The Right Wing

White House deputy chief of staff James Blair on Friday called out media outlets for not posting in their headlines that reporter Don Lemon was arrested as a result of a grand jury indictment. That information, however, remains under seal.

"Any 'news' outlet failing to make clear in their headline that Don Lemon was indicted by a federal grand jury is intentionally misleading the public. Thank you for your attention to this matter," said Blair on X.

Speaking at a press conference about an hour later, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said he couldn't provide any reaction or further information on Lemon's indictment because it was still "under seal."

Blair was quickly questioned by reporters asking for the sealed indictment.

"It would actually be malpractice to report that without an indictment being docketed or announced or confirmed by a participant in the proceedings — unless this is the formal announcement by the White House?" said Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney.

"Please share the indictment, James, since you seem to know," wrote Politico's senior legal affairs reporter, Josh Gerstein.

Legal commentator and national security expert Marcy Wheeler quipped, "Likewise any 'news' outlet failing to make clear that two judges said there was no probable cause AND ALSO that the [Attorney General Pam Bondi] violated every ethical rule to get this indictment. Gonna be a long headline..."

"Was the grand jury convened in the Cabinet room yesterday?" asked White House correspondent S.V. Dáte from the Huffington Post.

On Monday, December 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter — which finds President Donald Trump and his administration arguing that he had a right to fire former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and Slaughter countering that he had no business firing her from an independent agency established by Congress. At issue in the case is a far-right legal doctrine called the Unitary Executive Theory, which claims that U.S. presidents enjoy total control of the federal government's executive branch.

Critics of the Unitary Executive Theory, including Slaughter, are arguing that the U.S. Constitution doesn't give the executive branch nearly as much power as Trump claims that it does.

Veteran conservative columnist George Will examines the Unitary Executive Theory in his January 30 column for the Washington Post, stressing that the High Court has a golden opportunity to rein Trump in.

"As the Supreme Court prepares a landmark ruling about the scope of presidential power," the 84-year-old Will explains, "the current president is acting more unleashed than any predecessor. He is demonstrating that a president not self-restrained by his or her constitutional conscience is almost unrestrainable. The court case concerns whether presidents have the power to remove, for any reason, all principal officers of executive agencies exercising significant executive power."

The Never Trump conservative continues, "The ruling will emphatically bolster or substantially quarantine the 'Unitary Executive Theory.' It holds that all executive power is vested in the president, who exercises sole authority over executive branch activities. The theory says Congress has no authority to limit the president from exercising command over administrative policymaking by denying the president's power to remove agencies' principal officers."

Will notes that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution "could have, but did not, limit the president's removal power," but he goes on to say that "the argument against an unlimitable removal power is stronger."

"If the Court gives its imprimatur to a strong version of the Unitary Executive Theory," the conservative columnist argues, "presidential power will become even more formidable and less circumscribable than current events reveal it to be. This is a recipe for enhanced presidentialism — more government by executive fiats, more president-centric politics, more congressional anemia…. When considering the logic of our constitutional structure, the justices should not disregard their conclusions' likely consequences for the nation's political practices and civic culture."

George Will's full Washington Post column is available at this link (subscription required).

Although Democrats dominate Texas' major urban centers — from Houston to Austin to El Paso — and perform well in some of Texas' congressional districts, they continue to struggle in statewide races in the Lone Star State. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) narrowly lost to incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in 2008, but he still couldn't get past the finish line. And Donald Trump's 14 percent victory over Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024 reminded Democrats that Texas is still a red state.

Yet conservative columnist George Will believes that Texas' 2026 U.S. Senate race could be in play for Democrats if far-right State Attorney General Ken Paxton is the nominee instead of incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a more traditional conservative. And a Texas State Senate runoff election in the Ft. Worth suburbs, according to New York Times reporter J. David Goodman, is being closely monitored by Democratic and GOP strategists — and the outcome could offer a glimpse on what lies ahead in the 2026 midterms.

The race finds Democrat Taylor Rehmet competing with Republican Leigh Wambsganss.

Although Democrats dominate Dallas Proper, the suburbs of Dallas and Ft. Worth are much more GOP-friendly. And Goodman notes that although "the race is still a long shot for Democrats," political strategists will be paying close attention to the margins.

In an article published on January 29, Goodman reports, "A special election runoff on Saturday in the once reliably conservative suburbs of Fort Worth, Texas, has turned into a nail-biter for Republicans, who worry that even a narrow GOP victory in the State Senate race could be a bad sign for their midterm prospects…. More people voted for either the Republican finalist, Leigh Wambsganss, or her GOP rival in the three-way November election than for Mr. Rehmet. But even a psychological boost could help Democrats, who believe they have their best chance in years to win a statewide race in Texas this November."

Conservative Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, during a radio appearance, said he is "very concerned about this election."

"The concern is based on the odd timing of the election, set for Saturday, and the strong performance of the Democratic candidate, Taylor Rehmet, during the initial round of voting in November," Goodman explains. "Mr. Rehmet, a 33-year-old first-time candidate and local union leader, nearly won a majority of votes — more than 47 percent — in a district that in 2024 favored Donald J. Trump by 17 percentage points…. Mr. Rehmet has…. promised to address rising property taxes and has made his support for public education, including vocational programs, central to his campaign."

Goodman adds, "Whoever wins the runoff will serve only for the rest of the year. Both candidates are already registered to run in the November election, girding up for a long fight."

Read J. David Goodman's full New York Times article at this link (subscription required)

A small contingent of an oil-rich province in Canada that desperately wants to join the United States met with President Donald Trump's administration.

The Financial Times reported on Thursday that Trump aides met with the Alberta Prosperity Project, which is a group of far-right separatists who want to leave Canada. Since last April, Trump's State Department officials have met with the group at least three times in Washington, the report said.

"They are seeking another meeting next month with state and Treasury officials to ask for a $500 billion credit facility to help bankroll the province if an independence referendum — yet to be called — is passed," said the report.

According to the group's attorney, Jeff Rath, who was at the meetings, “The US is extremely enthusiastic about a free and independent Alberta."

He went on to brag that he has a better relationship with the Trump administration than Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney who hammered Trump in a speech at the World Economic Forum.

The State Department downplayed the multiple meetings however, saying, “The department regularly meets with civil society types. As is typical in routine meetings such as these, no commitments were made.”

The White House echoed the statement, adding that there was no commitment of financial support.

Neither Treasury secretary Scott Bessent nor anyone at the Treasury Department knew anything about a "credit facility proposal," said a person familiar when talking to FT. They said they have no intention of engaging.

Canadian conservatives, however, view the group as people who are only looking for attention.

Carlo Dade, at the Canada West Foundation, “The Americans are more than happy to continue to play Canadians off each other."

Indeed, Bessent commented to a white supremacist podcaster that Alberta is a "natural partner" for the U.S. to make given that the province has so much oil.

“The Albertans are very independent people,” the secretary said. “[There is a] rumour that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”

However, Ipsos polling shows that only 3 in 10 residents in Alberta and Quebec would vote to secede from Canada. Still, the separatists are gathering signatures for a petition to deliver to the legislature.

FT added that it's part of deteriorating diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Canada.

Amid the background of federal agents shooting to death two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis and President Donald Trump subsequently declaring, “you can’t have guns,” a Marine veteran who served in Iraq is asking, where are the pro-Second Amendment “Don’t Tread on Me” activists now?

In an opinion piece for The Hill, Jos Joseph explains the effect that the 1993 federal government raid in Waco, Texas, had on him as a teen, when he “watched as federal agents, dressed up like commandos, tried to storm a religious compound in Texas. A shootout and then a siege ensued in which the government used the same psyops operations on Americans as they had on Panamanian Gen. Manuel Noriega.”

He says that he was “baffled by the government’s actions and willingness to escalate things to the point of using commando-style tactics before exhausting other options,” and as a result, he “would understand why people didn’t trust the government, why they advocated for the Second Amendment, and why they warned me about the dangers that an unchecked politician could do to American citizens.”

He then blasts “self-described libertarians, Second Amendment advocates, Punisher logo wearing tough guys, and ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag wavers” who “wilt like flowers when it comes time to actually standing up for the Bill of Rights.”

He then turns to the crisis in Minnesota.

“The Department of Homeland Security immediately tried to control the messaging,” he exclaimed, “that somehow this man who was legally permitted to carry a gun was killed for carrying a gun.”

“I think about all the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ people and wonder, why are they so silent?” Joseph asks.

And, “why are some putting restrictions on the Second Amendment now? You can carry a gun but not magazines? You can’t carry more than one magazine? You can’t bring a gun to a protest if you are a Democrat?”

Joseph did not specifically mention President Donald Trump, who said on Tuesday that Alex Pretti, the VA ICU nurse shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis over the weekend, was carrying magazines.

“He had a gun,” Trump said, as Reuters reported. “I don’t like that. He had two fully loaded magazines. That’s a lot of bad stuff.”

Joseph writes, “Over the years, I was told by my conservative friends to be worried about Big Government,” then laments, “I guess none of that applies anymore. The killings of Alex Pretti, Renee Good and others in ICE custody should be reprehensible to any decent, patriotic American. But the silence is deafening from those who cried loudest over government tyranny.”

In California, federal Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, is having a legal fight with the Trump administration over its immigration policies — especially when it comes to mandatory detention. And now, Sykes is criticizing Trump Administration, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials for defying her orders.

Trump officials, according to Sykes, are making a deliberate choice to defy court orders.

Referencing the case Olga Sosa Inzuna v. Warden of Adelanto Detention Facility et al, Politico's Kyle Cheney — in a January 28 post on X — observed, "Judge Sykes in California has grown increasingly frustrated that her attempt to grant nationwide class action relief from the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy has not stopped the flood of habeas petitions."

Sykes has issued a series of orders pertaining to the Trump administration's immigration and mandatory detention policies.

Legal blogger Paul Saluja, in a post for the firm Saluja Law, noted that Sykes "issued a sweeping rebuke of the Department of Homeland Security's July 2025 detention directive — an unprecedented policy that attempted to deny bond hearings to nearly all immigrants who entered the United States without inspection…. The litigation began after large-scale raids across Southern California resulted in the arrest of approximately 2000 individuals per day — many of whom were sent to Adelanto Detention Center. Four of those individuals became the named petitioners: Lazaro Maldonado Bautista, Ananias Pasqual, Ana Franco Galdamez and Luiz Alberto de Aquino de Aquino."

Saluja explained, "In a series of three orders issued between July and November 2025, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled that the policy was unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The rulings have far-reaching consequences: thousands of immigrants previously subjected to mandatory detention are now eligible for release on bond, and DHS may no longer treat long-settled residents as 'applicants for admission' for purposes of detention."

Sykes' concerns are voiced in a court documented issued on January 27.

The document states, "The Court ORDERS the following: Respondents are enjoined from continuing to detain Petitioner unless she is provided with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days2 of the date of this Order; Respondents are enjoined from transferring, relocating, or removing Petitioner from the Central District of California without further order of the Court and pending final resolution of this litigation."

X user Mike Young stressed that Sykes' tone is dead-serious.

"Judge Sykes is not hinting," according to Young. "She’s accusing DHS of an intentional end-run. In an order granting a TRO in Olga Sosa Inzuna's case, she says these filings have become 'routine' because Respondents chose to keep defying the final judgment in Bautista. She lays out the loop: detainees file habeas as Bautista class members, DHS opposes anyway, the court orders bond hearings, then DHS does it again. So she stops treating this like good-faith lawyering."

Sen. Thom Tillis, one of the most vocal GOP critics of Donald Trump, said he was "thrilled" to be called a "loser" by the president over his criticism of Kristi Noem, quipping that it would make him "qualified to be DHS secretary."

Tillis was one of the first Republicans to join with a growing number of congressional Democrats in calling for the removal of Noem as Homeland Security Secretary. Criticism of Noem's handling of the department has intensified over the last few weeks, as ICE and CBP agents launched an enormous deportation surge in the Minnesota Twin Cities area, and reached a boiling point this weekend after federal agents shot and killed U.S. citizen Alex Pretti.

In the wake of that tragedy, more lawmakers in Washington than ever joined the call for Noem to step down from her position or be fired. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Democrats would pursue an impeachment inquiry against her if she were not removed.

Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, alongside fellow GOP Trump enemy, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were the first Republicans in Congress to publicly call for Noem's ouster over the handling of the Pretti situation. Tillis also called for the firing of Stephen Miller, one of Trump's closest advisers, known for his hardline anti-immigrant beliefs and heavy involvement in the administration's deportation efforts.

“I think what she’s done in Minnesota should be disqualifying,” Tillis told reporters on Tuesday. “It’s just amateurish. It’s terrible. It’s making the president look bad.”

In response, Trump took aim at Tillis and Murkowski in an ABC News interview on Wednesday, branding them as "losers."

“They’re terrible senators. One is gone, and the other should be gone,” Trump said. “What Murkowski says — she’s always against the Republicans anyway. And Tillis decided to drop out. So you know, he lost his voice once he did that.”

Speaking with CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju, Tillis took a playful jab at the president's comment and said that he was "thrilled" to be called a loser.

“I am thrilled about that," Tillis said. "That makes me qualified to be homeland security secretary and senior adviser to the president.”

While Trump did order the removal of CBP commander Greg Bovino from his position on the ground leading immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota, he has so far resisted calls to ditch Noem and Miller.

Some conservative women who were prominent figures in the Republican Party in the past — columnist and former Nancy Reagan speechwriter Mona Charen, conservative pollster and organizer Sarah Longwell, former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Virginia), among many others — now feel estranged from conservatism and are firmly in the Never Trump camp. But their absence from the center of the GOP and much of the right-wing media is giving MAGA women an opening on the far right.

In an article published on January 28, The Guardian's Alaina Demopoulos takes a look at some mothers who have become prominent MAGA influencers: Riley Gaines and Allie Beth Stuckey. And one of their talking points is that "compassion" and "empathy" detrimental to the MAGA movement and to fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

Demopoulos' article comes at a time when Minneapolis and other U.S. cities are being targeted by the Trump Administration for aggressive immigration raids. And Gaines and Stuckey, according to the Guardian journalist, are saying that compassion must not be allowed to distract MAGA from its goals.

"Gaines is one of the leading figures of the 'Womanosphere' movement: mostly white Christian conservatives who promote an anti-feminist, gender-essentialist agenda to their followers, and who have been parroting the Trump Administration's messaging that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has done a good, moral job in its brutal crackdown on immigrant communities," Demopoulos explains. "Any evidence proving otherwise is wrong, warped or fabricated, they insist…. Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative podcaster and author, is another such figure beating the drum for ICE."

Stuckey is the author of the 2024 book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion." And the argument that "compassion" and "empathy" are bad, according to Demopoulos, is a recurring theme from Stuckey and others in the Womansphere.

According to former evangelical April Ajoy, a demand for ideological purity is another characteristic of the 'Womanosphere'.

Ajoy told The Guardian, "If you are not fully in line with every single position (that Womanosphere figures promote), then you can get ostracized from your community. That’s what happened to me."

Read Alaina Demopoulos's full article for The Guardian at this link.

In late 2025, the Trump Administration released its 33-page National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS). The 33-page document is a departure from NSS releases of the past, playing up MAGA themes and often sounding like a speech by President Donald Trump.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, is highly critical of the Trump NSS — which, he argues, underscores major problems with the Trump Administration's military and national security policies.

"National strategy documents matter because real actions flow from them: budgets, force design, training and operational priorities, engagement with key allies, readiness models, and leader requirements, to name a few," Herling explains in an article published on January 28. "Ideally, any White House National Security Strategy defines the foreign policy goals for the whole government, and then sets about reasonable, if not specific, plans to achieve those goals. The follow-on National Defense Strategy then tells the Department of Defense how the military will work to help implement those plans and achieve those goals. When done well, this process disciplines choices. When done poorly, it creates confusion that echoes for years across the military force."

Hertling adds, "That is why the 2026 NDS is so concerning. Not because it sets changed or ambitious goals, but because it repeatedly substitutes political rhetoric and untested assumptions for the strategic guidance the military requires."

Defense strategy documents, Hertling emphasizes, should not sound like "campaign speeches" or "party propaganda."

"From its first pages," Hertling observes, "the 2026 NDS devotes considerable and valuable space to openly and directly criticizing previous administrations. The very first sentence of Secretary Pete Hegseth's cover memo…. is retrospective and retributive, rather than prospective and mission-oriented… Strategy documents…. are not vehicles for settling political scores; they are meant to speak to a professional force tasked with executing national objectives under extreme risk."

Hertling continues, "To put it another way: To an admiral responsible for responding to encroachment and aggression by the Chinese Navy, Hegseth's opinion of the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration — when that admiral was probably a lieutenant in the middle of the ocean somewhere — isn't really important. What this administration wants him to do about China, and what resources it's going to give him — that's what’s important…. In dangerous times, clarity is a form of protection. The 2026 National Defense Strategy offers far too little of it."

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

The Republican National Committee has revealed its ramped-up spending on hair and makeup for media appearances, according to a new report from NOTUS, amid the GOP's image-obsessed shift under Donald Trump.

Citing federal campaign finance records, NOTUS reported on Wednesday that the RNC had paid a pair of makeup artists $59,000 for "media preparation" work between April and November of last year. The majority of that expenditure went to one makeup professional with close connections to the Trump administration and right-wing media.

"The majority of that amount, $53,850, went to Brittany Goetz, a professional hair and makeup artist, who began contracting with the RNC during the summer," NOTUS reported. "Goetz’s website, which was recently unpublished, said she has worked for Fox News. Now-unavailable social media posts show she has done work for White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and other GOP officials and personalities."

As the outlet noted, it is not out of the ordinary for a political organization to spend money on "cosmetic services," nor is it something the RNC in particular has never put a focus on. NOTUS cited 2023 reporting from AlterNet's Sarah K. Burris, then writing for Raw Story, which found that the RNC, under former chair Ronna McDaniel, had "spent $17,000 of committee funds at one Michigan salon, part of nearly $100,000 the committee had spent on cosmetic-related services over several years."

This "increased expenditures" in 2025 did, however, come at a time when the Republican Party has put an increasingly significant focus on image, especially among the Trump administration, where officials have become "omnipresent on TV and social networks."

This focus on presenting a well-groomed image caused several administration members to lash out when Vanity Fair published numerous untouched and potentially unflattering portraits for a profile piece. Efforts to fit Trump's vision of beauty have also led to a recent phenomenon cosmetic surgeons have dubbed "Mar-a-Lago face," in which individuals seek to get work done on their appearance in such a way that it is overtly apparent that they have gotten work done, a significant departure from past trends.

"Trump’s obsession with looks and appearances is well documented," NOTUS's report explained. "The president frequently comments on people’s looks. He has offered compliments to his staff and foreign leaders and insults — such as 'ugly' and 'piggy' last year directed at two female news reporters — and other barbs for political enemies. The president’s own ever-changing makeup is also regular fodder for news organizations and comedy shows."

When the Trump Administration, with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was aggressively downsizing a long list of federal agencies, the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was very much in doubt. Critics of President Donald Trump feared that FEMA would be eliminated altogether.

A year into Trump's second presidency, however, FEMA remains. Trump appeared to back down from eliminating FEMA.

But according to NOTUS reporters Anna Kramer and Torrence Banks, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is holding up more than $1 billion in "hazard mitigation funds."

In an article published on January 28, Kramer and Banks report, "Since July, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has approved hazard mitigation grants that cost more than $100,000 in only three states, according to a NOTUS review of publicly available data and internal FEMA documents. The three states to get through the logjam: Georgia, North Carolina and Oklahoma. As of December 31, before the North Carolina and Oklahoma projects were approved, Noem's office was sitting on $1.3 billion in requested funds — all of which had been approved at the regional level, according to documents obtained by NOTUS."

The NOTUS reporters add, "This is the first time the scope of Noem's funding hold on the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program has been reported."

According to Kramer and Banks, "hundreds of projects across nearly all 50 states, four territories and two tribal nations remain stuck at Noem's level elected representatives in 10 states."

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Washington State) told NOTUS, "Unfortunately, Secretary Noem has virtually frozen FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program."

Michael Coen, who served as FEMA's chief of staff under the Biden Administration, warns that holding up Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds could be dangerous.

Coen told NOTUS, "HMGP is authorized by Congress. The Trump Administration's failure to execute mitigation is reckless and I believe a breach of duty. Lives will be lost during future disasters that could have been avoided. HMGP funding is one of the few tools the federal government has to reduce future disaster costs and suffering."

Read the full NOTUS article at this link.

"This was supposed to be the Melania week."

That's according to Michael Wolff, a veteran reporter and author of Fire & Fury, an inside account of Donald Trump's tumultuous first term in the White House. On the Tuesday edition of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," he discussed the situation surrounding First Lady Melania Trump, explaining that she was furious about the latest Minnesota shooting upstaging the premiere of her $75 million documentary from Amazon.

On Saturday morning, CBP agents in Minneapolis shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse who had been attempting to help a woman who had been hit with pepper spray, kicking off a new wave of backlash against Trump's mass deportation agenda. Later that same day, a special screening of Melania Trump's documentary was held at the White House ahead of its proper premiere at the Kennedy Center on Thursday.

This confluence of events, Wolff explained, left the first lady "truly p—— off" about the coverage of Pretti's death and the broader immigration enforcement surge overshadowing the rollout of her film. This reaction, he added, was part of what ultimately led Trump to push out CBP commander Greg Bovino and sideline DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and push for a de-escalation and shift in strategy in Minnesota.

“You cannot alienate the first lady to the extent that she makes it an issue with the president,” Wolff explained to his podcast co-host, Joanna Coles. “Almost everyone within the White House acknowledges that this is a tripwire.”

Trump, Wolff added, is "not moved by normal political considerations," when considering the backlash to his decisions, "but he is moved by a p—— off wife."

"What he does not want is a p—— off and uncontrolled Melania," Wolff continued. "The shooting of Alex Pretti is Saturday morning. Saturday evening is the screening of Melania, the movie. So during this period, the president, Donald Trump, begins to shift in his view of this."

In the wake of Pretti's death, Melania Trump made a rare public statement about the situation, calling for peace and unity.

The first lady's film, titled simply, "Melania," was purchased by Jeff Bezos's Amazon MGM Studios last year for $40 million, a remarkably high sum for a documentary, leading to allegations that the acquisition was done to curry favor with the incoming president. Those allegations continued as it was reported that the company had sunk an extra $35 million into marketing the film for a worldwide theatrical release.

The Republican Party is struggling to keep up with the ever-changing narratives coming out of President Donald Trump’s White House.

Politico reported Wednesday that the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent a talking-points memo to surrogates backing up the administration, only for the administration to undermine those same points shortly afterward.

The memo, obtained and posted by Politico, instructed GOP surrogates to blame protesters for trying to incite a riot and for attacking or “aggressively confront[ing] law enforcement.”

The talking points, which were also distributed to administration officials, echoed false claims from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) commander Greg Bovino. In his statements after the shooting of ICU nurse Alex Jeffrey Pretti, Bovino claimed that Pretti approached federal agents while “brandishing a weapon” and “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Bovino has since been relieved of his command and sent back to California from Minnesota.

The RNC memo told surrogates to emphasize that “agents attempted to disarm the individual as he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots.”

But video footage shows a very different account. Major outlets from the New York Times and Washington Post to the conservative Wall Street Journal have disputed the administration’s version, showing federal agents approaching Pretti, throwing him to the ground, and beating him before opening fire.

Politico wrote that the fast-moving developments “show how the administration and other Republicans scrambled to contain the fallout from the shooting.” The memo also attacks Democrats who want to freeze Homeland Security funding until concessions are made on legislation requiring agents to wear body cameras.

At the same time, many Republican officials have demanded an investigation into CBP and the agents involved. Publicly, the White House insists it still stands behind Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and top aide Corey Lewandowski; privately, some Trump allies are calling for her ouster.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Noem should be “out of a job,” and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) agreed she “should go.”

Asked whether the memo was authentic, RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels attacked Democrats.

“Democrats incited this violence by encouraging protesters to confront law enforcement,” she said in a statement to Politico.

“Democrats are demonizing ICE and threatening to defund DHS instead of condemning attacks on officers – while President Trump and Republicans stand with law enforcement and public safety," she added.

Read the full report here.

Although many of President Donald Trump's nominees for his administration encountered widespread opposition from Senate Democrats, conservative Secretary of State Marco Rubio was a major exception. Not one Senate Democrat voted against his confirmation, as they hoped he would be a voice of reason in an administration filled with far-right MAGA Republicans and Trump loyalists.

But Punchbowl News, in an article published on Wednesday, January 28, describes the foreign policy frustrations that Democrats are having with Rubio — including those who voted to confirm him as secretary of state.

"The political tensions over President Donald Trump's foreign policy will be focused squarely on Secretary of State Marco Rubio Wednesday morning, when he'll be pressed to explain the decisions of a president hell-bent on flexing U.S. muscle abroad," Punchbowl reporters Anthony Adragna, Briana Reilly and Andrew Desiderio explain. "Senate Democrats are beyond frustrated with the administration's lack of responsiveness on everything from the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to Trump's flirtation with controlling Greenland. They're prepared to pepper Rubio about all of this during today's Foreign Relations Committee hearing."

One of those frustrated Democratic senators is Maryland's Chris Van Hollen.

Van Hollen told Punchbowl, "The old Marco Rubio is unrecognizable today. The Rubio MAGA lobotomy is complete."

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) wants some answers from Rubio about Venezuelan oil now that leftist Nicolás Maduro is no longer in charge.

Murphy told Punchbowl, "We need some visibility on what's happening with this oil. This is crazy. The American people need to understand who’s making money off of that and why Congress isn't involved."

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) told Punchbowl, "From Venezuela to Europe, the United States is spending more, risking more and achieving less."

Read the full Punchbowl News article at this link.