🚨 BOMBSHELL MOVE ROCKS ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S SOCIALIST CAMP — “YOU CANNOT ENTER CONGRESS!”
🚨 BOMBSHELL MOVE: GOP LAWMAKER SEEKS TO BLOCK MAMDANI-BACKED SOCIALIST FROM TAKING HOUSE SEAT
“IF YOU REFUSE THE OATH, YOU SHOULD NOT BE SWORN IN!”
A major political showdown is erupting in Washington after Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for a change to House rules that could prevent newly elected members from taking their seats if they refuse to swear the constitutional oath of office.
Steube made the proposal while discussing Democratic socialist candidates in New York—and specifically pointed to Darializa Avila Chevalier, who defeated longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the Democratic primary for New York’s 13th Congressional District.
The controversy immediately drew attention because Avila Chevalier received the endorsement of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, linking the dispute to the city’s growing democratic socialist movement.
🚨 “THE OATH ISN’T OPTIONAL”
Steube argued that every member of Congress must swear to support and defend the Constitution.
“If you’re elected to Congress but refuse to swear it, you shouldn’t be sworn in!!”
He said he wants a formal House rules change making refusal to take the oath grounds for being barred from taking a congressional seat.
Under Article VI of the Constitution, members of Congress are required to take an oath or affirmation supporting the Constitution before assuming office.
But there is a critical distinction: the article does not establish that Avila Chevalier has refused to take the oath. The controversy instead centers on Steube’s concerns about her past activism and statements.
⚠️ PAST ACTIVISM UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
Steube has cited Avila Chevalier’s previous political activism and social-media history, including her association with Columbia University Apartheid Divest and controversial rhetoric surrounding pro-Palestinian activism.
Those past statements have become a major source of political criticism, with Steube arguing that views he considers incompatible with the Constitution should disqualify someone from taking the congressional oath.
Avila Chevalier, however, would still have to swear or affirm support for the Constitution if she wins the November general election and takes her seat.
🔥 MAMDANI CONNECTION PUTS THE CONTROVERSY IN THE SPOTLIGHT
Mamdani’s endorsement has made the dispute larger than a single congressional race.
The clash now touches a broader national debate over the growing influence of democratic socialism in New York—and whether controversial political activism should have consequences for candidates seeking federal office.
For now, Steube’s proposal remains just that: a proposed House rules change. He has not publicly released detailed legislative language, and it remains unclear whether House leadership will bring the proposal forward.
🚨 THE BOTTOM LINE
This is not yet a decision barring Avila Chevalier from Congress.
It is a push by Steube to create a House rule that would prevent an elected member from taking a seat if that person explicitly refuses the constitutional oath.
The real political battle may come next: Will House Republicans take up the proposal—and what happens if the controversy reaches the House floor?
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
