Blue Press Journal

Author: Staff Reporter

  • Secret SSA Data Controversy: Trump-Era DOGE Team Tied to Election Overturn Efforts

    Hatch Act Violations and Data Security Breaches

    Blue Press Journal (DC)

    In a shocking revelation that raises serious concerns about data security and political interference within the U.S. government, newly disclosed Justice Department documents show that two members of Elon Musk’s so-called DOGE team — embedded at the Social Security Administration (SSA) during the Trump administration — maintained secret communications with an advocacy group allegedly seeking to overturn election results in key states. 

    According to a filing by Elizabeth Shapiro, a senior Justice Department official, one of these DOGE team members even signed an agreement that may have been intended to use Social Security data to match against state voter rolls — a move that could constitute a serious breach of federal law and a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using their positions for partisan purposes. 

    These disclosures, first highlighted in The Washington Post and Reuters, appear to undermine previous SSA claims that the DOGE unit’s mission was purely to “detect fraud, waste, and abuse” and modernize the agency’s technology systems. 

    A Pattern of Risky Data Practices

    Shapiro’s filing — which corrects earlier testimony by SSA officials — reveals that DOGE staff stored sensitive data on unapproved third-party servers, including the commercial service Cloudflare, which is outside SSA’s security protocols. The SSA admitted it had no knowledge of this practice at the time and still cannot confirm what data was uploaded or whether it remains accessible. 

    In one particularly troubling episode, Steve Davis, a senior adviser to Musk, was copied on an email containing a password-protected file with private information of roughly 1,000 individuals from SSA systems. Investigators have yet to determine if Davis accessed the file, but its mere transmission outside secure channels represents a significant security lapse. 

    Court Orders and Ignored Restrictions

    The Justice Department also revealed that DOGE team members had access to private Social Security profiles even after a federal court had explicitly prohibited such access. While the SSA insists the access was “never utilized,” one DOGE member also retained two months of access to a “call center profile” containing sensitive personal data. 

    These revelations echo broader concerns raised by ProPublica and NBC News about politicization and data misuse during the Trump era, when multiple agencies faced allegations of bending or breaking protocol to serve partisan objectives. 

    The Political Danger

    The possibility that Social Security data — one of the most sensitive datasets in the federal government — could have been leveraged for political purposes is alarming. If confirmed, it would represent a profound abuse of public trust and a potential violation of federal election law. 

    Critics argue this fits into a larger pattern of the Trump administration blurring the lines between governance and political gain. The fact that these activities may have involved high-profile tech figures tied to Elon Musk only deepens the controversy. 

    Trump’s Lack of Accountability

    Neither the SSA nor the White House has responded to requests for comment. The Justice Department has not publicly identified the two DOGE members or the advocacy group involved, leaving many unanswered questions about the scope of the potential breach. 

    The public deserves transparency — especially when the integrity of Social Security data and the sanctity of U.S. elections are at stake. Until full accountability is established, this case stands as a stark warning about the dangers of mixing political agendas with the stewardship of sensitive federal information.

    Also see: AARP calls for accountability over DOGE sharing Social Security data 

  • Trump’s Economic Policies Are Costing American Families Thousands – The Numbers Don’t Lie

    In Response to todays Trump News Conference

    Blue Press Journal – While former President Donald Trump made headlines with bizarre distractions like his public musings about buying Greenland, the real story for American households was happening in their wallets. A new congressional analysis reveals that under Trump’s leadership, U.S. families faced sharp increases in the cost of living, directly tied to his economic agenda and trade strategies. 

    According to a recent report from the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the average U.S. household paid $1,625 more in 2025 for everyday essentials. These rising costs were not random — they were the result of Trump’s tariffs, housing market pressures, and broader economic mismanagement (Joint Economic Committee, 2025). 

    The Real Impact: Higher Prices for Housing, Transportation, and Groceries

    Breaking down the numbers, the JEC found that housing expenses rose by an average of $323 per family, transportation costs climbed by $241, and grocery bills surged across the country. For residents of states like Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York, the hit was even harder — more than $2,000 in additional annual costs. 

    The cause? Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policy, which he claimed would punish foreign exporters but in practice acted as a hidden tax on American consumers. Independent economic analyses, including research from the Center for American Progress, confirm that U.S. businesses and families bore nearly the entire cost of these tariffs (CAP, 2025). 

    The Inflation Reality Check

    Trump has repeatedly boasted that he “ended inflation” and claimed prices are falling. The data tells a different story. In December 2025, inflation was still running at 2.7% year-over-year, with prices continuing to climb month to month (CNN Fact Check). For working families, this meant that paychecks stretched less, and basic necessities became more expensive — despite the White House’s rosy rhetoric. 

    Economic Uncertainty Hurts Families

    Economists warn that tariffs not only raise consumer prices but also create uncertainty for businesses, slowing investment and job growth. This uncertainty compounds the financial strain on households, particularly in industries reliant on global supply chains. 

    Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) criticized the administration’s “reckless” economic approach, pointing out that tariffs, higher healthcare costs, and policy unpredictability have all contributed to the squeeze on American families. 

    The Takeaway: The “Greatest Economy” Myth

    Trump’s claims of delivering “the greatest first year in history” simply don’t match the lived reality of American families. The hard truth is that his economic policies functioned as a tax on the middle class, without delivering the promised benefits. 

  • Calls for Congressional Inquiry into Trump’s Fitness Intensify After Greenland Comments

    Blue Press Journal

    Concerns about former President Donald Trump’s mental fitness have resurfaced following a controversial letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre — a letter in which Trump appeared to connect his threats to purchase Greenland to his frustration over not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. 

    Dr. Jonathan Reiner — a respected cardiologist who treated former Vice President Dick Cheney and now serves as a CNN medical analyst — publicly urged Congress to launch a bipartisan investigation into Trump’s capacity to hold office (CNN). Reiner’s call came after Trump not only sent the letter to Støre but reportedly ordered it to be circulated among European ambassadors, sparking diplomatic unease. 

    The Greenland Obsession and Diplomatic Fallout

    Trump’s continued fixation on acquiring Greenland, a semiautonomous Arctic territory under Danish sovereignty, has long puzzled foreign policy experts. Greenland’s strategic importance lies in its rich mineral reserves and military positioning in the Arctic, making it a sensitive geopolitical topic. 

    In his message, Trump questioned Denmark’s “right of ownership” over Greenland — rhetoric that alarmed leaders across Europe. According to multiple reports, this revived tensions with U.S. allies, who had previously rejected similar overtures from Trump during his presidency (BBC). 

    Medical Experts Sound the Alarm

    Dr. Reiner’s critique did not stop at foreign policy. He has previously expressed skepticism about Trump’s reported health regimen, including his daily aspirin use, which Reiner argued “makes no medical sense” (Washington Post). It appears on many occasions he is not to stay awake at meetings. This, coupled with Trump’s erratic diplomatic communications, has led some medical professionals to question whether the former president may be experiencing cognitive decline. 

    Representative Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) echoed these concerns, calling Trump “extremely mentally ill” and warning that his behavior “is putting all of our lives at risk.” Ansari explicitly urged Congress to consider invoking the 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of a president deemed unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office (Constitution Center). 

    Trump’s Response and Public Perception

    Trump has dismissed these concerns outright. On Truth Social, he claimed to be in “perfect health” and boasted about “acing” a cognitive exam for the third consecutive time. However, critics note that such self-reported results lack transparency and independent verification, raising questions about their credibility. One of the questions is why so many tests and CT scans?

    Public opinion on Trump’s fitness remains sharply divided, but the renewed attention from credible medical experts and elected officials adds weight to calls for formal evaluation. 

    Why This Matters

    In an era of complex global challenges, the mental and physical fitness of political leaders is not merely a personal matter — it directly impacts national security, foreign relations, and public trust. Trump’s Greenland correspondence may appear eccentric to some, but to medical professionals like Dr. Reiner, it signals potential impairments that warrant urgent investigation.

  • The Trump Administration’s Unchecked Power: A Growing Threat to American Democracy

    An in‑depth look at the Trump administration’s anti‑democracy moves, authoritarian policies, and controversial actions — from Greenland to Venezuela, and the DOJ’s politicization.

    At Blue Press Journal, we have spent the last year documenting political developments, but the pace and scale of the Trump administration’s anti-democratic moves have been staggering. From authoritarian tendencies and questionable international policies to the politicization of the Department of Justice, the pattern is clear: this presidency has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of constitutional norms — and in many cases, ignored them entirely.

    Authoritarian Tendencies and Democratic Erosion

    One of the most troubling aspects of Donald Trump’s tenure has been his open disregard for democratic institutions. Independent watchdogs such as Freedom House have noted declines in U.S. democratic ratings during his presidency, citing attacks on the free press, refusal to accept oversight, and attempts to undermine the legitimacy of elections (Freedom House Report). 

    The administration’s frequent use of executive orders to bypass Congress, coupled with efforts to delegitimize critics, mirrors strategies often employed by authoritarian leaders worldwide. This erosion of checks and balances poses a long-term risk to the stability of our republic.

    Foreign Policy Missteps: Greenland and Venezuela

    Trump’s proposal to “purchase” or “invade” Greenland is widely criticized as diplomatically tone-deaf, straining relationships with U.S. allies. Denmark’s Prime Minister called the idea “absurd,” and foreign policy experts warned it signaled a transactional, almost colonialist approach to international relations. 

    In Venezuela, the administration’s push for regime change raised serious questions about underlying motives. While framed as promoting democracy, critics argue it was driven in part by interest in the country’s vast oil reserves (Council on Foreign Relations). Such actions risk entangling the U.S. in costly geopolitical conflicts while undermining our credibility abroad.

    Conflicts of Interest and Personal Gain

    In 2025, Donald Trump’s entanglement of public office with personal profit has only deepened longstanding concerns about his conflicts of interest. His continued business dealings, opaque financial arrangements, and use of political influence to benefit his brand underscore a pattern of self-enrichment at the expense of public trust. Despite promises to separate his presidency from his business empire, decisions that appear to favor his properties, foreign partners, or political donors have fueled accusations of corruption and abuse of power. The result is a presidency where personal gain seems to take precedence over the nation’s interests, eroding democratic norms and transparency.

    The Epstein Files and DOJ Politicization

    Concerns about the handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein’s associates have fueled speculation about political interference. While most records remain sealed for unknown reasons in light of congressanal orders for their release, critics argue that transparency has been sacrificed for political expedience. 

    Perhaps most alarming is the Department of Justice’s role under Attorney General Pam Bondi, which many observers say acts as a protective shield for Trump rather than an impartial enforcer of the law. From intervening in cases involving Trump allies to attaking his opponents, including state governors. He is destroying DOJ’s long standing trust of public justice to that of dis-trust. (Brookings Institution Analysis).

    Looking Ahead: Midterms as a Critical Check

    With three years remaining in his term at the time of this writing, the danger of continued unchecked power is real. The 2026 midterm elections may represent a pivotal opportunity for voters to restore balance in Washington. A strong voter turnout and a potential “Blue Wave” could reintroduce meaningful congressional oversight — a safeguard essential to any healthy democracy.

  • Public Trust Erodes Over Epstein Files Delay Under Trump Administration

    Two-thirds of Americans believe the government is hiding explosive Jeffrey Epstein case files. Critics accuse the Trump administration of stalling and using Greenland negotiations as a political smokescreen.

    Blue Press Journal – Recent polling paints a damning picture of public sentiment toward the federal government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. A CNN/SSRS survey released this week reveals two-thirds of Americans believe Washington is deliberately withholding critical case files that could shed light on Epstein’s powerful network and alleged crimes. 

    Only 16% of respondents believe the government is actively working to release all relevant documents. This distrust spans political divides — with nearly nine in ten Democrats, 72% of independents, and even 42% of Republicans suspecting a cover-up. 

    DOJ Releases Less Than 1% of Files Despite Deadline

    According to the U.S. Department of Justice, less than 1% of Epstein-related files have been made public, despite a December 19 congressional deadline. In a move that critics see as too little, too late, officials have brought in 80 additional attorneys to expedite the process. 

    Public satisfaction is at historic lows — only 6% are happy with the government’s disclosures, while a 49% plurality are dissatisfied. The numbers underscore a bipartisan erosion of trust in federal transparency. 

    Source: CNN/SSRS Poll, U.S. Department of Justice release data

    Greenland Controversy as a Possible Political Smokescreen

    The Trump administration’s high-profile interest in purchasing Greenland drew extensive media coverage, overshadowing ongoing demands for transparency in the Epstein case. Critics argue this may have been a calculated distraction — a way to steer public discourse away from politically damaging revelations about Epstein’s connections to influential figures. 

    Political analysts from outlets such as The Atlantic and Politico have noted that governments often use foreign policy spectacles to divert attention from domestic controversies. The timing of the Greenland push, coupled with the stalled release of Epstein files, has fueled speculation of strategic misdirection. 

    Why Full Disclosure Matters

    The Epstein case is not simply about one individual’s crimes — it raises serious questions about systemic corruption, elite privilege, and the integrity of American institutions. Transparency is essential to restoring public trust and ensuring accountability for all involved, regardless of status or political affiliation. 

     

  • FBI’s Civil Rights Probe Into ICE Officer’s Killing of Renee Good Abruptly Shifted — Critics Say DOJ Is Covering Up for Trump Allies

    Blue Press Journal – In early January, the FBI quietly opened a civil rights investigation into Jonathan Ross, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis. According to reporting from The Washington Post and CNN, the probe initially focused on whether Ross had violated Good’s civil rights during the deadly encounter. 

    But within days, the investigation took a sharp and controversial turn. Instead of scrutinizing Ross’s actions, the FBI began targeting Good herself — and even her grieving widow. CNN reports that at least six federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned in protest over what they viewed as an unjustifiable and politically motivated pivot directed by senior Trump-era DOJ officials. 

    Political Motivation and DOJ Bias Under Todd Blanche

    Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, appearing on Fox News Sunday, dismissed the need to investigate Ross entirely, claiming that the DOJ does not “just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself.” Critics argue this stance ignores the seriousness of potential civil rights violations and sends a dangerous message that law enforcement officers are above scrutiny when politically convenient. 

    Blanche’s comments align with a broader pattern under Trump’s Department of Justice — shielding federal agents from accountability while aggressively targeting civilians, especially those on the receiving end of government force. Civil rights advocates and legal scholars have pointed out that such selective enforcement corrodes public trust and undermines the DOJ’s stated mission of impartial justice. 

    Signs of a Cover-Up

    The resignation of multiple prosecutors, the abrupt shift in investigative focus, and the refusal to examine Ross’s conduct all point to what critics call a calculated cover-up. By redirecting the probe toward Good’s widow, the DOJ appears to be deflecting attention from possible misconduct by a federal officer — a move that benefits Trump’s political allies and protects ICE from public scrutiny. 

    As passionate advocates for justice emphasize, the politicization of investigations threatens to undermine the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement, transforming the Justice Department into a mere instrument of partisan agendas. The situation is glaringly evident: the FBI was bravely seeking accountability, yet the actions of Trump’s DOJ leadership abruptly halted that crucial progress.

  • Transatlantic Rift Deepens as Trump’s Greenland Tariffs Ignite Calls for EU ‘Trade Bazooka’

    Donald Trump’s punitive tariffs on European nations supporting Greenland security have sparked unprecedented EU retaliation talks, risking a historic breakdown in transatlantic relations.

    Blue Press Journal – The fragile fabric of transatlantic relations is fraying at an alarming pace, as U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on European nations involved in Greenland security exercises triggers outrage across the European Union. What began as a geopolitical skirmish over the Arctic has rapidly escalated into a confrontation that EU leaders say could fundamentally reshape the balance of power between Washington and Brussels. 

    At the heart of the crisis is Trump’s move to punish countries — including France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands — that deployed troops to participate in a Danish-led military exercise in Greenland. The exercise, part of a broader European effort to secure the Arctic amid rising Russian and Chinese activity, was described by participating governments as entirely defensive and non-provocative. Yet Trump’s administration framed the deployments as a direct affront to U.S. interests, slapping punitive tariffs in a move critics say is both reckless and diplomatically corrosive. 

    Europe’s Retaliatory Options: From Restraint to Confrontation

    For months, EU leaders have tolerated Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy in the hope of preserving NATO unity. They have weathered his wavering support for Ukraine, his pressure for lopsided trade agreements, and his demands for massive defense spending increases. But the Greenland tariffs appear to have crossed a line. 

    French President Emmanuel Macron has emerged as one of the loudest voices demanding a robust response, calling for the activation of the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument — a powerful trade retaliation tool originally designed to counter China’s economic intimidation. Deploying it against the United States would be unprecedented, signaling a profound shift in the EU’s willingness to confront Washington head-on. 

    “The EU must resist humiliation and economic vassalization,” said Jérémie Gallon, a former French diplomat now based in Washington. His sentiment echoes a growing consensus among centrist and left-leaning EU lawmakers who argue that Europe must assert itself as a geopolitical actor rather than simply react to U.S. pressure. 

    Diplomatic Fallout and Strategic Calculations

    Even leaders with warmer ties to Trump, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have acknowledged the severity of the rift. While urging dialogue to avoid escalation, Meloni conceded that tariffs on NATO allies “are a mistake” and risk undermining shared security goals. 

    The European Parliament is already signaling its readiness to derail ratification of a recently negotiated EU-U.S. trade deal — a move that would have been unthinkable only months ago. Blocking the agreement would be a symbolic yet potent act, but triggering the Anti-Coercion Instrument would represent a direct economic counterstrike. 

    The Bigger Picture: Europe’s Geopolitical Awakening

    This crisis coincides with the EU’s broader push for strategic autonomy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced a new security framework, while plans to bolster cybersecurity are set to be unveiled imminently. The Greenland standoff may accelerate this trajectory, forcing Europe to invest in defense and economic resilience without relying on U.S. goodwill. 

    The fact that Trump’s tariffs came just days after the EU signed a major trade deal with Latin America adds insult to injury, deepening perceptions that the U.S. is willing to use economic coercion to undermine Europe’s global aspirations. 

    As EU leaders return from Latin America to Brussels for emergency talks, the stakes could not be higher. The decision they face — whether to retaliate against their most powerful ally — may define Europe’s role on the world stage for decades. 

  • Americans Increasingly Condemn Harsh ICE Tactics, New Poll Reveals

    Americans Increasingly Reject Harsh ICE Tactics, Poll Shows

    Blue Press Journal – A growing majority of Americans believe U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is using excessively harsh tactics, according to a new CBS News/YouGov poll. Conducted January 14–16, the survey of 2,523 adults found 61% now say ICE’s methods when stopping or detaining individuals are too tough. This marks a significant shift from November, when 53% held that view.

    Rising Discontent Across Political Lines

    The sharpest increases in criticism came from Democrats and independents, with 94% of Democrats and 68% of independents now condemning ICE’s approach — both up nine percentage points from November. Even among Republicans, the share who say ICE has been too tough rose to 19%.

    This growing skepticism extends to the Trump administration’s stated deportation priorities. 56% of respondents believe the government is targeting people who are not dangerous criminals, up from 52% in November. Overall support for the administration’s deportation program has dropped from 52% to 46%.

    Recent Incidents Fuel Public Concern

    The shift in public opinion comes in the wake of two high-profile shootings involving ICE officers in Minneapolis. In one case, 37-year-old Renee Good was killed during a standoff with protesters. Officials claim the officer acted in self-defense, but critics say video evidence shows Good was attempting to drive away, not harm the officer. Days later, another ICE officer shot and injured a Venezuelan migrant after a traffic stop, alleging the individual attacked him during a foot chase.

    A Call for Accountability

    These incidents underscore concerns that ICE’s aggressive enforcement methods blur the line between lawful policing and excessive force. Civil rights advocates argue that prioritizing community safety means de-escalation, transparency, and focusing on truly dangerous individuals — not broad sweeps that ensnare non-criminal migrants.

    With public opinion turning sharply against ICE’s tactics, pressure is mounting for policy reforms that protect human rights while maintaining legitimate law enforcement objectives.

  • Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota Is a Dangerous Abuse of Power

    The Insurrection Act is not a political tool for silencing dissent. Minnesota is not in rebellion — it is exercising democracy

    Blue Press Journal (MN) — The Trump administration’s latest move to prepare active-duty soldiers for possible deployment to Minnesota marks yet another alarming escalation in its campaign to blur the line between lawful governance and authoritarian overreach. According to multiple reports, the Pentagon has placed roughly 1,500 soldiers from the 11th Airborne Division — trained for cold-weather combat — on standby as protests against the administration’s aggressive deportation drive continue in Minneapolis and surrounding areas.

    This development follows President Donald Trump’s inflammatory threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used federal statute that allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections or restore order when local authorities fail. Trump’s stated justification? To stop demonstrators from confronting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents — agents whose recent conduct has sparked outrage after an ICE officer fatally shot Renee Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three, earlier this month.

    Why the Insurrection Act Doesn’t Apply Here

    The Insurrection Act is not a blank check for sending the military into American cities at will. It was designed for extraordinary circumstances such as rebellions, violent uprisings, or situations where state governments cannot maintain basic public order. None of those conditions exist in Minnesota today.

    Governor Tim Walz has already mobilized the Minnesota National Guard to support law enforcement. State and local agencies are fully functioning. The protests — while tense and occasionally confrontational — are constitutionally protected political demonstrations. Deploying active-duty military under the Insurrection Act without clear evidence of a true “insurrection” would be a gross distortion of the law, potentially illegal, and a direct threat to civil liberties.

    Legal experts have repeatedly warned that using the Act against political protesters is an abuse of presidential authority. It turns a tool intended for rare emergencies into a weapon for silencing dissent.

    A Pattern of Federal Overreach

    This is not an isolated incident. Since early last week, Trump has sent nearly 3,000 federal agents from ICE and Border Patrol into Minneapolis and St. Paul, despite local opposition. The president has also deployed federal forces to other Democratic-led cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Portland — often citing exaggerated claims of lawlessness. Many of these deployments have faced legal setbacks and public backlash.

    What’s more troubling is the administration’s fixation on Minnesota’s Somali immigrant community, frequently framing its enforcement actions in ways that stigmatize an entire group. Trump has leaned on a welfare fraud scandal involving stolen federal funds as a pretext for sending in immigration agents, despite no evidence that sweeping military involvement is warranted.

    Weaponizing Fear for Political Gain

    This militarized response appears less about restoring public order and more about sending a political message. By painting protesters as “professional agitators” and “insurrectionists,” Trump is attempting to justify extraordinary measures that bypass local control. It’s a tactic that feeds into his broader narrative of “Democratic cities in chaos” — a narrative that benefits him politically but undermines democratic norms.

    The notion that Minnesota’s elected officials are “corrupt” simply because they oppose his deportation drive is pure political theater. Trump’s repeated threats to deploy troops create an atmosphere of intimidation, chilling the right to protest and eroding trust between communities and the government.

    The Real Danger

    The true danger here isn’t in the streets of Minneapolis; it’s in the precedent being set. If a sitting president can invoke the Insurrection Act against lawful protesters, it opens the door to using military force to suppress political opposition anywhere in the country. That is not how democracy works — that’s how authoritarian regimes operate.

    Minnesota’s situation underscores the importance of constitutional guardrails. The decision to send active-duty troops into an American city should never be made lightly, nor should it be used as a political cudgel. The Trump administration’s willingness to flirt with this kind of military intervention is not just reckless — it’s profoundly un-American.

    Legal Analysis: Why the Insurrection Act Doesn’t Apply

    The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) allows the president to deploy the military domestically in very narrow circumstances: 

    1. To suppress an insurrection against a state’s government. 
    2. To enforce federal laws when a state is unable or unwilling to do so. 
    3. To protect civil rights when a state fails to act.

    Historically, its use has been rare and reserved for extraordinary emergencies: 

    • Little Rock, Arkansas (1957) – President Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation after the state defied Supreme Court orders. 
    • Detroit Riots (1967) – President Johnson deployed troops after violent unrest overwhelmed local police. 
    • Los Angeles Riots (1992) – President George H.W. Bush acted at California’s request after the Rodney King verdict sparked widespread violence.

    In each case, there was either a breakdown in state authority or a clear refusal to enforce federal law. Minnesota’s situation today does not meet these criteria. The protests, while heated, remain fundamentally political in nature—opposing federal immigration policies and demanding accountability for a fatal shooting. The state government is fully operational, has mobilized its own Guard units, and has not refused to enforce the law.

  • Trump Faces Record-Low Approval Ratings as Polls Show Declining Support Across Key Issues

    President Trump’s approval ratings are at or near historic lows, with declining support on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy.

    Blue Press Journal – As President Donald Trump concludes the first year of his second term, a series of new national polls reveal a sharp decline in public approval, underscoring deepening political divisions and waning confidence in his leadership. 

    Public Sentiment Turns Negative

    A CNN poll released Friday found that nearly 60% of Americans view Trump’s first year back in office as a failure. Even on the economy—historically one of his strongest areas—55% say conditions have worsenedunder his leadership, with only 36% believing he is focused on the right priorities, a nine-point drop since last year. Trump’s overall job approval now sits at 39%, down from 48% in February 2024. 

    The same survey reports that a majority believe he has overstepped his presidential authority, reflecting growing concerns about the use of executive power. 

    Erosion in Party Support

    The Associated Press–NORC poll also reveals troubling signs for Trump within his own party. Only 16% of Republicans believe he has significantly helped with the cost of living—down from 49% in April 2024. Approval of his immigration policies among Republicans has slipped from 88% in March to 76% now, with overall national approval on immigration at 38%. 

    These numbers mark some of the lowest economic ratings recorded for Trump during both his presidencies. 

    Foreign Policy Opposition

    Other surveys echo similar concerns. A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows 58% disapproval of Trump’s job performance, with just 36% approving of his economic handling. Notably, 71% oppose military action against Greenland, and a Marist poll finds 56% against intervention in Venezuela—highlighting widespread discomfort with his foreign policy approach.