Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is now begging Republicans to help Democrats fight what he calls “unconstitutional federal actions”—apparently unaware that enforcing immigration law is exactly what voters elected Trump to do. Democrats Challenge Trump’s Immigration Enforcement Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and Saint Paul officials filed a federal lawsuit on January 12, 2026, attempting to halt “Operation Metro Surge”—the Trump administration’s comprehensive immigration enforcement operation. The lawsuit targets the Department of Homeland Security and seeks to stop federal agents from enforcing immigration law in Minnesota. This represents a direct challenge to the constitutional authority of the federal government to secure America’s borders and enforce existing immigration statutes. Sanctuary State Officials Cry Federal Overreach Ellison characterized the federal enforcement operation as a “federal invasion,” revealing the disconnect between Democratic leaders and constitutional reality. Mayor Frey complained that Minneapolis is “paying the price” for federal immigration enforcement, apparently forgetting that harboring illegal immigrants violates federal law. The officials claim Operation Metro Surge uses “wildly disproportionate” resources, with up to 50 agents involved in single arrests. This response demonstrates how sanctuary policies have emboldened local officials to obstruct legitimate federal law enforcement. The lawsuit alleges First Amendment violations, claiming the Trump administration targets Minnesota due to its Democratic leadership and voting patterns. However, Minnesota’s designation as a sanctuary jurisdiction and its active resistance to immigration enforcement provides ample legal justification for enhanced federal attention. The state’s policies have created safe havens for individuals who entered the country illegally, necessitating robust federal intervention to restore rule of law. Constitutional Claims Ignore Federal Immigration Authority Democratic officials invoke Tenth Amendment protections, arguing that immigration enforcement interferes with state authority over schools and local police resources. This argument fundamentally misunderstands constitutional federalism—immigration enforcement remains an exclusive federal power that supersedes state preferences. The Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration, and the executive branch has clear responsibility to enforce these laws regardless of local political opposition. Minnesota’s resistance to federal immigration enforcement actually violates the Supremacy Clause. The lawsuit also challenges enforcement actions at sensitive locations including churches and courthouses, claiming these violate administrative procedures. However, criminals who violate immigration law don’t gain sanctuary simply by location. The complaint about “warrantless arrests” ignores established precedent allowing immigration agents to arrest individuals based on administrative violations. These legal theories represent desperate attempts to shield illegal immigrants from consequences of violating federal law. Trump Administration Delivers on Campaign Promises Operation Metro Surge represents exactly the type of immigration enforcement that American voters demanded when they elected President Trump. The operation addresses years of sanctuary policies that allowed illegal immigrants to evade federal law with impunity. Minnesota officials’ characterization of lawful enforcement as “chaos” reveals their fundamental opposition to border security and immigration control. Their lawsuit seeks to maintain the failed policies that contributed to America’s immigration crisis under the previous administration. The enforcement operation has reportedly impacted job sites and businesses where illegal workers perform essential functions, demonstrating how sanctuary policies enable exploitation of both illegal immigrants and American workers. By removing illegal workers, Operation Metro Surge creates opportunities for legal residents and citizens while ensuring employers follow federal hiring requirements. This enforcement benefits American communities by restoring respect for immigration law and protecting legal workers from unfair competition. Sources: Minneapolis City Government – Attorney General Lawsuit Minnesota Attorney General’s Office – ICE Communication ABC7 Chicago – Minnesota Twin Cities Sue Federal Government Associated Press – Minnesota and Twin Cities Sue Federal Government

A politically charged festival lineup sparks controversy, challenging loyalties and igniting debates on artistry versus political alignment. Festival Lineup Sparks Backlash Recently, the “Rock the Country” festival announced a lineup featuring hip-hop artists Ludacris and Nelly among predominantly country acts like Kid Rock and Jason Aldean. The event, dubbed “MAGA Music Fest,” quickly became a target of online backlash. Critics accused the artists of aligning with conservative politics, prompting boycotts and public shaming reminiscent of past controversies involving performers at politically charged events. Despite the uproar, both Ludacris and Nelly have remained silent, neither confirming nor denying any changes to their participation. The absence of official responses from the artists has left fans speculating about their motivations and whether financial incentives outweigh political considerations. The festival’s portrayal as a pro-America celebration continues to stir debate about the intersection of music and politics in today’s polarized environment. Political Context and Artist Histories The “Rock the Country” festival is a multi-city event launched in 2024, known for its patriotic Americana theme. The New York Times previously described its 2024 iteration as resembling Trump rallies. Headliners like Kid Rock and Jason Aldean, who have openly supported conservative causes, amplify the festival’s right-leaning image. This context places Ludacris and Nelly, with their histories of Democratic endorsements and past controversies, in a challenging position. Both artists have faced scrutiny for their involvement. Nelly’s participation in Trump’s 2024 inauguration sparked similar backlash, which he defended as a patriotic duty. Ludacris, known for his support of Democratic figures, now finds himself at the center of a debate over artistic freedom versus perceived political betrayal. Implications for Artists and Fans The backlash against Ludacris and Nelly highlights a broader tension between artistic autonomy and fan expectations. Critics argue that their participation in a “MAGA-themed” event undermines their previous political stances and potentially erodes their fan base. Conversely, the festival gains notoriety as a controversial platform, potentially attracting a different audience. As the festival continues with its original lineup, the situation underscores the challenges artists face navigating politically charged environments. The response to Ludacris and Nelly’s participation could set a precedent for future cross-genre bookings at politically tinged events. Sources: Ludacris And Nelly Shamed For Booking At ‘MAGA Music Fest’ Ludacris and Nelly Face Backlash Over Participation in ‘Rock the Country’ Ludacris and Nelly Participate in MAGA Festival, Facing Backlash

A family member of Lance Twiggs, the transgender roommate and lover of Charlie Kirk’s assassin Tyler Robinson, has broken their silence with a devastating revelation that exposes the deep dysfunction behind one of the most shocking political murders in recent history. Family Member Breaks Silence on Twiggs Connection Lance Twiggs’ family has remained largely silent since news broke that their transgender relative was living with Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old who assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. The family member’s statement provides crucial insight into Twiggs’ troubled background and the concerning living situation that preceded the September 10, 2025 attack. This revelation adds another disturbing layer to an already shocking case that has rocked the conservative movement. Troubled History and Family Estrangement According to multiple reports, Lance Twiggs had been kicked out of the family home due to what relatives described as “problematic behavior.” This estrangement preceded Twiggs’ cohabitation with Robinson in what neighbors described as an unstable living arrangement. The timing of this family separation raises questions about whether Twiggs’ isolation contributed to the toxic environment that may have influenced Robinson’s radicalization and ultimate decision to target Kirk during his campus appearance. FBI Protection and Investigation Role Following Robinson’s surrender on September 12, 2025, federal authorities placed Twiggs under FBI protection as investigators sought to determine the extent of any prior knowledge about the assassination plot. Text messages between Robinson and Twiggs revealed Robinson’s confession after the shooting, with Robinson admitting he “had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk” and acted on it. The protection detail has since been lifted, suggesting investigators have concluded their assessment of Twiggs’ potential involvement or threat level. Implications for Conservative Security The emergence of these family revelations underscores the complex web of dysfunction surrounding Robinson’s attack on one of Trump’s most prominent youth advocates. Kirk’s assassination represents a escalation in political violence targeting conservative figures, following previous attempts on President Trump’s life. The case highlights the vulnerability of public conservative events and the need for enhanced security protocols when radical elements operate in increasingly unstable social environments that can foster anti-conservative extremism. Sources: What to Know: Aftermath Charlie Kirk Assassination Death Penalty Assassination of Charlie Kirk Prosecutors Child Witnessed Charlie Kirk Assassination Can He Take Part Case Defendant in Charlie Kirks Killing Asks Judge to Disqualify Prosecutors

Canadian courts vacate convictions against a faithful pastor targeted for defying COVID worship bans, exposing government overreach that spared secular spots but crushed church services. Pastor Koopman’s Defiance Amid Lockdown Bans Rev. John Koopman of Chilliwack Free Reformed Church in British Columbia held in-person worship services from 2020 to 2021 despite Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry’s orders banning them. The church complied with masking and distancing but prioritized religious duty over total shutdowns. Health authorities ignored the church’s accommodation request for weeks, while synagogues received swift approvals. This selective enforcement fueled charges exceeding 20, targeting faithful Christians who refused to abandon their God-given right to worship. Court Vacates Convictions on Technical Grounds In early 2026, reported January 8, a Canadian court vacated two of Koopman’s COVID-related convictions. Crown prosecutors acknowledged errors in court records, leading to the overturn without reviewing the bans’ constitutionality. This relieved $460 in fines from convictions, including one from February 2025. Koopman urged government review of “many errors” in worship restrictions. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms hailed it as a step forward but noted core issues of religious discrimination remain unaddressed. Pattern of Persecution Against Canadian Pastors Koopman’s case fits a broader assault on religious liberty during COVID lockdowns. In Alberta, Pastor Artur Pawlowski faced multiple arrests, 51 days in jail for a Coutts blockade sermon, and a 2023 mischief conviction later mitigated by time served. Pastor Tim Stephens saw charges dropped in August 2023 after repeated defiance. Other pastors endured jail time before releases. These incidents reveal government preference for secular venues over churches, eroding Charter-protected freedoms in ways that alarm defenders of faith and family. Provincial powers wielded fines up to $40,000, yet courts exposed prosecutorial weaknesses through concessions. JCCF’s legal challenges underscore motivations rooted in protecting worship as essential, not optional. Health officials like Henry justified bans for virus control, but unequal accommodations bred justified outrage among conservative communities valuing individual liberty over state mandates. Implications for Religious Freedom and Government Overreach Short-term, the vacating sets precedent for technical challenges, offering potential relief in remaining Koopman cases and similar disputes. Long-term, it spotlights enforcement flaws without endorsing full defiance or policy reversals. Religious communities see partial vindication, bolstering narratives of anti-Christian bias. Politically, it amplifies criticism of COVID-era overreach, echoing unfulfilled amnesty promises in Alberta. As President Trump restores American sovereignty in 2026, this Canadian saga warns against globalist-style intrusions on core values like faith and family. Socially, it strengthens resolve among patriots frustrated by past leftist policies that prioritized control over freedoms. Economic impacts stay minor, but the fight influences broader reviews of pandemic prosecutions. Pro-defiance voices see systemic errors; enforcement supporters cling to health order merits, though technical losses undermine them. Sources: Two Covid convictions against Pastor Koopman vacated Jailed Canadian pastor blasts Alberta Premier Danielle Smith COVID-19 pandemic charges dropped against Pastor Tim Stephens and others B.C. pastor’s fines set aside for violating in-person gathering rules during COVID lockdown Canadian pastor jailed over COVID rules released from prison

The View’s Joy Behar sparked nationwide outrage with her shocking prediction that Trump would exploit Minneapolis ICE protests to declare martial law and cancel midterm elections. The Explosive Prediction That Backfired Joy Behar’s inflammatory comments about Trump using civil unrest to seize power represent a stunning miscalculation of her audience’s tolerance for extreme rhetoric. The veteran View co-host suggested that protests following an ICE shooting in Minneapolis would justify Trump to suspend democratic processes. Her conspiracy theory reflects the deepest fears of progressive commentators who view every Trump policy through the lens of authoritarian overreach. The backlash was immediate and unprecedented. Live audience members, who typically remain respectfully silent during tapings, openly booed the hosts and refused post-show meet-and-greets. Security personnel had to escort vocal protesters from the studio, marking one of the show’s most dramatic confrontations. When Anti-ICE Rhetoric Met Reality The controversy stems from an ICE agent’s fatal shooting of an American citizen in Minneapolis, which The View hosts used as ammunition against Trump’s immigration policies. Sunny Hostin escalated the rhetoric by comparing Trump to Hitler and describing ICE agents as “inhumane.” She blamed Trump supporters for encouraging violence and characterized the shooting as an “evil act” enabled by expanded enforcement powers. The hosts referenced the Department of Justice use-of-force policies, arguing the Minneapolis shooting violated standards since the agent could have moved aside rather than firing at a vehicle. Hostin cited statistics claiming ICE had fired on at least nine people in cars, killing seven, establishing what she called a pattern of excessive force under Trump’s policies. The Audience Rebellion That Changed Everything What makes this incident extraordinary is not just the content of the hosts’ comments. Still, the unprecedented audience revolt that followed. Conservative commentator Mike Zeroh described the confrontation as “woke Hollywood” hypocrisy being exposed in real time. The audience’s reaction suggests even The View’s traditionally liberal-leaning viewers have limits when it comes to extreme political rhetoric. The incident reveals a critical disconnect between progressive media personalities and ordinary Americans who support immigration enforcement. While the hosts framed ICE operations as targeting innocent people, many viewers understand these efforts focus on removing individuals who have violated immigration laws or committed fraud.