update - Fed'l Appeal Court blocks Trump deployment of Nat'l Gd to Illinois

[mandrill]

he Boston Globe and Mass Live reported Sunday that a 13-year-old was "arrested" by U.S. Customs and Enforcement agents in Everett, Massachusetts, and is now 500 miles away from his mother and family in a juvenile detention facility in Virginia.

According to the boy's lawyer, Andrew Lattarulo, there was an interaction with members of the Everett Police Department, and the boy's mother was called to come and pick him up. However, when she went to the police department, after waiting, she was told that ICE had taken him, Josiele Berto told the Boston Globe in an interview.



"The boy is a 7th-grader at Albert N. Parlin School in Everett, his mother said. The teen and his family, who are Brazilian nationals, have a pending asylum case and are authorized to work legally in the United States," the report said, citing the family's lawyer.

Courts have now gotten involved, with U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Sterns ruling that the government must "justify" the arrest of the boy by Tuesday, Oct. 14. "Otherwise, he must receive a bond hearing no later than Oct. 17," the court documents say.


The judge mentioned the teen's age in the ruling, the report said. He was “in the company of unrelated adult detainees" when he was taken.

The family's lawyer said, “I’ve never done a bond or a habeas for a kid this young, ever. This is the youngest."


The 13-year-old has called his mother sobbing from the Virginia detention, she said. He has told her that he's sleeping on concrete, has an aluminum sheet for a blanket and "had little to eat." She is also concerned about his health and safety because he recently broke his foot while riding his bike.

The family's lawyer said that they still aren't clear on why the police took the minor to begin with, and then why ICE nabbed the child while his mother waited to pick him up.

“It doesn’t make sense for one of my clients, waiting almost two hours for her kid, and only to find out later that ICE agents took him,” Lattarulo said. “They told her she could pick him up, and then they wouldn’t let her see the kid.”

The attorney explained that frequently, when ICE takes people, they're immediately shipped out to another state, because Massachusetts is "perceived to be more sympathetic." So, now, he must find a lawyer licensed in Virginia to help with the case.

“I need help to bring my son home. He’s only 13 years old and was taken by ICE,” the boy's mother wrote. “We’re suffering a lot with this situation. God bless anyone who’s able to help.”

“The way [ICE] is treating people, especially a child, is very cruel,” she added.

The report explained that this is the latest in a "string" of arrests of teenagers in the area.

Gustavo Henrique Reis Oliveira, a 16-year-old, was "arrested" by ICE in Milford, Massachusetts, at the beginning of September, but was later released. Then, a few weeks later, the report said that João Marciano do Carmo, a 19-year-old, was "arrested" on his way to work. His family didn't know where he was for five days. He's currently in a Mississippi facility. Neither had a criminal record, the report said.

Advocates and lawyers say that there has been an increase in children and teenagers being taken by ICE.

During President Donald Trump's first term, it was found that the government was taking children from their parents and separating them into child-specific detention facilities, as the American Immigration Council wrote about in 2017. The Globe said that the government has reopened "family detention centers that had been shuttered for years."

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told MassLive in a previous case involving the 16-year-old that the ICE agents did not know that a teenager was a minor and that he was detained “to determine his identity and if he was a potential safety threat.”

“ICE does NOT target juveniles or children,” DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to MassLive. “At the time of the detainment, ICE had no knowledge of the individual’s age.”

ICE snatches 13-year-old and ships him 500 miles away from family

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge in Virginia has denied a Justice Department request for extended discovery deadlines in the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, ordering prosecutors to provide all discovery materials to the defense by 5 p.m. today, October 13.

Comey, who led the FBI from 2013 to 2017, was indicted on September 25 in the Eastern District of Virginia on two felony counts: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.

Why It Matters
The case against Comey carries implications far beyond the courtroom. By accusing a one-time head of the nation’s top law enforcement agency of lying to Congress and obstructing a legislative inquiry, prosecutors have placed questions of truthfulness, accountability, and political motive at the center of a rare criminal proceeding.

The outcome could redefine how far the Justice Department may go in pursuing high-ranking officials for statements made in oversight settings, testing public confidence in whether such prosecutions serve justice or politics.

The Case
Comey has been accused of lying to Congress and obstructing a Senate investigation. After weeks of disagreement over evidence-sharing, U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff ordered prosecutors to turn over all discovery by October 13, emphasizing fairness and the need to keep the high-profile case on schedule for its January 2026 trial.

The indictment alleges that Comey falsely told a U.S. senator during a 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source in news reports concerning an individual identified as “Person 1.”

Prosecutors contend that Comey knew the statement was untrue and that he had, in fact, authorized another individual, identified in court filings as “Person 3,” to serve as a confidential source.

The second count accuses Comey of “corruptly endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede” a congressional investigation by making false and misleading statements before the committee.

Comey has pleaded not guilty.



Former FBI Director James Comey speaks in Berlin on June 19, 2018. (Photo by Carsten Koall/Getty Images)
New Developments
On October 8, Nachmanoff scheduled a jury trial for January 5, 2026, and issued a pretrial briefing schedule.

The first round of motions is due on October 20, 2025, and the second round is due on October 30. Hearings are set for November 19 and December 9.

Soon after the schedule was set, prosecutors and the defense clashed over the terms and timing of discovery.

The Justice Department filed a motion on October 11 seeking two separate discovery deadlines: one on October 14 for matters related to motions challenging the appointment of the U.S. Attorney and alleging vindictive or selective prosecution, and a second on October 20 for all other materials.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys N. Tyler Lemons and Gabriel J. Díaz wrote that “good-faith discussions were attempted by the parties, [but] the parties were unable to agree on a joint discovery order.” They argued that “two discovery deadlines are appropriate in this case” because of the distinct nature of the motions the defense intended to file.

Comey’s counsel, Jessica N. Carmichael and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, opposed the request and submitted a proposed standard discovery order tying the government’s disclosure deadline to the first pre-trial motion date, October 20.


They argued that the government should produce materials promptly under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a).

Nachmanoff sided with the defense.

In an order issued October 12, he denied the government’s motion and directed prosecutors to provide all discovery by October 13.

“Under no circumstance shall the failure to reach agreement with respect to a protective order justify withholding prompt disclosure of discovery to defense counsel for review,” the judge wrote.

The court’s order also set a firm timeline for resolving any disputes over protective measures. If the parties could not agree on the terms of a protective order by 5 p.m. on October 13, the court stated it would “promptly set a hearing to resolve any such dispute.”

Keeping the Case on Track
The dispute over discovery follows the government’s earlier assertion that it had provided Comey’s team with appointment documents for the U.S. Attorney and that disagreements persisted regarding the handling of classified or sensitive material.

Prosecutors had argued that “considering the sensitivities and exposure associated with this prosecution, a discovery protective agreement is a vital part of the overall discovery plan.”


The court’s denial of the government’s motion represents an early setback for prosecutors in a high-profile case involving a former senior law enforcement official.

The ruling ensures that Comey’s defense team will receive the government’s evidence ahead of the initial motion deadlines and underscores the judge’s emphasis on timely disclosure.

What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump told reporters after Comey’s indictment: “It’s about justice. He lied, he lied a lot…It’s about justice, not revenge.”

Former FBI Director James Comey, in a video statement following his indictment: “I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I am innocent, so let’s have a trial, and keep the faith,” adding that “Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant…But I am not afraid.”


What Happens Next
The Justice Department must comply with Nachmanoff’s order to deliver all discovery materials to Comey’s defense team by 5 p.m. on October 13, and both sides must finalize or litigate a protective order governing sensitive evidence.

The first round of pretrial motions—likely including challenges to the indictment and the U.S. Attorney’s authority—is due October 20, with a second round due October 30 and hearings set for November 19 and December 9.

Unless delayed by new motions or disputes, the case is set for jury trial on January 5, 2026, in the Eastern District of Virginia, where a judge and jury will decide whether the former FBI director knowingly misled Congress or is being targeted in a politically charged prosecution.


Trump admin suffers blow in James Comey case

 

[mandrill]

Former FBI Director James Comey notched an early victory in his criminal indictment Tuesday as a federal judge ruled in his favor over a dispute involving evidence.

Federal prosecutors initially filed for a protective order in the case that would prevent Comey from having open access to the evidence presented to the grand jury to secure the indictment in the first place, arguing that Comey could leak the evidence to the media and undermine the trial.



Comey's legal team responded by urging the court to deny this restriction, with attorney Patrick Fitzgerald writing, "Protective orders addressing the confidentiality and privacy interests of others should not override a defendant’s right to a fair trial."

U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff sided with the defense in a two-page opinion released on Tuesday morning.



"The Court shares the government’s concern regarding the possibility of inappropriate dissemination of sensitive information as well as Defendant’s concern regarding his ability to defend himself, and both parties’ interest in a fair trial," wrote Nachmanoff.

"In balancing these considerations, the Court finds that the circumstances of this case do not support the government’s proposed limitations on the sharing of 'Protected Material' with Defendant or prospective defense witnesses, which would unnecessarily hinder and delay Defendant’s ability to adequately prepare for trial. The Court further finds that the government’s proposal does not sufficiently define the information constituting 'Protected Material,' thereby making it overbroad."

Comey, a longtime target for Trump's anger ever since he refused to shut down the Russia investigation in 2017, has been indicted on one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice, based on allegedly lying in Senate testimony years ago about leaks from the Justice Department during his tenure.

Legal experts have broadly panned the indictment as weak, and Trump's chosen prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, who was installed to replace his previous U.S. attorney who had failed to find sufficient evidence in this case, has been widely criticized for a series of blunders in the indictment process.

Judge shoots down Trump lawyers' effort to keep evidence hidden from James Comey

 

[mandrill]

Former FBI Director James Comey formally notified the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that his attorneys would challenge President Donald Trump's appointment of Lindsey Halligan as an interim U.S. Attorney.

In a notice filed on Tuesday, Comey's attorneys said he would file his motion "challenging the lawfulness of the appointment of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia" on Oct. 20.



"The Court advised at arraignment that such motion will require designation of and assignment to an out-of-district judge to hear and resolve that motion," the filing noted. "Thus, in the interest of efficiency and to avoid any unnecessary delay in such process, Mr. Comey files the instant Notice to formally alert the Court."

Halligan, 36, has come under fire after Trump appointed her to prosecute his perceived enemies, even though other officials at the Department of Justice refused to do so. The former Miss Colorado contestant had no experience prosecuting federal cases before her appointment. She had served as Trump's personal lawyer since November 2021.

James Comey moves to boot Trump's prosecutor Lindsey Halligan out of job

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

An additional duty for softwood lumber and a fresh round of tariffs on furniture from U.S. President Donald Trump went into effect Tuesday morning, adding further strain on the Canadian lumber industry.

Last month, Trump signed a presidential proclamation announcing a 10 per cent tariff on imports of softwood timber and lumber.

He also announced a 25 per cent tariff on some furniture, such as kitchen cabinets and vanities. The furniture tariffs apply to parts, completed models and other upholstered wooden products.

Ottawa is committing more than a billion dollars to help


The White House said these tariffs are in addition to any levies previously announced.

The B.C. Lumber Trade Council said that with Canadian producers already facing anti-dumping and countervailing duties of just over 35 per cent, Canadian softwood lumber entering the U.S. will now see total import taxes exceeding 45 per cent.

While Trump’s tariffs on furniture and lumber are global, some economists say they will disproportionately impact Canada.

The softwood lumber products that will be hit by the additional 10 per cent tariffs account for 1.3 per cent of all Canadian exports to the United States, according to analysis by RBC economist Claire Fan.

This move will also have an impact on the U.S. construction industry since 75 per cent of softwood lumber imports coming into the U.S. are Canadian, Fan’s report said.

The 25 per cent tariff on kitchen cabinets will also hit Canada, since one-fifth of all kitchen cabinets made in Canada were exported to the U.S., the report added.

As of Tuesday, Canada faces a higher tariff on kitchen cabinets than Europe does. This is because under Trump’s trade deal with the European Union, the EU will pay a flat 15 per cent tariff on all exports.

The Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) said it was “extremely frustrated and deeply concerned” by the latest tariffs going into effect.

The move will threaten the livelihoods of 200,000 Canadians connected to the industry and “the stability of hundreds of towns and cities that rely on a strong forest sector,” the industry body said in a statement.


“These are punitive, protectionist measures with no basis in fact. They ignore decades of evidence that Canadian lumber strengthens, rather than threatens, U.S. national security and economic resilience,” FPAC president and CEO Derek Nighbor said in a statement.

The tariff on kitchen cabinets and vanities is set to jump to 50 per cent in the new year, while the tariff on other upholstered wooden products will rise to 30 per cent on Jan. 1.

The duties come following a report by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick that Trump said found that wood products were being imported into the U.S. “in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”

The British Columbia Lumber Trade Council called the new tariffs “misguided and unnecessary.”


The Canadian Forest Product Sector said Trump’s move “is unjustified and disregards decades of evidence and cooperation that confirm Canadian forest products strengthen, rather than threaten, U.S. national security.”

The U.S. has long accused Canada’s softwood lumber sector of violating rules on anti-dumping — flooding a market with cheaper, subsidized products to disrupt a domestic industry.

Tariffs and duties on B.C. softwood lumber top 35 per cent


The U.S. Commerce Department announced plans last month to nearly triple duties on Canadian softwood lumber to just over 20 per cent.

-- with files from The Canadian Press

Trump tariffs on lumber, furniture go into effect

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

In a confidential notification to Congress obtained by The New York Times, President Donald Trump declared the U.S. is now engaged in an official “armed conflict” against drug cartels, marking a turning point in the government’s fight against organized crime.

The notice to Congress


Trump sent the notice to several congressional committees. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
According to The Times, the notice — which was “sent to several congressional committees” — “adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.”

‘Unlawful combatants’


The Trump administration classified drug cartels as “unlawful combatants.” (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The Associated Press also obtained the administration’s notice, which classified drug cartels operating in the Caribbean as “unlawful combatants” and described the situation as a “non-international armed conflict.”

Wartime powers


Trump calls cartel fight a war, claiming wartime powers. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Reporters Charlie Savage and Eric Schmitt, who broke the story, explained the significance behind the report. “Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.”

Sounding the alarm


Trump’s message confuses the rules around emergency war powers. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The Times cited Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired Army judge advocate general, who warned that Trump’s message blurs the rules around emergency war powers because cartel members are not directly fighting the U.S. Corn called the president’s action an “abuse” that crossed a serious legal boundary. “This is not stretching the envelope,” he said. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”

Trump says U.S. is engaged in official ‘armed conflict’ to claim emergency war powers

 

[mandrill]

A Department of Homeland Security official was busted for lying about a teenage girl's violent arrest by federal agents.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed video of the arrest Friday actually showed Chicago police detaining a burglar last year, but a Daily Beast analysis confirmed the teen – a U.S. citizen – was violently thrown to the ground and taken into custody by officers from a department outside the city with help from DHS Enforcement and Removals Operations (ERO).



“Imagine being so desperate to demonize law enforcement you post a video from a burglary arrest Chicago Police made over a year ago," McLaughlin posted. "This isn’t even ICE.”

McLaughlin’s misinformation fell apart quickly, as separate video clips were posted on social media taken in Hoffman Estates, a village outside Chicago. The 18-year-old's parents confirmed to CBS News that their daughter and two friends were held for hours in the parking lot outside the suburban police station without explanation.



Videos also show an officer wearing body armor affixed with “ERO — Enforcement and Removal Operations” branding, and Hoffman Estates confirmed to the Beast that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement had been in the area.

“The Hoffman Estates Police Department follows the Trust Act and does not participate in immigration enforcement with ICE," the department said in a statement. "On Friday we had a squad car in the area that was responding to a separate call for service".

“The only interaction we had with ICE was when they came to the police department to file a police report [in] reference [to] an incident that occurred during their enforcement," the department added. "They ultimately decided to complete the report this week with us and have not completed that yet.”

McLaughlin did not respond to requests for comment, and her misleading post remains up on her official government account.

"Tricia McLaughlin claimed the video was of a burglary arrest last year by Chicago police, and ICE wasn’t involved," said lawyer and author Loren Collins, an expert on misinformation. "Literally every claim she made was false. It wasn’t a burglary arrest. It was last Friday, not last year. Zero Chicago police were involved. And it was plainly ICE."

DHS official busted for lying about teen's ICE arrest

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump Tuesday boasted that another six people are dead after an alleged drug boat strike in the Caribbean Sea.

Trump announced the news on his Truth Social platform:



"Under my Standing Authorities as Commander-in-Chief, this morning, the Secretary of War, ordered a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO) conducting narcotrafficking in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility — just off the Coast of Venezuela. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics, was associated with illicit narcoterrorist networks, and was transiting along a known DTO route. The strike was conducted in International Waters, and six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike. No U.S. Forces were harmed. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!"

The move follows multiple attacks in the region reportedly targeting suspected drug runners in the Caribbean Sea.



Trump earlier this month sent a letter to select members of Congress announcing that the United States is officially at war with drug cartels.


Trump boasts 6 dead in another drug boat strike

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has revoked the visas of six foreigners deemed by U.S. officials to have made derisive comments or made light of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last month.

The State Department said Tuesday it had determined they should lose their visas after reviewing their online social media posts and clips about Kirk, who was killed while speaking at a Utah college campus on Sept. 10.

The announcement came as President Donald Trump was posthumously awarding him America's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. At Kirk’s funeral in September, Trump called him a “great American hero” and “martyr” for freedom.

The administration and its supporters have targeted people for their comments about Kirk, leading to firings or other discipline of journalists, teachers and others, and raising free speech concerns.

The six foreigners who had their visas revoked were from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay and South Africa. They were not identified.

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio “will defend our borders, our culture, and our citizens by enforcing our immigration laws," the State Department said. "Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed.”

Vice President JD Vance and other top U.S. officials have encouraged people to call out offensive language about Kirk that they see online. In an unusual tweet last month, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau asked social media users to copy him on any relevant posts, saying he was personally “disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action.”

In addition to Tuesday's action, the administration has ramped up efforts to identify and potentially expel thousands of foreigners in the United States, notably students, who it says have either fomented or participated in unrest or publicly supported protests against Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The administration has also denied visas to applicants whose social media histories have been critical of its policies.

Among the higher-profile cases, the administration has expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the United States for comments critical of Trump, revoked a visa for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to attend the U.N. General Assembly and yanked the visas for British punk-rap duo Bob Vylan. It said it is reviewing the status of the more than 55 million current U.S. visa holders for potential violations of its standards.

Those actions have been criticized by civil rights groups as violations of constitutional protections for freedom of speech, which apply to anyone in the United States and not just to American citizens.

Matthew Lee, The Associated Press

US revokes visas for 6 foreigners over Charlie Kirk-related speech

 

[mandrill]

A Florida judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the planned transfer of prime downtown Miami land for President Donald Trump’s future presidential library.

The move by Circuit Judge Mavel Ruiz came after a Miami activist alleged that officials at a local college violated Florida's open government law when they gifted the sizable plot of real estate to the state, which then voted to transfer it to the foundation for the planned library.

“This is not an easy decision,” Mavel said Tuesday when explaining her ruling from the bench, finding that the college didn't give the public reasonable notice ahead of the vote last month.

“This is not a case, at least for this court, rooted in politics,” she added.

The nearly 3-acre (1.2-hectare) property is a developer’s dream and is valued at more than $67 million, according to a 2025 assessment by the Miami-Dade County property appraiser. One real estate expert wagered that the parcel — one of the last undeveloped lots on an iconic stretch of palm tree-lined Biscayne Boulevard — could sell for hundreds of millions of dollars more.

Marvin Dunn, an activist and chronicler of local Black history, filed a lawsuit this month in a Miami-Dade County court against the Board of Trustees for Miami Dade College, a state-run school that owned the property. He alleged that the board violated Florida's Government in the Sunshine law by not providing sufficient notice for its special meeting on Sept. 23, when it voted to give up the land.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is proposing that President Donald Trump's presidential library be built in a parking lot that is currently used by Miami-Dade College staff and faculty and is adjacent to the Freedom Tower, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025, in Miami. (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier)© The Associated Press
An agenda released ahead of the meeting simply stated the board would consider conveying property to a state fund overseen by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet, but provided no details on which piece of property was being considered or why. Unlike every other meeting the board has held this year, the 8 a.m. meeting on Sept. 23 was not livestreamed.

A week later, DeSantis and other top GOP officials voted to transfer the land again, effectively putting the property under the control of the Trump family when they deeded it to the foundation for Trump’s library. That foundation is led by three trustees: Eric Trump, Tiffany Trump’s husband, Michael Boulos, and the president’s attorney James Kiley.

Jesus Suarez, an attorney for the college, argued that MDC did what was required under the law and questioned Dunn's political motivations for filing the case.

“There is no requirement under Florida law that there be specificity on notice, because those trustees can come into that room and talk to each other about whatever they wish,” Suarez said.

Attorneys for Dunn maintain that no one who wasn't already in on the deal could have known what the board would do.

“The people have a right to know what they’re going to decide to do when the transaction is so significant, so unusual and deprives the students and the college of this land,” said plaintiff's attorney Richard Brodsky, speaking with The Associated Press prior to the judge's decision.

Javier Ley-Soto, general counsel for Miami Dade College, testified that it is still in the process of finalizing the land transfer. Delays caused by an injunction could cost the college up to $300,000, he estimated.

Other Florida locations had previously been floated as library sites, including properties associated with Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton and Florida International University in suburban Miami. DeSantis signed a bill this year preempting local governments from blocking development of a presidential library, aiming to overrule potential opposition in liberal-leaning counties or municipalities.

___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Kate Payne, The Associated Press

Florida judge temporarily blocks transfer of downtown Miami land for Trump's presidential library

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to pull assistance for Argentina — led by a political kindred spirit whose philosophy is similar to that of the Republican administration — if the nation’s internal politics don’t align with his interests in upcoming elections.

The comments came during a meeting with Argentine President Javier Milei, whose country is set to hold midterm elections for its legislative body later this month. U.S. presidents typically do not weigh in on the candidates in other countries’ democratic elections.

Referring to an opponent who was “extremely far-left” and encompassed a “philosophy that got Argentina into this problem in the first place," Trump warned that the United States wouldn't “waste our time” with largesse toward Buenos Aires if Milei does not prevail. In addition to the midterms that will be a referendum on his policies, Milei himself is up for reelection in 2027.

“We're not going to let somebody get into office and squander the taxpayer money from this country. I'm not gonna let it happen,” Trump said from the Cabinet Room as he prepared to eat lunch with Milei. “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina.”

Even so, Trump insisted that the $20 billion assistance to Argentina, which administration officials strenuously deny is a bailout, was about helping “our neighbors" rather than any ties to the upcoming midterms.


“It's just helping a great philosophy take over a great country,” the U.S. president said. "Argentina is one of the most beautiful countries that I've ever seen, and we want to see it succeed. It's very simple."


U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added that the administration believed Milei’s coalition in the upcoming midterms would “do quite well and continue his reform agenda.”

As he opened his lunch with Milei, Trump noted that the Argentine president, who is an economist by trade, is “MAGA all the way.” That traditionally refers to his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," but this time, it also meant “Make Argentina Great Again."

Trump's meeting with Milei was already making waves back in Argentina, with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, leader of the left-leaning Peronist opposition and a two-term former president, writing on social media: “Trump to Milei: ´Our agreements are subject to whoever wins election´. Argentines ... you know what to do!”

The former president is serving a six-year sentence under house arrest since June for corruption, but she remains the most influential leader of Peronism, an ideologically flexible, labor rights-focused populist movement, which emerged in the 1940s and dominated politics for decades.

Ahead of his White House meeting and during it Milei lavished praise on Trump, deploying a tactic that has helped transform Milei's cash-strapped country into one of the Trump administration’s closest allies.


Milei, speaking in Spanish, said he is “very honored, especially in this moment when we are giving thanks for Trump’s great leadership.”

“We can follow a peaceful route and make Argentina a strong example for freedom and prosperity,” Milei said.

That bromance has already paid off for Argentina — most recently, to the tune of a $20 billion bailout.

In a crisis, turning to Trump

The Trump administration made a highly unusual decision to intervene in Argentina’s currency market after Milei's party suffered a landslide loss in a local election last month.

Along with setbacks in the opposition-dominated Congress, the party's crushing defeat created a crisis of confidence as voters in Buenos Aires Province registered their frustration with rising unemployment, contracting economic activity and brewing corruption scandals.

Alarmed that this could herald the end of popular support for Milei's free-market program, investors dumped Argentine bonds and sold off the peso.

Argentina’s Treasury began hemorrhaging precious dollar reserves at a feverish pace, trying shore up the currency and keep its exchange rate within the trading band set as part of the country’s recent $20 billion deal with the International Monetary Fund.


But as the peso continued to slide, Milei grew desperate.

He met with Trump on Sept. 23 while in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. A flurry of back-slapping, hand-shaking and mutual flattery between the two quickly gave way to Bessent publicly promising Argentina a lifeline of $20 billion.

Markets cheered, and investors breathed a sigh of relief.

Timing is everything

In the days that followed, Argentine Economy Minister Luis Caputo spent hours in meetings in Washington trying to seal the deal.

Reassurance came last Thursday, when Bessent announced that the U.S. would allow Argentina to exchange up to $20 billion worth of pesos for an equal sum in dollars. Saying that the success of Milei’s program was “of systemic importance,” Bessent added that the U.S. Treasury directly purchased an unspecified amount of pesos.



For the Trump administration, the timing was awkward as it struggles to manage the optics of bailing out a nine-time serial defaulter in the middle of a U.S. government shutdown that has led to mass layoffs. Democratic lawmakers and other critics have slammed it as an example of Trump rewarding loyalists at the expense of American taxpayers.


Later Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — who was singled out during the White House meeting by both Bessent and Trump — tried to advance a bill that would block the $20 billion in U.S. assistance, but the gambit failed in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Saying Trump was only aiding Argentina to help Milei, Warren said, “That's Argentina first, not America first.”

But for Argentina, the U.S. help came in the nick of time.

Aware of how a weak currency could threaten his flagship achievement of taming inflation and hurt his popularity, Milei hopes to stave off what many economists see as an inescapable currency devaluation until after the Oct. 26 midterm elections. A devaluation of the peso would likely fuel a resurgence in inflation.


Talks also touch on artificial intelligence

Another topic that had been on the agenda was the Stargate project, which would expand a network of massive artificial intelligence centers to Latin America, according to a person with knowledge of the plans who was granted anonymity to speak about private discussions.

Argentina could be home to Latin America’s first Stargate, which is a joint initiative from OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank that will build a network of big data centers that would power OpenAI’s artificial intelligence technology. It’s an initiative that’s been championed by Trump himself.

Milei also joined a ceremony at the White House honoring Charlie Kirk, the prominent right-wing political activist who was fatally shot last month. Milei often crossed paths with Kirk on the speaking circuit of the ascendant global right.


There has been no word on how Argentina, the IMF's largest debtor, will end up paying the U.S. back for this $20 billion, which comes on top of IMF’s own loan for the same amount in April. And that one came on top of an earlier IMF loan for $40 billion.

Despite all the help, Milei's government already missed the IMF's early targets for rebuilding currency reserves.


"The U.S. should be concerned that Argentina has had to return for $20 billion so quickly after getting $14 billion upfront from the IMF,” said Brad Setser, a former Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Trump threatens to pull support for Argentina if its politics move leftward

 

[mandrill]

Meta has removed a Facebook page used to track the presence of immigration agents at the request of the Department of Justice, the company confirmed on Tuesday.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X that “following outreach” from the DOJ, Facebook removed a “large group page” that was being used to target ICE officials.

Meta said in a statement that the group "was removed for violating our policies against coordinated harm.”

Meta is the latest tech company to restrict tools used to track ICE agents on its platform. Earlier this month, Apple and Google blocked downloads of phone apps that flag sightings of U.S. immigration agents, just hours after the Trump administration demanded that one particularly popular iPhone app be taken down.

Bondi has said that such tracking puts Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at risk. But users and developers of the apps say it’s their First Amendment right to capture what ICE is doing in their neighborhoods — and maintain that most users turn to these platforms in an effort to protect their own safety as President Donald Trump steps up aggressive immigration enforcement across the country.



Government officials detain a protester in Chicago, Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2025. (Anthony Vazquez/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)© The Associated Press
While a Facebook group for ICE sightings in Chicago does appear to have been taken down, as of Tuesday evening, dozens of other groups, some with thousands of members, remained visible on Facebook.

Meta removes ICE-tracking Facebook page in Chicago at the request of the Justice Department

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump triggered outrage for forcing out his own hand-picked federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia for failing to find the evidence to bring criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey. And a New York Times report on Tuesday revealed his federal prosecutor in the Western District of Virginia was forced out under similar circumstances.

The prosecutor, Todd Gilbert, was forced to resign over the summer, sparking extensive speculation and alarm.



"Senior Justice Department officials had ordered Mr. Gilbert to open a grand jury investigation into whether anyone at F.B.I. headquarters during and after the Biden administration had mishandled classified documents related to the Russia investigation that Mr. Trump has long decried as a 'witch hunt' against him," said the report. "The new details highlight how Mr. Trump’s push for criminal prosecutions of those he sees as enemies has led to crises inside multiple U.S. attorneys’ offices, in this instance dooming a top prosecutor in the Western District of Virginia, based in Roanoke."

"There have been a number of unusual facets to the investigation," the report noted. "The Justice Department tends to try to closely control national security-related investigations in a particular office or team. In this instance, however, the department has dedicated multiple U.S. attorneys’ offices to a set of interconnected issues, all centered on an effort to show misconduct in the Russia investigation, which is nearly a decade old."



According to the report, "After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Gilbert told his superiors that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to justify a grand jury investigation, these people said. Frustrated by that answer, aides to Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, blamed a senior career attorney in the office who they believed had swayed Mr. Gilbert: Zachary Lee, a veteran prosecutor with more than two decades of experience involving public corruption and narcotics, among other issues." Trump officials then tried to push Gilbert to remove Lee, and he refused, after which he was forced out.

Gilbert, the former Republican speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, has separately been in the news after Democratic Virginia Attorney General nominee Jay Jones was found to have privately posted violent texts about him several years ago.


Trump admin ousted another prosecutor for refusing to hunt down his enemies

 

[mandrill]

Fifteen years after the Citizens United ruling opened the gates for corporate money to flow into US elections, the Supreme Court will soon hear another pair of cases that journalist David Sirota says are aimed at “eliminating the last restrictions on campaign donations and obstructing law enforcement’s efforts to halt bribery.”

One of the cases, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), was launched in 2022 by then-Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance (R-Ohio), now the vice president of the United States, and several other Republicans, who argued that limits on coordinated spending violated the First Amendment.

The limits in question, which were imposed after the Watergate scandal, put a cap on the amount of money that outside donors can spend in direct coordination with their favored candidates.

“Though Citizens United unleashed a 28-fold increase in election spending, the ruling preserved the legality of campaign contribution limits,” wrote David Sirota in Rolling Stone on Tuesday. “If those rules are killed off, party committees could become pass-through conduits for big donors to circumvent donation limits and deliver much larger payments in support of lawmakers who can reward them with government favors.”

In 2001, the court, then presided over by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, upheld the limits by a margin of 5-4, with Justice David Souter writing in the majority opinion, “there is little evidence” that they “have frustrated the ability of political parties to exercise their First Amendment rights to support their candidates.”

This time, Republicans in all three branches of government have seemed to work in tandem to get the law overturned.

In a highly unusual move, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice has refused to defend the FEC. And contrary to his job as the federal government’s lawyer, Solicitor General John Sauer—who also served as President Donald Trump’s lawyer in the case that granted him “presidential immunity” from prosecution last year—has joined the Republican plaintiffs in calling for the Supreme Court to strike down the law.

Without the government to defend the law, the Supreme Court was put in charge of appointing an amicus curiae—“friend of the court”—lawyer to take up the FEC’s defense.

The justices chose Roman Martinez, a member of a group run by the right-wing Federalist Society who has spent most of his career working for Republican presidential campaigns and has clerked for conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and later Chief Justice John Roberts during the time he was deliberating Citizens United. Since 2016, when Martinez went into private practice, he “has led high-profile cases for corporate clients and political lobbying interests,” according to The Lever.

The most notable of these was a case last year before the Supreme Court that overturned the Chevron doctrine, which had given government agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes as they saw fit. Martinez, who has described himself as an opponent of “government overreach,” called Chevron “a doctrine that puts the thumb on the scale in favor of the government.”


While experts have said they still believe Martinez will take his job seriously, having an outsider defend the coordinated spending limits puts the defense at a structural disadvantage: “It’s very different than when an agency with decades of expertise is defending their own law,” said Tara Malloy of the Campaign Legal Center.

Lever reporters Jared Jacang Maher and Katya Schwenk described the case as a “Citizens United 2.0” that, if successful, would further obliterate limits on campaign spending:

Since 2022, party committees reported $241 million in coordinated spending, compared to over $858 million in "independent" expenditures on individual campaigns. Striking the coordinated-expenditure cap could shift vast sums into direct, mega donor-driven collaborations between parties and candidates.

At the same time, the court is also hearing a case, Sittenfeld v. United States, with wide-ranging implications for the government’s ability to prosecute politicians who accept bribes. The case was brought by former Cincinnati City Councilman PG Sittenfeld, who was caught accepting a $20,000 campaign contribution in exchange for supporting a local development project.


Though Sittenfeld is a Democrat, he has already been pardoned by Trump and is challenging his conviction with pro bono representation from the DC law firm Jones Day, which has served as counsel for Trump’s campaigns as well as the Republican National Committee and helped defend Trump’s cases to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

“Those circumstances and all that legal firepower make clear that this is less about one shady municipal deal and more about broadening a string of rulings making it increasingly impossible to prosecute public corruption cases,” Sirota argued.

The court already narrowed the definition of bribery substantially last year when it ruled that statutes criminalizing overt “quid pro quo” deals between politicians and donors did not ban “gratuities”—gifts of value given to politicians afteran act has already been performed. This was notably the exact form of corruption that conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas participated in when they received substantial gifts from billionaire right-wing donors.


“Sittenfeld’s appeal aims to take the Supreme Court’s legal assault on anti-bribery laws even farther,” Sirota said. “In legal briefs, his lawyers are offering a novel theory: They insinuate that pay-to-play culture is now so pervasive that it should no longer be considered prosecutable.”

One brief even cites Trump himself as a primary example of this endemic corruption: On the campaign trail in 2024, he directly asked oil executives for $1 billion in campaign cash, pledging to do favors for the industry in return. Sittenfeld’s lawyers argue that a “prosecutor could doubtless present this meeting alone as at least ambiguous evidence of a quid pro quo” and lament that “politicians are open to prosecution if they say anything during these often informal, unscripted conversations that can be read to even hint at a possible quid pro quo.”

Sirota said these two cases follow the same tactics used duringCitizens United, using a small dispute over a technicality to legislate major changes to campaign finance law that could never get through Congress.


“It’s the same dynamic today,” he says. “Conservative groups behind today’s two new cases undoubtedly hope that their spats over the esoterica of campaign finance and bribery law prompt the even-more-conservative court to not merely mediate these specific conflicts, but to issue broad rulings instead incinerating any remaining deterrents to pay-to-play corruption.”

Republicans are pushing a pair of Supreme Court cases that would further legalize bribery

 

[mandrill]

Former Federal Trade Commission member Alvaro Bedoya told the New Republic that he encountered extensive finagling of government systems and the free market before President Donald Trump fired him this year.

Bedoya, who was confirmed as an FTC member in 2022, says he remains “worried about the money at the top crushing everyone underneath.”

“That sounds grim because it is,” said Bedoya, who spent considerable time fighting to reverse the damage of corporate opportunists tweaking the U.S. health system to their advantage.

He’d worked with an independent pharmacy owner in Appalachia complaining of insurance companies using intermediaries to steer lucrative prescriptions to their own mail-order pharmacies rather than local businesses. One insurance company had even tried to turn away a West Virginia family from a local pharmacy and force them to wait weeks for their own supplier to mail them life-saving medicine for their cancer-afflicted child.

Corporate middlemen could blow up any agreement at their whim by claiming pharmacists were at default for bogus noncompliance. Bedoya also did battle with corporations who had bought up every vendor for feed, fertilizer, pesticides and then began jacking up prices for local farmers amid the resulting monopoly.

“The companies weren’t focused on research and development,” farmers told Bedoya. “They’re using their wealth to buy their competitors.”

Meat processors had been scuttled down by buyouts to only one processor — who could then pay farmers however little he wanted to buy their cattle. Farmers who used to be able to repair their own tractors now discovered that John Deere had locked down their vehicles software, forcing farmers to take broken tractors to a company dealership.

“It’s like getting picked apart by a chicken,” one farmer complained to him.

During his career Bedoya also helped day laborers whose millionaire employers insisted they work as independent contractors with no benefits, and sometimes with no worksite amenities like drinkable water.

When Trump arrived, he designated as FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson, who announced the FTC would “usher in a new Golden Age for American businesses, workers, and consumers.”

“What has followed has been a Golden Age for the C-suite,” said Bedoya.

The FTC suddenly determined that a ban on noncompete clauses that lock people into dead-end positions were not worth defending in court. Another rule banning companies insisting you unsubscribe from a service over the phone was delayed. And an order barring an oil executive from the board of Exxon was dismantled. Trump’s revamped Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also suddenly didn’t care to fine banks that hit veterans with surprise overdraft fees.

“A lawsuit against a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary that allegedly tricked people into taking out loans for mobile homes when they had $57.78 in discretionary income? Gone, said Bedoya.

All of this feeds an American misery that can breed new misery, said Bedoya.

“Many liberals remain baffled that America elected Donald Trump. They genuinely have no idea how he could have won the election. I don’t think that Trump won because of ‘wokeism’ or the ‘trans agenda,’ whatever that is,” Bedoya said. “I think he won by speaking to that despair and telling people that he alone could fix it.”


But those soothing words were just an open door, apparently.

Read the full New Republic report at this link.

Busted: Trump official revealed rampant corruption before the president fired him

 

[mandrill]

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is clearing the ranks of the military's lawyers to "get them out of the way" of possibly illegal moves, according to current and former defense officials.

Hegseth fired Lt. Gen. Joe Berger, the Army's top uniformed lawyer, early this year on the advice of the right-wing social media account LibsOfTikTok and he then removed the Air Force’s Judge Advocate General, Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer, describing both as "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander-in-chief," reported CNN.



“I see this as part of a grander plan to remove lawyers from the [military’s] operational forces and get them out of the way,” said a former senior defense official.

The sources told CNN that Berger and Plummer’s firings appeared to be warning shots at the outset of President Donald Trump's second term that the administration intended to test the boundaries of the law – and they expected Judge Advocate General corps officers to go along with their potentially unlawful plans.



“Decapitating those organizations was an easy way for Hegseth to send a strong message from the outset and put the entire JAG corps on notice,” said a defense official familiar with his thinking.

Senior JAGs historically have a duty to provide candid and apolitical legal advice to military leaders, complying with U.S. and international law, but Hegseth's staff seems more interested in "political litmus tests" when interviewing candidates to serve in the corps.

“Hegseth’s rhetoric and policies are perceived as a bit unhinged and counterproductive, but the way forward is just to eat it and put your head down and act in accordance with his new policies,” said one current Army JAG. “No JAG is trying to rock the boat or get noticed.”

The self-described "secretary of war" has reduced the rank requirement for the top uniformed military legal posts from three stars to two stars, which a former defense official said effectively relegated them to second-tier legal advisers, and he plans to transfer hundreds of JAGs to the Justice Department to serve as immigration judges, which would pull them out of the military justice system.

“When you’re a two-star and you walk into the room for a high-level meeting, you’re against the wall," said a former senior defense official. "You’re not at the table, and there are some meetings that are held just at the three- or four-star level — so you can’t even get into the room as a two-star.”

Hegseth derided JAGs as "jagoffs" in his 2024 book The War on Warriors, complaining they investigated U.S. troops rather than “bad guys” because it was “easier to get promoted that way," and he tapped his personal lawyer Tim Parlatore, who represented him a sexual assault settlement, to coordinate an overhaul of the military justice system to reduce their presence at the Pentagon.

“The rule of law at DoD has been under attack since day one of this administration,” said one current JAG. “There is a real dismissiveness of lawyers now, and I fear for where this is all going.”


Pete Hegseth clearing out military lawyers as 'part of a grander plan': former official

 

[mandrill]

Former FBI Director James Comey appears to have played a "very strong" opening move against President Donald Trump's prosecution of him, and one analyst predicts that it could cause the entire case to unravel.

Comey was recently indicted by a grand jury on two counts of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. The charges were secured after Trump appointed his former defense counsel, Lindsey Halligan, to run the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Trump also posted on Truth Social that he wants Attorney General Pam Bondi to move more quickly to indict his opponents like Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).



Comey's attorneys on Tuesday sent a formal notice to the court that they are challenging Halligan's appointment. Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, discussed Comey's case on a new episode of the"Brian Tyler Cohen" podcast on Tuesday.

"This is a very strong motion to bring, and there is widespread agreement across the political spectrum," Klasfeld said.



The notice Comey's lawyer filed cited Alina Habba's recent appointment to lead the U.S. Attorney's office of New Jersey. Trump appointed her on an interim basis, which means she can only hold the job for 120 days a year. After her time ran out, a court refused to reapprove her appointment.

"That's why this particular fight is so important and why it could unravel James Comey's case before they even get to things like vindictive prosecution or a trial on the merits, which, by the way, seem like slam dunks even if it does get that far," Klasfeld said.


James Comey's 'strong' opening move could 'unravel' Trump's prosecution: analyst

 

[mandrill]

First responders in Portland, Oregon, were reportedly delayed in transporting an injured protester from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility to a nearby hospital because federal agents stood in front of an ambulance and refused to let it leave.

Confidential reports written by the two medical employees, obtained by Willamette Week, indicate that federal agents grew hostile towards the first responders after being informed that they could not ride in the ambulance because the patient was not under arrest.

The driver of the ambulance wrote in a report produced for American Medical Response, the group that contracts ambulance services in the county, that agents stood in front of the vehicle to prevent it from leaving.

Public records and 911 dispatch audio confirm those reports, with claims that “50-60” federal agents blocked the road in front of the vehicle.

After multiple unsuccessful attempts to leave the ICE facility, the driver said in their report that they put the ambulance in park, causing it to lurch forward and enraging a federal agent who seemingly thought it was an attempt to hit them.

Once in park, a group of agents crowded around the vehicle’s door as the medic tried to open it, the report says.

One agent, “pointed his finger at me in a threatening manner and began viciously yelling in my face, stating, ‘DON’T YOU EVER DO THAT AGAIN, I WILL SHOOT YOU, I WILL ARREST YOU RIGHT NOW,’” the report read.

The driver said they were “in such shock” and believed it “was no longer a safe scene.”

The Independent has asked the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the union representing the first responders for comment.

Protesters have been clashing with federal agents in Portland where Trump has deployed members of law enforcement agencies to crack down on immigration and crime (Getty Images)
A spokesperson for the Global Medical Response / American Medical Response said in a statement that they are “collaborating closely with Federal Protective Service to thoroughly review all aspects related to this incident.”

The ambulance arrived at the ICE facility at 9.30 p.m. on October 5 to assist an injured 32-year-old protestor, but it wasn’t until 9:42 p.m that it was allowed to finally leave, according to theWillamette Week. A car with federal agents ultimately followed the ambulance to the hospital.

The driver of the ambulance told 911 dispatchers that agents were blocking their path to leave, not protesters (REUTERS)
Outside, protesters reportedly changed “Let them out! Let them out!” according to KGW8.

Equally, radio messages between 911 dispatchers and the medics portray the confusing scenes around the delay.

"Copy, you're attempting to transport to Emanuel impeded by... protesters?" the dispatched asked, according to KGW.

"No, not protesters, just the ICE officers,” the medic responded.

It’s just the latest incident to occur in Portland outside of the ICE facility, where tensions have risen due to President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal officers and agents to crack down on crime and undocumented immigrants.

Federal agents delayed and threatened to shoot an ambulance driver trying to take a protester from ICE facility: report