Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, a refugee from Somalia, believes that the United States of America, the nation where her family fled, is becoming one of the worst countries in the world, yet she chooses to stay.
In a recent interview with Democracy Now, Omar pointed out that U.S. troops were sent to put down protests in Los Angeles during the same week the Trump administration held a massive military parade to celebrate 250 years of the U.S. Army.
“Can you imagine that image that is going to be coming out of our country? I mean, I grew up in a dictatorship, and I don’t even remember ever witnessing anything like that,” the representative said, referring to Somalia.
“To have a democracy, a beacon of hope for the world, to now be turned into one of the, you know, one of the worst countries, where the military are in our streets without any regard for people’s constitutional rights, while our president’s spending millions of dollars propping himself up like a failed dictator with a military parade — it is really shocking,” she said.
“It should be a wake-up call for all Americans to say, ‘This is not the country we were born in. It’s not the country we believe in. This is not the country our Founding Fathers imagined, and this is not the country that is supported by our Constitution, our ideals, our values,’” the woman, who was not actually born in the United States, said.
“And we should all collectively be out in the streets, rejecting what is taking place this week,” she said.
“I think the person who is in the process of destroying our country should look in the mirror and that’s Trump,” she said. “And notice that he is the one that has hatred for the values that we have here in America and everything that we have built. The reality is protest, dissent, is constitutionally protected that is everybody’s First Amendment right in this country.”
The Minnesota Democrat and Squad member faced immediate backlash on X for her comments.
“She wasn’t born here at all,” one X user said.
“The hyperbole here is appalling, made worse by her astounding ingratitude,” Fox News contributor Guy Benson said.
“[I]f people are seriously offended by a parade for the first time in decades, then go outside and touch some grass,” OutKick contributor David Hookstead said. “We have the greatest military on the planet, and we shouldn’t ever apologize for it. After all, our men died to try to protect innocent lives in Somalia. I guess that sacrifice just doesn’t matter to Congresswoman Omar.”
“I will never understand immigrants who come to America, utilize every opportunity this country offers, and then complain about and bash this country. Can we have Ilhan Omar deported?” another X user said.
“When elected leaders like Rep Ilhan Omar claim the US is the worst country on the planet they’re calling for violence against the legitimate government,” another said.
“We have a major problem. We’re not a single Republican in Congress is demanding her resignation. And we wonder why Congress has yet to codify President Trump’s executive orders, stop broke judges and passed the America first agenda. Trump works 24 seven and Republicans sit back and play footsie with these terrorists in the Democrat party,” another user said.
“There’s literally nothing stopping Omar from leaving if she isn’t happy here…because we’re a free country. Unlike the Somalia she idealizes!” another said.
She has currently not announced any plans to leave the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court provided another victory for President Donald Trump on Tuesday, facilitating his executive order aimed at reducing the oversized federal government through extensive layoffs across various agencies.
In an unsigned ruling, the justices overturned a lower court’s decision that had prevented the president’s February 13 directive, which called for “large-scale reductions in force.” This injunction originated from Judge Susan Illston, who was appointed by Clinton in Northern California. However, the Supreme Court stated that her ruling was based on her personal interpretation of the order’s legality, rather than on the actual reorganization plans, which were not even presented to the court, as reported by The New York Post.
“Given that the Government is likely to prevail on its assertion that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful — and considering that the other factors relevant to granting a stay are met — we approve the application,” the court stated.
Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, known for her liberal stance, concurred with the majority in granting the stay, although she clarified that she was not supporting the downsizing initiative itself—merely that it was premature to obstruct it.
“I concur with the Court’s stay because it allows the District Court to address those issues initially,” she noted. “The plans themselves are not currently before this Court at this time.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the ruling and asserting that it could result in “mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as established by Congress.”
She contended that Trump required congressional consent before proceeding with such measures, stating, “According to our Constitution, Congress possesses the authority to create administrative agencies and define their functions.”
However, the majority of the court disagreed. They concluded that the administration was acting within its rights to commence the implementation of the president’s strategy.
The action is part of a larger initiative by the Trump administration aimed at reducing the size of government and enhancing efficiency. The Department of Government Efficiency—previously headed by Elon Musk—has been managing the transition.
Labor unions and progressive organizations had filed lawsuits to halt the initiative, which would impact personnel at essential agencies such as Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, the Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, the EPA, among others.
Attorney General Pam Bondi commended the ruling, stating on X: “Today, the Supreme Court prevented lawless lower courts from limiting President Trump’s power over federal personnel — yet another Supreme Court triumph thanks to [Justice Department] lawyers.”
“Now, federal agencies can achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency,” she continued.
This ruling contributes to the remarkable two months the president has experienced at the Supreme Court.
His most recent success in June involved the court agreeing to hear a Republican-led challenge to U.S. campaign finance laws that restrict the amount of money political parties can expend on behalf of particular candidates.
The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was initially presented to the court by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and two Senate Republican candidates who were campaigning at that time, including the current Vice President JD Vance.
The case addresses whether federal restrictions on campaign spending by political parties infringe upon free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Petitioners urged the Supreme Court to examine the matter, asserting that the spending restrictions “significantly hinder political party committees from exercising their First Amendment rights: to fully associate with and advocate for their candidates for federal office.”
New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani (D) has shifted his stance on the controversial phrase “globalize the intifada,” saying he would now “discourage” its use. Speaking on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, Mamdani said his change of heart came after a conversation with a rabbi who associated the phrase with past terrorist attacks in Israel.
Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist and leading candidate to replace Mayor Eric Adams, acknowledged a “gap in intent” between how the phrase is used by some to protest Israeli occupation and how it is received by many in the Jewish community as a violent threat. He emphasized the importance of representing all New Yorkers, saying his role as mayor would be to understand and bridge differing perspectives.
The American Jewish Committee has defined the phrase as a call for “aggressive resistance against Israel.” Mamdani’s comments Sunday mark a departure from June, when he told NBC’s Meet the Press the phrase was “not language that I use,” but also said it wasn’t his role to “police” speech.
Mamdani’s updated position was first reported in July by The New York Times after a private meeting. Since then, he has tried to balance progressive support with broader electoral appeal, especially in a city with large and politically diverse Jewish and Arab communities.
Over the weekend, Mamdani campaigned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who criticized billionaire Elon Musk’s wealth during a Brooklyn town hall. Mamdani has also promoted a plan for city-run grocery stores, which he defended in a CNN interview on Friday.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), typically known for his calm, measured demeanor, erupted in frustration on the Senate floor Wednesday, accusing Democrats of prolonging the government shutdown and using social welfare programs as political leverage.
Thune’s rare display of anger came during a heated exchange over legislation to temporarily fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food aid to low-income families.
Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), pushed for a standalone bill to keep SNAP benefits flowing as the shutdown approached its 30th day.
Thune fired back, noting that Republicans had already voted 13 times to reopen the government, only to be blocked by Senate Democrats.
“Let me just point out, if I might, that we are 29 days into a Democrat shutdown,” Thune said, his voice rising. “SNAP recipients shouldn’t go without food. People should be getting paid in this country. And we’ve tried to do that 13 times. You voted no 13 times.”
New York politics has once again erupted into controversy as Governor Kathy Hochul pledged to direct a staggering $50 million of taxpayer funds toward providing legal assistance to illegal immigrants facing deportation.The announcement, made Tuesday at a hastily arranged press conference following the detainment of a suspected illegal immigrant by federal agents, underscores how deeply divided America remains over immigration policy.For many New Yorkers already burdened by record-high taxes and economic uncertainty, the move signals a government more interested in shielding noncitizens than supporting struggling residents.
For many New Yorkers already burdened by record-high taxes and economic uncertainty, the move signals a government more interested in shielding noncitizens than supporting struggling residents.The governor’s press conference came hours after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained an illegal immigrant in New York City, an incident that quickly escalated into political theater.Comptroller Brad Lander, also a Democratic candidate for mayor, was briefly arrested after physically blocking ICE agents from carrying out their duties. Reports indicate Lander linked arms with the detainee, refusing to move until officers forced him aside, threw him to the ground, and placed him in handcuffs.
He was later released without charges, but the images—an elected official obstructing immigration enforcement—quickly spread across national media.Hochul framed her $50 million budget pledge as a humanitarian necessity. “Walking out of this courthouse, taken away from their families, they don’t have the attention.
They don’t have the lawyers,” she said. “That’s why the state of New York is providing $50 million to cover legal services for people who are finding themselves in this situation.”Her announcement was met with applause from immigrant advocacy groups and outrage from critics who view the measure as an open endorsement of lawlessness.This is not the first time New York has diverted resources toward migrants. According to CBS News, the state has already spent over $7.5 billion since 2022 managing the ongoing migrant crisis.This includes emergency housing, healthcare, education, and welfare benefits for tens of thousands of new arrivals overwhelming city and state systems.
Projections from city officials suggest that costs could soar to another $12 billion in the next three years without federal relief, according to Bloomberg.Mayor Eric Adams, despite being a fellow Democrat, has sharply criticized the Biden administration for its weak border enforcement and expansive asylum programs, which he says have driven New York to the breaking point.The $50 million legal-aid pledge comes on top of $10 million already allocated by state lawmakers in previous years to assist immigrants with legal representation.That earlier line item was seen by many as politically motivated, particularly after the Trump administration launched a probe into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud.
Brad Lander’s arrest immediately became fodder for his mayoral campaign. His team released footage of the incident, casting him as a defender of immigrant families and positioning him against federal agents loyal to Trump’s mass deportation agenda.On Wednesday, a poll from The New York Times showed Lander tightening the race with former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who remains the frontrunner to secure the Democratic nomination for mayor.Nationally, Lander’s dramatic confrontation echoed similar actions by other Democrats. Just last week, Senator Alex Padilla of California was arrested after disrupting a Department of Homeland Security press conference, lying handcuffed on the ground as cameras rolled.
Padilla’s allies denounced the scene as heavy-handed, while Trump’s supporters saw it as proof Democrats are willing to risk public safety to grandstand against immigration enforcement.To critics, Hochul’s move epitomizes the dysfunction of Democratic governance. They argue that with state budgets strained, schools underperforming, and infrastructure in need of repair, funneling $50 million to protect illegal immigrants is reckless and irresponsible.“Every dollar spent defending someone who broke the law to come here is a dollar stolen from working New Yorkers who play by the rules,” one conservative policy analyst remarked. “This is not compassion—it’s betrayal.”Republican leaders have already signaled that Hochul’s budget item will become a centerpiece of their campaigns, both in New York and nationally. They argue that Democrats are openly prioritizing illegal immigrants over citizens, a message they believe resonates strongly with frustrated voters.Former President Donald Trump has loomed large over these developments. His administration spearheaded strict immigration enforcement and criticized sanctuary policies in cities like New York.
Today, Trump and his allies continue to frame the migrant crisis as proof of Democratic failure, accusing leaders like Hochul of incentivizing illegal immigration with taxpayer-funded benefits.The imagery of Democratic officials physically blocking ICE agents feeds directly into Trump’s narrative. It reinforces the idea that blue-state leaders are actively undermining federal law enforcement to protect noncitizens, while citizens shoulder the cost.Trump supporters argue that if his policies had remained in place, New York would not be facing a $7.5 billion migrant bill, nor would state leaders be scrambling to justify funneling another $50 million into legal-aid programs for people who should not be in the country to begin with.
Supporters of Hochul’s decision frame the issue differently. They argue that immigrants, regardless of status, deserve legal representation when facing life-altering deportation proceedings. Without attorneys, many may be separated from families or sent back to dangerous environments.Immigrant advocacy organizations hailed Hochul’s move as a bold step, emphasizing that access to legal aid drastically improves the chances of immigrants successfully navigating asylum or residency claims. For them, the issue is about human dignity and fairness in the justice system.The controversy ultimately reflects a larger clash of values in American politics. For Democrats like Hochul and Lander, protecting immigrants—even those here illegally—is a moral imperative, one that justifies large public expenditures.For Republicans and Trump supporters, the issue is about sovereignty, fairness, and the rule of law. They argue that resources should go to citizens first, and that rewarding illegal immigration with taxpayer-funded benefits creates perverse incentives.This clash is not new, but the stakes are growing as migrant arrivals strain city services to the breaking point. New York, like other blue states, is caught between progressive values and fiscal reality.
Governor Kathy Hochul’s announcement of $50 million in taxpayer-funded legal aid for illegal immigrants marks a new flashpoint in the immigration debate. Coming on the heels of dramatic confrontations between Democratic officials and federal immigration agents, the move symbolizes both the compassion and the chaos of current Democratic immigration policy.To her supporters, Hochul is standing up for vulnerable families and ensuring fairness in the courts. To her critics, she is diverting scarce resources away from citizens to subsidize lawlessness.At a time when New York faces billions in projected costs and an increasingly frustrated electorate, the question is whether voters will embrace Hochul’s vision of compassion—or whether they will rally behind Trump’s call for law, order, and prioritization of American citizens.