REJECTED! House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Furious After Speaker Mike Johnson Outsmarts Him
New York City – May 28, 2026
House Rules Committee Rejects Democratic Amendment Barring January 6 Defendants from $1.8 Billion Compensation Fund as House Passes Bipartisan Housing Bill 396-13
New York City, New York — The Republican-controlled House Rules Committee on Tuesday rejected a Democratic amendment that would have prevented individuals charged or convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot from receiving payments from a newly announced $1.8 billion federal compensation fund.
The fund was unveiled Monday by the Department of Justice as part of a settlement arrangement tied to President Donald J. Trump’s decision to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the unauthorized leak of his tax returns in 2019 and 2020.
During the Rules Committee hearing, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced the amendment, which sought to bar such payments and require disclosure of any funds distributed under the program.
“I move the committee add a new section to the rule providing immediate consideration of HR 7711, the No Rewards for January 6 Rioters Act, so this bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” said McGovern.
“Additionally, my motion would self-execute an amendment that would require the attorney general of the United States to disclose any payments made by the so-called anti-weaponization fund, which was created by the corrupt settlement agreement between Donald Trump and his own administration,” he continued.
“This secret slush fund should be an outrage to every American, no matter your politics.”
The Republican majority on the committee voted down the amendment along party lines. McGovern later expressed frustration on social media.
“Republicans just voted AGAINST my amendment to stop Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund from bailing out the convicted felons who assaulted cops on January 6th,” he wrote. “You read that right. They blocked us from even debating the issue on the House floor. Beyond shameful.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats criticized the outcome, accusing Republicans of shielding potential beneficiaries of the fund.
Separately, the full House delivered a strong bipartisan victory on Wednesday by passing the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act by a vote of 396-13. The legislation aims to expand homeownership opportunities, lower housing costs, and restrict large institutional investors from purchasing newly built single-family homes.
House leaders described the measure as a direct response to the ongoing housing affordability crisis affecting millions of American families.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) addressed the importance of the bill.
“Increased housing costs and lack of quality supply are two issues that impact nearly every American family,” Johnson said.
He called the legislation a “strong bipartisan package that will put more American families into homes.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) echoed the sentiment.
“This is something that every American in this country will be happy to see, to have lower housing costs,” Scalise said.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-Ark.) highlighted the bill’s alignment with administration priorities.
“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Hill said.
“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” he added.
The housing bill now moves to the Senate. The developments reflect ongoing partisan tensions over federal spending and compensation programs alongside rare bipartisan progress on domestic policy issues.
6-3 RULING - Supreme Court Deals Brutal Blow to Hakeem Jeffries
Washington, D.C. - June 5, 2026
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Proceed with New Congressional Map for 2026 Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order on Tuesday permitting Alabama to use a newly enacted congressional district map in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision lifts a lower court injunction and is expected to result in a congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.
The ruling came after Alabama had already held its congressional primary elections in May. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for affected districts, contingent on final court approval of the map.
The order relied in part on the Purcell principle, which generally discourages federal courts from altering election rules close to an election. The majority stated that the district court had improperly intervened in Alabama’s efforts to conduct its elections under maps selected by the state’s elected representatives. The court noted that while federal courts should avoid last-minute changes, states retain authority to determine whether such adjustments serve their interests.
Connection to Voting Rights Act Precedent
The decision follows a 6-3 ruling issued by the Supreme Court on April 29 regarding the Voting Rights Act. That earlier decision established that claims alleging racial discrimination in districting generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong inference of intentional discrimination before proceeding with litigation.
The current order addresses ongoing redistricting litigation in Alabama. The new map is anticipated to alter the composition of the state’s seven-member congressional delegation. Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures of the 2nd District and Terri Sewell of the 7th District are currently the only Black members of Alabama’s House delegation. The new configuration could affect representation in one of those districts.
Dissenting Opinion
The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s approach had created turmoil and harm. She argued that the court was doubling down on prior decisions that she viewed as undermining protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Broader Redistricting Context
The Alabama case is one of several redistricting disputes before the Supreme Court involving states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California. With control of the U.S. House expected to be closely contested, these cases have taken on added significance for both parties ahead of the November elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions have already influenced district boundaries in multiple states. Additional litigation remains pending, and further developments could continue to shape the partisan balance of the House in the upcoming midterm cycle.
The Alabama order permits the state to move forward with its chosen map while legal proceedings on related matters continue. The full impact on the composition of Alabama’s congressional delegation will depend on the outcome of the August special elections and any subsequent legal challenges.
GHOST VOTERS' REVEALED — California Elections Rocked After Stunning Discovery
Sacramento, California - June 5, 2026
Lawsuit Filed Against California Secretary of State Alleging Failure to Remove Inactive Voter Registrations
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that the state has failed to remove hundreds of thousands of inactive voter registrations from its rolls in violation of federal law. The complaint was brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California, with assistance from Judicial Watch.
The lawsuit claims that California has not removed approximately 873,092 inactive voter registrations as required under the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law mandates that states remove certain registrations after voters fail to participate in multiple consecutive federal election cycles and do not respond to address verification notices.
Court filings state that more than 873,000 registrations remained on the rolls despite being inactive through at least three consecutive federal elections. The complaint further alleges that over 151,000 registrations remained active after four consecutive election cycles without voter participation.
California maintains more than 23 million registered voters, the largest voter registration system in the United States. Plaintiffs argue that the state’s practices violate requirements under the National Voter Registration Act for maintaining accurate voter lists.
Previous Actions and Current Allegations
In 2019, Judicial Watch reached a settlement with California and Los Angeles County that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million inactive voter registrations. The current lawsuit contends that similar issues persist across much of the state despite those prior efforts.
The complaint notes that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive registrations over a recent period, even as census data showed substantial population shifts and migration out of the state.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring California to implement a more aggressive program for removing registrations that no longer meet federal eligibility requirements. It also asks the court to prevent future violations of federal election law.
State Response and Context
California officials have maintained that the state’s election system includes multiple safeguards, including signature matching, voter identification checks where required, and criminal penalties for fraud. State representatives have stated that the system is secure and employs verification procedures designed to prevent illegal voting.
The lawsuit was filed amid ongoing scrutiny of California’s election processes. Recent incidents include damage to a mail ballot drop box that was vandalized and set on fire, as well as a report of an unsecured ballot center in the Bay Area discovered by a voter outside normal operating hours.
The case will proceed in federal court, where judges will evaluate whether California’s voter registration maintenance practices comply with federal requirements. The outcome could affect procedures ahead of future elections, including the November general election.
