Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

Rep. Tom Kean Jr. says he expects to return to Congress ‘in the next couple of weeks’ after missing 100 votes

Rep. Tom Kean Jr. says he expects to return to Congress ‘in the next couple of weeks’ after missing 100 votes

Rep. Tom Kean Jr., R-N.J., said Thursday that he expects to return to Congress “in the next couple of weeks” after missing 100 consecutive House votes during an extended absence tied to what his office has described only as a “personal health matter.” “My doctors are confident that I’m on the road to a full recovery,” Kean, 57, told the New Jersey Globe in his first public comments since stepping away from Capitol Hill in March. “I understand the need for public transparency, and I appreciate the support of my constituents,” he added. “I anticipate that in the next couple of weeks, I’ll return to voting and to the campaign trail.” Kean last voted on March 5 and has missed every House roll call vote since then, according to GovTrack. His absence has drawn heightened attention because Republicans hold a slim majority in the House and because Kean represents one of the country’s most competitive congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. TOM KEAN JR’S PROLONGED ABSENCE PUTS PRESSURE ON HOUSE REPUBLICANS’ RAZOR-THIN MAJORITY His office has repeatedly declined to disclose details about the illness, saying only that the congressman is focused on recovery and expected to return “soon.” Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Kean for additional comment. Last week, Kean’s father, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean Sr., told NJ.com that his son was recovering from a “serious illness.” “You can’t say definitely, but their best guess is now he’ll be out in two or three weeks,” Kean Sr. said, referring to doctors treating his son. “Any time you’ve been through a serious illness, you can’t be 100% the day you get back. You’re gonna be able to do things, but gradually ramping up.” COMPLEX PARTIAL SEIZURE RULED AS CAUSE OF PAUSING EPISODE DURING HOUSE FLOOR SPEECH, DEM CONGRESSMAN SAYS Kean Sr. also said doctors expect his son to make a full recovery but declined to discuss the diagnosis. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters this week that he had spoken with Kean recently but was unaware of details surrounding the congressman’s condition. “We’re expecting him back here soon. He’s had a medical issue,” Johnson said Wednesday. “I don’t even know the details.” JOHNSON WARNS HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO ‘STAY HEALTHY’ AS GOP MAJORITY SHRINKS TO THE EDGE The absence has become a growing political issue in New Jersey as Democrats target Kean’s swing district. Kean is running unopposed in the Republican primary on June 2, while several Democrats are competing for their party’s nomination. Earlier this month, a top Kean aide told The New York Times, “There’s no cameras where Tom is.” Kean consultant Harrison Neely said this week the congressman remains committed to seeking reelection. “What I can tell you is that the congressman is dealing with a personal health matter. He is focused on his recovery,” Neely told the New York Post. Fox News Digital’s Adam Pack contributed to this report.

Texas congressional candidate claims she never called for ‘internment camps’ after party leaders condemn her

Texas congressional candidate claims she never called for ‘internment camps’ after party leaders condemn her

A Texas Democratic congressional candidate who pledged to convert an immigration detention center near San Antonio “into a prison for American Zionists” clarified her position Thursday following sharp criticism from members of her own party. Maureen Galindo, who is running for a House seat in the newly redrawn 35th Congressional District, posted a video on Facebook days after criticizing wealthy supporters of Israel. She claimed that following her initial remarks, she received hundreds of “death threats” and other “vile” messages. “I never said I want Jews in internment camps,” Galindo said. “I said I want to close all ICE detention centers and put billionaire American Zionists who are funding the genocidal prison systems involved in trafficking into prison.” “If they committed a crime, do they not belong in prison?” she added. TEXAS DEMOCRAT MAUREEN GALINDO FACES BACKLASH FOR PLEDGING TO IMPRISON ‘AMERICAN ZIONISTS’ AT ICE FACILITY “I’m against all internment camps and would like to see them all shut down ASAP, starting with the many in South Texas,” Galindo said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities. Galindo accused the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) of coordinating statements against her in an effort to back her primary runoff opponent, Johnny Garcia, a former hostage negotiator and public information officer for the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office. She also accused a local journalist, whom she claimed “literally wants me dead,” of fabricating the “internment camps” comment. The backlash began when Galindo stated in an Instagram post earlier this month that she would turn the “Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking.” DEMOCRATS VOW TO VOTE ‘EVERY SINGLE DAY’ TO EXPEL FELLOW DEM FROM CONGRESS IF SHE WINS MIDTERM “It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles, which will probably be most of the Zionists,” Galindo wrote. In other social media posts, Galindo, a family therapist and housing advocate, accused Garcia of wanting “Jews and Mexicans in warehouses.” She also accused “billionaire Zionists” of controlling trafficking networks in San Antonio and South Texas. The condemnation was swift. Notable Democrats have distanced themselves from her, including Texas State Representative James Talarico, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. TEXAS DEM SENATE PRIMARY FRACTURES OVER RACE RHETORIC AS ‘MEDIOCRE’ JAB, ‘OPPRESSOR’ REMARKS IGNITE BACKLASH Additionally, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene issued a joint statement calling her rhetoric “vile” and “disqualifying.” Earlier this month, the DCCC accused “Washington Republicans” of secretly contributing to Galindo’s campaign through dark money spending. Galindo and Garcia, who has been endorsed by the DCCC, are set to face off in a runoff election next week. In their first matchup, Galindo had a narrow lead over Garcia, 29% to 27%, though neither candidate came close to clearing the 50% threshold required to win the nomination. Fox News Digital has reached out to the DCCC. Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

DHS touts millions of illegal immigrant departures as border crossings drop 94% under Trump

DHS touts millions of illegal immigrant departures as border crossings drop 94% under Trump

President Donald Trump’s first year back in office has seen more than 3 million illegal immigrants leave the United States, including an estimated 2.2 million “self-deportations,” according to figures shared with Fox News Digital by the Department of Homeland Security. DHS said the administration has also deported nearly 900,000 illegal immigrants and arrested more than 900,000 others as of May 17, framing the numbers as evidence Trump’s immigration crackdown is reshaping migration patterns after record illegal crossings during former President Joe Biden’s administration. “In President Trump’s first year back in office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital. The administration has increasingly promoted self-deportation through the CBP Home app, which allows migrants to voluntarily leave the country with travel assistance and financial support. DHS DEFENDS AD BLITZ AMID SENATE SCRUTINY, SAYS CAMPAIGN DROVE 2.2M SELF-DEPORTATIONS AND SAVED TAXPAYERS $39B DHS says the program costs significantly less than traditional deportation proceedings and is designed to encourage migrants in the country illegally to leave voluntarily. The figures come as the administration touts dramatic declines in illegal crossings and what officials describe as the end of “catch-and-release” policies at the southern border. Last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Border Patrol had gone a full year without releasing illegal immigrants directly into the U.S. interior after apprehension at the border. SOUTHERN BORDER APPREHENSIONS PLUNGE MORE THAN 90% FROM YEAR AGO IN APRIL, CBP SAYS CBP said Border Patrol recorded 8,943 apprehensions at the southwestern border in April, a 94% drop from the Biden administration’s monthly average and 96% below the December 2023 peak. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last week that “the days of catch and release are over,” arguing the administration’s enforcement policies are deterring migrants from attempting to enter the country illegally. The administration has also pointed to increased ICE operations, tighter asylum restrictions and expanded interior enforcement as factors contributing to what officials describe as a broader deterrence effect. Immigration analysts say the administration’s tougher enforcement posture has clearly reduced illegal crossings, though some dispute how DHS characterizes some of the figures tied to migrant releases and removals. Fox News Digital’s Alec Schemmel contributed to this report.

Democrats revolt over ‘biological’ wording in women’s history museum bill

Democrats revolt over ‘biological’ wording in women’s history museum bill

House Democrats unanimously rebelled against legislation Thursday directing the construction of a new women’s history museum on the National Mall. Democrats sought to defeat the bill after Republicans limited the institution to biological women and excluded transgender individuals.  The measure came up short in a vote of 204-216 after a handful of conservative GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in tanking the legislation that would secure a site for the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum on the grounds of the Mall.  The defecting Republicans objected to the measure over concerns about whether a women’s history museum was necessary and because the bill did not include protections against left-wing content from appearing in the institution,” a source familiar told Fox News Digital. WATCH: DEMS GO SILENT, PULL WOMEN’S MONTH RESOLUTION AFTER GOP ASKS FOR SIMPLE DEFINITION “American women are already proudly honored across the Smithsonian—from pioneers and patriots to scientists and leaders,” the source said. “We don’t need another taxpayer-funded museum that risks becoming a shrine to abortion activists like Margaret Sanger or the latest progressive cause.” It was not immediately clear whether Republican leadership would attempt to bring the legislation up for a vote at a later date. Eight Republicans did not vote. Democrats’ widespread opposition to the legislation came after the Democratic Women’s Caucus issued a statement last month accusing Republicans of targeting “transgender women and girls” with an amendment defining the museum around biological women. The female lawmakers argued the anticipated museum is long overdue, but said they could not support the legislation with the biological women language added, which many characterized as a “poison pill.” “The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements and lived experiences of biological women in the United States,” the amended measure, authored by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., states in part. The museum may not depict “any biological male as female,” it continues, which codifies language in a Trump executive order issued in 2025 barring the inclusion of transgender individuals in the forthcoming museum.  “The addition of the word biological made them all run for the hills,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a news conference Wednesday. “If that’s controversial in the Democratic Party, we’re in serious trouble. The party that purports to support women, demanding that the museum include biological men.” Democrats’ decision to withdraw support for the museum measure comes as the party has continued to advocate for transgender rights despite questions over whether those views contributed to its poor performance in the 2024 election. Many Democrats also continue to face GOP scrutiny about providing a definition for “woman.” DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO DEFINE ‘WOMAN’ WHEN PRESSED ON CAPITOL HILL: ‘COMPLICATED QUESTION’ Democratic lawmakers also slammed amended language in the bill granting the president the authority to choose an “alternative site” within 180 days of the measure’s enactment. “They amended the bill to give Trump and his allies unregulated power over what content and which women can be included in the museum, and the museum’s location,” Democratic Women’s Caucus Chairwoman Teresa Leger Fernandez, D-N.M., said in a joint statement earlier this week with other female Democratic lawmakers. “A museum about women, fought for and supported by women, should not be controlled by one man.” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the sponsor of the museum measure, accused Democrats of “hiding behind” that rationale to avoid addressing the transgender provision. “A women’s history museum is supposed to be dedicated to women, period,” Malliotakis told Fox News. “And the fact that they’re going to pull their support after overwhelmingly co-sponsoring this bill because the word biological was inserted, to me, is ludicrous.” “They’re going to have to explain to their voters why they believe this museum should not be built and why they believe that there should be transgender exhibits in it,” she added. Congress previously authorized the women’s history museum in 2020, along with a museum for American Latinos. Some Democrats justified their opposition to the measure over objections that the women’s history museum is advancing without the planned Latino institution. 

Fox News Poll: Voters see welfare fraud as common, still mostly favor protecting benefits over crackdowns

Fox News Poll: Voters see welfare fraud as common, still mostly favor protecting benefits over crackdowns

As federal authorities continue to crack down on welfare fraud, the latest Fox News survey finds voters are concerned about program abuse, but still also want to protect access for legitimate recipients.  The survey was conducted before the Department of Justice announced charges against 15 defendants on Thursday in the ongoing Minnesota welfare fraud investigations, one of multiple inquiries into welfare abuse across the country. A majority of registered voters, 71%, believe fraud in government welfare and social service programs is extremely or very common, and nearly half, 45%, think it has increased over the past two years. Just 19% say decreased and 35% believe it has stayed the same. FOX NEWS POLL: 30% THINK RECENT TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT WAS STAGED Yet when weighing enforcement against access, voters prioritize eligible recipients: 56% say ensuring benefits for eligible people should be the higher priority, even if some fraud occurs, while 43% prioritize fraud prevention, even if some eligible people lose benefits.  “The data demonstrates what populist candidates understand intuitively,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct the Fox News Poll with Democratic partner Chris Anderson. “Voters think corruption and incompetence are rampant in government, and stories of program fraud from Minneapolis and California reinforce this notion. And articulating this belief plays well with the public. The policy implications are trickier: do you risk restricting aid to the truly vulnerable to ensure taxpayers aren’t being ripped off?”    Voters are split on who bears more responsibility for fraud: individuals misrepresenting eligibility or organizations and contractors misrepresenting costs (50% each).  FOX NEWS POLL: AS ECONOMIC PAIN DEEPENS, DISAPPROVAL OF TRUMP HITS NEW HIGH  On fraud prevention, more voters trust their state governments (60% a great deal or some confidence) than the federal government (51%).  There is notable bipartisan consensus on the existence of welfare fraud. To varying degrees, Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree fraud is common, and it has increased in recent years.  But beyond that, partisan divisions become much sharper.  Majorities of Democrats are more likely to blame organizations and contractors for fraud and to prioritize ensuring eligible people receive benefits. By contrast, Republicans are more likely to blame individuals who misrepresent eligibility and favor stronger fraud prevention measures.  Independents are split on whether individuals or contractors are more responsible for fraud (50% each) but more prioritize access to benefits (57%) than fraud prevention (43%). Confidence in state governments cuts across party lines, with majorities of Democrats (65%), independents (59%), and Republicans (56%) trusting their state to prevent fraud. Views of the federal government are more polarized. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans (63%) express confidence in the federal government’s ability to combat fraud, compared to 42% of Democrats and 47% of independents. Congressional Approval Only 3 in 10 voters approve of the job Congressional Democrats (30%) and Republicans (31%) are doing.  Approval for Congressional Democrats is up 1 point since February (29%, a record low approval). Support for Congressional Republicans has fallen 5 points (36%), and much of that comes from a 10-point drop among Republican voters themselves. Still, more Republicans approve of their lawmakers (67%) than Democrats do theirs (58%). “Voters’ unfavorable views of Democratic lawmakers is one of the most fascinating and important factors affecting the midterms,” says Shaw. “Negative assessments of the Republicans are expected; they hold power at a time when the public mood is sour. But to capitalize on this, the Democrats must convince voters they might actually do better.” Redistricting Six in 10 voters are extremely or very concerned about redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms. More Democrats than Republicans are concerned (71% vs. 51%) and more than twice as many Democrats say they are extremely concerned (39% D vs. 15% R). Independents are split, with 50% concerned and 49% not concerned, including 22% extremely concerned. CLICK HERE FOR CROSSTABS AND TOPLINE The Supreme Court Voters were also asked how they feel about increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and 45% favor the idea while 55% oppose it. Support is unchanged from 2022 and up from a 35% low in 2021. Overall, voters have generally opposed packing the court. More than half of Democrats (55%) favor expanding the high court, while majorities of independents (56%) and Republicans oppose it (64%). Conducted May 15-18, 2026, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,002 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (109) and cellphones (635) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (258). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis, and voter file data.

Trump admin pushes back on ‘slush fund’ attacks against Anti-Weaponization Fund and lays out who qualifies

Trump admin pushes back on ‘slush fund’ attacks against Anti-Weaponization Fund and lays out who qualifies

The Trump administration says the $1.778 billion Justice Department “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will compensate Americans unfairly targeted by politicized federal investigations on a “case-by-case” basis, pushing back on critics who have portrayed the program as a taxpayer-funded payout for Jan. 6 rioters and Trump allies. Heated dispute over the fund centers on who will ultimately benefit from it, with Trump administration officials saying it is intended to compensate individuals harmed by “weaponized” federal investigations, such as pro-lifers targeted by the Biden administration, while critics in both parties fear it could allow politically connected figures or some Jan. 6 defendants to seek taxpayer-funded payments. “Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it,” Vice President J.D. Vance said during a Tuesday White House briefing in answer to the critics. “If Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, he is welcome to.” The Anti-Weaponization Fund is unusual because it emerged from a lawsuit settlement between Trump and the IRS, an agency he oversees as president, raising concerns among lawmakers and commentators about potential conflicts of interest. Its creation caught GOP lawmakers by surprise and has derailed Senate negotiations on a $72 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol — with several Republicans joining Democrats in calling it a “slush fund.”   REPUBLICANS RECOIL AS TRUMP’S BILLION-DOLLAR DOJ ‘SLUSH FUND’ FOR ALLIES THREATENS ICE, BORDER PATROL PLAN Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was deployed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to smooth things over. But according to several sources, the meeting was contentious and more than one Republican senator blew up at the DOJ head.  “The Acting Attorney General met with Senators today, and there was a healthy discussion on the settlement,” a DOJ spokesperson said after the meeting Thursday.  “He made clear that the Anti-Weaponization Fund announced Monday has nothing to do with reconciliation, indeed not a single dime from the money the President is seeking in reconciliation would go toward anything having to do with the Fund. We will continue to work with the Senate to get critical reconciliation funds approved.” MS NOW contributor Joe Scarborough has alleged that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be funneled to those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots. On his first day in office, Trump issued pardons and commutations to more than 1,500 people involved in the Capitol riots. “We got this billion-dollar ‘Marie Antoinette’ ballroom, now that they’re talking about funding and $1 billion plus slush fund for people who beat the hell out of cops,” Scarborough said. “It is a slush fund, a weaponization slush fund for supporters of Donald Trump, JD Vance and the Republican Party.” But the Trump administration’s grievances with the “weaponization” of the Justice Department extend far beyond Biden-era prosecutions of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot. Biden’s Justice Department prosecuted more than 50 pro-life activists who were accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) between 2021 and 2024. Since returning to office, Trump pardoned dozens of pro-life activists, some of whom were serving jail time. The Trump Justice Department has also accused Biden-era officials of “zealously pursuing” prosecutions against Christians in its “2026 Report by the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” potentially opening the door for another category of people who could seek compensation through the fund. Still, Trump faces criticism over the fund even from his own party. Sen. John Thune, R-SD, the top Republican leader in the Senate, said he wasn’t a “big fan” of the fund’s creation and that he “was not sure exactly how they intend to use it.” BIDEN DOJ WEAPONIZED FACE ACT AGAINST PRO-LIFE AMERICANS, 882-REPORT ALLEGES “I think that there are, and will continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer,” Thune said. Justice Department officials and some legal experts say the fund, while unusual and politically controversial, falls within the government’s legal authority and that payments aren’t guaranteed. The Anti-Weaponization Fund was born out of a settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service. Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS in January over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax records. Claims will be determined by a five-person board appointed by the Attorney General, with at least one member selected with consultation with congressional leadership, according to a Justice Department press release. At any point in time, the president has the power to remove a member without cause. Under the settlement agreement, the Anti-Weaponization Fund will evaluate claims by looking at the “totality of the circumstances.” Those factors considered include how strong a person’s claim is and what evidence supports it, the financial harm they allegedly suffered — including legal fees — whether they spent time in prison and whether they have already received compensation or other relief elsewhere. The agreement also gives the board discretion to weigh “other factors” it considers fair and appropriate when deciding whether someone qualifies for compensation. “This is about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of law fare and weaponization: millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government, parents silenced at school boards, Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed, churchgoers targeted by the FBI, and so on,” a Justice Department document stated. The Anti-Weaponization Fund will last until December 1, 2028. APOLOGIES AND CASH HEADED TO ALLEGED ‘WEAPONIZATION’ VICTIMS IN BILLION-DOLLAR TRUMP SETTLEMENT Funding for the Anti-Weaponization Fund is coming from the Judgment Fund, which is a permanent Treasury account used to pay for settlements and claims against the government. While the Justice Department pointed to the Obama administration’s creation of “Keepseagle,” a $760 million fund for victims of racism by the federal government as precedent for the creation of the fund, legal experts say there are key distinctions between the two. For instance, payouts in Keepseagle were made out to people a part of a class action lawsuit against the government; whereas anyone can