Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced Tuesday that the Justice Department will no longer have “disparate impact” regulations. “For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law,” Bondi said in a statement. “No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, joined the Dec. 10 episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast” to discuss the Justice Department’s decision. Read a lightly edited transcript, pasted below, or watch the interview, which starts at around 26:50. Tony Kinnett: She’s done it. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general on civil rights, she has announced that disparate impact be gone. It is on its way out, finally. And man, it has overstayed its welcome. So, we go to the legal expert of legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky from The Heritage Foundation, because you may be out there going, “Disparate impact—Tony, I hate corporate words. What are we talking about?” Hans, give us a little bit of perspective here. Why do the words “disparate impact” mean so much to the United States? Hans von Spakovsky: Well, unfortunately, this is a, frankly, very dubious legal theory that has been used now for decades in a wrong way to violate the equal protection we’re all entitled to. And what we’re talking about is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act 1965—it banned racial discrimination. It basically put into force the equal treatment requirements of the 14th Amendment. And Title VI specifically says that if you’re getting federal money for some kind of program, you can’t discriminate on the basis of race. Well, unfortunately, the Justice Department, decades ago, issued these regulations in which they said, Oh, you know what? You don’t violate that statute just if you intentionally set out to discriminate, but also if whatever you do has a disparate impact. And what they’re talking about is, let’s say you have a totally neutral policy. Race is not considered. But for some reason, it affects members of one race more than others. Well, then the Justice Department said, well, you’re violating the law. And therefore, your federal funding can get cut off. And let me give you—can I give you an example of the absurdity of this? Kinnett: Please. We are all about examples and receipts here on “The Tony Kinnett Cast.” Von Spakovsky: OK. And that’s why what the Justice Department did is so important and long overdue. In 2001, there was a Supreme Court decision. It was called Alexander v. Sandoval. And what happened was this woman sued the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming disparate impact. Why? Because you could only take the driver’s license exam in English. And she said that English-only requirement meant that it had a disparate impact on people who don’t speak English … Now, fortunately, the Supreme Court, Justice [Antonin] Scalia, said, No. Title VI only prohibits intentional racial discrimination. But the Justice Department never changed its regulations. They kept this disparate impact provision in there. And now, finally, finally, the Justice Department has said, no, that’s no longer going to be the way we enforce the law. Kinnett: So, just as a manner of receipt-keeping here, there really is a huge decision by the Department of Justice to roll back some of these because some of the bigger cases in our nation’s history—Griggs v. Duke Power in 1971 said that Duke Power was discriminating against black people, even though there was nothing that showed Duke Power was actually going out of their way to discriminate against black people in signing up for energy services. Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: The Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody in 1975. The Supreme Court held that, well, I mean, once a plaintiff shows that there was disparate impact, the company has to prove they’re innocent. Which is wild. This precedent that stood in this country where if someone says, “I think this is racist,” it’s not that they have to prove you were racist. It’s that you have to prove your innocence. Because, obviously, the only reason that you know the driver’s test in Alabama would be in English is to exclude people who speak other languages. This kind of harebrained mental gymnastics really started ratcheting up, though, in the Obama years. And that’s when the Department of Justice kicked it into nitrous. Von Spakovsky: That’s right. Kinnett: You were on the forefront of that at the time with boxing gloves on. Tell us about the Obama years, throwing this harebrained mental gymnastics of disparate impact racism into high gear. Von Spakovsky: Well, for example, that attitude really affected elementary, K-12 students, ruining their educational experience. Why? Because the Obama administration went in and said, if you discipline more, for example, black students than white students, if the ultimate numbers at the end of the year are that you disciplined a greater percentage of black students than white students, then that’s disparate treatment and disparate impact, and you have violated the law. It didn’t matter. Kinnett: Because you’re clearly singling out black children, or so, as the administration said. Von Spakovsky: Right. It didn’t matter if, in fact, the reason for that was because, perhaps, those children actually had greater discipline problems than other kids. That didn’t matter. It didn’t matter what kind of discipline problems the school was experiencing. So, what did that mean? The schools started changing what they did. They didn’t want their percentages to be out of whack, and so, they would keep disruptive students in classrooms rather than discipline them. So, who did that punish? All the good students, no matter what their race was. They had to be in class with these disruptive students who weren’t disciplined. Why? Because they basically had to meet the quota, the quota system set up by the Obama administration. And that’s what it was. It was a quota system. Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said @AAGDhillon. “Our… pic.twitter.com/EjhLR6WhWe— DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) December 9, 2025 Kinnett: So, this is now going to shift into [President Donald] Trump One because [former President Barack] Obama had all these practices, of course, not to mention the Civil Rights Division going after housing during the Obama years. I think Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. the Inclusive Communities Project back in 2015. Now, Trump One gets in and we’re looking for some major rollbacks of this at long last. And that first Department of Justice, they try to roll some stuff back, but it’s a little slow and it’s a little sluggish. And then [President Joe] Biden brings it right back. Then comes in Pam Bondi in the second administration. Why is this time, this Department of Justice, with what Bondi is doing, with what Harmeet Dhillon is doing, why is this different? Von Spakovsky: Because the leadership is different. Plus, the preparation is different. Look, Donald Trump came into office the first time. He appointed a lot of what I call retreads. You know, people from prior Republican administrations who weren’t interested in taking the kind of bold action needed to roll back a lot of these things. Plus, he just wasn’t experienced in—look, he was a businessman. He didn’t realize how much resistance he was gonna get from the bureaucracy, the swamp, as we all call it. Kinnett: How bad the rot was. Von Spakovsky: I actually think one of the best things that happened to him was losing that 2020 election. Why? Because it gave him four years to prepare and for his people to prepare for his second term. They came in and were doing things immediately, and we didn’t have any of the kind of delays that we had in the first administration. Plus, the people who he’s appointed are real loyalists and people who really want to roll back the bad things the federal government has done. Kinnett: I think that’s so understated. And it really, by the way, when I pointed out when Trump was elected, the team of mavericks he already had ready to go, he didn’t just run as himself in 2024, he ran as a team. I mean, he was announcing his picks before the election took place and building this large tent that, essentially, their motto was all right, that’s it. And it was this idea in the first administration, this sludge that dragged everything down, to come in with a team of mavericks after four years of planning, of course, some of it with The Heritage Foundation, some it with the America First Policy Institute, over 200 different organizations, state officials, federal officials, this massive movement of people that have come in and started digging through the rot, or you’ve called it this pushback, eternal pushback from the bureaucracy. Now, to see the leadership coming in and writing these decades of wrongs and a Supreme Court that seems pretty equally willing—Producer Nick and I have talked about this quite a bit. It really appears that [Chief Justice] John Roberts and [Justice] Clarence Thomas have axes to grind with these years and years of just disgusting SCOTUS decisions. I mean, Thomas himself has been on how many dissents in some of these cases that we’ve talked about? Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: I’m not just trying to pull daisies out of concrete here. This is some naturally good news that, I mean, how long have we heard about the bakers getting harassed because they wouldn’t bake the LGBTQ+2IA cake? Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: This stuff’s huge. Von Spakovsky: Right. And look, we just on Monday, you know, Dec. 9, we had a case before the Supreme Court, Trump v. Slaughter, in which Trump, the first president in 90 years to challenge a very bad Supreme Court decision issued in 1935, in which the Supreme Court said that, oh, yeah, Congress could set up all these supposedly independent agencies that actually carry out executive branch functions and oh, the president, he’ll have no supervisory control over those organizations and that’s OK. And Trump has challenged that, as he should, because that was a bad decision. And like I said, no other president, certainly no other Republican president, has ever challenged that. Kinnett: It really is an important facet of the new administration to challenge why something is there, this worship of the status quo that has enshrined every single legal institution in our country, this idea that, well, I mean, it isn’t killing us all actively, so therefore, it must be fine, and ignoring those who are being targeted directly by these outdated, old systems or bad actors using these old, outdated systems against Americans. Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: I wanted to bring it back really quickly, though, to Bondi and to Harmeet Dhillon, just one more time here. Now that we have seen the DOJ roll back some of these longstanding procedures and policies, what do those two, Harmeet Dhillon and Pam Bondi, need to advocate for? What do they need to push for? What do they need to demand from Congress or demand from the president’s office or demand from the judicial system so that these changes are made permanent? Von Spakovsky: I think, I mean, the best thing that could happen is for Congress to pass a bill making it clear that only intentional discrimination is covered by the Civil Rights Act. It does not cover disparate impact. And in fact, disparate impact is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. That’s very important. Now, that’s Congress. But what Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon have got to do now is, remember, this has enormous effect because it affects any program that receives federal money. Well, Tony, you and I know—look, every single government department, every single government agency, they dole out huge amounts of federal funds to not just private organizations, but local and state governments. And what Bondi and Dhillon are now going to have to do is make sure that all of those programs at the state and local level that have been discriminating stop discriminating. Kinnett: If the boom isn’t leveled and those who are vehemently breaking said laws and going against legal practices and going against civil rights practice aren’t not only caught, but then made an example of, hit with the full weight of the law—we’ve talked about this. I know you and I have talked about this on immigration, on those who are violating labor laws, hiring illegal immigrants, need to be made an example of so that it is made clear what happens when you break the law. Ten out of 10 stuff. Hans von Spakovsky, the legal mastermind himself over at The Heritage Foundation, who I know you’re grinning from ear to ear at the excellent updates from the DOJ. Thanks for hopping on with us. Von Spakovsky: Sure. Thanks for having me. The post Hans von Spakovsky Explains Why DOJ Rejection of Disparate Impact Matters appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett’s “Carhartt Christmas Party” in his Capitol Hill office has become one of the most anticipated events in Washington for the eclectic crowd it attracts. The fourth annual bash attracted guests ranging from Democrat Congressmen to a local homeless man running for dictator. And in 15 minutes, it was all over. The “Carhartt” theme comes from Burchett’s Carhartt overcoat, which he often wears in the colder months. Burchett explained the party’s brevity in a post to X before the party. “Last year it went to 16 [minutes], but we thought it dragged on too much,” Burchett said.  “The reason it’s 15 minutes is you go to a dadgum Christmas party and what happens? You get cornered by somebody who’s half lit and they got wine breath and they’re cornering you in the corner over there for 15 minutes and that’s about all you can take. So I’m thinking 15 minutes is all you need for a Christmas party to say your piece and go on about it.” 10 minutes out from @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party, a line down the hall.@RepJimBaird is in line pic.twitter.com/F6juVcoTkn— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 For food, the East Tennessean offered “charcuterie” in the form of Ritz crackers and spray cheese, as well as a do-it-yourself peanut butter and jelly sandwich bar. Dozens of guests crammed themselves into his office in the Longworth House office building, including Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa.; Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.; Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas; and Rep. Jim Baird, R-Ind. Another special guest was Rick Hohensee, a Washington, D.C. homeless man whom Burchett invited in to enjoy a snack.  Hohensee is often spotted around Capitol Hill with a sign reading “Rick for dictator,” and runs a website that reads, “Rick Hohensee for executive/legislature of the USA for two years by Constitutional Amendment.” Rick, a homlesss man who runs the website “https://t.co/Pe99xXXAyk” joins @timburchett for “charcuterie” and plays Christmas songs at Christmas party.@DailySignal pic.twitter.com/tFZWVx3uIc— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 Hohensee proceeded to take out his harmonica and play classic Christmas songs alongside Gary Chapman, a singer-songwriter Burchett invited to play guitar. Washington homeless man Rick, who runs https://t.co/Pe99xXXAyk, plays the harp at @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party pic.twitter.com/Q2Xmw2aO6m— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 There were also some constituents from Burchett’s Knoxville-area Congressional district. Randy Dalton from Blaine, Tennessee came with his family and told The Daily Signal, “I know him pretty well. I’ve spent a little time with him. I know he’s a great guy.” Randy Dalton, a native of East Tennessee, was at @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party in the Capitol.“I know he’s a great guy.” pic.twitter.com/iJzitZa2jO— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 Dalton told The Daily Signal he appreciated the office’s communication with constituents, saying, “They’re very open. You can call any time. Yeah, I’ve called a few times and they’re very easy and all his people, staffers, everyone, they’re just nice people.” After the party concluded, Burchett went outside, where he provided cheese whiz and crackers to those passing through the hallway. .@SenFettermanPA joins @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party pic.twitter.com/PASXrcZvGx— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 Burchett has long held public friendships with a diverse group of people, as he is on a first-name basis with Capitol employees, and has also been known to be friendly with Democrat Reps. such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.  However, he did not come to Washington to go along to get along, often showing willingness to buck the party line. Burchett was one of the Republicans who voted to oust then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in 2023.  A/C and Year-Round Sessions: Burchett Slams Capitol Culture, Says Real Work Happens Back HomeThe worst thing that has ever happened to the Capitol Building? “Air conditioning,” says Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn.@RepTimBurchett joined “The Signal Sitdown” with @bradleydevlin at… pic.twitter.com/WYRo5owFyv— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 11, 2025 On Wednesday, he voted against the Republican-backed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), saying it was the work of “war pimps” while criticizing its $900 billion price tag, aid to Ukraine, and non-defense related provisions. The post Cheez Whiz and PB&J: Inside the Best Christmas Party in Washington DC appeared first on The Daily Signal.

With the “temporary” Obamacare subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, Republicans in Congress have floated several plans to make health care more affordable. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., joined the Tony Kinnett Cast on Thursday to discuss his idea to tamp down on health care costs while helping families with their medical bills. The legislation would expand health savings accounts funded by the government. Scott said that Americans generally want everyone to get health care and have a safety net for those who need it. The senator said that his personal experience helped him understand what it’s like when a family has uncertainty about health care coverage. “Why it’s important to me is I grew up in a family that struggled,” he said. “My mom struggled to put food on the table. When my brother had a significant disease, she couldn’t find a doctor or hospital to take care of him in her hometown. We had to go four hours away to a charity hospital. So this hits home to me, right?” But Scott said that the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, has been an “absolute disaster” that turned out to be based on “complete lies.” “Oh, you’re going to keep your doctor. That was a complete lie. Oh, you get to keep your plan. Lie,” he said. “Oh, you’re going to save $2,500 per family. Lie. And so, what’s frustrating is it’s been sold on a lie.” What’s happened since the passage of Obamacare is that “costs have skyrocketed,” Scott said. He explained that a high-deductible plan has risen in price from around $3,000 to “$6,500, $10,000, $15,000.” The Florida senator said that his plan, which was cosponsored by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, is aimed at addressing the “root problem” behind health care costs. He compared his plan to food stamps, where people are given money to buy food themselves rather than giving grocery stores money directly and having them decide what groceries a family needs. “In health care, we do the opposite. We give you an insurance card, but we say we’re going to let government decide what insurance, what health care you get or let the insurance company,” he said, noting that his plan was aimed at giving money to individuals who would have the ability to choose and pay for their own health care. Kinnett asked Scott about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and how his health care law would prevent the kind of fraud that has become “rampant” in that system. “Number one is they have to pay a portion of [their] health insurance,” Scott said, which was a feature of the original Obamacare subsidies. “Number two is you’ve got to verify who people are, and you got to verify their dependents,” he said, noting that he aggressively did this when he was the governor of Florida, “but the federal government, they’re OK with the fraud so far.” Scott said that the current COVID-19 era subsidies Democrats are trying to extend are going to some people “making $250,000 a year that could be worth a million dollars” and that this “ought to stop.” Then we need to “go back to the old the original Obamacare, which had requirements that you had to pay a portion of your premiums,” Scott said. The Senate voted on Scott’s plan Thursday afternoon with a count of 51 to 48 in favor, so it failed to get the 60 votes needed to pass. Democrats unanimously voted against it. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted against it and Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. Didn’t vote. The post Obamacare Was Built on ‘Lies’ Sen. Scott Says While Touting His Alternative Health Care Plan appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Democrat member’s effort to impeach President Donald Trump failed on Thursday, but Democrats’ votes shed light on who exactly is willing to assist in putting Trump on trial again. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, introduced the resolution—which is not his first of the Congress, accusing Trump of “calling for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers.” Republicans set up a vote on a motion to table the resolution to scrap Green’s bill in June, which succeeded by an 237-140 margin, with 47 members voting “present” and nine not voting. In total, 140 Democrats voted against the motion to table, 23 Democrats voted in favor alongside Republicans, and three did not vote. But Democrat support for having a Trump impeachment vote has nearly doubled since the last time the House voted on a measure like this. A previous attempt from Green to impeach Trump was tabled by a 344-79 vote in June. It appears House Democrats are growing warmer to the idea of impeachment now that America is less than a year out from the midterm elections. Firebrand Democrat Reps. such as Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Sarah McBride of Delaware, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez  voted against tabling the motion. There were also multiple long-time Democrat Reps. who voted against tabling, such as Debbie Dingell of Michigan, Lloyd Doggett of Texas, and Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. Top-ranking Democrat leaders, such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar of California, and House Minority Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, voted “present,” as did former Speaker Nancy Pelosi from California. There were also some swing district Democrat Reps. who joined with Republicans to table the impeachment effort. Republicans were practically unanimous in tabling the bill, with 214 voting yea and six not voting. This group included Don Davis of North Carolina, Tom Suozzi of New York, Marie Gluesenkamp-Perez of Washington, Jared Golden of Maine, and Henry Cuellar of Texas.  In total, 23 Democrats voted in favor of the motion to table. The impeachment attempt comes as Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., has also introduced an impeachment resolution against Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., has done the same against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The post The Number of Democrats Backing Trump Impeachment Vote Has Nearly Doubled appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Indiana State Senate, which has a GOP super majority, has voted against a redistricting bill that would have likely given Republicans two additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Control of the House in next year’s midterms is critical for Republicans, who fear that a Democrat majority would try to impeach Trump. The final tally was 19 to 31. Republicans have a 40 to 10 advantage over Democrats in the upper chamber, but 21 Republicans joined the 10 Democrats in voting no. The state senate vote was the culmination of weeks of lobbying by members of the Trump administration and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., who had taken to calling Indiana state lawmakers this week in an effort to swing votes. The current congressional delegation from the Hoosier state is composed of seven Republicans and two Democrats in the U.S. House. The new map would have given Republicans a 9-0 sweep. Protesters outside are cheering “We did it!” As Indiana Senators vote down redistricting. (On this pic, Young will be a yes. That’s only 19 yeses.) pic.twitter.com/Sfblu0ItNM— Kayla Dwyer (@kayla_dwyer17) December 11, 2025 Trump Threatens to Primary President Donald Trump has promised to primary the Republican state senators who voted against the redistricting bill, writing on Truth Social yesterday, “I will do everything within my power to make sure that they will not hurt the Republican Party, and our Country, again.” Despite his preemptive condemnation and primary threat of some Indiana lawmakers, the president has been enthusiastically supported by a crop of younger legislators looking toward the future of the party. This week The Daily Signal spoke with Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith and state Rep. Andrew Ireland. Both expressed support for the redistricting effort, but explained why Indiana’s Senate voted against the map. Beckwith described the older generation in the state senate as “embod[ing] the spirit of Neville Chamberlain, like we can make peace with evil.” Ireland, who at age 30 is one of the youngest lawmakers in the country, emphasized that the electoral map would have real consequences. “I mean, the difference between two votes, if you look at the journey right now, is the difference between the ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ passing and not, for example. And for all the frustrations that I and I’m sure others have with what happens in Washington and Republicans in Congress letting us down, I think we’ve also seen the consequences of having Democrats in the majority,” the state lawmaker explained. Vice President JD Vance, who has personally whipped for the map in recent weeks, took aim at Indiana Senate Republican leader Rodric Bray in a post on X. “Rod Bray, the Senate leader in Indiana, has consistently told us he wouldn’t fight redistricting while simultaneously whipping his members against it,” the vice president wrote. “That level of dishonesty cannot be rewarded, and the Indiana GOP needs to choose a side.” Rod Bray, the Senate leader in Indiana, has consistently told us he wouldn't fight redistricting while simultaneously whipping his members against it. That level of dishonesty cannot be rewarded, and the Indiana GOP needs to choose a side. https://t.co/63Vg7qkpDg— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 11, 2025 Bray voted no on the map and has been repeatedly criticized for his handling of the redistricting effort. Mike Johnson Looks to the Midterms In the U.S. House, Johnson currently faces a thin margin, and Republican House member retirement or resignation announcements are expected to continue prior to the midterm primary season. The Indiana redistricting effort would have helped Republicans in the ongoing redistricting wars. Several states across the country are currently contemplating or in the process of redistricting, including Texas, California, and Missouri. Historically, the party in power in the White House faces headwinds during a midterm election season, although time will tell if voters come out in support of an agenda that has delivered tax cuts, a secure border, mass deportations of illegal aliens, and several peace deals, among other accomplishments. The post BREAKING: Indiana Senate Votes Against Congressional Map That Could Help Trump Avoid Impeachment appeared first on The Daily Signal.