Ilhan Omar, Minn. Dems Booted From ICE Headquarters
A demonstration at federal immigration headquarters in Minneapolis turned into a political spectacle Saturday after Minnesota Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison were denied entry and escorted out of the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, which houses the regional ICE office and immigration court.
The lawmakers arrived unannounced, telling reporters they intended to conduct “oversight” amid heightened scrutiny of immigration enforcement following a fatal ICE-involved shooting earlier in the week.
Video posted online showed security personnel blocking the congresswomen from entering the ICE processing center. They were later permitted a brief walk-through of the lobby but then ordered to leave after officials said they lacked authorization to access secure areas.
“I was just denied access to the ICE processing center at the Whipple Building,” Omar wrote on X. “Members of Congress have a legal right and constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight where people are being detained. The public deserves to know what is taking place in ICE facilities.”
KMSP-TV confirmed the lawmakers were escorted from the premises.
Rep. Angie Craig later told MSNOW, “We were told because this facility is being funded by the Big Beautiful Bill, not the congressional appropriations act, that we would not be allowed to enter the facility. That’s complete nonsense. I informed them they were violating the law. They said they didn’t care.”
Rep. Kelly Morrison said the same rationale was given, citing the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which funds federal enforcement sites directly under executive control.
Administration officials defended the decision, saying the members were not part of an authorized oversight review. “Oversight must follow the law,” a senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said. “These members were not on any approved review team, and the facility was under operational security status at the time.”
The confrontation came just days after Minneapolis drew national attention when an activist was fatally shot by an ICE agent. The incident fueled protests and tensions throughout the city.
Hours later, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) escalated scrutiny on Omar, saying she remains “at the top of the suspect list” in Minnesota’s expanding welfare fraud scandals.
Comer told journalist Alison Steinberg that formal ethics complaints against Omar are expected, adding that “any member of Congress that’s getting money unethically or illegally” should be investigated by the bipartisan Ethics Committee.
“Anybody that has information on a member of Congress, bring that to the Ethics Committee, and they’ll investigate it,” Comer said. “We need to hold them accountable.”
The controversy follows revelations from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who said Omar secured a $1 million earmark for a supposed substance abuse clinic “housed inside a restaurant and run by three individuals who share the same residential address.” The earmark has since been stripped from the spending bill.
Comer also highlighted financial questions surrounding Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, whose firm Rose Lake Capital saw its valuation rise from under $1,000 in 2023 to between $5 million and $25 million in 2024. The firm recently removed names of prominent Democratic figures from its website.
“Minnesota has become the epicenter of one of the largest taxpayer thefts in U.S. history,” Comer said. “We’re going to find out who was involved, who looked the other way, and who got rich off it.”
Between being kicked out of an ICE facility and facing ethics scrutiny in Congress, Omar now finds herself under mounting pressure — both at home and in Washington.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
