MAGA Loses Its Collective Mind Over New Country Song Bashing ICE

Trump Republicans aren’t too happy about the new Zach Bryan song coming for the airwaves.

The Grammy award–winning country music singer released a snippet of an unreleased track, “Bad News,” on his Instagram over the weekend. From the minute-long preview, “Bad News” appears to be an old-fashioned protest song that captures scenes of a disintegrating America, taking swipes at ICE while lamenting the “fading of the red, white, and blue.”

“I heard the cops came / Cocky motherfuckers, ain’t they?” sings Bryan. “And ICE is gonna come bust down your door / Try to build a house no one builds no more / But I got a telephone / Kids are all scared and all alone.

“The bars stopped bumping, the rock stopped rolling / The middlе fingers rising, and it won’t stop showing / Got some bad news / Thе fading of the red, white and blue,” the song continues.

Bryan, a self-described “total libertarian,” has rarely dipped his toe into national politics. In 2023, he publicly feuded with fellow country music star Travis Tritt after Bud Light opted to feature a transgender activist in one of its commercials. At the time, Bryan warned his fans against “insulting transgender people.”

But this weekend’s teaser absolutely jolted supporters of the president’s agenda, particularly those in the country music enclave, who have since expressed their disinterest in Bryan’s foray into political commentary.

Nashville singer Jake Owen called Bryan a tool. Big & Rich’s John Rich sarcastically posited there might be a “large ‘anti law enforcement’ wing of the country music fanbase” that Bryan could tap into.

Incredibly, the Trump administration also commented on the pop culture development. In an email to Rolling Stone, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that Bryan should “stick to Pink Skies,” referring to the musician’s song about a funeral. McLaughlin reiterated the comment on X Tuesday.

The White House shared its two cents, rejecting Bryan’s vision while reiterating Donald Trump’s “mandate from the people” governing philosophy.

“While Zach Bryan wants to Open The Gates to criminal illegal aliens and has Condemned heroic ICE officers, Something in the Orange tells me a majority of Americans disagree with him and support President Trump’s great American Revival. Godspeed, Zach!” said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement to Axios.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday said he will schedule the long-awaited swearing-in of Democratic Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva “as soon as she wants.” That’s not true, as that day has already come and gone.

After handily winning a special election in Arizona two weeks ago, Grijalva is poised to give Democrats some more power in the House—and also, notably, supply the deciding signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the Epstein files.

But Johnson has stalled Grijalva’s swearing-in thus far, even calling the House in recess (seemingly in order to pressure Senate Democrats to cave on the shutdown). Many Democrats—Grijalva included—have chalked the delay up to an attempt to prevent the release of the Epstein files.

Johnson on Tuesday pushed back against that idea, telling CNN reporter Manu Raju, “It has nothing to do with that at all,” and that he would “swear her in when everybody gets back.” But, as Raju noted, there’s no need to wait for a full regular session; Grijalva could be sworn in during one of the brief, minutes-long pro forma House sessions regularly taking place during the recess.

After all, Johnson swore in Republican Representatives Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine during a pro forma session in April. At a pro forma session last week, Democratic lawmakers shouted at the presiding member (Johnson was not in attendance) to swear in the newly elected Democrat, but their pleas fell on deaf ears, and the session was quickly gaveled out.

So why not swear Grijalva in during a pro forma? Throwing up his hands, Johnson replied Tuesday: “Uh, look. We’ll schedule it, I guess, as soon as she wants.”

This was clearly a cop-out, considering Grijalva has, in fact, publicly called for her swearing-in repeatedly over the past two weeks. A few examples: In an interview published three days after her election, Grijalva spoke out against Johnson for dragging his feet. Three days after that, she wrote on social media that “there’s no reason why Speaker Johnson cannot swear me in tomorrow during the pro forma session,” citing the cases of Patronis and Fine.

On Monday, she put it even more directly: “Swear me in NOW,” she posted on X, tagging Johnson’s profile.

Author and Rutgers University history professor Mark Bray is taking his wife and children to Europe after facing mounting death threats, some of which were sent to his home address.

Bray made the announcement on Monday, shortly after the school’s Turning Point USA chapter called for his termination and claimed his research—which focuses on the history of leftist movements—“puts conservative students at risk for antifa to come in.”

“You have a teacher that so often promotes political violence, especially in his book Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, which talks about militant fascism, which is on term with political violence,” Rutgers Turning Point chapter treasurer Megyn Doyle told Fox News last week.

A petition from the university’s Turning Point chapter also accused Bray of being “a prominent leader of the antifa movement on campus.” Bray states that he is against facism, not conservative students on campus.

Even still, the so-called free speech club got their wish. In an email to his students later posted on the Rutgers University subreddit, Bray said his class would be online for the rest of the semester as he and his family go to Europe out of fear for their safety.

Hi everyone in Terrorism,

Unfortunately my situation has gotten worse recently. This weekend, shortly after some negative media and social media attention (some of which, ironically enough, accused me of being a “terrorist”), I received another death threat and a separate threat that included my home address. The University and the authorities have been notified. Since my family and I do not feel safe in our home at the moment, we are moving for the year to Europe. Truly I am so bummed about not being able to spend time with you all in the classroom. I really enjoyed our conversations.

Bray went on to notify the students that he’d be moving the class online asynchronously until the midterm, given the time difference.

This chilling news comes as President Trump designates antifa as a terrorist organization, even as he’s unable to name a single leader of the group—because it doesn’t exist. Trump also declared any vaguely leftist rhetoric to be domestic terrorism in his NPSM-7 memo.

“Wait, so they terrorize, dox him, and he’s the terrorist?” one comment on r/Rutgers read.

“I loved him as a professor,” said another. “He was great at challenging us to argue more nuanced points. He made me such a better writer. I’m honestly in so much shock. I was only in class with him like three years ago.”

Donald Trump has a strange new excuse for attacking Venezuelans.

Seated beside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during a White House press conference Tuesday, the president blamed his administration’s dubious airstrikes on several Venezuelan boats allegedly carrying what he described as “water drugs.”

“We call them the water drugs,” Trump said. “The drugs that come in through water. They’re not coming.”

“There are no boats anymore. Frankly, there are no fishing boats. There are no boats out there, period, if you want to know the truth. We’re saying, ‘Does anybody go fishing anymore?’ The fact is we knocked out, probably saved at least 100,000 American lives—Canadian lives, by taking out all those boats coming in,” Trump said.

He did not elaborate on how his administration had reached the conclusion that killing more than a dozen Venezuelans outside of U.S. waters could save so many people in the northern hemisphere.

Over the last several weeks, the U.S. has destroyed at least four small Venezuelan boats traversing international waters that Trump administration officials deemed—without an investigation or interdiction—were smuggling drugs. At least 21 have been killed in the attacks.

In a memo to Congress on Thursday, Trump declared that the U.S. government is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels.

“The United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations,” the leaked memo, obtained by the Associated Press, read.

Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro has accused the Trump administration of violating U.S. and international laws by striking the boats. He condemned the attacks as a “heinous crime,” and also suggested that the strikes were an attempt to goad Venezuela into a “major war.”

Is the Department of Homeland Security lying about the victim of yet another shooting by an immigration enforcement officer?

Marimar Martinez, 30, was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago Saturday, after she and several other drivers trailed the officers’ car through the Chicago streets. In a press release, DHS claimed that when the officers exited their vehicle, Martinez tried to run them over, “forcing the officers to fire defensively.”

Martinez and 21-year old Anthony Ruiz were both charged with felony assault of a federal officer. But Christopher Parente, Martinez’s attorney, claimed during a federal court hearing Tuesday that body-camera footage disproved the government’s claim, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Parente said that he had repeatedly viewed the footage, and it appeared that the agent suddenly turned his wheel, indicating that Border Patrol had rammed into Martinez’s car and not the other way around. That officer was reportedly caught saying, “Do something, bitch,” before leaping out of the car and shooting her multiple times within a matter of seconds.

Parente also claimed the body camera footage captured another officer asking, “Hey, what happened?” The first officer pointed to his body camera and said, “Hey, don’t speak. You’re good.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Hennessy, arguing that the duo should not be released pending trial, told the judge that Martinez had been following the agents for 30 minutes before the shooting happened. He claimed that body camera footage showed the agents fretting that their cars were going to collide. “We’re getting boxed in! We gotta get out of here! She’s going to make contact!” one of the agents reportedly said, before the car was allegedly hit on both sides.

Hennessey claimed that Martinez and Ruiz were “extremely dangerous and extremely reckless,” but Parente argued that the Border Patrol agents careening through the streets of Chicago while carrying assault rifles were the bigger threat.

U.S. District Judge Heather McShain denied the government’s bid to keep Martinez and Ruiz locked up, saying it was “a miracle” that no one was more seriously injured.

Last month, DHS claimed that ICE had shot and killed “a criminal illegal alien with a history of reckless driving,” while trying to detain him—but a closer look found that the man had no criminal history, and his last traffic violation was in 2013. DHS also claimed that the ICE agent responsible for the shooting had been “seriously injured” in the line of duty, but bodycam videos from shortly after the incident showed the agent describing his injuries as “nothing major.” One witness speaking to the Chicago Sun-Times claimed that ICE’s account of the fatal shooting had been inaccurate, and questioned whether the incident would be properly investigated.

Attorney General Pam Bondi sidestepped a series of simple yes-or-no questions at a Senate judiciary hearing on Tuesday about border czar Tom Homan and the $50,000 in cash he allegedly accepted from undercover FBI agents in a paper Cava bag.  

“There’s a tape, right, with Mr. Homan. First of all, is there a tape that has audio and video of the transfer of the $50,000?” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Bondi, referencing reports that such a recording indeed exists. 

“You would have to talk to Director Patel about that,” Bondi replied.

“No, I’m talking to you.” 

“I don’t know the answer, Senator.” 

“You do know the answer to that,” Whitehouse pressed. 

“Don’t call me a liar!” Bondi shouted. 

“I didn’t call you a liar.”

“You just said I know the answer, I said I don’t know the answer, you have to talk to Director Patel.”

“Let me put it another way. If you don’t know, why don’t you know whether there was a tape and video?” 

“Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my confirmation as attorney general.” 

Bondi continued to insist that she had no clue about the investigation, and that Director Patel “resolving” the case was enough for her. 

“But it’s not resolved. There’s $50,000. Homan has it, or somebody has it,” Whitehouse responded. “Do you have no interest in knowing where it is?” 

“You’re not gonna sit here and slander Tom Homan.” 

​​

Shortly thereafter, Bondi had a similar spat with Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. 

“You were asked by my colleague from Vermont, whether or not you will support providing a video or audio tape if it exists, of Mr. Homan taking $50,000 in bribe money from the FBI,” Schiff said, referring to Whitehouse. “Will you support a request by this committee to provide that tape or tapes to the committee, yes or no.” 

“Senator Schiff, you can talk to Director Patel about that,” Bondi replied.

“Well I’m talking to you about it. You’re the attorney general. This will be your decision. Will you support—”

“You don’t have to tell me what is my decision and what is not my decision, you think you got a gotcha with Tom Homan our border czar, who’s been out there fighting for our country—”

“You don’t have to refer to the FBI director to pass the buck. So I’m asking you, will you support a request, so that the committee, or indeed I believe the American people should be able to see that video or audio tape. Will you support that request?” 

“Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him?” Bondi shot back, avoiding the question entirely and pivoting to Hunter Biden theories. 

Our very own FBI bribed Tom Homan with $50,000 and he accepted it. Now the attorney general is pretending that she doesn’t know anything about it at all, and is instead demanding that Schiff say he’s sorry rather than acknowledging a very warranted further investigation into Homan’s bribe. 

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California took Attorney General Pam Bondi to task Tuesday for her incessant deflections and evasions throughout a Senate judiciary hearing.

Bondi had verbally attacked Democratic senators throughout the hearing rather than answer their questions. Schiff was, evidently, keeping track of questions Bondi left unanswered, and he ran through the lengthy (yet inexhaustive) list after the attorney general derailed his own inquiry about releasing a video of Tom Homan, now Trump’s border czar, accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents in 2024.

“I think it’s valuable that the American people get a sense of what you’ve refused to answer today,” Schiff told Bondi. The following questions are those that Schiff noted went unanswered, or were met with personal attacks, by the attorney general:

1. Did Bondi consult with career ethics lawyers when she approved Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million jet gifted by Qatar’s royal family?

2. Who ordered that Donald Trump’s name be flagged in the FBI’s review of the Epstein files?

3. Did Homan keep his $50,000 from the undercover agents?

4. Did Homan pay taxes on the $50,000?

5. Did DOJ prosecutors determine there was “insufficient evidence” to charge former FBI Director James Comey before he was indicted?

6. How did the administration determine whether U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean were legal?

(Here, Bondi interrupted, asking the senator, who worked for the justice department before his career in politics, “Do you have a law degree, Senator Schiff?”)

7. Did Bondi discuss indicting Comey with Trump?

8. Did Bondi approve the dismissal of antitrust lawyers who opposed the Hewlett Packard–Juniper merger?

9. Does Bondi support a “compensation fund” for people prosecuted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots?

10. Is Bondi firing career prosecutors for working on January 6 investigations?

11. Does Bondi think government officials must follow court orders?

After concluding the list, Schiff made the following statement, though he was peppered with interruptions from Bondi—who brought up red herrings, such as wildfires and riots in his home state, and threw personal barbs, calling the senator a “failed lawyer.”

This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department, and it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag, and this department made that investigation go away. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president.… This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about … the cover-up of corruption, about the prosecution of the president’s enemies.

Schiff implored members of the committee to “demand answers to those questions” and to refuse “personal slander as an answer to those questions.” Bondi in turn said Schiff should apologize for “slandering” Trump.

Invoking the Insurrection Act is still very much on the table, according to the president.

Donald Trump threatened Tuesday to enforce a nineteenth-century law that would let him utilize the military for domestic purposes, allowing the troops to police and arrest citizens. If invoked, Trump would be able to deploy active duty forces in order to enact his agenda, which involves federalizing the law enforcement agencies of Democratic cities.

“I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump has claimed that the troops are a necessary precaution to safeguard federal buildings and agents enacting his administration’s immigration agenda.

“If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that. I mean, I want to make sure that people aren’t killed. We have to make sure that our cities are safe,” Trump continued.

The law has not been invoked since 1992, when President George H. W. Bush used it to subdue riots in Los Angeles after the local police force brutalized Rodney King.

Trump has floated the idea of leveraging the Insurrection Act for years, though the idea has picked up steam since his inauguration.

But the president has so far not aligned his desire for militaristic order with quelling real violence in the country. After mass shootings devastated communities in Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Illinois late last month, the president decided to order the National Guard to the hipster paradise of Portland. His rationale for sending them, according to the president himself, was not informed by statistics or data, but because of something he saw on TV.

“I spoke to the governor, she was very nice,” Trump said at the time, referring to a phone call he had with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. “But I said, ‘Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening? My people tell me different.’ They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place.… It looks like terrible.”

So far, federal judges have temporarily staved off Trump’s efforts to force the National Guard into Oregon. In the meantime, though, the president has directed the Guard to deploy to Chicago and Memphis. He has already federalized the law enforcement of Washington, D.C., as well as areas of Los Angeles.

“What President Trump is trying to do is an abuse of power,” Kotek told PBS News Hour Monday. “And it is a threat to our democracy. Governors should be in command of their National Guards, our citizen soldiers who sign up to stand up in an emergency to deal with real problems.

President Donald Trump came off unintelligibly Tuesday while comparing the Democratic Party to Somalia.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump appeared to brag that he didn’t even know the names of the Democratic lawmakers hoping to speak with him about ending the government shutdown.

“I’m getting calls from Democrats wanting to meet. I never even heard their names before. And they’re claiming to be lead—the Democrats have no leader. They remind me of Somalia,” Trump said.

Appearing pleased with his weirdly racist analogy, Trump continued babbling.

“And I met the president of Somalia, told him about the problem it’s got. I said, ‘You got somebody from Somalia that’s telling us how to run our country, from Somalia.’ I said, ‘Would you like to take her back?’ He said, ‘No, I don’t want her!’” Trump ranted incoherently.

Trump was referring to Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar, who has previously been targeted with threats of deportation by racist Republicans. The president, who has a tendency to repeat himself, was rehashing a joke he made earlier this month at Omar’s expense when he claimed he’d asked Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud if the Michigan lawmaker could be “taken back” to her home country.

Trump’s insistence that he doesn’t know who the Democrats are, and that they have no leaders, tells you everything you need to know about how seriously Trump is taking efforts to end the government shutdown. His own spokesperson revealed Monday that she wasn’t aware of any efforts the president had taken to speak with Democrats directly, but he is instead working through his own proxies in the House and Senate.

Trump previously met with very real Democratic leaders House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (whom Trump has repeatedly called a “Palestinian,” as another form of racist insult) ahead of the shutdown last week. But the president used the meeting as a meme photo op before proceeding to blame Democrats for the shutdown, as well as his administration’s efforts to enact massive layoffs and illegally withhold back pay from furloughed workers.

President Donald Trump gave the least reassuring answer Tuesday about ensuring federal workers receive backpay after the government shutdown.

During a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump was asked about the White House’s position on paying back furloughed federal workers for the shutdown. While federal law requires the government to provide backpay for federal workers sent home during the shutdown, the Trump administration is reportedly making preparations to renege on its obligation to pay up once the government reopens.

“I would say it depends on who we’re talking about,” Trump replied.

“I can tell you this, the Democrats have put a lot of people in great risk and jeopardy, but it really depends on who you’re talking about,” Trump continued. “But for the most part, we’re gonna take care of our people. There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’re gonna take care of them in a different way.”

Trump limply attempted to blame the Democrats for his potentially lawless acts—but it’s Russell Vought’s White House Office of Management and Budget that is behind the newest threat.

A drafted memo from OMB reportedly offered a wild new interpretation of the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act Trump signed during a previous shutdown in 2019, undermining assurances that federal employees will eventually get paid. OMB also quietly deleted a line from a document about Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations that referred to the GEFTA rule that “employees will be paid retroactively as soon as possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Tuesday morning that paying federal workers was something he hoped for—but not something he could promise. Meanwhile, the Louisiana Republican’s own website states: “Under federal law, employees are entitled to back pay upon the government reopening.”

When asked why only some people would receive backpay, Trump simply replied, “You’re gonna have to figure it out.”

But it’s not clear who exactly the president believes will receive pay, or why. During a shutdown, government employees are either furloughed or “excepted” from furlough, meaning they continue to work and earn pay, but their pay is postponed until appropriations are authorized. And Trump has already picked some convenient projects to keep federal employees working on, ensuring that immigration enforcement and tariff offices are fully staffed, while threatening to gut Democrats’ “favorite” programs. Trump could potentially plan to pay those working on his own pet projects, and illegally withhold funding from everyone else.

It’s also not clear how the president intends to deal with those he believes do not deserve pay. The president could potentially be referring to the scores of federal employees OMB has instructed agencies to lay off amid the shutdown, in an unprecedented move he certainly appears to be enjoying.