Mike Lindell, CEO MyPillow and a close ally of President Donald Trump, announced Thursday that he is running for Minnesota governor in 2026, seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Gov. Tim Walz. Lindell made the announcement at his MyPillow factory, accusing political opponents of targeting his business over his support for Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
Lindell said he plans to campaign across the state and acknowledged he has sought advice from Trump allies, though he did not say whether Trump would endorse him. Known nationally as the “MyPillow Guy,” Lindell became a prominent election denier after 2020, leading to major legal, financial, and reputational setbacks for him and his company.
Democrats quickly criticized his candidacy, calling him a far-right conspiracy theorist tied to Trump extremism. Lindell faces multiple defamation cases related to voting machine claims, with courts already ruling that he made false statements, though some damages issues remain unresolved.
Despite limited personal funds, Lindell said grassroots supporters nationwide are eager to donate. He vowed to make election integrity, including opposition to electronic vote tabulation, a key part of his platform, arguing that his personal struggles and business experience set him apart from other Republican contenders.
What do you think?
BREAKING: Pete Hegseth Introduces Bill to Crack Down on Secret Funding of Nationwide Protests
WASHINGTON — A newly introduced bill on Capitol Hill has triggered intense political debate after Rep. Pete Hegseth unveiled legislation aimed at tightening restrictions on what he describes as covert funding of protests and civil unrest in the United States.
The proposal, formally titled the Domestic Integrity and Anti-Covert Funding Act, was introduced amid heightened concerns among some lawmakers about foreign influence and opaque financial networks operating through nonprofit organizations and foundations.
Hegseth, speaking to reporters, said the legislation is designed to address what he called “hidden financial pipelines” that allegedly channel money into organized disruptions while avoiding public scrutiny.
“If you are funding chaos in this country from the shadows, you are not an activist,” Hegseth said. “You are engaged in criminal activity.”
Key Provisions of the Bill
According to a summary released by Hegseth’s office, the bill would expand the legal definition of organized criminal activity to include covert financing of protests, riots, or coordinated disruptions if such funding can be traced to foreign-backed entities or undisclosed financial networks.
Under the proposal:
Federal authorities could temporarily freeze assets linked to organizations found to be covertly financing unrest.
Certain funding patterns could be investigated under existing racketeering statutes.
Nonprofits and NGOs receiving foreign funds would face heightened disclosure and reporting requirements.
Supporters say the measure is intended to strengthen transparency and national security. Critics argue it could grant the federal government overly broad authority.
Immediate Pushback
Civil liberties organizations and progressive advocacy groups quickly condemned the bill, warning it could chill free speech and lawful protest.
In statements released within hours of the announcement, several groups described the proposal as “dangerous,” “overreaching,” and “a threat to constitutional rights,” arguing that existing laws already address criminal behavior without targeting protest movements.
Legal experts noted that any attempt to apply racketeering statutes to protest-related activity would face close judicial scrutiny.
“The courts will likely focus on intent, coordination, and direct links to criminal conduct,” said one constitutional law analyst. “Those standards are high.”
Political Reaction
The bill has drawn mixed reactions within Congress. Some Republican lawmakers praised it as long overdue, arguing that foreign influence has operated in “legal gray areas” for years. Others expressed concern about how broadly the term “covert funding” could be interpreted.
Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, accused Hegseth of using national security rhetoric to target political activism.
Political analysts said the proposal appears designed to force a broader debate over the boundary between legitimate protest and unlawful interference.
“Whether this bill advances or not, it puts the issue front and center,” said one congressional observer. “That alone has consequences.”
Next Steps
As of late Tuesday, the bill appeared to have enough initial support to move into committee review, though passage remains uncertain. Congressional aides described the atmosphere as “tense” and “highly charged,” with lobbying efforts intensifying on both sides.
Hegseth has repeatedly emphasized that the bill does not seek to criminalize protest itself.
“We are not criminalizing dissent,” he said in a follow-up interview. “We are targeting foreign-funded destabilization. There is a difference.”
Committee hearings are expected in the coming weeks, where lawmakers are likely to question how the bill would be enforced and whether its provisions could withstand constitutional challenges.
For now, the legislation has already succeeded in one respect: igniting a fierce national debate over activism, transparency, and foreign influence — a debate that is likely to intensify as the bill moves forward.