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?
Political Shockwave: Hegseth Moves to Crack Down on Foreign-Linked Protest Funding
A newly introduced bill from Rep. Pete Hegseth has sent shockwaves through Capitol Hill, igniting immediate debate over foreign influence, protest funding, and the limits of federal power.
Within minutes of the proposal’s announcement, congressional offices were flooded with calls, staffers hurried between buildings, and political observers rushed to assess what some lawmakers are already calling one of the most aggressive legislative efforts in years to target covert funding behind protest movements.
According to Hegseth’s office, the legislation — formally titled The Domestic Integrity and Anti-Covert Funding Act — is designed to crack down on what he describes as hidden financial networks that fuel unrest under the appearance of grassroots activism.
“This is not symbolic,” Hegseth said while unveiling the bill before reporters. “If you are funding chaos in this country from the shadows, you are not an activist — you are a criminal.”
RICO-Level Enforcement
Sources familiar with the proposal say the bill would allow federal authorities to treat covert funding of riots, organized disruptions, or coordinated protest campaigns as potential violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — a legal framework traditionally used against organized crime syndicates.
Under the draft language, foreign-backed foundations or NGOs found to be channeling funds into domestic protest movements could face immediate asset freezes, pending investigation.
Supporters argue the measure closes long-standing loopholes that allow foreign money to influence domestic unrest. Critics warn it could dramatically expand government authority over political expression.
Immediate Backlash
Civil liberties groups and progressive advocacy organizations condemned the proposal within hours, labeling it “dangerous,” “authoritarian,” and a threat to constitutionally protected protest activity.
Hegseth’s office responded by releasing additional materials later in the day, including financial tracing documents that officials claim show correlations between spikes in funding and outbreaks of violent unrest. Those documents have not yet been independently verified.
“If even part of this withstands legal scrutiny, it fundamentally changes the landscape,” one senior official who reviewed the draft said privately.
Divided Capitol
Behind closed doors, congressional aides described the mood as tense and divided. Some lawmakers expressed concern over how broadly the bill defines “covert funding,” while others said the proposal addresses an issue Congress has avoided for years.
“This isn’t about stopping protests,” one advisor said. “It’s about stopping money laundering disguised as activism.”
Political analysts remain split, with some accusing Hegseth of targeting ideological opponents, while others argue the bill reflects growing bipartisan anxiety about foreign influence operations inside the U.S.
Early whip counts suggest the bill has enough support to move into committee hearings, a development that has already unsettled philanthropic and financial circles. Several organizations reportedly adjusted public-facing grant information following the announcement, while legal teams across Washington moved into contingency planning.
Hegseth, meanwhile, has shown no signs of retreat.
“We are not criminalizing protest,” he said in a later interview. “We are criminalizing foreign-funded destabilization. There is a difference.”
Whether the proposal advances or stalls, few on Capitol Hill dispute its immediate impact. The legislation has injected new volatility into one of Washington’s most sensitive debates — and forced lawmakers, donors, and activists alike to brace for a confrontation that may only be beginning.
Divided Capitol
Behind closed doors, congressional aides described the mood as tense and divided. Some lawmakers expressed concern over how broadly the bill defines “covert funding,” while others said the proposal addresses an issue Congress has avoided for years.
“This isn’t about stopping protests,” one advisor said. “It’s about stopping money laundering disguised as activism.”
Political analysts remain split, with some accusing Hegseth of targeting ideological opponents, while others argue the bill reflects growing bipartisan anxiety about foreign influence operations inside the U.S.
What Comes Next
Early whip counts suggest the bill has enough support to move into committee hearings, a development that has already unsettled philanthropic and financial circles. Several organizations reportedly adjusted public-facing grant information following the announcement, while legal teams across Washington moved into contingency planning.
Hegseth, meanwhile, has shown no signs of retreat.
“We are not criminalizing protest,” he said in a later interview. “We are criminalizing foreign-funded destabilization. There is a difference.”
Whether the proposal advances or stalls, few on Capitol Hill dispute its immediate impact. The legislation has injected new volatility into one of Washington’s most sensitive debates — and forced lawmakers, donors, and activists alike to brace for a confrontation that may only be beginning.