Speaker of the House Mike Johnson clashed with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins in a fiery interview that exposed the Democrats’ radical push to extend government benefits to illegal immigrants.
Johnson didn’t hold back, making it clear that Democrats are prioritizing those who cross the border unlawfully over American citizens struggling to make ends meet.
“They have insisted that they want to give free health care to illegal aliens,” Johnson said during the exchange. “That is something the American people reject.”
Collins tried to interrupt and fact-check him in real time, but Johnson doubled down on the issue.
“That’s not true,” Collins retorted, claiming that federal law bars most immigrants without legal status from receiving healthcare benefits.
Johnson pushed back: “Look at their policy proposals. Look at what they’ve demanded. They have insisted that your tax dollars go to people who are not even supposed to be in this country.”
This tense back-and-forth highlighted the core divide in America’s immigration debate: whether taxpayers should foot the bill for those who broke the law to enter.
The New York Post reported that Johnson made similar remarks in another heated exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, reinforcing that this is a consistent Republican position.
Johnson said, “The Democrats are willing to shut the government down over this. They put the interests of illegal aliens above the interests of American citizens.”
His words struck a chord with conservative audiences who have long argued that Democrats are weaponizing immigration for political gain.
Collins, visibly frustrated, tried to paint Johnson’s comments as misinformation.
But Johnson’s stance was clear: Democrats will not secure the border because their political future depends on mass immigration.
“We can’t afford it, and Americans know we can’t afford it,” Johnson said.
The interview became a viral moment, with conservatives applauding Johnson for standing firm in enemy territory.
Social media erupted with praise for his takedown of Collins, who has become a symbol of liberal media bias.
Even as Collins tried to shift the conversation, Johnson held the line.
He reminded viewers that every dollar spent on illegals is a dollar taken from American veterans, seniors, and children.
AP News admitted in a fact-check that Democrats have supported expanding certain state-level healthcare programs to cover undocumented residents.
This supports Johnson’s broader point: Democrats want to normalize giving benefits to people who enter the U.S. illegally.
Johnson’s fight with Collins is just one skirmish in the broader war over America’s border.
The Biden administration has left the border wide open, and now under President Trump’s return, Republicans are fighting to fix the mess.
Johnson’s critics in the liberal press called his remarks “false,” but his allies called it “truth bombs.”
“We are not going to bend to their demands,” Johnson said firmly.
BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED…
Representative Anna Paulina Luna has leveled explosive information against the Biden Department of Justice, claiming that critical materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have been deliberately destroyed.
This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.
Luna, who chairs a congressional task force focused on federal transparency, has stated unequivocally that she possesses evidence implicating high-ranking officials in the DOJ.
According to her, these officials not only failed to disclose materials related to Epstein but actively destroyed them to conceal the extent of powerful individuals’ involvement in Epstein’s criminal network.
She introduced legislation titled the SHRED Act, aimed at imposing severe penalties on government agents who destroy or conceal federal records. The proposed bill calls for 20 years to life in prison for anyone caught eliminating evidence in cases of national significance.
“Even if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,” Luna told Fox News. “We have been more than patient.”
These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein’s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.
Luna’s office has reportedly sent multiple requests to the Department of Justice demanding clarity on the handling of Epstein-related materials. So far, those inquiries have been met with either vague responses or complete silence.
The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ’s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.
“The Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,” Luna said. “This is corruption at the highest level.”
Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. “Had this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,” one conservative commentator noted.
For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America’s elite circles. The financier’s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.
Now, Luna’s allegations breathe new life into those concerns. If records were indeed destroyed, the implications are profound. It would mean that the DOJ, under Biden, actively shielded criminals from justice.
What’s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals—politicians, celebrities, and global financiers—who participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
In this context, Luna’s SHRED Act isn’t just legislative symbolism. It is a clarion call for accountability in an era marked by elite impunity. Her bill seeks to ensure that future officials think twice before erasing truth from the historical record.
Despite Luna’s repeated calls for transparency, there has been no formal response from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The silence speaks volumes to many who believe the DOJ is stonewalling on purpose.
Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers have rallied behind Luna. A growing number of Republicans in the House and Senate are voicing support for investigations into the DOJ’s handling of Epstein evidence.
Some have even floated the idea of appointing a special counsel to probe the matter independently. Given the stakes, such a move may be the only path forward to restore public confidence.
This latest scandal further erodes the credibility of an already battered Department of Justice. From the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco to the political targeting of conservatives, the agency has been repeatedly accused of partisanship.
Now, with Epstein documents allegedly destroyed, the DOJ’s credibility is in tatters. Public trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
The American people deserve the truth. And if Luna’s allegations are accurate, they deserve justice, no matter how high the guilty parties sit.
The Supreme Court has cleared the path for the Trump administration to deport a group of immigrants held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan.
The order came less than two weeks after the high court temporarily stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, whose order barred the federal government from deporting immigrants to “third countries”—those not explicitly named in their removal orders—without first ensuring, through a series of safeguards, that the individuals would not face torture upon deportation.
Murphy’s May 21 ruling found that the government violated his April 18 order by attempting to deport eight men to South Sudan. The U.S. has evacuated all non-emergency personnel from South Sudan, and the State Department advises against travel there due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”
The flight carrying the immigrants bound for South Sudan instead landed in nearby Djibouti, where the men have since been held at a U.S. military base.
On May 27, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to stay Murphy’s April 18 order, seeking permission to proceed with “third country” removals while the legal battle over the practice unfolds.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that Murphy’s “judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process” and “disrupt[ing] sensitive diplomatic, foreign policy, and national-security efforts.”
Lawyers representing the immigrants facing potential third-country removals urged the justices to uphold Murphy’s order. They emphasized that the government could still proceed with these deportations, but Murphy’s order “simply requires” the Trump administration “to comply with the law” in doing so.
Several hours after the Supreme Court responded to the Trump administration’s first request, made on June 23, Murphy then claimed that his May 21 order remained unaffected by the high court’s decision.
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court the following day, requesting that the justices clarify the federal government’s authority to proceed with deporting the immigrants currently held in Djibouti. Sauer urged the court to act swiftly to address what he called Murphy’s “unprecedented defiance” of the court’s authority.
In Thursday’s brief, an unsigned 7-2 opinion, the majority indicated that the court’s “June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
Two of the Supreme Court’s liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, while the third liberal, Justice Elena Kagan, sided with the court’s conservative majority.
She noted that she had previously disagreed with the Supreme Court’s original ruling permitting third-country removals to proceed. “But a majority of this court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed,” she wrote.
The eight illegal immigrants include individuals from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, reports noted.
Sotomayor’s dissent contended that “[w]hat the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death.”
She argued that the court should not have considered the government’s request at all, as the government should have made its arguments in the lower courts first. Moreover, she suggested that the Supreme Court’s “continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing to properly divine their import, is indefensible.”