Murkowski’s unease with the Republican Party is no secret. She told Semafor she doesn’t always feel at home in the GOP, pointing to its rightward shift under President Trump. Yet, her openness to switching seems less about principle and more about maintaining relevance in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting, adopted in 2020, rewards her moderate posturing. She claims to align with GOP values like personal responsibility and small government, but her voting record suggests otherwise—a pattern of inconsistency that prioritizes her political survival over party unity or Alaska’s broader interests.

This is how I will remember Sen. Feinstein: I snapped this pic in Sept. 2018 in the middle of Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Sen. Murkowski (right) was weighing her support, and…Feinstein moved in.

A few days later, Murkowski opposed the nomination. @cbsnews pic.twitter.com/UpGEikCF9V

— Bo Erickson Reuters (@BoKnowsNews) September 29, 2023

Her votes against the Republican conference highlight this unreliability. In 2018, she was one of only two Republicans to oppose Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation, citing his temperament. She rejected several of Trump’s judicial nominees, though supported others like Amy Coney Barrett, revealing a selective approach that lacks a clear ideological core. In 2021, she voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, a move that alienated GOP loyalists but bolstered her appeal to Alaska’s moderates and independents, who fueled her 2010 write-in victory and 2022 ranked-choice win.

Most notably, her 2021 vote to confirm Interior Secretary Deb Haaland—a decision she later criticized—enabled policies that many Alaskans, especially those tied to the state’s resource-driven economy, view as misaligned with their interests. Haaland’s restrictive oil and gas policies, including the revocation of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) leases and tightened regulations in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), have drawn ire from Alaska Native leaders and pro-development advocates, who accuse her of ignoring their input and harming local economies.

Murkowski’s own words underscore her opportunism. In the Semafor interview, she described a “pleasant” call with Trump, focusing on Alaska priorities like resource development, despite his 2022 efforts to unseat her. This sudden civility, after years of tension, suggests she’s willing to cozy up to Trump when it serves her, just as she’s open to Democrats when it might amplify her influence. Her comments on a GOP tax-cut bill—calling for slow, deliberate policy-making—further show her knack for playing both sides, avoiding firm commitments until she can read the political room.

If Murkowski genuinely believes the GOP has lost its way, she should act decisively. She should switch to caucus with Democrats now, when Republicans hold a 53-47 Senate majority, and take the risk of joining the minority without immediate political gain. Her switch would narrow the GOP’s edge to 52-48, falling short of flipping control unless another defector or special election shifts the balance. But Murkowski won’t move—not yet. Her history suggests she’ll only leap when it maximizes her influence, much like Jim Jeffords’ 2001 switch, which flipped a 50-50 Senate to Democratic control for committee power. Murkowski’s coyness about switching now, when it wouldn’t hand her the spotlight, reeks of self-interest.

Alaska deserves a senator who stands firm, not one who wavers for personal gain. Haaland’s policies, which Murkowski enabled, have frustrated Alaskans reliant on resource development, from Native communities to oil workers, who see federal restrictions as a betrayal of their economic needs. Murkowski’s memoir title, Far From Home, is fitting—she’s adrift, not between parties, but between loyalty and ambition. If she’s serious about leaving the GOP, she should dare to do it when it’s politically costly, not when it secures her power. Until then, her indecision marks her as unreliable, a liability to a party and a state that need steadfast leadership, not political gamesmanship.

AOC argues that Trump’s decision to strike Iran without congressional approval violates the War Powers Act, warranting impeachment. However, the House’s 344-79 vote to table a similar resolution by Rep. Al Green (D-TX), with 128 Democrats joining Republicans, underscores the lack of party unity and the political motivations behind her stance. Historical precedents, such as actions by Presidents Obama and Biden, undermine AOC’s case, suggesting a double standard where ideology trumps consistency.

Don’t chicken out @AOC
Bring those impeachment charges against Trump up today.
Also try to learn to speak. pic.twitter.com/TtYOoD3oX5

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) June 24, 2025

The Iran strikes responded to Iran’s attacks on Israel and a U.S. base, with Trump’s ceasefire announcement met with skepticism. AOC’s failure to acknowledge this complexity reduces her argument to a soundbite lacking nuance. Meanwhile, Crockett, on Tuesday, stated, “I’m supposed to make the f*cking decision” on war, expressing frustration over lack of consultation. Her demand, reinforced online, aligns with a resolution to prohibit Iran involvement, citing Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

Yet, Crockett’s stance is constitutionally unsound. Her role is limited to voting on war declarations or military funding under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11-13, not operational decisions. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 vests the President as Commander in Chief with inherent authority to respond to threats. The War Powers Resolution requires consultation and reporting but does not mandate personal consultation with individual members like Crockett. Historical precedents affirm presidential latitude in such actions.

The personal sparring between AOC and Trump, with AOC’s “silly girl” retort and Trump’s dare to impeach, adds absurdity, distracting from substantive issues. Ultimately, AOC’s push is about party positioning, not constitutional reckoning, while Crockett’s demand misrepresents constitutional authority. The American public deserves leaders who prioritize national security and legislative coherence over partisan theatrics.

Exactly, I mean…

I made Trump’s epic takedown of AOC into the opening credits of Star Wars… because it fit perfectly.

This is pretty incredible. 🤣😂 pic.twitter.com/kz4LhDhMv6

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) June 24, 2025

The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued a 6-3 decision staying Murphy’s nationwide injunction, which had imposed procedural hurdles on deportations to third countries like South Sudan. The majority’s unsigned order, though brief, affirmed the executive’s power to execute immigration policy without excessive judicial meddling. Yet, Murphy, a Biden appointee, promptly declared his May 21st, 2025 order—protecting eight violent offenders from removal—remained in effect, claiming the Supreme Court’s stay didn’t apply. This audacious move isn’t just a disagreement; it’s a direct challenge to the Court’s authority, reminiscent of Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal defiance of Worcester v. Georgia in 1832. From an originalist lens, such conduct is indefensible.

The Constitution’s framers designed a government of distinct powers. Article II vests the executive with the authority to enforce laws, including immigration statutes passed by Congress. The president, as chief executive, holds broad discretion in foreign affairs, including negotiating deportation agreements with third countries. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 70, emphasized the need for a vigorous executive to ensure “energy in the executive” for matters like national security and public safety. Deporting criminal aliens—convicted of offenses like murder and assault—falls squarely within this domain. Murphy’s injunctions, demanding 10 days’ notice and “meaningful opportunity” for deportees to contest removals, usurp this authority, imposing judicially invented procedures absent from statute or constitutional text.

Originalism demands fidelity to the Constitution’s original meaning. Nowhere in the founding document do courts receive power to dictate immigration enforcement details or override the executive’s diplomatic efforts. The judiciary’s role, as articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, is to “say what the law is,” not to rewrite it. Murphy’s orders violate this principle, crafting policy under the guise of due process. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, but its original public meaning didn’t extend to non-citizens facing deportation, especially those with final removal orders. The Supreme Court’s 1893 decision in Fong Yue Ting v. United States clarified that deportation is a sovereign act, not a criminal punishment requiring judicial oversight. Murphy’s insistence on expansive protections for criminal aliens strays far from this precedent and the framers’ intent.

Moreover, Murphy’s actions disrupt the delicate balance of separation of powers. By issuing nationwide injunctions, he—a single district judge—halts executive policy across the nation, a practice increasingly criticized as unconstitutional overreach. James Madison, in Federalist No. 51, warned against any branch encroaching on another’s domain. Murphy’s rulings not only encroach but also defy the Supreme Court, which Article III establishes as the final arbiter of federal law. His claim that his May 21st order survives the Court’s stay is a legal fiction, undermining the judiciary’s hierarchical structure. If lower courts can sidestep SCOTUS, the constitutional order unravels.

Critics of Murphy, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, rightly call this judicial insubordination. The Trump administration’s motion for clarification, filed Tuesday, accuses Murphy of a “lawless act of defiance” that disrupts diplomatic relations and endangers Americans by delaying the removal of violent offenders. Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s filing underscores the public interest in swift deportations, noting the men in question are held in Djibouti, awaiting transfer to conflict-ridden South Sudan. Murphy’s obstruction risks prolonging their stay, straining U.S. resources and diplomacy.

Originalists must reject Murphy’s activism. The Constitution’s text and history grant the executive, not unelected judges, the power to enforce immigration law. Murphy’s defiance of SCOTUS and his imposition of extraconstitutional procedures erode the framers’ vision of a limited judiciary. The Supreme Court must act decisively—perhaps even removing Murphy from the case—to restore constitutional order. Failure to do so emboldens rogue judges, threatening the republic’s foundation. As Hamilton warned, a judiciary that oversteps its bounds risks becoming a “dangerous engine” of tyranny. It’s time to rein in Judge Murphy and reaffirm the rule of law.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has warned of a “heightened threat environment,” with fears of Iranian-backed “sleeper cells” amplified by the release of these individuals, many of whom were not thoroughly vetted. Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker called this a “gross negligence” by the Biden administration, noting missed opportunities to gather intelligence through interviews and vetting. The lack of transparency is stark: the administration repeatedly denied Freedom of Information Act requests about how many of these 729 were on terrorism watchlists, leaving the public in the dark about potential threats.

Particularly concerning are single men of military age among these releases, such as the former Iranian Army sniper arrested by ICE in June 2025. Such individuals, with potential military training or ties to groups like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), could exploit lax border policies to establish footholds in the U.S. The IRGC’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization underscores the danger, as its members are explicitly barred from U.S. entry under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Yet, some released individuals, like Mehran Makari Saheli, a former IRGC member with Hezbollah connections, highlight the real risks of inadequate screening.

The Biden administration’s policies contrast sharply with the Trump era, which saw zero Iranian nationals released, according to Border Czar Tom Homan. With over 1,500 Iranian apprehensions under Biden and nearly half released, the potential for undetected threats—compounded by 2 million “gotaways” who evaded capture—looms large. As Iran vows retaliation, the U.S. must prioritize robust vetting and deportation to prevent these releases from becoming a national security catastrophe.