Trump Revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship? SEN SANDERS: Dems bad Border, Period, End of discussion

A news cycle that cut unusually wide — from a Trump revocation threat against Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship to a rare Bernie Sanders concession that Democrats have “not done as good a job as they should” on the border, period, end of discussion. In between: a viral flashback where an Irish reporter asked Trump why his country should be forced to host O’Donnell (“he’s just going to lower your happiness level”), California Democrat Rep. Salud Carbajal pushing past law enforcement at an anti-ICE riot, California Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman accusing ICE of “approaching people based on how they look,” California Democrats approving a $50,000 grant to deliver food to illegal immigrants hiding from ICE, Maryland AG Anthony Brown reiterating “Maryland refuses to cooperate with ICE,” and Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger opposing state-local ICE coordination as “a distraction of resources.” One side argues immigration enforcement has gone too far. Trump is arguing it has not gone far enough — and that an American citizen who moved to Ireland to escape him may not be entitled to keep her passport.

Trump: Considering Revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship

President Trump announced he was giving “serious consideration” to revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s American citizenship, calling her “a threat to humanity.” The threat is legally extraordinary. The United States does not ordinarily revoke the citizenship of natural-born citizens. Denaturalization exists for naturalized citizens found to have committed fraud in their citizenship application or certain other offenses, but a natural-born American — which O’Donnell is — holds citizenship by constitutional right, not by revocable grant.

Whether Trump’s statement is meant as a genuine policy signal or as a rhetorical punishment for O’Donnell’s years of public hostility toward him is a separate question. The political effect is the same either way: it dominates a news cycle, it forces commentators to explain the legal distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizenship, and it signals to Trump’s base a willingness to use presidential rhetoric against an individual long associated with celebrity-left opposition.

The Ireland Flashback: “Lower Your Happiness Level”

The flashback clip the network paired with Trump’s statement is one of the stranger moments of modern presidential diplomacy. An Irish reporter, addressing Trump: “Ireland is known for very happy, fun loving people, great attitudes, many in this room right now that I’ve met. Why in the world would you let Rosie O’Donnell move to Ireland? He’s just going to lower your happiness level.”

Trump, visibly amused: “That’s true. Thank you. I like that question. Do you know who she is? Do you know who she is?”

Then, a moment the transcription picks up imperfectly: “I’m Joe. You better up. You better up not now. That’s right. That’s the chosen one.”

The Irish reporter’s question is, whatever else it is, a vivid piece of international comment on American celebrity emigration. O’Donnell moved to Ireland in protest of Trump’s return to the presidency. The Irish reporter’s framing — that she will “lower your happiness level” — is exactly the kind of remark that Trump’s brand of political humor lives inside. The president’s response, laughing and treating the reporter as a kindred spirit, is the texture of why certain foreign press interactions produce viral moments in a way that most diplomatic exchanges do not.

Bernie Sanders: Borders, Period, End of Discussion

Among the day’s more consequential statements was Senator Bernie Sanders’s unusually direct concession on Democratic border failure. “You don’t have a country without borders,” Sanders said. “If you have borders, you should enforce that border. Democrats have not done as good a job as they should. Period. End of discussion.”

For Sanders — the democratic socialist who has spent his career attacking the right from the left — to concede that Democrats have failed on borders, and to add the emphatic “period, end of discussion,” is a significant rhetorical event. It is not the position he has held historically. It is the position of a senator reading the room after the 2024 election and the specific political damage that open-border perceptions inflicted on his party in battleground states.

“That’s correct,” Sanders continued. “But I will tell you something else. In this country right now, you have millions and millions of people who came from Latin America or wherever. They’re working in meat packing plants. They’re harvesting crops."

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform”: The Pivot

Sanders’s pivot is the standard move. Acknowledge the enforcement failure, then immediately pivot to the economic reliance on the undocumented workforce and the need for “comprehensive immigration reform.”

“We have to deal with immigration broadly, with comprehensive immigration reform,” Sanders said. “We have failed in that. Democrats and Republicans have failed enough for many, many years. We need right now to come up with some way to protect these workers who are maintaining the economy. So we need a rational, humane solution.”

Then the line that defines Sanders’s attempt to hold both positions simultaneously: “Not having people with masks on them, throwing people into vans. We need to have a better time for that. We need to have a better time for that. And that is what we need to do.”

The tension is obvious. Sanders wants to be the senator who says borders matter and enforcement has been lax — the senator who concedes Democratic failure and does not flinch from “period, end of discussion.” He also wants to be the senator who calls current ICE tactics — masks, vans — unacceptable. Those two positions can coexist, but only narrowly. The operational reality is that any serious enforcement regime produces the kinds of public encounters Sanders calls objectionable.

California Democrat Carbajal Pushes Past Law Enforcement

The contrast with Sanders’s measured “period, end of discussion” came from California Democrat Rep. Salud Carbajal, seen on video physically pushing past law enforcement officers during an anti-ICE riot. A sitting member of Congress putting hands on uniformed law enforcement during a street demonstration is the kind of image that tends to outlast the underlying policy debate.

The framing question from the administration’s allies was direct: “Why do Democrats think they are above the law?” That framing lands even with viewers who are sympathetic to the underlying immigration concerns, because it shifts the question from policy to conduct. A member of Congress can disagree with ICE. A member of Congress cannot push past law enforcement without becoming the story.

Rep. Brad Sherman’s “Looking” Claim

California Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman made a specific factual claim about ICE conduct that the administration’s allies sharply disputed. “Now he’s just focused on anybody in a park,” Sherman said. “They’re approaching people based on how they look and demanding to see their papers. What an outrageous thing to do in America.”

The “approaching people based on how they look” charge is the sharpest possible framing of the racial-profiling critique of ICE operations. It is also the claim that ICE and DHS officials most consistently push back against — insisting that operations target specific individuals with outstanding removal orders or criminal warrants, not random park-goers.

The administration’s counter-framing was pointed: Sherman had nothing to say about the migrant children exploited for child labor at a California cannabis facility that ICE rescued. That asymmetry — vocal about the alleged profiling, silent about the child labor rescue — is the argument being made against the congressman’s position.

The $50K Food-Delivery Grant

A separate item: California Democrats approved a $50,000 grant to deliver food to illegal immigrants hiding from ICE. The program’s architect, speaking on tape, argued the approach would reach more people than funding legal aid.

“Providing daily sustenance for people who do not have income coming in will go further,” the speaker said. “Legal aid is expensive. And whatever dollar amount you put there is going to get chewed up pretty quickly. And it will only help very few people. Whereas I’ve seen the lines of cars. I don’t know if any of you have been there, but I’ve seen them. And I know that they also serve folks who are at home and are sheltered on top of that. So I think that will go a lot further and help more people.”

The rationale — that subsistence aid to people in hiding serves more people per dollar than legal aid — is operationally coherent. The political framing is harder. Using public money to provide food to people avoiding federal law enforcement is, at minimum, a legally novel position for a municipal or state program, and it invites the “Democrats have turned California into a haven for criminal illegal aliens” framing that the administration’s allies are deploying.

Spanberger: ICE Coordination as “Distraction of Resources”

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger made her position on state-local ICE coordination explicit in remarks on the record. “The use of local police and state police resources to enforce civil immigration infractions,” she said, “not only is it not actually doing the work of ensuring that those who have committed crimes are out of our communities or held accountable. But it’s actually a distraction of resources, both in terms of personnel hours and money.”

“From actually keeping our communities safe from any sort of community, by ensuring any type of community policing. Let alone any sort of law enforcement action.”

“So as governor, certainly, my priority is always going to be the safety of our communities. And ensuring that local law enforcement and the state police have what they need to be able to keep our communities safe.”

The logic Spanberger is offering is that immigration enforcement is a federal function, that state and local police have finite capacity, and that coordinating with ICE draws resources away from other public safety work. That argument has two problems. The first is that a significant portion of ICE enforcement targets people who have committed non-immigration crimes — criminal aliens with outstanding warrants, gang affiliations, or prior removals. The second is that Spanberger’s framing about “civil immigration infractions” glosses over that population.

The political consequence in Virginia is that she is running in a state where elected sheriffs in multiple counties have historically cooperated with ICE, and her position signals she would use the governorship to discourage or reverse that cooperation.

Two Americas on Borders

The day’s collection of items reveals a political landscape where Democrats are sharply split. Sanders acknowledges border failure directly. Mayor Bass, AG Brown, Rep. Brownley, Rep. Sherman, and candidate Spanberger position themselves against federal enforcement. Rep. Carbajal physically obstructs law enforcement. California Democrats fund food delivery to people in hiding from ICE.

Trump’s intervention in this landscape — threatening revocation of Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship — is calibrated to the moment. Whether or not the legal mechanism exists to carry out the threat is secondary. The political function is to remind an audience that the president is willing to use the rhetorical tools of the presidency against individuals the opposition has treated as untouchable. Against the backdrop of mayors, congresspeople, and candidates positioning themselves against enforcement, Trump is signaling a willingness to go on offense.

Key Takeaways

• Trump said he is giving “serious consideration” to revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, calling her “a threat to humanity” — though denaturalization of natural-born citizens is legally extraordinary.
• In a viral flashback, an Irish reporter asked Trump about O’Donnell’s move to Ireland: “He’s just going to lower your happiness level” — Trump replied, “That’s true. Thank you. I like that question.”
• Bernie Sanders conceded directly: “You don’t have a country without borders. If you have borders, you should enforce that border. Democrats have not done as good a job as they should. Period. End of discussion.”
• California Democrat Rep. Salud Carbajal was seen on video pushing past law enforcement at an anti-ICE demonstration, and California Democrats approved a $50,000 grant to deliver food to illegal immigrants hiding from ICE.
• Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger opposes state-local ICE coordination as “a distraction of resources” — framing civil immigration enforcement as separate from “keeping our communities safe.”