update - Trump ballroom secret corporate donors' list leaked - more corruption
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
During a hearing on Tuesday morning, October 28, Gregory Bovino — the U.S. Border Patrol chief in charge of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in Chicago — appeared in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis. And the judge wanted answers, aggressively confronting Bovino about incidents of excessive force during the immigration raids in that city.
Politico's Shia Kapos detailed their exchanges in a thread posted on X, formerly Twitter, that morning. Later, Block Club Chicago reporter Mina Bloom described the hearing in an article published in the afternoon.
According to Kapos, Bovino entered the courtroom in his green fatigues — and Ellis "immediately" called him to the stand, reminding him of the "obligation we each have under the Constitution" to tell the truth.
Bovino, Kapos tweeted, wasted no time before she started grilling Bovino and demanded answers about the raids in Chicago. And she voiced her concerns about a range of issues, from agents failing to adequately identify themselves to agents not using bodycams.
Kapos tweeted, "Judge is now discussing concerns that agents don't always identify themselves. Bovino says: 'I instructed all agents under my command to ... place an identifier conspicuously on their uniform.' The reason it's no always seen, he says, is because equipment may cover it ... Next, judge urges Bovino to make sure agents wear cameras. 'The cameras are your friend,' said the judge. Asked if he wears one, (Bovino) says he has not received body-worn camera or training. She says 'how about by Friday' you get one."
Ellis, according to Kapos, was quite aggressive when it came to grilling Bovino about use of excessive force.
Kapos noted, "Judge Ellis pulls out a file of 'violations over the last week or so' including a woman who says two agents were on top of her, one with his knee on her back 'and no visible identification' and another instance when a chemical spray was deployed, 'and there was no warning' ... Bovino responds to the judge, saying, 'I believe each situation is dependent on the situation. I would want to learn more before I say anything one way or another ... I don't know all the facts.'"
Ellis noted an incident involving children in Halloween costumes.
According to Kapos, "Now judge is zeroing in on the case of kids in Halloween costumes celebrating Halloween in their Old Irving Park neighborhood. 'I can only imagine how terrified they were.' Judge says. 'Their sense of safety was shattered... it should have been a really happy day.'"
The judge also stressed that protesters have a right to peacefully demonstrate — regardless of whether Bovino likes it or not.
Kapos tweeted, "Judge is scanning through complaints: tear gas thrown, another agent without identification. Regarding protesters or others yelling at agents, "they don't have to like what you're doing. And that's OK. ...they can't get tear-gassed."
Judge gives Trump Border Patrol commander an ultimatum after multiple 'violations'
Politico's Shia Kapos detailed their exchanges in a thread posted on X, formerly Twitter, that morning. Later, Block Club Chicago reporter Mina Bloom described the hearing in an article published in the afternoon.
According to Kapos, Bovino entered the courtroom in his green fatigues — and Ellis "immediately" called him to the stand, reminding him of the "obligation we each have under the Constitution" to tell the truth.
Bovino, Kapos tweeted, wasted no time before she started grilling Bovino and demanded answers about the raids in Chicago. And she voiced her concerns about a range of issues, from agents failing to adequately identify themselves to agents not using bodycams.
Kapos tweeted, "Judge is now discussing concerns that agents don't always identify themselves. Bovino says: 'I instructed all agents under my command to ... place an identifier conspicuously on their uniform.' The reason it's no always seen, he says, is because equipment may cover it ... Next, judge urges Bovino to make sure agents wear cameras. 'The cameras are your friend,' said the judge. Asked if he wears one, (Bovino) says he has not received body-worn camera or training. She says 'how about by Friday' you get one."
Ellis, according to Kapos, was quite aggressive when it came to grilling Bovino about use of excessive force.
Kapos noted, "Judge Ellis pulls out a file of 'violations over the last week or so' including a woman who says two agents were on top of her, one with his knee on her back 'and no visible identification' and another instance when a chemical spray was deployed, 'and there was no warning' ... Bovino responds to the judge, saying, 'I believe each situation is dependent on the situation. I would want to learn more before I say anything one way or another ... I don't know all the facts.'"
Ellis noted an incident involving children in Halloween costumes.
According to Kapos, "Now judge is zeroing in on the case of kids in Halloween costumes celebrating Halloween in their Old Irving Park neighborhood. 'I can only imagine how terrified they were.' Judge says. 'Their sense of safety was shattered... it should have been a really happy day.'"
The judge also stressed that protesters have a right to peacefully demonstrate — regardless of whether Bovino likes it or not.
Kapos tweeted, "Judge is scanning through complaints: tear gas thrown, another agent without identification. Regarding protesters or others yelling at agents, "they don't have to like what you're doing. And that's OK. ...they can't get tear-gassed."
Judge gives Trump Border Patrol commander an ultimatum after multiple 'violations'
White House fires entire commission set to review Trump’s beloved $300 ballroom design
The White House, Tuesday, fired all six members of a commission that would have reviewed several of President Donald Trump’s construction projects, including the new White House ballroom and the Arc de Triomphe-style monument.
In an email to the six members of the Commission of Fine Arts, who were all appointed by former President Joe Biden, officials told them they were “terminated, effective immediately,” according to the Washington Post.
The commission is tasked with giving expert advice to the president, Congress and D.C. government on design and aesthetic matters. They review designs for memorials, coins, medals, and new or renovated buildings. However, the White House has said permission from the Commission of Fine Arts is not required to move forward with the $300 million ballroom construction, unlike permission from the National Capital Planning Commission.
A White House official confirmed the firing and said in a statement that the administration is “preparing to appoint a new slate of members to the commission that are more aligned with President Trump’s America First Policies.”
In July, the White House also fired Biden appointees on the National Capital Planning Commission, the agency required to review construction projects in the nation’s capital. That commission is now comprised mostly of Trump loyalists.
The administration is expected to send Trump’s White House ballroom plans to the National Capital Planning Commission in the near future. However, it’s unclear if they plan to send those plans to the Commission of Fine Arts or if it is legally required.
The Commission of Fine Arts, established in 1910, is composed of experts in art, architecture, urban design and other relevant disciplines.
Bruce Becker, an architect who sat on the commission, told the Washington Post the agency “plays an important role in shaping the way the public experiences our nation’s capital and the historic building it contains, which serves as symbols of our democracy.”
Trump shows off models of the proposed ‘Independence Arch’ - the monument that will mark the United States’s 250th anniversary, another one of his construction projects. (Getty Images)
Trump has received backlash for tearing down the East Wing of the White House to make room for the new $300 million ballroom. The East Wing, largely considered a historic part of the White House, is where the First Lady and her staff are housed.
Administration officials, as well as the president, have defended their decision to tear down the East Wing, claiming they did not need permission for demolition and that it was necessary for structural reasons.
The ballroom is just one of the many projects the president has undertaken to make the White House more comfortable for himself.
Trump also paved over a portion of the White House Rose Garden to make room for a Mar-a-Lago-style patio, hung portraits of every president along the West Wing colonnade, exempting Biden and decorated the Oval Office in gilded details.
Earlier this month, the president pitched an idea for an Arc de Triomphe-style monument in Washington, D.C., called the “Independence Arch” in honor of the U.S.’s upcoming 250th anniversary celebration.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable whe
The White House, Tuesday, fired all six members of a commission that would have reviewed several of President Donald Trump’s construction projects, including the new White House ballroom and the Arc de Triomphe-style monument.
In an email to the six members of the Commission of Fine Arts, who were all appointed by former President Joe Biden, officials told them they were “terminated, effective immediately,” according to the Washington Post.
The commission is tasked with giving expert advice to the president, Congress and D.C. government on design and aesthetic matters. They review designs for memorials, coins, medals, and new or renovated buildings. However, the White House has said permission from the Commission of Fine Arts is not required to move forward with the $300 million ballroom construction, unlike permission from the National Capital Planning Commission.
A White House official confirmed the firing and said in a statement that the administration is “preparing to appoint a new slate of members to the commission that are more aligned with President Trump’s America First Policies.”
In July, the White House also fired Biden appointees on the National Capital Planning Commission, the agency required to review construction projects in the nation’s capital. That commission is now comprised mostly of Trump loyalists.
The administration is expected to send Trump’s White House ballroom plans to the National Capital Planning Commission in the near future. However, it’s unclear if they plan to send those plans to the Commission of Fine Arts or if it is legally required.
The Commission of Fine Arts, established in 1910, is composed of experts in art, architecture, urban design and other relevant disciplines.
Bruce Becker, an architect who sat on the commission, told the Washington Post the agency “plays an important role in shaping the way the public experiences our nation’s capital and the historic building it contains, which serves as symbols of our democracy.”
Trump shows off models of the proposed ‘Independence Arch’ - the monument that will mark the United States’s 250th anniversary, another one of his construction projects. (Getty Images)
Trump has received backlash for tearing down the East Wing of the White House to make room for the new $300 million ballroom. The East Wing, largely considered a historic part of the White House, is where the First Lady and her staff are housed.
Administration officials, as well as the president, have defended their decision to tear down the East Wing, claiming they did not need permission for demolition and that it was necessary for structural reasons.
The ballroom is just one of the many projects the president has undertaken to make the White House more comfortable for himself.
Trump also paved over a portion of the White House Rose Garden to make room for a Mar-a-Lago-style patio, hung portraits of every president along the West Wing colonnade, exempting Biden and decorated the Oval Office in gilded details.
Earlier this month, the president pitched an idea for an Arc de Triomphe-style monument in Washington, D.C., called the “Independence Arch” in honor of the U.S.’s upcoming 250th anniversary celebration.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable whe
Supreme Court hints at Voting Rights Act decision
The Supreme Court is weighing a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map that could roll back Voting Rights Act protections and reshape elections across the South.
Justices hint at change
The Court spent two and a half hours hearing arguments. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The Court spent two and a half hours in arguments, during which its six conservative justices signaled they might strike down Louisiana’s Black-majority congressional district. The decision could reshape the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the landmark Civil Rights legislation that opened the ballot to Black Americans. A ruling in Louisiana’s favor would allow southern legislatures to redraw districts, potentially reducing Black and Latino representation.
Voting Rights debate
Roberts and Kavanaugh took a different approach in arguments. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
In a 5-4 decision two years ago, the Court found that Alabama’s congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices. However, the two justices have adopted a different tone this time around. The chief justice noted that the Alabama ruling was narrowly based on its specific facts and should not automatically apply to Louisiana. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, asked civil rights lawyer Janai Nelson whether the use of race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act should come to an end, rather than “allowing it to extend forever.
Trump’s take
The Trump administration pushed to invalidate the district. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The court has now asked the parties to address “whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Siding with a group of white voters, Louisiana and the Trump administration pushed to invalidate the district. This led Justice Sonia Sotomayor to say that their “bottom line is just get rid of Section 2.”
Justice Department pushes back
Only 15 of 60 Black lawmakers serve majority-Black districts. (Hunters Race/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
Hashim Mooppan, representing the Justice Department, countered that lawmakers would not be motivated to remove all majority-Black districts, which could produce swing districts that threaten Republican seats. Mooppan pointed out that only 15 out of 60 Black House members come from majority-Black districts. “But even if you eliminated Section 2 entirely, fully 75% of the Black congressmen in this country are in districts that are not protected by Section 2,” he added.
Case context
The Court will rule by early summer 2026. (Tingey Injury Law Firm/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
In 2022, Louisiana’s legislature redrew congressional districts to reflect population changes from the 2020 census. The changes largely kept the existing balance, with five majority-white districts favoring Republicans and one majority-Black district leaning Democratic. Civil rights groups challenged the map, and a lower court ruled that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters. To comply with the court ruling, the state drew a new map. However, in a separate lawsuit, white Louisiana voters claimed that race had been the primary factor in the redistricting. A three-judge panel sided with them, paving the way for the current Supreme Court case. A decision from the high court is expected by early summer 2026.
The Supreme Court is weighing a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map that could roll back Voting Rights Act protections and reshape elections across the South.
Justices hint at change
The Court spent two and a half hours hearing arguments. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The Court spent two and a half hours in arguments, during which its six conservative justices signaled they might strike down Louisiana’s Black-majority congressional district. The decision could reshape the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the landmark Civil Rights legislation that opened the ballot to Black Americans. A ruling in Louisiana’s favor would allow southern legislatures to redraw districts, potentially reducing Black and Latino representation.
Voting Rights debate
Roberts and Kavanaugh took a different approach in arguments. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
In a 5-4 decision two years ago, the Court found that Alabama’s congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices. However, the two justices have adopted a different tone this time around. The chief justice noted that the Alabama ruling was narrowly based on its specific facts and should not automatically apply to Louisiana. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, asked civil rights lawyer Janai Nelson whether the use of race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act should come to an end, rather than “allowing it to extend forever.
Trump’s take
The Trump administration pushed to invalidate the district. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The court has now asked the parties to address “whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Siding with a group of white voters, Louisiana and the Trump administration pushed to invalidate the district. This led Justice Sonia Sotomayor to say that their “bottom line is just get rid of Section 2.”
Justice Department pushes back
Only 15 of 60 Black lawmakers serve majority-Black districts. (Hunters Race/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
Hashim Mooppan, representing the Justice Department, countered that lawmakers would not be motivated to remove all majority-Black districts, which could produce swing districts that threaten Republican seats. Mooppan pointed out that only 15 out of 60 Black House members come from majority-Black districts. “But even if you eliminated Section 2 entirely, fully 75% of the Black congressmen in this country are in districts that are not protected by Section 2,” he added.
Case context
The Court will rule by early summer 2026. (Tingey Injury Law Firm/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
In 2022, Louisiana’s legislature redrew congressional districts to reflect population changes from the 2020 census. The changes largely kept the existing balance, with five majority-white districts favoring Republicans and one majority-Black district leaning Democratic. Civil rights groups challenged the map, and a lower court ruled that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters. To comply with the court ruling, the state drew a new map. However, in a separate lawsuit, white Louisiana voters claimed that race had been the primary factor in the redistricting. A three-judge panel sided with them, paving the way for the current Supreme Court case. A decision from the high court is expected by early summer 2026.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly ordered the Pentagon to oust disloyal civilian workers — whom he likened to "debris" — as part of a broad effort to remove people who don't subscribe to President Donald Trump's agenda.
The Washington Post reported on a memo issued just days before the government shutdown started that removed key protections to make it easier to get rid of such workers.
The memo sparked concerns among the Pentagon workforce and circulated over the last week, The Post reported Tuesday. The new guidelines were defined in a memo titled "Separation of Employees with Unacceptable Performance” dated Sept. 30 and directed managers to move with "speed and conviction" to fire employees whose performance reviews were "unacceptable" last month.
"The civilian firings are part of a larger effort by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that aims to get rid of the 'debris' he claims is obstructing his mission to deliver on President Donald Trump’s agenda," The Post reported.
“The sooner we have the right people, the sooner we can advance the right policies. Personnel is policy,” Hegseth said in September during his speech to hundreds of top military brass at Marine Corps Base Quantico.
“The Department is in the process of adapting to the new guidance outlined in Under Secretary of War Tata’s memo from September 30th and we have nothing specific to share at this time,” the Pentagon said in a statement to The Post.
Sean Timmons, a managing partner at the firm Tully Rinckey, who specializes in federal employment and military law, described what could happen next.
“They are gutting federal employee protections significantly,” Timmons said.
The lessened employment protections are expected to decrease the Pentagon's workforce. Earlier this year, Hegseth was directed to cut about 60,000 people, about 8% of its workforce.
“They’re trying to use any excuse they can to get rid of people who are not with the program,” Timmons said.
Hegseth orders Pentagon to oust disloyal civilian workers he likened to debris
The Washington Post reported on a memo issued just days before the government shutdown started that removed key protections to make it easier to get rid of such workers.
The memo sparked concerns among the Pentagon workforce and circulated over the last week, The Post reported Tuesday. The new guidelines were defined in a memo titled "Separation of Employees with Unacceptable Performance” dated Sept. 30 and directed managers to move with "speed and conviction" to fire employees whose performance reviews were "unacceptable" last month.
"The civilian firings are part of a larger effort by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that aims to get rid of the 'debris' he claims is obstructing his mission to deliver on President Donald Trump’s agenda," The Post reported.
“The sooner we have the right people, the sooner we can advance the right policies. Personnel is policy,” Hegseth said in September during his speech to hundreds of top military brass at Marine Corps Base Quantico.
“The Department is in the process of adapting to the new guidance outlined in Under Secretary of War Tata’s memo from September 30th and we have nothing specific to share at this time,” the Pentagon said in a statement to The Post.
Sean Timmons, a managing partner at the firm Tully Rinckey, who specializes in federal employment and military law, described what could happen next.
“They are gutting federal employee protections significantly,” Timmons said.
The lessened employment protections are expected to decrease the Pentagon's workforce. Earlier this year, Hegseth was directed to cut about 60,000 people, about 8% of its workforce.
“They’re trying to use any excuse they can to get rid of people who are not with the program,” Timmons said.
Hegseth orders Pentagon to oust disloyal civilian workers he likened to debris
Toyota debunks Trump's claim of major investment
President Donald Trump's claims that Japanese car giant Toyota was going to set up factories "all over" the United States "to the tune of over $10 billion" have been thoroughly debunked, according to a Wednesday report in the Guardian.
A senior executive at Toyota – the world’s largest automaker – said that "no such explicit promise of investment at that level had been made."
The firm held talks with Japanese and American officials ahead of Trump’s visit and although Toyota does plan to invest and create some jobs in the U.S., they denied Trump's specific number.
As for where Trump got the $10 billion dollar figure from, the executive told reporters that it could have been from Trump's first term.
"During the first Trump administration, I think the figure was roughly around $10 billion, so while we didn’t say the same scale, we did explain that we’ll keep investing and providing employment as before,” Toyota executive Hiroyuki Ueda told reporters at the Japan Mobility Show in Tokyo. “So, probably because of that context, the figure of about $10 billion came up.”
However, Toyota never promised to invest that much this time, Ueda said.
Toyota “didn’t specifically say that we’ll invest $10 billion over the next few years”, Ueda said, adding that the topic of investment did not come up when Akio Toyoda, the firm’s chairman, spoke with Trump at a US embassy event on Tuesday.
Click here to read the Guardian's full report.
President Donald Trump's claims that Japanese car giant Toyota was going to set up factories "all over" the United States "to the tune of over $10 billion" have been thoroughly debunked, according to a Wednesday report in the Guardian.
A senior executive at Toyota – the world’s largest automaker – said that "no such explicit promise of investment at that level had been made."
The firm held talks with Japanese and American officials ahead of Trump’s visit and although Toyota does plan to invest and create some jobs in the U.S., they denied Trump's specific number.
As for where Trump got the $10 billion dollar figure from, the executive told reporters that it could have been from Trump's first term.
"During the first Trump administration, I think the figure was roughly around $10 billion, so while we didn’t say the same scale, we did explain that we’ll keep investing and providing employment as before,” Toyota executive Hiroyuki Ueda told reporters at the Japan Mobility Show in Tokyo. “So, probably because of that context, the figure of about $10 billion came up.”
However, Toyota never promised to invest that much this time, Ueda said.
Toyota “didn’t specifically say that we’ll invest $10 billion over the next few years”, Ueda said, adding that the topic of investment did not come up when Akio Toyoda, the firm’s chairman, spoke with Trump at a US embassy event on Tuesday.
Click here to read the Guardian's full report.
DOJ fails to convict ex-Coast Guard officer of threats to kill Trump
A jury found a retired Coast Guard officer not guilty after the Department of Justice charged him with threatening to kill President Donald Trump.
Peter Stinson, a retired lieutenant and sharpshooter, was charged in June over social media posts spanning from 2020 to 2025.
Attorneys for the Federal Public Defender's Office said Stinson's comments were clearly hyperbole. A magistrate judge had released him on bail against objections from the Justice Department.
"The weight of the evidence, on a scale from one to 10, let's just say it's not on the side of 10," Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis said at the time.
On Wednesday, a jury found Stinson not guilty after deliberating for less than a day, according to CBS correspondent Scott MacFarlane.
A jury found a retired Coast Guard officer not guilty after the Department of Justice charged him with threatening to kill President Donald Trump.
Peter Stinson, a retired lieutenant and sharpshooter, was charged in June over social media posts spanning from 2020 to 2025.
Attorneys for the Federal Public Defender's Office said Stinson's comments were clearly hyperbole. A magistrate judge had released him on bail against objections from the Justice Department.
"The weight of the evidence, on a scale from one to 10, let's just say it's not on the side of 10," Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis said at the time.
On Wednesday, a jury found Stinson not guilty after deliberating for less than a day, according to CBS correspondent Scott MacFarlane.
Dem congressional candidate hit with federal charges after anti-ICE protest
The Department of Justice has charged U.S. House Democratic candidate Kat Abughazaleh for allegedly impeding law enforcement following a September protest at the Broadview ICE facility in Chicago.
In addition to Abughazaleh, the DOJ also charged Michael Rabbitt, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw, and Joselyn Walsh. Authorities alleged that the group surrounded an ICE agent's vehicle and damaged it.
Abughazaleh, a former journalist, was accused of bracing her body against the vehicle. The indictment also claimed that someone scratched the word "PIG" on the car.
In a video posted to X, Abughazaleh said she was exercising her First Amendment rights.
"This is a political prosecution and a gross attempt to silence dissent, a right protected under the First Amendment," she explained. "This case is a major push by the Trump administration to criminalize protest and punish anyone who speaks out against them."
A video shared by DHS in September showed Abughazaleh being thrown to the ground by an officer outside the Broadview facility.
"Individuals and groups impeding ICE operations are siding with vicious cartels, human traffickers, and violent criminals," the post claimed. "You will not stop @ICEgov and DHS law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws."
"I love watching communists get body slammed by ICE," Trump insider Laura Loomer responded, according to MSNBC.
"Good work," Fox News host Laura Ingraham agreed.
The Department of Justice has charged U.S. House Democratic candidate Kat Abughazaleh for allegedly impeding law enforcement following a September protest at the Broadview ICE facility in Chicago.
In addition to Abughazaleh, the DOJ also charged Michael Rabbitt, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw, and Joselyn Walsh. Authorities alleged that the group surrounded an ICE agent's vehicle and damaged it.
Abughazaleh, a former journalist, was accused of bracing her body against the vehicle. The indictment also claimed that someone scratched the word "PIG" on the car.
In a video posted to X, Abughazaleh said she was exercising her First Amendment rights.
"This is a political prosecution and a gross attempt to silence dissent, a right protected under the First Amendment," she explained. "This case is a major push by the Trump administration to criminalize protest and punish anyone who speaks out against them."
A video shared by DHS in September showed Abughazaleh being thrown to the ground by an officer outside the Broadview facility.
"Individuals and groups impeding ICE operations are siding with vicious cartels, human traffickers, and violent criminals," the post claimed. "You will not stop @ICEgov and DHS law enforcement from enforcing our immigration laws."
"I love watching communists get body slammed by ICE," Trump insider Laura Loomer responded, according to MSNBC.
"Good work," Fox News host Laura Ingraham agreed.
New: Two federal prosecutors have been placed on leave at the direction of the White House after they filed a sentencing memo seeking 27 months in prison for a pardoned January 6th rioter who brought illegal guns and ammunition to former President Obama’s house in 2023. Two people familiar with the matter confirmed the move, though neither source knew exactly what angered White House officials about the memo.
Taylor Taranto, who was arrested while he was livestreaming video near Obama’s house in Washington, D.C., was found guilty in May after a bench trial of possessing illegal guns—as well as false information and hoaxes charge related to a video he streamed claiming he was on a “one-way mission” to blow up the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Investigators said they found two guns, a machete and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in Taranto's van when he was arrested. Court records say Taranto repeatedly said that he was trying to get a “shot” and that he wanted to get a “good angle on a shot.”
Taranto was among roughly 1,500 Jan. 6defendants President Donald Trump pardoned on the first day of his second term in office. The prosecutors on his case, Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White of the DC U.S. Attorneys Office, filed a detailed sentencing memo Tuesday asserting that Taranto’s actions “caused the evacuation of a residential neighborhood and forced law enforcement agents from multiple agencies to respond to his false bomb hoax.” The memo added, “A 27-month sentence reflects the gravity of Taranto’s conduct, his lack of remorse, and the need to deter him and others from engaging in similar threatening conduct.
The memo makes reference to the January 6thCapitol riot, as follows: “On January 6, 2021, thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Taranto was accused of participating in the riot in Washington, D.C., by entering the U.S. Capitol Building. After the riot, Taranto returned to his home in the State of Washington, where he promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021.”
Amid an attempt at re-writing the history of January 6th, Trump and his supporters routinely dismiss the idea that a riot occurred that day, despite the video evidence. Taranto had posted about appearing outside Obama’s residence the same day in June 2023 that Trump shared a screenshot on social media that included what he said was Obama’s Washington address. Prosecutors said Taranto reposted what Trump had shared and then posted about being outside Obama’s home, writing, “We got these losers surrounded!” The Justice Department declined to comment.
Taylor Taranto, who was arrested while he was livestreaming video near Obama’s house in Washington, D.C., was found guilty in May after a bench trial of possessing illegal guns—as well as false information and hoaxes charge related to a video he streamed claiming he was on a “one-way mission” to blow up the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Investigators said they found two guns, a machete and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in Taranto's van when he was arrested. Court records say Taranto repeatedly said that he was trying to get a “shot” and that he wanted to get a “good angle on a shot.”
Taranto was among roughly 1,500 Jan. 6defendants President Donald Trump pardoned on the first day of his second term in office. The prosecutors on his case, Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White of the DC U.S. Attorneys Office, filed a detailed sentencing memo Tuesday asserting that Taranto’s actions “caused the evacuation of a residential neighborhood and forced law enforcement agents from multiple agencies to respond to his false bomb hoax.” The memo added, “A 27-month sentence reflects the gravity of Taranto’s conduct, his lack of remorse, and the need to deter him and others from engaging in similar threatening conduct.
The memo makes reference to the January 6thCapitol riot, as follows: “On January 6, 2021, thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Taranto was accused of participating in the riot in Washington, D.C., by entering the U.S. Capitol Building. After the riot, Taranto returned to his home in the State of Washington, where he promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021.”
Amid an attempt at re-writing the history of January 6th, Trump and his supporters routinely dismiss the idea that a riot occurred that day, despite the video evidence. Taranto had posted about appearing outside Obama’s residence the same day in June 2023 that Trump shared a screenshot on social media that included what he said was Obama’s Washington address. Prosecutors said Taranto reposted what Trump had shared and then posted about being outside Obama’s home, writing, “We got these losers surrounded!” The Justice Department declined to comment.
Judge questions the Trump administration's plan to suspend SNAP benefits for millions
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Thursday seemed skeptical of the Trump's administration's argument that SNAP benefits could be suspended for the first time in the food aid program's history because of the government shutdown.
During a hearing over a request by 25 Democratic-led states to keep the funding flowing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can't afford to cover the cost, there's a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits," said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama.
Talwani said she expects to issue a ruling later Thursday and seemed to be leaning toward requiring the government to put billions of dollars in emergency funds toward SNAP. That, she said, is her interpretation of what Congress intended when an agency's funding runs out.
Several states are scrambling to help residents facing a loss of federal food aid benefits. (AP Digital Embed)© The Associated Press
“If you don't have money, you tighten your belt,” she said in court. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”
Talwani acknowledged that even ordering emergency funds to pay for SNAP might still be painful for some SNAP recipients because it could mean they get less money and that the money they do get could be delayed. “We are dealing with a reality that absent a 100% win for you, the benefits aren't going to be there on Nov. 1,” she told the plaintiffs.
New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martinez talks about state efforts to temporarily backfill SNAP benefits during a news conference outside a grocery store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)© The Associated Press
The hearing came two days before the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it said it can't continue funding it due to the shutdown.
Other lawsuits have been filed over the program's suspension, including one filed Thursday in Rhode Island by a coalition of eight cities and community, business and union organizations.
SNAP, which costs about $8 billion per month, serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. Word in October that it would be a Nov. 1 casualty of the shutdown sent states, food banks and SNAP recipients scrambling to figure out how to secure food. Some states said they would spend their own funds to keep versions of the program going.
President Donald Trump's administration said it wasn’t allowed to use a contingency fund with about $5 billion in it for the program, which reversed a USDA plan from before the shutdown that said that money would be tapped to keep SNAP running. The Democratic-led states argued that not only could that contingency money be used, it must be. They also said a separate fund with around $23 billion could be tapped.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, center, announces the state will provide $30 million in emergency food assistance to residents to temporarily backfill SNAP benefits during a news conference outside a grocery store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)© The Associated Press
Although the states requested the funding continue only in their jurisdictions, the judge indicated that any ruling would apply nationwide, saying it wouldn't be fair to treat recipients differently depending on which state they live in. A ruling that would apply everywhere could defy the intentions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has limited the use of nationwide injunctions, though it hasn't prohibited them.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, center, is flanked by state lawmakers as she announces the state will temporarily backfill SNAP benefits during a news conference outside a grocery store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)© The Associated Press
Much of the hearing revolved around what Congress intended to do when the agency runs out of money for the program. Talwani pushed back against the Trump administration's argument that suspending the benefits was the best option, saying using emergency funds for benefits, albeit reduced, seemed to make the most sense.
“It’s hard to me to understand that this is not an emergency, when there is no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits,” she said.
A person shops for produce, which is covered by the USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), at a grocery store in Baltimore, Thursday, Oct. 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)© The Associated Press
Lawyers for the federal government argued that dispersing the full benefits would violate a law that bars the government from paying for programs without a congressional appropriation.
And in court papers, the government said partial payments would require complicated recalculations of benefits that could take weeks.
Related video: Food banks and their communities react over looming SNAP funding lapse (The Canadian Press)
The Canadian Press
Food banks and their communities react over looming SNAP funding lapse
The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that failing to maintain the SNAP funding would hurt public health, make it harder for children to learn in school, drive up government health care expenditures and hurt the retailers that rely on SNAP payments.
To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four's net income can't exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 per year. Last year, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children, according to the lawsuit.
___
Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.
Michael Casey And Geoff Mulvihill, The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Thursday seemed skeptical of the Trump's administration's argument that SNAP benefits could be suspended for the first time in the food aid program's history because of the government shutdown.
During a hearing over a request by 25 Democratic-led states to keep the funding flowing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can't afford to cover the cost, there's a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits," said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama.
Talwani said she expects to issue a ruling later Thursday and seemed to be leaning toward requiring the government to put billions of dollars in emergency funds toward SNAP. That, she said, is her interpretation of what Congress intended when an agency's funding runs out.
Several states are scrambling to help residents facing a loss of federal food aid benefits. (AP Digital Embed)© The Associated Press
“If you don't have money, you tighten your belt,” she said in court. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”
Talwani acknowledged that even ordering emergency funds to pay for SNAP might still be painful for some SNAP recipients because it could mean they get less money and that the money they do get could be delayed. “We are dealing with a reality that absent a 100% win for you, the benefits aren't going to be there on Nov. 1,” she told the plaintiffs.
New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martinez talks about state efforts to temporarily backfill SNAP benefits during a news conference outside a grocery store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)© The Associated Press
The hearing came two days before the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it said it can't continue funding it due to the shutdown.
Other lawsuits have been filed over the program's suspension, including one filed Thursday in Rhode Island by a coalition of eight cities and community, business and union organizations.
SNAP, which costs about $8 billion per month, serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. Word in October that it would be a Nov. 1 casualty of the shutdown sent states, food banks and SNAP recipients scrambling to figure out how to secure food. Some states said they would spend their own funds to keep versions of the program going.
President Donald Trump's administration said it wasn’t allowed to use a contingency fund with about $5 billion in it for the program, which reversed a USDA plan from before the shutdown that said that money would be tapped to keep SNAP running. The Democratic-led states argued that not only could that contingency money be used, it must be. They also said a separate fund with around $23 billion could be tapped.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, center, announces the state will provide $30 million in emergency food assistance to residents to temporarily backfill SNAP benefits during a news conference outside a grocery store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)© The Associated Press
Although the states requested the funding continue only in their jurisdictions, the judge indicated that any ruling would apply nationwide, saying it wouldn't be fair to treat recipients differently depending on which state they live in. A ruling that would apply everywhere could defy the intentions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has limited the use of nationwide injunctions, though it hasn't prohibited them.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, center, is flanked by state lawmakers as she announces the state will temporarily backfill SNAP benefits during a news conference outside a grocery store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)© The Associated Press
Much of the hearing revolved around what Congress intended to do when the agency runs out of money for the program. Talwani pushed back against the Trump administration's argument that suspending the benefits was the best option, saying using emergency funds for benefits, albeit reduced, seemed to make the most sense.
“It’s hard to me to understand that this is not an emergency, when there is no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits,” she said.
A person shops for produce, which is covered by the USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), at a grocery store in Baltimore, Thursday, Oct. 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)© The Associated Press
Lawyers for the federal government argued that dispersing the full benefits would violate a law that bars the government from paying for programs without a congressional appropriation.
And in court papers, the government said partial payments would require complicated recalculations of benefits that could take weeks.
Related video: Food banks and their communities react over looming SNAP funding lapse (The Canadian Press)
Food banks and their communities react over looming SNAP funding lapse
The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that failing to maintain the SNAP funding would hurt public health, make it harder for children to learn in school, drive up government health care expenditures and hurt the retailers that rely on SNAP payments.
To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four's net income can't exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 per year. Last year, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children, according to the lawsuit.
___
Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.
Michael Casey And Geoff Mulvihill, The Associated Press
Trump officials move to military base housing designated for top uniformed officers
Stephen Miller, the architect behind President Donald Trump’s notorious immigration crackdown and the administration’s targeting of non-white people for arrest and deportation, is joining a growing list of senior Trump appointees shielded in military housing.
The Atlantic reports Miller, his wife Katie Miller, and their children fled to military housing after suffering protests and catcalls from voices in their affluent Washington, D.C. neighborhood and now benefit from U.S. military protection in addition to their personal security.
“Miller … who is known for his inflammatory political rhetoric, singled out the tactics that had victimized his family — what he called ‘organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting peoples’ addresses,’” reports the Nation.
Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem also moved out of her D.C. apartment building and into a home designated for the Coast Guard commandant on Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling after the Daily Mail described where she lived. And both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth live on “Generals’ Row” at Fort McNair, an Army enclave along the Anacostia River, according to officials from the State and Defense Departments.
Another anonymous senior White House official moved to a military community after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, according to Nation writer Michael Scherer. However, so many Trump officials have made the move that they are now straining the availability of housing for the nation’s top uniformed officers.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s request to move to McNair didn’t initially work out “for space reasons,” according to officials.
There is no record of this many political appointees living on military installations, and critics tell the Nation that it appears to be “blurring … traditional boundaries between the civilian and military worlds” as Trump makes “the military a far more visible element of domestic politics, deploying National Guard forces to Washington, Los Angeles, and other cities run by Democrats.”
John Hopkins University international studies associate professor Adria Lawrence told the Nation that housing political advisers on bases sends a message that one particular political party owns the military.
“In a robust democracy, what you want is the military to be for the defense of the country as a whole and not just one party,” Lawrence said.
University of Chicago political-science professor Robert Pape told the Nation that the threat of political violence “is real for figures in both major parties,” but noted that Trump has deliberately revoked the security details for several of his critics and adversaries, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and former national security adviser John Bolton — despite Bolton having been the target of an Iranian assassination plot.
Additionally, the isolation of sequestering yourself on a military base creates deep divisions between Trump’s advisers and the metropolitan area they govern.
“Trump-administration officials, who regularly mock the nation’s capital as a crime-ridden hellscape, now find themselves in a protected bubble, even farther removed from the city’s daily rhythms,” the Nation reports. “And they are even less likely to encounter a diverse mix of voters.”
Read the Nation report at this link.
Stephen Miller, the architect behind President Donald Trump’s notorious immigration crackdown and the administration’s targeting of non-white people for arrest and deportation, is joining a growing list of senior Trump appointees shielded in military housing.
The Atlantic reports Miller, his wife Katie Miller, and their children fled to military housing after suffering protests and catcalls from voices in their affluent Washington, D.C. neighborhood and now benefit from U.S. military protection in addition to their personal security.
“Miller … who is known for his inflammatory political rhetoric, singled out the tactics that had victimized his family — what he called ‘organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting peoples’ addresses,’” reports the Nation.
Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem also moved out of her D.C. apartment building and into a home designated for the Coast Guard commandant on Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling after the Daily Mail described where she lived. And both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth live on “Generals’ Row” at Fort McNair, an Army enclave along the Anacostia River, according to officials from the State and Defense Departments.
Another anonymous senior White House official moved to a military community after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, according to Nation writer Michael Scherer. However, so many Trump officials have made the move that they are now straining the availability of housing for the nation’s top uniformed officers.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s request to move to McNair didn’t initially work out “for space reasons,” according to officials.
There is no record of this many political appointees living on military installations, and critics tell the Nation that it appears to be “blurring … traditional boundaries between the civilian and military worlds” as Trump makes “the military a far more visible element of domestic politics, deploying National Guard forces to Washington, Los Angeles, and other cities run by Democrats.”
John Hopkins University international studies associate professor Adria Lawrence told the Nation that housing political advisers on bases sends a message that one particular political party owns the military.
“In a robust democracy, what you want is the military to be for the defense of the country as a whole and not just one party,” Lawrence said.
University of Chicago political-science professor Robert Pape told the Nation that the threat of political violence “is real for figures in both major parties,” but noted that Trump has deliberately revoked the security details for several of his critics and adversaries, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and former national security adviser John Bolton — despite Bolton having been the target of an Iranian assassination plot.
Additionally, the isolation of sequestering yourself on a military base creates deep divisions between Trump’s advisers and the metropolitan area they govern.
“Trump-administration officials, who regularly mock the nation’s capital as a crime-ridden hellscape, now find themselves in a protected bubble, even farther removed from the city’s daily rhythms,” the Nation reports. “And they are even less likely to encounter a diverse mix of voters.”
Read the Nation report at this link.
