Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are under federal investigation amid their opposition to the Trump administration’s massive immigration enforcement operation in the state, a source close to the situation confirmed to The Daily Wire. CBS News first reported the details of the investigation, which focuses on allegations that Walz and Frey have interfered with federal immigration operations. A U.S. official told the outlet that the Justice Department is looking into statements that Walz and Frey have made regarding the recent surge in federal law enforcement to Minnesota. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche hinted at the federal government taking action against Walz and Frey, saying on Wednesday, “Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.” The DOJ investigation focuses on federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 372, which addresses two or more people who conspire through “force, intimidation or threats” to prevent federal law enforcement officers from carrying out their duties, CBS News reported. Both the governor and the mayor have made inflammatory statements about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents following the deadly shooting of Renee Good last week. In an address on Wednesday night, Walz urged Minnesotans to follow ICE agents and record their actions to help the state “create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans” that could be used for “future prosecutions.” In the hours after Good was shot and killed, Frey told ICE to “get the f*ck out of Minneapolis.” Later, Frey said that ICE agents were “causing chaos” in Minneapolis and suggested that residents were asking for the city police to “fight” ICE agents “on the streets” before he urged residents to remain peaceful. As the Minnesota Democratic leaders have denounced ICE’s actions, demonstrations in Minneapolis continue, some of which have turned violent. On Wednesday night, a federal agent was ambushed and attacked by three illegal immigrants while attempting to make an arrest, according to the Department of Homeland Security. After the second ICE-involved shooting, demonstrators descended on the scene of the incident and confronted federal officers. Some of the agitators threw fireworks at law enforcement, and the crowd was cleared out of the area with tear gas. President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act on Thursday, blasting “corrupt politicians in Minnesota,” who “don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E.” On Friday, however, Trump told reporters outside of the White House that he doesn’t think there’s “any reason right now right now” to use the Insurrection Act.

WASHINGTON — After years of criticizing Donald Trump, the president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is admitting that he was “pressured” and “coerced” by Alvin Bragg and Letitia James to testify against Donald Trump. In an astonishing Substack post published Friday evening, Cohen writes that he “felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump.” He said the feeling began from his very first meetings with the lawyers working with Bragg and James, New York’s attorney general.  Specifically regarding James, he said he felt “compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.” “Letitia James made it publicly known during her 2018 campaign for attorney general that, if elected, she would go after President Trump,” Cohen writes in the post. “Her office made clear that the testimony they wanted from me was testimony that would help them do just that. Again, I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.” Cohen writes about the two trials in which he testified against Donald Trump: the first, a civil action brought by the New York attorney general’s office accusing Trump of fraudulently inflating his assets to get favorable loans. The second case was a criminal action by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office alleging that Trump falsified business records related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to influence the 2016 presidential election. The jury found Trump guilty in both cases. Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, prepares to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill, February 27, 201,9 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Cohen served prison time after he pleaded guilty in 2018 to multiple crimes, including lying to Congress. He also admitted during Trump’s hush money trial that he stole tens of thousands from the Trump Organization in 2017. In his Substack article, Cohen notes that a federal appeals court just revived the president’s effort to undo his hush money conviction. He reflects that silently letting the record stand without proper context feels like complicity, prompting him to speak out. “I am not writing this to defend Donald Trump, nor to relitigate his conduct,” he writes. “That ground has been plowed endlessly, often loudly, and rarely thoughtfully. I am writing because I have seen this system from the inside, not as an observer or analyst, but as a central subpoenaed participant. When courts now revisit questions of jurisdiction, immunity, and evidentiary boundaries, they are not engaging in sterile procedural debates. They are exposing how justice is pursued, how power is applied, and how outcomes are shaped well before verdicts are rendered.”  Cohen writes that he first met with prosecutors from the Manhattan DA’s office in August 2019, three months into his three-year prison sentence. He was released in September 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and for good behavior and allowed to serve out the rest of his term at home until November 2021. Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump is sworn in before testifying before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) He says he continued meeting with prosecutors after his release in the hope that his home confinement and supervised release would be shorter because he was cooperating. He also writes that the reason he cooperated with the prosecutors from the Manhattan DA’s office was that he wanted to get out of prison and home to his family.  “During my time with prosecutors, both in preparation for and during the trials, it was clear they were interested only in testimony from me that would enable them to convict President Trump,” he wrote. “When my testimony was insufficient for a point the prosecution sought to make, prosecutors frequently asked inappropriate leading questions to elicit answers that supported their narrative.”  Cohen says that he also felt coerced and pressured into giving answers that supported the narrative from James, as her office made it very clear to him that they wanted testimony that would help them go after Trump. “Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook,” he writes. “Both used their platforms to elevate their profiles, to claim the mantle of the officials who ‘took down Trump.’ In doing so, they blurred the line between justice and politics; and in that blur, the credibility of both suffered.” As for why he is speaking out now, Cohen says he has “witnessed firsthand the damage done when prosecutors pick their target first and then seek evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.”  “I have lived inside that process,” he wrote. “I have suffered from that process. And as courts now reconsider where the Bragg and James cases belong, how they were brought and how they were tried; that experience is relevant. More today than ever before.”  “When politics and prosecution become indistinguishable, public trust erodes; not just in individual cases, like mine and/or Trump’s, but in the system itself,” he concludes. “That erosion serves no one, regardless of party, personality, or power.”

The following is an edited transcript from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * Because of the anarchy that has been allowed — and even encouraged — to fester by the Left, there are now liberals walking around Minneapolis stopping random, nice, white dads and demanding that they prove they’re not ICE. Liberals protesting ICE thought this man was an ICE agent, so they stopped him to make sure he wasn’t. pic.twitter.com/17xrVAJLvN — Clown World ™ ? (@ClownWorld) January 15, 2026 Credit: @ClownWorld/X.com Watching this, two TV scenes immediately came to mind. The first is from Breaking Bad, when Walter White tries to negotiate with the drug dealers who are about to kill his brother-in-law. He thinks he can reason with them. His brother-in-law tells him, “What are you talking about? They made up their mind ten minutes ago.” The other scene is from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, when Frank says, “Yeah, they started coming up to me and I didn’t know what they wanted, so I started blasting.” I certainly don’t encourage the latter — but those are two very different approaches to the same situation. The guy in this video seems to think these people are being reasonable. This band of leftists — they’re not black-masked Antifa terrorists. They just look dopey and annoying. Awful, insolent white twenty-somethings. They demand, “Prove that you’re not ICE.” And he responds, “Okay, all right, I’ll show you the back of my SUV — but I don’t have to do this.” Then he adds, “I appreciate you guys.” Really? He appreciate them going around to random middle-aged white guys and demanding that they prove they’re not law enforcement? If they were law enforcement, they would have no right to do this. Actual law enforcement should be arresting these kids just for asking the question, because they’re clearly obstructing law enforcement and criminal investigations. WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show But this — this is what you get when ICE doesn’t enforce the law. This is what you get when state and local authorities refuse to enforce the law. All of a sudden, you have bands of vigilantes going around singling people out. Why are they singling this guy out? Do they seriously think he’s law enforcement? No. They’re singling him out based on his race, sex, and age — because they don’t like middle-aged white guys. That’s what’s happening here. And this dope is walking around saying, “All right, listen, I respect what you’re doing. I don’t have to do this, but I respect it. (Please don’t—please don’t gang up on me.)” Luckily, the group here seems to be just as dopey as he is. They don’t appear to pose much of a threat — at least not in this moment. But we’ve seen these kinds of left-wing gangs commit real violence. And we’ve seen even bourgeois, middle-class white liberals justify that violence — something that shows up clearly in a lot of social-scientific surveys. That’s what you get.

Two years ago, The Daily Wire launched a kids’ programming platform called Bentkey exactly because of people like Ms. Rachel, who has turned her hypnotic videos for preschoolers into a vehicle for leftist propaganda. Bentkey has a different idea: entertainment that is actually for kids and doesn’t feature any soft-peddling of adult themes. You know, cute characters, fun adventures, and stories you don’t need to worry will have your kids asking you what a “transgender” is. It’s what my kids watch, and you can check it out here.  I haven’t seen anyone lay out the need for alternatives like Bentkey better than the Daily Wire’s own Matt Walsh, who laid into Ms. Rachel on his show this week. Here’s what he had to say. —Brent Scher  *** Ms. Rachel is a YouTuber who makes videos for preschoolers. We’ve covered her before on my podcast. She’s known for teaching children about gay pride, LGBT issues, and pronouns. That alone is reason enough not to put her content on for your kids. You should not allow your children to watch her show for those reasons. Now she’s out on a propaganda tour with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Here they are visiting a preschool: This morning, Ms. Rachel and I visited District 2 Pre-K Center, where we sang and read with the wonderful students and educators. We also discussed universal childcare – and how we’re making it happen for NYC! pic.twitter.com/974M24kt64 — Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) January 9, 2026 Credit: @NYCMayor/X.com “This morning, Ms. Rachel and I visited District 2 Pre-K Center, where we sang and read with the wonderful students and educators. We also discussed universal childcare—and how we’re making it happen for NYC!” Yes, I’m sure the four-year-olds were riveted by that conversation. You sat down with four-year-olds to talk about universal child care — which, by the way, is terrible for four-year-olds. It’s the city’s way of getting more kids into government-run child care and away from their parents. That’s really the message here: “Good news, kids. You’re going to spend even less time with your parents and even more time with government workers. And government workers are the best.” So here’s the debate over Ms. Rachel: Is she a political propagandist? She’s enormously popular with kids and racks up billions of views. Should you be exposing your children to someone like that, given her political messaging? The answer is clearly no. You should not expose your kids to a political propagandist. But set the politics aside for a moment. I want to make a more basic point about Ms. Rachel and people like her. I find most children’s YouTube creators to be creepy. As a parent, you need a radar for that. If your instinct isn’t asking, “Who is this person?” then you’re not paying attention. Even before you evaluate the content or any political messaging, the vibe matters. And while vibe-based arguments don’t work in politics, they absolutely do in parenting. If something feels weird — if you don’t like the vibe—then that person doesn’t belong around your kids. That alone is reason enough to turn it off. These adults making content for three- and four-year-olds have figured out that it’s an extremely profitable business. So they just keep churning it out. They’re slop merchants for toddlers. And they churn out slop for every age bracket. It boggles my mind that there are parents who say, “Yep, here’s what my four-year-old needs—some slop. Bring on the slop. Sit down, Junior. It’s slop time. Go ahead and spend three hours watching this mind-numbing, weird show.” I don’t get it. The other thing I can’t stand is when children’s content creators act and dress like children themselves. That’s where the weirdness really kicks in. You have adults in their 40s and 50s speaking and acting like kids. Ms. Rachel appears in overalls, sneakers, and a headband — she’s in her 40s. Why is she dressed like that? She speaks and acts like a kindergartener. And that’s what almost all of these children’s YouTuber types do. Compare that to Mr. Rogers. He made content for children, but he didn’t present himself as a child. He was a grandfatherly figure. That vibe passes the parent check. It’s wholesome, constructive, and edifying. Children can learn from that. But when you put on overalls and start speaking in an absurdly over-the-top, childish, patronizing way, kids aren’t learning anything. I went to Ms. Rachel’s page and pulled up one random video at the top. Nothing political. Nothing overtly objectionable. All I can say is that I would rather be stabbed to death than watch five minutes of her show. I would rather jump out of a hundred-story window than sit through it. If the next regime comes in and they start arresting people like me, and they give me a choice between solitary confinement with Ms. Rachel playing on a loop or being thrown off a building, I’d say, “Please, the building.” Don’t sit your kids in front of this slop. If your child is watching content that you can’t tolerate being in the same room with, that’s a good indication they shouldn’t be watching it — not because it’s political, but because it’s vapid, irritating, stupid, and bad for their minds and souls. There are better alternatives than Ms. Rachel — like reading a book to your child. 

The State Department will officially terminate foreign assistance to Somalia after the African nation’s government demolished a warehouse containing 76 metric tons of food donated by America, a senior administration official told The Daily Wire. On January 3, “at the direction of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) and the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS), authorities at Mogadishu Port demolished the World Food Programme (WFP) Emergency Response Warehouse with no prior notification or coordination with international donor countries, including the United States,” a diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Somalia dated January 6 said. The move “likely resulted in the destruction of these emergency food supplies,” and was approved by Somali’s president over the objections of the World Food Programme, the cable said. The apparent cause, it said, was corruption: the Mogadishu Port is managed by a Turkish company that wanted to expand, and Somalia’s Minister of Ports “acts as [Turkey’s] primary agent in Somalia.” Turkey has increasingly plated a large role in Somalia industries, “often operating under corrupt contracts that uniformly favor Turkish interests,” the cable said. An additional 1,650 metric tons of additional commodities were scheduled to arrive in early January, and had to be stored in an alternative warehouse. The World Food Programe, a project of the United Nations, said it will notify Somalia that the “demolition constitutes a breach of UN diplomatic protocols,” the cable said. The embassy in Somalia requested that the Secretary of State “strongly consider pausing, canceling, or postponing U.S. assistance to [Somalia] until it returns or compensates the United States and other international donors for the stolen food assistance items,” the cable said. The State Department announced on January 7 that it has “paused all ongoing U.S. assistance programs which benefit the Somali Federal Government. Any resumption of assistance will be dependent upon the Somali Federal Government taking accountability for its unacceptable actions.” But the administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, went further, saying that all aid will be permanently and officially ended by May. The ports minister issued an eviction notice to the WFP in December, but the Somali government had later said the warehouse could still be used while a final decision was pending. The port manager claimed that the food was moved to two containers and remained accessible, but WFP said that was not true, and that it is likely ruined because it requires specialized storage. The food was donated by Americans under the Title II “Food for Peace” program and International Disaster Assistance, while the World Food Programme administers its distribution. Hunter Biden served as chairman of the World Food Program USA, which supports its work, from 2011 to 2015. The disappearance of the Food for Peace food due to apparent Somali corruption comes as Somalis who migrated to the United States by claiming refuge status have themselves defrauded the U.S. government, including by asking to be paid by the government to watch their own children or their neighbors’ children, and plunged cities like Minneapolis into their own instability. A member of Somalia’s parliament and its Foreign Affairs committee, Abdillahi Hashi Abib, wrote to United States officials saying that 90% of Somalia’s humanitarian assistance comes from America, and that the Somali Disaster Management Agency (SoDMA) has been “defrauding” it because “the funds have been captured and monetized by a single-family network and its clan affiliates.” For example, three brothers of the agency’s chairman, Mohamud Macallin Abdulle, each receive $15,000 a month salaries, paid through their wives, he said, and the Finance Department and Training Unit are both run by the his uncles. He said that “food donations from the US, EU, UAE, Qatar, and China are systematically sold in Magadishu markets after staged photo-ops,” in which starving people are paid $5 to pay for photos with the food, before it is taken away from them. By diverting aid for 8,000 to 12,000 families, the clain generates half a million dollars a month for itself, he said. Foreign aid money has also been wasted as Somalis inflate the cost of items, charging $300,000 for ambulances and fire trucks that cost only $100,000, he said. “The President of the Federal Republic of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and his extended family are beneficiaries of a system that has systematically looted U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance” by “installing a close relative… at the apex of Somalia’s humanitarian system,” he wrote.