The Trump administration has made it easier to deport recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program implemented by former President Barack Obama, and activists are furious.

Obama said numerous times that he did not have the power to unilaterally pass amnesty for illegal aliens before he announced that he was passing amnesty for illegal aliens in 2012.

‘They don’t deserve this. We will not stop fighting back against the cruel, anti-immigrant obsession of Trump, Stephen Miller, and their loyalists.’

Fourteen years later, the “Dreamer” immigrants granted amnesty through the DACA program face a heightened threat of deportation.

The decision was made by the Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals of the Department of Justice.

“This decision could have profound consequences for the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who rely on DACA to live and work in America without threat of deportation,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois said. “In the face of this administration’s heartless actions, Congress must finally act to protect these young people who know no other home than here. This is a matter of simple American fairness and justice.”

Durbin noted in his press release that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested 261 DACA recipients and deported 86 of them since Jan. 2025.

A joint statement from four Democratic senators from the U.S. Congressional Hispanic Caucus also decried the decision.

“Donald Trump said that Dreamers should ‘feel safe,’ but every action his government takes weakens the DACA program and threatens the safety and livelihoods of the 500,000 DACA recipients who have only ever known this country as home,” the senators said.

“Dreamers are our friends and neighbors,” they added. “They don’t deserve this. We will not stop fighting back against the cruel, anti-immigrant obsession of Trump, Stephen Miller, and their loyalists.”

The National Immigration Law Center called the decision “cruel” and warned that it would harm immigrants.

“The Trump administration’s proposal to strip DACA recipients’ access to affordable health coverage is a huge step backward for the wellbeing of everyone in our communities and further unmasks Trump’s transparent and hollow claims to care about ‘Dreamers,'” reads an NILC statement.

“This cruel attempt to undo a hard-won victory for immigrant youth would reimpose unnecessary obstacles that for years kept DACA recipients disproportionately uninsured, preventing many of them from getting lifesaving medical care,” the group added.

“This decision is yet another step in dismantling the program without the government taking responsibility for ending it outright. … This is a quiet rollback of protections, and our communities are paying the price in real time,” reads a statement from United We Dream.

RELATED: Court rules Obama-era DACA amnesty program unlawful

Durbin estimated that there were about 515,000 people who had been granted DACA status.

Critics have long argued that the original order from Obama to offer amnesty to child arrivals violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the powers intended to be vested in Congress.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Dream act, Trump vs daca, Daca dream act, Illegal alien activists, Politics 

President Donald Trump continues to prioritize the passage of the SAVE America Act, keeping election integrity at the forefront in Washington. However, states are not waiting for Congress to act. Across the country, this shift has been building for years, and it is becoming harder to ignore.

The SAVE America Act should be passed because it aligns federal elections with the direction states are already taking.

Florida offers one of the clearest examples. Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a state-level measure requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and directing officials to verify applicants using existing data systems. The approach mirrors what the SAVE America Act would do at the federal level. DeSantis said the law would “strengthen the security, transparency, and reliability of Florida’s election system.”

Florida is not alone. In Mississippi, Governor Tate Reeves signed the SHIELD Act, which requires officials to verify citizenship when individuals register to vote, including checks against federal databases and regular audits of voter rolls. Reeves called it “another win for election integrity” and made clear that the state intends to keep strengthening its system.

South Dakota has already enacted similar requirements this year, requiring proof of citizenship for new voter registrations and putting those rules into effect immediately. Governor Larry Rhoden said the law “ensures only citizens vote in state elections, keeping our elections safe and secure.”

These bills didn’t happen overnight. States have been moving in this direction for years. Arizona, for example, required proof of citizenship for voter registration following the passage of Arizona Proposition 200, creating a system that distinguishes between voters who provide documentation and those who do not.

That history matters. It shows that the idea of verifying citizenship at the point of registration is nothing new. What is changing now is how widely and directly states are applying it to their election systems.

Under current federal law, voter registration generally relies on applicants affirming their eligibility under penalty of perjury rather than providing documentary proof. The federal voter registration form requires applicants to attest that they are United States citizens under penalty of perjury. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 relies heavily on self-attestation rather than documentary proof, leaving states to determine how verification is carried out. As some states move toward more structured verification, those differences become harder to ignore.

States that have moved toward documentation and data verification are operating alongside systems that still rely primarily on sworn statements.

RELATED: Uncle Sam wants YOU — to obey immigration laws

History/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

The contrast is becoming more visible as more states update their processes, raising a straightforward question about whether federal elections should operate under a consistent standard.

The SAVE America Act answers that problem directly. It would require documentary proof of United States citizenship in order to vote in federal elections, using documents such as a passport or birth certificate.

As Senator Mike Lee has argued, the SAVE America Act would secure federal elections by requiring proof of citizenship and voter identification nationwide.

Citizenship is already required to vote. A federal standard would ensure that requirement is applied the same way in every state.

Without that standard, states will continue moving in different directions, leaving federal elections governed by a patchwork of verification practices. With it, the system becomes consistent.

The SAVE America Act should be passed because it aligns federal elections with the direction states are already taking and applies a clear, uniform standard to voter registration.

States are setting the standard for verifying voter eligibility.

It is time for Congress to do its part and pass the SAVE America Act.

​Congress, Election integrity, Florida, Governor ron desantis, Mississippi, President donald trump, Save america act, Senator mike lee, South dakota, Voter id, Opinion & analysis 

The Indiana Fever team has been having difficulty selling tickets for its season opener against the Dallas Wings — and BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock not only believes it’s “a sign that the WNBA is about to potentially crash and burn,” but knows why.

“They’ve probably already burned up the goodwill that Caitlin Clark earned them by entering into the league. If they’ve diminished the star of Caitlin Clark, what they’ve really diminished is the entire league,” he explains.

Whitlock points out that while some of the WNBA players are making seven-figure salaries, the attitude of the league leaves fans wondering if they’ve earned it.

“People are going to want their money’s worth, and the WNBA can’t give it to them. And when you don’t feel good about the players, when these players are walking around making seven-figure salaries, pretending like they’re superstar celebrities, pretending like they’re just the same as NBA players, all the goodwill is going to disappear,” he explains.

“We already see it in Indiana with Caitlin Clark. The goodwill is gone. … Women’s basketball in the WNBA and professionals, it’s bloated. It’s overrated. It’s hot garbage that’s being paid like it’s pristine and some prized possession,” he continues.

And while the players are paid well, Whitlock points out that one of the biggest issues with their attitude is that they “hate America and have portrayed themselves as victims” who have “blackmailed and guilt-tripped their way into a seven-figure salary.”

Now that the league can’t sell out the Indiana Fever’s first home game, Whitlock believes “the entire league is teetering at the brink of an uprising and a backlash that’s really long overdue.”

And Whitlock is among those leaving the league behind.

“I’m prepared, like the rest of you, to de-emphasize my passion for the WNBA,” he says. “This fall can’t happen quick enough.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​America, Attitude, Backlash, Blaze media, Blaze news, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Blaze podcast network, Blaze podcasts, Blazetv, Blazetv host, Blm, Caitlin clark, Dallas wings, Fall, Goodwill, Indiana fever, Jason whitlock, Passion, Professional athletes, Seven figure salaries, The blaze, Ticket sales, Uprising, Victim mindset, Victims, Wnba collapse, Womens basketball, Fearless with jason whitlock 

Following the recent attempted assassination of Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, there was an immediate and predictable rush to the microphones.

“We need to tone it down.” “We need to be better.” “We need to lower the temperature.”

The statements came almost reflexively, as if the script had already been written.

The same people now saying “we” have spent years writing and rehearsing the very script they now decry.

It brought to mind a scene from “Blazing Saddles,” when Governor William J. Lepetomane gathers his Cabinet and declares, “We’ve got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen,” prompting a chorus of obedient “harrumphs.” When one man fails to join in, he is immediately called out for it.

That scene was meant to be absurd, but it’s hard to laugh when it looks so familiar.

The chorus we hear now from the media is not all that different. The language is more polished, the setting more formal, but the substance is the same. A unified sound, carefully rehearsed, that spreads responsibility so broadly that no one person has to carry it.

“We need to tone it down.”

Who is “we”?

The rush to say “we need to tone it down” or that “both sides” must do so reveals something else. The media knows it has a credibility problem. What it refuses to admit is that it has an ownership problem as well.

“We” is a convenient word to hide behind. The same people now saying “we” have spent years writing and rehearsing the very script they now decry. They used language that casts opponents as existential threats, invoking terms like “Hitler” and “fascist” as routine descriptors rather than historically loaded warnings.

That kind of language does not stay contained. It shapes how listeners understand the stakes. It tells them that what they are seeing is not a mere disagreement, but a moral emergency. And when everything is framed as a moral emergency, there will always be someone who hears that not as metaphor but as instruction.

That does not excuse the person who acts. Responsibility for violence remains personal. But it does expose the gap between those who help set the tone and those who later step forward to warn about it.

The problem is the distance built into the language.

What would it sound like if that distance were removed? Not “we need to dial it back,” but “I do.” Not “we have to be more careful,” but “I have not been careful.” That kind of sentence lands differently because it costs something. It does not distribute the burden. It accepts it.

I did not learn that lesson in Washington. I learned it as a caregiver. There are days when everything is compressed at once, when the routine collapses, the body gives out, and the phone rings at precisely the wrong moment. On those days, it is easy to feel as though everything is being dumped on me. Sometimes that is true.

But caregiving has a way of stripping away illusions, including the ones I prefer to keep about myself.

Because while there are days when I feel like the statue, I have had to admit that there are other days when I am the pigeon — not because I set out to do harm, but because I make impatient decisions in the middle of exhaustion, speak more sharply than I should, or try, in subtle ways, to elevate myself at someone else’s expense.

That does not excuse it. One does not get a free pass to be an ass.

Washington has a hypocrisy problem. The media has a credibility problem. I have done the same thing in smaller rooms with lower stakes and fewer cameras. I have used tone, timing, and words to shift blame, to justify myself, to make someone else carry what was mine to own. That recognition has steadied me more than any sweeping call for “all of us” to do better.

I am not in a position to correct a culture that rewards outrage and then feigns surprise when it produces consequences. But I am in a position to confront myself with the truth.

RELATED: Follow the facts, not the script

Stellalevi/Getty Images

First-person plural spreads the blame until it disappears. First-person singular removes the cover. And once the cover is gone, something else becomes possible: repentance.

Not “we will do better,” but “I will do better.”

That is where leadership begins. Not on a stage or behind a podium, not in a ballroom full of cameras, but in the quiet decision of a single person to own what is his to own.

Life, whether it unfolds in Washington or in a hospital room, is shaped the same way — one voice, one decision, one sentence at a time. Which means it can only be corrected the same way. Not “we.” But “I.”

​Attempted assassination, Correspondents dinner, Donald trump, Hitler fascist, Media credibility problem, White house, Washington hypocrisy, Media, Mainstream media, Media narrative, Media hypocrisy, Opinion & analysis