Some sheriffs have sued their own states for jeopardizing safety by ignoring immigration laws, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said during an appearance on Breitbart News Daily.

The post Exclusive — Rep. Jim Jordan: Sheriffs Are Suing Their Own States over Sanctuary Policies Jeopardizing Safety appeared first on Breitbart.

Earlier today, President Trump launched America.Gov the one-stop website that streamlines government technological intersections with U.S. individuals who need services or information. Executive Order Here – FACT SHEET HERE – Website Link HERE REDESIGNING GOVERNMENT SERVICES FOR AMERICANS: Today, President Donald J. Trump launched America.gov, a single digital point of entry for Americans to access Federal […]

The post President Trump Launches “America.GOV” a Website for Everything Connected to Citizens and Government appeared first on The Last Refuge.

The Trump administration put some reasonable limits on federal student loans, and the Left is having a fit about it.

According to a Department of Education rule finalized in July, schools will now need to prove that their degrees are paying off for students to ensure that they remain eligible for federal funds.

The rule change was finalized in July but has only now gone viral. That’s likely because schools must report loan data at the beginning of October.

In my mind, the Trump administration’s policy is a necessary course correction. It’s especially important because of the explosion of direct student loans under President Barack Obama. America is awash in bad student loans that many young Americans struggle to pay off.

The administration’s policy change does two things.

One, it allows the federal government to be a better steward of taxpayer dollars. This is a very rare “W” on that front, let’s be honest.

Just as importantly, the new rule partially defunds both the institutions that are outright scamming students or are, even more perversely in my book, simply funding their unpopular ideological agenda through heaping helpings of public money.

Reasonable people may disagree about how much students are complicit in the explosion of student loan debt in America. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it isn’t merely because millennials and zoomers are just that much more irresponsible than their predecessors.

This system of vast student loan debt and government entanglement, and higher education’s benefit from it, was a product of conscious policy decisions.

The Trump administration clearly intends to unwind this nexus and put the government on sounder economic footing.

Some leftist politicians and the institutional Left have noticed and are predictably apoplectic.

Here’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on X braying about how this is about President Donald Trump’s “oligarchy, greed, and corruption.”

The left-wing New Republic went with an X headline that read, “Trump is banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money from taking out college loans.”

But that’s not true, as the Department of Education noted. The administration isn’t banning anything. It isn’t telling schools what programs to offer and which ones not to. It’s simply restricting taxpayer money from going to loans that are likely to end up underwater.

In a sense, they are protecting both the student and the taxpayer.

“Federal student loans are not a welfare program for failing college programs,” the department of Education wrote on X. “American students deserve education and training pathways that prepare them for the workforce—and transparency about programs that will never pay off.”

That’s right.

Funnily enough, even the Obama administration—which was generally happy to pump up the federal loan industry—considered a similar rule to keep cost and scams under control. Though it only wanted to go after “for-profit” colleges while letting their friends at big nonprofit universities off the hook, of course.

The New Republic’s contention that restricting taxpayer-backed loans “bans” students from certain majors does reveal a certain kind of toxic mentality common in big academia and among its media enablers. They think the taxpayer money faucet belongs to them by right, that the American people must fund not only student loans, but the institutions propped up by them.

It isn’t, and this Trump administration is the first White House in my lifetime that’s been willing to show them that’s not the case. Higher education is badly in need of a reckoning, across the board. For too long it has been monolithically ideological, racially discriminatory, negligent in its promises to students, and smugly detached from the American people who’ve unwittingly enabled them.

There’s your real source of “greed and corruption.”

What the Trump administration has done is to begin treating academia not as a kind of secular church, owed money just to exist, but as a public investment like any other.

If the American people are to continue subsidizing higher education, we should expect a return on that investment, and our political leaders should operate in our interest.

Now, economic growth may not be the primary purpose of our nation’s colleges and universities. A good education can and should be more than just an economic investment. But that burden of assessment belongs to the schools, not governments. There are a few very good ones that take no federal money at all and succeed tremendously, where parents and other benefactors are happy to continue their support.

Be more like Hillsdale, and your school will be just fine.

The federal government has become far too involved in this whole process. I’d argue that it’s ultimately weakened genuine education in America and made failed institutions increasingly unaccountable. It’s also caused college tuition to skyrocket.

The only way to fix that mess is to start putting restrictions on the loans and begin the process of narrowing the federal government’s interest in higher education as a whole.

The Left will hate it, the universities will squeal, but it must be done.

CANA — New research has suggested that the famous miracle of the water turned into wine at the wedding at Cana may have been undone soon thereafter, as Jesus witnessed guests doing the Electric Slide.

A healthy baby girl was surrendered to a Safe Haven Baby Box in Racine, Wisconsin on Sunday, officials said. 

The post Baby Girl Safely Surrendered to Wisconsin Baby Box appeared first on Breitbart.

Women’s sports advocate Riley Gaines confirmed that she plans to appeal her lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) over its policies regarding transgender-identifying athletes to the Supreme Court. In a post on X, Gaines responded to a post

The post Riley Gaines To Appeal Transgender Athlete Lawsuit Against NCAA to Supreme Court appeared first on Breitbart.

A pastoral letter that encourages Virginia voters to reject a pair of proposed amendments to the state constitution is going viral, with more than 200 signatures as of Tuesday morning, and more expected in the days ahead.

The letter asks Virginians to reject both Ballot Question 1, which would enshrine the right to an abortion into the state constitution, and Ballot Question 2, which would “remove the ban on same-sex marriage” in Virginia.

“We believe these two amendments must be rejected for the Commonwealth of Virginia because they will harm our state as they are opposed to human flourishing and contrary to the Word of God,” the pastors write in their open letter. “Let us seek one another’s true good and not mark our identity with the deprivations that these amendments would bring to the Constitution of Virginia.”

So far, the letter is limited to clergy. If it were available for laity to sign, one signer told the Daily Signal, it might garner thousands more signatures.

“We think it is important for pastors to speak with one voice to the state of Virginia,” Pastor Ben Purves of Occoquan Bible Church told the Daily Signal. “We’ve given our lives to care for communities in Virginia.”

The group that organized the letter checks the credentials of potential signers before posting their names, and it encourages pastors to share the letter with their congregations.

The letter is complementary to, and was inspired by, a high-profile “Catholics Vote No” campaign launched by Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Arlington. Burbidge asked priests in 70 parishes across Northern Virginia to read a letter at Mass that opposed the amendments. That effort built on a joint statement he issued in August with Richmond Bishop Barry Knestout.

While the Protestant pastors don’t have the same sort of hierarchy that the Catholic bishops were able to utilize, Purves said this letter is spreading through word of mouth as church leaders sign it and share it with fellow pastors across Virginia.

Three constitutional amendments appear on the ballot this year. In addition to the first two questions, the third proposal would restore the voting rights of felons as soon as they have completed their sentences.

All three amendments, plus one that was approved by voters in April but set aside by the state Supreme Court in May on a technicality, were placed on the ballot after being passed twice by the General Assembly, with the 2025 legislative election taking place in between those votes.

In their letter, the pastors expressed strong opposition to Ballot Question 1.

“It is moral distortion to present this violation of the Sixth Commandment as a moral good or as a fundamental right, and it is deceptive framing to present abortion’s destruction of life as healthcare,” the letter says. “Mothers should not destroy the life in their wombs, and medical professionals should care for every human life, especially the lives of the most vulnerable.”

As for Ballot Question 2, the letter says, “The term ‘marriage’ has only one meaning: the uniting of one man and one woman into a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture. The institution of marriage is part of the bedrock of human civilization. It is presumptuous to imagine it can be redefined, and it is modern arrogance to believe this generation knows better than all past generations.”

Early voting is underway. According to the Virginia Public Access Project, some 220,969 voters had cast ballots through Sept. 28, well ahead of the pace set during the most recent midterm elections in 2022.

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 23, 2026, with Election Day itself on Nov. 3.

Former special counsel Jack Smith's investigators obtained internal communications between scores of journalists and Trump administration officials during the federal election investigation of President Donald Trump.

The post Jack Smith Obtained Internal Communications Between Nearly 50 Journalists, Trump Officials appeared first on Breitbart.

The left "hates America," and is trying to "undermine it with their immigration policy," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said.

The post Exclusive – Rep. Jim Jordan: Democrat Immigration Policy ‘Is Designed to Undermine’ America appeared first on Breitbart.

The Supreme Court majority (6-3) has granted the DOJ request to put on hold a Boston-based US District Judge ruling that DHS policy to remove illegal aliens to so-called third countries is unlawful.  The process of rapid deportation will continue while the matter is called before the Supreme Court for oral arguments in December (ruling […]

The post Supreme Court Allows Rapid Third-Country Deportations to Continue appeared first on The Last Refuge.

On the latest episode of The Heritage Foundation podcast “The Power Hour,” host Jack Spencer talks energy with Heritage Foundation Executive Vice President Derrick Morgan. In this excerpt, Morgan explains why a potential ban on diesel exports to lower U.S. diesel prices is a bad idea.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Jack Spencer: So what brings us here today for this special episode?

Derrick Morgan: Well, diesel prices are very, very high. There are a lot of reasons for that. And as part of that and the fact that you have an election coming up in less than two months probably has something to do with it too. You’ve got people that are really hurting out there. You’ve got harvest season in the ag community where people are trying to power up their combines and everything else with diesel fuel. You do have winter coming around the corner with home heating oil and so forth.

People are very, very concerned about high diesel prices, so they’re looking for some way to lower them. And unfortunately, in my view, they’re looking at a potential option of stopping diesel exports in a way to keep diesel here thinking that will lower prices. But there’s a lot of negative blowback that we could see if we do that.

Jack Spencer: You laid it out good. I mean, diesel prices are high. And there’s both sort of, from a public perspective, they want the politicians to do something. It’s election season. And banning exports seems on its face at least to be a perfectly appropriate thing to do. Keep it here. But a lot of people have tried this before. There are always these negative unintended consequences that occur. Walk us through some of that. Why should we be skeptical or wary of such a policy decision?

Derrick Morgan: Well, the energy markets now are very global in nature. And actually, there was a big change in 2015. We used to have a ban on exporting crude oil until 2015. And that was actually limiting American production. Once we got rid of that ban, American crude oil production skyrocketed. We’re now the number one producer in the world. And so, you might scratch your head and say, well, if that worked well to increase production, then why would we do the reverse when it comes to diesel? And the thought is, as an initial matter, if you stop the export, you have higher supply here.

There are a number of problems with that. First and foremost, you just don’t have a lot of places to put all that produced diesel. Right now, we export about a million and a half barrels a day. That is a lot. We do not have enough storage to do that for very long, to continue producing at the same rate.

There’s a couple of things that you can make, adjustments you can change when you have a barrel of crude oil come in, you have different yields for different fuels. So people don’t always understand how the refining process works. But you’re taking crude oil of one type or another and you put pressure, you add heat and so forth, and you get a yield of different fuels. You get gasoline, you get kerosene, you get jet fuel, you get diesel, etc.

And you can change that around a little bit with the knobs, but not that much. So you can maybe decrease the diesel yield from say 31.5%, maybe down to 29%. On the margins, right. So what do you do with all of this diesel? We’re not going to use it here in the U.S. We’ve been exporting it. Where do you put it?

You’re going to run out of storage pretty quickly. And that’s going to lead refiners to have to reduce the amount of the barrels that are going through the complex altogether. And what’s that going to do? S&P did an analysis of this, and they think that it could lead to about a million barrels a day less of gasoline. So we’re going to have less gasoline, which means higher prices on gasoline.

First order effect. You have more diesel, higher supply presumably. And in the very short run prices would go down. But then you’ve got these other fuels that they’re going to when productions are cut. And by the way, S&P looked at this. They’re estimating that in pretty short order, you’d have to cut refinery runs by about 12%. That means 12% less crude oil coming through, which means all the fuel supply going down. If you have that, it’s going to be a major problem. That’s the first problem.

Second problem: There are parts of the United States that don’t really have access to our awesome Gulf Coast refineries in Texas and Louisiana and elsewhere. The northeast United States relies on imports of diesel and home heating oil. Importantly, as winter is coming. They’re mostly importing that from Canada, some from Europe. And because of our lack of pipelines and Jones Act restrictions, it’s really hard to get that fuel up to the northeast. So you’re going to have parts of the northeast and potentially maybe the West Coast as well, that are going to be supplied by foreign suppliers.

If the United States, a million and a half barrels a day of diesel are taken off, the international diesel prices are going to spike. They’re going to go way up. And then those Americans are going to see higher prices right away. Those are two problems.

The third problem is our allies. And for someone struggling as a farmer struggling to get crops out of the field, it’s not quite as important, but it is something we do need to keep in mind. Latin America, one third of their diesel demand is from the United States. Ninety percent of their imports are from the United States.

We have become energy dominant, thanks in large measure to President Donald Trump and Europe, 50% of their diesel imports recently from the United States. So our allies are relying on us. We’ve become the world’s most reliable supplier. If we do this, we look a lot less reliable in the future. And they’ll look for suppliers somewhere else.

So those are three really big problems.