Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed

Daily Wire Feed

@dailywirefeed

Anti-ICE Protesters Trap Agents In NYC Parking Garage, Foil Raid
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

Anti-ICE Protesters Trap Agents In NYC Parking Garage, Foil Raid

Chaos erupted in New York City on Saturday, when hundreds of anti-ICE protesters trapped federal immigration officers inside a parking garage for hours, apparently foiling an immigration raid. Starting around 11 a.m., protesters gathered outside of a parking garage on the edge of Chinatown, after seeing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers (ICE) officers in the garage. The crowd of activists — which grew to an estimated 200 or so — shouted anti-ICE slogans, blocked the garage opening, and piled up trash bags to also stand in the way, according to The New York Times. ICE still FROZEN at Centre St & Howard in lower Manhattan right now as calls continue circulating for people to join. NYPD arriving with barricades. pic.twitter.com/pCAsEyVnI9 — Talia Jane ❤️‍? (@taliaotg) November 29, 2025 ? BREAKING: Anti-ICE protestors currently have federal agents and vehicles BLOCKED inside a garage in NYC as they scream “ICE out of New York” The fact they’re allowed to get away with this is why they keep doing it! ARREST THEM ALL! pic.twitter.com/frwdNdZug2 — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 29, 2025 It wasn’t until after 1 p.m. that ICE agents left the garage in their vehicles, while being chased by protesters, who threw things like garbage cans at the vehicles. New York Police Department officers tried to quell the riot but were generally unsuccessful, encountering physical pushback at times. According to the Times, several protesters were arrested, but an apparent ICE raid was foiled. ? BREAKING: Utter CHAOS is breaking out against federal agents in NYC as anti-ICE rioters STORM the barricades Their lives are in danger. WE NEED MASS ARRESTS NOW or they will keep doing this! pic.twitter.com/Yo6nuMTAD3 — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 29, 2025 Attacks on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents from Left-wing activists have spiked exponentially since President Donald Trump took office this term. Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. Earlier this month, border patrol agents conducting immigration enforcement operations in Chicago were shot at by an unknown male driving a black Jeep, the Department of Homeland Security said at the time. DHS also noted that an “unknown number of agitators also threw a paint can and bricks at Border Patrol’s vehicles.” “Over the past two months, we’ve seen an increase in assaults and obstruction targeting federal law enforcement during operations,” DHS said. “These confrontations highlight the dangers our agents face daily and the escalating aggression toward law enforcement. The violence must end.” In October, ICE officers were similarly targeted in an armed attack in Chicago. Assistant Secretary Dept. of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said officers were “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars” and agents were forced to exit their vehicles on foot. Related: ‘The Violence Must End’: Man Opens Fire On Border Patrol Agents In Chicago, Chaos Erupts

It’s Time To Say Goodbye To The Obamacare Failure
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

It’s Time To Say Goodbye To The Obamacare Failure

Imagine tuning into a Sunday football game. Amid the flurry of touchdowns and tackles, the commercials are filled with familiar names — State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, and Farmers — vying for your dollars to cover your cars, homes, and personal liability. You have choices, and the competing advertisements are evidence of a robust marketplace where consumers benefit from price competition and innovation. But imagine if, alongside those ads, you could also shop for your health insurance — across state lines, no different than car or home coverage. Here lies a fundamental problem in American healthcare: you cannot buy most health insurance plans outside your own state. Unlike auto and home insurance, which have broad risk pools and interstate competition, health insurance markets remain balkanized, resulting in fewer choices and higher costs for consumers. The roots of this uniquely American challenge date back to World War II, when the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration instituted wage and price controls to curb inflation. Employers, competing for talent but unable to boost salaries, began offering health insurance as a fringe benefit — a decision that intertwined employment and insurance in a way that persists today. At the time, it may have seemed like progress, but it has left countless Americans dependent on their employers for coverage. When jobs change, so does coverage, leaving those between jobs exposed and often without affordable options. Those ineligible for Medicaid — because their income is just above the cutoff — are especially at risk for being uninsured. Decades later, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, commonly known as “Obamacare,” sought to address the coverage and affordability crisis — most acutely faced by people with preexisting conditions who previously found insurance unattainable unless provided through an employer. The ACA succeeded in expanding insurance coverage to millions, particularly through Medicaid expansion and the establishment of insurance marketplaces. However, for those who do not qualify for federal subsidies, premiums and deductibles have soared. In many instances, families can face monthly premiums in the thousands, coupled with out-of-pocket costs so high that insurance feels more like catastrophic “coverage” than true protection. So while the ACA has done some good, it has not even come close to solving the affordability problem for which it is named. The reasons for these persistent affordability issues are not mysterious. The underlying dynamics are straightforward, even as the system itself grows ever more complex. First, the ACA left state-level insurance monopolies untouched. Insurers still must navigate and adhere to rules that keep them within state lines, limiting the competitive pressure that could lower costs. Second, the oft-repeated promise from President Obama — “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — proved optimistic at best. The law introduced 10 “essential health benefits” that all compliant plans had to cover, forcing many consumers off less expensive plans that no longer met federal guidelines. As a result, they and many others have found themselves paying more for benefits they did not want or need, in effect subsidizing coverage for others. The state of California even brags that most of those who are subsidized are provided with “Silver” plans, but doesn’t say how this is on the backs of those who can only afford “Bronze” plans. This is due to how the subsidy thresholds and cross-subsidization mechanisms work, which is grossly unfair. Third, the entire model of private health insurance negotiation keeps true prices obscured from patients. When a patient asks for the “cash price” for a procedure, providers often cannot answer because what any individual owes depends on secretive agreements negotiated between insurers and healthcare providers. This lack of transparency keeps patients in the dark and undermines genuine market discipline. So why, after all these years, have costs continued to rise with little improvement in affordability? The answer lies in political paralysis and conflicting priorities. Democrats, many of whom see the ACA as a bridge to “single-payer” or “Medicare for All,” have settled for more federal entanglement in healthcare. They frame healthcare as a universal right; yet, rights in a constitutional sense do not compel one party to render goods or services to another. Insurance, whether for health or property, is fundamentally a contract — a product someone may buy, not an entitlement. Republicans, for their part, have ardently opposed the ACA for over a decade, but rarely offer comprehensive, workable alternatives. Their efforts have focused on repeal rather than reform, missing opportunities to build consensus around real improvements in price transparency, portability, and increased consumer choice. What might genuine reform look like? First, Congress should act to preempt state laws that prevent insurers from selling across state lines. This change would foster true competition, broaden risk pools, and, by analogy to auto and home insurance, drive down costs for most consumers. Second, policymakers should require transparent pricing from healthcare providers. Using the negotiated prices that already appear on every patient statement as a baseline, providers could set clear, upfront prices for services, allowing consumers to shop and plan accordingly. Third, the government should remove the “10 essential benefits” coverage requirement, letting consumers tailor plans to individual needs — just as with any other form of insurance — while maintaining the current requirement to cover those with preexisting conditions. High-risk pools, already used effectively in auto insurance for drivers with numerous or serious violations, could support those with extraordinary health risks without distorting the broader market. In sum, addressing the high cost of American healthcare requires breaking up monopolies, shining a light on real prices, and empowering consumers to choose products that suit their needs, providing health insurance portability, and eventually ending employer-sponsored healthcare. Instead, employers could offer to cover or enhance existing employee policies as a fringe benefit, but the employee’s health insurance would no longer rely on any employer. Only then can Americans enjoy a health insurance marketplace as dynamic — and as affordable — as the ones that already exist for our cars and homes. * * * Walter Myers III is a Southern California-based Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. * * * Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday.

National Guard Shooting Suspect Expected To Survive
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

National Guard Shooting Suspect Expected To Survive

The suspect in Wednesday’s horrific shooting in Washington, D.C., is expected to survive according to a local law enforcement official. Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, opened fire on National Guard soldiers just blocks from the White House and struck two of them, one fatally. Another soldier returned fire, injuring and then subduing Lakanwal at the scene. An unnamed law enforcement official told The New York Post that the Afghan national had undergone surgery but was expected to make a full recovery. “I think the guy’s going to live. Nobody’s going to be able to say anything and he’s going to stand trial,” the official said, adding, “I know that he underwent surgery the night it happened.” Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. Meanwhile, SPC Sarah Beckstrom of West Virginia has succumbed to her injuries — and Andrew Wolfe, the other National Guardsman who was shot, continues to fight for his life. Following the news that Beckstrom had died, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced that the charges against Lakanwal had been upgraded to include first-degree murder. “There are certainly many more charges to come, but we are upgrading the initial charges of assault to murder in the first degree,” Pirro said. “It is a premeditated murder. There was an ambush with a gun toward people who didn’t know what was coming.” President Donald Trump, upon learning that Lakanwal was an Afghan national who entered the United States  in 2021 following former President Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, took immediate action and declared a halt to “migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.” Trump also called for a review of the vetting process for those who entered the United States during and after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and promised that his administration would “deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

12 Years Later, The Numbers Make Clear Obama’s Approach To Homelessness ‘Massively Failed’
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

12 Years Later, The Numbers Make Clear Obama’s Approach To Homelessness ‘Massively Failed’

Former President Barack Obama’s approach to combat homelessness has been “a disaster on every level,” according to Texas Public Policy Foundation senior fellow Michele Steeb. Steeb is an expert on homelessness and author of “Answers Behind the Red Door: Battling the Homeless Epidemic.” She said in an interview with Morning Wire that homelessness in the United States, and especially in California, has dramatically worsened since the federal government adopted “housing first” as its singular approach to homelessness. The Bush administration first introduced the Housing First model to federal policy in 2008. The Obama administration massively expanded the policy in 2013, turning into the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” approach to homelessness. “Thankfully, the Trump administration has stepped in and said at the federal level, we need to reprioritize mental health treatment. Drug and alcohol counseling needs to be offered in conjunction with housing,” said Steeb, “and we need to clear these encampments because these encampments have become so dangerous. Not just for the individuals living in them, pets are now overdosing, women are being trafficked, and there’s spillover effects to the general public that have been devastating.” The model, in theory, prioritizes stability. The Department of Housing and Urban Development under Obama’s housing first approach conditioned grant money to recipients on providing non-conditioned housing to the homeless. Providers cannot make requirements such as that a tenant stay sober or hold down a job in order to receive housing. “Up until about 12 years ago, the federal government funded shelters, they funded transitional housing. They funded mental health and drug and alcohol treatment along with that housing,” said Steeb. Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. It was under the Obama administration “that they said, you know what, we’re only gonna fund one thing now, and that one thing is housing subsidies, housing vouchers. We are not going to fund mental health treatment or drug and alcohol treatment or employment training. And we’re going to offer this housing to the homeless, subsidized housing for life with no conditions, none whatsoever,” she continued. In practice, homelessness has drastically increased under the housing first approach. Those who are homeless have suffered even more as many of the conditions that contributed to their situation grow worse without proper treatment. Housing first was designed for a very small segment of the homeless population, “but without any evidence, the Obama administration rolled it out,” said Steeb. “He literally promised it would end homelessness in 10 years. And 10 years later, 12 years later, exactly, we are at the highest point ever in our nation’s history, an almost 35% increase.” A 2022 report by the Cicero Institute found that homelessness increased by nearly 25% in areas that exclusively rely on the housing first model. The results are most apparent in California, where the state followed the Obama administration’s example and its homeless population has exploded, especially in urban centers such as San Francisco. “California is the only state in the nation that followed the feds and said, all of our money on top of all of your money, the federal government’s, is now going to go to housing first. California has experienced a 40% increase since [2017] when they adopted this,” said Steeb. “California now has almost 50% of the nation’s unsheltered population, almost 40% of the overall homeless population in its cities have been ravaged by this.”

Former DNC Chair Blames Trump For National Guard Shooting
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

Former DNC Chair Blames Trump For National Guard Shooting

Former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), attempted to blame President Donald Trump for the deadly shooting that took place in Washington, D.C., the day before Thanksgiving. The suspect is an Afghan national, let into the United States during former President Joe Biden’s administration after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, who opened fire on National Guard troops in the nation’s capital. One, SPC. Sarah Beckstrom of West Virginia, has died as a result of her injuries. But according to Wasserman Schultz, Trump was to blame for the horrific ambush attack. WATCH; Rep Wasserman-Schultz attempts to blame Trump for NG shoot*ng, cites deployments in cities and “gun violence” as causes: “The president looks everywhere except inward to blame his own policies…and it’s pretty disgusting.” This is what they’re actually going with here. Sick. pic.twitter.com/BX5TAd367V — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 28, 2025 Wasserman Schultz, responding to President Trump’s plan to go back and revisit the vetting process for the Afghan nationals who were brought into the United States as refugees, noted that in order for someone to have slipped through the cracks, there had to have been failures at a number of levels. “We need to make sure that we have tight and appropriate and proper vetting. If there were gaps that admitted this person, they would have failed over multiple levels of gaps, and this individual was trusted enough to participate in assisting our military during the war in Afghanistan,” Wasserman Schultz said. Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. She then pivoted to blame Trump, adding, “The president looks everywhere except inward to blame his own policies. We need to make sure that we don’t have our military deployed in our cities, handling law enforcement responsibilities, and we need to make sure that we address gun violence. We certainly need to make sure that we always have the proper and appropriate and tight vetting processes and those should be reviewed, but it’s never the president’s fault or his policies when it comes to his reaction, and it’s pretty disgusting.” What Wasserman Schultz failed to acknowledge, however, was the fact that people like Pentagon spokesman and Army Ranger veteran Sean Parnell had sounded the alarm even at the time, warning that some Afghans who had been trusted and had worked with American troops on the ground had betrayed them when it mattered.