged political ideology,” says Rufo. “If you listen to these candidates like Darializa Chevalier, it's seize property, seize housing, seize wealth.”

“It is a third-worldist ideology,” he declares.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Bill Maher did not suddenly become a conservative. That is what makes his recent comments to Vice President JD Vance so politically revealing.

Maher is still Maher — a liberal comedian, secular critic of Christianity, supporter of abortion, and longtime enemy of the religious right. He is not about to show up at a Turning Point USA conference in a red cap. He is not quoting Milton Friedman at CPAC. He is not becoming a Baptist.

Bill Maher is not moving right because Republicans suddenly became perfect. He is moving right because Democrats moved left into madness.

Yet in a recent conversation with Vance, Maher said his 2028 vote is “in play.” He said he could imagine voting for Vance or Marco Rubio if Republicans nominated the right candidate.

That should terrify Democrats.

Maher does not represent the average American voter in every respect. But he represents something dangerous for Democrats: the liberal who still remembers what liberalism used to be. He remembers when Democrats imagined themselves as the party of free speech, civil liberties, working-class people, and common sense. He remembers when liberals mocked religious fundamentalists rather than replacing them with secular versions in HR departments, faculty lounges, and school boards.

Maher’s point was not that Republicans have become irresistible. It was that Democrats have become repellent.

That is the real story.

For years, Democrats have comforted themselves with the idea that the country is divided over Donald Trump. Maher’s comments reveal a different problem. What happens when the choice is not Trump? What happens when the Republican nominee is Vance, Rubio, or someone else who can speak fluently about the failures of the left without carrying all of Trump’s baggage?

Then, Democrats have to defend themselves. That is where things get difficult.

Look at New York City.

The city that once elected Rudy Giuliani after years of chaos and vowed never to forget 9/11 is becoming the showcase for democratic socialism and outright communism. Candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America just swept important Democratic primaries.

RELATED: ‘Weak and pathetic’: Mamdani-backed radicals sweep Democratic establishment in New York’s electoral bloodbath

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

These candidates are not progressive in the old sense. They reject the assumptions that once made the Democratic Party nationally competitive. They talk as if capitalism is the enemy, policing is oppression, borders are immoral, and Israel is uniquely evil among nations. They embrace socialism, excuse anti-Semitism, and treat Western civilization as a crime scene.

The old Democratic establishment used to understand that this was a problem. It knew America was not a socialist country. It knew most Americans did not want their cities run by activists. It knew Americans might debate the policies of Israel while still rejecting anti-Semitism.

Now, the Democratic establishment mostly shrugs. Or worse, it congratulates the winners and pretends this is normal.

It is not normal.

It is not normal for open socialists to become the energy center of a major American political party. It is not normal for candidates surrounded by anti-Israel radicalism to be treated as the future. It is not normal for Jewish voters to be told, in effect, that their concerns about anti-Semitism are merely bad-faith efforts to silence criticism of Israel.

That is one reason Maher’s discomfort matters. He is not a Christian Zionist or conservative evangelical. He is an irreverent liberal comedian who can see that something has gone wrong when the left cannot clearly distinguish between criticism of a government and hostility toward Jews as Jews.

Anti-Semitism is not the only issue.

The same problem appears in gender ideology. Americans are generally willing to be kind and decent to adults who identify as transgender. What they will not do is surrender reality.

They do not want boys in girls’ sports. They do not want men in women’s prisons. They do not want children rushed into medical pathways that can alter their bodies permanently. They do not want schools hiding gender transitions from parents. They do not want bureaucrats punishing anyone who says male and female are real categories grounded in nature.

Yet the Democratic Party has made this agenda a test of moral purity. Ordinary Americans who believe the obvious — that men are not women — are treated as bigots.

This is political insanity. It is also moral bullying.

The left first demanded tolerance. Then it demanded affirmation. Then it demanded participation. Now it demands that Americans deny what they can see with their own eyes. If they refuse, they are told they are hateful.

That kind of politics creates backlash. It also creates strange coalitions.

RELATED: Sorry, socialists: The system isn’t the savior

Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A voter does not have to become a movement conservative to conclude that Democrats have become dangerous. He may simply want his daughter to play sports against girls. He may want his Jewish neighbor to be safe walking to synagogue. He may want police to arrest criminals. He may want schools to teach reading instead of gender ideology. He may want politicians who like the country they seek to govern.

That is the opening Republicans now have.

The opportunity is not merely to say, “Vote Republican because we are Republicans.” That is not enough. The opportunity is to say, “You may not agree with us on everything, but we are not asking you to pretend reality is fake.”

Maher is not the whole electorate. But he is a warning flare. When even Bill Maher looks at Democrats and says his vote is up for grabs, the problem is not Republican messaging. The problem is Democratic extremism.

Democrats can keep telling themselves that voters are being manipulated by right-wing media. They can keep insisting that concerns about socialism, anti-Semitism, crime, schools, and gender ideology are manufactured panics. They can keep nominating activists who sound as if they are running a graduate seminar in revolutionary decolonization resentment.

Or they can notice what is happening.

Bill Maher is not moving right because Republicans suddenly became perfect. He is moving right because Democrats moved left into madness.

If Democrats keep going, Maher will not be the last liberal to say: enough.

A 16-year-old male is accused of opening fire on an occupied Augusta, Georgia, home last month, and law enforcement said the public should consider the suspect "armed and dangerous."

The Richmond County Sheriff's Office obtained aggravated assault warrants for Kawung Bentley Jr. in connection with the May 18 shooting in the 2300 block of Travis Pines Drive, the Augusta Press reported.

'Deputies found about four bullet holes in the bedroom window and two more in the exterior wall near the window.'

Deputies responded to the residence around 4:17 a.m. after multiple shots were fired into the home while two people were inside, the Press reported.

The 63-year-old homeowner told deputies that he and a 30-year-old woman were lying in a bedroom when gunfire shattered a bedroom window, the Press reported, adding that the woman told deputies she ran into a bathroom and hid in a bathtub as bullets struck the home.

The homeowner said he saw four males creeping outside the home moments before the shooting, the Press said, adding that the homeowner grabbed his firearm as the suspects fled in a Dodge Durango.

More from the Press:

Deputies found about four bullet holes in the bedroom window and two more in the exterior wall near the window. A parked Dodge Charger outside the home was also struck twice by gunfire.

Investigators recovered two spent shell casings in the roadway along with a backpack believed to have been left behind by one of the suspects.

Despite the gunfire entering the occupied home, there is no indication in the incident report that either of the two people inside was struck or injured.

The Sheriff’s Office released a wanted flyer this week identifying Bentley as the suspect and warning the public not to approach him.

RELATED: 4 children alone at home when thugs shoot up house; Mom says it's payback after son, 14, fought at school when he got jumped

Image source: Richmond County (Ga.) Sheriff's Office

Those with information on Bentley's whereabouts are asked to contact investigator Sean Morrow at 706-432-5281 or the Richmond County Sheriff's Office Criminal Investigations Division at 706-821-1080 or 706-821-1020, the Press added.

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

Law enforcement officials ended a hostage situation at a jail in North Carolina hours after the inmates were able to overpower guards.

The inmate takeover began at about 5 a.m. at the Bertie-Martin Regional Detention Center in Windsor.

'The perpetrators must be held accountable for this horrifying action.'

Three guards were accosted and two were taken hostage, while the third was able to escape, according to police.

Hours later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation office in Charlotte announced that an FBI hostage team and a SWAT team helped clear the facility.

"All inmates and staff are safe and accounted for, and those who sustained injuries received treatment," the FBI statement reads. "Inmates were transferred to other facilities for housing, and the detention center will remain secured while personnel assess the extent of the damage."

There were 88 inmates at the detention center, which has about 90 beds. The facility houses pretrial detainees and short-term inmates for Bertie County and Martin County.

Bertie County Sheriff Tyrone Ruffin said the two released guards were being treated for injuries, but he did not elaborate on the nature of the injuries.

Ruffin did not answer questions about the cause of the takeover.

"Right now we have a lot going on that we're trying to get under control," he added. "I will release that information to the public as soon as I can."

RELATED: Bystanders taunted and laughed as police officers were being fired upon in Philadelphia

"The perpetrators must be held accountable for this horrifying action," Gov. Josh Stein (D-N.C.) said on social media.

"We also must do everything in our power to ensure this doesn't happen again — and that includes doing more to recruit, retain, and compensate the county and state officials who are charged with keeping our jails and prisons safe," he added.

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

Seemingly out of nowhere, the United States is knee-deep in the quantum computing race.

President Trump signed the executive order Ushering in the Next Frontier of Quantum Innovation on Monday, but the effects of the impending research are rarely discussed.

'These are the problems where today we cannot run high enough fidelity simulations in a classic computer.'

Quantum computing is typically explained by comparing the calculations of a traditional computer that uses ones and zeros to a quantum computer that uses the numbers in between to make calculations much faster.

A flat coin versus a spinning coin is also used as an analogy, essentially meaning that a quantum computer holds data in a special state that allows it all to be analyzed at once, resulting in faster (more numerous) calculations.

"Quantum information science and technology (QIST) will provide transformational capabilities that will drive American innovation, power economic growth, generate high-paying jobs, and bolster national security," the executive order reads.

Simply put, the bizarre-looking machines will calculate a lot faster.

RELATED: Science now says time travel is real (just not how we thought) — and it proves God exists

Mandel NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

"A quantum computer is going to solve a very particular type of problem that isn't solved well today with a classic computer, and it's going to solve it much better," Amazon AI executive Peter DeSantis told CNBC.

The reluctance (or inability) to pin down the actual end result of quantum computing can be difficult to surmise, but DeSantis theorized "the problems that I would think are going to be tackled first are the ones that are quantum-based problems, so things like chemistry, material science."

He added, "These are the problems where today we cannot run high enough fidelity simulations in a classic computer, and once we have a quantum computer, we're going to find some real progress."

These computers will allegedly be more adept at code-cracking and designing batteries or superconductors because they are able to model atomic behavior precisely.

RELATED: New lawsuit claims Ring's smart doorbell spyware is taking photos of millions without their consent

David Zorrakino/Europa Press/Getty Images

White House Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy Michael Kratsios promised more jobs and an increase in the domestic supply chain for quantum infrastructure and materials.

These materials include superconducting circuits, semiconductors, and other supplies so unheard of they are hard to describe outside of their definitions.

For example, required materials include a photonic circuit, which is a chip that modulates and controls laser beams.

In addition, a trapped-ion system is a physical, trapped qubit (a quantum computer bit) that is suspended or trapped in an electromagnetic field.

According to ABC News, Kratsios said the United States should be ready to expand the quantum workforce through apprenticeships, credentials, and workforce development.

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

Billionaire George Soros is heading toward breaking his own record in campaign donations after already spending nearly $103 million in the midterm elections.

Soros was the largest single donor in the midterms four years ago when he spent $128 million, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records.

'The Soros family is angrier than ever at American politics. ... They would prefer to remake America into something entirely different.'

The 95-year-old has made less than $1 million of donations in his own name, while the vast majority of his donations were funneled through the Democracy Political Action Committee he launched in 2020.

"Money talks, and Soros money says the most insidious, unconstitutional, costly tax hikes in American history are on the table,” said Douglas Kellogg of the Americans for Tax Reform organization.

He went on to describe him as the "wannabe Bond villain" who is responsible for the left-wing takeover of the Democratic Party.

Capital Research Center investigative researcher Parker Thayer told the New York Post that George Soros has begun the process of transferring his power to his eldest son, Alexander Soros.

"He wants to be more political than his dad. This is the first midterm cycle where he is in control," Thayer said of the younger Soros.

"George is not in control; he hasn’t been in control in some time," he added.

Both Soroses have backed the controversial Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner, as well as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

"The Soros family is angrier than ever at American politics," Thayer said. "They would prefer to remake America into something entirely different."

RELATED: 'We will find you': Soros-backed district attorney vows to 'hunt down' ICE agents who violate law

While Trump has mocked the Democrats for not fighting the communist takeover of the party, a group of Democratic lawmakers has begun to organize a pushback against extremist ideologies.

"We're for capitalism, not socialism. We're for safety, not lawlessness," Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York said about the effort. "We're proud of America, not ashamed of America — and we need to be promoting those things."

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

Last week, Louisiana church pastor Tony Spell, 48, was arrested and charged with battery after video captured him beating up a 20-year-old male neighbor he claims threatened to rape and kill his family.

According to reports, Spell claims he was working on a church bus when he heard his neighbor’s son yell, “Tony, I’m gonna rape your wife. I’m gonna rape all of your grandchildren. ... The next time you go out of town, I’m gonna kill them, and what the F are you going to do about it?”

Spell defended his actions, calling himself the “natural protector” of his family, and claimed that the victim’s family had been harassing and intimidating them as well as church attendees for years — an allegation they denied.

The video of the fight has gone viral, sparking widespread debates over self-defense and pastoral conduct.

On a recent episode of “The Rick Burgess Show,” BlazeTV host and men’s ministry leader Rick Burgess dove into the incident.

“Solomon told us there’s a time for everything — and sometimes there is a time to fight,” Rick says.

This incident, he argues, seems to be one of those times.

“People can say bad things about you and say they don't like you and all that, and we certainly try to stay out of anything violent, but when it comes to the point when people begin to threaten your family and begin to threaten their very lives ... there is a time when this is necessary,” Rick says.

“I shouldn’t love this as much as I do,” he confesses, watching the footage of Spell battering his neighbor.

Rick especially loves the sermon Spell delivered from the pulpit immediately after his release.

That evening, Spell famously told his congregation he “fulfilled the Scripture” by laying “hands on the sick.”

“That was fantastic,” Rick laughs.

The panel agrees that Spell was in the right to defend his family and congregation.

“We love it,” Rick says.

To see the footage of the fight and hear more of Rick and the team’s commentary, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Supreme Court said in a partisan decision Monday that the president had expansive authority to fire government agency employees.

The ruling overturns a 1935 decision in which the highest court in the land found that Congress could shield government workers from being fired by the president unless it was for cause.

'Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!'

The six conservatives on the court ruled in favor, while the three liberals dissented.

"Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling.

"Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him," he added. "Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."

The president praised the ruling for expanding his power in numerous posts on the Truth Social platform.

"Today's Historic Slaughter Decision by the Supreme Court is the Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!" the president posted on Truth Social.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government," Sotomayor wrote.

RELATED: Thomas RAILS against SCOTUS ruling on firing of Fed governor — with 2 conservatives siding with liberals

"Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President's hands," she added.

The case was first filed by Rebecca Slaughter, who was appointed by Trump to the Federal Trade Commission in his first term. He sought to dismiss her in his second term without cause, and she sued on the basis of the 1935 precedent set during the New Deal era.

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

The 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence kicked off on Thursday in Washington, D.C., but a few Democratic states say they will not send an official delegation to the Great American State Fair.

Various state officials offered several reasons as to why they were refusing to participate, and some did not give any rationale at all.

'Frankly, you'll never see anything like it, and you'll never see anything like it again.'

According to Freedom 250, which is organizing the event, all 50 states and six territories will be represented at the fair. However, some states that have declined official participation cited cost as the reason.

Here are the states that have refused to participate officially, per Newsweek:

• Connecticut
• Illinois
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington

Hawaii is reportedly declining to participate as well.

Oregon's Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek told KATU-TV that the state withdrew from the event because of "the cost of participating in the fair and growing concerns that the event in Washington, D.C., is shaping up to be a more partisan affair than originally presented."

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, another Democrat, accused Trump of making the event partisan.

"This president routinely makes patriotism partisan and personal — and it shouldn't be that way," he said in an interview with the New Republic. Pennsylvania is still participating in a private capacity after pressure from U.S. Sens. John Fetterman (D) and Dave McCormick (R).

The event faced a minor setback when nearly all of the music groups and singers decided to drop out after initially agreeing to perform. Some claimed to have been misled about the nature of the celebration.

"I asked lots of questions and was assured this was a nonpartisan event that was meant to celebrate ALL 50 states," Martina McBride wrote after pulling out.

RELATED: Trump announces 'Patriot Games' high school athletic competition for 250th anniversary of founding

Some of the events scheduled for Monday at the fair included a pancake-eating contest and appearances by actor Dean Cain, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, and commentator Michael Knowles.

The celebration at the Capitol will conclude on July 10 with the largest display of fireworks ever, according to Trump.

"Frankly, you'll never see anything like it, and you'll never see anything like it again," he said in Dec. 2025.

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

DC Studios is finding out that being a progressive girl boss does not necessarily pay the bills.

In the weeks leading up to the opening weekend for "Supergirl," star Milly Alcock sparked online chatter with her consistent interviews in which she explored the "LGBT" inspiration of the film, while repeatedly stating her character is likely bisexual — and it did not work out.

'I have many queer friends, so honestly I'm kind of honored.'

Clip slip

During what turned out to be an awful opening weekend, yet another clip of Alcock addressing wild fan theories circulated, from a lesser-known interview she did at a fan event in Brazil. In the clip, Alcock is asked about embracing Supergirl as a queer icon, a theme that reporters have consistently hammered the actress about at events and red carpets.

"I have many queer friends, so honestly I'm kind of honored. I'm honored that that's happening," Alcock replied with her signature giggle.

She went on, "I think because she doesn't live inside the binary of what we think a woman should be, that is what makes her so special and so exciting and so new."

She may transcend every binary, but Hollywood still lives inside one: hit or flop. "Supergirl" seems headed straight for the latter, with a very disappointing $38 million domestic opening. Coming in well below expectations, "Supergirl" had a whopping $170 million budget, according to Deadline, and bowed out to "Toy Story 5," which took in $70 million despite it being its second weekend.

RELATED: 'Supergirl' star proclaims character is 'probably' bisexual and definitely doesn't need a man

Craig T Fruchtman/Getty Images

No love

Alcock explaining that her Kryptonian character would "do what she'd want to do" in regard to her sexuality was yet another nail in the coffin that likely turned away audiences, including father-daughter moviegoers.

At a New York City premiere, Alcock embraced how the film "doesn't center around any sort of love" or "romance" at all and focused on how much gay fans can relate to her character. She called "Supergirl" a "really great representation of what a modern woman can be."

In London, the 26-year-old also noted that it was "beautiful" for the movie not to be "centered around a man" and "not centered around love at all."

This was followed by Alcock saying that the character would "probably go both ways," meaning Supergirl is bisexual, according to the actress.

To top it off, Alcock pinpointed Christian dads as her most frequent online harassers.

RELATED: 'Supergirl' Milly Alcock's most fearsome foe? Christian dads

David Jon/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Pictures

Consolation prize

Female-led superhero movies have let studios down over recent years, with "Supergirl" having one of the worst openings in the 2020s, but not the worst.

"The Eternals" (2021) and "The Marvels" (2023) both did better than Alcock, with $71 million and $46 million respectively, but "Supergirl" did manage to outperform movies like the abysmal "Madame Web" (2024) that garnered just $15 million.

The possibly bisexual superpowered girl was seen by far more people than "Wonder Woman 1984" (2020), which made just $16 million, and "Birds of Prey" (2020), the Harley Quinn film that made $33 million.

However, the "Wonder Woman" film was released deep into COVID-19 restrictions in December 2020.

"Birds of Prey" had no excuse, though.

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

The New York Times has sunk to an all-time low after criticizing prominent conservatives' maternity outfits — taking aim at a dress Usha Vance wore during “Story Time with the Second Lady” alongside her husband, JD Vance.

“There’s no floor. They just keep getting lower and lower. And to the extent that the New York Times actually paid someone to write a fashion critique on what White House officials were wearing during their pregnancies,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“This is not bad enough to critique a pregnant woman about a lot of things. They’re like, ‘We’re going to make them feel bad about what they wore,’” she continues.

The article, titled, “The Politics and Power of the Pregnancy Image,” criticizes pregnant Usha Vance, Katie Miller, and Karoline Leavitt for how they dress as pregnant women.

The New York Times commented on Usha’s “stretchy, coral dress,” explaining that it “hugs her stomach, making what she is talking about very clear.”

“After all, as second lady, her job is to represent and humanize the vice president by spotlighting her pregnancy. She is doing exactly that,” the article reads.

Gonzales laughs, “I mean, she has a giant pregnant belly. What would you like for her to do? Wear like a big paper sack?”

However, Usha wasn’t going to take the criticism lying down.

“Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear about what the New York Times has to say about my elastic waistband pants and compression socks! In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady,” Usha posted in a rebuttal on X.

“Now, in, you know, typical journalism fashion for the New York Times, they don’t talk about any important things. They want to talk about Usha Vance’s maternity dress and Taylor Swift’s wedding,” Gonzales comments.

“They’re investigating not fraud, not anything that actually helps the everyday American citizen, but they did publish, ‘New York Prepares for an Event at M.S.G. Clues Point to You Know Who,’” she continues, showing the Times' article on Swift and fiance Travis Kelce’s wedding gossip.

“There were actually two push alerts. They wasted a push alert on Taylor Swift investigation. That’s insane. Two push alerts. Imagine people being busy at work typing on their computer like, ‘Oh my gosh, I just got a news push alert. I wonder what breaking news it is,’” she adds.

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.