A series of recent disclosures has offered a glimpse into the strange vetting process behind the 2024 Democrat vice-presidential selection. According to a CNN report, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was specifically asked by then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ team whether he had ever served as an agent for the Chinese communist government.

Arrests are coming soon in the investigation into an anti-ICE mob that crashed a Sunday morning service at Cities Church in St. Paul, according to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Noem appeared on Newsmax on Tuesday evening and said that arrests would begin “in the next several hours.” The secretary also said that ex-CNN host turned YouTuber Don Lemon could face charges for his involvement in the church protest as well. “There will be arrests tied to that, and people will be brought to justice for how they violated the law in that situation,” said Noem. Noem suggested that Lemon’s claim to have only been a bystander and journalist during the incident at Cities Church is belied by the foreknowledge he had of the demonstration and relationships has with activists involved. “The fact that ahead of time, before this even happened, he said that he had conducted some surveillance before they went into this church, he identified individuals that were going in with him that were activists in the work that they had done in the past, the fact that this entire situation was then posted on the Black Lives Matter website, all of that is something that they’re going to be responsible for,” said Noem. Arrests coming. This weekend an anti-ICE mob targeted a church, emboldened by the reckless rhetoric from Minnesota’s sanctuary politicians and the media. The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly – not rioting. This administration is committed to upholding… pic.twitter.com/rBlFFiFe7U — Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) January 20, 2026 The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has led the Trump administration investigation into what took place at Cities Church. Dhillon has been forceful in her denunciations of the activists who stormed the church, as well as in her promises for accountability. Dhillon told The Daily Wire on Monday that the disruption at the church “clearly” represented a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or the FACE Act, that “criminalizes blocking, interfering with, disrupting a house of worship.” “The only question really is who they are and what other offenses there may be,” said Dhillon.

'he's got his facts wrong'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Australia’s federal Parliament has enacted a broad new legal package targeting hate, antisemitism, and extremism, passing the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 with strong majorities in both chambers. The bill has several implications regarding free speech. The House of Representatives approved it 116 Ayes to 7 Noes, and the Senate passed it 38 Ayes to 22 Noes, sending it into law after an expedited process in response to rising public concern about hate-motivated violence. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. The government framed the legislation as part of its response to the deadly December terror attack at Bondi Beach that left 15 people dead and focused debate on enhancing public safety and national unity. Attorney General Michelle Rowland and other ministers repeatedly described the new framework as needed to strengthen legal tools against violent hate and extremism. In earlier official statements, Rowland said of the proposal: “Once these laws are passed, they will be the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.” Under this new law, a range of conduct tied to hatred or perceived threat can trigger criminal liability, including organizing, supporting, or being involved with groups that authorities designate as engaging in hate-based conduct. A new framework allows the Australian Federal Police Minister to recommend that such groups be listed as “prohibited hate groups.” Being a member of such a group, recruiting, training, or financially supporting it are offenses with penalties that can extend up to 15 years in prison. The Bill grants the executive branch power to designate organizations as prohibited hate groups through regulation. This decision is made by the AFP Minister, based on reasonable satisfaction, with advice from intelligence agencies. Crucially, the legislation explicitly removes any requirement for procedural fairness in this process. An organization may be listed even if: No criminal conviction has occurred The relevant conduct occurred before the law existed The organization is based outside Australia The evidence relied upon is classified and undisclosed Once an organization is listed, the consequences are severe. Membership, recruitment, training, funding, or providing support becomes a serious criminal offense carrying lengthy prison terms. The criminal provisions for hate conduct are built around whether specific public behavior would cause a reasonable person in the target group “to feel intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.” This standard can apply even where there is no evidence that anyone actually experienced fear or harm. The definition is tied to subjective perceptions of risk, rather than solely observable incitement to violence. The Bill expands the “reasonable person” test used in hate-related offenses. Speech may now be criminal if a so-called reasonable person in the targeted group would consider it offensive, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating. Violence or threats of violence are not required. This standard introduces subjectivity into criminal law. Political speech on immigration, religion, nationalism, or identity frequently causes offense or humiliation to some audiences. Under this framework, harsh criticism, protest slogans, or satire could attract criminal liability based on emotional impact rather than demonstrable harm. A democratic society depends on the ability to offend, challenge, and provoke. Criminalizing offense risks sanitizing public debate into only what is officially acceptable. The legislation also expands the existing ban on “prohibited hate symbols,” creating criminal offenses for displays of banned symbols unless justified on narrow grounds such as religious, academic, journalistic, or artistic use. While proponents argue this targets conduct that fuels hatred, similar symbolic bans in other jurisdictions such as Germany have often ensnared educational or historical contexts. The Bill also significantly alters existing offenses relating to prohibited symbols. Previously, exemptions for religious, academic, artistic, or journalistic purposes operated as clear carve-outs. Under the new framework, the defendant bears the evidential burden of proving that their conduct was for a protected purpose and was not contrary to the public interest. This reversal matters. The presumption shifts from lawful expression to presumed criminality unless the speaker can justify themselves after the fact. Journalists must demonstrate that they were acting in a professional capacity and that their reporting met an undefined public-interest standard. Artists, educators, and researchers face similar uncertainty. Such burden-shifting mechanisms are well known to chill speech, particularly in investigative journalism and political commentary where legal certainty is essential. Migration rules have been significantly altered. The law amplifies the Home Affairs Minister’s powers to refuse entry or cancel visas for non-citizens judged to be associated with extremist groups or hate conduct. Free speech defenders have warned that the combination of low subjective thresholds and expanded administrative powers creates risks that lawful expression, dissenting views, or controversial speech could be swept into criminal or immigration sanctions. They argue that this effect stems from how the law equates emotional or perceived intimidation with actionable hate, a departure from frameworks where provable harm or incitement to violence is required. Taken together, these provisions produce a powerful chilling effect across political communication, journalism, academic inquiry, religious teaching, and civil association. The cumulative structure of the Bill incentivizes silence, conformity, and disengagement from controversial debate. In a country that relies on an implied, rather than explicit, freedom of political communication, this legislation tests the outer limits of democratic tolerance. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australia Passes New Hate Speech Law, Raising Free Speech Fears appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

FBI Serves Subpoenas to Minnesota Officials