Category: Blaze Media
DHS: Armed suspect fatally shot by federal agent in Minneapolis; suspect ‘violently resisted’ disarming attempt
The Department of Homeland Security said an armed suspect was fatally shot Saturday by a federal agent in Minneapolis and that the suspect “violently resisted” a disarming attempt.
DHS indicated a firearm and two magazines were recovered.
‘They have encouraged these reckless confrontations and attacks on our agents and officers.’
“At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” DHS said.
“The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted,” DHS added. “Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics on scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject but was pronounced dead at the scene.”
DHS also said “the suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID — this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
RELATED: Vance crushes false narrative about ICE ‘arresting’ 5-year-old boy
Gun that the Department of Homeland Security says fatally shot suspect was carrying Saturday in Minneapolis.Image source: Department of Homeland Security
“About 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement on the scene, crowd control measures were deployed for the safety of the public and law enforcement,” DHS also said.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said the fatally shot man was 37 years old, the Associated Press reported, adding that the chief “urged people to remain peaceful and not to destroy the city.” O’Hara said there was limited information about the shooting and called on people to leave the area and said it’s “not sustainable,” the AP added.
Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as well as Democrat U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith of Minnesota seized on the shooting as another opportunity to demand the ouster of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from the Gopher State.
Walz, who indicated that he has spoken with the White House, stated, “Minnesota has had it. This is sickening. The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”
Klobuchar wrote, “To the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress who have stood silent: Get ICE out of our state NOW.”
“Another catastrophic shooting in Minneapolis by federal agents,” wrote Smith. “ICE must leave now so MPD can secure the scene and do their jobs.”
In the wake of the shooting, the Border Patrol Union suggested a shooting likely would have been defensive and condemned the incendiary rhetoric spread in recent weeks by politicians and the liberal media.
“Border Patrol agents are trained extremely well to protect themselves, their fellow agents, and innocent third parties. When a supposed ‘peaceful’ protester brings a weapon (such as a loaded handgun) and brandishes it, there are going to severe consequences and repercussions,” said the union.
“We have pleaded with and warned the media and the politicians that their irresponsible, hate-filled and false rhetoric is going to get people unnecessarily hurt, or worse, killed when they portray our agents and officers as the aggressors,” continued the union. “They have encouraged these reckless confrontations and attacks on our agents and officers who are performing their lawful duties and enforcing the laws that Congress has put on the books.”
Editor’s note: This story was edited after publication to include the age of the fatally shot individual as well as commentary from the Minneapolis Police Chief.
This is a developing story; updates may be added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump ‘needs to be honest’: Tariffs, the court, and a housing market built on lies
The Supreme Court’s latest delay in its tariff case is fueling speculation that justices are trying to craft a behind-the-scenes compromise to avoid market shock — even if it means quietly curbing presidential trade authority.
But Daniel Horowitz explains that the tariff ruling may be less important than the remedy itself, especially as another crisis tightens its grip on Americans: a frozen, inflated housing market that government policy continues to prop up instead of letting it reset.
“I think what they’re trying to do is two things. … One is, they want to do it with as little disruption as possible. So they’re trying to think how that remedy works. And number two, I think particularly maybe for Thomas and Alito, they’re trying to figure out how not to get involved in a political question,” Horowitz tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace on the “Steve Deace Show.”
“And that’s really where I am. As you well know, I don’t believe the court should ever be the arbiter of a fundamental political disagreement. If it’s a problem, Congress should oppose and deal with it,” he continues.
Trump has also announced his plan to go after residential homes being bought up by global corporations like BlackRock, which sounds great to everyday Americans, but Horowitz believes the solution is even simpler.
“It was announced, no more, you know, BlackRock owning of homes, residential, you know, mass production of, or acquisition, I should say, of residential homes, things of that nature,” Deace says.
“This is a primary thing that the young male demographic that voted our way in the last election cares about. It’s a primary driver of the current situation in the economy. Not to mention the fact it’s the greatest source for individual liquidation that exists right now to the average American,” he continues.
“We’re sitting on all this liquid that could go back into the economy if we can get the housing market moving. What should they be doing, do you think?” Deace asks.
“Very simple. Let the bubble pop. And I know it sounds very simplistic, but it’s something that they refuse to do, and everything that they’re proposing will further fuel it. Corporate ownership is a symptom of the problem, not the problem,” Horowitz responds.
“The president needs to be honest with people. The biggest problem with the president economically is he doesn’t understand the mutual exclusivity of things. So, he wants insurance to cover everything, but he wants premiums to go down, right? He wants the welfare state, but he doesn’t want inflation. He wants seniors to have a checking account in the form of fake housing on unrealized gains, but he wants young people to be able to afford them,” he continues.
“If you want to actually get the economy back to what we all said we did, which is a broad-based income economy rather than an asset bubble, you’ve got to pull the plugs on all the things doing this. And it’s the exact opposite of what the president is saying,” he adds.
Want more from Steve Deace?
To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Sexual assault by men in women’s prisons: ‘Cruel and unusual punishment’
Civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon is sounding the alarm on human rights abuses that the left pretends aren’t happening — including the assaults on female inmates in prison by men pretending to be women.
“Mass. women’s prison ‘a haven for sexual predators who pretend to be transgender,’” reads the title of an article in the Christian Post. In the article, women who claim to have been raped by men in a Massachusetts prison are also reporting being punished for speaking out about it.
“I saw the news story about Massachusetts, and we’ve opened up a federal civil rights investigation into that fact pattern. We have an active civil rights investigation under our prison reform laws into Colorado for prisoner conditions ranging from transgender violence to abuse of the elderly prisoners and heating and cooling conditions and others,” Dhillon tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey.
“There’s some horrific stories out there. And like, look, it’s my perhaps bleeding-heart view that no one should be raped in an American prison. Male or female. You are serving your time for a crime you committed that should not include unreasonable violations of cruel and unusual punishment, which certainly would include being violently assaulted or raped,” she says.
“Or being forced to share an intimate space with a man. That is cruel and unusual,” Stuckey chimes in.
“I’m very concerned about the transgender issue in prisons, and you know, you’ve got a lot of people, people who identify as Christian, obviously a lot of progressives, who you know, they feel like they’re taking up the cause of the most vulnerable,” she says.
However these progressives refuse to speak up about vulnerable populations like unborn children inside the womb or imprisoned women who are doing their time but have no ability to advocate for their own safety.
“I mean, the progressives are total hypocrites, and you’ve seen some voices on the left break from that progressive movement. J.K. Rowling is a great example of that in the U.K., where she’s I think said in the last 24 hours, I saw online, that you know, you shouldn’t be raped in a prison or forced to subordinate your human dignity,” Dhillon says.
“That would seem obvious, and yet, there’s this total hypocrisy on the left on this issue, and it’s as if the feminist movement has completely abandoned its original premise,” she adds.
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.
‘Maga maggots’: Guns, body armor, ammo, Palestinian flag found at home of man accused of threatening to murder ICE agents
Democrats and the liberal media have been working overtime to vilify and dehumanize the men and women of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This demonization campaign — which opened a new front Sunday with the mob action against Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota — has coincided with unprecedented spikes in assaults and death threats against ICE agents.
‘Alright, you got me.’
The growing left-wing animus is not, however, going unanswered.
Two men were charged in separate cases this week for allegedly threatening to murder ICE agents.
Justin Mesael Novoa, 21, of Columbus, Ohio, was federally charged Thursday with making threatening interstate communications. Novoa apparently has been stewing for months, allegedly issuing threats on X which were brought to the attention of Homeland Security Investigations.
According to the Justice Department, HSI investigators came across a June 2025 post in which Novoa allegedly wrote, “They should blast every ice agent they find.”
Apparently it was far from a one-off articulation of bloodthirst.
In November, Novoa allegedly wrote, “Can’t wait to shoot these p***y ice agents and r*****d maga maggots.”
Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images
Court documents indicate that Elon Musk’s X Corp. provided HSI with account details, including an email in Novoa’s name as well as his phone number, reported WSYX-TV.
Investigators subsequently found other troubling posts on Novoa’s alleged X account including numerous anti-Semitic posts calling Jewish people “subhuman” and “filthy” as well as posts referencing Adolf Hitler.
When federal agents executed a search warrant at the radical’s residence in December, they found body armor, a pair of military-issue helmets, two rifles, two shotguns, a handgun, and a wealth of ammunition.
A Palestinian flag reportedly also was found in Novoa’s room.
Novoa allegedly told federal agents conducting the search, “Alright, you got me. That was me,” adding, “Damn, so Elon [Musk] does give you access to that,” reported WSYX.
Novoa, whose preliminary hearing is set for Feb. 5, apparently did not have an adult criminal history, and court documents indicate he was not prohibited from possessing firearms.
In a separate case, a man from Harrison County, West Virginia, also was arrested this week for allegedly threatening to murder federal immigration agents and supporters of President Donald Trump. Cody Smith, 20, has been charged with making terroristic threats and was being held at North Central Regional Jail.
West Virginia State Police learned that Smith had posted videos of himself online in which he allegedly said he was going to attack and kill ICE agents and made threats against Trump. Smith also allegedly indicated on social media that he intended to murder Trump supporters and service members willing to “bootlick,” reported WBOY-TV.
Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.
These alleged terroristic threats also come amid Democratic officials’ increasingly incendiary rhetoric.
Minnesota Mayor Jacob Frey, for instance, characterized ICE as an “occupying force.” In a recent interview, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes accused federal immigration officers of engaging in “thuggish, brutish behavior” and discussed scenarios in which it may be reasonable to shoot masked ICE agents.
Earlier this month, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin noted that “the unprecedented increase in violence against law enforcement is a direct result of sanctuary politicians and the media creating an environment that demonizes our law enforcement and encourages rampant assaults against them.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Woke UK video game backfires: ‘Extremist’ Amelia becomes viral symbol of British pride
Hull City Council in Yorkshire, England — an area overwhelmed by third-world asylum seekers in recent years — wasted no time setting a high bar for self-owns this year.
The local authority teamed up with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and the woke media literacy outfit Shout Out UK to create an online choose-your-own adventure video game targeting young Britons titled “Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism.”
‘The government is betraying white British people.’
To the chagrin of the re-education tool’s makers, one of its supposed villains, a purple-haired patriotic character named Amelia, has been appropriated and used to great effect in counter-messaging campaigns by the right and other critics of the woke British establishment.
The game
Hull City Council announced last year that the game would be “made available to schools, education settings, and community and youth organizations throughout the city” and used to teach youths “about the dangers of extremism and radicalization.”
One of the stated objectives of the propaganda tool was to “demonstrate the local threat picture of Extreme Right Wing activities specifically.”
The game offers six scenarios in which users decide the path the protagonist, Charlie, will take.
In the third scenario, Charlie — who is referred to as “they” — watches a video that claims both that “Muslim men are stealing the places of British war veterans in emergency accommodation” and that “the government is betraying white British people.”
Screenshots from Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism.
If the player decides that “this seems unfair” and has Charlie engage with the post, Charlie ends up inadvertently sharing the content with online bad actors, sending the player’s radicalization risk score through the roof.
Charlie avoids arrest long enough to attend class with Amelia in the third scenario, where she suggests that “immigrants are coming to the U.K. and taking our jobs.”
Amelia features prominently in the fourth scenario, where she is introduced as a close friend of Charlie who has “made a video encouraging young people in Birdlington to join a political group that seeks to defend English rights.”
After Amelia — who is depicted holding the Union Jack and a sign that says, “No entry” — asks Charlie to join a group called Action for Britain and shares a video on-theme, the player is given the option of having Charlie: ignore the video, like the video but not join the group, or share the video and join the group.
If the player chooses the third option, their radicalization risk score increases just as it will increase if they agree in the final scenario to go in Amelia’s place to protest “the erosion of British values.”
Screenshot from Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism.
Regardless of inputs, the game inevitably suggests that exposure to supposedly extremist views such as love for nation, concern over wage suppression by immigrants, and cultural erasure warrant Charlie’s referral to an anti-terrorism expert and re-education on “how to engage positively with ideology and the difference between right and wrong in expressing political beliefs.”
The Telegraph, citing official documents, revealed last year that the British government listed “cultural nationalism,” defined as the belief that Western culture is “under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups,” as a terrorist ideology.
The game concludes with the suggestion that only after receiving counseling on “harmful ideology” from a hijab-wearing counselor is Charlie able to “rebuild their confidence, find their identity, and continue their college course successfully.”
New pathway for Amelia
Amelia has recently featured in numerous viral online videos and memes where she warns of the Islamification of Britain, champions national pride, promotes normalcy, and criticizes leftist policies.
In a popular Amelia meme shared by Elon Musk, the character underscores that the English people aren’t “immigrants” and “didn’t ‘arrive’ in England. They became England — over more than a millennium.”
In another popular meme, Amelia is shown bonding with Charlie over their common love of country, getting married, then starting a family.
Amelia has also been depicted as the Lady of the Lake of Arthurian legend, handing an armored knight the sword Aerondight; in photo-realistic images mocking political figures; and in a multitude of other images making a wide range of political commentary.
British journalist Mary Harrington writing for UnHerd noted that “Amelia stands as a potent illustration of how desperately an officialdom accustomed to comparatively comprehensive public message control is struggling to adapt to the recursive online environment.”
When pressed for comment, Hull City Council referred Blaze News to the U.K. Home Office, which did not respond. Shout Out UK for comment similarly did not respond.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Punk with attitude on overdrive caught on cop body cam allegedly trying to steal car — but not even a taser can slow his roll
Bodycam video from Daytona Beach Police showed an officer driving to an auto dealership on Jan. 14 and noting a suspect there was “actually trying to get into a car that’s occupied.”
Not surprisingly, the officer said he didn’t want the suspect to “carjack somebody.”
‘Get me out of these cuffs, or you lose your job tomorrow. Do it.’
With that, the officer exited his cruiser and removed keys from a truck’s ignition just before a male — later identified as 18-year-old Jayden Brown — ran from behind the truck to the driver-side door.
The officer ordered him to “get on the ground” — but the male twice replied, “Oh, yeah?”
It seemed like a taunt.
Well, the officer wasn’t having it and deployed his taser, and the most Brown could muster was an agonized moan as his body stiffened like a board at an angle against the open car door:
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department video screenshot
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department video screenshot
In the ensuing moments, Brown seemed relatively under control, and officers put handcuffs on him.
But then his attitude returned with a vengeance.
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department video screenshot
“I’ll be out by tomorrow,” he told cops surrounding him. “It’s all good.”
An officer asked him his age.
“I could be 20,” Brown replied. “I could be 21. How do you know?”
Cops decided to run the vehicle’s tags, but the skin-and-bones thug remained full of attitude.
“Whatever. Do it. It’s not mine,” Brown declared to the officers. “It’s stolen, so now what? And there’s no VIN, so now what? You can’t trace it back to nobody, now what? I get thousands of guns from who I know in the military … now what? Everybody in my family my whole life has all been federal agent workers; that’s why we all have so much money to do everything we do, wow! I didn’t steal anything yet. I was just trying to find out where my car was.”
Soon he started yelling out a plea apparently for someone to record the encounter on Instagram live.
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department video screenshot
Then he demanded that officers remove the handcuffs.
“Get me out of these cuffs, or you lose your job tomorrow,” Brown said. “Do it.”
The cops, undaunted, read him his rights — and the boasting continued.
“By day I’m trading millions and trillions of dollars a day,” Brown told the officers.
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department video screenshot
Police played along: “Good for you, man.”
“In 18 years, I made your income times 20 billion, so do something about it,” Brown continued.
Soon officers put Brown inside a police vehicle — and his attitude still didn’t let up.
“You’re the one who put me in this van — and guess who’s getting out tomorrow while you’re still working at your job?”
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department video screenshot
Below is the police department’s video of the encounter with Brown:
In the end, police said Brown was charged with three counts of grand theft auto, burglary of an occupied dwelling, and criminal mischief.
Image source: Daytona Beach (Fla.) Police Department
If you’re hoping that Brown got an attitude adjustment as the result of his arrest, you might be disappointed.
At Brown’s first appearance in court the following day — Jan. 15 — a judge indeed found probable cause for charges of burglary of an occupied structure, criminal mischief of less than $200, and three counts of attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle, WKMG-TV reported, citing records, adding that he was released on recognizance.
Remember one of Brown’s over-the-top boasts to officers on the day of his arrest?
“I’ll be out by tomorrow,” he said. “It’s all good.”
Brown even added while in the police vehicle, “You’re the one who put me in this van — and guess who’s getting out tomorrow while you’re still working at your job?”
An official at the Volusia County Correctional Facility confirmed to Blaze News that Brown was set free Jan. 15 — the day after his arrest.
He’s due back in court in February for arraignment, WKMG added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The sanctuary city playbook is spreading in red states
I live in a community that, not long ago, was a quiet town outside Austin — one of many places people fled in search of safety, order, and a better quality of life. Today, that same community is rapidly transforming into the very version of Austin many residents hoped to escape.
Growth isn’t the problem. Ideology is.
My community is changing, not because it is growing, but because it is abandoning the principles that once made it worth building a life here.
A dangerous idea has taken hold in America: that enforcing the law is immoral, that accountability is cruelty, and that penalizing criminal behavior matters less than protecting the feelings of those who violate the law.
This worldview didn’t emerge organically. Institutions taught it, activists repeated it, and public officials normalized it until many Americans came to believe the humane response to disorder is deliberate blindness.
Last week, that ideology went on full display in my town.
Federal immigration authorities conducted targeted enforcement operations in the area. Homeland Security professionals carried out lawful, focused actions while doing the job Congress — and the American people — have repeatedly mandated that they do.
Within hours, local social media erupted. Facebook groups, Instagram accounts, and self-styled “community leaders” posted warnings about ICE. Progressive elected officials piled on, condemning the operation and circulating tips on how to avoid federal law enforcement. Some encouraged demonstrations near ICE activity to “drive them out.” Others urged residents to honk at ICE vehicles to alert everyone nearby to the supposed “danger.”
Many Americans shrug this off as routine political theater. What followed was worse.
RELATED: Why ‘anti-ICE protesters’ are useful, delusional idiots
Tim Evans/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Instead of standing firmly behind the rule of law, our local government and law enforcement agencies rushed to distance themselves — not out of principle, but out of fear. City social media accounts quickly clarified that ICE had merely notified the city of a vehicle parked near City Hall and that the city neither supported nor assisted the operation.
The message was unmistakable: Don’t blame us.
Screenshot/City of Buda/X.com
Even more disheartening, the police department issued its own statement emphasizing that it was not cooperating with ICE enforcement activities, noting only that officers responded alongside an ambulance.
Again, the message was clear: We want no part of this.
Screenshot/Kyle Police Department/X.com
This didn’t happen in Minnesota or Illinois. It happened in Texas — a state known nationwide for being tough on crime and historically supportive of immigration enforcement.
It happened just miles from our state Capitol. Yet even here, local entities openly refuse to cooperate with the mandate Americans have repeatedly voted for: enforcing our immigration laws.
In doing so, these institutions accomplished two things — neither defensible.
First, they publicly disavowed the enforcement of federal law, as though lawful authority were something shameful.
Second, they compromised operational security by broadcasting where law enforcement was present and what it was — or was not — doing. In any other context, that would be recognized as reckless. Here, activists applauded it.
Texas leaders should treat this as a warning.
State government must hold every jurisdiction accountable for never becoming a sanctuary — whether by statute or by practice — for illegal immigration and criminal activity. The Texas legislature took a critical step by passing legislation requiring most county sheriffs’ departments to participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. That built a foundation. We need more.
Texas should require all local law enforcement agencies to enter the 287(g) program that best fits their department and to publicly commit to enforcing the law. Accountability cannot stop at county lines. It cannot become optional based on online outrage and activist pressure.
RELATED: Illegal-alien patients drain Texas hospitals, racking up billion-dollar bill — in less than a year
Photo by: John Lazenby/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Just one year ago, the country was overwhelmed daily by mass illegal border crossings. The effort to restore control through lawful enforcement and deportation has only begun. Texas will never address the scale of the problem if cities — especially in red states — can refuse responsibility and pass the buck.
A society cannot function if enforcing the law is treated as oppression and breaking it is reframed as victimhood. Compassion doesn’t require chaos. Justice can’t survive if the people tasked with upholding it feel compelled to apologize for doing their jobs.
My community is changing, not because it is growing, but because it is abandoning the principles that once made it worth building a life here. If we keep going down this path — where enforcing the law becomes controversial and officials fear activists more than disorder — we should not act surprised when the place we moved to becomes indistinguishable from the place we left.
The Supreme Court can protect families or protect corporate cover-ups
When you get pregnant, doctors warn you to avoid everything from coffee to deli meat. When you build a home — as a spouse, parent, or homeowner — you make careful choices about what comes through the front door, onto your table, and into your yard.
But what if those precautions don’t matter? What if the food you serve, the lawn your kids play on, or the weeds you spray carry a poison approved through fraud, sold without warnings, and protected from accountability by the Supreme Court?
We ask parents to obsess over lunch meat. We can demand at least as much honesty about what gets sprayed on the yard.
That isn’t paranoia. It’s the situation Americans may soon face.
The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a case pushed aggressively by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that bought Monsanto in 2018. The justices will decide one narrow but decisive question this term: Does federal pesticide law block state failure-to-warn lawsuits when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning on the label?
Bayer wants the answer to be yes. It wants federal pre-emption — a legal shield that turns an EPA-approved label into immunity. If Bayer wins, state juries could lose the ability to hold companies accountable even when families prove they used a product as directed, got sick, and never received a warning.
That outcome would reward the very behavior the law should punish.
Juries across the country have already heard evidence in Roundup cases and awarded billions to plaintiffs who developed cancer after using the herbicide. Yet Roundup still sells without a cancer warning. Now Bayer wants the Supreme Court to slam the courthouse door on future victims for good.
Consider what that means in human terms.
Pregnant mothers avoid raw fish and unpasteurized cheese to protect their children, yet millions of families unknowingly expose themselves to chemicals linked in research to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers. A major meta-analysis published in the journal Pediatrics found that children exposed to residential pesticides face significantly higher risks of leukemia and lymphoma. Another peer-reviewed 2019 meta-analysis linked glyphosate-based herbicides to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
We get lectures about sushi, but weed killer gets a pass.
This fight should feel familiar. During COVID, Americans were told to trust emergency approvals as official guidance shifted rapidly. Those who raised concerns often got mocked or sidelined. Only later did many learn the story was more complicated than the public was allowed to hear.
We can’t undo that confusion. We can refuse to repeat it.
The evidence here does not revolve around a single labeling dispute. The deeper allegation is deception. Critics claim Monsanto relied on ghostwritten research and buried evidence to convince regulators glyphosate was safe — and that those approvals then became the foundation for selling Roundup without a cancer warning.
RELATED: The fruit of the US pesticide industry is poison
Firn via iStock/Getty Images
In late 2025, a key study used for years to defend glyphosate was retracted over serious ethical concerns and undisclosed corporate influence. That retraction matters because it goes to the heart of Bayer’s argument: that the government approved the label, so the company should be protected.
Pre-emption should not become a reward for fraud.
If the Supreme Court sides with Bayer, the fallout will spread far beyond Roundup. The ruling could shield tens of thousands of pesticides from meaningful liability so long as companies point to federal “compliance” — even when compliance was built on manipulated research, regulatory capture, or withheld evidence. Families could lose their best tool for accountability: state courts and state juries.
That isn’t pro-business; it’s regulatory capture. In fact, it’s immunity for wrongdoing.
The court should reject this power-grab. Federal minimum standards should not erase state-level accountability, especially when the federal process can be gamed. Americans deserve warnings when products pose real risks. Families deserve the ability to seek justice when corporations hide dangers and regulators fail to act.
We ask parents to obsess over lunch meat. We can demand at least as much honesty about what gets sprayed on the yard.
The Supreme Court has a choice: protect public health, or protect corporate cover-ups. The country should insist that it choose public health — for our families and for generations yet unborn.
Four people found shot to death after 12-year-old calls 911 from closet with other children, police say
A 51-year-old man is in custody after his 12-year-old child called Georgia police from a closet and they found four people shot to death.
The harrowing incident unfolded at the Lawrenceville home on Brook Ivy Court early on Friday morning, according to police.
‘Four people dying at the same time, especially with children in the home … it’s shocking to anybody.’
Police entered the home at about 2:30 in the morning to find the bodies of four people, as well as the 12-year-old still in the closet with two other children ages 10 and 7 years old.
The victims were identified as 37-year-old Nidhi Chander and 38-year-old Harish Chander, who own the home, and their relatives 43-year-old Meemu Dogra and 33-year-old Gourav Cumar.
Vijay Kumar was arrested after a police dog was able to track him trying to hide in the wood line.
They said that Kumar and his wife, Dogra, had gotten into an argument in Atlanta and drove to the Chander home with their 12-year-old child.
“It is unknown at this time what the argument was about, why they came to the residence, or what led up to the incident,” police said in a statement on social media.
Police said they were able to arrive while the suspect’s car was still at the scene because the child called so quickly after the incident.
The children were unharmed.
RELATED: Police shoot New Jersey man who charged them with machete — then find gruesome scene
“It’s definitely a tragic situation. Four people dying at the same time, especially with children in the home … it’s shocking to anybody,” said Gwinnett Police Cpl. Angela Carter.
Kumar was charged with malice murder, felony murder, cruelty to children in the first degree, and two counts of cruelty to children in the third degree.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
EPA to California: Don’t mess with America’s trucks
For decades, California has used its enormous market power to shape national vehicle policy, often pushing regulations far beyond its borders and into the daily lives of Americans who never voted for them. That long-running dynamic has now reached a critical moment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to block California’s latest attempt to regulate heavy-duty trucks nationwide — a proposal first announced in 2025 but now entering a decisive phase of federal review.
California’s early emissions standards helped accelerate cleaner engines and better fuel systems. But leadership can turn into compulsion.
With final EPA action expected in 2026, the outcome will determine whether California can continue using its borders as a regulatory choke point for interstate trucking, or whether federal limits will finally be enforced.
Freight fright
At issue is California’s Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance requirement, part of the state’s air-quality plan. The rule would apply not only to trucks registered in California, but to any heavy-duty vehicle operating within the state — including those registered elsewhere in the U.S. or even abroad. In practical terms, a truck hauling goods from Texas, Ohio, or Mexico could be forced to comply with California’s rules simply by crossing its borders.
The EPA has proposed disapproving that requirement, citing serious constitutional and statutory concerns.
This matters far beyond California. Heavy-duty trucks are the backbone of the American economy, moving food, fuel, medicine, building materials, and consumer goods across state lines every day.
Regulations that raise costs or restrict access for those vehicles ripple through supply chains and ultimately show up as higher prices at the checkout counter — including for online purchases. The EPA’s proposed action acknowledges that reality and draws a clear line between environmental policy and unlawful overreach.
Out of line
According to the agency, California’s proposal appears to violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents individual states from interfering with interstate trade. The Clean Air Act also requires state implementation plans to comply with federal law, and the EPA argues California’s approach fails that test. By attempting to regulate out-of-state and foreign-registered vehicles, California stepped into territory reserved for the federal government.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been blunt in explaining the agency’s position. California, he has argued, was never elected to govern the entire country, yet its regulatory ambitions — often justified in the name of climate policy — have imposed higher costs on Americans nationwide. Allowing one state to dictate trucking standards for the rest of the country undermines both federal law and economic stability.
Foreigners too
There is also a foreign-commerce issue that rarely gets discussed. California’s rule would apply to vehicles registered outside the United States, even though authority over foreign trade and international relations rests exclusively with the federal government. That alone raised red flags and reinforced the EPA’s conclusion that the state exceeded its legal authority.
This proposed disapproval is part of a broader federal effort to rein in California’s emissions authority. In 2025, the Department of Justice filed complaints against the California Air Resources Board, arguing that the state was effectively enforcing pre-empted federal standards through informal agreements with manufacturers. Together, these actions reflect growing concern in Washington that California has relied on market leverage rather than lawful authority to achieve national policy outcomes.
Waiver goodbye
Waivers are central to this conflict. For years, California received special permission under the Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle emissions standards, with other states allowed to follow its lead. Under the previous administration, the EPA granted waivers for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Heavy-Duty Engine Omnibus NOx rules. Supporters framed them as environmental progress. Critics warned they would raise vehicle prices, limit consumer choice, strain the electric grid, and force changes the market was not ready to absorb — which is exactly what followed.
In June 2025, Congress overturned those waivers using the Congressional Review Act. That move sent a clear message: Vehicle standards should be national in scope, not dictated by a single state, regardless of its size or political influence. The EPA’s current review of California’s truck inspection rule builds directly on that message.
Supporters of California’s approach often point to the state’s historic role in improving air quality and advancing technology. That is true — up to a point. California’s early emissions standards helped accelerate cleaner engines and better fuel systems. But leadership can turn into compulsion, especially when it ignores regional differences, economic realities, and legal limits.
RELATED: Will Trump’s unconventional plan to stop the UN climate elites work?
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Recalibration
The heavy-duty truck sector makes this clear. Unlike passenger cars, trucks operate on thin margins and long replacement cycles. Fleet decisions are driven by reliability, infrastructure availability, and total cost of ownership. Mandating technologies before they are ready or widely supported does not accelerate progress; it creates higher costs and unintended consequences — especially when those mandates originate in a single state but affect national commerce.
The EPA’s move suggests that era may be nearing its end. By challenging California’s heavy-duty inspection requirement, the agency is asserting that environmental goals do not justify ignoring constitutional structure. Clean air matters — but so do the rule of law, economic practicality, and the free movement of goods across state lines.
The proposed disapproval remains open for public comment, after which the EPA is expected to take final action later this year. Whatever the outcome, the signal is unmistakable: Federal regulators are no longer willing to automatically defer to California when state ambition collides with national authority.
For truck drivers, fleet operators, manufacturers, and everyday consumers, this moment represents a recalibration. It reaffirms that vehicle regulation should be consistent nationwide — and that environmental policy works best when it respects both economic reality and the legal framework that holds the country together.
