>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“No, just no,” Cruz said bluntly, reacting to the hypothetical nomination.
“Hell no,” he added, leaving little doubt about his lack of interest in donning a black robe anytime soon.
Of course, even if Trump’s comment had been serious—and all indications suggest it was not—a Supreme Court nomination would require an open seat. Justices serve lifetime appointments, and there is currently no indication that any member of the Court plans to step down in the near future.
The Ruthless Podcast, hosted by Josh Holmes, Comfortably Smug, and John Ashbrook, is well-known for its candid conversations with Republican lawmakers. The hosts were the first to air Cruz’s reaction, ensuring the exchange quickly made its way into the broader political conversation.
While the remark was delivered in jest, it highlighted an important reality: despite a contentious history during the bruising 2016 Republican primary, Cruz remains firmly within Trump’s orbit. The relationship, while occasionally strained, has clearly endured.
Still, tensions have surfaced behind closed doors. Earlier this week, Axios reported that Cruz privately criticized Trump and Vice President JD Vance during a conversation with major donors, warning about the political consequences of economic instability.
“Mr. President, if we get to November of 2026 and people’s 401(k)s are down 30 percent and prices are up 10 to 20 percent at the supermarket, we’re going to go into Election Day and face a bloodbath,” Cruz reportedly told donors.
“You’re going to lose the House, you’re going to lose the Senate, and you’re going to spend the next two years being impeached every single week,” he added.
Trump was reportedly furious upon learning of the remarks.
“F you, Ted,” Cruz recounted Trump saying, according to the report.
The exchange comes amid growing speculation that Cruz is quietly laying the groundwork for a potential 2028 presidential run—a move that could once again place him on a collision course with Trump-aligned forces within the GOP.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court delivered a decision Wednesday that reignited the immigration debate. The Court declined to reinstate a Florida law that would have allowed state officials to prosecute migrants who entered Florida illegally. The unsigned order, issued in response to an emergency application, offered no explanation and noted that there were no dissents.
Florida’s law, SB 4-C, criminalizes entering the state after illegally entering the United States and evading immigration authorities. Notably, the Supreme Court previously allowed a similar law in Texas to take effect—raising serious questions about consistency and judicial reasoning.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, blocked the Florida law indefinitely, arguing that it was likely preempted by federal immigration authority and unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction, prompting Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to appeal to the high court.
In his filing, Uthmeier pushed back forcefully against claims that the law conflicts with federal authority.
“Florida carefully crafted both provisions to track, mimic, and depend upon federal immigration law precisely,” he wrote, adding that a contrary view “strikes at the heart of states’ ability to protect their citizens from the devastating effects of illegal immigration.”
As border chaos continues and courts tie the hands of states trying to act, Democrats—particularly in Minnesota—have ramped up rhetoric demonizing federal immigration agents. Their gaslighting campaign paints enforcement as extremism while ignoring the real-world consequences facing American communities.
Between internal GOP maneuvering, judicial double standards, and left-wing attacks on border enforcement, one thing is clear: the battle lines heading into 2026 and beyond are already being drawn—and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
