“This is NOT a protest. This is an attack on law enforcement,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott declared Monday, sharing multiple videos of anti-immigration enforcement activists trashing a Minneapolis hotel where officers were staying. “This is our Border Patrol being targeted at their hotel in Minneapolis - surrounded, blocked in, glass smashed, people trying to force their way inside,” Commissioner Scott wrote in a X.com post introducing the video clips. This is our Border Patrol being targeted at their hotel in Minneapolis - surrounded, blocked in, glass smashed, people trying to force their way inside. This is NOT a protest. This is an attack on law enforcement. pic.twitter.com/2lHxkE8zMt — CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott (@CBPCommissioner) January 26, 2026   “This entire environment where the community is encouraged by local leaders to come out and actually prevent you from making a felony arrest, it’s a new dynamic, but we’re trying to evolve to it,” Scott said in an interview with Fox News Channel. Scott explained that, while officers are adapting to the new challenges, “the tactics are still the same”: “You try to talk somebody; you give them orders. “If they don’t follow the orders and they get into your face, you give them a warning. “But, as soon as they pose any kind of a threat to those officers or the operation, they’re going to be arrested.” “We’ve actually increased the training based on these new threats that the agents are facing.” Training is not the issue, politicians riling up their constituents is. pic.twitter.com/AJNXcGXG7N — CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott (@CBPCommissioner) January 26, 2026   Separately, The Liberty Daily posted video from FreedomNews.TV providing a closer look at the destructiveness wrought by the violent activists.

Last week, we noted CNN This Morning host Audie Cornish employing Katie Couric's infamous "some say" technique [from back in her Today show days] of putting in the mouths of others something liberal she believed, but wanted to avoid explicitly expressing as her own view.  In Audie's case, the former NPR host apparently wanted to preserve a patina of impartiality regarding ICE. And so she said that, talking with people after the anti-ICE church invasion in St. Paul, MN: "I heard over and over again, I feel like [protesting in] the church is too far. I feel like I feel like it could it be something that the administration can use against the protest movement." It seems that Audie was worried that the church invasion took things too far, and could be hurting her cherished anti-ICE movement. But Cornish didn't want to express that as her own sentiment, and so attributed it to hearing it "over and over again" from others. All things considered [the NPR show Audie used to host!], it was a relatively benign use of the Couric "some say" technique. But on today's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough employed the Couric tactic in an utterly more vile way. Speaking of the shooting death of anti-ICE protester Alex Pretti, Scarborough said: "Many people were describing [it] as an execution-style shooting." Joe, if you want to accuse ICE of the execution-style shooting of Alex Pretti, have the decency and guts to say so yourself, instead of putting it in the mouths of "many people." The bare minimum that journalistic integrity required was to name names of some of those "many people." But you failed to clear even that low bar. Shame on you. Note: The show opened with a clip of Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara boasting that, in contrast with ICE, in the last year his force had confiscated 900 weapons and arrested hundreds of violent offenders, "and we didn't shoot anyone." Maybe so. Then again, the Minneapolis PD didn't have to contend with mobs of protesters screaming, using cars to obstruct their operations, blowing whistles, trying to "de-arrest" people, or ICE Watch "rapid responders" tracking federal agents, their movements and their vehicles in an AirTable database called "MN ICE PLATES." Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 1/26/26 6:00 am ET MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF BRIAN O'HARA: People have had enough. This is the third shooting now in less than three weeks. The Minneapolis Police Department went the entire year last year recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders, and we didn't shoot anyone.  . . .  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, Mika, as we saw last week, and I suspect the numbers this week will be even more horrific, the numbers of Americans approving of ICE's actions plummeted even last week after the first killing of Renee Good. You had people in the low 30s approving and in the 60s, mid 60s disapproving. Those numbers are obviously going in the opposite direction.  So yeah, it's hard to believe that with 63% of Americans disapproving of ICE and only 36% approving before the shooting this weekend that many people were describing as an execution-style shooting.  MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The second.  SCARBOROUGH: The second. Again, Republicans have to do something here. The White House has to do something.

Few things better illustrate the laughably absurd levels of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has infected Politico than the accompanying screenshot (as of this writing) of three Politico magazine stories featured on the front page of  that biased periodical. The screenshot reveals a trifecta of magazine stories reflecting negatively on President Donald Trump, "Trump’s Greenland Gambit Has Broken Brains Across Washington," "Europe Could Kick Trump Where It Hurts: The World Cup," and "‘They Have This Combination of Grandiosity, Narcissism and Sociopathy’." You don't have to go much further beyond the title of the first Politico Magazine story to see it is the work of Nahal Toosi, who has proven her anti-Trump bona fides by not only attempting to drag Trump into an unnecessary war in December 2024 before he even assumed his second term in office, which you can read about in "Politico Foreign Affairs Reporter Wants to Drag Trump into Syria Mess." She also expressed her extreme loathing of Trump in August 2024 in "Fussy Toosi: Politico Correspondent Says Trump No More Trustworthy Than Putin." This paragraph from her Politico Magazine Greenland story reveals that her antipathy towards Trump continues: Trump’s Greenland push also came with a level of personal self-interest that went beyond the “America First” justification he has used to explain other actions. He has said he is pursuing Greenland in part because he was upset that he had not been given the Nobel Peace Prize. Next up from the menu of bitter pills at Politico Magazine is the World Cup story written by one Ali (Alistair) Walker, one of Politico's Euro crew who in addition to starting out professionally at an obscure community newspaper in an obscure town on an island in the northern Hebrides off of Scotland, remains little known to most Yanks. However, despite his relative obscurity, Walker does seem to possess the requisite level of antipathy so necessary to maintain his job security at Politico as reflected in his story about Europe kicking "Trump Where It Hurts." ...the World Cup and the Olympics haven’t faced a major diplomatic cold shoulder since retaliatory snubs by countries for the Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 Summer Olympics — Trump’s seizure of Greenland would put Europe in a position with no recent historical parallel. Um, sorry Ali, but as it has turned out there won't be any "seizure" of Greenland about which your better known Politico colleagues have been having conniption fits over recently. Finally, we come to the most Trump-deranged of them all at Politico which is saying quite a bit. Ankush Khardori. To get a quick understanding of Khardori's utter hatred of Trump, keep in mind that he was so far gone that in early July 2024 he demanded that Trump's trial be improperly rushed to commence before Election Day: "Trump-Despising Politico Senior Writer DEMANDS Trump Trial Put on Speed Dial." "Chutkan’s overriding objective should be to move this case as expeditiously as possible before November, even if that means trying to resolve all of these questions and perhaps even scheduling a trial that may not end before Election Day." As you can see in his latest story in Politico, Khardori's antipathy towards Trump has in no way diminished since he is now enraged at the President for acting to oppose European censorship of American social media companies, including X (forever to remain also known as Twitter). Perhaps Politico Magazine can find some other topic to obsess about other than Trump. Maybe something really silly to entertain us with laughter such as obsessing over the smallest details of the head of Border Patrol Greg Bovino's coat. Oh wait! You did just that with the latest UPDATE of your Politico Magazine featured lineup on the front page. Congratulations on at least temporarily ameliorating your swelling, itching loathing. ...Sort of.

President Donald Trump says that he has spoken with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) via phone and indicated that the Democrat was cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts after publicly opposing them.The president posted about the phone call with the governor in a social media statement on Truth Social after rioting escalated in Minneapolis in response to another lethal shooting over the weekend.'Even in Minnesota, Crime is way down, but both Governor Walz and I want to make it better!'"Governor Tim Walz called me with the request to work together with respect to Minnesota. It was a very good call, and we, actually, seemed to be on a similar wavelength," wrote the president.Earlier on Monday, the president had announced that he was sending border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota to manage the ICE operation."I told Governor Walz that I would have Tom Homan call him, and that what we are looking for are any and all Criminals that they have in their possession," Trump added. "The Governor, very respectfully, understood that, and I will be speaking to him in the near future."He went on to say that Walz was "happy" that Homan was being sent to Minnesota. Trump also touted his success in sending federal troops to Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; and New Orleans, Louisiana.Press secretary Karoline Leavitt had said that Homan would also be investigating the large-scale fraud scheme in the state.Trump added, "Even in Minnesota, Crime is way down, but both Governor Walz and I want to make it better!"RELATED: Tim Walz tries to dunk on Trump and gets pantsed on social media Walz also posted about the phone call on social media."I spoke to the President earlier. We had a productive conversation and I explained to him that his staff doesn’t have their facts straight about Minnesota," he wrote.He added a link to his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal defending his administration against accusations that it did not honor ICE detainers.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In mid-December, the White House released an executive order establishing the second Trump administration’s space policy. In the order, the president outlines a policy to “secure the Nation’s vital economic and security interests” and “unleash commercial development” in the stars.Mastery over space and its riches will go to the nations able to pursue their interests within that domain and defend them.The order follows on the Department of Energy’s “first-ever government purchase of a natural resource from space” last May. If successful, the procurement of lunar helium-3 by 2029 promises to be the first nugget in a 21st-century gold rush. With the value of the isotope reaching $20 million per kilogram by some estimates, prospecting and settlement of the final frontier — a goal of President Trump’s order — might soon follow.Withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty might help secure that frontier for Americans. Ratified by the Senate in 1967, the treaty was born of the Cold War. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the global community focused on how to prevent pre-existing terrestrial tensions from spilling over into space.Inspired by the scientific cooperation displayed during the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space believed that a precedent of peaceful coexistence had been set in the cosmos and did not prioritize “problems relating to the settlement and exploitation of celestial bodies.” After all, Yuri Gagarin had not yet completed his maiden orbit, nor had Neil Armstrong made his “small step.”The final treaty preserved that oversight. Inspired by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the OST proscribed claims of sovereignty (Article II) and banned WMDs in outer space and military activities on celestial bodies (Article IV). It remained an open question how international law would govern settlement and exploitation and keep it peaceful.As the Cold War has given way to new tensions between the United States, Russia, and China, the realms of space have remained anything but “realms of peace.”Even before the OST, the superpowers developed anti-satellite weapons. Such innovation has not slowed. The vice Chief of space operations even testified to Chinese weapons systems that can conduct “dogfighting” in orbit. Notwithstanding Russia’s status as a party to the treaty, the American people experienced an anxious evening in 2024 when intelligence revealed that Russia may be developing a nuclear-armed electromagnetic pulse system in orbit.Americans, both in and out of uniform, rely on the military satellites that form the Global Positioning System. How might American or allied forces fare against a near-peer adversary if even a portion of GPS satellites are out of action?The first Trump administration did not shy away from the stars, establishing the Space Force. Nonetheless, China has responded in kind with an “aerospace force” of its own. A new space race has begun, and the stakes are perhaps higher than they were during the Cold War.Unlike in the mid-20th century, the settlement and exploitation of the cosmos are now within sight. The moon is rife with rare-earths and terrestrially scarce helium-3, which might unlock the challenges of nuclear fusion and quantum computation. Accordingly, China and Russia are racing back to the moon.It is clear that the current legal framework for space neither admits of sovereignty nor effectively constrains adversaries. Yet mastery over space and its riches will go to the nations able to pursue their interests within that domain and defend them. Will America be able to?Withdrawing from the OST would clear the chief international hurdle to exercising sovereignty over celestial bodies, which have cost American lives and capital to survey. Absent Article IV, the United States would be able to develop systems to defend the nation’s interests off-Earth in response to adversarial threats. Mike Solana may see his dream become reality.A pathway to defensible sovereignty over celestial bodies would set the legal conditions for a true American space economy. Territorial ownership in the cosmos would build on the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, which allowed private entities to recover and sell astral treasures. The government would have the authority to order the coming lunar helium and asteroid gold rush with a usage scheme similar to that governing federal lands. Finally, private space operators would know they have a right to mine and keep what they mine — with the legal fallback of the state.The second-order benefits from such policies would flow back down to Earth. Extraterrestrial mineral leases could generate government revenues, and space-based securities could launch a new financial industry. The increased commercialization of the cosmos may finally make off-Earth settlement profitable at scale, inspiring figurative and literal pioneers.Leaving the OST might inspire America’s adversaries to do the same. However, withdrawal would let the United States treat space as a legitimate arena for applying national power, as China has done. It would be a proportional response to nations that have acted as if the treaty did not exist. Exiting would enable the U.S. to legally and openly develop the same capabilities as its adversaries, mitigating the chances of conflict. Leaving the OST might very well restore strategic balance.There are few better motivations for the pursuit of peace than the promise of profit. As Russia and China pursue their national commercial interests in space, the risk of disruption to billion-dollar development projects would disincentivize expansionist or militarist aggression. The same risk would also motivate former parties to the treaty to prevent environmental contamination. Even amid tension, space powers should recognize mutual self-interest, such as in preserving the rescue-and-aid guarantees of the treaty or establishing exclusive economic zone-style areas on shared celestial bodies.RELATED: What’s Greenland to us? Photo by Leon Neal/Getty ImagesFundamentally, some measure of competition is good. The new contest over space could ignite a worldwide flood of passion for exploration. That race to the stars (with winners) would be more honest than the original “carried out … in the interests of all countries.” To date, only five countries have ever landed on the Moon.Fortunately, the logistics of withdrawal itself are far from a moon shot.Article XVI of the Outer Space Treaty empowers the president to provide one year’s notice of withdrawal. Judicial delay would be unlikely. In Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court found that presidential termination of a ratified treaty was a “nonjusticiable political dispute.” For precedent, the White House can look to President Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: Congress and the courts did not object.Shipments of cosmic resources for epoch-making technologies are on their way. President Trump seeks a return to the moon by 2028, with “a permanent lunar outpost” and “economic development” to follow. America cannot turn its back on the spacefaring future, and aging international and national law must adapt before our adversaries arrive. Only then may America trade the title of “aerospace republic” for a simpler one: “space republic.”Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

A private jet linked to a Texas-based law firm crashed at Maine's Bangor International Airport on Sunday evening.The aircraft, a Bombardier Challenger 600 belonging to KTKJ Challenger LLC, was reportedly carrying eight people when it crashed around 7:45 p.m., shortly after takeoff. The crash prompted the airport to close.'AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES ON DEPARTURE, CAME TO REST INVERTED AND CAUGHT ON FIRE.'The incident occurred as a winter storm rolled through the region, causing heavy snowfall.Steve Robinson, the editor in chief of the Maine Wire, stated that the plane belonged to "top anti-ICE / anti-Trump lawyers."Robinson stated that KTKJ Challenger LLC "is registered to Jason Itkin and Kurt Arnold, two trial attorneys who've made waves fighting conservatives in Texas and defending illegal aliens."The Texas Voice previously reported that the Arnold & Itkin law firm has claimed to have obtained the "largest settlement for an undocumented worker in the United States history." It described Arnold & Itkin as a "major" donor of a "left-wing" political action committee during the 2024 election.RELATED: Video shows deadly plane crash at Arizona airport involving jet of '80s rocker Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesAccording to the Federal Aviation Administration's preliminary crash data, at least seven passengers are dead, and one flight crew member was seriously injured. The identities of those on board the aircraft have not been released to the public."AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES ON DEPARTURE, CAME TO REST INVERTED AND CAUGHT ON FIRE, BANGOR, ME," the FAA's summary of the incident read. RELATED: Trump ousts Biden’s Democratic NTSB vice chair amid aviation crisis Photo by: aviation-images.com/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesThe National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash."The preliminary information we have is the plane crashed upon departing Bangor International Airport and experienced a postcrash fire," a press release from the NTSB read.The NTSB's preliminary report will be available within 30 days and will include a probable cause of the crash."The airport remains closed at this time. There are numerous flight cancellations and diversions. Passengers are encouraged to contact their airlines for information regarding impacts to their travel plans," Bangor International Airport stated.Arnold & Itkin did not respond to a request for comment. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Albert Bryan, the Democrat governor of the Virgin Islands, has apparently surrounded himself in recent years with fraudsters and grafters.Bryan's former commissioner of the territory's parks and recreation department, Calvert White, was sentenced on Friday to five years in prison following his conviction for one count of honest services wire fraud and one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds.'This is unacceptable.'The sentencing — relatively light given that the fraud offense carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and the bribery offense carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison — took place just weeks after the Democrat governor's former police commissioner and former budget director were found guilty of extensive corruption.White, who resigned last January, solicited and accepted a bribe from David Whitaker, the founder of the cybersecurity firm Mon Ethos Pro Support — a bribe that was facilitated by local businessman Benjamin Hendricks.In exchange for $16,000 to later be paid by Hendricks, White agreed to help Whitaker obtain a contract valued at over $1.4 million for the installation of security cameras at U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Sports, Parks, and Recreation properties.The Justice Department indicated that as part of the scheme, which lasted from late 2023 until the FBI intervened in June 2024, White provided confidential bidding information to Whitaker and proactively worked in an official capacity to ensure that Whitaker would get the contract.RELATED: Woke Whitmer appointee from Nigeria admits to day-care scam, stealing millions from Michigan taxpayers Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images"Calvert White rigged a public bid process in exchange for a bribe," said Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the DOJ's Criminal Division. "He abused the trust of those who live in the community he was supposed to serve."While not ordered to pay a fine, White was required to forfeit $5,000, the amount he received from Whitaker via Hendricks as partial payment for the contract, reported the St. Thomas Source. He will reportedly wear a GPS monitoring bracelet until he surrenders to authorities on March 2.For his role in the scheme, Hendricks was sentenced last week to 68 months in prison."Public officials take an oath based on trust and assume a responsibility of service to the people," said Claudia Dubravetz, acting special agent in charge of the FBI's San Juan field office. "When that trust is violated through acts of corruption, it undermines confidence in government and harms the communities it is meant to serve. This is unacceptable."Whitaker, who pleaded guilty in 2024 to two counts of wire fraud and one count of bribery and is set to be sentenced later this year, was apparently also in cahoots with former Virgin Islands Police Department Commissioner Ray Martinez and former Virgin Islands Office of Management and Budget Director Jenifer O'Neal.Martinez was found guilty last month of five counts of honest services wire fraud, one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, one count of money laundering conspiracy, and two counts of obstruction of justice. O'Neal was found guilty of two counts of honest services wire fraud, one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, and one count of money laundering conspiracy.The DOJ indicated that Martinez accepted roughly $100,000 in bribe payments from Whitaker — "including cash, luxury travel, personal expenses, private-school tuition, and restaurant equipment" — in exchange for wielding his official authority to approve invoices and award Whitaker a $1.4 million contract federally funded under the federal American Rescue Plan Act.O'Neal knowingly approved a $70,000 inflated invoice under that contract and, in exchange, accepted a $17,730 lease payment for her business in federal funds from the inflated invoice.Blaze News has reached out to Gov. Bryan's office for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is doubling down on her investigation into alleged H-1B visa fraud — especially after the response she received.“The community that we have angered, they’re really not happy. And we keep hearing the claim that we’ve invaded someone’s privacy, ‘You’re doxxing people,’” she explains. “No, actually we’re not. The information that we’re providing is newsworthy and serves the public interest and has to be exposed for what it is.”“How else can you expose the fraud and the corruption and the scams if you can’t put it in front of people and show them,” she continues.And 3Bees Technologies — one of the companies she discovered to be operating out of an empty office space where no employees were to be found — updated its website to attempt to combat what Gonzales exposed.“They’ve made quite certain to just make everyone know, ‘3Bees Technologies is an IT consulting company, and all the employees in 3Bees Technologies work at client site address, and no one works from 3Bees office address as we are a IT consulting company,’” Gonzales says, reading from its updated website.“How’s that for broken English?” she asks.“But also you may have just accidentally admitted to committing fraud because it’s against the law to not properly disclose where your workers are to the government. They have to know. USCIS says, ‘Employers must file amended H-1B petitions when a new Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) is required due to a change in the H-1B worker’s worksite location.’”“So if you’re saying that your employees are working off-site and you have not actually amended their LCAS, you are committing fraud. You are breaking the law. Thank you 3Bees. We will definitely intend to use that against you when we deliver all of this to the authorities,” Gonzales continues.Gonzales also points out that if all their employees are working remotely, there’s no point in them living in America in the first place.“I would just like to point out if you’re just an IT consulting firm and all you do is consult, you’re just a firm that consults, you don’t need a workplace. Why the hell are we bringing these people into this country anyway?” she asks.“They can just stay in India. They can just hop on a Zoom call. They can just hop on the phone,” she adds.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The federal government is moving closer to giving your car the authority to decide whether you are allowed to drive — without a warrant, without due process, and with no guaranteed way to reverse the decision once it is made. And it is happening not because of one party alone, but because Congress, across party lines, has failed to stop it.This is not about defending drunk driving. It is about stopping a government overreach that treats every driver as a suspect.No accidentIt's no accident that all this happened quietly. It was written into law under the Biden administration’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, buried deep in Section 24220 — a provision few lawmakers publicly debated, but one that now threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between Americans and their vehicles.Section 24220 directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to mandate “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” in all new passenger vehicles. In plain terms, it requires systems that continuously monitor drivers and can prevent a vehicle from operating if impairment is suspected. No breath test is required. No police officer is involved. The judgment is made by software.Once flagged, a vehicle may refuse to start or restrict operation. Here is the most troubling part: Federal law provides no clear process for getting out of that lockout. There is no required appeal. No mandated reset timeline. No human review. Drivers can find themselves trapped in what critics have begun calling “kill switch jail,” with no guaranteed path to restore access to their own car.This is not targeted enforcement. It applies to every driver, every time, regardless of driving history.That alone should raise constitutional alarms.Proven approachDrunk driving laws already exist — and they work. Ignition interlock devices have long been required for convicted offenders, and there are 31 approved interlock systems currently in use nationwide. Those systems require a breath sample and are imposed only after due process. Section 24220 discards that proven, targeted approach and instead subjects all drivers to pre-emptive punishment, including those who do not drink at all.To comply with the mandate, automakers may choose from a range of technologies: driver-facing cameras that track eye movement and head position; software that analyzes steering, braking, and lane-keeping behavior; or touch-based alcohol sensors embedded in the steering wheel or start button. None of these systems determine guilt. They calculate probability — and then deny access.False positives are inevitable. Fatigue, prescription medications, medical conditions such as diabetes or neurological disorders, and even stress can trigger impairment alerts. Shift workers, caregivers, parents, and first responders are especially vulnerable. When the system is wrong, the consequences are immediate — and the driver has no guaranteed recourse.Pre-emptive denialThis is not a passive safety feature like an airbag. It is a government-mandated, pre-emptive denial of mobility enforced by an algorithm.Despite growing concern, Congress has chosen not to stop the mandate, with Democrats largely supporting continued funding and a number of Republicans also voting to keep the program intact.In January 2026, the House voted on an amendment offered by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky that would have blocked funding for NHTSA’s implementation of Section 24220. That amendment failed, allowing the mandate to continue moving toward full enforcement.Supporters argue the technology does not allow government agents or police to remotely shut down vehicles. While that may be technically true today, the mandate still requires continuous driver monitoring. Once that hardware becomes standard across the national vehicle fleet, expanding its use becomes a political decision — not a technical limitation.RELATED: Dystopian future as misguided safety push sends drivers to 'kill switch jail' Library of Congress/Getty ImagesPrivacy risksPrivacy and cybersecurity risks only deepen the concern. Any system capable of denying vehicle operation must meet extraordinarily high standards of accuracy and security. Those standards have not been proven at national scale. A malfunctioning or compromised system could strand drivers during extreme weather, medical emergencies, or in remote locations.Cost is another unavoidable consequence. Vehicles are already becoming unaffordable for many Americans. Adding cameras, sensors, software, and compliance infrastructure will only accelerate price increases and reduce consumer choice. Drivers who want simpler, more reliable vehicles will have fewer options — because mandates do not allow opting out.Proponents often compare this mandate to seatbelts or airbags. That analogy fails. Seatbelts do not prevent you from driving. Airbags deploy after an accident. This system intervenes before any wrongdoing occurs, based on assumptions rather than certainty, and enforces compliance by denying access altogether.This is not about defending drunk driving. It is about stopping a government overreach that treats every driver as a suspect and hands control of personal mobility to software.If Americans want to prevent this future, Section 24220 must be defunded — before “kill switch jail” becomes the default setting for the next generation of cars.The following are the Republican members who voted against the amendment to block funding for NHTSA’s implementation of Section 24220:Mark Amodei (Nev.-02) French Hill (Ark.-02) Max Miller (Ohio-07) Don Bacon (Neb.-02) Jeff Hurd (Colo.-03) Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa-01) Stephanie Bice (Okla.-05) Brian Jack (Ga.-03) Blake Moore (Utah-01) Gus Bilirakis (Fla.-12) John James (Mich.-10) Tim Moore (N.C.-14) Mike Bost (Ill.-12) David Joyce (Ohio-14) James Moylan (Guam-A.L.) Ken Calvert (Calif.-41) Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.-07) Greg Murphy (N.C.-03) John Carter (Texas-31) Mike Kelly (Penn.-16) Dan Newhouse (Wash.-04) Tom Cole (Okla.-04) Jen Kiggans (Va.-02) Zach Nunn (Iowa-03) Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.-26) Kevin Kiley (Calif.-03) Hal Rogers (Ky.-05) Neal Dunn (Fla.-02) Young Kim (Calif.-40) Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.-27) Chuck Edwards (N.C.-11) Kimberlyn King-Hinds (Northern Mariana Islands-A.L.) Mike Simpson (Idaho-02) Jake Ellzey (Texas-06) Darin LaHood (Ill.-16) Elise Stefanik (N.Y.-21) Randy Feenstra (Iowa-04) Nick LaLota (N.Y.-01) Glenn “GT” Thompson (Penn.-15) Randy Fine (Fla.-06) Mike Lawler (N.Y.-17) Mike Turner (Ohio-10) Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.-03) Frank Lucas (Okla.-03) David Valadao (Calif.-22) Vince Fong (Calif.-20) Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.-11) Derrick Van Orden (Wis.-03) Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.-01) Celeste Maloy (Utah-02) Rob Wittman (Va.-01) Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.-02) Brian Mast (Fla.-21) Steve Womack (Ark.-03) Carlos Gimenez (Fla.-28) Dan Meuser (Penn.-09) Ryan Zinke (Mont.-01)

The world’s highest mountain has many names. In Nepal, it’s known as Sagarmāthā, which translates to “Goddess of the Sky.” Tibetans call it Qomolangma. But it’s best known in the Western world as Mount Everest, named for English surveyor George Everest. Public DomainGeorge Everest, the namesake of Mount Everest, circa the 1860s. In the early 19th century, Everest spent three decades in India working on the Great Trigonometrical Survey, which aimed to accurately map the subcontinent. He was appointed Surveyor General of India in 1830, and he was responsible for hiring Andrew Scott Waugh and Radhanath Sikdar, both of whom were instrumental in identifying Everest as the highest mountain in the world. Despite all of this, George Everest never actually laid eyes on Mount Everest. Still, Waugh — who succeeded Everest as Surveyor General of India — insisted that the mountain carry his mentor’s name. Everest declined this honor, worried that the people of India would have trouble pronouncing his surname. Regardless of his protestations, however, the Royal Geographical Society officially settled on the name Mount Everest in 1865, permanently tying Everest’s legacy to a mountain he never set foot on. George Everest’s Early Life And Move To India Born in either Wales or England in 1790, George Everest had a fairly normal — if wealthier than average — childhood. He attended military school, and by the time he was 16, he’d joined the East India Company. When he arrived in India in 1806, he served as a second lieutenant in the Bengal Artillery. Because of his propensity for math and astronomy, he was trained as a surveyor. By 1814, he’d been assigned to survey the island of Java, and his work there and along the Ganges River caught the attention of Colonel William Lambton, the leader of the Great Trigonometrical Survey. Public DomainA group of surveyors in the Himalayas in 1897. The survey, which Lambton had started in 1802, aimed to map India with scientific precision. Lambton appointed Everest as his chief assistant in 1818, teaching him everything he knew about surveying. Most of Everest’s work involved mapping the meridian arc that ran some 1,500 miles from Cape Comorin at the southernmost point of India to the border of Nepal. After a brief stint in South Africa to recover from malaria in 1820, Everest returned to India in 1821 to continue the project. Two years later, William Lambton died — and the Great Trigonometrical Survey fell into the hands of George Everest. Mapping The Indian Subcontinent In 1823, Everest became the superintendent of the Great Trigonometrical Survey. He continued Lambton’s work, mapping central India in the present-day state of Madhya Pradesh. In 1825, however, he fell ill again, this time with rheumatism, and he was forced to return to England for five years. Even on his sickbed, Everest kept working. He lobbied the East India Company for better surveying equipment, which would prove to be instrumental in completing the project. University of Dundee Museum CollectionsA primitive theodolite, similar to the surveying instruments used by George Everest’s teams to map the Indian subcontinent. Upon his return to India in 1830, George Everest was appointed Surveyor General of India. He spent the next decade completing the survey of the meridian arc with the help of Andrew Scott Waugh, who joined the project in 1832. By 1841, the meridian arc was mapped, and shortly after, Everest retired and recommended Waugh as his replacement. He returned to England in 1843, where he married a woman more than 30 years his junior and had six children. In 1847, Everest published An Account of the Measurement of Two Sections of the Meridional Arc of India, a book that he surely thought would be his legacy. He couldn’t have imagined how wrong he was. Becoming The Namesake Of Mount Everest After George Everest’s retirement, Andrew Scott Waugh continued the Great Trigonometrical Survey, mapping the Indian Himalayas. In 1847, Waugh was observing Mount Kangchenjunga — which was considered the world’s highest mountain at the time — when he noticed a peak beyond it. He began to refer to it as “Peak B” and later “Peak XV.” Then, in 1852, Indian mathematician Radhanath Sikdar officially calculated the height of Peak XV, determining it was the highest mountain in the world at 29,000 feet. (Today, Mount Everest is considered to be 29,032 feet tall, a difference of just 32 feet from Sikdar’s original calculation.) Public DomainAndrew Scott Waugh, the surveyor who first proposed naming the world’s highest mountain after George Everest. Waugh wrote to the Royal Geographical Society announcing this discovery in March 1856. In the letter, according to HISTORY, Waugh declared: “I was taught by my respected chief and predecessor, Colonel Sir George Everest, to assign to every geographical object its true local or native appellation. But here is a mountain, most probably the highest in the world, without any local name that we can discover, whose native appellation, if it has any, will not very likely be ascertained before we are allowed to penetrate into Nepal.” At the time, most of Nepal and Tibet were closed to the British, and the Indians didn’t have a specific name for Peak XV. Thus, Waugh proposed naming it Mount Everest to “perpetuate the memory of that illustrious master of geographical research… [George] Everest.” Everest himself objected to the proposition. He didn’t think that “the native of India” would be able to pronounce his surname or write it in Hindi. Still, the Royal Geographical Society officially settled on the appellation Mount Everest that same year. Seeing his name on the world’s highest mountain wasn’t Everest’s only honor, though. The Enduring Legacy Of George Everest Throughout George Everest’s lifetime, he became a Fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Asiatic Society, and the Royal Geographical Society. He was made a Commander of the Order of Bath and even knighted in 1861. According to the Surveyors Historical Society, when Everest received an award from the Royal Astronomical Society in 1848, Sir John Herschel stated, “The Great Meridianal Arc of India is a trophy of which any nation, or any government of the world would have reason to be proud, and will be one of the most enduring monuments of their power and enlightened regard for the progress of human knowledge.” George Everest died in 1866 at age 76 having never seen the mountain that bears his name. shrimpo1967/Wikimedia Commons Mount Everest as seen from Bhutan. Today, Mount Everest is perhaps the most famous mountain in the world. Since Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay became the first people to reach Everest’s summit in 1953, more than 7,000 people have successfully climbed the peak. Tragically, more than 340 others have died trying. Their bodies litter the mountain, serving as macabre landmarks for their fellow climbers. From Scott Fischer and Francys Arsentiev to Marco Siffredi and George Mallory, even the most experienced mountaineers have succumbed to Everest’s deadly conditions. As such, George Everest’s legacy is one of perseverance, endurance, ambition, pride, disappointment, tragedy — and, above all, hope. After reading about George Everest, go inside the story of Yuichiro Miura, the oldest person to ever climb Mount Everest. Then, learn about Rob Hall, the man who summited Everest five times — and then perished during his final descent. The post George Everest, The English Surveyor Who Is The Namesake Of Mount Everest appeared first on All That's Interesting.