“The majority of Democrats HATE America!”

An Ohio House Republican is moving to have Rep. Al Green censured over his protest at President Trump's State of the Union.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has given Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei until Friday evening to grant the military unrestricted access to its AI model or face significant penalties, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The post Report: Pete Hegseth Sets Friday Deadline for Anthropic in Pentagon AI Dispute appeared first on Breitbart.

'There’s no way to interpret that any other way.'

Former school trustee ordered to pay $750,000 by British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for public comments opposing transgender policies that created discrimination.

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the sanctuary state of New Jersey after its governor banned Immigration and Customs Enforcement from some state property.

On Feb. 11, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) signed Executive Order No. 12, which declared that federal immigration agents cannot access “nonpublic areas of State property for the purpose of facilitating federal enforcement of civil immigration law” without a judicial warrant or order.

'Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement.'

The governor claimed that the action would “protect against ICE raids on state property.”

“I take seriously my responsibility to keep New Jersey residents safe, and as a Navy veteran and former federal prosecutor, my commitment to upholding the Constitution will never waver,” Sherrill stated. “This executive order will prohibit ICE from using state property to launch operations. To strengthen public safety, we will also give New Jersey residents the tools to report ICE activity to the attorney general’s office and ensure residents know their constitutional rights.”

The governor’s office accused the Trump administration’s ICE agents of “violently abusing power and violating Constitutional rights.”

The DOJ responded to Sherrill’s executive action by filing a lawsuit against New Jersey on Feb. 23, stating that the state’s leadership has insisted “on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement.”

RELATED: 'She is putting a target on their backs': New Jersey governor launches online portal to track ICE agents

Photographer: Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The complaint claimed that Sherrill aimed to “intentionally obstruct federal law enforcement,” adding that she “celebrates thwarting the constitutional obligation of the President of the United States to take care that federal immigration law be faithfully executed.”

The DOJ argued that Sherrill’s executive order obstructs and intentionally discriminates against the federal government. Prosecutors also claimed that the action violated the Supremacy Clause, which “prohibits a state from usurping Congress.”

“Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “States may not deliberately interfere with our efforts to remove illegal aliens and arrest criminals — New Jersey’s sanctuary policies will not stand.”

RELATED: Exclusive: ‘Best of the best’: DHS torches leftist media myths about ICE training

Mikie Sherrill. Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sherrill reacted to the lawsuit, stating, “I think what the federal government needs to be focused on right now instead of attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe is actually training their ICE agents with some modicum of training, like any law enforcement officer in the state of New Jersey would have, so they can operate better and more safely.”

New ICE recruits receive 56 days of training and an average of 28 days of on-the-job training, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

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

Savannah Guthrie announces $1 million family reward for missing mother Nancy Guthrie's recovery after 24 days. "We still believe in a miracle," she says.

In a scene that plays out like something from the end of western civilization, police in Maryland appear helpless in their squad cars as a dash cam captures a street takeover of cars doing doughnuts as masked hooligans taunt officers and vandalize their vehicles.

The post WATCH: Maryland Police Are Powerless as Street Takeover Rages Around Them appeared first on Breitbart.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) released a Spanish-language video Tuesday urging families to enroll their children in the city’s free 3-K and pre-K programs before Friday’s deadline, explicitly emphasizing that eligibility applies “regardless of ... immigration status.”

The roughly two-and-a-half-minute video, posted to Mamdani’s official X account, features the two Democrats speaking entirely in Spanish in a studio setting with American and New York City flags behind them. Mamdani called his Spanish “rusty” before both promote what they describe as free, full-day early education for children turning 3 or 4 years old in 2026.

'No Social Security number is required and that applications are available in more than 200 languages.'

Ocasio-Cortez states directly in the video, “Any New York City parent, regardless of your occupation, income, or immigration status, is eligible to sign their child up.”

RELATED: 'This is disgraceful': Mamdani raked over the coals for attack on NYPD

They stress that no Social Security number is required and that applications are available in more than 200 languages. Parents can apply online, by phone, or in person at Family Welcome Centers. The deadline for the 2026-2027 school year is Feb. 27.

While city officials frame the initiative as part of New York’s long-standing universal early education policy, critics argue the messaging shows how taxpayer-funded benefits are being promoted without regard to legal status at a time when the city is struggling with the financial impact of a historic migrant influx.

RELATED: 'Despicable attack': Brazen mob pelts NYPD officers with snowballs, multiple cops reportedly injured — and it's all on video

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The programs are funded through a combination of city, state, and federal dollars. City leaders have previously touted the effort as returning an average of $26,000 annually to families by eliminating child-care costs.

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

Democrats desperate to take the wind out of President Donald Trump's sails and torpedo his State of the Union address Tuesday with heckles, boycotts, and low-energy critiques may be upset to learn that the Americans who tuned in were overwhelmingly receptive to the speech and its contents.

A CNN poll found that a near-supermajority of "speech-watchers" said that Trump's policies will move the country in the right direction.

'Look at the growth President Trump made over the speech.'

David Chalian, the network's political director, told talking head Jake Tapper, "64% say Trump's policies would move the country in the right direction, 36% say the wrong direction."

"Look at the growth President Trump made over the speech," said Chalian. "So pre-speech, it was 54% of speech-watchers said his policies will move the U.S. in the right direction. After the speech, that number goes up 10 percentage points. So Donald Trump made some progress with people watching the speech from their pre-speech expectations to what they saw in the speech itself."

Trump said a great deal on the policy front:

• his tariffs might one day "substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax";
• legislation should be passed "barring any state from granting commercial driver's licenses to illegal aliens";
• he is "restoring American security and dominance in the Western Hemisphere, acting to secure our national interests and defend our country from violence, drugs, terrorism, and foreign interference";
• he prefers a diplomatic resolution to mounting tensions with Iran;
• he is "ending the wildly inflated costs of prescription drugs";
• his administration is leaning on major tech companies to provide for their own power needs;
• he is "making it easier for Americans to save for retirement"; and
• he is keeping "large Wall Street investment firms from buying up, in the thousands, single-family homes."

In an apparent effort to reassure the network's liberal viewers, Chalian suggested that "it is a much more Republican universe that got polled here because Republicans tune in in greater numbers for a Republican president's State of the Union address."

Chalian added that CNN's "poll of the overall electorate is the exact opposite of that."

A CNN poll conducted last week found that 38% of respondents said that the policies being proposed by Trump would move the country in the right direction, and 61% said they would move the country in the wrong direction.

RELATED: 'You should be ashamed': Ilhan Omar melts down when asked to support Americans

Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

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

President Donald Trump honored a helicopter pilot who was wounded in the raid to capture former Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro with the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award, during his State of the Union address.

President Donald Trump used the State of the Union address on Tuesday night to announce deals with major tech companies to ensure data centers cover more of the costs needed in powering artificial intelligence.

The post Trump Announces Deals to Have Tech Companies Shoulder Burden of AI Data Center Costs appeared first on Breitbart.

On the question of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court has spoken. In the court’s view, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs during a declared emergency, namely, the massive trade deficits that threaten our economic security.

But the court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was highly fractured. Only three justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — held that the law, under normal principles of statutory construction, does not give the president authority to impose tariffs.

A tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, quite persuasively demonstrates why that is not the case. As Justice Thomas noted in his separate dissent, the power to “regulate … importation” has throughout American history “been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”

The other three justices who formed the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — resorted to the major questions doctrine. This principle of statutory interpretation holds that Congress must speak with super clarity on issues of “economic and political significance” for the Court to approve a delegation to the executive.

The turn to the major questions doctrine implies that the statute, under normal principles of statutory construction, authorizes the president’s action, a point that Justice Gorsuch explicitly conceded in his concurring opinion.

But here’s the rub. The court has never previously applied the major questions doctrine in the foreign policy arena — and for good reason. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has the core responsibility for foreign policy. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged as much, stating in the part of his opinion that garnered only three votes that “as a general matter, the President of course enjoys some ‘independent constitutional power[s]’ over foreign affairs ‘even without congressional authorization.'”

That’s quite an understatement. The failure to recognize the full measure of that fundamentally important piece of constitutional law is the first fatal flaw in the chief justice’s opinion.

The key Supreme Court case on this point is United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which Roberts does not mention. In that case, Justice George Sutherland, writing for a near-unanimous court, articulated the principled distinction between foreign and domestic powers: “In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.”

Then, quoting John Marshall’s “great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives,” Sutherland added, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”

The main issue in the case was whether Congress could delegate to the president the authority to prohibit the sale of arms to either side in a war between Bolivia and Paraguay. But Sutherland did not rely solely on the act of Congress. He wrote:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations — a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.

In other words, President Roosevelt had the power to ban the sale of arms even without the act of Congress at issue.

The same should be true in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Thomas’ dissenting opinion convincingly demonstrates why that is the case. While the chief justice claimed that Solicitor General D. John Sauer conceded that “the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” that’s not exactly what Sauer said. Rather, he argued that the statute delegated such authority to the president. Under Curtiss-Wright, a claim of inherent authority over foreign policy should still be viable.

In the part of the Curtiss-Wright opinion I elided above, Sutherland noted that the president’s power over foreign affairs, “like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.”

For Roberts, the fact that the taxing power is vested exclusively in Congress — and that any bill “for raising revenue” must originate in the House of Representatives — further confirmed that Congress had not delegated to the president any authority to impose tariffs. The point lands a bit oddly, given Roberts’ earlier willingness to treat Obamacare as a tax even though the bill originated in the Senate.

RELATED: ‘Even stronger’: President Trump optimistic even after SCOTUS strikes down tariffs

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

That move exposes the court’s second fatal flaw: a tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

President Trump’s tariffs plainly fell into the latter category, even if they also happened to raise substantial revenue. This dual character is not unique to presidential tariffs; the Constitution itself recognizes it in a related provision. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws.”

That clause reflects the same two-hat reality. An impost or duty — akin to a tariff — can be a revenue measure, but it also can serve a regulatory end tied to a state’s police power. Congress’ exclusive authority to impose taxes under Article I, Section 8, does not erase the states’ limited ability to levy duties for a different purpose: enforcing inspection laws to protect health and safety.

So too with tariffs. The fact that duties and imposts fall within Congress’ taxing power does not negate the president’s authority to use tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy — a “plenary and exclusive” power that Curtiss-Wright describes as vested in the president as the nation’s “sole organ” in external affairs.

That distinction drives Thomas’ characteristically insightful dissent. He points, in effect, to a path by which the president may continue using tariffs while negotiating with and responding to foreign nations in his role as the sole organ of American foreign policy. Time will tell whether the court, if the president takes that route, will remain faithful to its landmark Curtiss-Wright precedent. It should.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Trump warns Iran in State of the Union: "I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon" while signaling diplomacy.

Four innocents were killed in a mass stabbing at a Pierce County, Washington, home some time between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.

The post Four Innocents Killed in Washington Mass Stabbing appeared first on Breitbart.

The New York City Police Department released photos of two people wanted in Monday's mob attack on cops amid a snowball fight, which reportedly caused multiple injuries to officers.

The NYPD Facebook post indicates that "two uniformed police officers were inside Washington Square Park when two individuals intentionally struck the officers multiple times with snow and ice causing injury to their head, neck, and face. Anyone with information is asked to contact @NYPDTips or 800-577-TIPS."

'That doesn’t look like a snowball fight to me, Mamdani.'

The NYPD post adds that the pair are "wanted for assault on a police officer."

Police told WABC-TV that officers responded to the park around 4 p.m. for a report of a number of people atop a roof — but officers were soon hit with snowballs, and multiple officers were taken to a hospital with facial cuts.

RELATED: 'Despicable attack': Brazen mob pelts NYPD officers with snowballs, multiple cops reportedly injured — and it's all on video

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) faced criticism Tuesday over the assault on officers, with a number of political figures noting that the mayor's history of anti-police rhetoric contributed to the mob attack.

When asked at a news conference if he supports the police department's intention to criminally prosecute suspects in the case, Mamdani replied, "I don't. From the videos that I've seen, it looks like a snowball fight."

RELATED: 'This is disgraceful': Mamdani raked over the coals for attack on NYPD

The NYPD's Facebook post concerning the two individuals wanted in the matter has received more than 17,000 comments as of Wednesday morning — and it appears after a cursory read that many of them actually mock police over the incident. One wrote, "They showed up for a snowball fight. What did they expect? I'm sure there were mass casualties."

Others, however, weren't happy with those caught on camera attacking cops:

• "That doesn’t look like a snowball fight to me, Mamdani," one commenter noted.
• "A snowball fight is when you have 2 opposing sides," another user stated. "NYPD was not throwing snowballs as far as I can see."
• "The cops didn’t think it was funny. They push a couple of people who were very aggressive," another commenter wrote. "This idea that is being pushed by some that we do not have to respect or obey law enforcement is getting out of control. Those officers showed tremendous restraint."
• "The mayor would demand the arrest of the officers if they threw snowballs back at the thugs," another user observed.

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

FBI Director Kash Patel faces criticism after celebrating with Olympic hockey team, but his first year shows major wins with arrests and operations.