Big mistake

Yes, the information in the post is accurate. On January 22, 2026, the Trump administration announced the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).<grok:render card_id="f4460a" card_type="citation_card" type="render_inline_citation">

<argument name="citation_id">12</argument>

</grok:render> The following day, January 23, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom's office announced that California would join the WHO's Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), making it the first U.S. state to do so.<grok:render card_id="0dcb20" card_type="citation_card" type="render_inline_citation">

<argument name="citation_id">0</argument>

</grok:render> This move was positioned as a direct response to the federal withdrawal, with California stepping in to maintain involvement in global public health efforts.<grok:render card_id="d43ced" card_type="citation_card" type="render_inline_citation">

<argument name="citation_id">5</argument>

</grok:render>

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Truth

The Instagram Reel at that link (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSA7mTuFfoT/) is posted by the account **@libsoftiktokofficial** (Libs of TikTok Official).

It makes the following claim in the caption:

> "1,700 criminal illegals were RELEASED from prison in Illinois under JB Pritzker  

> M*rderers, p*dophiles, r*pes, and violent offenders are back in YOUR communities because Democrats want to protect them from ICE.  

> They are putting American lives at risk."

This appears to be a short video or static post (typical of Libs of TikTok content) designed to highlight and criticize Illinois Governor JB Pritzker's policies on immigration enforcement and criminal releases.

The core factual assertion — that **1,700 "criminal illegals" were released from prison in Illinois under Pritzker** — refers to a real policy/event from late 2024/early 2025. Illinois (under its TRUST Act and related policies) does not allow state/local law enforcement to honor most ICE detainers for immigration enforcement purposes unless there's a judicial warrant and specific violent felony criteria. As a result, when certain incarcerated individuals completed their state sentences, they were released rather than transferred to federal immigration custody if ICE issued only an administrative detainer.

Reports from around that period (including statements from ICE and conservative outlets) indicated that hundreds to low-thousands of individuals with criminal convictions (including some serious offenses) were released into communities instead of being taken into ICE custody directly after state incarceration. The "1,700" figure aligns with numbers cited in several ICE-related announcements and Republican critiques of sanctuary-style policies in Illinois during Pritzker's administration.

However, the reel's framing is heavily editorialized:

- Not all were necessarily "murderers, pedophiles, rapists" — the offenses varied widely (from lower-level crimes to violent felonies).

- Releases happened because of state law limiting cooperation with ICE, not a deliberate "Democrats want to protect them" action targeted at those specific offenders.

- Many such individuals were later arrested by ICE or faced deportation proceedings anyway.

In short: **The 1,700 figure is grounded in reality** (stemming from documented non-cooperation with ICE detainers in Illinois), but the reel dramatically amplifies it with charged language to argue Democrats are endangering the public by prioritizing immigrant protections over enforcement. It's partisan commentary rather than neutral reporting.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Mace

The post you're sharing is from **U.S. Representative Nancy Mace** (@RepNancyMace), a Republican congresswoman from South Carolina. She posted this on January 23, 2026 (late evening GMT, which aligns with today given the current date/time).

This appears to be her own firsthand account of a recent legal victory in a civil case originating in South Carolina state court.

### Key Details from the Post and Context

- **The Win**: Rep. Mace represented herself pro se (without a lawyer present for this specific hearing) and successfully had the case **removed/Transferred** from a South Carolina state court to **federal court**. This was based on federal jurisdiction questions, including constitutional protections under the **First Amendment**, the **Speech or Debate Clause** (Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which protects members of Congress from certain state-level interference related to their legislative duties), and **federal supremacy**.

- **Background on the Gag Order**: In December 2025, a South Carolina judge imposed a **gag order** on Mace and other parties in related civil lawsuits. These suits reportedly stem from allegations Mace made against individuals (including entrepreneur Patrick Bryant and businessman Eric Bowman) involving claims of abuse or related matters. The gag order restricted public discussion of the ongoing cases.

- **Her Argument**: Mace views the state court's actions (including the gag order and suggestions from opposing counsel that she could face jail for her social media posts about "injustice") as unconstitutional attempts to silence her as a sitting Member of Congress for performing her duties and speaking out. She frames this as "lawfare" — using the legal system for political or harassing purposes.

- **Outcome**: By moving the case to federal court, she effectively challenged the enforceability of the state-level gag order in a venue she believes is more appropriate for federal constitutional issues. She describes this as a defeat of efforts to intimidate or silence her.

Her official press release and website confirm the removal to federal court as a "significant legal victory" vindicating her First Amendment rights and constitutional protections.

This case ties into broader tensions involving Mace, including past sanctions fights, lawyer-related disputes (e.g., accusations of fabricated citations in filings), and her ongoing political activities (she's been active in congressional oversight and is seen as a potential contender in South Carolina politics, like a gubernatorial bid).

Congratulations to her on the procedural win — standing up pro se against that kind of pressure takes resolve, and it's a reminder of how core constitutional safeguards (like federal jurisdiction and Speech or Debate protections) can check state-level overreach in cases involving federal officials.

If you'd like more details on the underlying lawsuits, the specific judge/court involved, or reactions to this post, let me know! 🇺🇸

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals