MAGA Senator Cites Slavery-Era Rule as Reason to Change Census Methods

Senator Bill Hagerty is dusting off the Three-Fifths Compromise as precedent for his bill to exclude undocumented immigrants from the U.S. census.

Hagerty appeared on Fox Business Friday to support the legislation, which would end the practice of counting all residents of a state—regardless of citizenship status—in the decennial census, which is used to determine congressional apportionment.

“We should only be counting citizens,” he said, arguing that his proposal to abandon centuries of precedent would stop Democratic states from “backfilling with illegal aliens.”

Fox Business host Ashley Webster let out a concerned huff and then asked: “Is it constitutionally legal to do that?”

“There’s constitutional interpretation, I think, that has been misapplied,” Hagerty replied. “It goes back to slavery days and, you know, what portion of a person is going to be counted, et cetera.”

Here, of course, he was referring to the notorious Three-Fifths Compromise, reached between Northern and Southern states at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, under which only three-fifths of a state’s enslaved population counted for apportionment and taxation purposes (all enslaved individuals were still included in the federal census, even if in an “odious way,” as legal scholar Steve Vladeck put it).

Not done making ludicrous statements in support of his bill, Hagerty went on to claim it was “not the intent of Founding Fathers” to count undocumented immigrants.

But the Framers, even while including the Three-Fifths Compromise, conspicuously opted to use the term “persons,” rather than “citizens,” to describe who was to be counted. In 1866, when the Fourteenth Amendment did away with the compromise, members of Congress chose to include noncitizens as well, deciding that apportionment populations include “the whole number of persons in each State.”

The U.S. Defense Department is sharing AI-generated images of female soldiers to make it seem like the government’s recruitment efforts are actually working.

In a propaganda segment on One America News’s The Matt Gaetz Show Thursday, Defense Department press secretary Kingsley Wilson lauded the department’s “incredible success” in recruiting women.

“These numbers are fantastic. Under the previous administration we had about 16,000 female recruits last year. Now we’ve got upwards of 24,000,” Wilson said. While the Pentagon has not officially released these numbers, it gave the same ones to Fox News earlier this week.

The broadcast showed several “photographs” of strikingly beautiful and notably diverse female officers. But lo and behold, a Grok AI watermark was distinctly visible in the corner of each image, revealing that the military’s newest recruits were nothing but ghosts in the machine.

A DOD spokesperson told CNN that they had not provided the phony images. Later, during Thursday evening’s show, Gaetz apologized for showing AI-generated images. “The DOD didn’t give us these images; Grok did. And we’ll use better judgment going forward,” he said.

But the DOD doesn’t seem to care either way. The clip—and the fake photographs—were shared by the Department of Defense Rapid Response account on X, touting the military’s success in hitting its recruitment goals early. The Army also said that it met its yearly recruitment goal of 61,000 new soldiers in June, but recruitment numbers were reportedly rising even before Donald Trump’s reelection. That didn’t stop Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from claiming a so-called “Trump Bump.”

One might recall just several months ago when Hegseth specifically said that women were not fit for combat roles. “It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he explained. “Our institutions don’t have to incentivize that in places where traditionally—not traditionally, over history—men in those positions are more capable.”

Now his agency is desperate to welcome female service members—or, at least, make it look like it does.

As Washington, D.C., sues the Trump administration for attempting to install DEA Administrator Terrance Cole as the Metropolitan Police Department’s “emergency police commissioner,” D.C. police chief Pamela Smith on Friday filed a scathing rebuke of the move with the court.

On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued the now-challenged order, which states—among other directives—that MPD officials would need Cole’s approval “before issuing any further directives.”

As Smith’s statement lays out, this would create chaos at the MPD.

“If effectuated, the Bondi Order would upend the command structure of MPD, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike,” Smith said. “In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive.”

Requiring MPD leadership to receive Cole’s approval for all their directives would upset the department’s “deeply familiar” and effective command structure, Smith said.

“Imposing a new command structure ‘effective immediately’ will wreak operational havoc within MPD and create tremendous risk for the public,” stated the police chief. This would sow confusion among the thousands of officers lawfully required to report to her—and, she said, “There is no greater risk to public safety in a paramilitary organization than to not know who is in command.”

Smith also railed against the delays that the new emergency commissioner, who would be unfamiliar with “MPD procedures” and “the communities in which we police,” would create.

Manifold MPD leaders are constantly issuing directives, she noted—“from routine paperwork and personnel assignments to responding to domestic violence calls to crowd management to the execution of high-risk warrants.” The cumbersome demand that they all pass through Cole “would effectively freeze public safety operations,” Smith said, creating “confusion and delays [that] will endanger public safety, placing the lives of MPD officers and District residents at grave risk.”

This would be all the more disruptive, she added, at a time when hundreds of federal agents and National Guard members—all “unfamiliar with MPD procedures”—are descending on the city’s streets on Trump’s orders.

The White House has authorized the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American drug cartels—but the sweeping directive also appears to violate the sovereignty of America’s southern neighbor.

Sources working in or with the Trump administration told Rolling Stone Thursday that the president is serious about attacking Mexico unless the nation gives Donald Trump “what he wants.” U.S. government officials just had one stipulation: Don’t refer to the intimidation campaign as an “invasion.”

“It’s not a negotiating tactic,” a senior administration official told the magazine. “It’s not Art of the Deal. The president has been clear that a strike … is coming unless we see some big, major changes.”

Trump and Republican leaders have long embraced the idea of invading Mexico, citing rising fentanyl rates and drug trafficking as sound reasons to put American boots on the ground. In January, Trump told reporters that the possibility of sending U.S. special ops across the border “could happen.”

Mexico’s compliance with Trump’s agenda has been complicated. Last week, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to send troops across the border, though days later, the Mexican government extradited 26 alleged cartel members, including leaders from major gangs, to the U.S.

Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the moves as “historic efforts to dismantle cartels and foreign terrorist organizations.”

Cartel monitors who spoke with Rolling Stone claimed that Mexico’s compliance is an effort to “stave off” U.S. military intervention and “preserve ongoing trade negotiations.”

Mexico has not finalized its trade deal with the Trump administration. Late last month, Trump and Sheinbaum agreed to postpone a potential 30 percent tariff rate for another 90 days, but just how long it will take for the two countries to reach an agreement remains to be seen.

Historically, it takes U.S. officials roughly 18 months to negotiate a new trade agreement with another country. That boils down to exhaustive reviews of the country’s prior trade, sorting through thousands of line items of products, and analyzing the complex minutiae of local import and export laws.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is so desperate to look cool, they’ve gone full Pimp My Ride—at the taxpayer’s expense.

A cringey recruitment video released Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security featured cars—a Ford Raptor and GMC Yukon—with massive ICE logos plastered on the side, and the name of the president printed on the back window in gold. Some have compared the large decal lettering and red stripe to the old design for the president’s private jet, nicknamed “Trump Force One.” The video shows the bulky cars swerving through the streets of Washington, as DaBaby’s “Toes” plays in the background.

“My heart so cold I think I’m done with ice,” the rapper sings over the Trump administration’s latest gimmick to recruit young people to execute the president’s sweeping and inhumane deportation scheme.

A Bluesky account called Boycott Citizens Bank and Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, posted several purchase orders for the cars featured in the video. The total cost for the cars alone was more than $380,000.

In reality, immigration enforcement vehicles aren’t quite so ostentatious—and that’s on purpose. U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicles are white, featuring a large blue or green stripe. But ICE most frequently uses unmarked vehicles with dark tinted windows and no license plates, so as to operate with a low profile. Common models are a Ford Explorer, Chevy Tahoe, and Dodge Charger, according to the League of Latin American Citizens.

In recent weeks, ICE recruitment has gotten desperate as DHS officials have started reaching out to retirees, hoping to lure them back into the fray. Meanwhile, ICE has removed its age requirement and dropped its Spanish-language learning requirement in an obvious attempt to soften the qualifications for joining Donald Trump’s squad of extrajudicial thugs.

The true believers of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement are fuming over a New York Times report Friday, which reveals that a leaked draft of the White House MAHA Commission’s second report does not endorse directly restricting pesticides and ultraprocessed foods.

When the first report was published in May, Forbes’s Chloe Sorvino notes, many adherents of the MAHA movement championed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believed it “didn’t go far enough” in its 25 mentions of pesticides as potentially harmful to human health. At the same time, the report struck fear in the hearts of many in the agriculture industry.

Last month, ahead of the upcoming second report, the White House reportedly promised farm lobbyists that the administration would side with them over MAHA by refusing to restrict pesticide use. The Times report suggests that the White House delivered on that promise.

The news will be sure to upset the 500 people who signed onto a July letter, by the anti–Big Ag group United We Eat, urging Kennedy to ban pesticides. Some in MAHA land are already up in arms.

“Behold the power of Big Ag & Chemical Co’s,” Fox News’s Laura Ingraham wrote on X.

“Republicans in the pay of Big Food [and] Pharma are thwarting MAHA,” tweeted Jeffrey A. Tucker, a libertarian writer and president of the Brownstone Institute. “Keep it up and they will lose the midterms.”

Nutritionist Marion Nestle wrote this week that the second MAHA report will expose a faultline in Trump’s 2024 movement: “MAHA versus the realities of MAGA.” If the final report resembles the leaked draft, then it would seem that MAHA’s losing this fight.

In lieu of actually promoting peace, Donald Trump has reportedly resorted to begging for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

The U.S. president phoned Norway’s Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg “out of the blue” last month, hoping to discuss the possibility of acquiring the prestigious prize, as well as the state of tariffs, Norwegian business daily Dagens Næringsliv reported Thursday.

The newspaper cited unnamed sources regarding the previously unknown conversation, but Stoltenberg confirmed to Reuters that he had discussed tariffs and economic cooperation with Trump ahead of a separate call between the U.S. president and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre.

“I will not go into further detail about the content of the conversation,” Stoltenberg said in a statement to the newswire, noting that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer were also on the call.

Trump has complained multiple times over the years about his lack of a Nobel Peace Prize, whose honorees include some of the greatest figures of the last century, including Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, and Malala Yousafzai.

Four U.S. presidents, including former President Barack Obama, have received the award.

In June, Trump claimed responsibility for peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda, between India and Pakistan, between Serbia and Kosovo, between Egypt and Ethiopia, and for “doing the Abraham Accords.” He continued to lament his lack of recognition from the Norway-based panel of judges.

“No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb are clapping back at a late-night attempt by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to unlawfully usurp the D.C. police chief. Their message: We’ll see you in court, President Trump.

Bondi on Thursday evening issued an order to install Terrance Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, as the “emergency police commissioner” of the Metropolitan Police Department “for the duration of the emergency” that President Trump invented from whole cloth in his federal takeover of the District. Bondi claimed Cole would have the authority to issue orders to members of the MPD—and that department leadership, from Chief Pamela Smith down, would have to receive his approval “before issuing any further directives” to its officers.

Bondi also rescinded an executive order Smith issued earlier that day, which allowed the MPD to coordinate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement but placed limits on the department’s assistance of ICE.

Schwalb on Friday sued the Trump administration in response. “By declaring a hostile takeover of MPD, the Administration is abusing its limited, temporary authority under the Home Rule Act, infringing on the District’s right to self-governance and putting the safety of DC residents and visitors at risk,” he said in a statement. “This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”

Late Thursday, Schwalb had issued an opinion stating that Bondi’s order was beyond the U.S. attorney general’s legal authority, arguing that the order is “unlawful, and that [Smith is] not legally obligated to follow it.” According to Schwalb, the Home Rule Act—which Trump is invoking (and testing the limits of) in his crackdown on the capital—does not grant the executive branch power to “remove or replace” the police chief, “alter the chain of command,” issue or rescind MPD orders or directives, or “otherwise determine how the District pursues purely local law enforcement.”

“You are the lawfully appointed Chief of Police,” Schwalb told Smith, and the police “must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor.”

Bowser shared Schwalb’s opinion on X, along with a statement. “We have followed the law,” she wrote. “In reference to the U.S. Attorney General’s order, there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are demanding answers on the Trump administration’s efforts to gut and stymie the work of inspector generals across multiple departments.

In a letter sent Friday to the heads of all 24 federal agencies, and shared exclusively with The New Republic, Oversight Democrats accused the Trump administration of systematically impeding the work of agency watchdogs by obstructing their access, purging their staff, and replacing them with loyalists.

“The Trump Administration’s actions have both deprived [Offices of Inspectors General] of the personnel and resources they need to examine and address waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in government, and limited agencies’ ability to respond to OIG requests,” the letter stated.

Since entering office, Donald Trump has fired or demoted more than 20 inspectors general, who had collectively carved out more than $50 billion in savings from federal programs in 2024.

In some cases, the removals appeared to be politically motivated. In June, Trump installed a new acting inspector general at the Department of Education, and demoted Acting IG René Rocque. The staffing change came shortly after Rocque’s office reported to committee members that the administration had “[interfered] with the OIG’s ability to conduct an independent and timely review” of changes to staffing and operations.

In May, Rocque’s office reported that the Department of Education “had withheld numerous documents requested by the OIG based on vague claims that the materials are somehow sensitive, deliberative, or related to unspecified litigation,” according to the letter. But the Inspector General Act specifically bars agencies from refusing to hand over documents for those stated reasons, and requires agencies to give OIGs timely access to records. As of July 1, the OIGs still had not received access.

Multiple agency OIGs have reported interference from department leadership. The Department of Education OIG also said that the agency had canceled its interviews with staff, and insisted that a general counsel be present for interviews—a significant break from agency practice. In May, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency reported to the Oversight Committee that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had installed a senior adviser at the Intelligence Community IG, creating “significant independence issues.”

According to the letter, the issues at OIGs are more widespread. “Numerous OIGs have reported to Committee staff about alterations of work schedules, delays in agency responses to OIG requests, and recruitment and retention issues,” the letter stated.

To replace the ousted OIG staff, Trump has nominated loyalists with dubious ethical records. Trump nominated former Representative Anthony D’Esposito, who hired his lover, for the IG for the Department of Labor and Thomas March Bell, who was accused of mishandling taxpayer dollars, for the Department of Health and Human Services.

“IGs must have the courage and independence to hold their agencies accountable and to deliver for the American people. By law, they must be watchdogs, not lapdogs,” the letter states.

The lawmakers requested that the agency heads give a response by August 29 “to clarify how you will dutifully uphold our nation’s federal oversight and IG laws.”

Younger Republicans are turning against Donald Trump, according to a survey by Pew Research Center.

A recent Pew survey found that the largest drop in Trump’s support by far was among his youngest voters in 2024, between the ages of 18 and 39. Only 69 percent of Trump’s youngest voters said that they approved of his job performance, down from 92 percent when he entered office, according to the survey. In the last two months alone, Trump’s job performance approval dropped 11 points among this demographic.

It’s not entirely clear why this happened, but there is one theory.

The same survey found that 53 percent of Republicans said that they disapproved of the administration’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, with the disapproval rating being higher among younger Republicans. It seems that the president’s ties to the alleged sex trafficker, and his administration’s refusal to publish a long-awaited client list, has resonated more with the party’s newer members. Apparently, not everyone is buying Trump’s knee-jerk reaction to dismiss the Epstein matter as a Democratic hoax.

And it doesn’t look like the president—who privately referred to survivors of Epstein’s abuse as “Democrats”—intends to course-correct anytime soon.

Of course, one must imagine that there may be something wonky at play here—what young Republican would actually respond to a poll?

Trump’s approval rating has slipped nine points since he entered office. Another group that saw a massive loss of enthusiasm for the commander in chief was adults who did not vote in 2024. Trump’s approval rating among this group sank from 45 percent to 32 percent since the beginning of his term.