WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump backed aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in Minnesota during a tense White House press briefing on January 20, 2026.

His comments came as protests over federal immigration raids grew into major unrest across the Twin Cities. The push is part of a large federal effort called Operation Metro Surge, which has sent thousands of agents into the state and triggered riots, lawsuits, and a nationwide political fight.

During a long briefing that marked one year into his second term, Trump praised ICE operations in Minnesota. He said agents had made more than 3,000 arrests of people he described as criminal suspects in recent weeks. He framed ICE agents as loyal public servants doing tough work, while saying errors can happen when situations move fast.

Trump also spoke about the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident who was killed earlier in January during an ICE action. He called the death “a tragedy” and said he felt “horribly” when he heard about it. He added that he understood “both sides,” but argued agents often work in dangerous conditions and shouldn’t be blamed without context.

Insurrection Act Talk, Court Limits, and DOJ Appeal

Trump described some anti-ICE protesters as “insurrectionists,” comparing the unrest to past episodes of violence. He signaled he could consider using the Insurrection Act if the situation worsens.

Protests have included disruptions at public events, calls for economic blackouts from labor unions and community groups, and clashes with federal personnel. A federal judge recently issued an injunction that limits certain enforcement tactics, including arrests of peaceful demonstrators and the use of crowd-control measures without clear justification. The Department of Justice has appealed that order.

Operation Metro Surge has centered heavily on neighborhoods with large Somali immigrant communities. That focus has drawn strong criticism from local leaders, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who represents the area. Trump has made Minnesota a central testing ground for his mass deportation plans, deploying about 3,000 federal agents even as state officials pushed back.

Tensions have grown as Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, face scrutiny from House Republicans and federal authorities over their personal finances. The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), opened an inquiry into what Republicans call Omar’s “skyrocketing family wealth.”

Disclosures, Rose Lake Capital, and Fraud Questions

Financial disclosures from 2024 reportedly show a sharp jump in household assets. The increase is tied to Mynett’s consulting firm, Rose Lake Capital LLC, with values reportedly rising from small amounts to between $5 million and $25 million in a short span. Some reports claim the couple’s net worth may have reached $30 million.

Investigators are reviewing whether the gains were properly reported under federal ethics rules and whether they connect to wider concerns in the district. Those concerns include a reported $9 billion fraud scandal tied to Somali social services.

Trump has publicly called Omar “crooked,” tying the investigation to claims of fraud and questionable business dealings. Omar has denied being a millionaire and says Republicans are targeting her for political reasons. The Oversight probe could lead to subpoenas for Mynett, adding another layer to the ongoing fight over ethics and transparency in Washington.

Trump also used the briefing to revive his long-running push to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory. He threatened new tariffs on several European countries as pressure for a deal.

He said the US plans to impose a 10% tariff on imports from Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom starting February 1, 2026. He warned the rate would rise to 25% by June 1 if no agreement is reached for what he called the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.

Europe Calls It Blackmail as Retaliation Plans Form

The tariff threat has angered European leaders, with some calling it “blackmail.” The EU is preparing possible countermeasures, including the use of its anti-coercion tool, which could target US exports or limit market access.

The standoff has shaken markets and added strain inside NATO. Leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have signaled they’re ready to respond if the tariffs take effect. Trump first floated the Greenland idea in his first term, and it has returned as a clear sign of his hardline approach abroad.

Together, the Minnesota ICE crackdown, the investigations surrounding Omar, and the tariff fight with Europe show how turbulent the start of 2026 has been under Trump’s second administration. It’s a mix of domestic enforcement battles at home and economic pressure campaigns overseas.

Related News:

New Voter ID Laws 2026: How Will They Affect the 2026 Midterms

Who Is Leading the Democratic Party in 2026?

HOUSTON, Texas – U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) drew heavy online attention after she appeared at a RuPaul’s Drag Race watch party in Houston on January 17, 2026. The event was hosted by local drag performer Rachel Bitchface and doubled as a fundraiser for Meals on Heels, a group that provides meals to people in need across the Houston area. Organizers raised $1,150, beating a $900 goal.

Jasmine Crockett, known for speaking out on LGBTQ+ rights, joined the crowd and even took the stage for karaoke. Video from the night shows her singing Alicia Keys’ “You Don’t Know My Name” and talking with attendees.

The appearance landed as Crockett pushes for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race. She announced her run in late 2025 and has framed her campaign as a challenge to business-as-usual politics. Her pitch focuses on everyday Texans, with messaging that stresses independence from strict party-line thinking.

With the Democratic primary set for March 3, 2026, Crockett is also facing competition inside her own party, including State Rep. James Talarico. In a high-stakes statewide race, turnout across key groups could make the difference.

Jasmine Crockett Supporters Say It Fits Her Track Record

Jasmine Crockett has a public record of backing LGBTQ+ priorities in Congress, including support for marriage equality protections, gender-affirming care, and anti-discrimination measures. She has also been recognized for that work, including receiving the Eleanor Holmes Norton Civil Rights & Justice Award at the Center for Black Equity’s BE Gala.

Supporters say her stop at the Houston watch party matches that history. To them, it looked like real community time, not a one-off campaign move.

The watch party took place at a nightclub and mixed entertainment with fundraising. Rachel Bitchface introduced Crockett warmly, and attendees shared clips that spread fast on social media. Much of the online buzz focused on the karaoke moment and Crockett’s interactions with the crowd.

Conservative commentators and online critics framed the visit as political theater aimed at boosting LGBTQ+ support ahead of a tight primary and a tough general election. The Gateway Pundit mocked the appearance, spotlighting the karaoke performance and arguing it won’t play well with many Texas voters.

Pandering Claims Disputed

Posts on social platforms added fuel, with some users calling it pandering and others saying it could turn off more moderate voters in a state that often rewards conservative candidates.

Commentators on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) also tied the moment to campaign pressure. Some pointed to survey results that show Jasmine Crockett performing strongly with Black voters but weaker with white Democrats in the primary.

Critics argue that focusing too much on smaller or targeted voting blocs, including LGBTQ+ communities, could narrow her path in a statewide contest.

Defenders push back with a simple point: showing up isn’t a stunt when it lines up with years of policy work. They also point to the fundraiser angle, saying the hunger-relief goal gets ignored when the story is framed as a culture-war fight.

Texas has been a difficult state for Democrats in recent Senate races, with Republicans holding the advantage statewide. Crockett’s campaign talks about economic concerns, family support, and pushing back on extremes. Still, high-visibility moments like a drag watch party appearance can draw outsized attention and trigger familiar culture-war arguments.

As the primary season moves forward, Crockett’s challenge is clear: keep core supporters energized while also building a wider coalition. Whether this Houston appearance helps boost LGBTQ+ turnout or becomes fodder for attack ads later will depend on how voters read it in the months ahead.

Related News:

Jasmine Crockett Faces Backlash as Texans Question Her Authenticity and Conduct

Supreme Court rulings don’t stay in Washington. They can change how your kid’s school writes team rules, how your state runs elections, what police can demand from tech companies, and how much power a president has on day one.

This is a watchlist for the 2025-2026 Supreme Court term, with the biggest decisions expected by summer 2026. The docket can shift fast because the Court picks most cases by granting “cert” after an appeal from a lower court. Timing matters in 2026 because election rules, agency rules, and tech rules can all move quickly, and a late June decision can land like a thunderclap.

The 10 Supreme Court cases worth watching in 2026

Elections and democracy cases that could change who gets counted

1) Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Big question: Can states tighten voter roll rules by sending proof of residence postcards and removing voters who don’t respond?
What could change: A ruling could reshape what “reasonable” voter list maintenance looks like, and how much process states must provide before removing a voter.
Who could feel it first: Voters who move often, college students, renters, military families, and local election offices, trying to balance accuracy with access.

2) Louisiana v. Callais (also reported as Callais v. Landry)
Big question: When does a congressional map cross the line into illegal racial gerrymandering, and how does the Voting Rights Act fit in?
What could change: The Court could clarify how states can consider race when drawing districts, and when courts must step in. That could shift the ground rules for map fights nationwide.
Who could feel it first: Voters in states with close redistricting battles, especially in places where race and party data overlap heavily.

“Voter roll cleanup” sounds simple, but it’s basically the state trying to remove old registrations so rolls aren’t full of people who moved or died. The problem is that some eligible voters look “inactive” on paper, like people who skipped a few elections or didn’t get a postcard.

“Gerrymandering” is the practice of drawing districts to favor one side. Think of it like slicing a pizza so one person gets most of the toppings, even if everyone paid the same. Small line changes can matter a lot when races are tight.

If you want a reliable running list of the term’s biggest fights, the SCOTUSblog preview of the next term is a useful checkpoint as new cases are added or renamed.

Rights and public life cases, including a major dispute involving transgender students

3) West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Big question: Can a state bar transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams at public schools?
What could change: The Court could set a national rule for how schools and states balance anti-discrimination principles with sex-based team categories. That would affect school policies, eligibility rules, and how challenges are handled in federal court.
Who could feel it first: Students, parents, coaches, school districts, and state athletic associations.

4) Chiles v. Salazar
Big question: Can states ban certain counseling practices (often described as “conversion therapy”) for minors without violating free speech rights?
What could change: A ruling could draw a sharper line between professional regulation (what states can ban for safety) and protected speech (what the government can’t restrict). That could ripple into rules for other licensed fields, too.
Who could feel it first: Families seeking counseling, therapists, medical boards, and state lawmakers trying to write health-related laws that survive court review.

These cases pull the Court into one of the hardest tasks it has: writing a rule that applies across fifty states and thousands of school districts. One side tends to stress equal treatment and inclusion, the other stresses safety, privacy, and competitive fairness. The legal question is not just moral or political; it’s also about which laws and constitutional protections control the outcome.

Privacy and policing cases in a world of smartphones and location tracking

5) Chatrie v. United States
Big question: Do “geofence warrants” violate the Fourth Amendment when police request location data for everyone near a crime scene?
What could change: The Court could set limits on how broad location searches can be, including what police must show to get the data and how narrowly they must define the area and time.
Who could feel it first: Anyone carrying a phone near a crime scene, police departments, and companies that store location records.

A geofence warrant is easier to grasp with an example. Imagine a robbery at a convenience store from 9:10 to 9:20 p.m. Police ask a tech company for a list of phones that were within a few hundred feet during that window, then they narrow it down later. The tradeoff is clear: it can solve crimes faster, but it can also sweep up data from lots of innocent people who were just getting gas.

6) Trump v. Illinois (national security powers and court challenges)
Big question: How much room does the executive branch have to act in the name of national security, and how easily can courts review those actions?
What could change: Depending on how the issues are framed, the Court could either strengthen limits on emergency-style actions or make it harder for challengers to get into court quickly.
Who could feel it first: People subject to enforcement actions, states bringing lawsuits, and federal agencies carrying out orders on tight timelines.

Privacy fights and national security fights often meet at the same intersection: speed. Governments want to move fast, courts move carefully, and the public usually finds out later.

Tech and speech cases that could change how the internet works

7) Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
Big question: When does an internet service provider become legally responsible for user piracy?
What could change: A ruling could push ISPs toward stricter account termination policies, more monitoring, and higher compliance costs, or it could keep the bar high for holding providers responsible.
Who could feel it first: Households accused of repeat infringement, creators and labels chasing damages, and ISPs trying to avoid lawsuits while keeping service stable.

Even if you never download pirated music, you might feel this case in everyday ways, like how easy it is to contest a warning, whether a whole household can lose service for one user, and how transparent the ISP’s “three strikes” style process must be.

Government power cases, from independent agencies to campaign money

8) National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (NRSC v. FEC)
Big question: Can Congress limit how much political parties spend in coordination with candidates, or do those caps violate the First Amendment?
What could change: If limits fall, money could flow more freely through party committees, changing how campaigns fund ads, staffing, and turnout efforts. If limits stand, the current guardrails remain.
Who could feel it first: Candidates, party committees, outside groups, and voters flooded with more messaging.

9) Chiles v. Salazar (independent-agency firing power angle, as reported in term previews)
Big question: How much power does the president have to fire leaders of “independent” agencies?
What could change: If presidents can remove officials more easily, agencies could swing faster when administrations change. That can affect consumer protection rules, competition policy, and enforcement priorities.
Who could feel it first: Businesses regulated by federal agencies, consumers filing complaints, and agencies that rely on some insulation from politics.

An “independent agency” is a federal agency where leaders often have some protection from being fired for political reasons. The argument is that stability helps the agency do its job; the counterargument is that elected presidents should control the executive branch.

Immigration and citizenship cases with immediate real-world stakes

10) Birthright citizenship case (granted December 2025, per reporting and term dockets)
Big question: Does the Constitution guarantee citizenship to children born in the United States when their parents are not citizens, and how much can presidents change that through policy?
What could change: A ruling could redefine who gets automatic citizenship at birth and how quickly immigration policies can shift across administrations. It could also reshape how lower courts can block nationwide policies while a case is pending.
Who could feel it first: Families with mixed immigration status, hospitals and state agencies processing birth records, and federal immigration agencies.

One important reality check for 2026: as of January 2026, some heavily discussed cases are still in petition stages or tied up in emergency orders, even when headlines make them sound “set.” That’s why watching what the Court actually agrees to hear matters as much as the underlying issue.

What to watch as the term moves, the signals that a case is getting bigger

Some cases arrive quietly and leave loudly. Others look massive, then get decided on a narrow technical point. A few practical “watch signals” help you tell the difference:

• Big amicus turnout: When states, major cities, industry groups, and civil rights groups all file briefs, the stakes usually reach beyond the parties.
• Emergency orders: If the Court steps in quickly before a full hearing, it often means real-world pressure, like elections, deportations, or fast-moving regulations.
• A broad “question presented”: The wider the legal question, the more likely the decision writes a rule for the whole country.
• Oral argument themes: When several justices fixate on one detail, it can signal where the opinion will turn.
• Issue narrowing: If the Court keeps asking “Do we have to decide that?”, it may be looking for a smaller ruling.

To track changes over time, it helps to follow the Court’s calendar and case list, plus neutral case summaries. The Oyez 2025-2026 term page is also handy for plain-English case backgrounds and audio once arguments happen.

A quick guide to Court lingo, cert, merits, amicus, and the shadow docket

Cert (certiorari): The Court’s decision to take a case; without cert, the lower court ruling usually stands.
Merits: The stage where the Court decides who wins and why, after full briefing and argument.
Amicus brief: A “friend of the court” brief from people or groups not in the case, explaining broader effects.
Shadow docket: Fast decisions, often emergency stays, usually with less explanation and quicker timelines.

Timing matters because emergency orders can change the rules right now, while merits cases usually take months and end in a written opinion that guides courts for years. Also, cases can be consolidated, renamed, or narrowed, which is why today’s headline may not match June’s final decision.

How to read the tea leaves without getting fooled by hot takes

Use a simple checklist:

Separate facts from arguments. A party’s brief is advocacy, not a neutral summary.
Track what justices worry about most. The hardest question they ask is often the heart of the case.
Don’t assume tough questions equal a vote. Justices test both sides, and oral argument is not a scoreboard.
Wait for the written rule. The lasting impact is in the legal test the Court writes, not in who “wins” a news cycle.

How these decisions could hit home, what could change for voters, students, drivers, and phone users

It’s easy to treat Supreme Court news like a distant sport. It’s not. These cases can change small routines.

If voter roll rules tighten, you may need to respond to a mailing, confirm an address, or re-register after a move, especially if you’re a student or renter. If district maps change, your representative might change even if you didn’t move, and so might what issues get attention.

If schools get a single national rule on transgender athlete eligibility, districts may have less flexibility. That can mean fewer local compromises, fewer case-by-case exceptions, and more uniform policies across states.

If geofence warrants are restricted, police might need narrower requests, more proof up front, or different investigative tools. If they’re approved broadly, you may want to know what location services your phone keeps on, even if you’ve done nothing wrong.

If ISP liability expands, more households could face warnings, disconnections, or stricter “repeat infringer” systems. If the Court sides with providers, copyright holders may push harder for new laws instead.

And if the Court increases presidential control over agencies, consumer protection and business enforcement could shift more sharply after each election. That’s not abstract; it can affect credit reporting disputes, scam complaints, and antitrust investigations.

One-page impact map, who might feel each ruling first

Conclusion

The biggest Supreme Court stories of 2026 cluster around five themes: elections, public rights, privacy, tech rules, and executive power. The details will keep shifting as the docket updates, but the practical stakes are already clear. When opinions drop, read a straight summary from reliable court reporters, then look for the legal rule in the holding. Even a narrow decision can shape policy for years, and the aftershocks often show up where you least expect them.

Related News:

Bill and Hillary Clinton to Be Charged With Criminal Contempt of Congress