SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal bureau of investigation
1 Person in Serious Condition After Border Patrol Shooting in Arizona
The group No More Deaths said that "we condemn all acts of violence from Border Patrol; call for a thorough investigation; and demand that the victim receive continued access to medical attention."
Jan 27, 2026
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
An Arizona sheriff confirmed Tuesday evening that a suspect is in "serious but stable" condition after a morning shooting that involved US Border Patrol—which is facing mounting scrutiny for its involvement in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operations.
During a press conference, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said that an agent conducted a traffic stop targeting someone believed to be involved in human trafficking. He said the suspect fled on foot and fired a gun, and an agent returned fire.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department (PCSD) is "working in coordination" with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which oversees Border Patrol.
An FBI representative at the press conference identified the suspect as 34-year-old Patrick Gary Schlegel. He faces various charges.
At around 7:30 am local time, the Santa Rita Fire District responded to the shooting near milepost 15 of West Arivaca Road in Pima County, just miles from the Border Patrol checkpoint in Amado and the US-Mexico border.
"Patient care was transferred to a local medical helicopter for rapid transport to a regional trauma center," the fire department said in a statement. "The incident remains under active investigation by law enforcement agencies."
The Associated Press reported that "the area is a common path for drug smugglers and migrants who illegally cross the border, so agents regularly patrol there."
PCSD said in a statement that FBI requests for the department to conduct investigations "are standard practice when a federal agency is involved in a shooting incident within Pima County and consistent with long-standing relationships built through time to promote transparency."
"We ask the community to remain patient and understanding as this investigation moves forward," the department also said. "PCSD will thoroughly examine all aspects of the incident, however, these investigations are complex and require time."
No More Deaths, a humanitarian aid group in the region, said that the incident "reflects a long history of violence from federal immigration enforcement. Since 2010, there have been 364 documented deadly encounters with Border Patrol. The number of deaths and disappearance due to Border Patrol enforcement is estimated to reach over 10,000."
"In the present moment, excessive use of force from federal agents has become especially visible. This past week, Border Patrol agents shot and killed a second legal observer in Minneapolis," the group noted. The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good have ramped up protests against Trump's "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota and demands for accountability across the country.
"As a humanitarian organization founded on the belief that all people deserve dignity, we condemn all acts of violence from Border Patrol; call for a thorough investigation; and demand that the victim receive continued access to medical attention," said No More Deaths, which also called for the abolition of Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
CBP and ICE are both part of the US Department of Homeland Security. The various shootings and other violence by DHS agents in recent months have fueled calls for the resignation or impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Trump.
Although the Trump administration has responded to the outrage in Minnesota by relocating a key official—the Atlantic reported Monday that "Gregory Bovino has been removed from his role as Border Patrol 'commander at large' and will return to his former job in El Centro, California, where he is expected to retire soon"—the president said Tuesday that Noem won't resign.
DHS violence has also complicated a congressional effort to prevent a federal government shutdown before the end of the month, given the growing number of lawmakers and people across the country demanding "no funds for ICE and Border Patrol."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Coalition Urges Congress to Probe FBI Raid of WaPo Journalist's Home
"We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Jan 23, 2026
Over a dozen press freedom groups on Friday urged congressional leaders to examine the Federal Bureau of Investigation's recent raid of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Virginia home and the seizure of her electronic devices as part of a probe into a government contractor accused of illegally possessing classified documents.
Their letter came after US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter—who authorized the FBI's search of Natanson's home in Alexandria—ruled Wednesday that prosecutors "must preserve but must not review" data on the journalist's phone, computers, and smart watch.
Noting that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) may have obtained the search warrant "under false pretenses and potentially in violation of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980," 17 groups argued that "congressional intervention is necessary because the FBI's January 14, 2026 raid of Natanson's home represents a perilous escalation in the executive branch's use of law enforcement powers against the free press and a citizenry that depends on fearless newsgathering."
"The available facts suggest... the weaponization of legal process to engage in a fishing expedition into more than 1,000 confidential sources cultivated by Natanson inside the federal workforce," the coalition wrote to top Republicans and Democrats on four relevant committees.
"By raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society."
Specifically, the letter explains, given that the criminal complaint doesn't accuse contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones of disseminating classified information, and he and his devices were already in custody when Natanson's house was searched, there is a "grim possibility" that the raid "was a pretextual attempt to threaten the press, to uncover whistleblowers, and to chill newsgathering unflattering to the government."
The Privacy Protection Act "allows law enforcement to conduct searches and seizures of journalists' work product materials only under narrow exceptions, such as where the journalist is alleged to be involved in a crime," notes the letter. "But again, the government has not accused Natanson of any wrongdoing."
"Congress has an independent and co-equal duty to oversee the Department of Justice," the missive stresses. "If the Department of Justice has nothing about its own conduct to hide from Congress and the public, this administration should welcome the opportunity to prove the necessity of its actions."
"If, however, federal officials have misled a judge in order to expose the identities of whistleblowers and to intimidate the press, Congress must know immediately," the coalition concluded. "We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Since returning to office a year ago, President Donald Trump has waged a "war on free speech," as the group Free Press detailed in a report last month. Highlighted actions include taking control of the presidential press pool, Trump's alarming speech to the DOJ, blocking the Associated Press from the Oval Office for using the term Gulf of Mexico, an executive order to defund National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service, suing over Wall Street Journal reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, threatening to sue over the BBC's documentary about January 6, 2021, the Pentagon's new press policy, and getting late-night host Jimmy Kimmel suspended.
Those actions are part of a broader crackdown on dissent targeting Trump critics, government employees who worked on accountability for January 6, and protesters—including people in the streets over the administration's anti-immigrant operations.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at Demand Progress, one of the organizations behind the new letter, said in a statement that "by raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society... Congress has a responsibility to investigate whether the government is undermining the First Amendment and a free press by targeting and threatening a reporter like this."
The other signatories are the American Society of Journalists and Authors, Amnesty International USA, Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the USA, Defending Rights and Dissent, Democratic Messaging Project, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Journalism and Women Symposium, Media and Democracy Project, National Press Photographers Association, PEN America, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Without Borders, and Society of Professional Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Searching Data Seized During Raid on Reporter's Home
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," said one free press defender.
Jan 21, 2026
A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter's electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an "unconstitutional and illegal" raid last week.
US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home—ruled that "the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued."
The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post's initial legal filings against the agent's actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.
Natanson—who describes her work as covering "Trump's reshaping of the government"—welcomed Wednesday's order.
"I need my devices back to do my job," she said on Bluesky.
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigators executed a warrant to search Natanson's Virginia home as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a federal contractor who is accused of illegally possessing classified documents. FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, her smart watch, and her personal and work laptops.
As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted, the criminal complaint for Perez-Lugones’ case contains no allegations that he gave classified documents to any Post reporter, as implied by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
The Post said that the seized devices “contain years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting."
“The government cannot meet its heavy burden to justify this intrusion, and it has ignored narrower, lawful alternatives,” the newspaper added.
As the Post noted Wednesday:
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters’ homes. The law allows such searches, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources...
The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. In 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. That issue was never tested in court because Assange and the government reached a plea deal in 2024.
"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” the Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant.”
Free press defenders cheered Porter's order.
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. "But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records."
"That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security," he added.
The search and seizure of @washingtonpost.com reporter @hannahnatanson.bsky.social's records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety.The judge was right to block it until a full hearing, at which time he should block it permanently.Read our statement: freedom.press/issues/judge...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) January 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM
“This is the first time in US history that the government has searched a reporter’s home in a national security media leak investigation, seizing potentially a vast amount of confidential data and information," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in a statement. "The move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case."
Wednesday's order came two weeks after the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Seth Harp, a journalist wrongly accused of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation’s president and his wife.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Grift': Trump Reportedly Wants $230 Million From Taxpayers for DOJ Probing Him
"The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it," said Pace University's Bennett Gershman. "It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."
Oct 21, 2025
President Donald Trump is facing fresh allegations of attempting to corruptly profit from his office after The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Republican is demanding that the US Department of Justice pay him about $230 million in taxpayer dollars for previous federal investigations into him, and his allies at the DOJ are expected to make the final decision.
Trump filed the administrative claims—which are submitted to the department for potential settlements to prevent lawsuits in federal court—before he returned to the White House earlier this year, people familiar with the matter told the newspaper. However, the president nodded to the legal battle in public comments at the White House last week.
"They raided my house in Florida. It was an illegal raid," the president said beside Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, US Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her deputy, Todd Blanche—Trump's former lead criminal defense lawyer and one of two people who can green-light such settlements.
"I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know," Trump continued. "How do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say, Give me X dollars, right? And I don't know what to do with the lawsuit. It's a great lawsuit. And now I won—it sort of looks bad. I'm suing myself, right?"
"Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there's not enough money for Americans' healthcare."
As the Times detailed Tuesday:
The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.
The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the FBI of violating Mr. Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents. It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
In addition to the deputy attorney general, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division can sign off on such settlements. That post is currently held by Stanley Woodward Jr. As the newspaper noted, Woodward previously represented not only Walt Nauta, the president's co-defendant in the classified documents case, but also "a number of other Trump aides, including Mr. Patel, in investigations related to Mr. Trump or the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021."
A White House representative referred questions to the DOJ, where spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."
Meanwhile, Pace University professor Bennett Gershman told the Times: "What a travesty... The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don’t need a law professor to explain it."
"And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses," he added. "It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."
Congressional Democrats, lawyers, journalists, and other critics also weighed in on Trump's reported conduct on social media, condemning it "corrupt and impeachable," "straight grift," and "straight up extorting the Justice Department and looting taxpayers."
"It's hard to think of an action more purely corrupt than a president ordering the executive branch to pay him hundreds of millions of dollars," said David French, a Times columnist and visiting professor of public policy at Lipscomb University. "I cannot wait to read the MAGA defenses of this (and there will be many). They'll display Soviet levels of sycophancy."
People's Policy Project president Matt Bruenig said that "suing the government in your personal capacity and then having the government, which you run, settle the lawsuit with you for money is the true infinite money trick."
Matthew Miller, the US State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, suggested that "this would be the most corrupt act in presidential history. No complicated schemes, no outside actors, just a straight-up looting of the taxpayers to put $230 million in Trump's pocket."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement:
It's difficult for a president who spent the past 10 months behaving like a wannabe dictator and demonstrating his contempt for the law to surprise us, but Donald Trump has managed to do it today. Instead of being content with getting away with his lawless behavior, Trump is now brazenly demanding compensation from taxpayers for having the audacity to treat him like a public servant who can be held accountable for wrongdoing.
There is no other way to put it: The authoritarian demagogue we call our president is drunk on power, and there is no amount of money that can satiate this grifter's appetite for hoarding wealth instead of using his presidency to serve the good of the country. This disgusting behavior must be called out and stopped.
The reporting came on day 21 of a federal government shutdown over congressional Republicans' refusal to reverse healthcare cuts expected to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans.
"Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there's not enough money for Americans' healthcare," declared US Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). "He has no shame. He is openly and boldly corrupt."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said: "What does Donald Trump need more of OUR money for? I guess it's good to be president when you can bully, intimidate, and shake down every institution in this country, including now the Department of Justice. This is what a mob boss looks like."
Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee were similarly critical, calling it "the ultimate Shutdown Shakedown."
"Donald Trump, who's put more than $3 billion in his pocket since returning to the White House, now wants to have 'his' lawyers at the DOJ to pay him $230 million in the middle of the GOP government shutdown," the panel members said. "While tens of millions of Americans desperately try to pay for groceries, healthcare, and childcare, Trump is robbing America blind. This is exactly why the Constitution forbids the president from taking any money from the government outside of his official salary. This is Donald Trump First, America Last—the Gangster State at work, billionaires shaking down the people."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the panel's ranking member—and manager of Trump's historic second impeachment—is launching an investigation into the potential settlement, citing the US Constitution's domestic emoluments clause.
Like the committee's Democrats, critics pointed to the various ways Trump and his family have cashed in on the presidency, from his Qatari jet to their cryptocurrency moves.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich concluded Tuesday that "America's Grifter-in-Chief knows no bounds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Bondi Testifies to Senate, DOJ Alumni Blast 'Appalling' Leadership
"It is incumbent on all of us to fight for the Justice Department before it's too late."
Oct 07, 2025
In the lead-up to US Attorney General Pam Bondi's Tuesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, hundreds of former employees of the Department of Justice and outside watchdog groups sounded the alarm about the current state of the DOJ.
"From prosecutors, special agents, and intelligence analysts to immigration judges, grant managers, civil rights attorneys, and more, we all carried out our duties faithfully, regardless of who occupied the White House. Until we no longer could," the 282 ex-DOJ employees wrote in a Monday letter released by the alumni network Justice Connection.
"Each of us left the department, either voluntarily or involuntarily, because of actions taken by this administration," they continued. "It is incumbent on all of us to fight for the Justice Department before it's too late."
The letter, first reported by MSNBC, calls out the DOJ for carrying out President Donald Trump's "retribution campaign," spreading lies about the "deep state," violating court orders, and inappropriately dismissing employees, including at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and attorneys in the Civil Rights Division.
"The administration is taking a sledgehammer to other long-standing work the department has done to protect communities and the rule of law, too," the letter notes, citing attacks on the Tax Division, the Public Integrity Section, FBI public corruption squads, and hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for at-risk communities.
"As for its treatment of its employees, the current leadership's behavior has been appalling," the letter adds. "Demonizing, firing, demoting, involuntarily transferring, and directing employees to violate their ethical duties has already caused an exodus of over 5,000 of us."
The letter urges DOJ leadership to "adhere to the legal guardrails and institutional norms," Congress to "exercise its oversight responsibilities far more vigorously," and fellow alumni and all Americans to speak out. It concludes that "our democracy is only as strong as the rule of law, and the rule of law can't survive without the principal institution that enforces it."
In a statement, Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection, echoed that warning: "For decades, the guiding tenet for those working at the department was to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. Many believe that's no longer possible."
"They're being asked to put loyalty to the president over the Constitution, the rule of law, and their professional ethical obligations," she added. "We're seeing the erosion of the Justice Department's fabric and integrity at an alarming pace. Our democratic system cannot survive without the primary institution that enforces the law."
Bondi and other DOJ leaders—particularly FBI Director Kash Patel—have faced mounting criticism throughout the second Trump administration, including for the attorney general's Day One memo arguing that department employees are expected to "zealously defend" the president's interests and policies.
"The abuse of the Justice Department under Bondi's watch has been rampant, including the recent high-profile and scandalous move to secure an indictment against former FBI Director Jim Comey after the president publicly demanded they do so, and despite the previous prosecutor’s claims of insufficient evidence," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a Tuesday statement.
"The DOJ has been in constant turmoil since Bondi took the helm, firing prosecutors who worked Capitol riot cases or investigated Trump and pushing out senior officials at the FBI," she continued. "At the same time, under her leadership, the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ, the section dedicated to fighting corruption from federal officials, has been reduced from a total of 36 employees to two."
"The Department of Justice is intended to be independent from the White House, not its revenge arm," Gilbert stressed. "Her tenure shows they have become exactly that."
Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk also issued a statement ahead of the Senate hearing. He said that "in her eight months as Attorney General, Pam Bondi has confirmed all warnings about her treating the office as an enforcer for Donald Trump's personal whims while also acting as a walking conflict of interest for her former lobbying firm and clients."
"It says it all that the former Qatar lobbyist Bondi penned a DOJ memo—i.e. corruption 'get out of jail free card'—allowing Donald Trump to use a gifted luxury super jet from the nation he's doing billions of dollars in crypto business with during and after his presidency," he continued.
"During her first Senate hearing," he wondered, "will Bondi answer for all these sweetheart deals she's supporting for the president and former lobbying clients while millions of working Americans are asked to choose between a continued government shutdown or losing their healthcare?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Chats Show Alleged Kirk Killer 'Doesn't Fit Into Any Tidy Narrative'
"He wasn't a Groyper. He also wasn't Antifa," said journalist Ken Klippenstein, who obtained Tyler Robinson's Discord messages and spoke with a childhood friend of the 22-year-old suspect.
Sep 16, 2025
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein on Tuesday challenged conflicting narratives circulating about Tyler Robinson by obtaining online chats and speaking with a childhood friend of the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating far-right activist Charlie Kirk.
Republican US President Donald Trump "and company portray the alleged Utah shooter as left-wing and liberals portray him as right-wing," Klippenstein wrote. "The federal conclusion will inevitably be that he was a so-called nihilist violent extremist (NVE); meanwhile, the crackdown has already begun, as I reported yesterday. The country is practically ready to go to war."
While Kirk's fatal shooting last week during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University has been widely condemned as political violence, the unnamed childhood friend told Klippenstein: “I think the main thing that’s caused so much confusion is that he was always generally apolitical for the most part... That's the big thing, he just never really talked politics, which is why it's so frustrating.”
“Everyone who knew him liked him and he was always nice, a little quiet and kept to himself mostly but wasn't a recluse,” the friend said, describing Robinson as a fan of the outdoors, video games—including Helldivers 2, the apparent source of some inscriptions on bullet casings found by authorities—and guns.
“Obviously he's okay with gay and trans people having a right to exist, but also believes in the Second Amendment,” according to the friend, who said that Robinson is bisexual and his family didn't know he was in a relationship with his transgender roommate.
Republican Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director Dan Bongino have publicly identified his roommate and romantic partner as Lance Twiggs—and said that Twiggs is cooperating with authorities and did not know of Robinson's alleged plan to kill Kirk.
Robinson—who ultimately ended authorities' manhunt for the shooter by turning himself in—appeared virtually for his first court hearing on Tuesday. He faces multiple charges, including aggravated murder, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
As Newsweek reported Tuesday, prosecutors have allegedly obtained text messages in which Robinson admits to Twiggs that he killed Kirk and discusses having to leave behind a rifle, later retrieved by authorities. Robinson reportedly told his parents that he targeted the Turning Point USA leader because "there is too much evil and the guy spreads too much hate."
In the wake of Kirk's death, many of his critics have also acknowledged his incendiary commentary on a range of topics. Right-wing figures and officials, including key members of President Donald Trump's administration, have responded by launching what Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called “the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country’s modern history.”
As Klippenstein wrote:
The federal government, the Washington crowd, and corporate media (based in Washington and New York) see the country in wholly partisan terms, Republican versus Democrat, Red versus Blue, old media versus social media, liberal versus conservative, right versus left, straight versus gay, and on and on. Charlie Kirk’s assassination (in Utah!) should remind us of the actual diversity of the nation, and of the cost of polarization that demonizes the other side.
No one in Robinson’s group is cheering or justifying the murder in any of the messages I reviewed. They’re just struggling to understand what their friend did. But Washington has become obsessed with the Discord chat, convinced it’s some kind of headquarters for the murder and cauldron of radicalization and conspiracy. Today FBI Director [Kash] Patel vowed to investigate “anyone and everyone in that Discord chat.”
What I see is a bunch of young people shocked, horrified, and searching for answers, like the rest of the country.
At least one person on Capitol Hill quickly took note of the reporting. Sharing it on the social media platform X, Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said: "This is very interesting. The more that comes out the more this doesn't fit into any tidy narrative other than a young man who made a bad choice with a gun."
Other journalists praised Klippenstein on X, saying: "Hey look it's real journalism," and "At the moment Ken Klippenstein has done the best reporting I've seen anywhere on Tyler Robinson."
Journalist Roger Sollenberger wrote: "This is the most valuable and insightful reporting yet on Tyler Robinson—citing current actual friends and messages from a Discord group he was in. And it underscores how stupid and irresponsible the rush has been to assign him to a political aisle."
Appearing before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Patel said the FBI is interviewing more than 20 people who were part of a Discord group with Robinson.
Responding on X, Klippenstein said: "The members of Tyler Robinson's Discord are just as shocked and traumatized by what happened as anyone. That the FBI is treating them like conspirators is so cruel it's stomach-turning."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump FBI Director 'Acted Unlawfully' and 'Deliberately Chose' to Politicize Agency: Lawsuit
Patel allegedly told an FBI official that "the FBI tried to put the president in jail and he hasn't forgotten it."
Sep 10, 2025
A new lawsuit alleges that Trump-appointed FBI Director Kash Patel knowingly broke the law during a campaign to politicize the entire agency.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, former FBI officials Brian Driscoll Jr., Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans claim that Patel "not only acted unlawfully but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people."
The complaint then laid out evidence of Patel's alleged lawbreaking, including a conversation in which the FBI director said that he had been directed by White House officials "to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump."
According to Driscoll, Patel told him that there was nothing he could do to prevent these agents from losing their jobs because "the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn't forgotten it." The complaint says Driscoll proceeded to inform Patel that firing FBI agents for this reason would be illegal, to which he responded that "he understood that and he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed."
The lawsuit also details a conversation that Driscoll had with Paul Ingrassia, a 29-year-old White House liaison who directly asked him questions of an overtly political nature, including:
- "Who did you vote for?"
- "When did you start supporting President Trump?"
- "Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?"
Driscoll refused to answer any of these questions, the lawsuit stated.
The complaint further sheds light on the actions of Emil Bove, a former Trump attorney who earlier this year was confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
During a meeting with Bove in late January, Driscoll and Jensen informed him that messages from the Office of Personnel Management urging federal employees to voluntarily resign or face potential termination were creating "panic and anxiety" among FBI agents.
Bove allegedly responded that creating panic and anxiety "was the intent" of the messages.
In addition to all this, the complaint offers insights into the way that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino react to criticism from right-wing influencers on social media.
In one instance, the complaint alleges, Patel and Bongino found themselves taking heat from some prominent accounts on X because they'd promoted Jensen, who had played a role investigating and prosecuting Trump-supporting Capitol rioters, to serve as acting director in charge of the Washington Field Office.
Patel, tired of the criticism he was receiving for promoting Jensen, asked him if he would consider filing defamation suits against the angry internet trolls to take some pressure off him.
"Jensen declined, noting that he was unconcerned with the viewpoints of online personalities and would remain focused on the FBI's mission," the complaint notes.
Driscoll, Jensen, and Evans were all ousted from the FBI this past August as part of what critics contend was an authoritarian purge whose goal was "to weaponize federal law enforcement and replace highly experienced public servants with political hacks eager to carry out Trump's retribution agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DC Residents' Anger at Fed Presence Grows as Poll Shows 'Overwhelming' Opposition to Trump Takeover
"A federalized takeover of any aspect of a city's operations will naturally create a backlash, and that is clearly happening here," said one expert on DC residents' reactions to the Trump takeover.
Aug 20, 2025
Residents of Washington, DC are getting increasingly fed up with US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and other federal law enforcement officials in their city.
Zeteo journalist Prem Thakker reported on Tuesday that residents in Columbia Heights jeered and shouted at masked federal agents in their local Metro station who were apparently there to assist transit police in holding train fare evaders accountable.
While at the station, Thakker observed agents from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standing around an alleged fare evader alongside the transit police. This led Thakker to ask a police officer on the scene whether it was really the best use of HSI and FBI's time to have them tackling petty crimes.
"He first said they weren't [helping enforce anti-fare evasion laws]; it was only the local police who responded," wrote Thakker. "It was a confusing response, given all the agents we just saw at the scene. We then got into a lengthy back-and-forth... I repeatedly tried to re-focus the conversation on ICE and other federal agencies' roles. He said he can't speak to other agencies, while maintaining that they were all supporting each other."
Thakker then exited the station and saw a large crowd of people chanting at federal agents and telling them to get out of their neighborhood. The agents subsequently got into their unmarked vehicles and drove out of the area, which led to cheers from residents.
One woman who jeered the federal agents explained to Thakker why she opposed having them patrol DC's streets.
"I've seen them, purposely, walk up to Latino-Americans that don't speak proper English and then say to them, 'You don't speak English, you're going with me'—[they] don't ask no name, no citizenship, no anything," she told Thakker. "It's heartbreaking to see that these people come here to make their life different in America, and it's being sabotaged."
Data suggests that opposition to the presence of federal agents in the nation's capital is widespread. A poll of DC residents conducted by The Washington Post found that they "overwhelmingly" oppose Trump's deployment of National Guard and federal agents in their city.
All told, 79% of DC residents surveyed said they were opposed to Trump's actions, compared to only 17% who said they were supportive. What's more, the percentage of residents who said they "strongly oppose" the deployments stood at 69%, indicating broad and intense opposition to the president's initiative.
Mark Rozell, dean of George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government, told the Post that it was little surprise that DC residents are rebelling against Trump's attempted takeover of their city's law enforcement operations.
"A federalized takeover of any aspect of a city's operations will naturally create a backlash, and that is clearly happening here," he said. "Residents are saying [crime] is not as bad as the president claims, and they want to reclaim the image of their city against a presidential narrative that is tarnishing DC's reputation."
Over the weekend, hundreds of DC residents took part in "Free DC" protests against the Trump takeover, and organizers have pledged to make them at least a weekly occurrence over the next several months.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Uses King’s Legacy as a Distraction at Best and a Target at Worst
When Trump released the MLK FBI files, privacy concerns and an ideological assault on King’s memory had little meaning for Trump as he tried to escape his Epstein crisis by any means necessary.
Aug 18, 2025
On January 20, Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office with—at least in his mind—an aura of invincibility. A fully compliant Congress was controlled by Republicans who were, in turn, controlled by him. Conservative justices, three of whom he had appointed, dominated the Supreme Court. The defeated opposition, the Democratic Party, seemed distinctly befuddled and weak.
Trump then smashed and bullied his way through his first 100 days, ruling via dictator-like decrees—executive orders—and carrying out retribution at every turn. Democracy’s redlines were crossed daily, and his MAGA base remained passionately loyal even as the rest of the nation soured watching him do little to make the country better.
However, his “realignment” was never faintly as broad or as solid as he pretended it was. For example, while he made gains with Black voters in the 2024 election, rising from 8% in 2020 to 15%, the last six months have seen a dramatic change in that support. In January 2025, according to a YouGov poll, Black Americans’ disapproval of Trump was at about 69%. By June, it had risen to about 85%. Through it all, however, his support among Republicans continued to hover between 88% and 95%.
Then, of course, came the Jeffrey Epstein crisis. Trump himself seeded conspiracies surrounding the dead pedophile and his accomplices at rallies and in social media postings. He minimized his 20-year friendship with both Epstein and his girlfriend (and convicted child trafficker) Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her part in their horrific crimes. Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel each claimed at some point to have evidence that would expose a “deep-state” cover-up in the case, while bizarre stories of global pedophile rings led by Democrats animated MAGA as much as Trump’s “build the wall” dreams.
The MAGA faithful were waiting for the deliverable. Trump, however, found himself trapped, knowing that he’s part of whatever materials exist and that he will not look good (whether he did anything illegal or not) if the Epstein files are actually released. His constantly changing excuses have spread dissent among his own worshipers and led a panicked Trump to throw out any shiny objects he could think of to change the subject.
Pay Attention to the Shiny Object Over There
On July 21, as part of his Epstein Distraction Campaign, Trump released more than 230,000 pages of FBI and government files related to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968. The more than 6,000 files include FBI documents related to the killing, most of which are not new, according to experts who have reviewed them. They do not, however, include the agency’s nefarious wiretaps of King that are scheduled for release in 2027. There was, of course, neither rhyme nor reason to Trump’s dispersal of those files at that moment.
The president’s claim was that he was keeping a promise he had made when he returned to the White House in January. Within a few days of being in office, on January 23, Trump issued Executive Order 14176 with instructions for the declassification and release of files related to the assassinations of King, John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy. It was a feint at transparency meant to feed the anti-federalist conspiracists in his base. For decades, a cadre of Americans has believed that there was a government-backed cover-up of those killings. In the modern era, the “deep-state” adherents of MAGA world and online extremists have indeed kept those fantasies circulating.
Martin Luther King III and Bernice King, the surviving King children, were advised of the release and opposed it. They then issued a statement that read in part, “While we support transparency and historical accountability, we object to any attacks on our father’s legacy or attempts to weaponize it to spread falsehoods. We strongly condemn any attempts to misuse these documents in ways intended to undermine our father’s legacy and the significant achievements of the movement.” Bernice would later post on social media, “Now, do the Epstein files,” making it clear that she was not fooled by Trump’s flaccid bait-and-switch game. Of course, privacy concerns and an ideological assault on their father and his legacy have little meaning for Trump as he tries to escape his Epstein crisis by any means necessary.
The president’s efforts to roll back the 20th century and overthrow everything King stood for have helped him forge allies with some of the most extreme elements in the nation.
What the King family, scholars, and followers of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy are legitimately worried about is that the content of those files may serve to reenergize the long and shameful history of the FBI’s attacks on the late civil rights leader. Under the dictatorial rule of then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, the agency surveilled, wiretapped, and harassed King and other Black leaders relentlessly during his lifetime.
It was the FBI that tried to convince King to commit suicide. It was the FBI that sent information to news outlets accusing King of being controlled by communists. It was the FBI that fostered conflicts and divisions both among Black activists and between the civil rights Movement and white allies. Accusations of womanizing were issued to newspapers to embarrass and discredit King. The purpose, as clear as a bell, was to destroy him, his leadership, and the movement.
More broadly, the FBI’s Cointelpro (counter-intelligence program), which officially lasted from 1956 to 1971, sought to annihilate movements for justice, fairness, democracy, peace, and inclusion in the 1950s and beyond. Lives were ruined and campaigns suffered setbacks for exercising legitimate and constitutionally protected free speech and protest rights. Despite the exposure of its many, many crimes, for the most part, neither the FBI nor Hoover were held accountable for what they had done. Hoover, in fact, died of a heart attack while still director in May 1972.
Investigations by scholars and even Congress have since uncovered a wide range of illegal and unethical behavior by the federal government as it sought to disrupt and destroy the civil rights and other movements of the period. It would be decades, however, before the FBI itself offered anything close to an apology, let alone any effort to repair the carnage it had wrought.
When James Comey assumed the role of FBI director in 2013, he made a bit of a mea culpa. In his inaugural speech, he called the agency’s treatment of King “abuse and overreach,” an appropriate (if exceedingly mild) acknowledgement and rebuke of its deplorable and criminal conduct toward him and other racial and social justice activists. And as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted in “Unleashed and Unaccountable, The FBI’s Unchecked Abuse of Authority,” a report released at that time, the agency’s violations of rights were then still continuing, particularly against people of color, immigrants, and Muslims.
The current FBI director, Trump loyalist, and true believer Kash Patel is seen as anything but a friend of civil rights and civil liberties. Besides being unqualified for the job, having never served in a serious senior law enforcement position, he’s an election denier and an advocate of Trump’s desire for retribution against his perceived enemies. Prior to becoming FBI director, he had published his own enemies list. His nomination as director was denounced by the ACLU, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many other civil rights and civil liberties organizations.
With Trump’s blessing (essentially orders), Patel began purging the FBI of agents and investigators who had worked successfully on cases involving the pro-Trump January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and others simply seen as not sufficiently MAGA or supplicant enough to the president. His job is to crush the bureau as part of a Trumpian revenge fantasy, while weaponizing its authority for political purposes. If there is information in the released King documents that might embarrass the FBI, so be it. But there is little doubt that the Epstein files, which could actually put Trump in a compromised position, even though his name has reportedly been redacted in them, will never see the light of day.
Whatever may or may not be in the files Trump did release, it’s a stretch to believe that his concern in releasing them had anything to do with truth and openness regarding what happened to King or the Kennedys, rather than a distraction from his own situation. In fact, Trump has failed to criticize in any fashion the MAGA supporters who have been on an anti-King rampage in recent years. His feral sense of survival tells him that King is too much of an icon to go directly after him, while quoting him on occasion is a way, however superficial, of trying to win more Black support.
King Under Far-Right Attack
It’s been quite a different matter for other significant MAGA figures. In such an anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), anti-woke era, Trump-loving far-right activists have, in fact, repeatedly and viciously attacked King. Typically, for instance, in December 2023, Charlie Kirk, founder of the far-right Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and frequently seen with Trump, insisted that King’s reputation was overblown and that he was “awful” and “not a good person.” In particular, he called the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA), the result of one of King’s most significant and defining campaigns and a giant step forward for the nation, a “huge mistake.” In his view, the CRA established a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy,” a perspective that perfectly fits Trump’s ongoing blitzkrieg against all the accomplishments of the civil rights and racial justice movements.
Nor is Kirk faintly alone. Other TPUSA associates and allies have joined his crusade. Far-right activist Blake Neff, an associate of Kirk, typically has accused King of not really being a “peaceful activist,” but actually advocating for an activism that became “a very violent thing.” Naturally, Neff provided no evidence to back up such an assertion.
Yet another TPUSA spokesperson, Andrew Kolvet, has also fed such attacks. In an email, for instance, he wrote: “A core part of this fake history of America is the elevation of MLK into a saint, whose entire being is beyond reproach and above question. This sanctified version of MLK strips away his actual views and ignores his actual actions.”
In the past, like many conservatives, including Trump, they also sometimes misappropriated King’s words to attempt to deradicalize him. Kirk used to refer to him as a “hero” and the TPUSA website sold a T-shirt with King’s name and stickers that had King saying, “Let freedom ring.” But that was yesteryear.
Some Black MAGA personalities pushed back against Kirk, including Reverend Darrell Scott, who called him “an a-hole” and “a racist.” Scott was a high-profile Black advocate for Trump, especially during his first term, and remains loyal to him. He charged that Kirk wants to bring “white superiority attitudes” back to the Republican Party. Scott, of course, has long ignored or excused Trump’s attitude of “white superiority.”
Conservative media personality Armstrong Williams, who has kept a bit of distance from Trump, also criticized Kirk. He suggested he do more reading on US and Black history.
However, Black far-right condemnation was anything but universal. Chicago-based MAGA promoter Bishop Aubrey Shines and TPUSA Director of Black Outreach Pierre Wilson both went on Kirk’s podcast defending his attacks on King, insisting Kirk was not a racist, and adding their own venom to the mix. Wilson, for instance, stated, “Maybe just maybe he’s not the hero that everyone said he is.”
The Anti-King Trump
In Trump’s second term, propelled by his all-in, full-spectrum anti-DEI agenda, there’s no longer any need for his followers to pretend there’s anything about Martin Luther King Jr., however distorted, that needs to be praised. The president’s efforts to roll back the 20th century and overthrow everything King stood for have helped him forge allies with some of the most extreme elements in the nation. It’s always been the case for Trump that any positive mention of King was performative and meaningless. What matters now, however, are the actual policies and laws that Trump has promulgated, which are meant to wipe a King-like view of this country from the face of the Earth.
Although Trump was a teenager during King’s last years, there is no record of his participation in or concern for the civil rights and racial justice issues of that era. In fact, the only policy relationship to Blacks that he had then lay in the way he and his father violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which King had championed in his last days and which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 10, 1968, only six days after King was murdered.
In 1973, Donald Trump first broke into the news in New York and nationally when Trump properties in that city were sued by the Department of Justice for refusing to rent to African Americans. After a years-long court fight, a consent decree was signed in which Donald and his father, Fred Trump, admitted no guilt but were forced to change their rental practices. However, despite their denials, a later New York Times investigation “uncovered a long history of racial bias at his family’s properties, in New York and beyond.”
Donald Trump would, of course, love for the debate to shift to what the FBI—“the deep state”—did to King, and to see liberals and conservatives alike spin off on that tangent and forget about his Epstein troubles.
In our time, Trump’s attacks on civil rights and voting rights belie any rhetoric he may spew on King’s birthday or other occasions. In his first term, and with far less restraint the second time around, Trump has, in fact, sought to roll back decades of achievements in the areas of racial and social justice and democracy that King and so many others fought and died for. He’s taken a wrecking ball to institutions, programs, and policies throughout the federal government that were put in place to advance the full inclusion of people of color, women, the disabled, and the LGBTQ community. The attack on DEI is more broadly an effort to erase the hard-won gains that have evolved in the years from the passage of the post-Civil War 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal to President Johnson’s Great Society to the Black Lives Matter uprisings, while establishing an unchallengeable fascist state and authoritarian presidency.
The pushback against the expansion of rights from Ronald Reagan’s presidency to the Trumpian moment confronted laws that were passed, policies put in place, agencies that were established, and sometimes weak but stable democratic structures that limited the harm that could be done—until, that is, the Trump and MAGA movement. After only six months in office the second time around, driven by numerous unlawful decrees, nearly every department and agency in the federal government has eliminated its civil rights enforcement division. Discrimination cases involving people of color have been dismissed. Laws to fight bigotry continue to go unenforced. As Nikole Hannah Jones wrote in the New York Times, the administration is sending “a powerful message to American institutions that discrimination will not be punished.”
Donald Trump would, of course, love for the debate to shift to what the FBI—“the deep state”—did to King, and to see liberals and conservatives alike spin off on that tangent and forget about his Epstein troubles, his failing and flailing tariff war, and the growing unpopularity of his Big Ugly Budget and his recission proposal. A significant part of his base, which he consciously cultivated to a cult-like fidelity, is righteously angered and demanding answers. His deflections when caught in a lie or a scandal have long worked to move past the immediate crisis, but maybe, just maybe, not this time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Residents Revolt as 'Free DC' Protests Target Trump's National Guard Deployment
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Aug 17, 2025
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy