SCOOP: White House backs impeaching ‘rogue’ judges accused of partisan rulings

FIRST ON FOX: The White House fully supports efforts on Capitol Hill to impeach federal judges who have gone "totally rogue" with partisan rulings, Fox News Digital learned. 

A White House official told Fox News Digital that the administration is closely tracking the Senate Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry involving U.S. District Judges James Boasberg, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and Deborah Boardman, of the U.S. District Court in Maryland, as Republican lawmakers openly discuss impeaching what they describe as "activist" judges.

"Left-wing, activist judges have gone totally rogue," a White House official told Fox News Digital. "They’re undermining the rule of law in service of their own radical agenda. It needs to stop. And the White House fully embraces impeachment efforts."

The White House official continued that President Donald Trump must be able to "lawfully implement the agenda the American people elected him on," arguing that judges who repeatedly issue partisan rulings have abused their offices and forfeited their claim to impartiality.

TRUMP TEAM MOVES TO BLOCK DOJ TESTIMONY IN BOASBERG CONTEMPT PROBE, RAISING STAKES IN COURT SHOWDOWN

Federal judges can be impeached when the House approves articles alleging misconduct or abuse of office, with removal certified after the Senate convicts by a two-thirds vote. 

Boasberg has become a prime target for Republicans over a string of rulings tied to Trump-era immigration policies — including cases involving the transfer of migrants to El Salvador and other countries rather than holding them in U.S. detention.

More recently, he’s drawn fresh GOP backlash after reports surfaced that he approved warrants in former special counsel Jack Smith’s "Arctic Frost" probe that enabled investigators to seize phone records connected to some Republican lawmakers.

He first faced articles of impeachment in March 2025 for preventing the administration from deporting some illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, and again in November over the Arctic Frost decision. 

A White House official told Fox Digital that Boasberg has a history of issuing "plainly illegal" while pointing to the warrants and subpoenas he authorized in the Arctic Frost investigation.

FRESH TRUMP-LINKED CASE PUTS BOASBERG BACK IN GOP CROSSHAIRS

Boardman faces impeachment calls over her sentencing decision for a man found guilty of charges related to trying to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The man was sentenced to eight years when the recommended term was 30 years. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is among Republican lawmakers calling for Boasberg and Boardman to be impeached. He argued that they "meet the constitutional standard for impeachment" during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing earlier in January, calling both "rogue judges." 

The White House argued that federal judges who develop a record of issuing rogue, plainly unlawful rulings to advance or undermine a political party forfeit their impartiality, abuse their authority and warrant impeachment.

Both judges have avoided commenting publicly on impeachment talk, declining a Senate invitation to testify Jan. 7. 

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson also threw his support behind impeaching "rogue" judges Wednesday. 

"I think some of these judges have gotten so far outside the bounds of where they're supposed to operate,"  Johnson said during a weekly press conference. "It would not be, in my view, a bad thing for Congress to lay down the law." 

COURT SAYS BOASBERG DIDN’T KNOW ARCTIC FROST SUBPOENAS HIT LAWMAKERS, GRASSLEY CALLS THAT ‘DEEPLY TROUBLING’

The remarks are a departure from his comments in 2025, when he said impeachment was not a practical tool against judges seen as activists working against the Trump administration. 

"Look, impeachments are never off the table if it's merited. But in our system — we've had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country — I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you've got to get the votes for it. And it's a very high burden," Johnson said in May 2025.

"Frankly, the bar is high crimes and misdemeanors. I mean, the last federal judge impeached, I think was caught … taking cash in an envelope. You know, it's got to be a pretty brazen offense or a real open crime that everybody could agree to."

Democrats have pushed against Republican calls for impeachment, including Senate Judiciary Committee member Sheldon Whitehouse responding to Cruz's comments on potentially impeaching the judges in a letter to Johnson Wednesday. 

"The pattern is clear: judges rule against the Administration; the President or his allies attack and spread misinformation; judges and their families receive threats, ‘swatting’ attempts, and threatening stunts like pizzas in the name of a federal judge’s murdered son.  DOJ has repeatedly refused to assure us that they are investigating the pattern of threats for possible orchestration. Baseless calls for impeachment in this threat environment only add to the dangers facing these judges and their loved ones," Whitehouse wrote in his letter to Johnson. 

Johnson changes tune on judicial impeachments after ‘egregious abuses’ of Trump agenda

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he would back a push to impeach judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda on Wednesday.

While it's never something Johnson explicitly ruled out, his support comes after House GOP leaders signaled opposition to such a move last year. At the time, leaders argued impeachment was not a practical punishment for what Republicans widely saw as activist judges trying to influence the administration's policy.

But he told reporters at his weekly press conference that while he believed impeachment is still an "extreme measure," that "extreme times call for extreme measures."

"I think some of these judges have gotten so far outside the bounds of where they're supposed to operate. It would not be, in my view, a bad thing for Congress to lay down the law," Johnson said.

CRUZ DEMANDS IMPEACHMENT OF BOASBERG AND JUDGE WHO SENTENCED KAVANAUGH’S ATTEMPTED ASSASSIN

It comes as some Republicans in the Senate and House push for impeachments against U.S. district judges James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called them both "rogue judges" earlier this month and said they "meet the constitutional standard for impeachment" during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.

"I'm for it," Johnson said when asked about the push. "Boasberg is one who's been mentioned, and these are some egregious abuses."

FRESH TRUMP-LINKED CASE PUTS BOASBERG BACK IN GOP CROSSHAIRS

Boasberg has been targeted by Republicans after rulings on several key immigration cases involving Trump's policies, including flying migrants to El Salvador and other countries instead of detaining them in the U.S.

He more recently raised GOP ire when it was revealed that Boasberg signed off on warrants that allowed for the seizure of some Republican lawmakers' phone records in former Special Counsel Jack Smith's Arctic Frost probe.

Cruz called for Boardman's impeachment over her sentencing decision for a man found guilty of charges related to trying to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The man's sentence of 97 months and a lifetime of supervised release fell far short of sentencing guidelines, according to Cruz.

While Johnson never explicitly ruled out impeachment, he told reporters last year that he believed it was an impractical course of action. 

At the time, House Republicans passed a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., aimed at limiting judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions — the path favored by a majority of House GOP lawmakers.

"Look, impeachments are never off the table if it's merited. But in our system — we've had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country — I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you've got to get the votes for it. And it's a very high burden," Johnson said in May 2025.

"Frankly, the bar is high crimes and misdemeanors. I mean, the last federal judge impeached, I think was caught…taking cash in an envelope. You know, it's got to be a pretty brazen offense or a real open crime that everybody could agree to."

Dear GOP, you need to impeach Trump

President Donald Trump is gone. Far gone. And yes, the evidence is vast—from illegal tariffs that his own party hates; to recalcitrance on releasing the Epstein files, which his own party ran on; to blowing up the deficit, which his own party pretends to care about; to half-assed nation-building in Venezuela, which he himself ran against.

Indeed, at a time when Republicans desperately need their president to focus on affordability and the economy ahead of the midterm elections, he is instead demolishing the White House and obsessing over armrests at the Kennedy Center. You know, the issues top of mind to struggling Americans trying to make ends meet.

But nothing illustrates the depth of Trump’s unraveling more than his demented obsession with Greenland—claiming it needs to become American territory to “protect” it despite already hosting several U.S. military bases as part of the NATO alliance.

“The first 365 days” by Pedro Molina

In an unhinged Truth Social post, Trump declared that “world peace is at stake” in his Greenland gambit. “China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it,” he wrote. “Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake.”

Nobody has touched that “sacred piece of land,” whatever the hell he means by that, since Denmark claimed it in 1721. The notion that either Russia or China could invade Greenland is bonkers. China has its hands full trying to figure out how to invade Taiwan, just 100 miles off its coast, but somehow it can also support an invasion of Greenland from more than 5,000 miles away, surrounded by NATO nations?

And the idea that Russia could challenge Greenland is just as absurd, given its ongoing inability to seize meaningful territory in Ukraine—without 1,000 miles of ocean between them. Trump keeps claiming that Greenland has been “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” which is just stupid. 

But even if it were true … so what? Oh noes, a boat sailed by? That’s what keeps Trump up at night?

Not content to stop there, Trump followed up with this bit of geopolitical genius: “I love the people of China. I love the people of Russia,” Trump said. “But I don’t want them as a neighbor in Greenland, not going to happen.”

Who is going to tell Trump that Russia is already a neighbor of the United States?

Meanwhile, my theory from a year ago still stands. Trump wants Greenland because it looks outsized on a Mercator projection map:

Trump’s brain is mush. It’s gone. He’s gone. And Republicans are sitting there watching him wreck America’s alliances with barely a peep. Even those few speaking up are afraid to put any real muscle behind their words.

For generations, American power rested on credibility—on allies knowing the United States meant what it said, honored its commitments, and played a stabilizing role in the world. That credibility made America safer, richer, and more influential than any nation in history.

And this is the man Republicans are entrusting with that legacy. On Tuesday, Trump declared on Truth Social:

“No single person, or President, has done more for NATO than President Donald J. Trump. If I didn’t come along, there would be no NATO right now!!! It would have been in the ash heap of History. Sad, but TRUE!!!”

He is insane. 

Trump is now burning our nation’s credibility to the ground. He is alienating allies, threatening territorial grabs, and normalizing authoritarian expansionism, all while signaling that American commitments last only as long as his attention span. 

This is how the world stops trusting the United States. This is how instability spreads. This is how wars start—not because America is weak, but because it has become dangerously erratic.

And Republicans are letting him do it, even as Trump posts that NATO is the “real threat” to America. 

How much of the world order does Trump have to burn down before Republicans decide it’s worth the political risk to act?

Related | Happy 1-year anniversary, Trump. You broke everything.

It takes a special kind of insanity to send armies into U.S. cities and Venezuela, then start musing about invading Greenland because you didn’t get a peace prize for it all. But it takes a special kind of cowardice to watch it happen and say nothing.

And yet that’s exactly what Republicans are doing—standing by, muttering concerns, issuing carefully worded statements, and otherwise keeping quiet like lemmings headed for a cliff, terrified that if they step out of line, Trump might—egads!—write a nasty tweet about them.

At this point, silence isn’t loyalty. It’s complicity. But it’s not too late to do something about it, whether it’s impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Otherwise, your legacy is at stake, and history is not going to be kind about it.

Another Trump sycophant gets backstabbed by Dear Leader

In February 2025, GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana ignored his own values and deeply held beliefs to vote to confirm anti-vaxx lunatic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services—all to appease President Donald Trump.

Cassidy—a doctor by trade who supports vaccines—ignored all of the evidence before him to vote to put Kennedy in charge of HHS. It was a decision that proved devastating for the fate of vaccines and the eradication of preventable illness in the United States. 

GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana embraces soon-to-be Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in January 2025.

So why did he do it? Well, in the hope that Trump would help him avoid a career-ending primary challenge when he’s up for reelection this year.

But Cassidy was not rewarded for his actions.

Instead, Trump endorsed his primary opponent, potentially sealing Cassidy's fate as a soon-to-be loser.

"Highly Respected America First Congresswoman, Julia Letlow, of the wonderful State of Louisiana, is a Great Star, has been from the very beginning, and only gets better! I am hearing that Julia is considering launching her Campaign for the United States Senate in Louisiana, a place I love and WON BIG, six times, including Primaries, in 2016, 2020, and 2024!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Jan. 17. “Should she decide to enter this Race, Julia Letlow has my Complete and Total Endorsement. RUN, JULIA, RUN!!!" 

Letlow—who is only in the House because her husband died of COVID-19 before he could get the vaccine that Kennedy is against—did, indeed, announce her bid for Senate on Tuesday. 

In response, Cassidy wrote on X that he is not only going to run for reelection, but that he is going to win.

A cartoon by Clay Jones.

"Congresswoman Letlow called me this morning to say she was running. She said she respected me and that I had done a good job. I will continue to do a good job when I win re-election," Cassidy wrote. "I am a conservative who wakes up every morning thinking about how to make Louisiana and the United States a better place to live."

But despite his defiance, Cassidy is now clearly the underdog.

Not only did Cassidy vote to convict Trump in the 2021 impeachment trial, but he’s also continued to evangelize about the benefits of vaccines—which his state does not support

Cassidy has also condemned Kennedy’s anti-vaxx policies, criticism that is too little too late. And now that there’s a Trump-backed alternative in the race, Cassidy's fate feels all but sealed.

Ironically, since his first campaign, Trump loved to read lyrics from Al Wilson’s song, "The Snake."

"I saved you," cried that woman

"And you've bit me even, why?

And you know your bite is poisonous and now I'm gonna die"

"Oh shut up, silly woman," said that reptile with a grin

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you brought me in."

In Trump's understanding of the lyrics, the snake represents refugees from which he would protect Americans. But for Cassidy—and for Trump voters who expected him to care about anything but himself—Trump himself has turned out to be the snake.

GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, another Trump sycophant, also found that out when Trump chose not to endorse him in his reelection battle against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

Ultimately, my hope for Cassidy is that he gets an early retirement haunted by his role in bringing back preventable illnesses.

Trump endorsement rocks Louisiana Senate race as Letlow poised to jump in

Three days after President Donald Trump exploded a political bomb in Louisiana's Senate race by endorsing Republican Rep. Julia Letlow over incumbent GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy, sources say Letlow is likely to launch a campaign as early as this week.

Trump's support of Letlow, who was elected in 2021 after her husband Luke died from COVID shortly before taking office in the House, is a severe setback for Cassidy, a physician and chair of the powerful Senate Health committee who is running for a third six-year term in the solidly red state.

And it's a major political headache for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who is backing Cassidy and teamed up with the senator last week in Louisiana.

Trump upended an already crowded GOP Senate primary in Louisiana on Saturday night, with a social media post making it clear that if the 44-year-old Letlow launched a Senate campaign, she'd have his backing.

GOP TOUTS TRUMP AS THEIR ‘SECRET WEAPON,' BUT POLLS FLASH WARNING SIGNS AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

"Should she decide to enter this RACE," Trump wrote on social media, "Julia Letlow has my Complete and Total Endorsement. RUN, JULIA, RUN!!!"

Letlow hinted at launching a Senate run following Trump's post on X, writing, "My mission is clear: to ensure the nation our children inherit is safer and stronger. This United States Senate seat belongs to the people of Louisiana, because we deserve conservative leadership that will not waver."

ELON MUSK POURS A STAGGERING $10 MILLION INTO THIS KEY GOPS SENATE PRIMARY

There's been speculation for months that Letlow was mulling a Senate bid and a Republican source confirmed to Fox News that the congresswoman, who represents a district that covers parts of central and northeastern Louisiana, had indicated that she wouldn't challenge Cassidy without Trump's backing.

A separate Republican source confirmed to Fox News that Trump had reached out to Thune on Friday to give the Senate's top Republican a heads-up on the Letlow endorsement.

Thune continues to support Cassidy, who was also previously endorsed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is the Senate GOP's campaign arm.

But the deep-pocketed Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which is the top super PAC supporting Senate Republicans and is aligned with Thune, is staying neutral in Louisiana.

DEMOCRATS EYE NARROW PATH TO SENATE MAJORITY, BUT ONE WRONG MOVE COULD SINK THEM

"The mission of the Senate Leadership Fund is to preserve and expand the Republican Senate majority. Anything that distracts from our efforts to beat Democrats in November is unhelpful," SLF Executive Director Alex Latchum wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Word that SLF was staying out of the GOP primary in Louisiana was first reported by Punchbowl News.

The 68-year-old Cassidy is staying in the race.

"I’m proudly running for re-election as a principled conservative who gets things done for the people of Louisiana," Cassidy wrote on social media following Trump's bombshell. "If Congresswoman Letlow decides to run, I am confident I will win."

Cassidy had nearly $10 million in his campaign coffers at the end of October, after his last fundraising filing, with Letlow holding nearly $2.3 million cash on hand. But a burst of campaign cash will likely flow Letlow's way if she follows through and launches a Senate campaign.

The senator — who voted to convict Trump in the Senate impeachment trial following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters aiming to upend congressional certification of former President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory — early last year supported Trump's controversial cabinet nominees, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Health secretary.

But the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) PAC, which has close ties to Kennedy, announced on Sunday that it would financially support Letlow.

Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming, a former congressman who served in Trump's first administration, is also challenging Cassidy.

"A recent poll shows our campaign expanding our lead on Bill Cassidy, while Cassidy's numbers continue to drop," Fleming noted on social media two days after Trump's endorsement of Letlow.

State Sen. Blake Miguez and state Rep. Julie Emerson are also running for the GOP Senate nomination, and former Rep. Garrett Graves is mulling a bid.

Trump's endorsement of Letlow increases speculation on whether he'll take sides in the combustible and competitive GOP Senate primary in Texas ahead of the early March primary.

Longtime Sen. John Cornyn is facing primary challenges from two Trump allies, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt.

Thune speculated last week that Trump wouldn't make an endorsement in the Texas GOP showdown.

Half of American women support abolishing ICE, polling shows

In Congress, progressive Democratic women are taking the lead in calling for dismantling the agency.

By Marissa Martinez for The 19th

A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll.

Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party.

Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women.

“I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7.

Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go.

Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in JuneThis and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower.

Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?”

Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday.

Related | Abolish ICE? America is warming to the idea.

But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House.

Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns.

Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year.

On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive.

The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday.

Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.”

Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another.

“People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call it, are saying we need serious accountability. ICE cannot continue to exist as it stands today, and members of Congress have to figure out what the actual language looks like for them, but they have to demonstrate to their constituents that we’re doing something about it.”

Swalwell governor bid hit with residency questions after court filing alleges he doesn’t live in California

Longtime political foe of President Donald Trump Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell is facing a legal campaign challenge after a conservative activist filed a petition claiming the lawmaker is allegedly prohibited from running for California governor because he doesn't actually live in the Golden State.

"Public records searches reveal no current ownership or leasehold interest held by Eric Swalwell in California, nor any history of any ownership of leasehold interest based on available public records," a petition filed Jan. 8 by filmmaker and activist Joel Gilbert states, the New York Post reported.

"Swalwell’s congressional financial disclosers from 2011 to 2024 list no California real estate ownership," the petition added. 

The left-wing lawmaker's gubernatorial campaign, however, has hit back at the petition as a "nonsense claim" that the team looks forward to "beating" in court. 

SWALWELL CAMPAIGN IN THE HOT SEAT AFTER ACCEPTING ALMOST $15K FROM CCP-TIED LAW FIRM: 'STOP PLAYING FOOTSIE'

Swalwell has served as a California congressman since 2013, and announced his candidacy to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom when his second term ends in January 2027. The gubernatorial race already is crowded with at least 10 candidates slated to be on the ballot in the nonpartisan primary in June. 

Swalwell is viewed as a front-runner as the race gets underway. 

The court filing claims that the congressman listed the address for the office of his attorney on campaign filings and not a residential California address. The address listed in the court filing shows an office building in downtown Sacramento. 

State law requires the California governor be a resident of the state five years prior to his or her election. 

"The governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this state for 5 years immediately preceding the governor’s election," the filing states, outlining the California Constitution's residential requirements of governors.  

When approached for comment on the matter, a campaign general consultant for Swalwell said the lawmaker has always resided in California across his political career and that his attorney's address was listed on the campaign filing due to death threats he has received. 

SWALWELL THREATENS TO REVOKE DRIVER'S LICENSES OF MASKED ICE AGENTS OPERATING IN CALIFORNIA

"Since joining Congress, Eric Swalwell has always had a residence in the Bay Area. He has always had a California driver’s license, paid California taxes, and starts his California mornings with Johnny’s Donuts maple bars in Dublin. This nonsense claim comes from a MAGA blogger who made a film claiming Elvis is alive. We look forward to beating him in court," Kate Maeder, Swalwell campaign consultant, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement Monday morning. 

"Because of the thousands of death threats the Congressman has received, it is perfectly legal to list a campaign office as the address for his legal filings," she added. 

Gilbert's petition calls on the California secretary of state to "fulfill her constitutional duty" and disqualify Swalwell from the race. 

"The criteria for running for governor of California according to the California Constitution is a candidate must be resident of the state for 5 years prior to the election," Gilbert told Fox Digital in additional comment on Monday afternoon. "Swalwell’s response that he has a California driver’s license or pays California taxes or went to a Donut shop in Dubin is irrelevant and a smoke screen. He’s a lawyer and should know better."

The director added in response to Swalwell's campaign: "My film about Elvis is a comedy! Swalwell is clueless every time he Tweets or opens his mouth or files a document!"

The director added that the campaign's response was "absurd" as it related to "beating" Gilber in court, as Swalwell is not being sued, and instead the filing calls on the California secretary of state to respond. 

"He clearly doesn’t understand the law at all despite being an attorney," Gilbert said, before doubling down that candidates must prove residency on the state's candidate intention statement. 

In November 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened a probe into Swalwell's past mortgages, specifically investigating if allegations of millions of dollars in loans and refinancing were based on Swalwell declaring that his primary residence was in Washington, D.C.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR HOPEFUL ERIC SWALWELL EMBRACES ROLE AS TRUMP'S LOUDEST CRITIC AMID NEW DOJ PROBE

Swalwell, Democratic California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitita James all have been referred to the DOJ over allegations of mortgage fraud since President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office.

Following the DOJ opening a probe into his mortgages, Swalwell filed a lawsuit against Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who referred Swalwell to the DOJ for criminal review, alleging that he abused his position to obtain the mortgage records of numerous Democrats. 

"Either he’s guilty of mortgage fraud in Washington, DC, or he’s ineligible to run for governor of California," Gilbert told the Daily Mail. "He can’t have it both ways."

Fox News Digital attempted to reach out to Gilbert by email for additional comment on the court filing Monday afternoon. 

The feud between Swalwell and Trump dates to Trump’s first term, when Swalwell emerged as one of the former president’s most vocal congressional critics and served as a House impeachment manager, cementing a long-running political rivalry. 

Fox News Digital's Leo Briceno and Greg Wehner contributed to this report. 

Trump knows he’s toast

It’s a perennial argument: Does President Donald Trump know he’s lying, or is he just stupid or demented (or both)? For example, does he know he lost the 2020 presidential election, or does he actually believe the falsehoods he spreads about it?

Every once in a while, though, he slips up and tells the truth, revealing that he’s not entirely deluded. One of those moments came on Wednesday, when Trump admitted to Reuters that Republicans are headed for trouble this November. 

“It’s some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don’t win the midterms,” he said. And rather than lean on his go-to lies—supposed voter fraud or the vast conspiracy he claims robbed him and his party in past elections—he veered straight into authoritarian fantasy: “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

No one is thinking that except Trump. But everyone is looking at the same numbers he clearly is.

As Trump tries to shore up the GOP’s fragile House majority through norms-busting mid-decade redistricting, the Cook Political Report has shifted its race ratings for 18 seats toward Democrats. The new ratings, published Thursday, look tough for Republicans. 

Republicans are favored to take only three Democratic-held seats (North Carolina’s 1st, Maine's 2nd, and Texas’ 35th districts). Beyond that, Republicans have few offensive opportunities, while some of the seats they tried to steal via redistricting remain highly competitive or still lean Democratic.

Democrats in Virginia, whose state capitol is shown here, are getting involved in the mid-decade redistricting fight.

The pressure is even clearer on the Republican side. One GOP-held seat has moved to “Lean Democrat” and should flip in this environment: Nebraska’s 2nd District. And in the “tossup” category, the imbalance is striking: Just four Democratic seats are considered shaky, compared with 14 Republican seats. 

This follows 11 rating changes in early November—10 shifting toward Democrats—and another four Democratic shifts later in the month. Virginia’s redistricting fight is still ahead, suggesting that Republicans’ exposure may grow.

And this is early. Unless the political climate unexpectedly shifts in Trump’s favor, more Republican seats should come into play. This cycle already features an extremely high number of congressional retirements. Of the 58 Senate or House members not running for their current seats, 32 are Republicans. Like Trump, they see the writing on the wall—though most aren’t demanding elections be canceled to save themselves.

Meanwhile, the Senate is suddenly, improbably, in play. Democrats are within range of erasing their 53-47 minority.

Their top pickup opportunities are Maine—the only state with a Republican senator that Kamala Harris carried in 2024—and the open seat in North Carolina. 

After that, the map gets tougher but still plausible: Alaska, Iowa, Texas, and Ohio. Trump won all of these states by double digits. But the climate is that bad. More of America now affiliates themselves with the Democratic Party, according to Gallup.

Candidates matter, too. In Ohio, former Sen. Sherrod Brown is the star recruit, but Mary Peltola’s Senate run in Alaska is a strong pickup opportunity. She has previously won statewide and narrowly lost her 2024 House reelection in a much harsher environment. 

Former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, center, is making his political comeback this year.

Iowa polling is scarce, but the state has been hit hard by Trump’s tariffs, forced deportations, and the elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development—effectively a farm subsidy program. And in Texas, early polling shows a close race. The state has long been Democrats’ white whale, but maybe this is the cycle ...

Democrats will have to defend seats in Michigan and Georgia, both purple-to-light-red states. In a Republican wave year, those would be tough holds. In a cycle where Democrats have outperformed by double digits in special elections, holding them becomes far more manageable.

Which brings us back to Trump fantasizing about canceling elections. He knows what’s coming. He can’t muster the energy to scream about fraud anymore. He knows he’s about to lose his compliant Congress, and he knows that a Democratic majority will get deeply into his—and his family’s—business. Another impeachment would be all but inevitable. And—hot take—if Republicans lose badly enough, some may even join in, desperate to rid themselves of the stench. 

Trump is dragging them down. Are they really going to sink with him?

What Trump gets wrong, even in his moment of lucidity, is that this isn’t “psychological.” It’s material. Prices are still high. Wages aren’t keeping up. He promised affordability on Day 1, then pivoted to threatening Greenland, stealing Venezuela’s oil, demolishing the White House without a plan, promoting cryptocurrency scams, cozying up to dictators, potentially installing marble armrests at the Kennedy Center, renaming the cultural center, and sending federal agents to swarm American cities.

He’s so furious that affordability—the thing that got him elected—is hurting him that he’s started calling it a “hoax” and repeating the same mistake that doomed former President Joe Biden: refusing to acknowledge the public’s economic distress. All the while, Trump remains in violation of the law by refusing to release the full government files on accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. By slow-walking them instead, he’s dragging out the pain—for himself and his party.

This will be a bad year to be a Republican. Trump knows it. His party knows it. And that’s why he’s daydreaming about a future without elections—because elections are about to put the brakes on all this madness.

Caribbean Matters: Before Greenland, there was the US Virgin Islands

Caribbean Matters is a weekly series from Daily Kos. Hope you’ll join us here every Saturday. If you are unfamiliar with the region, check out Caribbean Matters: Getting to know the countries of the Caribbean.

While the bulk of U.S. news coverage in the Caribbean tends to focus on Puerto Rico, the U.S Virgin Islands of Saint Croix, Saint John, and Saint Thomas are rarely part of the discussion. 

The USVI did garner some mainstream media coverage in 2017 when they were hit by Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, and there is coverage from time to time of Stacey Plaskett, the USVI’s nonvoting delegate to Congress. But it’s doubtful that mainlanders learn much, if anything, about this U.S. colony—aka territory— in school. I know I didn’t. 

Do a Google search of the USVI, and the first result will no doubt detail beaches and resorts. How many readers can even name the USVI’s current governor

With all the recent news about the orange occupant of the White House threatening to seize or forcibly buy Greenland from Denmark, it’s interesting to note that in the past, the U.S. “bought” what is now the USVI from Denmark—and that transaction has historical connections to Greenland. 

According to this Arctic Institute article by Romain Chuffart and Rachael Lorna Johnstone, “History Repeats Itself: It Has To; No One Listens”:

This is the not the first time the U.S. looks to purchasing territory from the Kingdom of Denmark. In 1916, the US bought the erstwhile Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands). In the same treaty, the US renounced any claim to Greenland and recognised Danish sovereignty over the entire island.

Jan. 17 marks one of the historical anniversaries of the process. I covered the centennial of the purchase here, back in 2017, in “From the Danish West Indies to the U.S. Virgin Islands: Overlooked colony is celebrating centennial.”

Today is another such anniversary. On Jan. 17, 1917, the purchase treaty ratification was formally exchanged between the U.S. and Denmark, proclaimed by then-U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, and again on March 9 by the King of Denmark, Christian X.  

There are several YouTube videos available that tell the story. My favorite is “The Colonisation of the Virgin Islands” a 15-minute historical journey by a content creator named Dexter who is from the Virgin Islands.

The U.S. State Department Archive also tells the story. The entire piece is being posted here since we don’t know how long the archives will remain accessible and unsanitized:

Purchase of the United States Virgin Islands, 1917

Beginning in 1867, the United States made several attempts to expand its influence into the Caribbean by acquiring the Danish West Indies. However, due to a number of political difficulties in concluding and ratifying a treaty to govern this exchange, this collection of islands did not become a part of the United States until their formal transfer from Denmark on March 31, 1917. After the transfer, the United States Government changed the name of the islands to the Virgin Islands of the United States.

The Danish West Indies were controlled by several European powers before coming under Danish control in the late 1600s. The Danish West Indies were further enlarged by the 1733 purchase of the island of St. Croix from France, and an 1848 revolt led to the abolition of slavery in the colony. However, after the 1830s, the islands entered into a period of economic decline, and the Danish government found that the West Indies colony was becoming increasingly expensive to administrate.

In 1867, Secretary of State William Henry Seward attempted to acquire the Danish West Indies as part of his plan for peaceful territorial expansion. Seward successfully negotiated a treaty that was ratified by the Danish parliament and approved by a local, limited-suffrage plebiscite. The treaty also allowed islanders the choice to remain Danish subjects or become U.S. citizens. However, the U.S. Senate, angered over Seward's support of President Andrew Johnson during his impeachment trial, rejected the treaty.

John Hay, U.S. Secretary of State from 1898 to 1905, was also interested in acquiring the Danish West Indies, as part of his broader plans for American expansion and securing the route of the future Panama Canal. In 1900, the U.S. and Danish governments again entered into a treaty, which the Senate ratified in 1902. However, the upper house of the Danish parliament did not ratify this treaty, deadlocking in a tied vote. The 1902 treaty did not contain a plebiscite provision, nor did it accord U.S. citizenship to the islanders. The U.S. purchase of the Danish West Indies was thus delayed again.

In 1915, especially after the sinking of the Lusitania, the issue of the U.S. purchase of the Danish West Indies again became an important issue in U.S. foreign policy. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing feared that the German government might annex Denmark, in which case the Germans might also secure the Danish West Indies as a naval or submarine base from where they could launch additional attacks on shipping in the Caribbean and the Atlantic. Lansing thus approached Constantin Brun, the Danish Minister to the United States, about the possible purchase of the Danish West Indies in October of 1915, but Brun rejected the proposal. Many Danes resisted U.S. acquisition of these islands as they expected that the unfortunate civil rights record of the U.S. in the early twentieth century would have disastrous consequences for the predominantly black population of the Danish West Indies. The Danish government thus required that any treaty transferring ownership of the islands to the United States would make provisions for a local plebiscite, U.S. citizenship for the islanders, and free trade. Lansing rejected these provisions claiming that these issues fell under the jurisdiction of Congress and thus could not be extended by treaty. Lansing also objected to a treaty provision that Danish citizens be guaranteed the legal rights that they currently enjoyed on the islands. Concerned about recent events and Danish recalcitrance, Lansing implied that if Denmark was unwilling to sell, the United States might occupy the islands to prevent their seizure by Germany.

Preferring peaceful transfer to occupation, the Danish government agreed to Lansing's demands, and Brun and Lansing signed a treaty in New York on August 4, 1916. The treaty was approved by the Danish Lower House on August 14, and subsequently passed by the Danish Upper House. The treaty was approved by a Danish plebiscite (though not a Virgin Islands plebiscite) on December 14. Subsequent re-approvals of the transfer were passed by both Danish houses, and then ratified by King Christian X of Denmark. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on September 6, and it was signed by Woodrow Wilson on January 16, 1917. Formal transfer of the islands occurred on March 31, 1917, along with a U.S. payment to Denmark of $25,000,000 in gold coin.

United States colonial policy distinguished between citizens and "nationals," or inhabitants of colonies to whom the rights of U.S. citizenship were not conferred. However, U.S. officials initially displayed inconsistency on that status until Acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk wrote on March 9, 1920 that Virgin Islanders had "American nationality" but not the "political status of citizens." The U.S. Virgin Islands were administered by the U.S. Navy from 1917 to 1931. Full U.S. citizenship to all residents born in the U.S. Virgin Islands was extended in 1932 by an act of Congress, and a 1936 act accorded a greater measure of self-government, although the islands would not have an elected governor until 1970.

Becky Little wrote “The U.S. Bought 3 Virgin Islands from Denmark. The Deal Took 50 Years” for History:

During World War I, Denmark finally sold Saint Thomas, Saint John and Saint Croix to the U.S. for $25 million in gold coin.

Every March 31, the U.S. Virgin Islands of Saint Thomas, Saint John and Saint Croix observe “Transfer Day” to commemorate the sale of the islands from Denmark to the United States. Of the U.S.’s five permanently inhabited territories, the U.S. Virgin Islands is the only one the country ever purchased from another imperial power. The two powers negotiated over the three islands for more than 50 years before finally transferring power in 1917.

Though the U.S. and Denmark each had their own complex motivations in this exchange, “they turned upon the question of imperialism—declining in the case of Denmark and increasing on the part of the United States,” wrote the late historian Isaac Dookhan in a 1975 issue of Caribbean Studies. Ultimately, the U.S. would successfully pressure Denmark to sell the islands by threatening a military attack on the neutral nation during World War I.

The International Journal of Naval History has a piece by historian Hans Christian Bjer titled “The Purchase of the Virgin Islands in 1917: Mahan and the American Strategy in the Caribbean Sea”:

Readers of American and Danish history have considered the American purchase of the former Danish West Indies, The Virgin Islands, in 1916-17, as an isolated political event with a short previous history. Danish historians usually explain the sale to the US as mostly due to financial reasons. Denmark acquired, as colonies, the islands, St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. John in 1671, 1718 and 1733 respectively. From the late nineteenth century, Denmark considered maintaining the colonies a losing proposition. The disadvantages of possessing the islands were, before the 1860s, discussed occasionally in Danish political circles without any declared solution.

In 2017 Danish media marked the centenary of the sale. In this connection it was remarkable that two facts about the sale didn’t seem to be generally known. Firstly, that the process of the sale actually was going on for fifty years before the sale in 1917. Secondly, that the US naval strategy concerning the Caribbean Sea played a substantial role in the American interest in the islands. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention on both sides of the Atlantic to these facts.

[...]

In January 1865, Seward contacted the Danish Minister to the US, General W. R. Raasløff, who wrote to the Danish government about an American acquisition of the Danish islands. The Danish government was at first surprised by the enquiry, but eventually became willing to discuss it.  The Danes stipulated the clear precondition that the two great European powers, Great Britain and France, would accept the sale [1. General Raasløff’s influential role in the 1860s on the question of the Danish West Indies is treated in Erik Overgaard Petersen, The Attempted Sale of the Danish West Indies to the United States of America, 1865-70 (Frankfurt : 1997).].

From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Danes were dissatisfied with their West Indies colonies. The three islands had become an economic burden instead of a profitable possession. As early as 1846, politicians discussed the possibility of selling the islands. The emancipation of the slaves on the islands in 1848 made the possibility of a sale even more appealing.

What’s interesting is the fact that as part of the treaty, the U.S. signed a declaration recognizing Denmark's full sovereignty over Greenland, renouncing any prior American claims.

Nordics Info detailed this in “USA's declaration on Danish sovereignty of Greenland, 1916”:

On 4th August 1916, the American government issued a declaration to the Danish government that it would not raise objections if Denmark extended its interests in Greenland to include the entire island. This was perhaps surprising given the 1832 Monroe Doctrine intended to limit European colonialism. The declaration paved the way for recognition of Danish sovereignty by other nations.

[...]

The Danish West Indies transferred to the USA on 31st March 1917 and were from then on called the United States Virgin Islands.  On 21st May 1921, Denmark formally declared that all of Greenland was subject to Danish rule.

Please join me in the comments section below for more, and for the weekly Caribbean News Roundup.

Trump admin warns of ‘widescale doxxing’ of ICE if House Dem’s new bill passes

EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration is firing back at a Democratic Bronx congressman who offered a new-age way for civilians to identify immigration enforcement agents who obscure their identity with masks or lack of names on their uniforms amid civil unrest around the country.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat, said he is introducing the Quick Recognition Act next week, which would require ICE and CBP agents to wear uniforms that feature QR codes – the two-dimensional offshoot of barcodes that can link a concrete item to a website or information portal.

At sporting events or in restaurants, they often use QR codes to draw customers to scan them and open webpages to enter contests or access menus. In Torres’ case, scanning the QR code on an officer’s uniform would return their name, badge number and agency that employs them.

The White House said Torres’ bill would spur a "widescale doxxing campaign" and encourage protesters to "approach and interfere with law enforcement operations."

DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK URGES PARTY TO DROP ‘ABOLISH ICE’ SLOGAN IN NEW MEMO

"This is all because Democrats want to defend criminal illegal aliens," spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital.

"Surely this cannot be a serious proposal," she added.

The administration cited DHS data showing ICE officers facing a 1,300% increase in assaults because of Democrats’ "dangerous and untrue smears."

WHITE HOUSE BLAMES DEMOCRATS FOR ICE VIOLENCE AS MINNEAPOLIS ERUPTS, INSURRECTION ACT THREAT LOOMS

Torres’ office, by contrast, was defiant when asked about such concerns.

"There is nothing the Trump administration fears more than transparency and accountability," Torres spokesman Benny Stanislawski told Fox News Digital.

Torres also told the Big Apple outlet AMNewYork that the need is "urgent" to "unmask ICE not only physically but digitally."

OMAR, DEMS DEMAND NOEM IMPEACHMENT, PAINT MINNESOTA WOMAN SHOT BY ICE AS 'POET' WHO CHOSE 'LOVE'

While Torres told the paper he predicts some pushback from law enforcement, he said that scanning QR codes is safer than asking for an officer’s ID.

He noted that most other agencies require officers to identify themselves in their line of duty, calling ICE a "systemically corrupt institution" and added he will oppose any future congressional appropriation that funds ICE more than $1.

A Democratic congressman from Detroit who previously called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment upped the ante this week with his own effort to abolish ICE.

HOCHUL CONFRONTED ICE AGENT, SAID HE WAS 'TERRORIZING PEOPLE' BY WEARING A MASK

Rep. Shri Thanedar said that the death of Renee Good in an ICE-involved shooting proves the agency "cannot be reformed and must be abolished."

Thanedar said in a statement that since its inception in 2003, some legal experts have also argued its duties can be fulfilled more "justly" by other federal agencies.

"When an agency’s structure consistently produces harm instead of justice, there is no way to reform it. We must fundamentally change the way we approach immigration," Thanedar said.

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment.