Tag: republicans

EXPOSED: House Republicans Quietly Slipped Pesticide “Immunity” Into Spending Bill — Now FORCED to Yank Section 453 After Massive Backlash

House Republicans quietly inserted, and then just as quietly removed, a highly controversial provision from the 2026 Interior and Environment spending bill after a firestorm of public outrage exposed what critics called a blatant attempt to shield powerful chemical corporations from accountability.

Section 453 of H.R. 4754 would have blocked federal funding for the EPA to update pesticide labels, guidance, or policy if those updates differed in any way from prior health assessments, even when new science emerged showing increased risks.

After intense pressure from watchdog groups and conservative commentators, House leadership yanked the provision before the bill heads to the floor this week.

The now-removed language stated:

“SEC. 453. None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling that is inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion of
(a) a human health assessment performed pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; or
(b) a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide.”

In plain English: freeze pesticide labels in place, regardless of emerging science.

Critics warned this would allow manufacturers to argue in court that it was “impossible” to update warnings — effectively gutting failure-to-warn lawsuits and stripping families of legal recourse when harm occurs.

Children’s Health Defense led the charge, issuing an urgent warning that Section 453 would “wipe out your right to sue pesticide companies.”

Keep reading

Tracking congressional criticism of Trump’s attack on Venezuela

On Saturday, the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and carried out airstrikes across Venezuela. We are keeping track of notable criticism of this attack from members of Congress.

Republicans

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

“If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

“Mexican cartels are primarily and overwhelmingly responsible for killing Americans with deadly drugs.

If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels?

And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America? Ironically cocaine is the same drug that Venezuela primarily traffics into the U.S. […]

Regime change, funding foreign wars, and American’s tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes, foreigners both home and abroad, and foreign governments while Americans are consistently facing increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare, and learn about scams and fraud of their tax dollars is what has most Americans enraged. Especially the younger generations. Boomers and half of Gen X will cheer on neocon wars and talking points, but the other half of Gen X and majority on down see through it and hate it. […]

This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end.

Boy were we wrong.”

Democrats

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

“The administration has assured me three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or taking military action in Venezuela. Clearly, they are not being straight with Americans.

The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.

The administration must brief Congress immediately on its objectives, and its plan to prevent a humanitarian and geopolitical disaster that plunges us into another endless war or one that trades one corrupt dictator for another.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.)

“Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth looked every Senator in the eye a few weeks ago and said this wasn’t about regime change. I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress. Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war.

This strike doesn’t represent strength. It’s not sound foreign policy. It puts Americans at risk in Venezuela and the region, and it sends a horrible and disturbing signal to other powerful leaders across the globe that targeting a head of state is an acceptable policy for the U.S. government. This will further damage our reputation – already hurt by Trump’s policies around the world – and only isolate us in a time when we need our friends and allies more than ever.”

“Americans across the political spectrum must reject Trump’s plan for the U.S. to ‘run the country’ of Venezuela.

This is a disastrous plan. We have seen this show before and it did not end well.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

“Trump’s attack on Venezuela will make the United States and the world less safe. This brazen violation of international law gives a green light to any nation on earth that may wish to attack another country to seize their resources or change their governments. This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine.

Trump and his administration have often said they want to revive the Monroe Doctrine, claiming the United States has the right to dominate the affairs of the hemisphere. They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world. This is rank imperialism. It recalls the darkest chapters of U.S. interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world.

Trump campaigned for president on an “America First” platform. He claimed to be the “peace candidate.” At a time when 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, when our healthcare system is collapsing, when people cannot afford housing and when AI threatens millions of jobs, it is time for the president to focus on the crises facing this country and end this military adventurism abroad. Trump is failing in his job to “run” the United States. He should not be trying to “run” Venezuela.”

Keep reading

Niqab-Wearing Muslim Woman Running for North Carolina Senate as a ‘Republican’ Repeatedly Tells Reporter ‘I Am Down for ISIS’ in Wild Interview

In a bizarre and revealing interview, Lakeshia Mashonda Ruddi Alston, the niqab-wearing Muslim woman running as the sole Republican candidate for North Carolina’s State Senate District 22, delivered a series of rambling and contradictory statements that have only intensified suspicions of her true intentions.

Alston, who has a documented history of voting Democrat since at least 2008, insists she’s a genuine Republican representing the party’s future. But her interview responses, filled with odd declarations, have left many questioning whether this is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the GOP primary.

Alston, a self-described educator, entrepreneur, and community advocate with no prior political experience, has no active campaign website, policy platform, or tied social media presence.

In the Daily Caller interview, Alston attempted to defend her Republican credentials and policy stances, but her responses were often incoherent and just outright strange.

The Daily Caller reports:

When asked what conservative principles she considers important, Alston replied: “I am down for ISIS.”

Alston five times throughout the interview said something to the effect of “I am down for ISIS … I stand for ISIS,” when appearing to refer to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Alston did not clarify whether she was referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement when contacted for follow-up.

“I am down for ISIS. The police tell you that you gotta freeze. You have to stop. I can’t go on to another country without a passport,” Alston said. “I did experience students who did have some interaction with ISIS. And was it sad? Yes, it was very sad. I cried. I empathize with them, which is why I am for ISIS.”

“I am a Republican,” Alston told the DCNF. “I’ve matured in my own revelation of what the Republican Party represents, and it looks like me.”

“Are we going back to segregation time?” Alston asked in response to a question about criticism of her GOP affiliation. “Because, I’m a Republican, and I don’t really understand the aims and the values of what that party represents. So I’m just going to be taken back at what somebody looks like, because we’re used to the Democrats pussy footin’ around.”

In a confusing anecdote, Alston described a “Chinese little boy” friend from Jordan High School whose fingernails were affected by the Hiroshima bombing, despite Hiroshima being in Japan, not China.

Keep reading

RINO Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s Office Dismisses Daycare Fraud Allegations as ‘Cost of Doing Business’

RINO Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s office has brushed off growing concerns about potential massive fraud in taxpayer-funded daycare centers, particularly in Columbus, which boasts the second-largest Somali population in the United States, as simply “the cost of doing business.”

The governor’s office said that attempts to use daycare centers for fraud in Ohio have been “known to the state for decades,” and implied that those who did not think it was an issue are naive.

Speaking to the Columbus Dispatch, Dan Tierney, DeWine’s spokesperson, denied any recent “surge” in fraud but acknowledged that the governor’s office is aware of public interest in the matter.

“If people are out there who could not contemplate that people were trying to defraud the public through day care centers, I understand it’s new to them … but it’s been known to the state for decades,” Tierney said. “So therefore, we have robust anti-fraud measures to try and stop this, this is something that is unfortunately the cost of doing business.”

Keep reading

Ohio Activists Submit Signatures For Referendum To Block Lawmakers’ Move To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization And Restrict Hemp

Ohio activists announced on Monday that they’ve met an initial signature requirement to launch a campaign aimed at repealing key components of a bill the governor recently signed to scale back the state’s voter-approved marijuana law and ban the sale of consumable hemp products outside of licensed cannabis dispensaries.

Ohioans for Cannabis Choice said they’ve submitted a batch of 1,000 signatures to get the referendum process started. If the signatures are certified by the secretary of state, the campaign will then need to submit a total of about 250,000 signatures to make the ballot.

The proposed referendum would repeal the first three core sections of SB 56, a controversial bill that Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed into law earlier this month that he says is intended to crack down on the unregulated intoxicating hemp market. But the legislation would do more than restrict the sale of cannabinoid products to dispensaries.

The law also recriminalizes certain marijuana activity that was legalized under the ballot initiative voters approved in 2023, and it’d additionally remove anti-discrimination protections for cannabis consumers that were enacted under that law.

The governor additionally used his line-item veto powers to cancel a section of the bill that would have delayed the implementation of the ban on hemp beverages.

“We’re saying no to SB 56 because it recriminalizes the cannabis industry,” Wesley Bryant, a petitioner with the referendum campaign who owns the cannabis company 420 Craft Beverages, said. “SB 56 is a slap in the face to voters who overwhelmingly voted to legalize cannabis in 2023.”

Advocates and stakeholders strongly protested the now-enacted legislation, arguing that it undermines the will of voters who approved cannabis legalization and would effectively eradicate the state’s hemp industry, as there are low expectations that adults will opt for hemp-based products over marijuana when they visit a dispensary.

The pushback inspired the newly filed referendum—but the path to successfully blocking the law is narrow.

If activists reach the signature threshold by the deadline three months from now, which coincides with the same day the restrictive law is to take effect, SB 56 would not be implemented until voters got a chance to decide on the issue at the ballot.

“In filing our petitions today, we are taking a stand for Ohioans against politicians in Columbus and saying no to the government overreach of SB 56,” Bryant said.

A summary of the referendum states that “Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Am. Sub. S. B. No. 56 enact new provisions and amend and repeal existing provisions of the Ohio Revised Code that relate to the regulation, criminalization, and taxation of cannabis products, such as the sale, use, possession, cultivation, license, classification, transport, and manufacture of marijuana and certain hemp products.”

“If a majority of the voters vote to not approve Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act, then the enacted changes will not take effect and the prior version of the affected laws will remain in effect,” it says.

Keep reading

Could Republicans Gain a U.S. House Seat Because of Texas Democrat Fraud?

Historically, South Texas has been shaped by entrenched political machines, most notably the one built by Lyndon B. Johnson, who advanced by aligning with local Democrat bosses, leveraging federal patronage, and mobilizing Mexican American voters through New Deal–era programs. 

The region became a Democrat stronghold defined by infrastructure spending and centralized political control, with county officials often acting as power brokers rather than neutral administrators. 

That system was epitomized by George B. Parr, the Duval County boss who delivered Johnson his first major electoral victories and demonstrated how county-level authority could shape statewide outcomes. 

The legacy of that model continues to influence South Texas politics, particularly when modern election disputes arise from the same institutional culture.

In fact, every major failure in American election administration begins long before voters submit ballots. Collapse starts when officials charged with enforcing election law treat statutory requirements as discretionary rather than mandatory.

Once that shift occurs, the legal framework designed to safeguard transparency and the republic itself ceases to function as law. Instead, it becomes a set of procedures that can be delayed, reinterpreted, or quietly ignored.

President Donald Trump’s pardon of Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar and his wife addressed a politically motivated Biden Justice Department prosecution. 

Separately, an unresolved issue remains in South Texas: a congressional election marked by statutory violations, conflicting directives, and institutional resistance that prevented a full accounting of what occurred in Texas’s 28th Congressional District.

Texas’s 28th District occupies an unusually sensitive position along the southern border. Centered on Laredo, the district encompasses Port Laredo, which processes roughly 45% of all U.S.–Mexico trade and oversees more than 260 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border. 

Political behavior in the region has shifted rapidly in recent election cycles, mainly driven by dissatisfaction with border enforcement and illegal immigration under the Biden administration.

In 2020, President Trump lost the district by five points. In 2024, he carried the same district by approximately seven points. 

This shift occurred despite post-2020 redistricting changes expected to benefit Democrats. Under the new lines, Trump’s 2020 performance would have translated into a loss of roughly seven points.

Over four years, the district moved approximately fourteen points toward the Republican presidential nominee.

Despite that result, on the same ballots and using the same voting machines, Rep. Cuellar defeated Republican challenger Jay Furman by approximately five points. A twelve-point divergence between the top of the ticket and a long-serving incumbent does not, on its own, prove misconduct. Voters are free to split their ballots.

However, ticket-splitting in modern federal elections is extremely rare. In 2024, only 16 congressional districts nationwide split their presidential and House results. 

Election law exists precisely to examine outcomes that depart sharply from prevailing voting patterns. In this case, that examination never entirely occurred.

Keep reading

Trump Is Using the ‘Misinformation’ Censorship Playbook Republicans Attacked Biden For

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson recently complained about alleged “lies, smears and AI deepfakes that are designed to deceive Americans” about President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Pressed on whether the government was talking with social media platforms to stem this purported misinformation, the spokesperson said, “Yes and we are also putting resources forward to ensure DHS combats this.”

It wasn’t so long ago that candidate Trump and his Republican allies were decrying the Joe Biden administration for pressuring platforms to police misinformation. The Trump administration seems to have warmed to the idea. 

Many on the left, who previously supported giving the government greater power to combat so-called misinformation, are and should rightly be fearful of a Trump administration empowered to censor speech it disagrees with.

The DHS announcement signals a deeper shift toward government-driven moderation of online speech—a shift that threatens to turn every administration into a speech arbiter. The power to dictate what can be said on the internet is inherently prone to abuse, no matter who holds it. The stakes are high.

Jawboning for Me but Not for Thee

Under the First Amendment, federal and state governments cannot censor speech they dislike, so instead of blatantly shutting down a news organization or online platform, government actors often try to force a company to do their bidding through more subtle means. These demands often happen behind closed doors, backed by an implicit—or sometimes explicit—threat that refusal will bring government retaliation. Because the government wields so much power over businesses, these companies understand they are in a weak position to resist. This practice is called “jawboning.”

When the Biden administration made public and private demands that social media companies remove “misinformation” and “disinformation” related to the COVID-19 pandemic, it ended up at the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. The Court ultimately punted by ruling that individual social media users who claimed their speech was suppressed lacked standing to sue. 

This was disappointing. Internal emails from various social media companies showed that senior leaders felt they had no choice but to comply with the administration. Meta’s leaders internally said that they needed to change policy because they had “bigger fish to fry with the Administration.” YouTube claimed it needed to keep Biden officials happy since they wanted to “work closely with the administration on multiple policy fronts.” Amazon moved to “accelerate” its policy changes ahead of a call with Biden officials. Thankfully, the Supreme Court did at least uphold the principle that jawboning is wrong and unconstitutional in another case, NRA v. Vullo. 

Today, the Trump administration appears to be invoking Murthy as cover for its own pressure campaigns against online platforms. Apple removed an app that allowed users to report sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in real time. After complaints from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Meta removed a Facebook group that shared information about ICE agents. Now, the DHS says it is communicating with social media companies about supposed immigration misinformation. It would be naive to suppose it hasn’t applied any pressure during those talks.

It is entirely possible that the government can point to specific acts of illegality. It’s also possible that some of this content violates platform policies. For example, Meta claimed it removed the Facebook page with information on ICE agents for violating its “policies against coordinated harm.” It is possible this group was persistently violating this policy. But as long as these companies remain vulnerable to government pressure, we cannot simply trust officials who insist their demands are legitimate.

Keep reading

Crockett’s Senate Run Was Engineered By Republicans

Rep. Jasmine Crockett. (D-Texas) officially launched her campaign for the U.S. Senate on Monday, and Republicans appear to have played a major role in that happening. 

According to a report from NOTUS, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was “actively worked behind the scenes to encourage Rep. Jasmine Crockett to jump into the Senate Democratic primary in Texas, believing she will be the easiest opponent to beat.”

With Sen. John Cornyn facing a tough three-way primary and Democrats fielding two strong candidates, Republican strategists reportedly were concerned the race would be tougher than expected. They feared a draining fight could leave the nominee wounded before the real battle against the Democrats even began.

Back in July, the NRSC commissioned a private poll that “by design” included Crockett’s name among the Democratic contenders. Her numbers surprised everyone: she topped the field. Instead of treating it as an internal curiosity, GOP operatives moved fast. 

“When we saw the results, we were like, ‘OK, we got to disseminate this far and wide,’” a source told NOTUS.

In June news broke that Texas Democrats Colin Allred, James Talarico, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Rep. Joaquin Castro met to discuss the 2026 election.

Operatives at the NRSC realized that Crockett — whose political stock had been rising — wasn’t included in that meeting and also hadn’t been included in any credible poll. So they decided to change that.

Following the NRSC’s polls, other surveys began to include Crockett and showed similar results: She was surging in the primary.

The NRSC then worked to amplify those polls and is taking credit for helping “orchestrate the pile on of these polling numbers to really drive that news cycle and that narrative that Jasmine Crockett was surging in Texas,” the source said.

And Crockett took the bait.

Keep reading

Rep Massie Introduces Bill For US To Dump ‘Cold War Relic’ NATO

Conservative and outspoken libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced legislation Tuesday for the United States for formally withdraw from NATO. Sen. Mike Lee is also helping lead the charge, introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

The bill argues that the US military cannot be seen as the police force of the world, and that given NATO was created to counter the long-gone Soviet Union, which no longer exists, American taxpayers’ money would be better spent elsewhere.

“We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries… US participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk US involvement in foreign wars… America should not be the world’s security blanket – especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense,” Massie said.

That latter part is likely designed to gain Trump’s attention and sympathy, given the president has been emphasizing this point all the way back to his first term.

The bill if passed would require the US government to formally notify NATO that it intends to end its membership and halt the use of American funds for shared budgets. Republican Senator Lee actually introduced similar legislation earlier this year, but it stalled in committee.

Of course, most Congress members have viewpoints which merely reflect the ‘pro-NATO’ established position of the vast majority of Western politicians generally, so it’s very unlikely to ever be passed.

Massie wrote on X, “NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries. Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership.” 

“Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against,” he said additionally. 

Keep reading

Ohio Lawmakers Pass Bill To Roll Back Voter-Approved Marijuana Law And Impose Hemp Restrictions, Sending It To Governor

The Ohio Senate has voted to concur with a House-amended bill to scale back the state’s voter-approved marijuana law and ban the sale of hemp products that fall outside of a recently revised federal definition for the crop unless they’re sold at licensed cannabis dispensaries.

The measure from Sen. Stephen Huffman (R) was substantively revised in the House last month, but the originating chamber voted 22-7 on Tuesday to accept those changes and send the legislation to Gov. Mike DeWine’s (R) desk.

The legislation now pending the governor’s signature would recriminalize certain marijuana activity that was legalized under a ballot initiative that passed in 2023  as well as remove anti-discrimination protections for cannabis consumers that were enacted under that law.

After the House revised the initial Senate-passed legislation, removing certain controversial provisions, the Senate quickly rejected those changes in October. That led to the appointment of a bicameral conference committee to resolve outstanding differences between the chambers. That panel then approved a negotiated form of the bill, which passed the House last month and has now cleared the Senate.

To advocates’ disappointment, the final version of the measure now heading to the governor’s desk would eliminate language in current statute providing anti-discrimination protections for people who lawfully use cannabis. That includes protections meant to prevent adverse actions in the context of child custody rights, the ability to qualify for organ transplants and professional licensing.

It would also recriminalize possessing marijuana from any source that isn’t a state-licensed dispensary in Ohio or from a legal homegrow. As such, people could be charged with a crime for carrying cannabis they bought at a legal retailer in neighboring Michigan.

Additionally, it would ban smoking cannabis at outdoor public locations such as bar patios—and it would allow landlords to prohibit vaping marijuana at rented homes. Violating that latter policy, even if it involves vaping in a person’s own backyard at a rental home, would constitute a misdemeanor offense.

The legislation would also replace what had been a proposed regulatory framework for intoxicating hemp that the House had approved with a broad prohibition on sales outside marijuana dispensaries following a recent federal move to recriminalize such products.

“In short, this bill leaves the crux of Issue 2 and marijuana access intact, while providing for several important public safety concerns and also regulations that protect Ohio children,” Huffman argued on the Senate floor ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Sen. Bill DeMora (D), however, said the legislation undermines the will of voters.

Keep reading