U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has issued a direct warning to California officials and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over their threats to impede federal immigration enforcement and arrest ICE agents.
In a formal letter sent Thursday, Blanche told Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and Pelosi that federal officers are lawfully executing their duties, and any attempt to interfere is both “illegal and futile.”
The extraordinary letter follows public remarks from Pelosi and Rep. Kevin Mullin, who on Wednesday threatened to arrest federal agents if they violated California law during an anticipated immigration raid in the Bay Area.
Pelosi and Mullin accused the Trump administration of “abusing law enforcement power” and claimed that President Donald Trump’s agents could face state prosecution.
Reports of a planned mass immigration raid in the Bay Area are an appalling abuse of law enforcement power,” Pelosi and Mullin said in their joint statement. “While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. … The people of San Francisco will continue to stand with the patriotic immigrants who are the constant reinvigoration of America.”
Blanche responded swiftly, posting on X that his office had sent the letter ordering California Democrats to stand down.
“We just sent them a letter: Stand down or face prosecution,” Blanche wrote. “No one threatens our agents. No one will stop us from Making America Safe Again.”
Reports of a planned mass immigration raid in the Bay Area are an appalling abuse of law enforcement power,” Pelosi and Mullin said in their joint statement. “While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. … The people of San Francisco will continue to stand with the patriotic immigrants who are the constant reinvigoration of America.”
Blanche responded swiftly, posting on X that his office had sent the letter ordering California Democrats to stand down.
“We just sent them a letter: Stand down or face prosecution,” Blanche wrote. “No one threatens our agents. No one will stop us from Making America Safe Again.”
We urge you and other California officials to publicly abandon this apparent criminal conspiracy, to stop threatening law enforcement, and to prioritize the safety of your citizens,” Blanche wrote.
The dispute marks one of the sharpest confrontations yet between the Trump administration and California officials, who have long clashed with federal authorities over immigration enforcement.
Pelosi’s statement drew outrage among conservatives, who accused her of inciting resistance to federal law. Supporters, however, defended her remarks as a stand for state sovereignty and immigrant rights.
Federal officials have not disclosed details of the planned operation in the Bay Area, though sources familiar with the matter told several outlets that the enforcement action could target sanctuary jurisdictions accused of harboring criminal non-citizens.
As of Friday morning, neither Newsom’s office nor the California Attorney General’s office had issued a public response to the DOJ warning.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller went on a tear during a Friday evening appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” program following the senseless assassination of conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk earlier in the week.
Miller told host Sean Hannity that the murder will lead to an all-out effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to root out and “dismantle” left-wing “domestic terrorists” who he believes are responsible for fomenting violence and attacks against right-leaning groups and individuals.
His remarks come on the heels of the arrest of Tyler Robinson, 22, of Utah, who investigators believe holds left-wing views and may have become radicalized in recent years to the point of allegedly committing the murder.
Miller specifically blamed violent rhetoric coming from members of the Democratic Party, several of whom have referred to the president as “Hitler” and his supporters as “facists” and “threats to democracy” for years.
“The Democrat Party, its pundits, its allies, the educators, for 10 years have waged a campaign of eliminationist rhetoric against President Trump, against Republicans, against MAGA, against Trump officials. It has been willful and deliberate, Sean. The rhetoric that you played, the messages that you played in that clip are the same exact rhetoric and messages that are used by the assassins, that are used by the two assassins who tried to kill Donald Trump, that are used by the assassin who claimed the life of my friend, an American hero, Charlie Kirk. This is willful and deliberate radicalization,” Miller began.
“They know what they’re doing. Our universities, in many cases, have become incubators for extremism. They’ve become the equivalent of madrasas for jihadism. There is a domestic terrorism movement in this country. When you see these organized doxing campaigns where the left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil, says they have to be removed, and then prints their addresses, what do you think they’re trying to do? They are trying to inspire someone to murder them,” he said.
“That is their objective. That is their intent. And when you see online, Sean, as we’ve seen for the last few days, tape after tape after tape of federal workers, bureaucrats, staffers in the Pentagon, educators, professors, healthcare workers, nurses celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk — these are radicalized people. There is a domestic terrorism movement in this country,” Miller continued before sharing a personal anedote from Kirk shortly before he was killed.
“The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his Creator in heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. That was the last message that he sent me before that assassin stole him from all of us. And we are going to do that,” said Miller.
Under President Trump’s leadership, I don’t care how — it could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection, but we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence. It has to stop,” he continued.
“And my message is to all of the domestic terrorists in this country spreading this evil hate: You want us to live in fear? We will not live in fear. But you will live in exile. Because the power of law enforcement under President Trump’s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you’ve broken the law, to take away your freedom,” Miller vowed.
The debate over Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris has escalated following President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke her security detail.Democrats have loudly protested the move, calling it dangerous and politically motivated. But Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) cut through the noise with a simple reminder of precedent: “Former VP Mike Pence lost his secret service detail six months after he left office which is standard. Why should Kamala Harris be treated different?”His question goes straight to the heart of the issue. The United States has a long-standing practice when it comes to post-office protection for presidents and vice presidents.While former presidents retain lifetime Secret Service protection, vice presidents are typically given security for a limited period after leaving office. The suggestion that
Harris deserves an exception reveals not a concern for security, but a blatant double standard fueled by partisan politics.
From Trump’s perspective, this is about restoring fairness, consistency, and common sense to how Secret Service protection is handled. Harris should be treated the same as her predecessors, not elevated to special status simply because she is a Democrat.Historically, vice presidents do not receive indefinite Secret Service protection. After leaving office, their detail continues for a limited period, generally six months, before being withdrawn.This ensures that immediate threats during their transition back to private life are addressed, but it also reflects the reality that vice presidents do not carry the same symbolic or strategic significance as presidents.Mike Pence is the most recent example. He served as Donald Trump’s vice president from 2017 to 2021. Six months after leaving office, Pence’s Secret Service detail was withdrawn, exactly as the law prescribes.
No Democratic leaders at the time called foul. No one insisted Pence deserved indefinite protection. The policy was applied fairly, and Pence accepted it as part of the transition out of public service.Now, however, Democrats are demanding that Harris be given a privilege Pence never received. Their sudden concern has nothing to do with precedent and everything to do with politics.The Secret Service is tasked with protecting current and former presidents, their spouses, current vice presidents, and certain other high-ranking officials. Its resources are not unlimited. Every additional detail requires agents, vehicles, and logistical support.Expanding Harris’s protection indefinitely not only deviates from standard policy but also drains resources that could be dedicated to those truly at risk—such as current officeholders and sitting presidents.
Trump’s decision to revoke Harris’s protection is not vindictive; it is a recognition that resources must be allocated according to law, precedent, and need, not political favoritism.Democrats’ outrage over this decision exposes how little they respect these constraints. To them, Harris deserves special treatment regardless of tradition or fairness. But in reality, Secret Service resources should be deployed where they are needed most, not where they serve partisan optics.Harris’s defenders argue that, as the first female and first African-American vice president, she faces unique threats that justify extended protection. While it is true that high-profile political figures often receive security consideration, precedent matters.If every “historic” vice president were granted indefinite protection, the system would collapse under the weight of exceptions.
Moreover, Harris remains a prominent public figure, with the ability to hire private security just like any other former official. Nothing prevents her from taking measures to ensure her safety.But she is no longer in office, no longer wielding executive authority, and no longer entitled to Secret Service protection beyond the standard period.The precedent is clear: Mike Pence lost his detail six months after leaving office. Joe Biden, when he served as vice president under Barack Obama, also lost his detail after the designated time period. Harris is not entitled to a different standard simply because her party currently controls the Democratic establishment.For President Trump, the issue is not personal animus toward Harris but consistency in applying the law. If Pence was required to transition away from Secret Service protection, then Harris must do the same. Anything less undermines the credibility of the system and further politicizes what should be an impartial process.Democrats accuse Trump of playing politics, but in reality, they are the ones injecting politics into the discussion. They demand exceptions for Harris not based on principle, but because she is one of their own.
Trump is simply applying the rules equally, ensuring that all vice presidents—Republican or Democrat—are treated the same.This is the essence of fairness. Rules do not change depending on who holds the office. Standards must be upheld regardless of political affiliation. Trump’s decision reflects a return to that fairness, rejecting the Democratic impulse to make Harris an exception.The hypocrisy is glaring. When Mike Pence’s Secret Service protection expired, Democrats were silent. When Biden lost his protection as vice president in 2017, they said nothing. Only now, when Harris is affected, do they cry foul.
This selective outrage reveals the true motive: politics, not principle. Democrats do not care about precedent or fairness; they care only about shielding Harris from accountability and presenting her as a victim of Trump’s supposed cruelty. But the facts show otherwise. Trump’s decision is rooted in law, precedent, and equal application of standards.Senator Jim Banks captured this perfectly: “Why should Kamala Harris be treated different?” The answer is simple: she should not.Ordinary Americans understand the importance of fairness and consistency. They see through the political theater. To them, the question is simple: if Pence and Biden lost their detail after six months, why should Harris be any different?Public opinion polls have consistently shown that Americans are tired of double standards in politics. Whether it’s law enforcement, free speech, or now Secret Service protection, people want rules that apply equally to everyone.
rump’s decision resonates with this desire for fairness. By revoking Harris’s detail, he is standing up for a principle that transcends partisanship: equal treatment under the law.At its core, the debate over Harris’s Secret Service detail is not about security—it is about entitlement. Harris’s allies insist she deserves indefinite protection because of her “historic” status.But security should never be doled out based on political symbolism. It must be based on objective need, legal precedent, and the efficient use of limited resources.Trump’s critics argue that the revocation puts Harris at risk. But Harris, like all former officials, has the means to hire private security. The Secret Service was never intended to serve as a permanent taxpayer-funded security force for every former vice president. To claim otherwise is to turn a public service into a political perk.
Trump’s decision on Harris’s security detail is more than a bureaucratic adjustment—it is a message. It signals that under his leadership, government will not bend to political favoritism. Standards will be upheld, even when Democrats scream in protest.This approach is consistent with Trump’s broader message of restoring law, order, and fairness. Whether on immigration, federal spending, or crime policy,Trump has consistently emphasized the need to enforce rules evenly and reject special treatment. The Harris case is just the latest example of Trump applying that principle in practice.The uproar over Kamala Harris’s Secret Service protection reveals the deep double standard in American politics. Democrats who were silent when Mike Pence and Joe Biden lost their details now demand indefinite protection for Harris. Their outrage is not about safety; it is about politics.Senator Jim Banks was right to call out the hypocrisy: “Why should Kamala Harris be treated different?” The answer is clear—she should not. President Trump’s decision to revoke her Secret Service protection is consistent with precedent, fair in principle, and a necessary step to ensure resources are allocated responsibly.In the end, this is not about Harris herself. It is about whether America will apply rules equally or allow politics to create exceptions. Trump has made his choice clear: fairness and consistency must prevail.Harris, like every other former vice president, is subject to the same standard. Anything else would undermine the rule of law.
For Trump and his supporters, this is not cruelty—it is justice. It is a reminder that in America, no one is above the rules, not even Kamala Harris.
Former President Barack Obama opened up about his marriage amid divorce rumors. Speaking to students at Hamilton College on Thursday, he said wittily that he’s working to recover from a “deep deficit” in his marriage to Michelle.
“I was in a deep deficit with my wife,” he said. “So I have been trying to dig myself out of that hole by doing occasionally fun things.”
The buzz around their separation spread so far that some media outlets claimed Barack Obama was dating Friends‘ star Jennifer Aniston. The actress, however, denied the rumors during an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, saying she has only met the former president once.
Previously, Barack Obama hinted about how his presidency affected his relationship to his wife.
“Let me just say this: It sure helps to be out of the White House and to have a little more time with her,” he said in an interview on CBS Mornings in 2023.
Michelle has also opened up about the rumors. Speaking on her podcast, IMO, which she co-hosts with her brother Craig Robinson, the former first lady said, “Barack, you know, he had to adjust to what ‘on time’ was for me.”
“You know, I’ve got this husband who’s like, when it’s time to leave, it’s 3, he’s getting up and going to the bathroom,” she added.
“And I was like, dude, dude, a 3 o’clock departure means you’ve done all that, you know? It’s like, don’t start looking for your glasses, you know, at the 3 o’clock departure.”
Michelle also opened up about her life after her daughters have moved out.
“[Life] is whatever I want, Sophia, It’s whatever I want,” she said, adding that life of an “empty nester” is liberating.
“It’s the first time in my life all of my choices are for me,” she said on Sophia Bush’s podcast, Work in Progress.
“That’s the thing that we as women, I think… we struggle with disappointing people. I mean, so much so, that this year people were… they couldn’t even fathom that I was making a choice for myself that they had to assume that my husband and I are divorcing,” she explained.
Former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are addressing rumors about a divorce head-on in an episode of her podcast released Wednesday.
“She took me back!” Barack Obama said on the “IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson” podcast. “It was touch and go for a while.”
Speculation about the former first couple’s marriage has run rampant in recent months. Some of the rumors picked up steam after several public appearances where Michelle Obama did not join her husband, including President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January.
“It’s so nice to have you both in the same room together,” said Robinson, who is Michelle Obama’s brother, to the couple. Michelle responded, “I know because when we aren’t, folks think we’re divorced.”
Robinson recounted a story when a woman at an airport approached him to ask about their marriage. “‘What did he do?’” Robinson said she asked him.
“These are the kinds of things that I just miss,” Barack Obama said. “So I don’t even know this stuff’s going on and then somebody will mention it to me and I’m like what are you talking about?”
Michelle Obama continued on saying, “There hasn’t been one moment in our marriage where I’ve thought about quitting on my man. And we’ve had some really hard times and we’ve had a lot of fun times, a lot of adventures and I have become a better person because of the man I’m married to.”
The former first lady previously has addressed the speculation about her marriage and her decision not to attend Trump’s inauguration.
“My decision to skip the inauguration, what people don’t realize — or my decision to make choices at the beginning of this year that suited me were met with such ridicule and criticism,” she explained on an episode of her podcast earlier this year. “People couldn’t believe that I was saying no for any other reason that they had to assume that my marriage was falling apart.”
The Obamas married in 1992 and have two daughters, Malia and Sasha.
The former president, who was raised by a single mother, shared why he believes he would’ve had more difficulty raising a son than daughters.
“I think I might have been more judgmental, harder,” he said. “I like to think I would’ve been more self-aware, enough to combat that, but I just think father-son relationships, for me particularly, if I don’t have a dad around to show it to me might’ve been more difficult.”
Both Obamas also reflected on how parents and communities need to focus on nurturing young men and acknowledged the political shift seen with that group. Trump made inroads during the 2024 presidential election with appeals to younger men in particular, though he’s started to face criticism within the podcast “manosphere” since taking office.
“If you’re not thinking about what’s happening to boys and how they are being raised, then that can actually hurt women, and I would argue that some of the broad political trends we’ve seen not just in this country but around the world have to do with this sense of boys, men not feeling as if they are seen, feeling as if they count,” Barack Obama said.
He continued, “That then makes them more interested in appeals by folks who say, ‘You know what, the reason you don’t feel respected is because women have been doing this or this group has been doing this or that group’s been doing this.’ And that is not a healthy place to be.”
“We rightly have tried to invest in girls to make sure that there’s a level playing field and then they’re not barred from opportunities,” he added. “But we haven’t been as willing, I think, to be intentional about investing in the boys, and that’s been a mistake.”