Washington AG Conflict Scandal Explodes Over Law Firm Ties

November 17, 2025

Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown’s former law firm, Pacifica Law Group, is representing an environmental group suing the state over a voter-approved natural gas measure—while simultaneously holding active contracts with the Attorney General’s Office. The firm’s dual role is raising serious ethical concerns.

Pacifica is currently representing Climate Solutions in its lawsuit against Initiative 2066, a measure passed by voters to protect access to natural gas and block local phase-outs. The initiative was overturned by a superior court but is now under appeal before the Washington State Supreme Court. While Pacifica argues the case is not a conflict, the firm maintains Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG) contracts worth millions, representing state agencies including the Department of Transportation and the AGO itself.

AG Brown, a former Pacifica partner, publicly stated he disagreed with I-2066 but committed to defending it as the law. Critics, including the Building Industry Association of Washington, say Pacifica’s role in both representing the state and suing it undermines the integrity of the state’s legal defense and the will of the voters.

Documents reveal Pacifica has received over $7.2 million in state contracts since 2022. The firm previously represented the state during COVID-related legal battles, defending vaccine mandates and lockdowns. Despite language in current SAAG contracts acknowledging the potential for conflicts, earlier agreements contained stricter clauses barring such representation.

The Attorney General’s Office has not objected to the arrangement, citing “flexibility” for agencies to choose their legal representation. However, critics argue this tolerance for conflict puts taxpayers and state law at risk, especially when the firm in question is attacking a law passed directly by voters.

The Washington State Supreme Court will hear the case on January 22, 2026.

Arizona Ranked Top 10 Pro-Life State—But For How Long?

November 17, 2025

Arizona earned a spot among the top 10 most pro-life states in the country for 2026, according to a new report from Americans United for Life. The state came in at number seven based on its legal protections for unborn children, end-of-life care policies, and support for healthcare providers’ conscience rights.

The annual ranking measures each state’s commitment to defending life by examining laws on abortion, assisted suicide, and healthcare ethics. Arizona’s high ranking reflects its long-standing tradition of passing strong pro-life legislation and maintaining prohibitions against physician-assisted suicide.

However, Arizona’s status may soon change. A constitutional amendment passed by voters last year guarantees a right to abortion in the state, a move likely to impact future pro-life rankings. Americans United for Life officials noted that the amendment’s full effects were not yet evident in the latest report, but they expect Arizona to drop in future evaluations if the measure remains in place.

Missouri serves as a warning example. After passing a similar abortion amendment, Missouri fell from 10th place in 2025 to 22nd in the 2026 rankings.

Though Arizona still bars assisted suicide, it lacks other critical life-protecting policies found in top-ranked states. These include laws like the Life-Sustaining Care Act or the Patient Non-Discrimination Act, which defend the rights of the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable patients.

Pro-life advocates warn that without counteraction, Arizona could follow the same trajectory as other states that have abandoned protections for the unborn. Activists are encouraging future ballot measures that would reestablish life-affirming laws and prevent broader abortion access from weakening Arizona’s pro-life stance.

NATO Rail Sabotage in Poland Sparks War Fears

November 17, 2025

nato countries — Marek Studzinski/Unsplash

Poland has launched a national security investigation after an apparent attempt to sabotage a major railway used to supply Ukraine. Authorities believe the act targeted a mixed passenger-freight line running from Warsaw to Lublin, a vital link in NATO’s logistical support to Ukraine. The bombing attempt, which may have been botched, caused damage to the rail line but failed to derail a train or cause injuries.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed that the explosion on the Warsaw-Lublin line was “most likely intended to blow up a train.” He called it an “unprecedented act of sabotage” and a direct threat to Poland’s national security. The route is critical for delivering Western military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

The national prosecutor’s office has assigned organized crime and corruption experts to the case. An emergency meeting of Poland’s National Security Council was scheduled in response to the threat. Officials noted “several incidents” occurred on the same line over the weekend, including a damaged section of track, tampered overhead lines, and a metal clamp that may have been placed to cause derailment.

The Polish Army has begun inspecting the rest of the railway corridor into Ukraine. Two trains sustained damage, but there were no reported injuries.

Deputy Interior Minister Maciej Duszczyk stated that Russian involvement is possible but not confirmed. Former intelligence officials in Poland suggested the sabotage was likely orchestrated by foreign operatives, with one former intelligence chief warning, “Poland is at war with Russia.”

The attack follows a pattern of infrastructure sabotage that has defined the Ukraine conflict. Both Ukraine and Russia have relied on striking railways to disrupt each other’s military supply chains. Poland has previously convicted individuals involved in Russian-linked sabotage efforts, including plots to derail trains transporting aid to Ukraine.

Trans-Identifying Male Appointed to Women’s Panel, Outrage Erupts

November 17, 2025

columbia — Transgender flag (ev/Unsplash)

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has appointed a transgender-identifying male to the state’s Commission on the Status of Women, triggering strong criticism from conservatives and women’s rights advocates. The appointee, Giselle Byrd, now serves as vice chair of the commission’s Programming and Planning Committee.

The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women was created to advocate for women and girls in the Commonwealth and to offer policy recommendations that improve access to opportunity and equality. Critics argue that placing a biological male on a commission intended to represent women undermines its stated mission and disrespects the reality of biological differences.

Byrd, a male who identifies as a transgender woman of color, publicly celebrated the appointment and described it as an honor to serve with what was referred to as “fellow sister commissioners.” The appointment, made in August, gained increased attention as residents and officials questioned the decision. Byrd also leads a Boston-based arts organization that promotes LGBTQ activism and gender ideology through theater.

Republican State Rep. Alyson Sullivan-Almeida challenged the appointment, pointing out that out of millions of biological women in Massachusetts, the governor chose a man to represent women’s interests. She and others argue that the position should be held by someone who is biologically female, especially given the commission’s focus on issues like maternal health, female employment, and gender-specific discrimination.

A spokesperson for Governor Healey defended the appointment by citing a history of LGBT representation on the commission, including under previous administrations. Nevertheless, the move has ignited a larger debate over whether men who identify as women should be placed in roles designed to advocate for female-specific concerns.

The controversy highlights growing public tension over gender ideology and the erasure of biological distinctions in policymaking, particularly in areas impacting women and girls.

Shutdown Proves Education Department Is Dead Weight

November 17, 2025

Former Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared that the 43-day government shutdown exposed just how unnecessary the U.S. Department of Education has become. Writing after the shutdown ended, McMahon said families across the nation witnessed that schools, teachers, and students functioned without interruption despite the federal agency being closed.

The Trump administration has long called for eliminating the Department of Education, arguing that education should be controlled at the state and local level. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year initiating the process of dismantling the department. While that order marks a significant step, fully ending the department requires an act of Congress.

McMahon pointed to the recent shutdown as clear evidence supporting conservative efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. She emphasized that students remained in class, teachers continued to be paid, and daily school operations were unaffected. The lack of disruption, she said, revealed how little the federal bureaucracy actually contributes to classroom learning.

She clarified that ending the department would not eliminate federal support for critical programs. Funding for students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds would continue, along with legal protections for civil rights in education. These responsibilities, she explained, predate the department itself and would remain under other agencies or state control.

McMahon also detailed ongoing efforts to streamline federal education functions, expand school choice, and support career readiness programs. The administration’s plan aims to prove that educational quality and access can improve without federal micromanagement.

In April, Senate Republicans introduced legislation to eliminate the Department of Education, backing Trump’s executive order. The bill currently sits in committee.

McMahon’s statement echoes a long-standing conservative belief that education decisions belong in the hands of parents, teachers, and local leaders—not Washington bureaucrats.

Illegal Alien Busted for Child Solicitation in Texas

November 17, 2025

Prison-jail-criminal-bars-Sakhorn38Getty-via-Canva-Pro — Sakhorn38/Getty via Canva Pro

A 26-year-old illegal alien has been arrested in Jasper County, Texas, for allegedly attempting to engage in an inappropriate relationship with a 12-year-old boy, according to local authorities.

On November 13, deputies with the Jasper County Sheriff’s Office took Susanna Mendoza into custody on charges of solicitation of a minor, a second-degree felony. Investigators say Mendoza communicated with the young boy through text messages in an attempt to lure him into an illegal encounter.

The boy’s parents discovered the disturbing communication and immediately alerted the sheriff’s office. Investigator Calvin Starkie led the case and acted quickly out of concern that Mendoza, who is reportedly in the country illegally, might attempt to flee. Sheriff Chuck Havard praised the swift work of his department and confirmed that federal immigration officials will be notified.

Authorities have not released details regarding Mendoza’s immigration history or how long she had been in the country. However, Sheriff Havard indicated her illegal status was a key factor in the urgency of the arrest.

Solicitation of a minor is a serious offense in Texas and can carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Mendoza remains in custody as the investigation continues.

This incident raises further concern about the consequences of lax immigration enforcement and the importance of protecting children from potential predators. Local officials stressed that vigilance from parents and fast action from law enforcement helped prevent further harm.

Illegal Alien with Terrorist Ties Caught Driving Big Rig

November 17, 2025

Federal immigration officials say a serious national‑security lapse enabled a man wanted in his native country for terrorism charges to enter the U.S., obtain employment authorization, secure a commercial driver’s license, and drive an 18‑wheeler. The case raises urgent questions for a conservative Christian audience about law enforcement, immigration policy, and public safety.

On November 9, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested 31‑year‑old Uzbek national Akhror Bozorov in Kansas while he worked as a commercial truck driver. He held a Pennsylvania commercial driver’s license (CDL) and a work permit issued in January 2024.
According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bozorov entered the U.S. illegally in February 2023, was released into the interior under the Biden administration’s immigration‑release policies, and later had a work permit approved.
Uzbek authorities had issued an arrest warrant for Bozorov in 2022, accusing him of membership in a terrorist organization and of distributing jihadist propaganda including calls to recruit others to join the jihad movement.

The failure lies at multiple checkpoints. First, Bozorov’s illegal entry and release highlight weaknesses in border enforcement and interior tracking. Second, his work permit approval and the issuance of a CDL by Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation despite his non‑citizen, non‑domiciled status challenge public‑safety norms. DHS official Tricia McLaughlin stated: “Terrorist illegal aliens should not be operating 18‑wheelers on America’s highways.”

From a conservative Christian viewpoint, the incident reinforces the duty of government to protect its citizens, honoring the biblical call to seek the welfare of the city (Jeremiah 29:7). The case suggests policy misalignment: humanitarian and labor goals conflicted with national‑security and public‑safety imperatives. Allowing someone with terrorist ties to obtain credentials that permit access to America’s highways and supply chains risks both civilian safety and the integrity of immigration enforcement.

Immediate policy questions emerge: Should work‑permit eligibility be suspended for individuals who entered illegally and remain under removal orders? Should CDL issuance standards be tightened to bar non‑domiciled or unvetted non‑citizens from operating commercial vehicles? How will the administration respond to the national‑security threat posed when foreign terrorist‑linked individuals gain access to critical infrastructure?

In sum, Bozorov’s arrest reflects a troubling intersection of lax border enforcement, expansive work‑authorization policies, and state‑level credentialing systems that enabled access to high‑risk positions. The Christian conservative response demands accountability, prioritizing citizen protection, legal immigration channels, and rigorous screening of non‑citizens in positions of trust.

Betraying Women in the Name of Woke Virtue-Signaling

November 17, 2025

In a move that perfectly encapsulates the Democratic Party's descent into ideological absurdity, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has appointed Giselle Byrd—a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman—to the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women. This isn't just an affront to common sense; it's a deliberate snub to the millions of actual women in the Bay State who deserve advocates fighting for their unique challenges, not performative gestures that erase biological reality. . .

This content is only available for American Faith Premium Subscribers. For as low as $3.99/mo, you can access all our Premium content, learn more here.

If you are already a Premium subscriber, please log in to view this content.

EPA Revamps ‘Weaponized’ Water Rule

November 17, 2025

Lee Zeldin — (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will change the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act.

The WOTUS are bodies of water under federal jurisdiction. The rule affects the permitting process for farmers, landowners, and American businesses.

“When it comes to the definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ EPA has an important responsibility to protect water resources while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and opportunity,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. “Democrat Administrations have weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families.”

“We heard from Americans across the country who want clean water and a clear rule. No longer should America’s landowners be forced to spend precious money hiring an attorney or consultant just to tell them whether a Water of the United States is on their property,” he continued. “EPA is delivering on President Trump’s promise to finalize a revised definition for WOTUS that protects the nation’s navigable waters from pollution, advances cooperative federalism by empowering states, and will result in economic growth across the country.”

The changes follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which found that the definition of “waters” is “only those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water.”

The new proposed definition will interpret terms such as “relatively permanent,” “continuous surface connection,” “tributary,” and “ditches” as they relate to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall celebrated the move, saying the Supreme Court “clearly ruled several years ago that the government overreached in its interpretation of what fell under federal guidelines.”

“We are still reviewing the entire rule, but we are pleased that it finally addresses those concerns and takes steps to provide much-needed clarity,” Duvall added.

Judge Orders Unprecedented Release in Comey Case

November 17, 2025

A federal judge ordered the Department of Justice to release grand jury documents to attorneys working for former FBI Director James Comey.

“[T]he Court finds the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials,” wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick. He argued that “government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings,” and as a result, “disclosure of grand jury materials under these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused.”

Fitzpatrick noted that the decision is an “extraordinary remedy.”

He further argued that the “procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey.”

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” the judge wrote. “However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

Justice Department prosecutors have since urged the district court to freeze Fitzpatrick’s order, arguing that he “may have misinterpreted some facts he found when issuing the latest order to release the grand jury materials to the defendant.”

“The possible exposure of privileged materials to the grand jury was the primary focus of the Magistrate Judge’s inquiry. Having seemingly settled that issue, the Magistrate Judge turns to premature issues such as suppression that have not even been briefed by the parties,” the filing reads.

Earlier this month, the DOJ called for a federal judge to reject former FBI Director James Comey’s claim that he was selectively prosecuted by the Trump administration.