President Trump on Thursday urged Senate Republicans to invoke the “nuclear option” — a rules change that would allow legislation to pass with a simple majority vote — in order to bring an end to the 30-day government shutdown.
“It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” the president wrote in a long Truth Social post.
Trump wrote that during his whirlwind Asia trip this week, “the one question that kept coming up, however, was how did the Democrats SHUT DOWN the United States of America, and why did the powerful Republicans allow them to do it?”
“The fact is, in flying back, I thought a great deal about that question, WHY?” Trump wrote.
“Majority Leader John Thune, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, are doing a GREAT job, but the Democrats are Crazed Lunatics that have lost all sense of WISDOM and REALITY,” he argued. “It is a sick form of the now ‘legendary’ Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) that only comes from losing too much.”
Trump also claimed that Democratic demands to reopen the government, such as $1.5 trillion in new spending that will include healthcare funds that will go to illegal aliens, “will hurt American citizens, and Republicans will not let it happen.”
The 60-vote threshold required to advance legislation in the Senate has blocked Republicans from moving forward with a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government at pre-shutdown levels. Since federal funding expired on Oct. 1, all but three Senate Democrats have voted against the Trump-backed measure more than a dozen times.
Republicans currently need five additional votes to move the bill ahead, the New York Post reported.
“Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona,” Trump wrote, referring to a previous Dem-led effort to undo the legislative filibuster. “Never have the Democrats fought so hard to do something because they knew the tremendous strength that terminating the Filibuster would give them.”
Trump correctly observed that Senate Democrats would brazenly move to “substantially expand (PACK!) the United States Supreme Court, make Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico States (Thereby automatically picking up 4 Senate seats, many House seats, and at least 8 Electoral Votes!), and many other highly destructive things” if they could pass legislation by a simple majority.
“Well, now WE are in power, and if we did what we should be doing, it would IMMEDIATELY end this ridiculous, Country destroying ‘SHUT DOWN,’” Trump asserted.
In addition to ending what has become known as the “Schumer Shutdown,” after Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, Trump pointed to “all of the other things we would get” without the legislative filibuster, “such as the best Judges, the best US Attorneys, the best of everything.”
“[T]his was a concept from years ago of then President Barack Hussein Obama and former Majority Leader Harry Reid in order to take advantage of the Republicans. Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats….” he added.
Then, in a separate Truth Social post, Trump wrote: “BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE STONE COLD ‘CRAZY,’ THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) reaffirmed his commitment to preserving the filibuster back in January, when Republicans assumed control of the Senate.
Earlier this month, Thune rejected the idea of invoking the nuclear option to end the shutdown, saying he had not held any discussions with the White House about pursuing that strategy.
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.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, has not only shocked the nation but also ignited fierce political debate. While many leaders have condemned the violence and offered condolences, former President Barack Obama’s response has drawn sharp criticism from conservative commentators who view his statement as inadequate and “tone deaf.”
At the same time, the FBI confirmed new details about the Utah shooting, describing it as a “targeted attack” carried out from a rooftop vantage point. With the suspect still at large, law enforcement is appealing to the public for information as the political blame game intensifies.
Following news of Charlie Kirk’s death, Obama released a statement condemning the act of violence and offering prayers for Kirk’s family. His words were measured, emphasizing unity in the face of tragedy and warning against escalating tensions.
“Violence has no place in our democracy. My thoughts and prayers are with Charlie Kirk’s wife, children, and loved ones during this devastating time,” Obama said.
While some applauded the sentiment, critics argued that the statement failed to acknowledge what they see as the broader climate of hostility toward conservatives.
One of the loudest voices of criticism came from Fox News host Clay Travis, who argued that Obama and other Democrats have helped create a toxic environment by repeatedly portraying Trump supporters as dangerous or extremist.
“When Democrats and media figures spend years comparing Trump voters to Nazis, calling them threats to democracy, and demonizing their values, it’s not surprising when extremists feel emboldened to act out violently,” Travis said during his broadcast.
Conservatives online echoed these sentiments, accusing Obama of deflecting responsibility and failing to confront the political rhetoric they believe contributed to the assassination.
Democratic leaders quickly rejected these claims. Senator Elizabeth Warren dismissed the argument that Democratic messaging had fueled the climate leading to Kirk’s death.
When pressed by reporters, Warren countered:
“Why don’t you start with the President? Donald Trump has a long record of using divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. Pointing fingers at Democrats for this tragedy is not only unhelpful — it’s dishonest.”
Her remarks reflect a widening divide between the parties over how to interpret the assassination and who should be held accountable for the environment in which it occurred.
While political debate raged, the FBI and Utah authorities provided crucial updates on the investigation.
According to Beau Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, the shooter arrived on the Utah Valley University campus shortly before noon on September 10. Investigators believe the gunman made his way through stairwells inside the Losee Center, climbed to the roof, and established a position overlooking the courtyard where Kirk was speaking.
From this elevated vantage point, the assailant fired a single shot, striking Kirk in the neck. The crowd of nearly 3,000 attendees erupted into panic, with eyewitnesses describing screams, confusion, and a desperate scramble for safety.
After the attack, the suspect reportedly fled across the roof, jumped down into a nearby neighborhood, and disappeared.
“We are confident this was a targeted act. The shooter wore dark clothing and blended in with the campus environment,” Mason said. “We have good video footage tracking his movements, and we are doing everything in our power to locate him.”
In a significant development, the FBI confirmed they have recovered the suspected weapon used in the assassination.
Special Agent Robert Bohls revealed that the firearm, believed to be a high-powered bolt-action rifle, was discovered abandoned in a wooded area near the campus. The rifle has been sent to FBI laboratories for ballistic testing.
“We believe this weapon matches the round used in the assassination,” Bohls explained. “Our forensic teams are working diligently to analyze the rifle for fingerprints, DNA, and other evidence that could lead us directly to the shooter.”
Former President Donald Trump, a close ally of Kirk, responded emotionally to the news of the assassination and directed his criticism squarely at Democrats.
On his Truth Social account, Trump wrote:
“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”
Trump later added that “radical Left rhetoric” had created the environment that led to Kirk’s assassination, fueling further partisan debate.
The assassination has reignited concerns about the rising risk of politically motivated violence in the United States. Kirk’s death comes at a time of heightened polarization, where rhetoric on both sides has often been accused of escalating tensions rather than easing them.
Experts note that targeted attacks on high-profile political figures are rare but deeply destabilizing when they occur. The FBI confirmed that this incident is being investigated as a political assassination — language that underscores the gravity of the act.
While leaders spar over rhetoric, others have urged Americans to take a step back from partisan finger-pointing. Political analysts argue that the focus should remain on bringing the shooter to justice and ensuring greater security at public events.
Community leaders in Utah have also called for calm, emphasizing that residents must come together in grief and resilience rather than succumb to further division.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has not only taken the life of a prominent and controversial political activist but also deepened the nation’s political fault lines. Obama’s response, intended as a condemnation of violence, has instead become a flashpoint in an already polarized debate, drawing harsh criticism from conservatives and spirited defense from Democrats.
Meanwhile, the FBI’s confirmation of a “breakthrough” in the investigation — including recovered video footage and the suspected weapon — provides hope that the shooter will soon be brought to justice.
As America mourns Kirk’s death, the question remains: will this tragedy serve as a catalyst for unity against political violence, or will it become yet another battleground in an increasingly divided nation?