Another Democrat has tried and failed to distance himself from previous statements against law enforcement.

Abdul El-Sayed, the 41-year-old Islamic leftist who ran an unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign in 2018 then served two years later on former President Joe Biden’s Unity Task Force for Healthcare, is running as a Democrat to represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate.

‘I didn’t want them to be taken out of context like this.’

Enjoying the help of the Democratic Socialists of America and endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), El-Sayed — the son of an Egyptian immigrant — has led establishment Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens by several points in recent polls ahead of the Michigan Democratic primary on Aug. 4.

Since launching his Senate campaign in April 2025, El-Sayed has attempted to downplay some of his anti-police rhetoric and gaslight about what he had said previously, telling the Detroit News in an interview published mid-November, “I want to be clear, I actually never, never called for defunding.”

Of course, that wasn’t anywhere close to being true.

Among the thousands of tweets he deleted before launching his campaign was a tweet where El-Sayed stated in June 2020, “Most major US cities spend WAY TOO MUCH on police departments to police poverty & WAY TOO LITTLE on public schools, health departments, recreation departments, & housing to eliminate poverty. Fixing that is what the #Defund movement is about.”

RELATED: Front-runner Democrat back on his heels after ex-staffer indicted in anti-Jewish attacks in Michigan

Photo by Sarah Rice/Getty Images

Per the Detroit News, another said, “#GeorgeFloyd and hundreds of other Black folks are murdered because our police departments are OVERfunded. #COVID19 devastated us, in part, because our health departments are UNDERfunded. There’s an obvious answer: take from one and give to the other.”

El-Sayed explicitly called for the defunding of police in multiple interviews reviewed by CNN’s KFile.

For instance, according to KFile, he told Detroit Public Radio in June 2020, “I believe that we do need to defund the police insofar as defunding the police is disinvesting in the means of incarcerating someone or killing them on the streets.”

In a 2020 WDET-FM interview, the Democratic candidate emphasized the need to spell out what was meant by the hashtag, stating, “Defunding the police is disinvesting in the means of incarcerating someone or killing them on the streets and investing more in the means of educating and empowering and engaging communities with the means of being able to take on systemic poverty that we’ve allowed to fester in too many communities.”

“I want a re-fund on the taxpayer dollars that I pay to police who use that to buy war materiel to wage war in our streets. And I want to re-fund public health and public libraries and public schools and the means of uprooting poverty,” added El-Sayed.

Confronted with the mountain of evidence demonstrating El-Sayed had in fact called for the defunding of American police, a spokeswoman for El-Sayed’s campaign, Roxie Richner, told CNN, “His perspective has become more nuanced.”

“One simple word has never been enough to fully explain the reforms we need for a challenge as complex as our criminal legal system,” said Richner.

When asked repeatedly by CNN talking head Kasie Hunt last week whether he still supported defunding the police, El-Sayed weaseled out of directly answering the question, suggesting that he deleted his old defund-the-police tweets “because I didn’t want them to be taken out of context like this so that you could distract from the actual conversation that Michiganders really want to have about what they want their leadership to actually fight for them to do.”

Rather than focusing on funding or defunding American law enforcement, El-Sayed apparently tried instead to make spending and support for Israel a top topic in Tuesday’s Democratic debate against Rep. Stevens, stressing that “if Congresswoman Stevens makes it or [Republican candidate] Mike Rogers wins, either way, Israel will win.”

“AIPAC is perfectly fine with either of my two opponents, because they know that they will have a comfortable, reliable vote in the U.S.A.,” added El-Sayed.

El-Sayed also argued with Stevens — who has received a small fortune from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee via United Democracy Project, according to FEC filings — about the conflict in Gaza.

“I also believe that your money needs to be spent here, because at the end of the day, the ultimate losers are you and me, the taxpayers who paid that money to provide good infrastructure, build schools, provide health care for our own kids,” said El-Sayed. “Not to watch it get sent to buy bombs and tanks that end up annihilating other people and their children.”

Following the debate, the Michigan GOP slammed El-Sayed for his radical record. In a statement given to Blaze News, Michigan GOP senior communications advisor Greg Manz said:

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a terrorist sympathizer and phony physician, is the face of the far-left takeover of the Democrat Party. He embraces a radical, Marxist agenda that includes Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and calls to irresponsibly defund the police.

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

​Abdul el-sayed, Bernie sanders, Defund the police, Haley stevens, Islamic, Michigan, Socialist, Us senate, Politics 

Now that the Trump Mobile T1 phone is out in the wild, it was only a matter of time before someone tore it apart … literally. Renowned smartphone demolition and repair community iFixit conducted a full teardown to reveal exactly what’s inside Trump’s gilded gadget, finally answering whether it’s truly American-made.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

At first glance, the Trump Mobile T1 phone looks awfully familiar, especially to users hailing from Taiwan and certain regions in Europe. Its silhouette closely resembles a phone from 2024, albeit with some notable tweaks.

As it turns out, Trump Mobile did the right thing.

The camera bump is wider, with “TRUMP MOBILE” emblazoned proudly on the side. The speaker grills at the bottom are circular for a more refined aesthetic.

The backplate is stamped with a bold American flag and finished with more Trump Mobile insignia for good measure. Then all of it is wrapped in gold paint that is quintessentially Trump.

Aside from those key changes, the phone appears to be an HTC U24 Pro, and thanks to iFixit, we know why.

Under the hood

It’s one thing for a phone to look similar to another on the outside, but the inside tells the full story. All devices have unique component layouts meant to perfectly fit the processor, battery, camera array, speakers, and cooling system down to the micrometer. No two layouts are alike, unless the phones are the same.

The verdict?

Trump Mobile T1 (L); HTC U24 Pro/iFixit (R)

A detailed CT scan confirms that “the internals are nearly an exact match for the HTC U24 Pro.” Take a look. Can you tell which is which?

Next, iFixit broke open the devices to inspect their intervals firsthand. Most of the differences are minor — T1 has a longer flex cable to connect components, a repositioned camera flash, and an updated speaker grill pattern. The one glaring change is the T1’s bigger battery, now rated at 19.35 Wh compared to the HTC’s 17.23 Wh power pack. As for similarities, the display, speakers, and even the motherboard — complete with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 3 chip (as we suspected) — are all virtually the same.

The real reason Trump Mobile changed the wording

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump Mobile T1 phone is not fully made in America. As an HTC U24 Pro dressed up in Trump logos and a gold colorway, the chassis, the sum of its parts, and even its design all come from the usual foreign supply chains overseas. IFixit suspects that Trump Mobile wanted to make a true “Made in America” phone, but timing and domestic manufacturing limitations led to a compromise: The phone components could be made outside the U.S., but it would be assembled here on American shores.

This is why Trump Mobile changed the wording on its website from “made in the USA” to “proudly American” sometime last year. If you recall, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took note of this change and ongoing delays, accusing Trump of “potentially deceptive practices” that harmed consumers. She even filed a joint complaint alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) with the Federal Trade Commission. (It went absolutely nowhere.)

RELATED: The Trump phone is here — and so is the controversy. Is it any good?

BasSlabbers/Getty Images

As it turns out, Trump Mobile did the right thing by not further misleading consumers to believe the phone was produced by American hands from start to finish. However, all preorders made previously under the “made in the USA” banner could be subject to legal scrutiny.

A product of today’s supply chains

If we’re being honest, the T1 phone is less American than we’d prefer, but the reason why isn’t a mystery. Ultimately, the Trump Mobile phone isn’t fully American-made because tech supply chains don’t currently allow it. President Trump just recently convinced major tech companies like Apple to invest in domestic manufacturing, and it will take many years — if not decades — for this kind of skilled labor to find its way back to American shores. In the meantime, the T1 phone is the first generation of a new smartphone brand wholly owned, operated, and assembled by Americans — which is more than most smartphone companies can say.

The Trump Mobile T1 phone is available for a promotional price of $499. It’s still listed as a preorder device, suggesting that units aren’t widely shipping to all recipients yet. If you happen to order one and receive it in a timely manner, let us know in the comments.

As for those who ordered under the belief that T1 was made in America, you may be able to request a refund through Trump Mobile support, as long as your device hasn’t shipped yet.

​Tech, Ifixit, Trump mobile t1 

A Louisiana grandfather drowned while trying to rescue his grandchild after she fell into a lake, according to multiple reports.

The St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office confirmed that a man drowned while attempting to rescue his grandchild at Bayou Lacombe, WDSU reported.

‘There are no words to adequately express the void he has left in our lives or how deeply he is missed.’

The family identified the man as Chris Rushing, according to WDSU.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries describes Bayou Lacombe as a “complex including connecting bayous, canals, swamps, and marshes that are also associated with the Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.”

The sheriff’s office said the young girl fell into the water, and Rushing jumped in to save her, but he began to struggle to stay afloat.

A woman jumped into the water and pulled the child out, according to police.

Fire personnel responded around 7:43 p.m. last Wednesday, WDSU reported.

Five swimmers initially searched the water, and firefighters recovered Rushing and immediately began performing life-saving measures.

The sheriff’s office said Rushing was then transported to a local hospital, where he later passed away, the outlet reported.

Rushing’s body was turned over to the St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office, and an autopsy is being conducted.

The St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office confirmed that Rushing’s death is “believed to be an accidental drowning,” according to WWL.

WWL reported that Rushing was an employee of the City of Covington’s Office of Cultural Arts and Events.

Sarada Bonnett, executive director at Covington’s Office of Cultural Arts and Events, said about Rushing, “It was never, ‘Oh do I have to do that?’ It was, ‘How can I help? How can I make this better?’ and he will be missed,” WWL reported.

Bonnett wrote a post on the Facebook account for the Covington’s Office of Cultural Arts and Events regarding Rushing’s death.

“Over the past several days, our hearts have been broken. Losing our teammate, our friend, and our family member, Chris Rushing, has been one of the most difficult experiences we’ve ever faced,” the statement reads. “There are no words to adequately express the void he has left in our lives or how deeply he is missed.”

RELATED: Naked woman ‘trying to be a mermaid’ in neighbor’s pond charges at deputy who deploys taser — which has ‘no effect’: Police

District D Councilman Jimmy Inman said in a statement posted to Facebook that he was “devastated” over Rushing’s death.

“My heart truly hurts,” Inman said.

“Chris focused on making our world a better place,” Inman continued. “He worked every day to do so.”

Inman said of Rushing, “Some people are called heroes, but he truly was one, giving his own life attempting to help someone else in dire need.”

Inman said Rushing made Covington a “better place.”

“The Good Lord put him on a path where his purpose was to make our community a better place,” Inman stated. “I saw him fairly regularly, and I can assure that, he did just that.”

Inman said, “Covington is a better place. Chris made it so. That mission was accomplished, and now God has called him home.”

Mayor Mark Johnson issued the following statement, according to WDSU: “Chris will be remembered for his ever-present smile, the joy that emanated from him and for his innate desire to help others. His passing is very difficult to process.”

A GoFundMe campaign was launched to support Rushing’s family and raise funds for a nonprofit the family intends to establish in his name.

“Christopher Jerome Rushing was loved by everyone who met him,” the crowdfunding campaign states. “He always had a smile on his face and a hug to give, and not one person had anything bad to say about him.”

“His legacy as a hero will live on, as he passed away saving his grandbaby,” the listing reads. “I know if he were here today, he would not think twice about the decision he made.”

The St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office and the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​News, Strange news, Politics, Louisiana 

Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner found himself in hot water on Monday following new allegations of “sexual assault” by a woman who was described as having once dated him.

Now, Platner’s campaign hangs in the balance as Democrat leaders pulled their endorsements in light of the new allegations.

‘If a process for selecting a new nominee becomes necessary, it will be open, transparent, and inclusive.’

While Platner’s leverage in keeping his candidacy seems to be drying up as quickly as his support from Democrats, the path ahead still has a few possibilities.

Here is what Platner’s campaign looks like in the next week.

The first major test of the Platner campaign’s longevity comes Monday.

Maine law stipulates that a vacancy may be declared and a replacement named only if the candidate withdraws on or before 5:00 p.m. ET on the second Monday in July.

RELATED: ‘Taking time to reflect’: Graham Platner responds to most recent sexual misconduct allegations against him

Laura Brett/Getty Images

The Maine Democratic Party, then, faces a problem: If Platner does not withdraw voluntarily, the party will not be able to name a replacement candidate prior to the election in November, barring Platner’s death or a catastrophic illness.

Platner’s name would be removed from the ballot if he withdrew his candidacy any time prior to 70 days away from the election, which falls in late August.

Seemingly aware that Platner’s last remaining point of political leverage, if it can even be called that as his support dries up, some on the right, including Michael Knowles, have half-jokingly encouraged Platner to remain in the race lest the Democrats find a less politically damaging replacement candidate.

“Stand strong, Graham! Don’t let the establishment steal this nomination from you! Whatever you do, don’t drop out!” Knowles said on social media.

If, however, Platner decides not to heed Knowles’ advice and drops out any time before next Monday’s deadline, the Democrats will be scrambling to find a viable replacement before the end of the month.

The Maine Democratic Party, through the Democratic State Committee, will decide on the process by which a replacement candidate can be selected, assuming Platner voluntarily drops out.

This process, however, cannot begin until Platner formally withdraws his candidacy. To make matters worse for Democrats, the replacement candidate must be submitted by July 27 — a mere two weeks after the deadline for Platner’s withdrawal.

“No process to elect a new nominee can commence unless the Platner campaign is suspended. If a process for selecting a new nominee becomes necessary, it will be open, transparent, and inclusive,” a Monday statement from the Maine Democratic Party said.

“The sooner this process can begin, the more time we will have to administer an intentional and inclusive process for Mainers and Democrats.”

The Maine Wire’s Steve Robinson suggested on Tuesday that there is “enough ambiguity” in the rules for selecting a candidate that “state party leaders will be making this up as they go along.”

The Democratic State Committee, which consists of over 100 members including alternates, will be forced to agree on a replacement candidate in a two-week period.

A New York Times report, citing conversations with Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ chief of staff, Kate McBrien, stated that officials have ruled out the option that the DSC will directly choose the nominee.

McBrien told the Times that she was unaware of any precedent in Maine for selecting a new Senate candidate post-primary.

The New York Times, citing two anonymous sources familiar with party officials’ plans, also reported other possible plans include a pop-up convention on the weekend of July 25, immediately prior to the deadline, or a statewide caucus to “effectively redo the party’s primary election.”

Robinson suggested similar procedures like a snap election and a caucus, though he added that both would likely be “logistical nightmares and potential PR disasters.”

Robinson added at the end of his post that even if Platner resigns within the appointed window and the party decides on a satisfactory procedure, the Democrats still have a third hurdle to overcome before the end of the month.

They will still have to “unite behind whoever emerges, raise tens of millions of dollars, and hope that Platner’s radicals stay on the bandwagon and independent voters don’t get lefty fatigue.”

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

​Democrats, Election, Graham platner, Maine, Primary election, Sexual assault, Shenna bellows, Politics 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter is a major victory for constitutional government.

By restoring the president’s authority over the executive branch and overruling what remained of the mistaken Humphrey’s Executor precedent, the justices took an important step toward democratic accountability. The decision also opens a path for President Trump and future administrations to rein in the administrative state.

Americans should celebrate this ruling as a victory for self-government.

At the heart of the ruling is a simple constitutional principle: The president, as the elected head of the executive branch, must have authority to direct executive policy and hold executive officers accountable.

That authority is not merely an administrative convenience. It is the mechanism through which the American people exercise control over executive government.

Article II vests “the executive Power” in a single president and charges him with ensuring that “the Laws be faithfully executed.” Officers exercising executive power derive that authority from the president and must remain accountable to him.

Without meaningful removal authority, the presidency risks becoming little more than a figurehead while unelected officials pursue agendas beyond democratic control.

For decades, Congress has increasingly insulated parts of the federal bureaucracy from presidential supervision. The founders envisioned no such arrangement.

The expansive appeals processes and employment protections shielding many federal employees are well known. Less appreciated is how much of the current system emerged during the 1960s and expanded over the following decades, producing a bureaucracy increasingly insulated from elected leadership.

Whatever the intentions behind those reforms, the result has been to weaken the president’s authority to manage the executive branch and the people’s ability to govern themselves through elections.

The consequences have become increasingly visible.

A Merit Systems Protection Board survey found that only about two in five federal supervisors believed they could successfully remove an employee for serious misconduct. That finding shows how procedural barriers have eroded managerial accountability.

RELATED: No slaughter for the CIA’s DEI office — yet

DigitalVision/iStock/Getty Images

The same culture was evident during President Trump’s first term, when career officials embedded policies contrary to administration priorities in guidance documents, subregulatory materials, and even formal regulations.

When executive officials deliberately frustrate lawful presidential policy, the president must possess adequate authority to remove them.

Predictably, critics warn that Slaughter will politicize the civil service and revive the spoils system. Those concerns miss the point.

President Trump has repeatedly said federal hiring should be based on merit, qualifications, and competence. His administration’s executive orders, rules, and regulations reject political loyalty tests in career hiring.

Merit-based hiring and presidential accountability are not competing principles. They are complementary.

A professional civil service should be selected because its members are qualified to perform their duties. But once entrusted with executive authority, those officials must faithfully execute the lawful policies of the elected president.

That’s far from “patronage.” It’s how representative government should function.

The administration’s Schedule Policy/Career executive order reflects that distinction. It applies to career employees in confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions. Those employees remain merit-based career officials, not political appointees.

But senior career officials exercising substantial policy influence should not be able to use endless procedural protections to delay, frustrate, or undermine an elected administration’s agenda.

The Civil Service Reform Act was never intended to create permanent insulation for officials exercising broad executive discretion.

The administration has also appropriately tested constitutional errors by removing officials whose statutory protections conflict with Article II. Those cases have allowed courts to reconsider precedents that steadily weakened presidential control over the executive branch.

RELATED: Trump calls ‘Slaughter’ ruling the greatest increase of presidential power in 100 years

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

In its 2026 Jackler and Jaroch decision, the Merit Systems Protection Board recognized that statutory employment protections cannot override Article II when applied to inferior officers exercising significant executive authority.

The Supreme Court’s Slaughter decision builds on that reasoning and on other precedent. It rejects the fiction that agencies exercising executive power can remain meaningfully “independent” of the executive.

Those who execute federal law must ultimately answer to the president.

Opponents will characterize the decision as a dangerous expansion of presidential power. In reality, it restores the constitutional structure the founders designed.

Americans elect a president to implement policies on immigration, the economy, national security, and countless other questions. If unelected officials can frustrate those policies through institutional resistance or procedural barriers, elections become less meaningful.

Accountability disappears because voters cannot determine who is responsible for the success or failure of executive policy.

The Slaughter decision restores that chain of accountability. It strengthens the president’s ability to direct officers exercising executive power while preserving a federal workforce hired on merit and expected to execute the law faithfully. That is neither radical nor unprecedented. It is the constitution’s design.

The federal government exists to serve the American people, not to function as an independent center of political power.

By reaffirming presidential authority under Article II, the Supreme Court strengthened democratic accountability and helped ensure that executive power remains where the Constitution places it: with the president elected by the American people.

Americans should celebrate this ruling as a victory for self-government.

Elections cannot provide meaningful accountability when officials exercising executive power are insulated from the president voters chose.

Slaughter helps restore that constitutional chain: Executive officers answer to the president, and the president answers to the people.

​Administrative state, Executive orders, Opinion & analysis, Article ii, Donald trump, Supreme court, Trump v. slaughter, Constitution, Bureaucracy, Congress, Humphrey’s executor 

A convicted “high-risk” pedophile hired by the city of Syracuse, New York, was fired after he was arrested for “horrific” allegations involving a 12-year-old girl.

On Thursday, police responded to a report of a man with an underage girl in a parking lot. The man fled the scene after being approached by another adult, according to the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office.

He allegedly lured the child to an isolated area in the Town of Lafayette and subjected her to a sexual act two separate times.

An investigation of the victim’s social media found that she had been interacting with a male through Snapchat. The messages indicated they had been having a sexual relationship.

The man was identified as 45-year-old James M. Desantis, who was already registered as a high-risk sex offender.

Desantis was arrested Thursday and booked into the Onondaga County Justice Center. He faces a slew of charges that include:

First-degree attempted rape;Luring a child to commit a felony;First-degree sexual abuse;Sexual abuse with an underage child;First-degree coercion;Third-degree aggravated sexual abuse;Aggravated sexual abuse with an underage victim;First-degree stalking; First-degree disseminating indecent materials to minors;Third-degree obscenity; andTwo counts of acting in a manner injurious to a child under 17.

Desantis was previously convicted of sex crimes against children in 2004 and 2005. In the first case, he was sentenced to 10 years probation for the rape of a 14-year-old girl. In the second case, he was convicted for the rape of another 14-year-old girl and sentenced to five years in prison.

Both victims were known to Desantis.

In the more current accusations against Desantis, he allegedly lured the child to an isolated area in the Town of Lafayette and subjected her to a sexual act two separate times. Both times, he sent a photo of a firearm to her and said he knew where she lived.

Desantis was hired by the Syracuse Department of Public Works in 2017 and was promoted to an on-location supervisor in 2024. He was fired after the arrest, and city officials are now being questioned about how a child sex offender had been working for years at the city.

RELATED: Michigan parents charged with murder and torture after 7-year-old boy dies with disturbing weight

Syracuse Mayor Sharon Owens said her administration is investigating how Desantis was hired by the city and reviewing hiring practices.

“I’m very angry,” Owens said to WSYR-TV. “I spent my life working with children and protecting families, and this, quite frankly, is pissing me off.”

Desantis is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday.

The sheriff’s department asked for help from the public to find other possible victims in the case.

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

​New york, Pedophile, Snapchat, Syracuse, Social media, Child rape, High risk sex offender, Crime 

On June 23, standing before a crowd in Pennsylvania, President Trump was asked where he stood on a national right to carry.

His answer was four words: “Yeah, we’re working on it.”

The crowd roared.

For millions of law-abiding gun owners, those words pointed toward something they have awaited for decades: an end to a system that treats a constitutional right like a privilege that must be renewed at every state line.

Let’s be honest about where things stand.

The president has not signed anything, and no national reciprocity law exists today. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act cleared a House committee last fall but has stalled in the Senate.

Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.

This is the starting line, not the finish line. But it is the right race to run, because the issue reaches far beyond the convenience of carrying a firearm across state borders.

I think about that every time I drive from my home in upstate New York to North Carolina to visit my son, daughter-in-law, and grandson.

I travel through New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. Four states. Four sets of gun laws. Four different answers to the same question: What rights does a free citizen carry when he crosses an invisible line on a map?

We accept this with almost no other right.

My driver’s license is honored in all 50 states. My freedom to speak, worship, and remain secure in my home does not evaporate at a tollbooth.

President Trump has made the same point since 2015, comparing a carry permit to a driver’s license: If one works in every state, so should the other.

The argument is common sense. The principle beneath it runs deeper.

The Second Amendment does not create the right to self-defense. It recognizes a natural right the founders understood to be endowed by God.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a permission slip issued by the government. It is the people’s right of self-preservation.

The founders knew what they were guarding against because they had lived under it.

Strip people of the means to defend themselves, and every other freedom becomes a favor granted by those in power. Free speech becomes a suggestion. Religious liberty becomes a privilege.

History is brutally consistent on this point: Disarmament often comes before oppression, not after it.

RELATED: ‘Shall not be infringed’ — even if you’re high, Supreme Court rules

Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Yet over the past century, America has moved from treating the right to bear arms as a birthright of citizenship to treating it, in too many places, as a government-granted privilege hedged in by fees, waiting periods, and paperwork.

The result is a maze of state and local laws so inconsistent that the same citizen, with the same clean record and character, can be legal in one state and a criminal the moment he crosses into another.

That is not the rule of law. That is a trap for honest people.

National reciprocity would cut through that maze. It would recognize a simple principle: Your right to carry should travel with you.

Twenty-nine states already recognize that citizens should not need government permission to carry. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision also affirmed that the Constitution protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense rather than leaving it to the discretion of local officials.

Reciprocity would extend that logic across state lines.

So yes, the president’s words in Pennsylvania were encouraging. But encouragement is not law, and the bill remains stalled in the Senate. It will stay there unless the people who care about this issue make themselves heard.

I have often said that elections are only victories in individual battles. The fight for freedom continues long after the votes are counted.

This is one of those fights.

If you believe your God-given rights should not change the moment you cross a state line, say so. Call your senators. Talk to your neighbors. Make the national right to carry a question every candidate must answer.

Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.

The founders did their part. The question is whether we will do ours.

​Concealed carry, Drivers license, Gun owners, President trump, Second amendment, Supreme court, Right to carry, Pennsylvania, Opinion & analysis 

Europe is warming at an unprecedented rate. England is experiencing record-breaking temperatures this summer, with the month of June being the hottest the country has ever recorded. In the same month, Spain saw over 1,000 heat-related deaths, and in France 40 people died from drowning in one week’s time, as people rushed to bodies of water to escape the suffocating heat.

Sadly, these deaths aren’t uncommon. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 175,000 people die from heat-related causes in Europe every year.

The irony is that Europe has some of the world’s most ambitious climate policies. Many countries have rules limiting how cold public buildings or offices can be set; energy costs price the majority out of purchasing air conditioning; and the public largely views climate change as an urgent crisis demanding immediate aggressive action.

Glenn Beck is nauseated by the number of Europeans dying from what’s an easily fixable problem.

“It’s a box in a window that blows cold air. What a crazy thought,” he scoffs, citing a study that found that “air conditioning cuts heat deaths by as much as 75%.”

“So, you would think with bodies piling up that Europe might be like, yeah, we got to get a box in every window. … You’d think that that would be one thing everybody could agree on, but you’d be wrong,” he sighs.

Glenn plays a recent clip of British climate activist Dr. Kush Naker urging Brits to essentially ditch their gas-powered air conditioners.

“If you can switch your electricity provider to one that’s completely renewable, or you speak to your MP and tell them that we need to get off oil and gas … those are the sorts of things that means that we can actually make our grid green and that we can actually have air con without making climate change worse,” he said.

“Good Morning Britain” anchor Richard Madeley pushed back, “But all of that would take a heck of a long time. Are you saying in the interim you shouldn’t have air con? You should wait until you can say, hand on heart, ‘Yep, it’s green energy that’s keeping me cool?’”

Despite the fact that thousands are dying from the heat, Naker — who was also addressing a mother of young children whose bedrooms are often hotter than the threshold of what’s considered safe — replied, “We need to be honest about the fact that it has costs, right? And then when we face these sorts of costs, we then need to make a decision: Well, who should we prioritize?”

“These people are out-of-their-mind nuts!” Glenn exclaims.

He then shares a harrowing story out of France, where several schoolchildren have fainted or been hospitalized from classrooms reaching over 100-degree temperatures.

In late June 2026, during a severe heat wave in Nîmes, a young pupil at École Primaire La Planette fainted in class as temperatures hit around 104 degrees F with no air conditioning.

Parents, frustrated by the conditions, crowdfunded money to buy and install AC units themselves.

“Problem solved, right? Of course not! You’re in France,” Glenn scoffs, calling the mayor of Nîmes a “communist.”

The left-wing municipality in Nîmes, led by communist Mayor Vincent Bouget, ordered the removal of the parent-funded air conditioners. The stated reason was that it “set a precedent” and created inequality, as not all neighborhoods/schools had parents with the means to do the same.

“Everybody sweats together. I just want you to know that’s not a glitch. That is the socialist philosophy. … You’re all going to be miserable,” Glenn says.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Europe, Climate change