The Unconstitutionality of the Democratic Socialists of America

Townhall 

On July 31, 1982, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take that oath very seriously and understand defending the First Amendment freedoms of Americans to speech and expression.

However, when that speech and expression manifests itself in a philosophy of governance that intends to undermine our rule of law, our Constitution, and this Constitutional Republic, I do not support that as a freedom of speech or expression issue. I see that as sedition, at worst, treason. Therein lies the issue with the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that boasts a membership of 120,000. They are free indeed to believe, as they do, in Marxism and its subsidiary economic and societal models, socialism and communism. But, according to their released 2026 platform, having them as elected officials is a threat to our Constitutional Republic and our representative democracy.

How is it possible to have individuals sworn in as Members of Congress when they subscribe to, advocate for, a platform that is the antithesis of our governing system as established in our Constitution, to which they are supposedly taking an oath? For that matter, how can we have individuals sworn in as elected officials placing their hand upon a Quran when that ideology is completely antithetical to our rule of law, as well as a book that calls for the death of "non-believers"? Perhaps that is a topic for another day.

The Founding Fathers of our Constitution—James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay—studied and read the works of French political philosopher Charles Montesquieu, namely his 1748 writing "The Spirit of the Laws," and applied his separation of powers theory in developing our governing system. This is just the same as Thomas Jefferson's studying and reading of John Locke's Natural Rights theory in framing our Declaration of Independence. I would offer that the authors of the DSA 2026 platform have certainly not read any of these foundational works that have created the longest-running Constitutional Republic that the world has known. No, they are students of a delusional failure of a man named Karl Marx, who wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848, 100 years after Montesquieu's work.

The DSA rejects the ideals of a Republic and instead prefers what our founders never intended for our nation, a pure democracy. If these deranged individuals are allowed any say in our governance, they intend to destroy the concept of separation of powers and coequal branches of government, replacing it with a dictatorial entity of the House of Representatives, a singular body of Congress. They state that the U.S. Senate should be abolished, meaning that smaller states would have no equal representation in our Congress. This is their intent. The hypocrisy of their decrying concentrated power in Washington, D.C., while seeking to elevate concentrated power to the major population centers and states, is highly disconcerting.

As well, the DSA platform promotes abolishing the Executive and Judicial branches as established in the Constitution. What these Marxists propose is that their concentrated power branch appoint an executive and judges, meaning the end of coequal branches of government and the establishment of an authoritarian legislative body that will be reflective of one-party rule. There will be no system of checks and balances, just a Robespierre-like House of Representatives that rules rather than governs. There will no longer be an Electoral College where every state is competitive in a presidential election. The DSA rejects the idea of a President of the United States.

How can anyone accept this as anything but clear sedition and certainly unconstitutional? There can be no argument that the DSA 2026 platform destroys the Constitution of the United States. So, how does one get sworn in to support and defend the very rule of law that they want to eradicate?

The DSA platform and its unconstitutionality do not just end with the destruction of our three branches of government, separation of powers, and coequal branches of government. Ya know that stuff we used to teach in high school civics instead of leftist indoctrination bovine excrement.

The DSA 2026 platform goes on to advocate for the elimination of this Republic and its sovereignty. They demand open borders, meaning a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, the "Guarantee Clause." When these Marxists speak of abolishing ICE, they speak of abolishing immigration law and enforcement; that is also Title 8, U.S.C. § 1325, which makes unauthorized entry into the United States a federal offense. As Antifa once chanted, "no borders, no walls, no USA at all." So, what does the DSA see America becoming? That is an easy question to answer: just a piece of land between Canada, Mexico, and three large bodies of water where anyone can enter. And as some DSA candidates have asserted, no illegal immigrant, including those who have committed further crimes, should be deported. That goes right along with ending the prison system, so there will be no consequences or ramifications for anyone breaking the law. Leftism is lawlessness at its ultimate.

We already know that these DSA members and political nominees want the defunding of the police and the elimination of the Second Amendment. I would suppose that the authors of the DSA 2026 platform have never read French economist Frederic Bastiat's essay "The Law," written in 1850, two years after Marx's Communist Manifesto. Bastiat articulates that it is the purpose of government, the law, to secure the life, liberty, and property of the individual, their natural rights. Instead, Marxists such as these DSA charlatans would use government for the sole purpose of subjugating the individual and, as Marx wrote, seizing their property. And if the law is defined by the Marxist ideological agenda, criminals run rampant, and the individual citizen is disarmed, what is the recourse? Yes, exactly what we saw happen in what was once one of the most prosperous nations in our hemisphere, Venezuela, after the rise of one Hugo Chavez. Someone whom American Marxists lauded and praised, no different from every other leftist dictator from Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Castro.

The most disturbing aspect of the DSA 2026 platform is that it calls for the elimination of the Department of Defense/War. The preamble of the Constitution of the United States lists the overarching tasks of the federal government: why it is being formed. One of those tasks is to "provide for the common defense" (which is why I prefer the name Department of Defense, because that is constitutional). The Marxists of the DSA wish to abolish that Department and leave our nation defenseless. Nothing could be more disturbing.

The DSA 2026 platform is in every way unconstitutional. The candidates who are therefore describing themselves as Democratic Socialists are truthfully Marxists and should not hold any elected position in our Constitutional Republic. Needless to say, in America, you are free to be S.O.S., "Stuck on Stupid." However, that does not mean we elevate you to a position where your insanity gives you authority over us if you do not believe in the foundations and fundamentals of our Republic.

There is only one response I have to the DSA 2026 platform: "y'all have identified yourselves as a domestic enemy of our Constitution, and as a result, of our Republic.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Podcast thread for July 20

 

Nothing to say.

Immigration Is A Proxy Issue For A Western Government Trend

American Thinker 

One of the greater mysteries of our century may be why governments across much of Europe, North America, and even Australia adopted remarkably similar immigration policies seemingly at the same time. It is difficult to believe this happened by chance. And unlike Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand, which explains how complex order can arise without central direction, mass migration appears less like an organic historical development than a remarkably coordinated political calculus.

There are many explanations; some point to economics, others to humanitarianism. Others argue that businesses sought inexpensive labor or that politicians sought new voters. Whatever the explanation, governments across Western civilization not only permitted but actively facilitated mass immigration, even in the face of demonstrably low rates of assimilation by some groups. Government leaders have bent over backward, not only facilitating their entry but also subsidizing their living costs, looked the other way as large numbers of young male migrants, including many with criminal histories, entered and remained, and then protected them from expulsion.

This essay examines the forces that continue to promote this mass immigration despite electoral and mounting fiscal costs, and shows how these new immigrants have consistently failed to assimilate. Why do progressive governments cling to these policies like glue? Why do major media organizations so often minimize migrant crimes while emphasizing stories that reinforce preferred narratives that are harmful to a country’s citizens? Why has a common vocabulary—words such as “welcoming,” “neighbors,” and “safety”—appeared almost simultaneously across governments, advocacy groups, and media outlets?

The central question is not whether large-scale migration has been encouraged; evidence supports that conclusion. The real mystery is how so many institutions, in so many countries, arrived at the same destination nearly simultaneously.

So, how did it occur? To answer this question necessarily requires some inference and speculation.

What we can say is that over several decades, international and domestic organizations and leaders of many Western democracies have shifted away from the central importance of the individual toward a collectivist mentality. Recurring themes promoting transnationalism, nationhood, borders, and identity politics conflict with traditional bedrock constructs such as citizenship and defensible borders.

The people undertaking these discussions and actions are well-funded, disciplined, coordinated, and, if you look at how consistent the messaging and actions are across the Western world, it becomes more difficult to discount coordination by parties, known and unknown, driving us toward a unipolar, undemocratic future. Mass migration is one of the tools of this drive.

So where does this lead? I see three takeaways:

1.    There is a concerted effort to make large-scale immigration seem not only acceptable but desirable.

2.    As during COVID, we can again witness intense pressure to conform to a curated socially correct way of thinking, particularly in blue states and cities.

3.    We are witnessing an intensive effort by progressives to internationalize social, legal, and even historical events, delegitimizing European and American national identities and, especially, America’s constitutional ethos.

Mass immigration is one manifestation of a broader worldview that regards national identity, citizenship, borders, and other inherited institutions as obstacles to be reimagined rather than foundations to be preserved.

If that interpretation is correct, immigration is not the end of the story but the beginning. Once that framework takes hold, it naturally extends into other debates—affordability, antisemitism, international policy, wealth inequality, and countless other issues where traditional American assumptions are increasingly challenged.

Mass immigration is not the only social construct at play; it is simply among the most visible. If this broader project succeeds, what remains is a society progressively reorganized around a different set of political assumptions—what many would instantly recognize as collectivist.

Americans may never have been as disconnected and, arguably, as confused and at odds as they are today. The divisions are palpable, not unlike the question of slavery was before the Civil War. And it is easy to understand why. The various institutions that people follow, from the political party they support to their religious institutions, schools, and the government that leads us, are catering to polarizing constituencies, sending out mixed and utterly confusing messages that frequently make no sense!

I want to say that our institutions reflect logical, evolving priorities, but I can’t. Our institutions are not just confused concerning their underlying assumptions; no, they’re actively rejecting essential tenets, such as the centrality of our country’s founding and our Constitution. Until recently, that wasn’t up for discussion. However, today, progressives are aligning against our historic principles and, frequently, the will of the people.

Illegal mass immigration is ultimately a symptom of a larger debate over the direction of our nation, accountability, and what has allowed policies that would have been previously rejected out of hand. The confusion, uncertainty, and even anger many feel are palpable. Our country is blessed with a system that has a built-in capacity for self-correction. We don’t know today who, what, or even why America’s future is in play. God willing, we’ll figure it out and self-correct before it is too late.

Regardless, immigration cannot be understood as an isolated policy disagreement. It has become a proxy for a much larger debate over sovereignty, citizenship, democratic accountability, and what our country is to become. Until Americans address that larger argument, we’ll continue debating immigration while missing the philosophy that increasingly drives it.

God Bless America.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The GOP's Path to Retaining Control of the House Is Here

Townhall 

The newest update from Cook Political Report is here, and it shows a clear pathway to victory for Republicans to maintain control of the House of Representatives as we head into the November midterm election season.

The July 16 report shows that Republicans are likely to come away with 212 seats, and have classified a further 18 as “tossups.” 14 of those tossup seats are either currently held by a Republican incumbent or are now open seats that were previously held by a Republican.

Both Democrats and Republicans are campaigning hard to control these seats, with some of the most heavily-watched House bouts appearing on the list. Notable races include Colorado’s 8th District held by Republican Gabe Evans, Wisconsin’s 3rd District held by Republican Derrick Van Orden, and Texas’ 34th District held by Democrat Vincente Gonzales.

Republicans only need to win six toss-up races in order to retain control of the House. Their prospects of maintaining a majority are boosted by the enormous fundraising advantage over their Democrat adversaries, who continue to fall behind as Republicans tout fundraising record after fundraising record.

As the midterms draw near, race watchers will remember that weak Republicans across multiple states prevented redrawn maps that could have made this cycle completely uncompetitive for Democrats.

Bill Maher Calls Out the Democratic Party and Communism, Teases How This May Change His Vote

RedState 

We've been seeing people like Bill Maher moving away from the Democratic Party. 

But, in truth, they're not the ones moving. As Elon Musk would say, it's the party moving away from him and all the moderates or classical liberals, as the party embraces more and more radical policies and candidates. 

But in an interview with ABC's Jon Karl, Maher wasn't holding back in calling out the Democratic Party and how radical they had become. 

"Democrats are cowardly, they're cowardly," he said. "Their party is being taken over now, by... every day I hear about a new, very radical...I can't sit and just not notice stuff,' he said. "There's some crazy stuff. When we're cheering for the intifada, I'm out.” 

Maher noted how it wasn't even just "defund the police" anymore, it was "abolish the police." In what world would that work, he said, calling it "nutty," and noting it was no longer just a "few people." 

He has indicated again that his vote was in play in 2028, and he told Vice President JD Vance his vote was in play (meaning he could vote for him or another Republican). Maher still has some TDS, but President Donald Trump wouldn't be running in 2028, as Maher noted. 

“Yes, my vote is in play,” Maher exclaimed. "I’m not living in communist America."

“I mean, I know the talking point is that it’s not communism and socialism. Okay. I’ve read the quotes from the DSA platform, from their own mouths. Don’t tell me I’m not seeing what I am seeing! And DSA, again, they say things like, you know, take over of key industries, government. That’s communism.”

Good job, Democrats, you have a lifelong, loud Democrat now looking away from you because of how extreme you have become. But are they getting that? Are they getting that it's not just going to be him, but a lot of other people who aren't going to side with how manic the Democrats have become? 

The answer right now is no. And so the answer of many of the voters is going to be "no" right back at the Democrats. 

DSA Insiders Are Sounding the Alarm About the Cultish Nature of Their Own Organization

RedState 

My last VIP article showed you the callous nature of the DSA leadership and how they really feel about you as an American citizen. 

In short, you're a number that deserves no respect, not a human capable of the incredible. If you get streamrolled thanks to the "warmth of collectivism," then maybe you shouldn't have had the ridiculous idea of embracing the idea of the American dream and attempting to make something out of yourself through hard work and self-sacrifice. The only sacrifices you should make are for the DSA, so they can continue to use you as fuel for their machine. 

The thing is, now that the DSA has some real power to its name, its true nature is starting to show. It was all fun and games when they were chanting slogans and marching in the street, but now that the organization is behind the wheel and the real work has begun, people are finding out how awful that collectivism actually is. 

As of right now, two videos have surfaced online from people who came from inside the DSA, exposing the organization's attitudes ever since Mamdani won. As one insider notes, the place has become like a cult—her words, not mine. 

The girl giving the interview says that the organization has now adopted a "white savior" attitude and is sending people into communities of color to tell them who to vote for. The girl finds this odd because, as she says, there are people who are in those communities with very progressive views who were running for office, and the DSA had no business sending anyone to run against them. 

What's also interesting is that she ends the interview by saying that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani is "not a god" and should be held accountable. 

When the calls are coming from inside the house pic.twitter.com/nBwcEcBdaE

— Dominique Devereaux’s Son (@wondermann5) July 16, 2026

I found all of this completely unsurprising. The DSA is just like any authoritarian party. It's concerned with maintaining and growing its own power. Nothing else. It will step on and use the very people the party claims to love and protect to do so. These progressive community members who want to run and see to their own communities are an issue for the DSA. 

Dictators have no friends, just alliances that are convenient at the time. 

Want further proof? Here's a second video from a woman who fundraised for the DSA for five years and who left it after it became clear what the organization actually was. 

pic.twitter.com/azNfR2oEsQ

— lili von shtupp 🇬🇾🇺🇸🕉️ (@lili_shtupp) July 16, 2026

What makes this video interesting is that you see the underlying idea behind this will to power. As the girl tells you, they aren't seeking to govern based on good ideas and solid outcomes; they're doing so based on a sense of moral superiority. They know better than you, and so you need to have your mind changed... one way or another. 

This is a constant pattern with socialists, including the DSA. The outcomes mean nothing. It doesn't matter if people live in subpar living conditions, thanks to overbearing policies that drive out profit-driven incentives that elevate everything like a rising tide. Capitalism is evil because it is, and socialism is good because it is. The perception of having a good moral center is more important than the results of this "morality," even if the results are destruction, death, and disease. 

The first girl actually was more on target than she probably even understood. That is a cult-like mentality, and it appears this cult has its god in Zohran Mamdani, a man who can't be questioned. If you do, you risk reducing the power of the DSA, and that would be a disaster for "morality." 

But as even these DSA insiders discovered, principles and virtues aren't actually the party's chief concern. They need everyone, from the bottom to the top, to agree that their way is the best way, even if all reality shows them otherwise. Even if it means robbing the community they claim to protect of power and agency. Socialism is evil. It can only sound good on paper.

Martha MacCallum Interviews DSA Co-Chairman Gustavo Gordillo About Using Vehicle of Democrat Party to Install Communist Government

This is a very alarming conversation to be taking place in modern America. Alas, all things political have devolved into this current stage where Communism is represented by young voters as the preferred manner of government.

Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) Co-Chair Gustavo Gordillo, having previously outlined that attachment to the Democrat party is only purposeful as a vehicle to gain political power, discusses the end game of DSA for installing communism within the United States.

The DSA platform is disturbing, but generally in alignment with the Bernie Sanders and AOC model.

(1) Eliminate the United States Senate as a legislative body. (2) The House of Representatives then selects the President and Supreme Court justices. (3) All illegal aliens are given citizenship and amnesty. (4) All border enforcement is halted; there are no more USA boundaries. (5) The Dept of War (Defense) is dissolved completely. (6) The government, now controlled by the House of Representatives, determines who can have wealth – and how much. (7) Climate Change is the legislative priority – no more fossil fuel use.

Gustavo Gordillo’s family fled Peru due to a communist revolution. In the video below Martha MacCallum challenges DSA Chair Gordillo to explain how the DSA platform is expected to work.

Gordillo explains the immediate DSA demand to control housing (govt), control food distribution (grocery stores), give free daycare for children, and create affordability for lower income citizens/aliens by taking the wealth from the high-income earners and giving the wealth to the lower income group.  WATCH Below

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

Border Czar Tom Homan Discusses Value of ICE Body Cameras Showing Insanity of Criminal Aliens and Leftist Agitators

The worst thing to ever happen to the reputation of black culture in America was the introduction of police body cameras to highlight the behavior of African Americans to the world.   Frequent travelers will note that foreign discussions no longer include curious questions about racism in America.  With black Americans putting themselves on full cultural display, the world now understands the connection between black culture and antisocial behavior.

The same concept applies to ICE officers wearing body cameras.  As each incident unfolds, people can see the severity of the antagonism faced by the law enforcement officers doing what the overwhelming majority want to see done.  Deport all illegal aliens, cancel all H1Bs and put Americans first!  WATCH:

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re back with President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan. Welcome back to Face the Nation.

TOM HOMAN: Thanks for having me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Homan, we saw that two immigrants were shot in the span of a week. There was that one in Maine that was fatal just days after another one in Houston. We also saw that man fleeing agents in Florida who then was struck and killed by a tractor trailer. I know you’ve been trying to keep the department out of the headlines ever since that streak in Minnesota that was deadly. How do you respond to those who say what’s happening now looks like very little has changed?

TOM HOMAN: Well, you know, first of all, we’ll wait and see what the investigations- how they play out, right? Because, you know, I don’t want to get ahead of investigations on who’s at fault, what exactly happened. Because we all know when the investigations happen, there’s going to be cell phone video, there may be city cameras, and of course, then you got witness statements and affidavits from the officer, and- and witnesses. So, we got to let the investigations play out. So, I don’t want to really comment on investigation themselves, but you know, I think, you know, Markwayne Mullin, you know, took some action, and in concern of the safety of the agents and- and how we do operations, and- and that’s why he did that, you know, that- that- that pause on- on enforcement on vehicle stops. But you know, I- my concern is I’ve never- I’ve done this since 1984. My concern is I think a lot of the rhetoric that you see every day, especially in sanctuary cities, and at these protests that- resist, members of Congress saying ICE isn’t a real law enforcement agency. I think that- I actually think that emboldens some people to say, “I’m not going to comply with ICE.” And I think no matter what people think of ICE, no matter what you think of immigration law, you should always comply with law enforcement.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Yes, but in the shootings in both Houston and Maine, the people who were killed were not the intended targets. Have you caught the people you’re actually looking for?

TOM HOMAN: One of them, I believe, we did, but you know that happens in law enforcement all the time. I mean, we’re working, you know, we get leads on individuals, and you say, okay, well, this subject lives at this house, he drives this car, and when that subject leaves that house, you know, 6:00 in the morning, and someone gets in that car from that house, you know, they assume, ‘okay this is our guy, and they’ll do a vehicle stop. And depending on when they make that stop and and that person complies, either they’re going to be arrested or released. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. So you know, law enforcement deals with misidentity every day across the country, not just ICE, every law enforcement agency. I was a cop, I know- I know that happens.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, but these were fatal shootings, of course, in Houston and in Maine. And in Houston, it was an unmarked car. So, when you’re saying, “don’t resist,” these individuals who were chasing the man who died, they didn’t have markings on that vehicle that would allow for him to know that they were ICE. It just looked like a car coming after them in the videos.

TOM HOMAN: Well, I got to disagree with that. No, they have emergency lights. Officers have insignia, so when they get out of that car and approach the car, you can clearly see the law enforcement officers. Again this is, these people–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, in the video that has been public, the- it’s not a marked car.

TOM HOMAN: –these- these people. I’m not saying it’s a marked car, but they have emergency lights and sirens. So when they pull someone over, they want to activate the emergency lights. A lot of- lot of police departments- I’m in New York City right now, a lot of NYPD officers are driving unmarked vehicles, and- and that helps them find people that don’t want to be found. Right, so you know, but bottom line is, we’ll see when the investigation plays out, but they would be alive today if they simply complied with- with a vehicle stop by federal law enforcement. Just comply. You can- if you don’t think you’ve been treated right and and they had no reason to stop you, then there’s there’s avenues to take them to court to sue–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the- the family of the man–

[CROSSTALK]

TOM HOMAN:–and- and argue in court.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –in Houston said that he thought he was being robbed because it was an unmarked vehicle. Not that it was law enforcement at all.

TOM HOMAN: They- they had emergency lights. They activate emergency lights, blue and light- you know- you know- in- in my vehicle, I drive where I’m with my security detail–

[CROSSTALK]

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve seen that on video? Because we haven’t.

TOM HOMAN: Seen what on video, ma’am?

MARGARET BRENNAN: That there were lights. Because in the videos that we’ve seen there aren’t, and because there weren’t body cameras, it is hard to substantiate some of what–

TOM HOMAN: Okay–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –you are saying.

TOM HOMAN: Okay, well, I have not seen the videos, but I’m saying–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

TOM HOMAN: –our vehicles are equipped with emergency lights. Now, if they didn’t activate the lights, again, I haven’t seen that video. If they didn’t activate the lights, then it- then there’s an issue there, right?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

TOM HOMAN: But I’m saying they- they are equipped with lights- lights, so let me just caveat that. They should have been equipped with lights and sirens, but I do not know specifically if they activated those lights.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

TOM HOMAN: As far as the cameras, Margaret, you know everybody in ICE would have a camera now if- if the government wasn’t shut down by Democratic members of Congress. There was money in that bill that they held up.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

TOM HOMAN: I think it was $120 million to equip all ICE officers with cameras, but because the government shut down, we’re behind on that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But they got 20 million in April.

[CROSSTALK]

TOM HOMAN: But the cameras have been purchased. That wasn’t enough, $20 million may have bought some cameras, but it doesn’t buy the- the storage. It doesn’t buy the- the resources we need for the thousands of FOIA requests we’re going to get there. There has to be storage capability to hold these videos for a long time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

TOM HOMAN: So it didn’t fund everything, but now we have the funding after reconciliation. The cameras have been purchased right now. They’re training the trainer in deploying the cameras nationwide.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think it was a mistake for the Trump administration to have proposed the bodycam expansion at the beginning of the term? Because I know you have advocated for body cameras, and now you’re playing catch up, right?

TOM HOMAN: I think body- yeah, I think body cameras are the way to go. I think body cameras let the American people know what that officer sees when he takes that action–

MARGARET BRENNAN: When will everyone get one?

TOM HOMAN: You know, you can have a cell phone camera from a witness on the side. You can have, you know, city cameras or whatever, but I want the American people to see what that officer sees when he makes- when he- when he takes- when he makes the decision and takes the action.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

TOM HOMAN: I think the American people need to see what that officer sees and hears. I think it’s important–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

TOM HOMAN: –and if you look at the data, body cameras actually exonerate agents more than they, you know, provide evidence of wrongdoing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, yeah, and it would certainly help with reporting and public knowledge. Let me ask you about something else. The DHS secretary has said they went through public records and identified 250,000 non-citizens in four states: California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada. I know those states don’t share their voter rolls, so it looks like they’re just pulling this from public information. For those states, are you planning operations before November? And you do acknowledge that it would be illegal to have federal agents at- at election locations.

TOM HOMAN: You know that’s a question of DHS. I’m not in the loop on that. I’m not familiar with the- the information that DHS just released.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

TOM HOMAN: I’m not in the loop on that. I’m at the White House border czar, so that’d be a question for Markwayne Mullin. I’m not in the loop on that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. All right, Mr. Homan. Thank you for your time this morning. We’ll leave it there.

TOM HOMAN: Good seeing you, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.

{END TRANSCRIPT}