Nashville’s Democrat mayor released the names of multiple federal law enforcement agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), drawing ire from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who say that the mayor is putting law enforcement at risk. Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s office released information on interactions between ICE agents and Nashville emergency service personnel, dropping data that included the names of federal law enforcement personnel. O’Connell says their names were released by mistake, but the Department of Homeland Security isn’t convinced. “They claimed it was a mistake. There’s zero chance it was a mistake and there will be repercussions,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin charged in response to the incident. “Our ICE enforcement officers are already facing a 400% increase in assaults against them and he’s essentially handing over intelligence to these criminal gangs so they can target our ICE enforcement officers. It’s wrong. It’s beneath the city of Nashville.” The Nashville Mayor is protecting illegal aliens and gang members over his constituents. At a time when our ICE officers are facing a 413% increase in assaults, Mayor O’Connell is doxxing the names of law enforcement agents removing criminal illegal aliens from his city.… pic.twitter.com/bKB0Ed3HSE — Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 29, 2025 “The Nashville Mayor is protecting illegal aliens and gang members over his constituents,” DHS charged. The doxxing of the federal agents by O’Connell’s office comes just after Congressman Andy Ogles (R-TN) confirmed that the House Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security launched investigations into O’Connell, who condemned ICE after agents carried out enforcement operations in Nashville and signed an executive order requiring city officials to report any correspondence with ICE agents. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also blasted O’Connell, accusing him of “putting ICE agents and law enforcement in harm’s way by releasing their names for criminal gangs to see.” Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships “These men and women have risked their lives to make our communities safer by removing gangs, rapists, and other heinous criminals from our communities,” the Senator from Tennessee added. “Shame on him.” An exclusive report from The Daily Wire revealed that, of the 196 illegal aliens arrested by ICE in Nashville in a weeklong raid, 95 had prior criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. .@SpencerLndqst rips into Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell on @FoxNews over the allegations of him obstructing ICE: “Is he on the side of the people of Nashville, the American citizens… or is he on the side of drug runners, cartel members, rapists, and sex offenders?” ??? pic.twitter.com/88YFyNFV4k — Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) May 29, 2025 Included in the nearly 200 illegal aliens arrested by ICE in Music City are sex offenders, convicted rapists, Tren de Aragua and MS-13 members, and drug runners, as well as 31 people who reentered the United States after previously being deported, a felony offense.

'That moment was very spontaneous'

'We are focused only on our core mission'

The Department of Justice (DOJ) charged six individuals, including one federal employee, in an alleged multi-million dollar food stamp fraud case. The defendants allegedly defrauded the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, according to a press release Thursday from the DOJ. The scam, involving a USDA employee, […]

NBC News cut ties with McDaniel just days after her debut

Lawyer Eric Baxter argued Wednesday that his defense of Maryland parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ classroom discussions in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor could be a generational opportunity to reaffirm parental rights in education. Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, spoke to an audience at The Heritage Foundation celebrating the forthcoming 100th anniversary of the Pierce v. Society of Sisters Supreme Court case that enshrined the rights of parents to educate their children outside of public schools. “This was clearly targeted at religious parents.”Eric Baxter, Attorney for Mahmoud in Mahmoud v. Taylor, explains to SCOTUS how Montgomery County Public Schools methodically attacked and undermined the rights of religious parents to decide what their children can be taught. pic.twitter.com/DSFFW0aikm— Nicki Neily (@nickineily) April 22, 2025 He explained how the Montgomery County, Maryland, parents he represents are not allowed to make decisions about their children’s education in their public school system. The children “learn in alphabetical order all these different things that you might find in a Pride Parade,” Baxter explained when discussing how “Pride Puppy” was required reading for the Maryland schoolchildren—“including things like drag queen, drag king, leather, lip ring.” Baxter also argued the school’s insistence on teaching children about LGBT content was at odds with the religious diversity of the county. “Montgomery County has been ranked the most religiously diverse county in the nation for the last several years,” he said. There were large populations of Muslim parents and Ethiopian Orthodox parents “who really led the fight in saying this is outrageous and going to school board meetings and being told by school board members that these parents were aligning themselves with xenophobes and white supremacists,” he said. Following the Supreme Court argument in Mahmoud v. Taylor, Becket's Eric Baxter and Montgomery County parents Melissa Persak and Lana Roman gave statements to the press. pic.twitter.com/Xtqfxvonix— BECKET (@becketfund) April 22, 2025 In Baxter’s view, the Mahmoud case currently under consideration by the Supreme Court has striking parallels to the 9-0 unanimous June 1, 1925, ruling in Pierce, which protected the rights of Catholic parents to educate their children outside of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant-dominated sphere of public education.  At the time, Oregon required all parents to send their children to public schools. Pierce struck that law down. “Pierce arose at a period of high Catholic immigration. It was really pushed by the Ku Klux Klan—the legislation that led to Pierce—really pushing this idea that we have immigrants in this country [and] we have to make sure that they all become uniform,” said Baxter. “And you have that very same dynamic here,” Pierce said of the Mahmoud case, adding: “You have parents … some of them openly say we came here to kind of exercise a more liberal view of our religious beliefs, and now we’re being told that we have to adopt this very extreme view in the United States.” The post Lawsuit Against Mandatory Maryland LGBTQ Education Cites Historical Precedent appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Recently, President Donald Trump has escalated his struggle with Harvard University. Remember what the issues were. Harvard had not really followed the letter of the law according to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which it and the University of North Carolina had lost. In other words, they were, by court order, to stop giving preference in admissions, in hiring, in promotion, in retention on the basis of race, gender, etc., what we would call DEI. Harvard has been skirting that. And I think the data’s pretty clear how they have and no question that they’ve been doing it. Second, they have also been getting a lot of money from foreign governments, not always fully accounted for, that is reported to the Department of Education, specifically Communist China and Qatar, over the years. You could make the argument that there have been, in the past, graduations, dorms that have a racial basis, almost a segregation element to them. You can make the argument that they don’t fully honor the First Amendment when you have guest speakers. Sometimes when they want to give a presentation at a formal lecture or even an informal class, students—while they may be officially discouraged from it—they are allowed, de facto, to shout the speaker down or to protest. I think there’s no question that there is a climate of antisemitism throughout Harvard. Recently, two Harvard students who assaulted a Jewish student—one of whom was kind of rewarded with a $65,000 honorarium through the auspices of the law school, another one was given an honorific title at a graduation at the Divinity School of marshal. That sent the wrong message. What I’m getting at is there was a lot of cause for Donald Trump to suggest, “I don’t need this, the country doesn’t need this.” But in his bill of complaints that were contingent on Harvard making compromises, he also got into elements of instruction, curriculum, and hiring. He said, “Why are you hiring people from only one point of view?” Which I think is indisputable. Very few conservatives. Or one particular take on the American history, i.e., negative. That prompted the Council on Higher Education and other venues that have published it to solicit letters from people who would be called center-right—some of my colleagues at Hoover. And they objected to what Donald Trump’s add-ons were. And I think that’s reflected in The Wall Street Journal column by Jason Riley. Essentially, they’re saying: We understand when Harvard’s clearly violating laws or charging too much for individual research grants—60% overhead. But now you’re entering the inner domain of the Harvard complex and you’re trying to micromanage and that’s wrong. I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I don’t know whether my colleagues and friends on the right have characterized it the way in which the argument is coming from the Trump administration. They are saying, “This is analogous to immigration. When somebody is a guest and applies to come here in a visa, that’s an invitation. And we don’t have to give reasons why we don’t want a particular person to come to the United States. What the federal government does with its money vis-a-vis private education is kind of like an invitation. They invite us to give them money. And sometimes we don’t wanna do it. Maybe we say, ‘We don’t like Harvard. We like Fresno State.’ And we don’t have to give you a reason at all because it’s not a requirement. It’s a privilege. Some colleges like Hillsdale don’t take any money. They don’t want us to give them money.” And so, I think the argument from the administration that maybe our right-wing friends are missing is not that the Trump administration doesn’t have a right to go in and micromanage. They’re just saying, “I don’t really wanna give Harvard any money. They’ve got $53 billion. They’re private. They’re not public institutions. But you know, if they ask us and they want money, then we have to look at why we would give it to them.” And it’s kind of like Mr. Smith coming from Korea or Mr. Jones coming from Sweden. We look at them and we don’t really think they add to the Americans. So, we don’t have an invitation. It’s kind of like foreign aid. Maybe Denmark wants foreign aid. Maybe Ghana wants foreign aid. And we look at it and then, we’re under no—we can say, “Well, Denmark, you have to give us Greenland—if we want—before we give you foreign aid.” We’re under no requirement to explain every decision we make for an optional gift. So we would apply that logic. I think that’s what the Trump administration is doing: “Harvard, here’s some money. We don’t really care if you want it or not. But if you do want it, we would suggest that you broaden your curriculum, you give both points of view, and just try to hire more conservatives to balance out. And if you don’t want to do that, don’t worry about it. We’ll just give the money to trade school.” This is as simple as that. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Harvard, You’re Entitled to Nothing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New Wind Farms and Old Wind Bags

Last week, CNN’s Jake Tapper suggested that the media’s previous refusal to entertain questions about former President Biden’s cognitive or physical health was a result of routine journalistic “politeness.” That’s been the story among the corporate media for some time: that journalists just “missed” the signs that Biden was fading, because supposedly it’s just not something journalists are supposed to pry into. But if that’s the case, then Tapper and his ilk owe all of us an explanation for why, from 2017 through 2020, these same journalists were so intensely concerned about President Trump’s health that they managed to incorrectly diagnose him with dementia, early-onset Alzheimer’s, profound mental illness, and heart disease. When disgraced journalist Michael Wolff’s White House gossip book, Fire and Fury came out in early 2018, the media were particularly thrilled by the dubious claims about President Trump’s mental health. For the next three years, every few months the media would find leap at some unusual or off-color behavior by Trump — anything, really — and use it to start a new round of innuendo and bad-faith speculation that he had dementia, Alzheimer’s, or both.  In 2019, when the President paid an unscheduled visit to Walter Reed military hospital, the journalists quickly dismissed the White House’s official explanation that it was for a routine check-up. The proposed explanations on liberal airwaves ranged from an emergency CAT scan to a heart attack.   As we all recall, as recently as a few months ago, any explanation whatsoever that Biden’s White House offered, for any of his erratic behavior, was the media’s gold standard for proof. If the White House said Biden was fine, he must be find, and that settled that. They corporate media don’t get to explain this disparity away with a shrug and a half-hearted, “Guess we missed, sorry about that.” Everyone knows full well what’s going on here, and what’s likely to start going on again very soon: the journalists, having “rediscovered” the importance of caring about a President’s health, will no doubt resume speculating wildly about Trump’s mental fitness, and diagnosing him with every geriatric malady they can name.

The internet is ablaze with clips of the recent “Jubilee” debate between Jordan Peterson and 20 atheists — and many on the right are criticizing Peterson for his answers to the theological questions presented. However, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t believe the clips circulating on social media actually reflect Peterson’s performance. “There were some things that he answered that I thought were really good, that I would affirm and say as well, and then there were other things that I’m like, ‘That is not at all the Christian perspective,’” Stuckey says on “Relatable.” Peterson made four claims that the atheists were supposed to be contending with. The first claim is that “atheists reject God, but they don’t know what they’re rejecting.” While the atheists took a major issue with this assertion, Stuckey believes they misunderstood Peterson’s point. “Jordan did not actually claim that you can never reject that which you don’t understand. That’s not what he said. That’s what this atheist is assuming that he meant by his claim,” Stuckey says, explaining that instead, Peterson “claimed that atheists specifically reject that which they don’t understand, not that no one can reject anything that they don’t understand.” Peterson’s second claim is that “morality and purpose can’t be found within science.” “Maybe it’s too far to say the implication is that morality and purpose have to be from God — I would say Christianity — not just from any supernatural entity. But that seems to be the implication here,” Stuckey says. “And actually, the implication is what most of the debaters are debating against. And maybe that’s their error, or it's a safe assumption.” One atheist attempted to make the point that morality can’t come from Christianity, as slavery was depicted in the Bible. He also claimed that slavery ended because humans “evolved,” to which Peterson fired back, “The reason we evolved, so to speak, away from slavery was because the West was founded on Judeo-Christian morality and the presumption that every person was made in the image of God, and so slavery itself became immoral.” “I liked the last part of Jordan Peterson’s answer there, because he is absolutely right,” Stuckey says, before diving into Peterson’s third claim — that “everyone worships something, including atheists.” This part of the debate has gone the most viral, as an atheist named Danny, whom Stuckey calls “Reddit Timothee Chalamet,” did not appear to be arguing in good faith. Rather than really getting to the heart of the debate, he spoke over Peterson and focused on seemingly irrelevant points. “Danny is probably trying to argue, in the same way, atheists attend to and prioritize certain things, but they don’t worship them,” Stuckey says, adding, “As a Protestant, I would say, ‘No, that is worship.’” Peterson’s last claim is that “atheists accept Christian morality; they just deny the religious foundation of Christian morality,” which Stuckey agrees with. “I actually think that Jordan Peterson did a lot better than some critics on social media are saying,” she says. “I enjoyed watching it, and it made me think myself, and I always welcome the opportunity to think more deeply about my faith and why I believe what I believe.” Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.