Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: In Texas and beyond, a political impulse: If you don’t like it, leave

Published

on

Commentary: In Texas and beyond, a political impulse: If you don’t like it, leave

When the speaker of the Texas House recently outlined his priorities for the next legislative session, he mentioned tax relief, the development of data centers and a notion that sent many eyebrows skyward.

Dustin Burrows, a Republican from Lubbock, directed the chamber’s governmental oversight committee to study the legal and economic implications of Texas absorbing one or more counties in eastern New Mexico.

The “conversation,” Burrows told the Dallas Morning News, “is ultimately about culture, opportunity and the right to choose a path that reflects the shared values of the Permian and Delaware basins,” a vast desert expanse awash in oil and natural gas.

Apparently, Texas lawmakers have time and money to burn.

The notion of the swaggering state swallowing a chunk of its resistant neighbor is completely far-fetched. Just four states have been carved from the territory of others: Kentucky, Maine, Vermont and West Virginia. And it’s been quite a spell since the last time that happened. West Virginia split off from Confederate Virginia in 1863.

Advertisement

Realistically, there is no end of hurdles — legal, political, practical — that would have to be surmounted for a partial Texas-New Mexico merger to occur. Both states would need to agree — New Mexico is a hard no — and Congress would also have to approve.

But the impulse to bust up, break away and move on is as old as America itself and, at the same time, as fresh as the latest provocation to pass the lips of the nation’s frothing commander-in-chief.

“Calexit,” the idea of California breaking away from the U.S. and becoming its own nation, took root during President Trump’s turbulent first reign and gained renewed support as soon as he returned to power. Texas toyed with the idea of secession when Barack Obama was president.

“The driver,” said Syracuse University professor Ryan Griffiths, an author and expert on secession, “is politics and polarization.”

The notion being if you don’t like it, then leave.

Advertisement

Or, at least, make noise about doing so.

Eastern New Mexico — dry, desolate — looks and feels very much like an appendage of West Texas. Its residents have long been estranged from the rest of their state and, especially, the Democratic leadership in Santa Fe, the state capital. That is not to say, however, the slightest inch of New Mexico territory will be going anywhere anytime soon.

Earlier this year, two Republican state lawmakers introduced a measure to give voters a say on whether they wanted their counties to break away — or, as one of the legislators put it, “Get the hell out of New Mexico.” The constitutional amendment died without a hearing.

When Burrows renewed talk of a takeover, Javier Martinez, speaker of the New Mexico House, responded without equivocation. “Over my dead body,” he said.

But the notion has garnered Burrows plenty of attention in the Lone Star State, a place with no lack of self-regard. And it certainly hasn’t hurt his standing with Texas’ arch-conservative Republican base, which has sometimes viewed Burrows with suspicion.

Advertisement

“People in Texas have a lot of fun with the idea that Texas … is entitled to secede and that maybe it can restore lost lands in New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado and beyond,” said Cal Jillson, a longtime student of Texas politics at Southern Methodist University. “It [appeals to] the conservative base, but also to everyone who loves to chuckle.”

Serious or not, secession — or independence, as some prefer to call it — has long been the dream of dissenters, of the discontented and those who feel put upon or politically unrepresented. America, after all, was birthed by divorcing itself from Britain and King George III.

For the longest time, residents in the ruddy north of blue California have agitated for a breakaway state called Jefferson. In recent years unhappy conservatives in eastern Oregon have spoken of splitting from their Democratic state and becoming a part of Republican Idaho. (Lawmakers in Boise passed a measure in 2023 inviting Oregon to the negotiating table; Oregon has so far declined to show.)

Since 2020, voters in 33 rural Illinois counties have voted to separate from their state and its Democratic leadership, a move welcomed in a measure passed by the Republican-run Indiana Legislature and signed by the state’s GOP governor, Mike Braun. (Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker dismissed the 2025 legislation as “a stunt.”)

Which, indeed, it appeared to be.

Advertisement

But Richard Kreitner said there is a certain logic behind secession movements, as governments from Washington to the statehouse are seen as increasingly unresponsive and dysfunctional.

“As people become more disenfranchised … more disillusioned from the political process, you’re going to start looking outside of the political process, the political structure, the constitutional structure, for a possible solution,” said Kreitner, who hosts a history podcast, “Think Back,” and has also written a book on secession. “If you’re going to do that in a country founded with a secessionist manifesto, the Declaration of Independence, at some point people are going to start thinking about that.”

Legitimate grievance grounded in serious concern is certainly worthy of attention. But exploiting that discontent to draw notice or score cheap political points — as Burrows seems to be doing in Texas — is something altogether different.

The chance of New Mexico ceding a part of itself to Texas is precisely zero, meaning the legislative study is less about “culture” and “opportunity” than the speaker and fellow Republicans evidently looking to troll their blue-state neighbor.

There are better, more productive ways for lawmakers to spend their time.

Advertisement

And their taxpayers’ dime.

Politics

California Republicans rejoice over Swalwell scandal, but split on best GOP candidate for governor

Published

on

California Republicans rejoice over Swalwell scandal, but split on best GOP candidate for governor

While their spring convention was held beneath mostly sunny San Diego skies, delegates and leaders of the California Republican party basked in a different sort of glow over the weekend as the campaign for a leading Democratic candidate for governor imploded because of allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.

The party did not endorse a candidate for governor on Sunday because neither of the top Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton — received the support of 60% of delegates. Bianco won 49% while Hilton had 44%; 7% of delegates voted not to endorse in the race.

“We’re very happy,” Bianco said after the vote. “We got the popular vote here, right? Ultimately, our goal is to win California, and you win California with the popular vote … Californians are looking for a leader. Californians are looking for integrity. Californians are looking for honesty. And they want someone that they know is going to be looking out for them, working for them, and that’s why I won this vote.”

Hilton also said he was pleased by his showing.

“Chad came into this convention thinking he had it in the bag,” Hilton said. “I think we made a lot of progress this week and I think the endorsement of President Trump is the one that’s gonna be decisive in the primary.”

Advertisement

The convention took place as a former staff member for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) accused him of forcing himself on her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent, according to reports published by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN. Three other women also accused Swalwell of misconduct that included sending and soliciting explicit photos and messages.

Swalwell has not withdrawn from the race, but within hours of the allegations top supporters withdrew endorsements of the East Bay Area congressman, including Sen. Adam Schiff, campaign co-chairs Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Adam Gray, and prominent labor unions including the California Teachers Assn.

The collapse of Swalwell’s campaign brought a surge of energy to leaders and hundreds of die-hard members of a state Republican Party that holds a superminority in the state Legislature and no statewide elected offices. The news broke Friday, just as the party convention was getting underway at the bayside Sheraton San Diego Resort and hours before the Artemis II crew splashed down off the nearby coast.

Sean Spicer, a former press secretary during President Trump’s first term who is promoting a new book, joked during a Saturday brunch panel about landing in San Diego just in time to see “the fall.”

“Sorry, I was talking about Swalwell,” he said to laughter. “It was also cool to see Artemis come back down.”

Advertisement

Republicans have not won a statewide election since 2006 and some hoped Swalwell’s controversy would fuel voters already beleaguered by the cost of living to consider supporting GOP candidates this year.

“Quite frankly, Californians are, by and large, looking for viable alternatives. They’re looking towards the California Republican Party,” Chairwoman Corrin Rankin told reporters.

Republicans running to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom shared similar visions during five-minute speeches at a Saturday afternoon candidate forum.

“We meet here today, full of energy and hope and optimism, with a spring in our step on this beautiful spring day. Why? Because every party has its season, and for the California Democrats, the leaves are cascading from the trees,” Hilton told delegates.

Hilton, who served as a top political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, argued that 16 years of Democratic rule has led to dysfunction, chaos and scandal that alarmed voters in the overwhelmingly blue state even before the Swalwell scandal.

Advertisement

“And now, it’s been a couple of hours, so I think we’re due for another Eric Swalwell intern eruption,” he said.

Hilton touted Trump’s endorsement, describing it as a “tremendous asset for us, the energy, the resources, the precious gift of having the boost that makes the biggest difference in a midterm year turnout.”

Bianco emphasized his decades serving in law enforcement in the state, one of his main selling points to Californians concerned about liberal criminal justice policies of past Democratic administrations.

“I have spent every day serving California residents, making our lives better and safer. I have fought for you, and I have bled for you,” Bianco said.

Bianco refuted Hilton’s allegations that he coddled undocumented immigrants, sympathized with Black Lives Matter protesters and threatened county residents with punishment if they did not abide by mask mandates during the pandemic. He said he was the first law-enforcement official in the nation to defy a lockdown order after the pandemic. Bianco said that while he prayed with protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, he also “forcefully” expelled “rioters and domestic terrorists” from his county.

Advertisement

Bianco also obliquely referred to attacks Hilton has lobbed against the sheriff on the campaign trail.

“This was never supposed to be about a dishonest smear campaign and bullseyes,” Bianco said, referring to a mailer Hilton’s campaign sent to voters that pictured Bianco’s head with circles around it that resemble a shooting target.

As Bianco walked through the bayfront convention hotel after the forum, he was swarmed by supporters chanting his name.

Saturday night, Bianco hosted a western-saloon themed party for delegates. Attendees wearing cowboy hats line danced, petted fluffy white calves and posed for pictures in front of an inflated cactus.

A Hilton-hosted party took on the feel of a candidate forum as he and Republican allies running for other statewide offices gave another round of speeches, often punctuated by shushing attendees who chattered in the back of the room.

Advertisement

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two leading candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. For weeks, Hilton and Bianco have led polls while eight prominent Democrats including Swalwell split the support of liberal voters, stoking anxiety among Democrats that the party could end up shut out of the November election.

The chances of that happening diminished with Swalwell’s fall from grace and Trump’s endorsement of Hilton, political experts said, but those in the conservative wing of California politics celebrated the apparent downfall of the once-powerful Democrat.

Swalwell is “in denial right now, but once he realizes he doesn’t have any friends left and his campaign team is leaving him, people are laughing at him in the restaurant, I think, and I hope for his sake, he has enough self-awareness that he’ll quietly drop out and go to the south coast of France and put on a wig,” said Republican National committeeman Shawn Steel.

One of the convention’s celebrated speakers, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took shots at other California Democrats during a Saturday evening banquet, describing Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass as “the Democrats’ national ambassador for disaster management” and Newsom as a contender for “Texas Realtor of the year, because no person in human history has sold more homes in the state of Texas.”

“Look, as a Texan, I gotta say, just isn’t fair. [You have] an economy that has been a monstrous engine driving America forward for decades, and yet you were cursed with idiot politicians,” Cruz said.

Advertisement

While Hilton‘s and Bianco’s campaigns have sparred about their respective records, the candidates largely avoided direct confrontation until a debate earlier this month in Rancho Mirage. The two GOP candidates tore into each other about issues such as immigration, their credentials and their honesty.

Delegates also sparred about Bianco and Hilton’s records in the halls of the convention.

Shiva Bagheri, a Bianco supporter from Beverly Hills, said that Hilton’s political positions are not constitutional.

“Steve said that anybody that makes under $100,000 shouldn’t pay [income] taxes,” said Bagheri, 52. “That’s against the 14th Amendment. I’m a constitutionalist.” She said she preferred Bianco’s plan to cut income taxes for everyone to avoid class warfare.

Celeste Greig, a Hilton supporter from Northridge, initially supported Bianco and donated to his campaign. But she grew troubled after hearing about Bianco’s comments about immigration, seeing images of the sheriff taking a knee alongside BLM protesters and learning of what she believes was an unlawful arrest of a person outside of President Trump’s 2024 rally in the Coachella Valley.

Advertisement

Some Republicans longed for a return to a bygone era when state lawmakers regularly worked across the aisle. State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) described teaming up with Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla when they served in the Legislature, adding that he still considers Padilla, now the state’s senior U.S. senator, a friend.

“We’re in a divided era right now,” Strickland said. “If we actually pick up a few more seats, I think it will give more comfort to some of those moderate Democrats to come over and work with us.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Carney casts himself as NATO defender amid Trump beef, despite Canada missing key benchmark for decades

Published

on

Carney casts himself as NATO defender amid Trump beef, despite Canada missing key benchmark for decades

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney defended his country’s NATO commitments after being pressed over alliance spending by President Donald Trump, insisting Ottawa meets the benchmark – even though Canada only reached the 2% defense target in 2025.

Speaking recently at a press conference in Monteregie, Quebec, Carney said Iran remains a “grave threat” to the Middle East and beyond and argued Canada is meeting its obligations to the alliance.

But Canada only reached NATO’s 2% defense spending benchmark in 2025, after spending years well below the target. Carney acknowledged Ottawa had not hit that mark since the Cold War, underscoring the vulnerability in his pushback to Trump.

“I’ll underscore that just a few weeks ago that we’ve met for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall our NATO commitments in terms of 2% defense spending,” Carney added. 

Advertisement

ECONOMIST EDITOR SAYS EUROPEAN LEADERS NOW FEAR A TRUE NATO ‘DIVORCE’ AFTER TRUMP PULLOUT THREAT

Trump has blasted some NATO allies over what he sees as weak support during the Iran conflict, warning on Truth Social that the alliance “wasn’t there when we needed them and they won’t be there if we need them again.”

When a reporter pressed that Trump threatened to punish NATO, including conflict-averse members Germany and Spain, Carney boasted that Canada “meet[s] its NATO commitments.”

NATO’s 2014-2025 defense expenditure report estimated Canada’s defense spending at 1.01% of GDP in 2014, and below 1.5% through 2024 before reaching 2.01% in 2025.

NATO CHIEF SAYS WORLD IS ‘ABSOLUTELY’ SAFER UNDER TRUMP

Advertisement

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has praised Trump for pushing allies to meet the 2% benchmark, as several Eastern Bloc nations have noticeably increased their tithes.

Over the past decade, U.S. defense spending has averaged roughly 3.3% of GDP, compared with about 1.3% for Canada. The U.S. GDP is also a higher gross figure than all other NATO members in dollars.

MORE KEY US ALLIES BLOCK MILITARY FLIGHTS AS IRAN WAR RIFT WIDENS WITH TRUMP 

Tensions between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump flared after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Renaud Philippe/Bloomberg; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Greece and the U.K. have been the top two countries consistently contributing to NATO’s funding, while Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Hungary all sit in the lower tier on average. The only outlier below them is Luxembourg, which contributes an average 0.6% of GDP to NATO, according to calculations made from the report’s figures.

Advertisement

TRUMP LASHES OUT AT ‘SICK’ IRANIAN LEADERS, CONFIRMS ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR ENDING WAR

Rutte previously made waves for appearing to refer to Trump as “daddy,” but said this week the Dutch-to-English translation was flawed and that he meant to refer to the president as a strong disciplinarian-like figure at a time when Trump was angry at both Israel and Iran.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“In Dutch, you would say the translation of your father is ‘daddy’ and I would say hey, yeah, some time, Daddy has to be angry, so I wasn’t going to say [he’s my] daddy,” he said of a meeting between the two men in The Hague last June.

Rutte issued the response after being pressed on whether he still viewed Trump as “Daddy” or an ally amid the president’s issues with some member-nations.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in

Published

on

DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in

Last September, the Department of Homeland Security started advising unaccompanied immigrant children that they could either self-deport or expect to face long-term detention.

But a federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday ordered the government to stop using such “blatantly coercive” language, ruling that the new advisals, as they are known, violated a 40-year-old court order that bans immigration agents from pressuring unaccompanied children to give up asylum claims and leave the U.S.

According to court documents, the legal advisal was given to recently detained immigrant children. Unaccompanied children are those in the country without a parent or legal guardian.

The minors were told they had the option to return to their country, that doing so would result in no administrative consequences and that they still could apply for a visa in the future.

But the children also were told that if they chose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicated that they were afraid to leave the U.S., they could expect to be held at a detention facility “for a prolonged period of time.”

Advertisement

Those who turned 18 while in custody would be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation, they were told. The advisal, though generally passed on verbally, was written out in court documents by lawyers representing the immigrant children, which the government did not dispute.

“If your sponsor in the United States does not have legal immigration status, they will be subject to arrest and removal,” the advisals continued. “The sponsor may be subject to criminal prosecution for aiding your illegal entry.”

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said that “such a threat disturbingly mirrors” the testimony of Jose Antonio Perez-Funez, a plaintiff in a 1980s class-action lawsuit challenging the tactics of immigration officers.

Perez-Funez, who was 16 when he was arrested near the Mexican border, testified in 1985 in Los Angeles federal court that he agreed to self-deport because federal officers said he would face lengthy detention if he didn’t return to El Salvador.

Perez-Funez’s case originally led the court to establish due process safeguards for immigrant children, giving them the right to speak with a relative or attorney before signing forms that waive their pursuit of legal protection.

Advertisement

“The Government was thus already on notice that such a statement delivered in this environment is precisely the kind of inappropriate persuasion the Injunction sought to prevent,” Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald, a judge in the Central District of California, also denied a request by the federal government to end the permanent court-mandated safeguards for immigrant children altogether.

In response to a request for comment, U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided a statement, attributed to a spokesperson who wasn’t named, that the agency is following the law and protecting children. The agency said the advisal document explains to unaccompanied children their options available under federal law.

“Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential,” the statement said. “It ensures they understand their rights and options — and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.”

Unaccompanied children are first held by Homeland Security before being turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is within the Department of Health and Human Services, for long-term housing. Federal law requires ORR to provide them with a legal consultation within 10 days.

Advertisement

“It is difficult to imagine a scenario more coercive than the one faced by [unaccompanied immigrant children] in the 72 hours before they are transferred into ORR custody, particularly for noncitizen children who likely do not know whether they possess any rights at all,” Fitzgerald wrote in his order.

In declarations to the court, children wrote that they felt threatened by the government’s advisals. One minor, identified as D.A.T.M., said the threats to prosecute their parents and of long-term detention caused them to sign voluntary departure papers.

Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney at the pro bono law firm Public Counsel, helped secure the 1986 court order. He said his legal team discovered Homeland Security had changed the advisals only after a government attorney notified him in November that the agency was going to seek to end the court-mandated safeguards.

“I consider this a war on children — the most vulnerable population,” he said.

The government has until Thursday to decide whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling. Regardless, Rosenbaum said, his goal is to establish more aggressive monitoring of unaccompanied children’s cases to ensure their rights aren’t violated again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending