The DeVory Darkins Show - Democrats make SHAMEFUL MISTAKE over DHS Funding

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

Democrats make SHAMEFUL MISTAKE over DHS Funding as TSA security have totally collapsed. This comes as some Democrats admit their true intentions to Dismantle DHS. Also, Pentagon is now asking for $200 billion for the Iranian Conflict.EPISODE SPONSOR: Call [phone] or visit http://tnusa.com/devoryFOLLOW ME:⁠⁠https://www.x.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.rumble.com/c/devorydarkins⁠⁠⁠⁠https://devory.wtf.tv⁠⁠BUY ME A COFFEE:⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠SHOP OUR MERCH STORE:⁠⁠https://store.devorydarkins.com⁠⁠BUSINESS INQUIRIES:⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠

One plus one equals more of the greatest stories. Hulu on Disney Plus. Stories about survivors. The most dangerous planet. Family. Retribution. Murder. Prophecy.

Beer and propane. Bali Dillard. Blake panthe. The ultimate soldier. Chicago. All right. The best of the best stories now with even more from Hulu. Amazing.

Have it all with Dulu on Disney Plus. In today's video, Democrats make a stunt. a mission regarding the DHS shutdown as it continues to impact TSA. The Pentagon is asking for $200 billion for the conflict in Iran, and Tulsi Gabbard made an interesting statement today in her hearing. What is going on with TSA, particularly at the Atlanta airport? Take a listen. And today we've seen something that we haven't seen before, which is the TSA pre-check line,

is super long. Hold on one second. The line goes all the way back this way. But that's not where it starts, John. if this entire hallway all the way down there, that's where the line starts. Then you rat down this section along this wall, go through the baggage carousels, come back around, and then go this way. So we're going to walk you this way, John, because we've never seen it snake this way.

On the board, it says 16 minutes of TSA pre-check. There's no way that you would be 16 minutes even to stand in the pre-line before the line before you get to the extra line. So I don't understand why that says 16 minutes at this point. When we talk about journalists, what he's doing is what all networks should always do. Okay. He's going to the airport. He's calculating the actual time.

And then obviously sharing it with whoever's watching. And again, I'm just, I'm having to say that because this whole Nick Shirley thing, it just blows my mind. And of course, the wasting of the money as far as that crossing is in California. At any rate, 90 minutes of people waiting in line just, to get into the line is what he's saying. This line goes all the way to the baggage claim area. Just imagine you're waiting in the baggage claim area, which usually is at the bottom floor, right?

And it stretched the entire way. Now, Atlanta Airport is the busiest airport in our country, no doubt about it. So I guess we are not shocked by that. Now, let's go to Obama's former DHS Secretary because he's been on Fox News recently and usually during these times because he actually provides a very measured response to all of this. Take a listen. Is there a compromise? Democrats and Republicans have to come together.

We have to fund this. This is very serious. What can they do? Democrats don't want ICE to wear masks, but that protects them. They're getting doxed, and they don't want ICE to be able to arrest someone without a warrant. So they want every single ICE agent who's about to arrest someone to go to a judge and get a warrant to go and arrest them.

Well, there are circumstances under which a judicial warrant is not necessary in a true emergency, in an exigency. But those disputes, those debates should take place alongside of funding the Department of Homeland Security as a whole, not just certain components, as a whole. You need all 22 components of Homeland Security functioning all at once side by side. Congress can and should have the debate about whether officers should be wearing masks, but there are circumstances under which it's permissible, I suppose. There are circumstances under which a judicial warrant is not necessary, if there's a threat to life or some other circumstance like that. Have that policy disagreement in some other context.

Don't shut down the entire Department of Homeland Security because you can't agree on these substances. to policy issues. Okay, so let's not forget about something. Democrats already got what they truly wanted. If you think about it, what they were screaming about is exactly what they got. Chris Enoam is gone. Greg Bevino, gone. The Minneapolis operation, gone.

It's all silent. You're not hearing about Chicago. You're not hearing about Minnesota. It essentially has ceased to exist. I'm not saying they're not deporting anybody. It's just you're not hearing anything else anymore. Why? Well, because everything has pretty much died down.

Now, the bottom line to it, she's gone. So do you think this is enough for these raging liberals, right? I mean, the head of DHS is no longer there. And they're going to confirm someone new. So, again, not only are Democrats not even operating in good faith. It's not enough, regardless of whatever it is. Okay? That's the bottom line of what I'm trying to communicate with you guys.

Now, let's go to Senator Katie Britt from Alabama. Here's her reaction. Democrats are digging in on the DHS shutdown. We've shown you the backups of the airports. There are key agencies that are going unfunded. There are thousands of people working today in American airports that don't get paid. Democratic leaders now pointing the finger. Here's the Hill on Wednesday.

This is day 33 of the Trump Republicans shut down of the Department of Homeland Security. Why is this happening? It's because Republicans have decided to force TSA agents to work without pay. inconvenience millions of Americans across the country and create chaos at airports rather than get ice under control. All right now, Republican Senator, Katie Britt of Alabama, member of the Appropriations Committee, heading up the effort for Republicans in a big way. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your time. Hey, thank you for having me. I know the White House and Republicans have given some ground, but the issue of the ban on mask is still something that Democrats are holding firm on.

If you can see down that issue, is this done? You know what, Bill, unfortunately, it's been 48 days since we passed the last CR. And yet in that 48 days, we haven't had Democrats sit down with us one time. So imagine that. It's been 48 days since this partial government shutdown started. 48 days. 48 days of federal employees worrying, stressing, having anxiety about not getting paid. Now my question to Democrats would be, is it really worth the pain?

Is it really worth it? Because see, on day one, you guys didn't want to fund anything. Nothing, zero, no dollar to the lawless agency. Right? Okay, let me remind you, in case I'm not making myself clear, listen to this particular Democrats say those exact words. Which we have been 150% clear. We are not funding DHS, ICE, and CDP, not about.

Ten more. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember, 988, Canada's suicide crisis helpline. It's good to know, just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder any time. 988 suicide crisis helpline is funded by the government in Canada.

We need to, as soon as we get the gavels back, we have to dismantle DHS. and ICE and CBP, and we have to reconstruct them to what they really should be doing. So she didn't just say it once, but she said it twice. And she sounds like the president when he said the exact same words regarding the Department of Education. Now, what was the reaction to him doing that? Right? Everybody lost their mind. Oh, my God. Kids won't be able to go to school. They're not going to be able to be fed food.

They're not going to be able to get an education, et cetera. It was Armageddon. It's interesting how the tables have turned. I mean, this is what some people think. DHS as a whole needs to be dismantled. Now, we obviously know what DHS is comprised of. I send Border Patrol. That's like 5% of it.

Okay. Let's go to Morning Joe. Here he has fallen into the same trap by blaming Republicans. And make no mistake, Mika. This could end today. If when Democrats stand up and say, hey, can we all agree, can we all agree that our TSA agents need to be paid, that our Coast Guard members need to be paid? All they have to do, because all Democrats support that.

Absolutely not. They don't all support it. You just heard it right there. That's number one. Number two, they definitely didn't support it back in January. They definitely didn't support it in February. They now only support it because the pressure is getting too big for them. There's no way for them to argue at all to the American people about reforming ICE if they're not in the same sentence talking about funding TSA.

They've caught on to it already. And some people are not buying into all of this. In fact, some people argue that this is just going to make things worse, including the Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Again, he's talking about high callout rates with TSA agents. and he says we haven't seen anything yet. If this goes to next week, it's pretty much Armageddon. So right now on average, we're rolling about 10%, which is five times the normal callout rate. But last weekend, on average, it was only double the average callout rate.

So what I'm seeing is it's getting worse day by day. And we have to think about the TSA worker, but these are not highly paid individuals. They start off at about, you know, $45,000 to $55,000, but living in, you know, in D.C. in Atlanta and New York. They live in very expensive community, so it's really challenging for them. And so I saw this with the FAA and our air traffic controllers.

The TSA agents missed a partial payment. Last Friday, they missed a full payment. As we get into next week, Becky, and they're about to miss another payment, this is going to look like child's play what's happening right now. You're going to see small airports, I believe, shut down.

You're going to see extensive lines, and air travel is going to almost come to a grid hole. And so I listen, the point is we don't have to live this. Let's not use the American people as a political tool to get your will. We had a race in the last election about Joe Biden letting in 10, 12, 15 million people. Donald Trump ran and said, we're going to get those bad ombrays out of the country. Democrats lost on that.

Donald Trump's doing it. And Democrats are trying to redo the election and use the same policies that they lost on. Let's talk about this, because this is really important if you think about it. Do you owe back taxes or have unfiled tax returns? Or have you filed every year but still keep owing money? Did you retire and suddenly get hit with a big tax bill you didn't expect? Well, you should probably talk to my friends at Tax Network USA because their balance is not going to go down. Penalties were grow, interest compounds, and many of you are about to owe again for this upcoming tax year with no plan in place.

So this is where Tax Network USA comes in with over 15 years in business. There hasn't been a tax case they haven't seen or resolved. They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfiled returns once and for all. So call them 1866-686279. That is, 1866-686279, or just visit TNUSA.com. 4 slash Tbori. or you could simply click the link in the description below. Again, this is a wake-up call,

and I'm not too sure Republicans or even the American people are noticing that. Now, let's go to this next update, because in my opinion, this is a wake-up call. Pete Hacks at the Secretary of War this morning. It's been reported that he is asking for $200 billion for the conflict and Iran. Okay? Now, before we dive into this, I want you to hold that number in your mind as we go through the reporting on this. Take a listen.

What you made of the secretary asking for another $200 billion in funding, did it surprise you that that would be the supplemental package as they go after Iran because they are saying that they have really diminished just about every capability that Iran has already? It didn't surprise me because this war is being fought in a very profoundly, economically asymmetrical way in that Iran is using 20 to $30,000 drones which require us to use munitions which cost perhaps 10 times as much to shoot down. The thing that I'm paying close attention to, I guess, are three things.

One is the price of oil. That's very much part of Iran's strategy to spike the price of oil. Second is American public opinion. And that's very divided. The MAGA Republicans seem to be supporting this nine out of ten, but much of the rest of the country is not. And then the final thing is how many drones and missiles and interceptors does Iran have remaining? So again, we talked about this yesterday. When you make a decision, sometimes it's not going to look good optically. Could make sense financially, though. Could look good optically, but will not make sense financially. Do you guys understand what I'm saying? And so when the Pentagon is

asking for $200 billion, optically, that is just a no-go. The American people don't want to hear that. Absolutely not. The fact that the American people are still upset and they have PTSD over the record inflation that occurred under Biden, they don't want to hear about giving $200 billion to the Department of Defense who still cannot pass a budget, and they're already getting a trillion dollars on an annual basis. It just optically doesn't make any sense to people. The average person walking down the street would be like, no. $200 billion.

I think that number could move, obviously. It takes money to kill bad guys. So we're going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we're properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is everything's refilled and not just refilled, but above and beyond. I mean, President Trump, as he said, rebuilt the military in his first term, didn't think he'd use it as dynamically in his second, but he had. So thank goodness he did that. And an investment like this is meant to say, hey, we'll replace anything that was spent. And now that we're reviving our defense industrial base and rebuilding the arsenal and freedom and cut in deals like our great deputy secretaries here is doing, long lead time. on exquisite munitions, we're going to be refilled faster than anyone imagined.

And I think, you know, we're also still dealing with the environment that Joe Biden created, which was depleting those stockholes and not sending them to our own military, but to Ukraine. Again, I'm rooting for our men and women to be successful here. I want this to be over as quickly as possible. I will defer to the judgment of the president. 77 million people voted for him. We know what we were getting. So at the end of the day, we're going to have to see this through to the end.

And hopefully the end justifies what's been going on here recently. So when he's asking for $200 billion, in the short term, I don't like it. But in the long term, could absolutely make sense, especially that last point that he made and how if we're crying about $200 billion over this, then we must be crying about what happened with Ukraine, which they got much more money than that, right? So that's the other side to it. I think both things are true at the same time. And obviously the difference here is, according to Pete Hexeth, we're actually making progress here. I don't know what the progress is in regards to Ukraine. What is the current status on that?

It's like we haven't heard of that whole conflict in a while now, right? But it's still happening. All right, here he is about the timeline of this conflict. Watch. Take a couple questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the updated degradation in strike target numbers you laid out, how close would you say we are towards

achieving the president's objectives, and what is the endgame of the operation without divulging any sensitive battle plans? Well, we wouldn't want to set a definitive time frame on that, but as we've said, we're on plan. So we're looking at those metrics very closely, relaying that to the president and the national security team, but feel confident that as, again, we're more stand-in means we're over-the-top, even further in, and we have even more of an exact sense of what we're striking and why, and even more dynamically, meaning because the intelligence improved, we're able to more quickly identified targets when they, let's say they come out of an underground facility where they've been hiding and able to strike it before it, strikes or right after it shoots.

But we are very much on plan, and that's why I want to speak to the American people here. You hear a lot of noise about widening or new missions or speculation about what we should or should not be doing. This is a clear set of objectives. The president has given us every capability we need to accomplish that. We've got the best in the world in uniform executing it on the ground. they believe in and are invested in this mission and it will be at the president's choosing ultimately

where we say, hey, we've achieved what we need to on behalf of the American people to ensure our security. So no time set on that, but we're very much on track. All right, so listen, I wouldn't expect any clear answers from the Secretary of War only because he's in the middle of this. He's not going to go out there and give the enemy any indication about what they may or may not do. That's number one.

Number two, it's only been three weeks. So, you know, and I think that is a reality, too. And number three, like I said, previously, let's continue to rue for our men and women who are over there for their success. Now, here's the CIA director earlier today because yesterday, CIA director, FBI director, D&I, Tulsi Gabbard, all testified in front of the Senate regarding worldwide threats. Okay.

Well, now they're in front of the House of Representatives to do essentially the same thing. and the question was the same for the CIA director. Is it his opinion that this Iranian regime was on their way to building a nuclear weapon? Take a listen. Is the Iranian regime committed to America's destruction in your opinion? Yes. Does the Iranian regime have American blood on their hand since its founding in 1979? Yes.

Has Iran plotted assassination attempts against Americans on American soil? Yes. Was Iran developing a nuclear weapon prior to our military action last June? And did Iran remain committed to developing a nuclear weapon to lead up to this conflict. Yeah, so I want to clarify on that because there's been much talk about a fatwa against the development of a nuclear weapon. Can you come back to that one second? Let me finish this. Yeah, if left unchecked, do you think Iran would have the ability to develop missiles capable of reaching the United States? Yes. Did Israel force the U.S.'s hand and make us take action as some have

claimed? No. Director Gabbert, do you agree with the CIA as director of assessment on that last question in particular? So his position hasn't changed, won't change. We have to understand that this the CIA's playground here. Okay. I think that gets lost in all of this rhetoric. I think on one hand, one can argue, yep, it's the president who ultimately had agency here. But again, this is the playground for the CIA. And I don't think the president makes a decision without talking to Ratcliffe regarding this. Okay, if that makes that same thing in Venezuela. There's no way they executed that operation without including the CIA, if that all makes sense. So of course, he feels this way because he's on board with this. All right.

Let's go to Tulsi Gabbers. She's actually confronted about this resignation of Joe Kent, his language or his statement in that letter, whether she agrees or disagrees. Let's hear what she had to say. Take a listen. I also wanted to ask this because this week there was a high profile resignation of Director of National Counterterrorism Center. Now, I want to be clear from the outset. I've communicated directly with President Trump, my support for Operation Epic Fury. And I was very not only disappointed, but how inappropriate this last.

letter was, and I want to read a statement and get your personal assessment whether you agree or disagree with that. And that's this. Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First Platform and pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States and that you should strike now. There was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into a disastrous Iraq war. Now, I cannot say how much I disagree with that statement.

Do you agree or disagree with what this letter was put out by former director Kent? He said a lot of things in that letter. Ultimately, we have provided the president with the intelligence assessments, and the president is elected by the American people and makes his own decisions based on the information. that's available to him. But do you agree with, does that statement he made blaming Israel concern you? Yes. Okay.

So, listen, does it concern you? Well, in what context? Does it concern me that I agree with it and it's a problem? Or does it concern me because essentially this man worked under me? He resigned. It's a distraction. He's going against the president. Which one is it?

I wish there was a follow up there. That's number one. Number two, some people actually believe she's out of there, okay? That she's essentially been sidelined by the president. There's a difference of opinion between her and the president regarding what happened with Maduro. And since then, he has lost faith in her. Now, obviously, this is all speculation. So I'll let you hear it from the horse's mouth.

Bill O'Reilly told Chris Cuomo that last night. Take a listen. I don't particularly care about Tulsi Gabbard and whatever she's doing. I know that she has a title there. But I also know she was not involved with the Iranian situation at all. Ratcliffe and the CIA. run that show. The reason that Ms. Gabbard was not involved

was that she opposed Venezuela. She opposed going in and removing Maduro. When she did that, she lost all credibility with Donald Trump. No. Why is she still there? I don't know. She won't be there much longer. And that

DNI doesn't have any power right now in the Iranian situation. So that's a brief. I was busy down here in Washington. I'll tell you what. It was, and I got very, very good information again. In my heart of hearts, and I could be wrong because I'm not in the White House, that some of these individuals were not chosen because it is their expertise or they are the

number one expert on that particular position they're being nominated for. They were being nominated for really two things. One is unconditional loyalty. And two, because of number one, that they will follow the orders of the president. So essentially, a lot of the stuff that is happening is coming from the White House, whether that is Stephen Miller, Susie Wiles, or the president himself. They're just doing what they're being told to do ultimately. And we knew that is a reality.

And that's just a reality of all administrations technically at this point. All right. So no shocker there. But I think it's a great insight given what's happening. Now, let's go to this next question that was posed to Tosie Gabbard about the assessments that were being made that led up to this. conflict, listen to it for yourself. It is common practice for the IC to assess the timeline of all threats. Nuclear weapons development, ballistic, right?

Yes. Ballistic weapons development. Based on the information available, yes. Terrorist attacks. Same applies. Cyber attacks. Timelines for all of those, correct? When there is information available, that point to that, yes.

In likelihood, as well as the timeline, correct? Correct? Based on the information available. Timing is important, is it not? It is an important factor that goes into the assessment. So it is your position sitting here today that you made no timeline determination as to threats that Iran had facing the United States, correct? That's a very broad statement, but where the information is available, the intelligence

community factors that into their assessment products. You or the IC make any assessments as to the timing of potential threats facing the United States from Iran in the last 90 days? I'm sure there was timelines factored into the intelligence assessments that were delivered. Did any of them show imminence? The imminent nature of a threat is determined by the President based on a totality of the intelligence and information provided to him. Did any of them show that there were attacks anticipated?

within the next 90 days from Iran? It's too simplistic of a statement to say that, because it depends on various scenarios occurring or not occurring. Did those assessments show timelines for the threats that Iran posed to the United States? The totality of threats, yes, there were timelines involved, where it applied, and where that information was available. But again, to your question about the determination of imminence, the president makes that determination based on the totality of information

and intelligence. The bottom line is there is no eminent threat, and you know that, and there's no product that shows that. I yield back. Okay, so let's just break this down for you guys one more time. The word imminent, even people in the intelligence community internally debate the meaning of imminent. What are the thresholds?

What is the clear definition? What is the standard? It's constantly being debated. That when you involve politics, you'll never find anybody agreeing on anything, essentially. So then she says the smart thing, which is like at the end of the day, it's the president's judgment that decides if this threat, whether it's a small one, a large one, we believe it's imminent. We believe it's possible that it might be imminent. We believe it may not be imminent. He may still conclude otherwise that it's a threat to the interests of the United States of America and soldiers in the region are in harm's way.

So he's going to go ahead and move forward with it. He has the authority to do so. Now, what he does not have the authority to do is make this go on past 60 days without congressional approval. Just wanted to break that down for you guys. All right. One more for you. Here is this representative, a Democrat from California, pretty much trying to get Tulsi Gabbard to say that these strikes are unconstitutional. On February 28th, 2026, the Trump administration, under which you are the president's principal intelligence advisor,

launched an illegal and unconstitutional act of war, pushing our nation headlong into a war with Iran without any authorization from Congress. This war has already been costly and devastating. 13 American service members have lost their lives, including Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzen from my home of Sacramento, California. Approximately 200 service members have been wounded.

The Pentagon reported that the first six days of Operation Epic Fury cost $11.3 billion. That averages almost $2 billion per day. That was the first six days, and now we're in the 19th day of this war. That's ballooned into a regional conflict, putting the lives of Americans and our allies throughout the Middle East in danger. Director Gabbard, do you still believe that strikes against Iran that don't have congressional authorization constitute an illegal and unconstitutional act of war? This spring, performance, Idaho group invites drivers to upgrade with confidence. From March 26 to 28th, the spring upgrade sales event offers a $1,000 upgrade credit toward any new or pre-owned vehicle.

Plus, trade evaluations across their network deliver maximum market value for your vehicle. With competitive manufacturer rates and programs available, now is your moment to upgrade the Performance Auto Group Way. 39 stores, 23 brands, one upgrade event. March 26 to 28, visit Performance.ca.orgia slash upgrade sale for details. When Westcham first took flight in 1996, the vibes were, bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion. Inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJet welcomes you on board.

Here's to Westjetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. Congressman, thank you for the question. The cost of war weighs very heavily upon me and my colleagues here, especially for those of us who have experienced and seen the cost of war firsthand. My own personal and political views, as I mentioned earlier, I was asked and required by Congress and by the president in this role as the Director of National Intelligence to check those views at the door to ensure that the intelligence assessments are not colored by my personal views. And that's exactly what I am responsible to deliver.

The bottom line is Tossey Gabbard's very careful with her words. She is not going to say anything to contradict the president and what he wants here. Even if what Bill O'Reilly says, half of it is true. I think overall she's been doing a good job. Of course, there's going to be a difference of opinion between her and the president. She is in our heart of hearts a Democrat, not a Republican, not a conservative, just like the president in his heart of hearts is not truly a conservative. So there's always going to be some disagreement in my opinion.

But again, I think the bottom line here is the overall debate. of the word imminent and how Democrats are trying to weaponize that in order to undermine the President of the United States. So that's my thoughts about it. Why don't you guys share yours in the comments section, whether we're talking about DHS and the shutdown, how Democrats truly have admitted what they really want, which is to eliminate DHS as we know it. Or what about the $200 billion that the Pentagon is asking for? Now remember, Ukraine, they got so much more money than $200 billion. So I think that's fair to say. And then this hearing with Tosi Gavar, give me your thoughts and everything you got in the comment section below. Next story is a shocking one. So Joe Kitt,

the man who resigned as a director of the counterterrorism unit. All right, so let's go to our next story. The FBI just dropped some brutal news on Joe Kitt, who was just on Tucker Carlson, by the way, doubling down on his message that the president has been lying to people about this conflict and Iran. Well, they're investigating him now for leaking classified information. If you guys missed on that update more, click on the video because it's coming up right now.