Four Republican Senators Join Dems to block Trump’s SAVE America Act, Thwarting Restrictions on Voting

There are still some good Republicans; not many, but some. Sens.
Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski

by Jonathan Shorman, Tennessee Lookout, June 5, 2026 - The U.S. Senate rejected the SAVE America Act on Thursday, dealing a blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose voting restrictions ahead of the November midterm elections.

Senators voted 48-50 against advancing an amendment that would have incorporated Trump’s top legislative priority into an immigration-focused spending bill. The vote offered the clearest sign yet that despite pressure from the president, a handful of Republican senators continue to resist advancing the bill, which critics say would unleash immense chaos ahead of elections this fall.

The SAVE America Act would require voters to offer documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, proving their citizenship when registering to vote. It would also mandate voters show photo ID when casting a ballot and restrict where voters can register, effectively eliminating voter registration drives.

Democrats and voting rights groups have assailed the bill, saying it would disenfranchise voters and upend the midterms because the new rules would take effect immediately. Trump and the bill’s GOP supporters say it’s needed to combat noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon.

Since taking office last year, Trump has made a series of attempts to shape how elections are run. An executive order that would limit voting by mail remains in effect for now as opponents challenge it in federal court, and the Department of Justice continues to seek to force states to hand over sensitive voter data, so far unsuccessfully.

The Senate amendment, offered by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, also included restrictions on sports participation by transgender athletes. On social media after the vote, Graham called the SAVE America Act “one of the most consequential” pieces of legislation developed by Trump and his team.

“All Democrats voted no, and they will eventually pay a price,” Graham wrote.

Republicans also vote no

But the proposal fell short among a small group of Republicans, too. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democrats in voting no.

Collins is seeking reelection in what is one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. McConnell and Tillis have both opted against seeking reelection, while Murkowski has said the bill would set up barriers for voters in her large, rural state.

Sixty votes would have been needed to advance the amendment — the same threshold to overcome a filibuster. 

The vote came after the Senate spent weeks debating the SAVE America Act earlier this year before moving on to other business without a vote. Trump has urged Republicans to abandon the filibuster to pass the bill, without success.

“We will squash this blatant attempt at voter suppression,” Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, wrote on social media after the vote.

The Senate also rejected, 50-49, a separate amendment offered by Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, that included a different version of the SAVE America Act. According to Lee, the amendment was the version of the bill passed by the House, which didn’t include provisions on transgender athletes. 

Collins voted in favor of the amendment after earlier opposing Graham’s amendment.

California

Both amendments failed hours after Trump asserted, without evidence, that Democrats were stealing “the vote” in California. The state held primary elections earlier this week, but vote counting is often slow in the state, meaning vote totals reported on election night don’t always reflect the final outcome of a race.

Trump linked California’s elections to his push for the SAVE America Act, writing on social media that “I hope Republicans are watching” so they could pass the legislation.

“They found a lot of mail-in ballots last night, shockingly,” Trump said at an unrelated Oval Office event on Thursday. “So we don’t want that.”

With the Senate unwilling to advance the SAVE America Act, some GOP lawmakers have begun offering alternative election-related bills.

Republican Reps. Julie Fedorchak of North Dakota and Laurel Lee of Florida on Thursday introduced the SAVE America Through REAL ID Act, which would create a grant program to help states provide REAL ID-compliant driver’s license and identification cards to residents for free to low-income Americans.

On Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, and Graham introduced the Election Security Partnership Act, designed to encourage states to submit their voter rolls to a computer program operated by the Department of Homeland Security that can identify possible noncitizens. 

States can already upload voter data to the program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements or SAVE, but the legislation would provide $20 million in grants for states to offset any costs related to using SAVE.

Top Stories

Lawsuit Says Immigration Issue is Federal, Not State

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, June 6, 2026- Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging a new Tennessee law making immigration a state crime said it's up to the federal government, not the states, to enforce immigration laws. 

The National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in U.S. District Court on behalf of two people who could be affected by the law, which makes it illegal to be in Tennessee with a pending deportation order. Anyone caught could face up to a year in jail under House Bill 1704, which takes effect on July 1. 

A 58-year-old Memphis woman identified as "Lucy" in court documents said she came to the U.S. in 2000 on a visitor's visa and applied for asylum. She remained in the country after her asylum application was denied and a removal order was issued, according to the lawsuit. "Lucy" is afraid she will be arrested on the drive from Memphis to Knox County to visit her college-age son.

A second plaintiff, a 35-year-old man named Benjamin, said he is also afraid he will be jailed because he has a deportation order, according to the lawsuit. He has also unsuccessfully applied for asylum and was accepted into the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. The program was rescinded during President Donald Trump's first term and reinstated by former President Joe Biden, and continues to be scrutinized. 

“HB1704 would threaten our neighbors who have families here and have lived here for years,” said Zee Scout, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee. “This is yet another example of the state of Tennessee improperly wielding its power to baselessly attack neighbors and families who make this a better, richer state for all."

The plaintiffs want a judge to create a class action lawsuit and stop the law's implementation on July 1. 

The law also creates a crime for persons who try to enter the state if they have a deportation order in place, but that part could only take effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Arizona vs. the U.S. The 2012 case held that the state lacked the authority to enforce immigration laws. The lawsuit does not include that section of the bill. 

Deportations violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal statutes precedence over state ones, according to the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit says, "Removal from the country is a quintessentially federal authority. Courts have long and repeatedly recognized the dominant federal interest in removal, which flows directly from the sovereign powers of the federal government – powers that the states do not have."

Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma lawmakers passed similar laws that were challenged by the Department of Justice under the Biden administration. The Trump administration dismissed the challenges, but other lawsuits were filed.

Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, R-Franklin, said during debate on the bill that he believes the first section of the bill would "withstand judicial scrutiny."

Rod's Additional Comments:

That immigration is a federal, not a state, issue has already been affirmed by a Supreme Court case as recently as 2012. Although I haven't read the Supreme Court ruling, and there may be differences between the Arizona and Tennessee cases, I expect the principle will be reaffirmed by the Courts. 

To read more about that Arizona ruling, follow this link and this one. 

Top Stories

Andy Ogles takes down post denouncing homosexuality

Scott Bessent is the first gay Senate-confirmed
 Cabinet member in a Republican administration. 
He married former New York City prosecuting
attorney John Freeman in 2011. 

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, June 5, 2026  – U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles said a controversial post that appeared on his social media feed was not of his making. 

The post said, "Homosexuality has no place in America, Happy Nuclear Family Month," and was posted by a staff member, the Tennessee Republican said. 

"Earlier today while working on the farm, my phone began going crazy because of a post made by a member of my comms team," Ogles said in another social media post. "The post was stupid, hurtful and a complete distraction from my America First focus. The employee has been reprimanded."

The post was criticized by some of Ogles' Republican colleagues. 

"Homosexuality exists. In America. In fact Andy, you have family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and constituents who are gay and lesbian," said Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. "It doesn’t make them less than or somehow unworthy of being an American. What an absolutely idiotic statement to make."

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told NBC News the post was "reprehensible."

“He retracted it,” Scalise said. “He himself said he didn’t post it, and that he’s taking action to reprimand people who did, so it should never have (been) put up."

Rep. Frank Pallone, R-N.J., responded by saying, "Hate has no place in America."

"Extremists in the Republican Party have gone completely off the rails," Pallone said on social media. "While I'm glad the backlash against Rep. Ogles has been swift, the culture of bigotry that made his tweet possible must be rooted out at its source."

Second-term Republican Gov. Bill Lee declared June as Nuclear Family Month in Tennessee, which is seen by some as a response to Pride Month. Ogles' challenger for his 5th Congressional District seat, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, praised Lee's decision to name June as Nuclear Family Month.

"The best way to raise strong, healthy children is with a mom and a dad in the home," Hatcher said in a post. "That is God’s design and the foundation of a thriving society."

Top Stories

ELIMINATE MEDICARE PART D

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, June 5, 2026 - If the next Republican president wants a first big move, he or she should rescind Medicare Part D, one of the Republican Party’s biggest mistakes. That was the only addition to a major entitlement created and passed almost entirely with Republican support, and I would argue that it’s not working, for either most enrollees or for taxpayers.

FIRST, THE COST

Medicare Part D — the federal prescription drug benefit — covers roughly 56 million Americans. 

The federal government spends approximately $140 billion per year on Part D benefits (net of premiums), representing about 11% of all Medicare spending. This is funded primarily through general tax revenues.

On top of the federal cost, enrollees pay their own monthly premiums, totaling an estimated $21–30 billion per year across all enrollees. The average monthly premium was around $45 in 2024, but plan costs have been surging: bid amounts jumped 42% in 2025 and 35% in 2026, driven largely by the Inflation Reduction Act's redesign of Part D cost-sharing. Republicans created Part D. Democrats “enhanced” it. 

Beyond premiums, enrollees pay out-of-pocket at the pharmacy. Total enrollee cost-sharing is estimated at roughly $22 billion per year (2024).  That’s after President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act reduced this burden — introducing a $2,000 annual out-of-pocket cap in 2025 and eliminating the "donut hole" — saving enrollees an estimated $7.4 billion annually.

ADDING IT UP

Component Estimated Annual Cost

Federal government (net of premiums) ~$140 billion
Enrollee premiums ~$21–30 billion
Enrollee copays / cost-sharing ~$22 billion
Total gross spending ~$190 billion

Divided across 56 million enrollees, that works out to roughly $3,393 per enrollee per year — about $283 per month.

About 25% of Medicare Part D enrollees pay no additional premium. They are called LIS enrollees. LIS enrollees have heavily subsidized copays, not zero — but they're nominal:

In 2025 LIS enrollees paid:

• $4.90 for generic drugs
• $12.15 for brand-name drugs
• $0 for those in nursing homes or receiving Medicaid (full dual-eligibles pay nothing at all)

There are zero peer-reviewed studies on the question of how many Medicare Part D enrollees would be better off without Part D, and that is what one of my A-I assistants identified as a “policy blind spot.” 

Why the blind spot?  As AI assistant, Claude, explained to me, “The stakeholders who fund research on Part D — CMS, insurers, pharma — all have interests in robust enrollment. Independent consumer-oriented research ("should you personally enroll?") doesn't have a natural funder. Academic researchers tend to study program-level outcomes rather than individual value propositions.”

How convenient. 

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

A Republican Time for Choosing

by Rod Williams, June 2, 2026 - Former Vice President Mike Pence was on the Sunday talk shows, asking what needs to be asked: Will the Republican Party be the party of principled conservatism or continue down the path of being a right-wing populist nationalist party?

Mike Pence was back in the news talking about his newly released book, What Conservatives Believe: Rediscovering the Conservative Conscience. It is a 304‑page political manifesto described as a “21st‑century version of The Conscience of a Conservative.”

Pence says he wrote the book to reaffirm enduring conservative principles and warn against the rise of “big‑government populism” within the Republican Party. 

Many of my liberal friends, I am sure, think the current Trump Republican Party is what the Republican Party always was once you scratched away the veneer of respectability. We who have labored for years to advance the cause of conservatism know that what we are seeing in the Party of Donald Trump bears little resemblance to the post-World War II modern conservative movement, which was at home in the Republican Party. 

Amazon link

The party of William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater and moving forward to Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan, has little in common with the party dominated by and blindly loyal to Donald Trump. The pre-Trump party believed certain things that Trump disavows, either in words or actions. The pre-Trump Republican Party opposed socialism, believed in free trade, accepted America's leadership role in the world, supported selective security, balanced budgets, due process and the Constitution, states' rights, federalism, and limited government, and believed character mattered. 

I have great admiration for Mike Pence. If would have had J. D. Vance as Vice President at the time, or any number of other Republicans who place loyalty to Donald Trump over loyalty to the Constitution, Donald Trump's coup attempt would have succeeded. It is easy to forget the goal of the insurrectionist. The joint session of Congress was assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Biden's victory in the 2020 United States presidential election. The protestors wanted to stop the count. Vice President Pence stood firm. When the protestors breached the Capitol, they ran through it looking to find and kill Mike Pence. A man with less courage and less commitment to the Constitution and his duties would have abandoned the effort to confirm the election results, and the insurrectionists would have won. Mike Pence took cover in the basement and after order was restored, he called the joint session back into session, and Congress fulfilled its duties. Mike Pense is a hero. 

I have some minor critiques of Mike Pence and some different policy priorities. While I am pro-life, this issue does not hold quite the central place in my ideology as it does for Mike Pence. Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, I think the issue should be left to the states and fought out at the state level. 

Mike Pence often acts as if the Donald Trump of the first term was a standard Republican and Trump went crazy in his second term. I will grant that Trump is much worse in his second term than in his first. During his first term, Trump was surrounded by traditional Republicans who kept him within resonable guard rails. The signs were there, however, that Trump was a big-government populist, and his nasty character was on full display. It was the first term Trump who attempted the coup. By the end of his first term, it was clear who Donald Trump was. 

I also wish Pense seemed more outraged at times, but maybe being calm and measured is a virtue, not a fault. In any event, I believe that if we survive the Trump presidency with our democracy intact, and history is written about the Trump years, Mike Pence will be remembered as a profile in courage and a hero of the republic. 

Top Stories

Knox County Schools Takes “Roots” Off Banned Book List, Restores to Libraries

Photo: Haley Heritage Square in Knoxville. Library of Congress

by Angela Dennis, Tennessee Outlook, June 1, 2026- An East Tennessee school district has reversed its ban on “Roots: The Saga of an American Family,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Alex Haley, after weeks of community backlash, board member pressure, and statewide criticism, all unfolding in the same city where a 13-foot bronze statue of Haley has stood for nearly three decades.

Knox County Schools Superintendent Jon Rysewyk said the district will return the 1976 novel to school library shelves, walking back a decision that had added Roots to a growing list of banned books and ignited debate about race, history and the reach of state law into public school libraries.

In a memo to the Knox County Board of Education dated May 26, 2026, Rysewyk said the decision to return Roots to shelves was effective immediately and that the initial removal “was in no way a commentary on the historical, cultural, or literary value of the novel.

He said he spent the weeks following the ban consulting independently with multiple attorneys to review the specific content flagged under the law, and found no consensus. 

“There were discrepancies even among the legal experts I consulted regarding their interpretation of the relevant sections of the Tennessee Code and the referenced terms as they applied to “Roots,'” he wrote. Rysewyk noted that his review committee had applied the law consistently and in good faith, but said the legal uncertainty ultimately drove his decision. 

“Removing any book from circulation is, and should be, an immense decision. Our intent will always be to err on the side of access, which is the decision I have made with regard to “Roots,”' Rysewyk said. 

“‘Roots’ won a Pulitzer Prize and became a cultural touchstone that inspired and united millions of Americans,” said Rep. Sam McKenzie, a Knoxville Democrat. “I knew that taking it out of the hands of thousands of schoolchildren in Knox County would be a grave injustice.” 

The reversal drew immediate attention not just because of the book’s stature in American literature, but because of where it happened. Haley spent part of his childhood in Lauderdale County , and later lived and wrote in Knoxville and Alex Haley Farm in nearby Clinton. Two miles from where the Knox County school board meets, his likeness sits frozen in bronze in Morningside Park, in what was, at the time of its 1998 installation, the largest public statue of an African American in the United States.

District spokeswoman Carly Harrington confirmed that Roots was added to Knox County Schools’ banned book list in May 2026, bringing the district’s total to 124 banned titles, up from 113 in May 2025.

The removal was triggered by Tennessee’s Age-Appropriate Materials Act, a state law that broadly restricts materials from school libraries if they contain nudity, sexual abuse, sexual content, or excessive violence. The law is stricter for library materials than for classroom instruction, as a book can still be taught by a teacher as part of a curriculum, but cannot remain on library shelves for independent student checkout if certain content is present. 

In an interview, Assistant Superintendent of Academics Keith Wilson said that an internal review committee identified a specific passage in the novel that it determined crossed the legal threshold. Wilson noted this was the second time this year a passage from the novel had been brought up for review, but the first time it did not result in a finding of violation. He said the law’s focus is on specific passages, not the historical significance of a work as a whole. 

The ban sparked swift and pointed criticism from a board member, educators and state lawmakers.

Knox County School board member Katherine Bike sent a memo to her colleagues demanding the book’s return. 

“Removing Roots is not a neutral act,” Bike wrote. “It sends a message to our students, particularly our Black students, about whose history is worth protecting. I don’t believe that is the message any of us intends to send. Intent and impact are two different things.” 

On Tuesday after the reversal was announced, State Rep. Sam McKenzie, whose district includes the Haley statue, called the ban a grave injustice and said he was disappointed but not surprised. 

“’Roots’ won a Pulitzer Prize and became a cultural touchstone that inspired and united millions of Americans,” McKenzie said. “I knew that taking it out of the hands of thousands of schoolchildren in Knox County would be a grave injustice.”

McKenzie said he has taken legislative action in response to book removals like this one. During the current 114th General Assembly, he sponsored HB2434, which would prohibit the removal of books until a final determination can be made about their appropriateness for the age and maturity level of students, and whether the material is consistent with the educational mission of the school. He also filed the Freedom to Read Act, HB1051, aimed at keeping books like Roots accessible to students.

McKenzie pointed to the particular irony of the ban’s timing and location. 

“I am often reminded of the importance of Mr. Haley’s pivotal works when I see the statue of him in Alex Haley Heritage Square in Knoxville and also his significant contributions to the University of Tennessee, where many of his historical documents are housed,” he said. He also noted that the state legislature designated Roots as one of the first ten official Tennessee state books in 2024. 

State Rep. Gloria Johnson, went further in her criticism, writing on Facebook her memory of visiting the Haley statue with Rep. Justin Jones, and called the ban part of a broader pattern. 

“I’m so disgusted that a law passed by the TN legislature has resulted in the book Roots being banned,” she wrote, connecting the timing of the removal to what she described as a legislative special session aimed at diluting Black voting power in Tennessee. 

“This isn’t coincidence folks, it’s the agenda of the white supremacist supermajority working exactly as intended.” Johnson said she is planning legislation for the next session to address what she called white supremacy in the Tennessee legislature.

The controversy in Knox County is part of a broader national debate over book bans in public schools. The reversal does not change state law. The Age-Appropriate Materials Act remains in effect, and the district’s review process that led to the removal of Roots along with 123 other titles, continues to operate across Knox County school libraries.

Rysewyk said district staff will present to the board at a June 1 work session on the Age-Appropriate Materials Act and how it will be applied going forward.

Top Stories

Taxpayers Pay $59K for Ogles ad Touting cuts to 'wasteful spending,' but Ogles is Not Among the Worst in Abusing Franking Privaledges.

 by Rod Williams, May 30, 2026 - The Tennessean today ran an article by Vivian Jones reporting that Andy Ogles had 86 taxpayer-funded mass emails, texts, TV ads, and mailings since taking office four years ago, costing the taxpayers $59,000. 

Now, let me be clear: I think Andy Ogles is a scumbag. He is a liar and corrupt and is embarrassingly subservient to Trump. When it comes to Trump, he is like a puppy dog yearning for that pat on the head and being told, "good boy." I hope he is defeated. 

Despite my opinion of Ogles, when it comes to abusing the franking privileges of members of Congress, Ogles is not one of the worst offenders; he does not even come close. 

I am posting below what my Bing Co-pilot found. I know some will dismiss any AI-generated summary, but the source of the data in this summary is cited. I am certain that if one researches the issue, they will find that Bing Co-pilot is accurate. The information I have listed below is easily available. While Vivian Jones is no doubt accurate in what she reports about Ogles using taxpayer funds to promote himself, she should have provided context. It is not that Ogles abuses the privilege that is the problem, but that the system is widely abused. 

Reform to prohibit abuse would be difficult. I think we want elected officials to communicate with the electorate. How one permits that and yet keeps that privilege from being abused is difficult. Communication and self-promotion are almost impossible to separate.  Currently, taxpayer-paid ads and mailings have to be approved by the House Communications Standards Commission before being sent. Perhaps those standards could be tightened, but to police what other members could say in their constituent communications could itself be subject to abuse. There is a certain advantage in incumbency, and I think we just have to accept that. Those who abuse that advantage should be called out, but to be fair, their abuse should be put in context

Top U.S. House Members Using Franking Privileges for Ads

Recent analyses show that some House members have spent large amounts of taxpayer-funded franking money on broadcast and digital ads, often with messaging that borders on political.

Top spenders in the 2024 cycle (AdImpact data) Punchbowl News

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D‑Mich.) – $1.4 million total franked ad spending. His ads focus on constituent service, such as helping with passports and IRS issues, and he used the spending to bolster his profile ahead of a competitive primary.

Rep. Brandon Williams (R‑N.Y.) – $432,000. Ads highlight his support for Israel and his stance on antisemitism, with messaging like “holding the radical left accountable.”

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R‑N.Y.) – $424,000. Ads address the southern border and her vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R‑Fla.) – $350,000. Specific ad content not detailed in the report.

Rep. Pat Ryan (D‑N.Y.) – $300,000. Ads reference his work against corporate entities like Central Hudson Gas & Electric, with slogans like “standing against corporate greed.”

Other notable franking use

Rep. Mariannette Miller‑Meeks (R‑Iowa) – While not in the top five for ad spend, she has used hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for constituent outreach, much of it through her top campaign vendor, and has leveraged her frequent floor speeches and earmarks to build goodwill Bleeding Heartland.

Rep. Shri Thanedar’s billboards – In 2023, his office spent nearly $327,000 on advertising, with $45,460 going to billboard companies. These were part of a broader outreach push after redistricting and a competitive primary Business Insider.

Compared to these big spenders of taxpayer-funded communications, Ogles $59,000 is kind of paltry. Below are excerpts from the Vivian Jones article:

Taxpayers Pay $59K for Ogles ad Touting cuts to 'wasteful spending,' 

by Vivian Jones, The Tennessean, May 30, 2026 - U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for $59,735 in airtime running a new ad by U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles as he faces a primary challenge from former Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher in August.

Ogles appears alongside President Donald Trump as an announcer calls him “a proven leader” working to “cut wasteful spending.”

The embattled two-term congressman purchased $9,700 in spots on FOX17 and more than $50,000 in airtime on WSMV that will run into early June, paid for with the congressional frank. 

House members seeking reelection are allowed to use their taxpayer-funded office allowances to pay for “franked” mailers, digital ads, TV airtime and text campaigns to tout their accomplishments and boost name recognition. They’re barred from explicitly mentioning upcoming elections or asking for votes.

.... Franked mailings are barred in the 60 days leading up to elections. Blackout for the August primary begins on June 7. Ogles' ad is set to run until June 6.

... A announcer calls Ogles “a Middle Tennessee family man fighting alongside President Trump” to “secure the border,” “lower taxes” and “defend conservative values.” 

The ad closes with a photo of Ogles and Trump together behind the resolute desk in the Oval Office.

... Ogles has had 86 taxpayer-funded mass emails, texts, TV ads and mailings since taking office four years ago. During his first term in office, he spent more than $335,000 on taxpayer-funded constituent communications between January 2023 and March 2024, far outpacing others in the Tennessee delegation. (read it all)

Top Stories

Kilmar Abrego Garcia fights deportation to Liberia after criminal charges dropped

by Ariana Figueroa, Tennessee Lookout, May 29, 2026 - Following a dismissal of criminal charges the Trump administration lodged against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland resident Thursday pressed a federal judge to prevent his removal to any country that is not Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept him as a refugee. 

The filing in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland comes after a federal judge in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 22 dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal indictment charges of human smuggling that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop. The judge called the prosecution “vindictive and selective.”

Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition before Maryland federal Judge Paula Xinis argues that the Trump administration did not make a genuine effort to remove him to a country where he would not be harmed, persecuted, or potentially sent back to his home country of El Salvador. He has had protections against deportation to El Salvador since 2019. 

The Trump administration is trying to again deport Abrego Garcia to the west African country of Liberia. 

Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation to a brutal Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign, has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica because the Central American country will grant him protections and refugee status. 

But the Trump administration would only allow for his removal if he pleaded guilty to the Tennessee criminal indictment, which was dismissed last week. Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty and since then, the Trump administration has tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini and Uganda.

“Considered cumulatively, the Government’s message is clear: because Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his unlawful removal to CECOT, declined the Government’s plea offer, and has continued to prevail in courts, the Government would rather seek to unlawfully remove him to a distant third country than lawfully remove him to the country he has designated,” according to the filing. “That is not a removal policy. It is punishment.”

The new filing asks Xinis to make a final order to resolve Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition by barring the Trump administration from deporting him to Liberia, or any country that is not Costa Rica. The filing also asks for the Trump administration to be prevented from redetaining Abrego Garcia, unless he will be removed to Costa Rica. 

Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. from El Salvador to face the criminal indictment. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, found his removal to that country illegal, but the high court stopped short of requiring the Trump administration to return him to the United States.

Rod's Comment: 
Why? Why does the Trump administration spend so much effort to send this man to Africa or jail him, when they could just deport him to Costa Rica? Deporting him anywhere and separating him from his family would seem like a win for Trump. This deportation could have been effected a long time ago, if Trump had not tried to send him to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador. Garcia had an order prohibiting deportation to El Salvador. The administration could have admitted that they made a mistake and then deported him to Costa Rico or elsewhere. Instead, Trump first tried to imprison him, then tried to send him to a war-torn hellhole. Uganda? No one should be sent to Uganda. The State Department has a "Level 4 - Do not travel" advisory for Uganda.  

So why? Why is Trump so determined to punish this guy? It is because that is who Trump is. He is mean, cruel, and a bully who will not tolerate anyone who embarrasses him, and he will never admit he is wrong. To put it succinctly and crudely, it is because Trump is an asshole.

Top Stories

Former Metro Councilman and Pastor Jerry Maynard Jr. Accused in 'Fraud Scheme' to Steal $200 Million from Drug Company

by Jennifer Kraus, WTVP News Channel 5, May 27, 2026 - A former Metro councilman and leader
of a large North Nashville church is accused of being part of a massive and ongoing "fraud scheme" to steal more than $200 million from a major drug manufacturer.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates has learned that Jerry Maynard Jr., along with his father, Jerry Maynard Sr., and sister, Misha Maynard, are among the defendants named in a federal civil lawsuit filed last week by drug company Eli Lilly.

They are accused of being part of an operation that bought "enormous quantities" of the diabetes drug, Trulicity, over at least the last five years, and then turned in hundreds of thousands of drug rebate claims for the drug, according to the lawsuit, for "fictional" patients, supposedly members of the Church of God In Christ, a Pentecostal denomination.

Maynard Jr., who once served as a Metro councilman at-large and has run a high-profile lobbying and business consulting firm, is the longtime Senior Pastor at the Cathedral of Praise, located off Clarksville Pike. According to its website, the church is part of the Church in God in Christ denomination.

Maynard's father serves as Bishop of the church. His sister Misha is the church's COO and pastor of operations. (read it all)

Top Stories

Harwood Salon, The Revolutionary Nature of the Declaration of Independence with John Vile, May 28th

From Harwood Salon Nashville, May 15, 2026: 

We’re less than two weeks away from our upcoming Harwood Salon in Nashville on Thursday, May 28 at 6:00 p.m. CT.

Join us for an evening with John Vile, Professor of Political Science and Dean of the University Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University, as he explores the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence and their lasting influence on liberty, limited government, and the American founding.

Drinks and heavy hors d’oeuvres will be served. The event is free to attend, but space is limited and registration is required.

We encourage you to reserve your seat soon.

REGISTER HERE

Top Stories

Democratic Party 'Autopsy' of 2024 Election Fails to Address the Real Reason Dems Lost

Mark Rogers

 by Mark Rogers, Facebook, May 27, 2026- I have read several articles on the DNC's 'autopsy' of the 2024 elections and the most obvious conclusion from that document is that the authors (and a huge block within the Democratic Party) are delusional ideologues who are more interested in denying the real underlying reasons for their defeat so they can claim there is no reason to look at a less extremist agenda for the party. 

Consider these examples.

One insane conclusion is that the Biden insiders 'misused' Harris by placing her in charge of immigration issues, a 'border czarina,' so to speak. The autopsy cites this as not helpful to her without noting that that was a result of Biden's spineless (effectively) open borders policy, designed entirely to placate a minority of extreme left immigration advocates. 

While I am no fan of Ms. Harris for myriad reasons, it is grossly unfair to blame her for a policy that was, by 2022 (with two years to enact reforms), a looming disaster. Yet the autopsy cannot bring itself to blame the policy that gave Trump a major advantage and historic levels of Hispanic votes. Instead, it blames the choice on the Titanic's navigator instead of its captain. 

The second example of the unreality of the document is that it doesn't seem to be able to accept that a majority of Americans had turned against the Democrats on the economy. While there were many components to the high inflation that imposed so much pain on most Americans, one that cannot be ignored was Biden's reckless spending, that was predicted to do exactly what it was expected to do, fuel inflation. 

That 'Bidenflation' was heard and read across the fruited plains should have served as a stronger warning. But then, as Biden's handlers kept having him reenact Kevin Bacon's 'Remain calm. All is well" speech from 'Animal House,' the pain of voters attached itself to him and the party, showing them to be uninterested in the lives of the People. 

Two more observations.

The report fails to mention the war in Gaza and the impact of the violence and virulent anti-Semitism of many on the far left, especially the young. As voters made a connection between college aged people calling for the destruction of Israel and the same people getting Biden to forgive their student loans, that cannot have helped Democrats. 

And the report doesn't hold Biden's keepers responsible for their conspiracy to keep the voters from knowing how far Biden had declined. I can't say the Democrats lost the election when Biden went bye bye during the debate but it was a moment that not only damaged Biden's credibility but that of his team, including Harris. We will never know how many swing voters concluded that she knew how incompetent he had become and stayed quiet for her own interests. But it well may have been something that cost her such a close election.

Mark Rogers has long been active in Republican Party politics and is an astute observer of political trends and events and Republican politics.  He is well known as a successful Republican campaign manager and political consultant. He has also served in government and the non-profit sector. He is currently exiled from the Republican Party. He lives in Nashville.

Top Stories

Scientist Ditch the Alarmist Doomsday Climate Change Predictions

by Rod Williams, May 26, 2026- I have almost always accepted the theory of global warming. When I first heard about it and had not read serious articles and books about it, I was skeptical and may have even derided it. However, that did not last long. As I became more informed, I came to accept the theory. Shortly after it came out in 2007, I read Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, and found it convincing. I followed up by reading other mainstream articles, listening to informed debate, and became more convinced. Then I read the United Nations' The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and was convinced with a greater degree of certainty. 

Despite accepting climate change as reality, I was always skeptical of the certainty with which many climate activists believed in a doomsday scenario. For one thing, I reasoned, while manmade CO2 emissions may be warming the earth, the climate is always changing. We do not know if we are entering or still receding from an ice age. Also, I reasoned, we have alternatives to fossil fuels that may become a greater share of the energy mix. Also, we will make advances in geoengineering, I reasoned.  In other words, there were too many other variables that one could not hold constant for me to be a climate change alarmist. I found it unconvincing that the predictions of climate change was going to kill us all.

It did not help that the most shrill voices warning of climate change were, well- were so shrill. Often, it seemed like their climate change hysteria almost had a religious component. It seemed they were the same crowd who wanted to blame all the world's ills on capitalism or colonialism or toxic masculinity or some such. Also, the most promising alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear energy and the same people who were the most shrill and alarmist about climate change were the ones most likely to chain themselves to the gates of the Clinch River nuclear reactor site and most likely to denounce nuclear energy. They vehemently rejected the most readily available remedy to the problem.  It seemed to me that they wanted the issue of climate change more than they wanted a solution. Climate change hysteria seemed like a lifestyle brand.  It was part of their identity as opponents of modernity and prosperity. Also, it does not help when the climate change activist equates climate change theory skeptics with Holocaust deniers, as some were prone to do.

So, while I accepted the theory of climate change, I was not an alarmist and the certainty with which I accepted the dire warnings of doom fluctuated.  You may recall the "hide the decline" scandal in which hackers released emails from climate scientists in which they spoke of "tricks" to manipulate data to make it conform to what they expected the data to show. This may not have been a scandal at all and simply a misinterpretation of scientific methodology. Nevertheless, for a while, my skepticism rose. 

Another source of my doomsday skepticism was reading False Alarm by bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. He does not deny climate change is a reality but argues it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. I recommend his book and becoming familiar with his arguments. In addition to people like Lomborg, there are other credentials people who are more measured in their concern about climate change than the apocalyptic doomsday climate alarmist. While the overwhelming majority of credentialed climate experts accept the theory of climate change, that does not mean they are all doomsday alarmists.  

A change is taking place in the climate change debate. Recently, an international team of climate researchers published a major revision of the emissions scenarios used to study global warming.  This is a big deal. The new paper has raised questions about whether some of the risks of climate change have been poorly communicated or overstated in years past and how best to think about those risks going forward. This in no way means climate change is nothing to worry about, or is a hoax, or is not real. it does mean one can look at the issue with more realistic clarity rather than "the end is near" hysteria.

The New York Times recently reported on this change. To read that article, see Scientists Ditched a Scary Climate Scenario. What Now? - The New York Times.

Top Stories