Trump Issues Landmark Order to Supercharge Deportations Democrats Lose Their Minds
Washington, D.C. - May 25, 2026
TRUMP ISSUES LANDMARK EXECUTIVE ORDER TO SUPERCHARGE DEPORTATIONS BY TARGETING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS’ ACCESS TO BANKS AND CREDIT
President Donald J. Trump delivered another powerful blow to illegal immigration this week with a sweeping executive order directing federal bank regulators and government agencies to identify and mitigate financial risks posed by individuals without legal status.
The order focuses on preventing banks from extending loans, credit cards, or other services to inadmissible or removable aliens, framing the policy as essential protection for America’s financial system.
In the order, the White House stated:
America’s financial institutions serve a critical role in safeguarding the American people against financial fraud and abuse. My Administration has taken significant steps to lower the costs of providing financial services for Americans and reduce unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulations that restrain economic growth and hamper the competitiveness of financial service providers nationwide.
However, it has long been the policy of the United States to adopt tailored measures to safeguard our financial system from illicit use and promote safe and sound lending and other practices by financial institutions. My Administration will not tolerate national security and public safety risks caused by illicit cross-border financial activity, nor will it permit risks to our financial system posed by the extension of credit or financial services to the inadmissible and removable alien population.
This smart, targeted approach is expected to accelerate self-deportation by cutting off key economic lifelines.
By encouraging banks to scrutinize accounts opened or loans obtained by those without legal status, the order leverages existing credit-risk protocols rather than imposing new mandatory citizenship checks. Supporters argue it simply applies common-sense safeguards already used by every other nation to protect taxpayers and legitimate customers.
The move builds on the administration’s record-breaking border security achievements and interior enforcement surge, which have already driven illegal crossings down dramatically. With millions of inadmissible aliens still inside the country, the president is now weaponizing financial access to encourage voluntary departure without massive new spending.
Critics on the left immediately denounced the order as “cruel” and “anti-immigrant,” but polling shows overwhelming public support for measures that prioritize American workers and fiscal responsibility. House Republicans hailed the policy as a long-overdue correction that aligns banking practices with immigration law.
Democrats are losing their minds because this executive action exposes the economic incentives that have kept illegal immigration thriving for decades.
President Trump’s team at the Department of Homeland Security and Treasury is already coordinating implementation, with guidance expected to reach financial institutions within weeks. Early estimates suggest the policy could reduce defaults and fraud linked to removable populations while freeing up resources for American families and businesses.
This latest order reaffirms the core promise that fueled Trump’s return to the White House: secure borders, interior enforcement, and an America First economy that works for citizens first. As deportations ramp up and self-deportation accelerates, the results will speak louder than any partisan outrage from the left.
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.
