Ms. Dhillon is the right person to solve this issue, for sure. Thanks to our President! It is time to put her on the Supreme Court because of her critical thinking superiority and the Courts lack of – too many lazy minds.
Posted on
bluestork via shutterstock
New York City’s socialist mayor just picked a fight with the Trump DOJ – and the DOJ answered before the press release was cold.
That’s where Harmeet Dhillon came in.
And what she said on social media put every Democrat-run city in America on notice.
Mamdanis DEI Plan That NYC Lawyers Were Afraid to Publish
The “Preliminary Citywide Racial Equity Plan” is exactly what it sounds like.
Two hundred agency-level goals.
Over 800 proposed strategies.
Roughly 600 performance indicators to track “progress.”
And $10.2 million in annual funding – a $3 million jump, roughly 42 percent more than last year – just to run the offices overseeing it.
Mamdani called it an “honest account” of who is being “left behind” in New York City.
He tied the whole thing to affordability – claiming racial inequity and the cost-of-living crisis are inseparable problems.
“Black and Latino New Yorkers – who have been pushed out of this city for decades – are bearing the brunt,” Mamdani said.
Translation: New York City is now officially sorting its residents by race and deciding who deserves what based on skin color.
That’s not a racial equity plan.
That’s a racial spoils system, dressed up in bureaucratic language and billed to the taxpayer.
Here’s what Mamdani’s own lawyers knew about it before it went public.
Internal documents obtained by City & State reveal that earlier drafts of the 375-page plan included explicit goals around hiring more people of color – language the city’s Law Department flagged as legally risky and ordered stripped out before release.
The city’s lawyers were afraid to publish their own mayor’s plan as written.
That tells you everything about how legally exposed this is.
Dhillon Saw It. Dhillon Said It.
Trump’s DOJ Civil Rights chief Harmeet Dhillon didn’t mince words.
“Sounds fishy/illegal,” she posted on X Monday. “Will review!”
Four words. That’s all it took.
Because those four words carry the full weight of the federal government behind them.
Dhillon has spent the past year making clear that her Civil Rights Division is not the same operation it was under Biden.
She’s launched investigations into DEI admissions practices at Ohio State, Stanford, and UC San Diego medical schools.
She led the probe into Minnesota’s Department of Human Services for requiring supervisors to justify hiring non-minority candidates.
One by one, Dhillon has been making the case that race-based preferencing isn’t equity.
It’s discrimination. And it’s illegal.
Now she’s looking at New York City.
The Federal Funding NYC Just Put at Risk
Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing federal agencies to terminate all equity-related grants and shut down DEI offices across the government.
He followed it with another order last month specifically targeting federal contractors – requiring them to certify they won’t engage in racially discriminatory DEI activities or risk contract cancellation.
The federal definition of unlawful DEI is now explicit: disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in recruitment, employment, contracting, program participation, or the allocation of resources.
Read that back.
Now read Mamdani’s plan – which explicitly directs city agencies to sort hiring, contracting, and resource allocation through a “racial equity lens.”
New York City receives billions in federal funding annually.
The DOJ has already threatened to block infrastructure funding and pull educational grants from New York over DEI noncompliance.
Mamdani just handed that same DOJ its sharpest case yet.
The Real Play Here
Mamdani knows exactly what he’s doing.
This isn’t a policy document.
This is a political provocation – a declaration that New York City will not comply with the direction of the federal government, issued by a mayor who sees himself as the leader of the resistance.
The problem is that resistance has a price tag.
Chicago defied Trump on immigration. Chicago lost federal funding.
School districts across the country abandoned DEI programs the moment federal funding was threatened.
Trump has now tapped Dhillon for Associate Attorney General – the department’s third-highest position – and Mamdani just handed her a front-page case to carry into that new role.
This is not a plan that will survive federal scrutiny.
Mamdani knows it won’t.
His own lawyers already gutted the language before it went public – because they knew what was sitting on the other end of Harmeet Dhillon’s pen.
He released it anyway.
That’s not governance.
That’s a mayor using your tax dollars to start a political fight he already knows he’s going to lose – and sending New York City’s federal funding into the crossfire while he does it.
****
This tells you “how much lack of critical thinking this leftie person left on the kitchen floor.”
kommonsentsjane
Sources:
Andrew Mark Miller, “Mamdani Unveils New ‘Racial Equity Plan’ for More ‘Equitable Future’ That Prompts Quick DOJ Pushback,” Fox News, April 6, 2026.
Mary Chastain, “DOJ to Review Mamdani’s ‘Racial Equity Plan’ for New York City,” Legal Insurrection, April 7, 2026.
“Harmeet K. Dhillon – Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division,” U.S. Department of Justice, justice.gov.
“Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” Executive Order, The White House, March 26, 2026.
“City Hall Cut References to ‘DEI’ from NYC Racial Equity Plan,” City & State New York, April 7, 2026.
Mary Margaret Olohan, “Exclusive: Donald Trump to Promote Harmeet Dhillon to High-Profile DOJ Position,” The Daily Wire, April 5, 2026.
“U.S. Department of Justice to Probe Mamdani’s ‘Racial Equity’ Plan,” The Center Square, April 7, 2026.
New York and California spent decades telling America they were the only game in town.
DeSantis and Abbott just proved them wrong.
They stood together in Miami this week and announced something that should terrify every blue-state governor in America.
The $9 Trillion Number New York Doesn’t Want You to See
Florida. Texas. Georgia. Tennessee. North Carolina. Eight more Southern states.
Together, they now generate $9 trillion in annual GDP.
That number – if those 11 states formed their own country – would make them the third-largest economy on earth, behind only the United States as a whole and China.
DeSantis put it simply at the Miami event. “Florida’s had more adjusted gross income move into our state since I’ve been governor than has ever moved into any state in the history of the United States.”
That’s not a campaign speech. That’s a verdict.
And it doesn’t stop there. The Boom Belt has absorbed 70% of all U.S. population growth over the last five years. Seventy percent. While New York hemorrhages residents and California watches its billionaires leave, an entire quadrant of America is quietly taking over.
Abbott laid out exactly why. Texas made income taxes unconstitutional. Made a wealth tax unconstitutional. Made a death tax unconstitutional. Made a transactions tax unconstitutional. Future generations in Texas cannot impose any of them. That’s not a promise – that’s a lock built into the state constitution.
Wall Street Is Already Moving South
Here’s what makes this moment different from every other governor press conference you’ve seen: the money is already gone.
Griffin didn’t just threaten to leave Chicago. He left. Citadel Securities – the firm that now handles more than one-third of all U.S. retail equity trades – packed up from Pritzker’s Illinois and moved to Miami. The crime was the final answer to a question Chicago had been getting wrong for years.
Now Jim Esposito, Citadel Securities President, stood at the Miami event and told the crowd that what DeSantis and Abbott have built “should be the model for the rest of our country.”
The left dismissed Griffin’s move as one billionaire’s tantrum. Then Boeing left Chicago. Then Caterpillar fled Pritzker’s Illinois. Then Gavin Newsom watched Chevron pack up and head to Texas. At least 314 companies relocated headquarters to Texas alone between 2015 and 2024.
At some point, a trend becomes a verdict.
And now the Texas Stock Exchange – backed by BlackRock, Citadel Securities, Charles Schwab, and JPMorgan – is set to launch trading in 2026, with NYSE Texas and Nasdaq Texas already operational in Dallas. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins stood with DeSantis and Abbott in Miami and said the quiet part out loud: the federal government had made it “complicated, expensive and legally treacherous” to go public, and the SEC is going back to first principles.
New York built a system that made Wall Street the only rational choice. The Boom Belt just built an alternative.
This Is What Winning Looks Like
The left will tell you this is just governors taking victory laps.
They said the same thing when Griffin left. Then Boeing left Chicago. Then Caterpillar fled Pritzker’s Illinois. Then Gavin Newsom watched Chevron pack up and head to Texas. The pattern isn’t subtle anymore.
The economic Iron Curtain now divides America into two zones – and the dividing line runs straight through the governors’ mansions. Pritzker taxed and spent while Griffin’s employees got stabbed walking to work. Newsom regulated and lectured while Chevron drove the moving trucks to Texas. The Boom Belt didn’t steal their businesses. Those businesses ran for their lives.
Families voted with their moving trucks. Businesses voted with their headquarters. Billionaires voted by leaving bullet holes behind.
DeSantis told the crowd his governing philosophy: watch what California, Illinois, and New York do, then do the opposite. The $9 trillion GDP, 70% of all U.S. population growth, and a brand-new stock exchange launching this year are the scoreboard. Conservative governance didn’t just survive the left’s predictions of failure – it built an economy that’s eating their lunch.
The blue-state model isn’t struggling. It’s finished.
Sources:
Kristen Altus, “A new economic iron curtain is falling across America as trillions in wealth flee to the ‘Boom Belt,'” Fox Business, April 8, 2026.
“Governor Highlights Texas’ Economic Success At TXSE Event In Florida,” Texas Border Business, April 7, 2026.
“Ken Griffin reveals ’25 bullet holes’ in Chicago building drove Citadel move to Miami,” Fox Business, November 6, 2025.
“Texas Stock Exchange Receives SEC Approval, Will Launch in 2026,” D CEO Magazine, November 12, 2025.
“Caterpillar and Chevron Anchor Dow Jones Shift to Texas as Stock Exchanges Launch,” Disruption Banking, March 18, 2026.
Carville predicts Trump could resign if Democrats win Congress
Democratic strategist James Carville has intensified his attacks on President Donald Trump, predicting he could step down if Democrats regain control of Congress in the 2026 midterms. Carville has also vowed that Democrats would pursue aggressive legal action, including financial clawbacks, against Trump and his family. His remarks come amid heightened political tensions, slipping GOP polling, and growing Democratic confidence in flipping key states.
****
Following is a story about the election in which the Supreme Court will rule on in June.
Pending before the Supreme Court are three disparate cases, each with the potential to remake rules on district boundaries, campaign finance and the eligibility of certain mail-in ballots. These rulings, issued in the middle of the election season, could potentially confound voters, scramble overworked and threatened election administrators, and alter campaign strategies in the middle of heated election contests. And depending on how the justices rule, these decisions may have cascading effects including new court challenges, legislative changes and even more uncertainty in the months before the midterms.
The justices can avoid this confusion entirely. In June 1964 the court issued a landmark decision in Reynolds v. Sims that helped cement the principle of “one person, one vote.” Yet the ruling made clear that it need not be applied to that fall’s fast-approaching elections. Whatever this court ultimately decides on the merits in these cases, it should apply the same principle.
It is not unusual for the Supreme Court to issue decisions that influence voter preferences. For example, opposition to the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade may have motivated more Democrats to vote in the 2022 elections. Nor is it unusual for the court to issue decisions that affect the conduct of elections. For example, 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder struck down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act requiring states with a history of race discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting rules.
But this election season is different in both the potential immediacy of the court’s rulings and the breadth of the potential changes. Already, the court has weighed in three times in cases on its emergency docket that involve congressional re-redistricting for 2026. The court, reversing a lower federal court ruling, allowed Texas to implement new district lines expected to garner Republicans five more House seats despite claims that it was a racial gerrymander. It affirmed a lower federal court that allowed California to do a parallel Democratic gerrymander. And, in a procedurally suspect ruling, the court reversed a New York state court order drawing a new district giving Black and Latino New Yorkers a better chance to elect their preferred congressional candidate in November.
Now the court is expected to issue three more rulings by the end of its current term in June. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court may strike down or severely limit the applicability of Section 2 of the VRA on grounds that race-conscious districting is constitutionally impermissible. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the court may hold that limits on the ability of political parties to spend sums in coordination with the parties’ candidates violate the First Amendment. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court may bar more than a dozen states from counting mail-in ballots in congressional elections that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward.
Each of these rulings may have cascading effects, all in the middle of the election season. If the Callais ruling hobbles the VRA, legislatures in states that have not yet held primaries may try to draw new districts diminishing minority voting power. That in turn will spark new lawsuits and a race against the clock, given the elections calendar. Because Section 2 applies to all district elections on the federal, state and local level, boundary changes may be attempted across the country, even in the final months of the 2026 elections.
If the court sides with the NRSC side of the campaign finance case, parties and candidates have drawn up contingency plans to take advantage of a special discount that federal law mandates television and radio stations offer to candidates. The case’s pendency already has created uncertainties about how these special advertising rates are supposed to work.
And Watson (the mail-in ballot case) threatens perhaps the biggest implementation challenges of all. If the court rules in late June or early July that Mississippi cannot accept timely cast ballots arriving after Election Day, where does that leave other states? Even at the best of times, elections take a great deal of planning, workers and efforts at voter education. Some states might wait to be sued to change their deadline. Others may look to state legislatures to change the deadline. And because the court’s ruling would apply only to congressional races, each state would have to decide how to treat ballots cast in state and local races.
Whatever states decides, they will then have to alert voters about the new rules. If some voters don’t get the word, they may be disenfranchised by a change in the rules. We just saw similar confusion in recent primaries in Dallas. Some voters who had been voting in prior elections at centralized voting centers were surprised to find those centers not open, and to learn that they had to go vote in their old precincts.
Given the risk of last-minute legislation, litigation, election administration changes and voter confusion, the Supreme Court should consider not only what it decides in these election cases but when and how those decisions should be implemented. We know already that the court is sensitive about timing in election cases. It has developed a doctrine, which I have called the “Purcell principle,” counseling lower federal courts not to make last-minute changes in voting rules so as to avoid election administrator burden and voter confusion. (Purcell was a 2006 ruling in which the court vacated a 9th Circuit injunction that temporarily blocked a voter ID law in Arizona just before that year’s elections.)
In Reynolds, the court recognized that principles of equity sometimes require a delay in implementation of a judicial decision involving elections:
Where an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in progress, equitable considerations might justify a court in withholding the granting of immediately effective relief in a legislative apportionment case even though the existing apportionment scheme was found invalid.
In the election cases currently at the court, there is little doubt that political actors will try immediately to take advantage of rulings. The court should follow the principle it has embraced in the past and caution against application of its rules for the 2026 elections. Or, more simply, the court could hold these decisions until November, leaving plenty of time for everyone to adjust to changes for 2028.
(Following paragraph is fake news.
With President Donald Trump continuing his efforts to meddle in the 2026 midterms, this fall’s elections are already going to be challenging for the United States. The Supreme Court has it in its power not to pile on complications.
kommonsentsjane 