California
Resignation from Congress: Rep. Eric Swalwell Steps Down Following Misconduct Allegations
In a major development for both California and national politics, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) officially announced his resignation from Congress on Monday, April 13, 2026. The seven-term representative’s departure follows his decision to suspend his campaign for Governor of California, as a series of serious personal misconduct allegations made his continued service a subject of intense debate in Washington. At The Modern Memo, we examine the circumstances leading to his exit, the legislative pressure from the House, and the impact this vacancy leaves on the upcoming 2026 election cycle. The Nature of the Resignation Swalwell’s decision to step down comes after investigative reports detailed several allegations of inappropriate conduct. While the congressman has remained firm in his denial of the most serious claims, the public nature of the controversy led to a rapid shift in the political landscape. The Allegations: The reports cite multiple accounts of misconduct, including claims from former associates. While Swalwell described these as “false” in his exit statement, he acknowledged that the situation had become a “distraction” to his legislative work and his party’s broader objectives. Ongoing Scrutiny: Beyond the halls of the Capitol, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is reportedly reviewing an alleged incident from the past year. Swalwell has stated he will cooperate with any inquiries to clear his name, but the legal overhead was a significant factor in his decision to leave office. The Shift in Congressional Support The resignation followed a weekend of intense internal discussions within the House of Representatives. As a bipartisan consensus began to form regarding an Ethics Committee probe, Swalwell chose a voluntary departure. Leadership Stance: While initial support for Swalwell was visible, reports indicate that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other senior Democrats eventually moved toward a “zero-tolerance” approach regarding the nature of the evidence. Avoiding Expulsion: By resigning effective immediately, Swalwell avoided a potential expulsion vote on the House floor. Members from both parties, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), had signaled that they were prepared to move forward with a formal removal process if a resignation was not forthcoming. Political Vacuum in California As a high-profile figure in the Democratic party, Swalwell’s exit creates an immediate ripple effect in California’s political scene. Special Election Looming: A special election will be required to fill the seat for California’s 14th District. Given the district’s strong Democratic leaning, the primary is expected to draw a wide field of local and state leaders. The Gubernatorial Race: Swalwell’s withdrawal from the Governor’s race reshuffles the deck for the 2026 primary. His significant donor base and endorsements are now up for grabs as other candidates seek to consolidate his former supporters. Final Word The resignation of Eric Swalwell marks a transition point for a career that has been at the center of national headlines for over a decade. When you look past the noise of the “partisan” divide and focus on the data—the loss of institutional support and the ongoing legal reviews—you gain a clearer picture of a political environment that is increasingly prioritized by accountability over tenure. Quality information replaces the speculation of “what happened” with the reality of a system that is recalibrating its standards for elected officials. It allows you to see this resignation as the conclusion of a complex tenure and the beginning of a new chapter for California’s representation. By choosing to step aside, Swalwell has allowed the House to move forward, even as the personal investigations continue. Where Facts, Context, and Perspective Matter At The Modern Memo, our goal is simple: to provide clear, well-researched reporting in a media landscape that often feels overwhelming. We focus on substance over sensationalism, and context over commentary. If you value thoughtful analysis, transparent sourcing, and stories that go beyond the headline, we invite you to share our work. Informed conversations start with reliable information, and sharing helps ensure important stories reach a wider audience. Journalism works best when readers engage, question, and participate. By reading and sharing, you’re supporting a more informed public and a healthier media ecosystem. The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. 📩 Love what you’re reading? Don’t miss a headline! Subscribe to The Modern Memo here!
Top 10 States That Took in the Most Refugees
The United States continues to bring in thousands of refugees every year through the official U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. At the same time, the Trump administration has imposed new travel restrictions and entry bans on countries that officials link to security or terrorism concerns. Because of this, many people want to know how many refugees still arrive from those restricted nations and which states take in the most. According to the FY 2025 report “Arrivals by State and Nationality” from the U.S. Refugee Processing Center, a total of 38,102 refugees were admitted. These were legally admitted refugees, not illegal border crossers or other migrant categories. Top 10 States That Took in the Most Refugees The same federal report shows that refugee resettlement is not spread evenly across the country. Instead, a small group of states takes in most of the arrivals. Here are the top ten states by number of refugees received in FY 2025: 1. Texas – 3,923 2. California – 3,044 3. New York – 2,438 4. Florida – 1,513 5. Pennsylvania – 1,504 6. Ohio – 1,500 7. Illinois – 1,454 8. Georgia – 1,442 9. Minnesota – 1,337 10. Washington – 1,320 These ten states alone account for a large share of all refugees who arrived in the country last fiscal year. This makes them key destinations in any national discussion about refugee policy and resettlement. More Stories Drowning in Bills? These Debt Solutions Could Be the Break You Need Out-of-Town Renters Are Driving Up Demand in These Five Cities Under Siege: My Family’s Fight to Save Our Nation – Book Review & Analysis Which Countries Face Bans or Restrictions? In June 2025, the Trump administration issued Proclamation 10949, which restricts or bans entry from 19 countries. Twelve nations face a broad suspension of entry, while seven others face partial restrictions on certain visa types or categories. The restricted list includes Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. While the policy targets security risks, the refugee program still allows some people from these countries to enter after extensive vetting and under specific exceptions. How Many Refugees Came From Restricted Countries? According to the 2025 FY Refugee Processing Center report, 21,105 refugees were admitted from the 19 countries that now face full or partial entry bans or restrictions under the Trump administration. Afghanistan led all countries with 6,758 refugees, while Venezuela followed with 4,589. Burma contributed 3,547 refugees, and Somalia added another 2,496. This number highlights a critical tension. On one hand, the federal government has tightened travel rules for certain countries. On the other hand, the United States has admitted tens of thousands of people fleeing war, persecution, and instability from those same regions. As debates over immigration and national security continue, these facts help show what is really happening on the ground in our refugee program. The Takeaway More than 21,000 refugees arrived in the United States in the last year from countries the Trump administration classifies as high-risk or dangerous. These individuals entered through the legal refugee pipeline, but the sheer volume underscores why public awareness matters. The recent National Guard attack in Washington, D.C. shows why vigilance is essential — even with vetting systems in place, dangerous individuals can still slip through, proving that current screening has not fully protected American citizens from those who choose to do harm. As a populace, we must understand the scale of these arrivals, stay informed about federal resettlement decisions, and remain aware of who is entering our towns and cities. Awareness is not fear — it is responsibility. By knowing the facts, communities can better protect their values, their safety, and their future. Where does your state stand? Expose the Spin. Shatter the Narrative. Speak the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t cover politics to play referee — we swing a machete through the spin, the double-speak, and the partisan theater. While the media protects the powerful and buries the backlash, we dig it up and drag it into the light. If you’re tired of rigged narratives, selective outrage, and leaders who serve themselves, not you — then share this. Expose the corruption. Challenge the agenda. Because if we don’t fight for the truth, no one will. And that fight starts with you. 📩 Love what you’re reading? Don’t miss a headline! Subscribe to The Modern Memo here! Explore More News Trump Designates Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization Trump and Elon Musk Reunite, Boosting GOP Unity Top 5 Essential Survival Gear Items For Any Adventure Epstein Files Bill Sparks New Questions as Jeffries Email Emerges
Election 2025 Analysis: Democrats Sweep as Shutdown Continues
The November 2025 election reaffirmed Democratic dominance in some of the nation’s bluest regions. From Virginia to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California, Democrats held control and even expanded their reach. These results weren’t shocking — they happened in states where Democrats already hold strong structural advantages. But what makes this election worth examining is why they performed so well now. Voters went to the polls as the federal government shutdown continues, disrupting lives and amplifying frustration with Washington. Many are exhausted by the constant partisanship and gridlock. Democrats stayed disciplined and united, running on a simple, emotional strategy: “Get Trump.” Republicans, meanwhile, struggled to translate frustration into votes. (MORE NEWS: Kamala Teases 2028 Run — Democrats Scramble for Strategy) Spanberger Makes History in Virginia Virginia delivered a full Democratic sweep in 2025, marking a turning point for a state that was once considered a swing battleground but now sits firmly in blue territory. Governor’s Race: Abigail Spanberger made history as Virginia’s first female governor, defeating Republican Winsome Earle-Sears. Her victory came despite controversy over her refusal to call on Attorney General candidate Jay Jones to step down after his violent comments about a political rival and his children. Attorney General’s Race: Jay Jones won despite the release of text messages showing violent rhetoric against a political opponent and their family. The scandal barely affected his campaign, and Democrats closed ranks around him. Lieutenant Governor’s Race: Ghazala Hashmi made history as Virginia’s first Muslim woman elected to statewide office, completing the Democratic sweep and underscoring how decisively the state has shifted left. Virginia’s election results highlight the power of party unity and message discipline — even when controversy and ethics questions hang over the campaign. New Jersey and Pennsylvania Stay Solidly Democratic In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill captured the governorship despite questions about honesty in her past. In Pennsylvania, Democrats held onto their state Supreme Court majority, giving the party a key advantage heading into the 2026 midterms. Across these states, Democratic organization, turnout, and message discipline carried the night. Republicans couldn’t shift the conversation toward economic recovery or accountability in Washington. Mamdani’s Controversial Win in New York In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, won the mayor’s race, energizing progressives and drawing sharp criticism from conservatives. Representative Andy Ogles (R–Tenn.) told Fox News, “Deport Mamdani! He’s an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.” Ogles also told Newsmax, “In 2018 when he was naturalized, he failed to disclose some of the things that he had been doing, one of which was joining the [Democratic] Socialists of America. That’s a communist organization which, quite frankly, at that time, would have disqualified him from becoming a United States citizen.” (RELATED NEWS: 2025 Elections: Five Key Races to Watch) U.S. immigration law bars naturalization for those affiliated with Communist or totalitarian parties. The application form explicitly asks whether applicants have ever been members of such groups. Mamdani denies being a communist, though his ties to socialist organizations continue to spark debate. President Trump called him a “communist lunatic” before the election in a Truth Social post: Then Mamdani taunted Trump in his victory speech: Zohran Mamdani has won the race to become the next mayor of New York City. Mr Mamdani – who will be the first Muslim, first South Asian, and youngest person in a century to be elected as the famous city’s mayor – used a victory speech to throw down the gauntlet to Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/8IVr4kMQQH — Sky News (@SkyNews) November 5, 2025 The back and forth between these two will be interesting the next few years — to say the very least. California’s Prop 50: One-Party Control Locked In In California, Governor Newsom’s Proposition 50 solidified Democratic dominance through a last-minute sweeping redistricting overhaul that passed after more than $300 million was spent promoting it. Republicans were not left with enough time to properly prepare and fight it. Although roughly 40% of Californians vote Republican, the new map would leave the GOP with only 7% of the state’s congressional seats. That amounts to political engineering with no balance in sight. Democrats claimed Prop 50 would improve representation, but it is actually gerrymandering on a historic scale. They claim this is a counterbalance to Texas redistricting, but Texas doesn’t have anything close to this kind of structural bias. Prop 50 effectively locks Republicans out of power in California for the foreseeable future. That was their goal, and they achieved it. Why Democrats Dominated So why did Democrats sweep this election? The answer lies in timing, perception, and focus. These were deep-blue states where Democratic infrastructure was already strong. But the ongoing government shutdown, combined with national fatigue and slow economic recovery, set the stage for a default vote for “stability.” Many voters simply didn’t see a strong Republican alternative. Democrats kept their messaging unified and emotional. They tied every issue — from policy to personality — back to President Trump. Republicans, on the other hand, failed to connect their arguments to everyday voter concerns or to demonstrate how things would improve under continued conservative leadership. Economic Strain and the Trump Challenge The economy remains uncertain. Costs for essentials like food, gas, and housing are still high — the lingering effects of inflation that began under President Biden. President Trump’s economic strategy is aimed at long-term correction through tariffs, trade reform, and energy expansion. But that kind of recovery takes time, and many voters haven’t felt the benefits yet. The administration now faces the challenge of making progress visible. Americans don’t want to hear about macroeconomic data; they want relief they can see — at the pump, in the grocery store, and in their mortgage or rent payments. The Road to 2026 The lesson from the 2025 election is straightforward: Democrats win when Republicans fail to connect on the issues that matter most. The “Get Trump” strategy continues to energize the left and distract from their lack of sound policy. For President Trump,…
2025 Elections: Five Key Races to Watch
With just two weeks until 2025 Elections, five major races are drawing national attention. These contests go beyond local politics: they have significant implications for party momentum, national strategies, and the balance of power. As each campaign intensifies, voters will be watching closely. Virginia Governor’s Contest: Turbulence on the Trail In Virginia, the gubernatorial race between Democrat Abigail Spanberger and Republican Winsome Earle-Sears is undergoing turbulence. The Republican nominee has seized on a scandal involving Democratic attorney-general nominee Jay Jones to bring pressure on Spanberger. Spanberger’s lead appeared sizable in earlier polling, yet the controversy has stirred questions and could shift dynamics. (RELATED NEWS: Democrats Rally Behind Jay Jones Despite Disturbing Texts) As a result, the race in Virginia is now more uncertain than it seemed. Sears is closing the gap. The outcome of this one is drawing serious attention, given the state’s competitive nature and national focus on statewide offices. New Jersey Governor’s Race: A Photo Finish? In New Jersey, the contest for governor between Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill has tightened dramatically. While Sherrill held a roughly five-point lead in the latest Fox News poll, that advantage has shrunk from earlier in the year. New Jersey remains a largely Democratic-registered state, yet Republican governors have succeeded here before. Sherrill has also faced growing scrutiny over questions about her transparency and past conduct at the Naval Academy, which have fueled voter doubts about her credibility. The result in New Jersey will serve not only as a state result but as an indicator of broader party strength heading toward the midterms. Ciattarelli just might pull this one out. One thing is for certain — this race will be a nail-biter until the very end. New York City Mayoral Election: Big Spotlight, Big Implications In New York City, the mayoral race is shaping up as one of the most-watched campaigns of the year. The Democratic nominee, Zohran Mamdani — a 33-year-old state lawmaker — stands out as a possible first Muslim and first millennial mayor of the city. He faces a crowded field, including former governor Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa. Current mayor, Eric Adams, dropped out of the race in September. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has sparked controversy over his past associations and statements — including refusing to directly condemn Hamas and meeting with controversial figures. Meanwhile, many critics and prominent figures are urging Sliwa to drop out because of his weak polling numbers — a move that would boost Cuomo’s chances in a direct two-way race — but Sliwa has so far refused to withdraw. Mamdani will be almost impossible to beat as long as Sliwa remains. Given New York’s size and influence, the mayoral outcome will ripple outward. It may affect how national strategists view urban elections, how policy priorities are framed, and how parties attempt to reach key demographic groups. California’s Proposition 50 & Redistricting Battle In California, voters will decide a ballot measure known as Proposition 50. This proposal would turn redistricting power over to the state legislature. This would alter how congressional districts are drawn for the next three election cycles. Supporters argue it gives accountability to elected officials; opponents warn it undermines independent maps. Polls suggest a majority might support it. (MORE NEWS: Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants) Given California’s size and its congressional delegation, the vote has national significance: it could shift how many seats lean Democratic or Republican in future U.S. House battles. Analysts say the new maps could create as many as five additional Democratic congressional seats. This would effectively answer the five new seats Texas lawmakers are attempting to add with a newly drawn congressional map. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retention Elections: Quiet but Critical In Pennsylvania — a major battleground state — three justices on the state Supreme Court face retention elections this year. Democrats currently hold a 5-2 majority on the court. Though these races don’t get as much attention as governor or mayor contests, their impact is substantial. The composition of the court can influence rulings on cases regarding elections and abortion. So while the spotlight may be lower, the stakes remain very high. These judicial outcomes could influence legal decisions for years and shape the balance of power across state government. Why These Races Matter — Across the Board Taken together, these five races illustrate a larger trend: parties are fighting not just for seats but for narratives, momentum, and control of key levers of power. Democrats are attempting a rebound after setbacks in recent national elections; they point to special-election wins as evidence of momentum. At the same time, Republicans are pushing back by highlighting major challenges facing Democrats, including low approval ratings and voter losses. Furthermore, these contests serve as early tests ahead of the 2026 midterms — giving both sides data on what works, where voters are shifting, and how campaigns should operate. What to Watch the Next Few Weeks Voter turnout: With less attention than presidential years, mobilizing voters in these five races will be key. Campaign messaging: How candidates frame issues like the economy and public safety will matter. External endorsements and funding: Big money and national players are already involved, especially in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey where outside spending has soared. Polling movement: Shifts of even a few points can signal momentum — as seen in New Jersey where the lead narrowed. Local issue resonance: Issues specific to each region — such as redistricting in California or taxes in New Jersey — may sway undecided voters. Conclusion In short, these five races — in New Jersey, Virginia, New York City, California, and Pennsylvania — are far more than just elections. They are barometers of national political energy, tests of party strategies, and indicators of the shape of American politics heading into 2026. As we count down to Election Day, every campaign move, every polling shift, and every turnout effort will carry outsized weight. These last few…
Portland: Trump Defies Court, Sends 300 CA Guard Troops
President Donald Trump ordered 300 California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, in open defiance of a federal court order. The decision, made on October 5, 2025, set off an immediate political and legal firestorm across the country. The deployment came one day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the White House from using Oregon’s own National Guard in the state. The court ruled that the administration’s justification lacked solid evidence and could violate constitutional limits on presidential authority. Despite that ruling, Trump directed troops from California to cross state lines, saying Portland needed protection from ongoing chaos and threats to federal property. President Trump reacted to the judge’s order: There’s the magic word again 👀 Trump says that “insurrectionists” are burning Portland to the ground. This is not an accident. Trump and his administration are beginning to use this word frequently for a reason. The Insurrection Act is coming. pic.twitter.com/8f9C3S0tki — Clandestine (@WarClandestine) October 5, 2025 Both Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the move. They accused Trump of abusing his power and ignoring the Constitution. Tension Builds in Portland Portland has faced waves of demonstrations since early summer. The protests began after several controversial immigration enforcement actions at a local federal facility. Over time, the gatherings drew national attention and occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents. In late September, Trump announced that his administration would send federal resources to Oregon to restore order. He blamed state leaders for failing to protect federal buildings and personnel. As part of that plan, he sought to federalize Oregon’s National Guard and place them under his command. Judge Karin Immergut halted the order. She ruled that the administration had not shown credible evidence of widespread violence or an immediate threat that justified federal intervention. Her ruling says that the president could not use the military to manage local protests without clear legal authority. Trump responded by directing troops from California instead, claiming the court’s order did not apply to National Guard units from another state. She has since issued a TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from relocating or deploying ANY federalized national guard troops to Oregon. Judge Immergut has issued her written TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from relocating or deploying federalized national guard troops to Oregon. Here it is: https://t.co/9xO5hwocck pic.twitter.com/WU11j6Or2F — Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) October 6, 2025 A Clash Over Constitutional Limits The confrontation in Portland has become a defining example of the struggle between state sovereignty and federal power. Legal scholars point to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states, as central to the dispute. Governors Newsom and Kotek argue that Trump’s decision violates that principle by seizing control over state guard forces without consent. The White House insists the president has the right to protect federal property and enforce federal law. Yet critics say the order oversteps executive authority and blurs the line between military and civilian roles. The Posse Comitatus Act also lies at the heart of the debate. The law generally forbids using the military for domestic law enforcement unless Congress explicitly authorizes it. Opponents of the deployment argue that sending troops to monitor protests crosses that legal boundary. (MORE NEWS: Apple Pulls ICE-Tracking Apps from App Store) Judge Immergut’s earlier ruling complicates matters further. In her opinion, Portland had been relatively calm in recent weeks, contradicting the administration’s portrayal of the city as a “war zone.” Governors Weigh In California Governor Gavin Newsom called the order unconstitutional and reckless. He said his state would not allow its National Guard to be used for political stunts. Newsom promised immediate legal action to block the deployment and protect the rights of California’s soldiers. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek echoed his concerns. She warned that Trump’s actions could undermine federalism and increase tensions instead of reducing them. Kotek’s office confirmed that she is working with state attorneys to seek emergency relief from the courts. Both governors maintain that the situation in Portland does not justify military intervention. They insist that local and state law enforcement agencies are capable of maintaining order without federal troops. (MORE NEWS: Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants) On the contrary, Texas Governor Abbott authorized 400 members of the Texas National Guard. He is ready and willing to assist federal law enforcement if necessary. I fully authorized the President to call up 400 members of the Texas National Guard to ensure safety for federal officials. You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it. No Guard can match the training, skill, and… https://t.co/7SUk9XlMBn — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 6, 2025 National Implications for Power and Protest The battle over Portland reaches far beyond one city or protest. It tests the boundaries of American democracy, the separation of powers, and the reach of presidential authority. The outcome could redefine how Washington interacts with state governments during times of unrest. Supporters of the deployment argue that the president is within his legal right to act, especially when local leaders order police to stand down or fail to protect federal personnel and property. Under the Insurrection Act, the president can lawfully deploy military forces if states cannot or will not uphold federal law. In this case, Trump’s allies say his decision reflects a duty to defend federal officers and facilities from escalating threats, similar to situations seen in Chicago and other cities where local enforcement retreated. The courts now face the task of determining how far the president’s powers extend under existing law. The restraining order remains in place until mid-October, giving judges time to weigh whether his actions fall within constitutional boundaries. The ruling will likely influence how future presidents handle civil unrest and the use of military forces on U.S. soil. Final Word The deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland stands as one of the most controversial moves of Trump’s second term. It has fueled intense debate over federal…
California Volleyball Clash Over Transgender Athletes
California is once again in the spotlight, and not for the right reasons. The state’s policies on transgender athletes are creating conflict after conflict, and this time, volleyball is at the center of the storm. Families, students, and coaches are speaking out, saying the rules don’t prioritize fairness or safety. A High School Girl Forced Out of the Game At Jurupa Valley High School, senior Hadeel Hazameh walked away from volleyball. Why? Because she says she spent three years sharing a locker room with a biological male. For her, that wasn’t just uncomfortable—it violated her faith and her rights. She filed a lawsuit, joined by teammate Alyssa McPherson, who is Catholic and says she faced the same struggle. Both of these brave young women argue that girls shouldn’t have to compromise their beliefs, their privacy, or their safety just to play sports. Their lawsuit names the school district, the California Interscholastic Federation, and the Department of Education. They’re asking for what should be common sense: fairness and respect for girls. A Muslim American girl in California is standing up against the state’s trans athletes policies after spending three years sharing a locker room with a transgender volleyball teammate – a violation of her religion. She is also calling out Gavin Newsom for doing nothing to help… pic.twitter.com/I4qQhF4UKx — Jackson Thompson (@JackThompsonFOX) September 17, 2025 College Teams Caught in the Same Fight This isn’t only happening in high school gyms. At Santa Rosa Junior College, players filed a Title IX complaint after a transgender athlete joined the women’s volleyball team. One player says she got a concussion after taking a spike to the head. Another says she was injured, too, according to Fox News. These aren’t small scrapes—these are serious safety concerns. Two junior college women’s volleyball players in California allege they witnessed a transgender teammate give a concussion to a female player with a spike to the head, and one of them took one of the athlete’s spikes to the face herself. pic.twitter.com/tgksH60i7u — Jackson Thompson (@JackThompsonFOX) September 9, 2025 At San Jose State University, teammates say a biological male played on the women’s team for three years. They claim nobody told them the truth. In a lawsuit, player Brooke Slusser alleges that she was never told that her teammate, later identified as Blaire Fleming, is a biological male. For example: She says she moved into an apartment (with teammates including Fleming) and shared a room without knowing this. The lawsuit claims she only learned the truth toward the end of a season after overhearing non-team members referring to Fleming as “a dude.” Slusser also claims that Fleming asked to room with her, and that school officials assigned them to share rooms (on road trips), without disclosing Fleming’s birth sex. The case has now triggered a federal Title IX investigation. That’s how big this problem has become. (MORE NEWS: Skipping Coverage: The New Trend Among Young Adults) Why Girls Are Pushing Back The issue comes down to three simple points: fairness, safety, and faith. Girls are tired of being told to “just deal with it” when they’re asked to compete against transgender biological males. They know the physical differences aren’t erased by changing paperwork. Volleyball is a fast and powerful game, and the risk of injury is a real concern. Then there’s the matter of faith and privacy. Hazameh and McPherson both say their beliefs demand modesty. They shouldn’t be forced into locker rooms with males to keep their spot on the team. That’s not equality—it’s coercion. What Leaders Are (and Aren’t) Doing Governor Gavin Newsom admits it’s unfair for males to compete in female sports. Yet, when it comes time to act, he punts. His office says the policy was passed years ago under Jerry Brown and that the athletic federation and education department run independently. That excuse doesn’t fly with parents and students who want action now. Hazameh spoke out on Newsom’s lack of action: “If our governor himself says that it’s unfair, then he’s the one who should act on it… he should be the one to stand up, it shouldn’t have to be girls like me and Alyssa who have to forfeit in order to make a stand that this isn’t right… If you’re not going to do anything, then what are you here to do if you’re not here to make America better?” Saying the policy is wrong while leaving it untouched is like acknowledging the house is on fire and refusing to pick up a hose. Lawmakers Take a Pass Earlier this year, lawmakers had a chance to fix this. Two bills were introduced that would have stopped males from competing in girls’ sports. Both failed. Every Democrat voted them down. Some even compared the effort to historic oppression—ignoring the real oppression of girls losing their teams, their safety, and their voices. The message to families was clear: politics came before protecting daughters. And people are taking note. (MORE NEWS: Rising Socialism Exposes the Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis) Title IX: A Law Turned Upside Down Title IX was written to protect opportunities for women. It opened doors, built teams, and gave generations of girls the chance to compete. Now, that law is being twisted into something unrecognizable. Instead of protecting female athletes, it’s being used to justify rules that put them at a disadvantage. That’s why so many families are filing lawsuits. They’re asking the courts to restore the original intent of Title IX—to protect women, not erase them. What’s Next California is heading toward a reckoning. Lawsuits regarding transgender athletes are piling up. Federal investigations are underway. Parents are demanding change. And girls are speaking out louder than ever. The pressure is building, and leaders won’t be able to dodge the issue forever. The question is simple: will California protect the rights of girls, or will it continue to sacrifice them on the altar of ideology? Families know what’s at stake—privacy, safety, and the basic fairness that sports are supposed to be built…
Court Nixes California AI Deepfake Law, Free Speech Wins
Welcome to The Modern Memo — where our readers don’t come for fluff, filters, or focus-grouped headlines. They come for the truth. We don’t spin. We don’t censor. And we don’t dance around the narrative — we swing a machete straight through it. If it matters to America, we cover it — raw, real, and relentlessly honest. AI Deepfake Ruling a Major Win for Elon Musk’s X Platform A federal court has struck down an unconstitutional California law that limited free speech by controlling the use of AI-generated “deepfake” videos during elections. The law is one of the strictest in the United States. Elon Musk and his platform, X, joined the lawsuit to challenge the law and scored a major victory with this decision. However, the judge avoided ruling directly on free speech claims. Instead, he based his decision on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. This act protects online platforms from being held responsible for what their users post. What Was the Law About? In direct conflict with the First Amendment, the law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024 aimed to block social media platforms from hosting AI-generated videos featuring politicians or public figures. Newsom pushed for the legislation after Elon Musk shared a viral AI video of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. She was portrayed as saying she was the “ultimate diversity hire.” Newsom said the video “should be illegal” and said he would sign a bill “in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.” (RELATED: Trump Dismisses Rumors of Targeting Elon Musk’s Companies, Calls for American Business to “Thrive Like Never Before”) Manipulating a voice in an “ad” like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is. pic.twitter.com/NuqOETkwTI — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) July 29, 2024 Why Was the Law Challenged in Court? The law gave the government too much control over what people could post online. It was designed to punish parody, comedy, and political satire—all forms of speech protected under the First Amendment. Those who challenged the law included: Christopher Kohls, the video creator who posted the Kamala Harris deepfake Elon Musk’s X platform, in a 65-page lawsuit, said the law targeted free expression The Babylon Bee, a conservative comedy and satire site Rumble, a video-sharing platform that competes with YouTube The plaintiffs argued that the law would: Discourage parody or humor about politicians Pressure platforms to over-censor content Violate the First Amendment by favoring some views over others Musk described the law as an attempt to “make parody illegal,” and said it would lead to unnecessary censorship. You’re not gonna believe this, but @GavinNewsom just announced that he signed a LAW to make parody illegal, based on this video 🤣🤣 https://t.co/bdykNuxe6G — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 18, 2024 What Did the Judge Say? On Tuesday, Federal Judge John Mendez struck down the law. According to Politico, Mendez said that platforms hosting deepfakes, “don’t have anything to do with these videos that the state is objecting to,” and that Section 230 releases them from liability. This ruling means the state cannot force platforms to remove deepfakes simply because they are politically misleading. Free Speech Question Left Unanswered—Or Is It? Even though the case was largely about First Amendment rights, Mendez did not rule on that issue. He said it was not necessary because the law already failed under Section 230. “I’m simply not reaching that issue,” he told the lawyers during the hearing. (RELATED: So-Called ‘Equality Act’ Could Undo Free Speech, Mandate Murder Of Unborn Children, Make Pedophiles A ‘Protected Class’) BUT this ruling is still a major victory for free speech advocates everywhere. In a free society, government officials don’t police political speech—especially during election season, when open debate matters most. The Constitution protects the First Amendment. It’s not a privilege granted by politicians. Final Thoughts This case isn’t just about deepfakes. It’s about who controls the narrative. The California government—from the governor down—tried to silence speech they didn’t like. They hid behind AI fears and “disinformation panic.” Judge Mendez saw through it. And free speech won. Let’s be clear: the law was never about protecting voters from disinformation. It was about protecting politicians. This bill was designed from the beginning to shut down criticism and uncomfortable truths in the name of “election integrity.” That is NOT what freedom is about. That is tyranny in disguise. If free speech is so easily discarded every time a politician doesn’t like a joke, a meme, or an article—like this one—then we don’t have a republic. We have a regime. Make no mistake. This ruling draws a line in the sand. It tells every governor, state legislature, every activist dreaming of being the thought police: you don’t get to dictate what Americans say, share, or criticize online. The PEOPLE hold the government accountable—even when it’s inconvenient. Especially when it’s inconvenient. The battle over AI is just beginning. While AI technology poses new risks, lawmakers will need to find ways to address those risks without infringing on constitutional rights. This ruling shows that broad, sweeping restrictions won’t survive in court. Other states that have or are considering similar laws will do well to remember this ruling. The Constitution isn’t optional. Protecting elections is important, but you can’t legislate your way around the First Amendment. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At The Modern Memo, we’re not here to soften the blow — we’re here to land it. The media plays defense for the powerful. We don’t. If you’re done with censorship, half-truths, and gaslighting headlines, pass this on. Expose the stories they bury. This isn’t just news — it’s a fight for reality. And it doesn’t work without you.
MICHELE STEEB: Gov. Newsom’s Broken Promise On Homelessness
By Senior Fellow for the Texas Public Policy Foundation Michele Steeb, via Daily Caller News Foundation Standing on an Oakland street flanked by legislative allies, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made a sweeping promise in 2021: California would eliminate family homelessness within five years. Backed by an unprecedented $75 billion budget surplus and $27 billion in federal stimulus, his administration committed $12 billion to the crisis, including $3.5 billion for housing units and rental subsidies. His strategy? Double down on Housing First—a one-size-fits-all policy California adopted in 2016 after the federal government’s 2013 embrace of it. Housing First promises permanent, taxpayer-funded housing with no expectations—no sobriety, no treatment, no work, ever. Somehow, the governor missed the glaring reality that under Housing First, homelessness in California exploded by 34%, and unsheltered homelessness by 47% between 2017-2021. Fast forward to 2025, and the devastation is even clearer. Family homelessness has surged 22%, and the number of homeless students has jumped 9% in just the last year. Spiraling Crisis Far from improving, the crisis facing California’s homeless families is spiraling further out of control. In 2021, I warned the Newsom Administration that its plan to end family homelessness was deeply flawed. Having spent 13 years leading Saint John’s Program for Real Change—Northern California’s largest residential program for homeless women and children—I knew firsthand that housing alone does not heal trauma, break addiction, or rebuild lives. Housing First’s failure as a one-size-fits-all approach to homelessness is undeniable. Yet Newsom continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of failure, dismisses calls for reform, and deflects blame onto local governments while the crisis that has metastasized at his helm threatens an entire generation. Housing First Is A Myth Meanwhile, the bleak numbers behind Housing First tell only part of the story. The real devastation is written in broken lives and stolen futures. At Saint John’s, 78% of the women we served battled addiction, 70% endured domestic violence or mental illness, and half never completed high school. Nearly all carried deep, unhealed childhood trauma, reflected in staggering Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scores. Many also struggled with anosognosia—a profound lack of self-awareness—leaving them unable to recognize the depth of their own struggles. Yet, under Governor Newsom’s Housing First mandate, these moms are handed nothing but a set of keys. Services to treat their addiction, trauma, and mental illness are optional, if available at all. It’s the policy equivalent of tossing a drowning person a life preserver riddled with holes, then walking away as they slip beneath the surface. (RELATED: California Dems Blame Wildfires On Trump After Their Party Created Tinderbox Of Regs) The result is a heartbreaking surge in homeless families and children whose safety, education, and futures are sacrificed to protect a failed political ideology instead of advancing real solutions. Newsom’s homelessness legacy has long roots and wide consequences. As San Francisco mayor, his “Care Not Cash” program spent $1.5 billion with no lasting reduction in homelessness. A 2021 state audit slammed California’s homelessness response as “uncoordinated,” and a 2024 report revealed the state spent $24 billion over five years with no consistent tracking of outcomes. This is not leadership. It is negligence. Homeless families deserve a real chance at stability. Taxpayers deserve accountability. California must stop clinging to a failed Housing First ideology and embrace a Human First approach that addresses the three core deficits driving and entrenching homelessness: lack of a support network, lack of income, and unaddressed trauma and addiction. (RELATED: Newsom Attacks Republicans On Violent Crime — Data Tell Different Story) For the vast majority struggling with homelessness, lasting change requires more than a roof. It demands active engagement—job training, mental health care, addiction recovery, financial literacy, and the rebuilding of positive community connections. True stability comes from participation, not passivity; from helping people heal and grow, not simply handing them keys and hoping for the best. Because in the end, the goal must be to help people thrive, not just survive. The soaring 22% increase in family homelessness is more than a policy failure. It is a moral failure. Every child left unsheltered, every student forced to do homework from the back seat of a car, represents not only a personal tragedy, but a deepening wound in California’s future. Protecting and prioritizing these children—ensuring they have safety, stability, and the tools to succeed—is not just a political choice. It is a moral imperative. If California fails to act, today’s crisis will grow into tomorrow’s catastrophe, one that will cost the state far more than any investment in prevention ever would. (RELATED: Los Angeles Burns (Again); Is The Golden State Turning Into An Open Air Prison Camp?) With its vast wealth and culture of innovation, California should be leading this charge. But under Gov. Newsom’s leadership, it is falling further behind— sacrificing families on the altar of failed ideology and political expediency. Michele Steeb Michele Steeb is the founder of Free Up Foundation and author of “Answers Behind the RED DOOR: Battling the Homeless Epidemic,” based on her 13 years as CEO of Northern California’s largest program for homeless women and children. She is a Visiting Fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Fix Homelessness Initiative. Follow them on Twitter: @DiscoveryCWP and @SteebMichele. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Newsom’s Press Office Attacks Victims Of Palisades Fire For Demanding Answers
Star of ‘The Hills’ Spencer Pratt and his wife Heidi Montag filed a lawsuit against California and the City of Los Angeles over the Pacific Palisades fire, leading to a dark confrontation with the press office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The lawsuit filed in July includes more than 20 other property owners who lost their homes during the Palisades Fire that started on January 7, 2025, and was only contained on January 31 after burning through more than 23,448 acres, according to CBS and Los Angeles Fire Department. The complaint alleges that Los Angeles municipal water department are to blame for the issues in actually getting water to the burn zone. pic.twitter.com/2N2Qypij1V — Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 14, 2025 Gavin Newsom’s Press Office Goes Off The Rails? Newsom’s press office issued a statement on X that appears to be against Pratt and his wife, calling them “C-list reality TV stars” and calling out “anonymous Twitter accounts” who the Governor and his office clearly think are spreading “misinformation” about the situation, whereas the lawsuit came as a result of no one receiving answers as to why this disaster was not mitigated — particularly given California’s ongoing risk for wildfires. Calling a concerned resident who lost his home to the Palisades Fire ‘C-list’ for demanding answers? That’s not leadership. That’s shameful. Newsom, you let the state park burn down and it burned down my home, my parents’ home and my whole community. I’ll continue to speak up for… pic.twitter.com/5A0xIlDBmp — Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) July 17, 2025 “Calling a concerned resident who lost his home to the Palisades Fire ‘C-list’ for demanding answers? That’s not leadership. That’s shameful,” Pratt replied to Newsom and his press office. “Newsom, you let the state park burn down and it burned down my home, my parents’ home and my whole community. I’ll continue to speak up for my home town and I’ll see you in court.” Newsom’s Leadership Called Into Question More than 100 people replied to Pratt’s post (at the time of writing) while hundreds more liked it, and more than 700 “liked it,” while Newsom’s office decided to double-down on their stance. (RELATED: Newsom Appears To Stealth Launch Campaign For Presidency) “Losing your home is heartbreaking. No one should have to go through that, and we’re fully committed to supporting you and your community in recovering. Period,” his office replied. “But that pain doesn’t give you license to mislead your neighbors with completely fabricated conspiracy theories. You’ve been spreading false information that’s scaring people and actively hurting the very community you claim to speak for. And now — thanks to your videos — a proposal to help fire victims rebuild is dead. Well done.” Newsom’s Leadership Called Into Question More than 100 people replied to Pratt’s post (at the time of writing) while hundreds more liked it, and more than 700 “liked it,” while Newsom’s office decided to double-down on their stance. “Losing your home is heartbreaking. No one should have to go through that, and we’re fully committed to supporting you and your community in recovering. Period,” his office replied. “But that pain doesn’t give you license to mislead your neighbors with completely fabricated conspiracy theories. You’ve been spreading false information that’s scaring people and actively hurting the very community you claim to speak for. And now — thanks to your videos — a proposal to help fire victims rebuild is dead. Well done.” (RELATED: California Dems Blame Wildfires On Trump After Their Party Created Tinderbox Of Regs) The office then shared a link to an LA Times article that appeared to back-up the Governor’s stance — clearly he doesn’t realize that no one in LA believes anything written by the LA Times, and this is not a newspaper of note to anyone who lives and works within Southern California. Newsom Destroyed In The Comments People who spoke to Million Voices on strict condition of anonymity claimed that this type of behavior is exactly what everyone should expect of Newsom and his leadership. Along with ignoring the rights of his citizens, he and his team are often quick to call out anyone who disagrees with them as “spreading misinformation.” (RELATED: Newsom Attacks Republicans On Violent Crime — Data Tell Different Story) “Quit the gaslighting,” replied one user to Newsom’s press office latest post. You guys are an utter joke. What a ridiculous post. ‘And now — thank to your videos — a proposal to help fire victims rebuild is dead. Well done,’” replied another. “So – just to clarify, you’re killing a proposal to help fire victims because of Spencer’s posts and videos? How pathetic. How amateur. How weak.” Newsom’s press office is paid for by taxpayer dollars as part of the state budget. Million Voices: Christians No Longer Have To Be Silent In Politics A recent ruling by the IRS now allows Churches to endorse political candidates to their congregation. Bringing a Biblical Worldview back to the American cultural norm is definitely a large part of our purpose during our time on Earth. If every Christian in America voted for the candidates supporting common sense, often Christian values, we would win every election. Your Sunday service doesn’t have to be political, but your day-to-day life outside of His four walls will always be dictated — in large part — by your elected officials. Ignorance of politics is like handing over control of your life to the greediest, most power-hungry serpent in the room. When we Use Our Voice, we bring a more Biblical worldview to our nation. Join Million Voices in our mission to advocate for religious freedom, support fair and secure elections, and uphold the values that this great nation was built upon. Tell us what you want from the next four years, and we will fight to make it a reality … again!
California Dems Blame Wildfires On Trump After Their Party Created Tinderbox Of Regs
By DCNF technology reporter Thomas English As California braces for another wildfire season, forestry experts warn that decades of regulatory mismanagement — not climate change or Trump-era budget cuts — have left forests dangerously overloaded with fuel. Democrats have blamed climate change and agency rollbacks for creating tinderbox conditions, but forestry experts see a self-inflicted wound that began festering as far back as the Clinton administration. Three decades of environmental litigation, they say, has warped forest management into a Byzantine maze of legal delays and procedural dead ends — leaving millions of acres to accumulate fuel faster than anyone can clear it. The blame game intensified Friday as Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom took to X to point fingers at President Donald Trump. “Donald Trump isn’t just threatening CA’s disaster aid, he’s also pushing for dangerous cuts ahead of wildfire season,” the governor said Friday. “A 63% REDUCTION in the U.S. Forest Service’s budget. A 30% REDUCTION in workforce — 10,000 employees … He is literally playing politics with people’s lives.” Donald Trump isn’t just threatening CA’s disaster aid, he’s also pushing for dangerous cuts ahead of wildfire season — A 63% REDUCTION in the U.S. Forest Service’s budget. A 30% REDUCTION in workforce — 10,000 employees. The agency is the nation’s largest firefighting entity.… pic.twitter.com/YrVKfyaBPv — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 20, 2025 Newsom then accused Trump of “sabotage” in a follow-up post Saturday, citing a San Francisco Chronicle article that reported less than 20% of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles were actually on the ground fighting the state’s seven ongoing fires — the worst of which is the Monte Fire, which burned over a thousand acres and was 90% contained as of Monday. But Bob Zybach, an author and wildfire expert who has led the Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project since 1996, sees a different cause for California’s chronic wildfire problem. (MORE NEWS: ‘City-Killer’ Asteroid Swarm Adds Fuel To Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, And Poses Huge Cosmic Threat) “The problem isn’t all these massive numbers of wildfires,” he told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The problem is the financial end of it. It’s not Trump, it’s the people, the litigants, who keep suing to shut down the timber industry which has allowed the fuels to build up.” Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Democrats have already begun a chorus of preemptive condemnations against Trump ahead of wildfire season. California Sen. Alex Padilla said in February he expects the president’s “flagrantly illegal” cuts to environmental agencies will “jeopardize communities that depend on a robust federal response to our wildfire crisis.” Similarly, Newsom accused Trump’s cuts to the Forest Service of creating “rampant uncertainty ahead of peak wildfire season” in May, sentiments echoed in stories from The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times in mid June. But the numbers tell a story of long-accelerating destruction: before 2000, California experienced 45 mega-fires over an entire century, but since then, 35 mega-fires have scorched the state in just 25 years, with 2020 alone burning 4.3 million acres and causing $19 billion in economic devastation, according to Frontline Wildfire Defense. Zybach credits this worsening regulatory logjam to environmental lawsuits funded through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which pays plaintiffs’ attorney fees when they beat the government in civil cases. “We have paid these people to shut down the work that would, one, produce good income for our rural counties and rural families, but two, would greatly reduce wildfire risk,” he said. The transformation began with the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, Zybach said, which started as the Clinton administration’s bid to save a species of owl by designating 7.4 million acres of its habitat as completely off-limits to logging — ultimately resulting in a reduction of Pacific Coast timber harvests by 80-90%. “In the 1970s and ’80s, California and Oregon didn’t have these fires,” Zybach explained. “Then we put in the Clinton plan, the Northwest Forest Plan … I was on the cover of the national magazine Evergreen in 1994 and said, ‘If we put in the Clinton plan, we’re going to have catastrophic wildfires.’ And my predictions were accurate.” California’s wildfire response is handicapped by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act — two bills introduced by Democrats but signed into law by former President Richard Nixon — according to Nick Smith, a spokesman for the American Forest Resource Council. “The greatest obstacle to doing more forest management, especially on National Forest lands, is the cost and time requirements of federal environmental regulations,” Smith said. “NEPA alone typically adds an average of three-and-a-half years of planning time to thin one stand of overstocked forest.” (RELATED: Newsom Attacks Republicans On Violent Crime — Data Tell Different Story) The human cost was shown in Berry Creek, California, destroyed in the 2020 North Complex where 16 people died after protective forest thinning projects sat trapped in California Environmental Quality Act reviews, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The fire consumed 180,000 acres in 24 hours through untreated forests, Sierra Forest Legacy reported, incinerating the elementary school, fire station and most homes while planned treatments languished in bureaucratic limbo. “Gavin Newsom famously said, ‘Oh, this fire, it was caused by global warming,’” Zybach recalled. “And he’s sitting in the ruins of a fire that was set by the Forest Service … it’s very revealing.” (RELATED: ‘If I Was Waiting For FEMA, I Would Be Screwed’: You’ll Sob Watching What’s Happening In NC Months After Hurricane Helene) By exploiting EAJA, outfits like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) built a business model around suing the government, then billing taxpayers for it, Zybach said. Smith explained that even when these groups lose cases, they receive compensation for partial victories, creating a litigation industrial complex that profits while forests collect deadly fuel loads. The Center has collected at least $4 million in EAJA awards since 2001, according to federal records. CBD has disputed such characterizations in past congressional testimony, telling lawmakers it “receives little income from federal litigation fee and cost recovery” and that any awards merely offset out-of-pocket expenses. The CBD did not respond to a request for comment. Congress let EAJA’s public reporting requirement lapse…
- 1
- 2