A Georgia judge just told Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger that he cannot lock observers out of the room where election results are received, aggregated, and reported to the public. Fulton County Chief Judge Ural Glanville signed a temporary restraining order on the eve of Georgia’s May 19 Republican primary, forcing Raffensperger to admit properly designated poll watchers and Georgia State Election Board observers into the Election Night Reporting Room. The facility, also known as the Emergency Operations Center, is the nerve center where county-level results flow in, get verified, and are ultimately reported statewide. BREAKING: We have secured a TRO from Chief Judge Glanville. Bipartisan members of the State Election Board and poll watchers WILL be allowed inside Secretary Raffensperger’s “bunker” to observe tonight’s process. Transparency wins. The people of Georgia deserve honest, observable elections. pic.twitter.com/BVOLnrt9Ic — Senator Greg Dolezal (@DolezalForGA) May 19, 2026 Three Republican petitioners brought the emergency action: State Senator Greg Dolezal, U.S. House candidate Chris Mora, and Cobb County Commissioner Keli Gambrill. All three argued that Georgia law guarantees transparency at every stage of the election process, and that Raffensperger’s office had no authority to bar credentialed observers from the room. As The Gateway Pundit reported: Chief Judge Ural Glanville signed a temporary restraining order granting bipartisan members of the Georgia State Election Board and poll watchers access to Raffensperger’s Election Night Reporting Room. The room is the secure emergency operations facility where statewide vote totals from Georgia’s 159 counties are aggregated and prepared for public release on primary night. Raffensperger’s office had resisted access requests while arguing that ballots themselves are not counted inside the facility. The petitioners, however, argued that the reporting, aggregation, and verification process is still part of election administration and should be open to properly designated observers. That is the heart of the fight: if the public is expected to trust the statewide reporting process, then observers should not be kept outside the door while results are flowing in. The timing made the order even more important because Georgia voters were already heading into a live primary night. Raffensperger’s office pushed back, arguing that no ballots are actually counted inside the Emergency Operations Center. His team claimed that local county tabulation centers are where ballots are physically handled, scanned, and tallied, and that the reporting room is merely an administrative hub. Judge Glanville was not persuaded. CBS Atlanta laid out the court order this way: Judge Glanville granted an emergency temporary restraining order directing Raffensperger to immediately allow properly designated poll watchers and State Election Board observers into the Election Night Reporting Room. The order bars Raffensperger, his staff, contractors, and anyone acting in coordination with him from excluding or restricting observers from the room or any other facility where county results are received, processed, aggregated, or reported. The order also requires staff to admit observers and give them reasonable proximity so they can meaningfully observe election-night activities without interfering with operations. The restraining order remains in effect until 5 p.m. on May 28 unless the court issues another order. A hearing on a longer-term injunction is scheduled for May 28 in Fulton County Superior Court. That means the access fight did not end with a press statement; it ended, for now, with a binding court order. What makes this worse is that Raffensperger is not a neutral party in this election. He is a candidate in the same May 19 Georgia Republican primary, running for governor. The man overseeing the election infrastructure is on the ballot himself, and his office tried to keep observers out of the room where results are compiled and reported. That is exactly the kind of conflict of interest that demands more transparency, not less. Judge signs court order granting Georgia State Election Board access to the SOS election bunker…. Here is the update from @MoraForGeorgia @MarkDavisGOP @GAballots pic.twitter.com/jQJ7rO8HhU — Voice of Rural America (@VoiceofRuralAm) May 19, 2026 The Federalist explained why the fight matters: The Election Night Reporting Room is a centralized facility east of Atlanta where votes from all 159 Georgia counties are aggregated in real time and statewide results are prepared for public release. Georgia GOP Chairman Josh McKoon called the denial of State Election Board access outrageous and an unacceptable assault on transparency. It also noted that a State Election Board member had publicly raised concerns about final tabulation being done behind closed doors without independent observation and accountability. Raffensperger’s communications director argued that no tabulation happens at the location and that election-integrity concerns should be focused on the county tabulation centers where ballots are actually handled. Prior access to the facility had apparently been granted selectively, which undercuts the idea that observer access is impossible or unreasonable. That is why the access question matters: the issue is not whether observers should interfere, but whether credentialed observers should be close enough to see the statewide reporting process unfold. Observers cannot build confidence from a hallway, and voters cannot audit a process they are told must remain hidden from the very board charged with election oversight. According to Atlanta News First / WALB, the lawsuit was filed as a writ of mandamus petition: Dolezal, Mora, and Gambrill sued Raffensperger in Fulton County Superior Court to demand observation of election activities tied to tabulation, aggregation, verification, and reporting. The petition asked the court to compel Raffensperger to allow poll watchers and State Election Board members to see the process surrounding election results. The petitioners argued that denying access would alter the transparent status of the election system, violate statutory rights, and undermine public confidence. The political conflict hovering over the case is obvious: Raffensperger is running for governor in the very primary election his office is administering. That does not prove wrongdoing by itself, but it makes independent oversight the obvious answer. When the same official is both referee and candidate, the public should get more visibility into the process, not less. The lawsuit forced that basic point into court before the election-night reporting process began. Raffensperger’s defense leans on a technicality: votes are not counted in this room, so observers supposedly do not need to be there. Aggregation and verification of results is not some trivial clerical task. It is the final step before the public sees who won. If the room is really as harmless as Raffensperger’s office claims, then credentialed observers standing in the corner should not be a problem. The fact that three Republicans had to hire lawyers and file an emergency petition just to get inside a public election facility tells you everything you need to know. Transparency should never require a court order.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche walked into a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Monday knowing exactly what Democrats wanted to talk about. One day after the Justice Department announced a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, Blanche faced direct congressional questioning over the program’s scope, its beneficiaries, and whether it amounted to a political slush fund for President Trump’s allies. His answers cut straight through that narrative. Blanche told senators the fund is unusual but not unprecedented, not limited to Republicans, not limited to January 6 defendants, and not limited to cases tied to former Special Counsel Jack Smith. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche will make his first appearance before Congress on Tuesday, testifying on Capitol Hill just one day after the announcement of an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended to compensate allies of President Trump. — NBC Montana (@NBCMontana) May 19, 2026 The hearing marked Blanche’s first appearance on Capitol Hill since replacing former Attorney General Pam Bondi at the helm of the Justice Department. Democrats clearly hoped to use the occasion to frame the fund as a payoff to Trump loyalists. Blanche spent much of his testimony dismantling that premise point by point. C-SPAN posted video of one of the key exchanges, in which Blanche laid out the fund’s rationale in his own words. Blanche called the Anti-Weaponization Fund “unusual” but “not unprecedented,” and said it was created to address “years of weaponization.” He also rejected the narrow frame Democrats were trying to force onto the program. Blanche said the fund is not limited to Biden-era weaponization, January 6 cases, or Jack Smith-related prosecutions. Acting AG Todd Blanche on new $1.8B "anti-weaponization" fund: "This is unusual. That is true. But it is not unprecedented, and it was done to address… years of weaponization…It's not limited to the Biden weaponization. It's not limited…to January 6th, or to Jack Smith." pic.twitter.com/tyePql2U1o — CSPAN (@cspan) May 19, 2026 The exchange with Republican Senator Susan Collins drew some of the most specific commitments of the day. AP reported on the Collins exchange and the structural details Blanche offered about how the fund will operate. Blanche used the Collins exchange to put guardrails around the fund in public. He said it would not be limited to Republicans, and he also said it would not be limited to people investigated or prosecuted during the Biden administration. That clarification undercut the claim that the fund is only a partisan payout machine. It widened the frame from one political party to a larger question: what happens when an American can show the federal government used its power improperly? Blanche also told Collins that payouts would be decided by a five-member commission. He said he expected those decisions to become part of the public record, giving voters, reporters, and Congress a way to see who received compensation and why. That is the detail Democrats now have to deal with. If the commission process is public, critics will have access to the paper trail, and supporters of the fund will have a concrete standard to judge whether the DOJ is actually compensating verified victims of government abuse. The hearing doubled as Blanche’s first congressional appearance since taking control of the Justice Department. That made the exchange a high-profile test of whether the Trump DOJ could defend its lawfare response under direct questioning from senators. That transparency commitment is significant. A public record of payouts removes the possibility that the fund could quietly funnel money without scrutiny. It also eliminates the primary objection Democrats were trying to build: that the fund would operate as a secret reward system for political allies. Forbes reported on the broader context surrounding Blanche’s appearance and its connection to the Trump IRS settlement. Blanche defended the Justice Department’s decision to open the roughly $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund during his first congressional testimony since replacing Pam Bondi. The hearing came immediately after the settlement of President Trump’s IRS lawsuit, which generated the money for the program. That timing made the hearing more than a routine budget appearance. Senators were reviewing department spending, but they were also questioning the Trump DOJ’s attempt to build a formal process for people who say they were harmed by political targeting. The fund therefore sits at the center of a bigger fight over whether the federal government can ever be forced to answer for lawfare. Blanche’s defense was that the process is structured, broader than one political camp, and headed for public scrutiny. For the left, the easy talking point is that the fund helps President Trump’s allies. Blanche’s testimony pushed the argument into harder terrain by saying the eligibility standards and commission process will determine the actual payouts. The hearing was not limited to the fund. Blanche fielded questions on a range of topics, including one that generated its own headlines. Axios reported on one of the other politically charged exchanges from the same hearing. Blanche told senators he would not recommend a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker. That answer landed in a hearing already packed with questions about the Anti-Weaponization Fund, President Trump’s IRS settlement, and the direction of the Justice Department under Blanche. The Maxwell exchange matters here because it shows the hearing was never going to stay inside one tidy budget lane. Democrats used the session to press Blanche across several high-heat subjects, and the fund became part of that broader attempt to put the Trump DOJ on defense. That context made Blanche’s answers on the fund even more important. He was not answering in a friendly interview or a controlled DOJ rollout; he was defending the program while senators tried to turn the hearing into a referendum on the entire Trump Justice Department. Blanche did not give them the clean political sound bite they wanted on the fund. On the key compensation question, he kept returning to process, eligibility, public records, and a commission that would decide claims rather than a private political favor bank. The Anti-Weaponization Fund was the main event, and the political dynamic was clear. Democrats wanted to put Blanche on the defensive. He responded with specifics: a five-member commission, public records, and eligibility that extends beyond any single party or investigation. The Biden administration spent years weaponizing federal agencies against political opponents and then left office without any mechanism for accountability. The Trump DOJ just created one, put it in front of Congress, and dared critics to explain why victims of government abuse should not be made whole. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

President Trump’s Justice Department announced the arrest of a top Nicolás Maduro ally on money laundering charges tied to what prosecutors describe as a sprawling corruption scheme involving Venezuelan food contracts and oil. Alex Nain Saab Moran, Venezuela’s former Minister of Industry and National Production, made his initial court appearance Monday after an indictment was unsealed in the Southern District of Florida. Saab was deported over the weekend by Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodríguez. The case is part of the Homeland Security Task Force initiative. The Justice Department laid out the allegations: Venezuela’s former Minister of Industry and National Production made his initial appearance in court today pursuant to an indictment unsealed in the Southern District of Florida charging him for his alleged role in a sprawling international money laundering conspiracy involving the corruption and exploitation of a Venezuelan public welfare program intended to provide food to vulnerable Venezuelans. According to court records, Alex Nain Saab Moran, 55, of Colombia, allegedly conspired with others to bribe Venezuelan public officials to secure lucrative Comité Local de Abastecimiento y Producción (CLAP) contracts to import food into Venezuela. Saab is accused of conspiring with others to fraudulently misrepresent the nature and source of the food supplies, including falsely documenting imports from Colombia and Mexico. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Saab “will be prosecuted and held fully accountable under U.S. law for his alleged role in this scheme.” “Alex Saab allegedly used American banks to launder hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from a Venezuelan food program meant for the poor and proceeds from the illegal sale of Venezuelan oil,” said Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva. “The Criminal Division will not allow foreign actors to exploit the American financial system and use it as a safe haven for the proceeds of their corruption.” The Justice Department detailed the alleged scheme: Rather than fulfilling the contracts, Saab and his co-conspirators secretly used shell companies, fraudulent invoices, falsified shipping records, and other fabricated documents, along with a network of bribes and kickbacks, to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars that were intended to be used to purchase food for needy Venezuelans. Portions of the illicit proceeds were allegedly spent or concealed through transfers to and through bank accounts in the U.S. The indictment further alleges that, from 2019 through at least January 2026, the conspiracy expanded as U.S. economic sanctions crippled Venezuelan exports, especially oil, placing severe strain on the country’s finances and its ability to meet its foreign debt obligations, including payments to Saab and his co-conspirators as part of the CLAP program. The indictment says Saab and his alleged co-conspirators gained access to billions of dollars’ worth of oil owned by Venezuelan state-owned PDVSA and sold it under false pretenses. Saab is charged with conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted. An indictment is only an allegation. Saab is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. NEW: Maduro ally Alex Saab is now in U.S. custody facing federal money laundering charges tied to what prosecutors describe as a sprawling corruption scheme involving Venezuelan food contracts and oil. According to the DOJ, Saab — Venezuela’s former Minister of Industry and… https://t.co/vuSQ0sK8mS — Ali Bradley (@AliBradleyTV) May 18, 2026 Saab had previously been charged during President Trump’s first term in 2019 and was arrested during a refueling stop in Cape Verde. But President Joe Biden pardoned him in 2023 as part of a prisoner swap that drew criticism from Republicans and federal law enforcement. The Associated Press reported on the courtroom scene: A close ally of ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was charged Monday with bribing top officials to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from lucrative contracts to import food at a time of widespread hardship in the South American country. Alex Saab made his initial court appearance after being deported over the weekend by acting President Delcy Rodríguez as part of a purge of insider businessmen who are believed to have enriched themselves through corrupt dealings with Maduro. Shackled and wearing a beige prison uniform, Saab answered “Yes, ma’am,” in English after being asked by a federal judge in Miami whether he understood the charges against him: a single count of money laundering tied to a decade-old conspiracy to create fake companies, falsify shipping records and skim from government contracts to import food from Colombia and Mexico. Saab, 54, was previously charged during the first Trump administration in 2019 and then arrested during a refueling stop in Cape Verde on what the Venezuelan government described as a high-level humanitarian mission to Iran. But President Joe Biden pardoned him in 2023 in exchange for the release of several imprisoned Americans in Venezuela. The deal, part of a failed effort by the Biden White House to lure Maduro into holding a free presidential election, was harshly criticized by Republicans and federal law enforcement officials, who immediately began investigating Saab for other alleged crimes not covered by the narrowly tailored pardon. U.S. officials have long described Saab as Maduro’s “bag man” and could ask him to serve as a valuable character witness against his former protector, who is awaiting trial on drug charges in Manhattan after being captured in a raid by the U.S. military in January. Saab amassed a fortune through Venezuelan government contracts. The indictment against him in 2019 was tied to a government contract for low-income housing that was never built. The new indictment stems from another case the Justice Department brought against Saab’s longtime partner over the so-called CLAP program set up by Maduro to provide staples, rice, corn flour, cooking oil, to poor Venezuelans at a time of rampant hyperinflation and a crumbling currency. DOJ charged Maduro's "bag man" with money laundering after the former official, Alex Saab, was deported by Venezuelan interim ​Pres Delcy Rodriguez. Rodriguez said it was “justified by national interests.” DOJ could use Saab to strengthen its Maduro casehttps://t.co/J86e46b4Ow — Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff (@DanRosZiff) May 18, 2026 The deportation signaled a new level of coordination between the Trump administration and Rodríguez, who described the move as “justified by national interests.” Reuters explained the broader significance: U.S. prosecutors charged Alex Saab, known as the “bag man” for former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, with money laundering over his alleged exploitation of a Venezuelan welfare plan, according to court filings unsealed on Monday. Saab, a top ally of Maduro’s, was deported by Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodriguez over the weekend to the U.S. in a move that she said was “justified by national interests.” The deportation signaled a new level of coordination between the Trump administration and Rodriguez, Maduro’s former vice president. Saab, the 55-year-old former Venezuelan minister of industry, conspired to bribe Venezuelan officials and transferred money through U.S. bank accounts to enrich himself, prosecutors alleged. He made his initial court appearance on Monday afternoon in a Miami federal court. The charges come as the administration of President Trump prepares to try Maduro, who was captured by U.S. special forces in Caracas earlier this year. Saab could provide U.S. authorities with information to strengthen their criminal case against Maduro, Reuters previously reported. In the court filings, prosecutors describe a sprawling scheme that began in 2015 in which Saab and others used fake companies, shipping records and invoices to pilfer hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked to buy food for Venezuelans. Starting in 2019, Saab and his alleged co-conspirators used their access to the Venezuelan government, which was struggling to pay foreign debts amid U.S. economic sanctions, to sell billions of dollars of oil under false pretenses, prosecutors wrote, alleging that money from those sales was also transferred through U.S. bank accounts. President Joe Biden later granted him clemency in 2023 in exchange for the release of Americans detained in Venezuela. The arrest is part of the Trump DOJ’s aggressive push against cartels, foreign corruption networks, and actors accused of exploiting American banks to hide dirty money. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

President Trump just made the move Texas MAGA voters were waiting for. The president endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Republican Senate runoff against incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, giving Paxton a massive America First boost one week before the May 26 election. I am incredibly honored to have President Trump’s COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT. No one has ever fought harder for the American people than President Trump, and I look forward to championing his America First agenda in the Senate! Texas, get out and VOTE! pic.twitter.com/vGcWH4ZwaD — Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) May 19, 2026 The endorsement lands in the middle of a bitter establishment-versus-MAGA fight and puts Trump’s stamp squarely on the race. Daily Signal reported on the endorsement: President Trump weighed in Tuesday on the Texas Republican Senate primary runoff, backing the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn. “Ken is a true MAGA Warrior who has ALWAYS delivered for Texas, and will continue to do so in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote on Tuesday. He added that Paxton “has gone through a lot, in many cases, very unfairly, but he is a Fighter, and knows how to WIN. Our Country needs Fighters, and also Loyalty to the Cause of Greatness.” The two candidates advanced to a runoff after neither received 50% of the vote in the March 3 primary. Cornyn and Paxton received 43% and 41% of the vote, respectively. The runoff election is scheduled for May 26, with early voting already underway. Trump’s endorsement comes as the closely watched contest has grown increasingly contentious, with Paxton airing attack ads against Cornyn over his past support for a visa program for Afghans who assisted U.S. forces. The president’s intervention also comes as the SAVE America Act, a voter ID measure first introduced by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and backed by Trump, has stalled in the Senate. Trump posted on Tuesday that “John Cornyn is a good man, and I worked well with him, but he was not supportive of me when times were tough.” He also noted that the senator was “very late” in endorsing his 2024 candidacy for president. Paxton, meanwhile, has received backing from several Trump-aligned figures and groups, including Texas Republican Reps. Brandon Gill and Troy Nehls and Turning Point USA. He has pledged to continue his work as Texas attorney general at the federal level if elected. The winner of the primary will face Texas Democrat James Talarico in the general election. Early voting is already underway, with the runoff election scheduled for May 26. NEW COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT OF KEN PAXTON FOR U.S. SENATE! TEXAS – VOTE FOR KEN IN THE RUNOFF ON MAY 26! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! pic.twitter.com/mkfRkC8WBZ — Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) May 19, 2026 The race has been one of the most expensive and contentious Senate primaries in the country. Fox News reported on the stakes: President Trump is finally taking sides in the contentious and costly Republican Senate primary showdown in Texas between longtime Sen. John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton. The president on Tuesday, in a highly anticipated announcement, endorsed Paxton, a MAGA champion. The president’s extremely potent endorsement came one week before the runoff between Cornyn and Paxton in right-leaning Texas. “Ken is a true MAGA Warrior who has ALWAYS delivered for Texas, and will continue to do so in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote in a social media post. The two heated rivals topped a crowded field of contenders in an early March primary, but since no one cleared the 50% threshold, the nomination race headed into overtime, with the runoff election on May 26. Trump decided that now was the time to endorse, after several months of staying neutral, because early voting for the next week’s runoff had opened. “There are those that say whoever I endorse is going to win,” Trump said. “I don’t know if that’s true, but historically, that’s absolutely true. I just don’t like to say it because I don’t like to brag.” Cornyn or Paxton will face off in the general election against rising Democratic Party star state Rep. James Talarico, who topped progressive firebrand Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a vocal Trump critic, in the Democrats’ primary. This year’s Senate showdown in Texas is one of a handful across the country that could determine if Republicans hold their majority in the chamber in the midterm elections. The GOP currently controls the Senate 53-47. The Cornyn campaign and aligned super PACs spent nearly $100 million in the primary campaign to run ads attacking Paxton and Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt, who came in third. Paxton, who has grabbed significant national attention the past dozen years by filing lawsuits against the Obama and Biden administrations, told supporters on primary night, “As we head into this runoff, we’re going to make the choice even clearer. While John Cornyn was cutting deals on gun control and amnesty, I was suing corrupt Joe Biden over 107 times.” Trump explained his decision to back Paxton over the four-term incumbent. “John Cornyn is a good man, and I worked well with him, but he was not supportive of me when times were tough,” Trump wrote. He also noted that Cornyn was “very late” in endorsing his 2024 presidential campaign. BREAKING: President Trump endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Republican Senate runoff against Sen. John Cornyn, calling Paxton a “true MAGA Warrior” who has “ALWAYS delivered for Texas.” pic.twitter.com/gRjjyHPMhV — NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) May 19, 2026 News of the endorsement broke during a Paxton campaign event in Allen, Texas. Associated Press reported on the reaction: President Trump on Tuesday endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate, supercharging his effort to oust incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in next week’s runoff. “Ken is a true MAGA Warrior who has ALWAYS delivered for Texas, and will continue to do so in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote on social media. News of the endorsement broke during a Paxton campaign event, drawing cheers from supporters who began dancing to “YMCA,” a Trump campaign anthem. “I have so much respect for the president and appreciate so much his endorsement,” Paxton said at the event in Allen, Texas. Paxton and Cornyn advanced to a May 26 runoff after finishing as the top vote getters in a March 3 primary where no candidate won a majority. Rep. Wesley Hunt finished third and did not advance. Although the four-term Cornyn has backed Trump’s agenda in Washington, Paxton pitched himself as a political warrior for the Make America Great Again movement. Cornyn’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On Monday, the senator said he believed that Trump had decided not to weigh in with an endorsement. Cornyn also argued that Paxton is a liability in a general election, where Democrats hope to flip the seat blue, and “Ken Paxton would hand it to them on a silver platter.” Trump, in his social media post, said Cornyn was “a good man” but “he was not supportive of me when times were tough.” He complained that “John was very late in backing me in what turned out to be a Historic Run for the Republican Nomination.” The runoff between Cornyn and Paxton had been shaping up as a bitter and expensive battle for the future of the Republican Party, and one that was diverting resources from other competitive races elsewhere in the country. Trump teased the endorsement decision earlier Tuesday, telling supporters that historically whoever he endorses wins. “There are those that say whoever I endorse is going to win,” Trump said. “I don’t know if that’s true, but historically, that’s absolutely true. I just don’t like to say it because I don’t like to brag.” The winner of the May 26 runoff will face Democrat James Talarico in the general election. President Trump just put the America First movement on the field in Texas. Now it’s up to Lone Star State voters to finish the job next week. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

A federal judge in New York has blocked ICE agents from making most arrests at three Manhattan immigration court locations, forcing President Trump’s administration back into the narrow Biden-era restrictions that treated courthouses like sanctuary zones. The ruling covers 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway in Manhattan. A federal judge tied the Trump administration's hands on ICE arrests at Manhattan immigration courts after government lawyers admitted making a 'material mistaken statement of fact' defending the policy. ICE must now revert to Biden-era restrictions on courthouse enforcement… pic.twitter.com/VeKj45p2sr — Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) May 19, 2026 Under the order, ICE can only make arrests in limited circumstances, such as when someone poses a serious public safety threat or there is an imminent risk of flight that cannot be addressed any other way. In other words, illegal aliens who show up to their own immigration hearings are now largely shielded from the very enforcement system those hearings exist to serve. The judge’s ruling came after government lawyers reportedly made a material misstatement of fact during proceedings. The error gave the court an opening to impose the injunction. The administration’s lawyers handed the court an opening by relying on the wrong memo. The bigger problem is what happened next: the court used that opening to put a major enforcement tool back under Biden-era limits. Fox News reported the immediate impact of the ruling: ICE civil immigration arrests at the three Manhattan immigration court locations are temporarily blocked while the broader lawsuit continues. The ruling came after government lawyers acknowledged they had made a material mistaken statement of fact while defending the policy. That legal error gave U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel room to revisit the courthouse-arrest fight and put the old restrictions back in place for now. Practically, the ruling means ICE must revert to narrower Biden-era courthouse enforcement limits in these Manhattan immigration court settings. That is a major operational change because the administration had been using court appearances as predictable moments to locate people already inside the removal process. The plaintiffs argued that the policy turned mandatory immigration hearings into arrest operations. The administration’s problem now is that a process mistake in court has handed the left exactly the kind of enforcement limit it wanted. That matters because these are not random street stops. These are federal immigration court locations where the government already knows who is appearing, why they are appearing, and what stage of the removal process they are in. DHS has made the common-sense argument clear: nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them. Officials have expressed confidence they will ultimately be vindicated on the legal merits. The Epoch Times described the limits placed on ICE: The May 18 ruling bars federal agents from conducting arrests at three Manhattan immigration courts except in limited circumstances. The case came from a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of The Door and African Communities Together. Those groups challenged ICE policies that allow federal agents to arrest people in immigration courts. The judge said ICE agents may make immigration-court arrests only when there are serious threats of physical harm to public safety or similar urgent conditions. That is a very different standard from ordinary enforcement at a location where federal authorities already know a person is scheduled to appear. The ruling puts the government in the absurd position of knowing exactly where removable aliens will be at a specific time and being told it cannot act on that information unless the court-approved emergency box is checked. Think about what this actually means in practice. Someone enters the country illegally. They are placed into removal proceedings. They are ordered to appear at an immigration court at a specific address on a specific date. And now a federal judge says the government cannot arrest them there. Documented NY reported the local scope and the DHS response: The order applies to 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan immigration courts, and it follows the government’s admission that a May 2025 guidance memo had been incorrectly used to justify immigration-court arrests. Under the order, ICE may make arrests at those court locations only under certain enumerated circumstances, including imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm. In ordinary cases, agents are now blocked from using the courthouse appearance itself as the enforcement point. Documented NY also reported that an unnamed Department of Homeland Security spokesperson defended the arrests as commonsense. The DHS position was straightforward: nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them, and the department believes it will ultimately be vindicated. That statement is the core of the fight. The Trump administration sees a courthouse appearance as an obvious moment to enforce the law; the left sees it as a place where enforcement should be pushed back. The left frames this as protecting “access to justice.” The argument is that if people fear arrest at court, they will skip their hearings entirely. But that logic rewards noncompliance. It says the system should accommodate the possibility that someone might flee rather than simply enforcing the law against people who are already in the legal pipeline. President Trump’s administration has been clear from day one that immigration enforcement means removing people who are in the country illegally, including those cycling through an overburdened court system that takes years to resolve cases. Courthouse arrests are not random raids. They target people the government already knows are removable or have pending cases. The legal error that gave this judge his opening is frustrating, and the administration’s lawyers need to tighten up their process. But one mistaken statement should not become the foundation for gutting enforcement at three of the busiest immigration court sites in America. If showing up to immigration court makes someone removable, that should be the moment the law actually works. Not the moment enforcement backs off because a federal judge decided the courthouse door is a finish line for illegal aliens instead of a checkpoint.