Senator Ted Cruz launched a blistering attack against Democratic leadership, blaming them squarely for a government shutdown that has lingered into its 29th day.
According to Cruz, the shutdown is not about genuine policy negotiation but about protecting Chuck Schumer and appeasing the radical left‑wing of his party.
Cruz argued that Democrats, under Schumer’s guidance, intentionally allowed the funding for the federal government to lapse.
He said their demands—among them taxpayer‑funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and the reversal of work requirements for able‑bodied adults—are so extreme they have effectively triggered this standoff.
In Cruz’s view, this is not a simple budget dispute but a political maneuver. “This is all about political saving Chuck Schumer’s rear end,” Cruz declared, accusing Schumer of throwing American taxpayers under the bus in order to placate his party’s base.
He said: “We’re on day 29 of the stupidest shutdown. This is the SCHUMER Shutdown.”
Cruz’s words reflect deep frustration over the failure of the Senate to approve even a clean funding measure, even though the House passed one.
He painted the situation starkly: “The reason the government is shut down is that Chuck Schumer has a political problem. And he has a political problem from right where you’re sitting right now, from New York.” Cruz went on to assert that progressives in the Democratic Party almost removed Schumer from his leadership post after an earlier decision to allow funding to continue—yet now Schumer is playing to that same base by refusing to open the government.
Cruz accused Democrats of hypocrisy, pointing out that when shutdowns happened under Democratic leadership in the past, they condemned the tactic. Now, he says, they are using it as a weapon for pure politics rather than public service.
He warned that at some point “seven or eight Democrats are going to have some sense come into them.” According to Cruz, it’s likely that these will be retiring Democrats—those no longer worried about a primary challenge—who are free to break ranks because they don’t face the same pressure from the radical left‑wing base. In his telling, those in danger of primaries must pander to extreme positions, thus forcing the shutdown.
Cruz emphasized that while the shutdown continues, essential services are still functioning, but many federal workers are going without pay. The underlying damage, he said, goes beyond the immediate. He argued the shutdown erodes public trust in government, hurts working families and veterans, and punishes taxpayers who did nothing to create the mess.
Progressive influencer Deja Foxx just got crushed in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, losing by more than 40 points in a blowout that stunned far-left activists.
The Associated Press called the race for 54-year-old Adelita Grijalva with only 65% of the vote counted.
Grijalva, a Pima County Supervisor and daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, won with 62% of the vote, Trending Politics
The result was a reality check for progressives hoping to replace a political dynasty with a social media star. Foxx had high-profile endorsements from David Hogg and the PAC “Leaders We Deserve.”
She only became eligible for Congress in April. Her campaign leaned heavily on her “lived experience,” highlighting a childhood in Section 8 housing, dependence on food stamps, and early activism for abortion access.
But it did not work. Grijalva was the clear favorite from the start, backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Arizona Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego. Her name, funding, and party support helped her cruise to victory. Foxx tried to frame the loss as a moral win.
“I couldn’t be prouder of what we built together,” she said. She talked about starting “alone in her bedroom” and building a movement that “shattered expectations.”
Still, the numbers tell the story.
“She lost by 40,” one user on X posted, quoting a Politico headline that had once suggested Foxx might have a “real shot.”
Foxx raised over $670,000 from mostly small-dollar donors and tried to reinvent field campaigning through social media. It didn’t work.
Even though both candidates shared nearly identical platforms—supporting Medicare for All, tribal sovereignty, environmental justice, and opposing Donald Trump—voters went with the familiar name.
Grijalva had decades of local roots, and it showed. In her victory speech, she thanked her father and the voters who kept the legacy going.
“This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago,” she said.
“We delivered a message rooted not just in fighting back against a dangerous and tyrannical administration—but in fighting for something: for our democracy, for the dignity of working people, and for the values that truly define Southern Arizona.”
In New York there is an effort by progressives to primary the Democrat leader of the House.
Zohran Mamdani’s democratic socialist allies are reportedly considering primary challenges next year against several congressional Democrats in New York City, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
However, a senior political advisor to Jeffries has vowed that anyone attempting to unseat the top Democrat in the House during next year’s primaries will face a “forceful and unrelenting” response, Fox News
Mamdani, the 33-year-old Ugandan-born democratic socialist assemblyman from Queens, sent political shockwaves nationwide with his decisive victory two weeks ago over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and nine other candidates in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary.
His win marks a significant step toward potentially becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor, but would also signal the Democratic Party’s increasing shift to the extreme far-left.
In the wake of Mamdani’s primary victory in June, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) highlighted that “this movement is bigger than one person, election, city, or organization.”
“We encourage all people inspired by the Zohran campaign to join their local DSA or YDSA chapter and get involved so we can continue to fight alongside Zohran and DSA elected officials across the country to create the future we all deserve,” the party added.
Now, following Mamdani’s victory, DSA leaders are reportedly considering mounting primary challenges not only against Jeffries but also other House Democrats representing New York City districts, including Reps. Ritchie Torres, Jerry Nadler, Dan Goldman, and Yvette Clarke, Fox added.
The notices went out quietly. No press conference, no televised announcement, just a three-line email landing in inboxes of immigration judges across the country. The message was brief and without explanation, but unmistakably clear: their time on the bench had ended.Roughly 50 federal immigration judges have now been dismissed, according to reports, as President Donald Trump pushes forward with his pledge not only to secure the southern border but to root out what he describes as a “judicial swamp” that obstructed enforcement of immigration laws. Another 50 judges have reportedly been transferred or encouraged into retirement.The dismissals mark a dramatic escalation of Trump’s efforts to reshape America’s immigration system from the ground up — this time not at the border itself, but within the courtrooms responsible for handling millions of cases.With a backlog of more than three million immigration cases still clogging the system, the move has ignited a political storm.
For years, conservatives have argued that immigration judges were too often sympathetic to migrants and lenient toward deportation cases, creating what they describe as a culture of “catch and release.” Trump’s return to the White House has put those judges directly in his crosshairs.According to El País, the majority of dismissals involved judges appointed during the Obama and Biden years, many of whom were accused of consistently granting asylum requests, delaying deportation proceedings, or issuing rulings that clashed with the administration’s enforcement priorities.The judges themselves have pushed back hard, calling the dismissals unfair and retaliatory. Many have gone public with allegations of political targeting, discrimination, and abuse of executive power.Yet Trump and his allies frame the purge as accountability long overdue in a system they say has operated without consequences for too long. One of the most vocal critics is Jennifer Peyton, an Obama-era appointee who joined the immigration bench in 2016. She claims she received her termination email while vacationing with her family.Peyton insists she had no disciplinary record and had even received strong performance reviews during her tenure. She believes her firing may have been linked to her decision to host a courthouse tour for Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who has been one of Trump’s fiercest opponents on immigration policy.Durbin himself called her dismissal an “abuse of power” and accused the administration of orchestrating a political purge. Trump’s supporters, however, say Peyton represents exactly the type of judge who undermined immigration enforcement for years, granting benefits and delays to migrants that the administration considered unlawful.Another dismissed judge, Carla Espinoza of Chicago, argued that her contract was not renewed due to her gender and Hispanic background. She points to a case where she released a Mexican national who had been falsely accused of threatening the president.Homeland Security had flagged the man as a potential threat, but Espinoza ruled in his favor, calling the case “unsubstantiated.” Her defenders see this as proof of her fairness; her critics say it is precisely the kind of ruling that justified her dismissal.The dismissals have also sparked whistleblower claims. Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice lawyer who previously defended Trump’s immigration policies, says he was fired after refusing to label a deported Salvadoran as a terrorist.Reuveni admits the case had been mishandled but argues that DOJ leaders were pressuring staff to fast-track deportations regardless of due process.He now accuses the administration of “manipulating the system” and bypassing judicial checks to accelerate deportation flights.To Trump’s supporters, however, what Reuveni describes as manipulation is seen as long-overdue efficiency. With a backlog in the millions and growing public frustration, they argue that streamlining deportations is a necessary corrective to years of bureaucratic dysfunction.The National Association of Immigration Judges, which has long clashed with Republican administrations, says the dismissals amount to political retaliation. Its president, Matt Biggs, confirmed that about 50 judges were dismissed outright and another 50 were reassigned or nudged into retirement.Biggs claims the rest of the bench feels “threatened” and uncertain about their future. He insists that judicial independence is being sacrificed for political expediency.Supporters of Trump counter that immigration judges are not Article III judges with lifetime appointments but administrative law officers within the executive branch. That distinction, they argue, makes them subject to policy direction and accountability in ways traditional judges are not.The shake-up in immigration courts reflects a broader struggle over who controls America’s immigration policy: elected officials or appointed judges.During Trump’s first term, immigration judges frequently clashed with the Department of Justice over asylum standards, case quotas, and expedited dockets.The result was an increasingly adversarial relationship, with many judges accusing the administration of undermining judicial independence, while administration officials accused judges of sabotaging enforcement efforts.This time, Trump is moving aggressively to eliminate that conflict by replacing judges who resist his directives. By dismissing dozens at once, he is sending a signal that resistance will no longer be tolerated.The firings also coincide with Senate confirmations of Trump-aligned officials to higher courts. Emil Bove, a senior DOJ official who has overseen immigration enforcement efforts, was recently confirmed to a federal appeals court with the backing of the Trump-friendly Senate.
Democrats argue that the administration is stacking the judiciary with loyalists to rubber-stamp its policies. Republicans counter that Democrats spent years weaponizing the courts against Trump, and that the current reshaping is simply a rebalancing of judicial power.The backdrop to all of this remains the staggering immigration backlog. Under the Biden administration, immigration courts accumulated more than three million pending cases, creating wait times of years for asylum seekers and deportation proceedings.Trump officials argue that such a backlog proves the system was broken, clogged with frivolous claims and judges unwilling to issue swift deportation orders. By replacing lenient judges with stricter ones and streamlining processes, they believe they can begin cutting into the backlog.Critics worry that the rush for efficiency will come at the expense of fairness and due process, potentially deporting individuals who might otherwise have legitimate claims to stay.For many of the dismissed judges, their sudden ouster has turned them into reluctant public figures. Some have spoken out to the press, framing themselves as victims of political persecution. Others are preparing lawsuits alleging discrimination and unlawful termination.Yet the administration frames the narrative differently. To them, the judges are not martyrs but bureaucrats who put their own politics above the law. Trump’s allies argue that the outcry reflects entitlement from individuals who never believed they could be held accountable.The firings are not just about immigration courts. They fit into Trump’s broader promise to “drain the swamp” — a campaign pledge that has become synonymous with rooting out bureaucrats seen as obstacles to his agenda.By targeting immigration judges, Trump is addressing what he views as one of the most entrenched obstacles to enforcement. For years, immigration courts have been criticized by conservatives as slow-moving, lenient, and insulated from accountability. The current shake-up sends a message that those days are over.Democrats in Congress, led by figures like Senator Dick Durbin, have decried the dismissals as dangerous politicization of the judiciary. Durbin warned that removing judges for their rulings undermines the independence of the courts and erodes public trust.Immigrant advocacy groups have echoed those concerns, warning that migrants will face a more hostile system with fewer safeguards. Lawsuits are expected in the coming months as advocacy groups seek to challenge the legality of the dismissals.Among Trump’s base, however, the move is widely popular. Voters frustrated with border insecurity and prolonged immigration battles view the dismissals as proof that Trump is delivering on his promises.Polling has consistently shown that immigration is one of the top issues motivating Trump supporters. By highlighting the removal of judges seen as obstructing deportations, the administration is reinforcing its commitment to an enforcement-first agenda.The dismissal of dozens of immigration judges represents one of the most sweeping shake-ups in the federal immigration system in decades. To critics, it is an abuse of power and a political purge that undermines judicial independence. To supporters, it is accountability long overdue in a system riddled with leniency and backlog.Either way, the move underscores the Trump administration’s determination to assert control over every level of immigration policy — from the border to the bench. For the judges who once believed they were untouchable, the message was clear: their authority is no longer immune from consequences.Whether the firings will ultimately reduce the backlog or withstand legal challenges remains to be seen. But one thing is certain — Trump is reshaping the immigration system not just by building walls and deploying agents, but by remaking the courts themselves.