A federal judge on Thursday dealt an early blow to the BBC’s legal strategy in President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit, refusing the broadcaster’s request to pause discovery and clearing the way for both sides to begin exchanging evidence.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman ruled that the BBC’s bid to halt the evidence-gathering process was “premature” and said the network had failed to show it would be unfairly harmed if discovery moved forward. In a separate order, the court scheduled a two-week trial date for February 2027.
The decision represents a significant procedural win for Trump, who has argued that the publicly funded British broadcaster knowingly pushed a misleading narrative about January 6 in an effort to damage him politically.
Trump is suing over edited footage aired in an October 2024 episode of the BBC’s Panorama documentary series. The clips, first reported by The Telegraph in November, allegedly spliced together two separate Trump statements in a way that his legal team says created the “mistaken impression” that he directed supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol.
Trump’s attorneys argue the editing was not a simple mistake, but part of a broader media pattern that Republicans have long criticized: selectively framing Trump and his supporters as violent extremists while downplaying evidence that Trump repeatedly urged peaceful protest.
The president’s lawsuit seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation, along with another $5 billion for alleged violations of trade practices.
The case has already caused turmoil inside the BBC. The fallout reportedly triggered resignations among senior leadership, including director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.
BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized for an “error of judgment,” but insisted there is “no basis for a defamation case” and said the corporation is “determined to fight this.”
Judge Altman’s ruling means the BBC will now be required to turn over internal communications, production materials, and editorial decision-making documents — evidence that could prove critical in determining whether the broadcaster acted negligently or with actual malice.
The Trump administration on Wednesday removed a newly appointed U.S. attorney in New York’s Northern District just hours after federal judges selected him for the post.
Donald Kinsella was appointed by district judges to serve as U.S. attorney in New York’s Northern District following the departure of John A. Sarcone III, who had been acting in the role. Sarcone stepped aside after a judge blocked him from further involvement in an investigation concerning New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that he was not lawfully serving in the office when certain subpoenas were issued.
Shortly after Kinsella’s appointment, he received an email from a White House official stating that he was being removed from the position. In comments to The New York Times, Kinsella said he was uncertain whether the email legally constituted his dismissal and indicated he would consult with the district judges who appointed him before taking further action.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, however, signaled that the administration considered the matter settled. Responding to a social media post from a TimesUnion reporter who first broke the story, Blanche wrote that Kinsella was officially “fired.”
Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella. https://t.co/XUYRgaqG2T
The episode reflects a broader, ongoing clash between the White House and the federal judiciary over the appointment and service of U.S. attorneys.
In December, Alina Habba, President Trump’s former personal attorney, was removed from her post as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor after a federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that found she had been unlawfully serving in the position.
Similarly, in November, a court determined that Lindsey Halligan, the president’s selected prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia, had been “unlawfully appointed.” That ruling led to the dismissal of charges against former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Letitia James.
Halligan left the U.S. attorney’s office in January after a judge criticized her repeated references to herself as U.S. attorney in court filings, calling it a “charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States attorney.”
J.P. Cooney, a former top deputy to special counsel Jack Smith in the Biden-era Justice Department, has launched a Democrat bid for Congress in Virginia — centering his campaign on his role in prosecuting President Donald Trump.
Cooney announced his candidacy in a post on X, writing: “I was fired by Donald Trump’s Department of Justice because of my work to prosecute him. But I won’t let Trump – or anyone – stop me from serving. I’m J.P. Cooney, and I’m running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District.”
I was fired by Donald Trump's Department of Justice because of my work to prosecute him.
But I won't let Trump – or anyone – stop me from serving.
I'm J.P. Cooney, and I'm running for Congress in Virginia's 7th District. https://t.co/6WnMrUNG5w
According to his LinkedIn profile, Cooney served as Principal Deputy to Special Counsel Jack Smith and was a lead prosecutor in the federal cases brought against Trump alleging obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Those cases, filed during a period of intense political division, were widely criticized by Republicans as unprecedented uses of prosecutorial power against a political opponent — particularly as Trump was running for president.
Many conservatives have argued that the prosecutions reflected a broader pattern of what they describe as a “weaponized” Justice Department under Democrat leadership. House Republicans have held hearings examining federal law enforcement’s conduct in high-profile political investigations, questioning whether equal standards were applied across party lines.
Smith, whose tenure as special counsel was sharply debated on Capitol Hill, praised Cooney in remarks reported by The New York Times. “I’ve known J.P. for a long time and I think the world of him as a person and as a public servant,” Smith said. “He’s a man of integrity who has committed his career to upholding the rule of law.”
For Republican voters in Virginia, Cooney’s campaign is likely to revive debates about the legitimacy and timing of the Trump prosecutions. GOP leaders have consistently maintained that the legal actions were politically motivated and designed to damage Trump’s electoral prospects rather than to serve impartial justice.
Adding another layer of controversy, Cooney is running in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District — a district that does not yet exist in its current proposed form. According to The New York Times, Democrats in Virginia are advancing a redistricting effort that would significantly alter the 7th District’s boundaries. That plan would face legal hurdles and would ultimately require approval via ballot referendum.
Republicans in the state have criticized the redistricting push as an attempt to engineer a more favorable electoral map, particularly in competitive suburban districts that have swung between parties in recent cycles. Virginia’s 7th District has been one of the most closely watched battlegrounds in the Commonwealth, reflecting broader national shifts in suburban voting patterns.
In comments to the Times, Cooney framed his candidacy as a response to what he described as congressional inaction. “Never has there been a Congress that has been such a weak and ineffective check on a president’s abuses of power,” he said. “I lie awake every night worrying that Donald Trump does not have the best interests of our country in mind.”
Those remarks are likely to energize Democratic primary voters but may also sharpen partisan contrasts in a state where divided government and razor-thin margins have become the norm. Virginia has trended more competitive in recent elections, with Republicans making gains in statewide contests and emphasizing issues such as public safety, parental rights in education, inflation, and federal spending.
Cooney’s entry into the race signals that the legal battles surrounding Trump will continue to spill into the political arena.
By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Thomas Homan, CC BY-SA 2.0,
MINNEAPOLIS — Border czar Tom Homan announced Thursday that the Trump administration will conclude Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis and the Twin Cities area, saying the large-scale federal immigration enforcement effort achieved its objectives and made the region safer.
Speaking at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Homan said the stepped-up ICE operation would be scaled back after weeks of heightened federal presence and cooperation with state and local law enforcement. “I have proposed, and President Trump has concurred, that this surge operation conclude,” Homan told reporters.
Homan said the successful results of the mission — including arrests of individuals with criminal histories and disrupting unlawful agitator activity — warranted the drawdown. “Twin Cities and Minnesota in general are and will continue to be much safer for the communities here because of what we have accomplished under President Trump’s leadership,” he said during his third press conference since being tasked with leading the surge.
Federal officials say the initiative, which began late in 2025, has resulted in thousands of arrests of dangerous illegal aliens and public safety threats, helping stem criminal activity and bolster cooperation with local law enforcement.
Homan outlined that federal officers will either return to their home duty stations or be reassigned elsewhere once the drawdown is complete. “Law enforcement officers drawing down from this surge operation will either return to the duty stations or be assigned elsewhere.”
In recent days, Homan confirmed that 700 of nearly 3,000 federal immigration officers have already been reassigned, a move he framed as responsive to productive coordination with state officials.
The operation had drawn intense national attention and criticism after two Americans — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were killed in separate confrontations with federal agents during enforcement actions, sparking protests and legal challenges.
A Democratic congresswoman facing serious federal charges is now under fire for touting political support she hasn’t actually received.
Florida Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who was indicted last fall for allegedly stealing millions in disaster relief funds, is promoting what her campaign calls an endorsement from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — even though Pelosi has not publicly backed her reelection bid in years.
Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr
Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign website features a glowing statement attributed to Pelosi, suggesting current support for the embattled lawmaker.
“Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, in her time in Congress, has been masterful at bringing people together… by working on big problems and staying focused on shared values,” Pelosi says in the statement. “It is my honor and privilege to support Sheila… for re-election as the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 20th Congressional District.”
But according to a press release reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation, Pelosi made that comment in July 2022 — nearly four years ago — when Cherfilus-McCormick was running for her first full term. A source familiar with the matter confirmed Pelosi has not issued any recent public endorsement.
Despite that, the campaign continues to present the statement as if it reflects Pelosi’s current support heading into the 2026 election.
Millions Allegedly Diverted From FEMA Funds
Federal prosecutors allege Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaigns were partially financed through more than $5.7 million in FEMA overpayments issued to her family’s company, Trinity Health Care Services.
Rather than returning the money, prosecutors say the congresswoman used a “substantial portion” of the funds to boost her political run while also spending on “luxury personal items.”
The Department of Justice indicted Cherfilus-McCormick in November on charges including stealing federal COVID-19 disaster relief funds, funneling money into her campaign, participating in a straw donor scheme, and conspiring to file a false tax return.
If convicted, she could face up to 53 years in prison.
Cherfilus-McCormick has pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing. She was not present at her Feb. 3 arraignment in Miami federal court.
Political Standing Collapsing at Home
Even in her deep-blue Fort Lauderdale-area district, the congresswoman’s political future appears shaky.
A Listener Group–Political Matrix News survey released Monday found only 22% of likely Democratic primary voters believe she should remain in office and seek reelection. She holds a -30% favorability rating, with just two in ten respondents approving of her job performance ahead of the August 2026 primary.
She is also facing a growing challenge from 26-year-old activist Elijah Manley, who leads her 38% to 35% in a hypothetical primary matchup. Former Broward County Mayor Dale Holness trails with 10% support.
The poll surveyed 300 likely primary voters from Feb. 2–4 and reported a 3% margin of error.
Weak Fundraising and Mounting Ethics Scrutiny
Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign raised just $119,000 in the fourth quarter of 2025, while spending nearly as much — $110,000 — on legal fees, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Meanwhile, her opponents posted stronger numbers: Manley raised $79,000, and Holness brought in $140,000 during the same period.
The congresswoman is also under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over allegations including illegal donations and inaccurate financial reporting. The committee has already found “substantial evidence” of misconduct tied to the federal indictment.
A Campaign Built on Yesterday’s Support
With criminal charges looming, sinking poll numbers, and serious ethical questions, Cherfilus-McCormick is now facing backlash not only for the allegations — but for campaigning as though Pelosi still stands behind her.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) suggested this week that holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt remains an option as Congress presses the Justice Department over its handling of the long-awaited Epstein files.
Massie, who helped author legislation requiring the release of government records tied to convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein, said lawmakers are still not receiving full access to unredacted documents — despite the deadline set by Congress.
Appearing Tuesday on CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Massie accused the Justice Department of failing to deliver what the law requires and raised concerns that redactions appear inconsistent and unjustified.
“We have not had access to totally unredacted files,” Massie said, adding that names such as Epstein associate and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner have been blacked out “for no apparent reason.”
Massie said the DOJ’s refusal to acknowledge gaps in its production makes it difficult for Congress — and the public — to trust that the full truth is being released.
“If they’ll admit that they’re making mistakes and that their document production is not done, I could trust them,” Massie said. “But I can’t trust them if they say… this is it, there’s no more.”
The Kentucky Republican noted he would have limited time to question Bondi when she appeared Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, warning that stronger measures could follow if answers are not forthcoming.
Massie first raised the possibility of using Congress’s “inherent contempt” powers against Bondi in a weekend interview, calling it the most direct way to force compliance.
“The quickest way… to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” he said.
Still, Massie acknowledged the challenge of pursuing contempt charges against the nation’s top law enforcement official, noting that referrals often run through the same department under scrutiny.
“You know, it’s hard to refer a contempt charge… on an attorney general to the attorney general,” Massie said. “This is the problem that you run into.”
Instead, he suggested Congress may need to compel testimony from individuals named in the documents, similar to efforts already underway by the House Oversight Committee.
Bondi’s appearance on Wednesday quickly turned tense as Democrats confronted her over the Justice Department’s redaction process — particularly allegations that some victims’ identities were improperly exposed while other information, including references to powerful individuals, was withheld.
Watch:
Rep. Thomas Massie to Pam Bondi: "Who is responsible?…Who in your organization made this massive failure and released the victims' names?" pic.twitter.com/ApohNitVDa
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pressed Bondi to apologize directly to Epstein survivors seated in the hearing room, accusing the DOJ of mishandling sensitive records.
Jayapal asks Epstein survivors in the hearing room to stand and raise their hand if they still haven't been able to meet with Bondi's DOJ. Every single one of them does so. Jayapal then gives Bondi an opportunity to apologize to survivors. Bondi responds by trying to attack… pic.twitter.com/iAG0RSsisv
Bondi declined to issue a direct apology for the department’s release process, offering general sympathy for victims but defending the DOJ’s actions. The exchange escalated into a sharp back-and-forth, with Bondi accusing Jayapal of engaging in “theatrics.”
🚨 This is the moment Rep. Lauren Boebert walked out of the DOJ secure room after viewing parts of the UNREDACTED Epstein files — and you can see the horror on her face.
She's visibly shaken, struggling to speak, eyes wide like she's seen something straight out of a nightmare.… pic.twitter.com/2k936LKado
Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) struggled to bring the room back to order as lawmakers debated whether the Justice Department has been transparent — or selective — in what it has released.
Department of Justice prosecutors were unable on Tuesday to secure indictments against multiple Democratic lawmakers following scrutiny over a controversial video urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders, according to a new report.
The New York Times reported Tuesday — citing four individuals familiar with the matter — that prosecutors led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro failed to persuade a grand jury to support indictments. NBC News also confirmed the development.
The lawmakers involved in the video include Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Chris Deluzio (D-PA). All have military or intelligence backgrounds.
In the video, the lawmakers urged service members not to comply with what they described as illegal directives and warned of internal threats to the Constitution.
“You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers said.
The remarks drew sharp backlash from President Trump and others, who argued the video crossed a dangerous line by encouraging disobedience within the armed forces — something many conservatives view as undermining military discipline and chain of command.
“IT WASN’T, AND IT NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in November.
In another post, Trump warned that sedition is “punishable by DEATH.”
Kelly Escalates Fight With Pentagon Over Rank and Benefits
Sen. Mark Kelly has since launched a separate legal battle tied to the fallout. Last month, he announced he filed a civil lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth after the Defense Department reportedly took steps to reduce Kelly’s rank and pension based on the video.
Kelly framed the move as retaliation for political speech, though Republicans have argued that elected officials — particularly those with prior military service — should be especially cautious about messaging that could be interpreted as encouraging insubordination in the ranks.
“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly said in a statement.
“His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”
The case adds to a broader debate over whether political figures should be using their platform to issue guidance to troops — especially at a time when conservatives have warned about growing politicization within federal institutions, including the military itself.
Slotkin Claims Victory After Grand Jury Declines to Indict
Following the grand jury’s decision not to proceed, Sen. Slotkin celebrated the outcome and criticized the administration.
“Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good,” Slotkin wrote Tuesday night on X.
Today, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro attempted to persuade a Grand Jury to indict me. This was in response to me organizing a 90-second video that simply quoted the law. Pirro did this at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested,…
“But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country,” she added.
Slotkin argued that even pursuing the case reflected misuse of federal power.
“Whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love,” Slotkin said.
Still, many Republicans counter that the central issue is not politics but accountability — particularly when lawmakers make statements that could be interpreted as urging troops to question lawful authority.
“No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Slotkin added.
Ongoing Debate Over Civil-Military Boundaries
While prosecutors were unable to secure indictments this week, the controversy underscores a growing national debate: how far elected officials can go in addressing service members directly without undermining military order or injecting partisan rhetoric into the armed forces.
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0
On Wednesday morning, the White House confirmed drone activity from Mexican drug cartels caused the sudden closure of U.S. airspace over El Paso, Texas.
In a statement to Newsweek the White House said: “Mexican cartel drones breached US airspace. The Department of War took action to disable the drones.
“The FAA and DOW have determined there is no threat to commercial travel.”
A Trump administration official told Fox News that the initial lockdown came in response to “Mexican cartel drones” that breached U.S. airspace. The FAA had announced Wednesday morning that all flights to and from El Paso were being grounded, including commercial, cargo and general aviation. The restriction was initially set to be effective from February 10 at 11:30 p.m. MST to February 20 at 11:30 p.m. MST.
“Mexican cartel drones breached US airspace. The Department of War took action to disable the drones. The FAA and DOW have determined there is no threat to commercial travel,” the official told Fox News.
Restrictions set earlier by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have been lifted and authorities say there remains no threat to commercial air travel.
“The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso has been lifted. There is no threat to commercial aviation. All flights will resume as normal,” the FAA said on its X account.
BREAKING: Mexican cartel drones breach US airspace, are disabled by War Department, Trump administration official tells Fox News pic.twitter.com/AHVwiPRQLh
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) raised eyebrows this week after making blunt remarks about corruption in Washington and the lingering unanswered questions surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
During a Monday appearance on Newsmax, Burchett argued that the Epstein scandal remains one of the clearest examples of how America’s political and elite class often operates under a different set of rules than everyday citizens.
Burchett’s comments came as discussion continues about potential upcoming depositions tied to the Epstein investigation, including speculation about former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer – https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
When asked about the possibility of questioning the Clintons, Burchett did not hold back, calling them an “evil pair” and suggesting they have long avoided accountability because of their political skill and influence.
“There’s a reason that they’re not in prison and a reason that he was in the White House for two terms and she was secretary of state, because they’re very slippery and they’re very smart and I think they’re an evil pair,” Burchett said.
He went on to argue that while many Americans want answers — particularly given Epstein’s high-profile connections — he doubts the Clintons or others in their circle will ever face serious consequences.
“I think she is probably the brains behind the operation, but I don’t think we’ll get much on them,” he continued. “I know a lot of people want us to get them, and it’d be great clickbait, I’m sure, but I think when it comes down to it they’ll either bail or they won’t answer very many questions and be very evasive and be very smug…”
Burchett also expressed frustration with what he described as a two-tiered justice system, where powerful political figures often escape scrutiny while ordinary Americans are held to stricter standards.
“…because in this world there are two forms of justice – those like the Clintons and for the rest of us,” he said.
While some commentators have speculated about dramatic legal consequences for high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, Burchett emphasized that Congress itself cannot directly jail anyone.
“Everybody says we’ll put them in handcuffs, all this stuff. All that’s talk,” he explained. “The law’s gotta back you up on it and, you know, we gotta define what those laws were that they broke, and Congress cannot send somebody to jail.”
🚨This is: United States Representative Tim Burchett:
Any pedophile, found guilty of crimes against children should be “hung publicly.”
In one of his most striking statements, Burchett suggested that Washington’s problems extend far beyond one scandal.
He concluded, “Oddly enough, a lot of congressmen probably should be in jail, but the truth is that we’re not gonna. I don’t think it’ll boil down to anything, and that’s gonna make a lot of people mad, but I believe that’s the truth.”
The Tennessee congressman also weighed in on Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.
Burchett predicted that if Maxwell were ever released early, her fate could mirror the suspicious circumstances many Americans still associate with Epstein’s death.
“I see maybe she gets out early on good behavior and does a humongous book deal and probably ends up committing suicide by getting shot in the back of the head five times because this thing goes very deep and the people involved in it are very powerful,” he said.
Burchett also repeated a belief shared by many skeptics across the country — that Epstein’s death in federal custody left far too many unanswered questions.
“And I’m still one of those that believe Epstein didn’t kill himself, ma’am. I just don’t think he did.”
After nearly a year as deputy director of the FBI under President Donald Trump, Bongino has returned to Fox as a contributor, according to a Monday afternoon report from The New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum.
His comeback was announced during the Monday night episode of Sean Hannity’s show at 9:00 p.m. ET.
Dan Bongino via Gage Skidmore Flickr
Grynbaum noted that Bongino has expressed regret at times about stepping away from his former life in media. Just weeks into the FBI role, he admitted on Fox & Friends that he missed what he left behind.
“I gave up everything for this,” Bongino said at the time.
🚨 JUST IN: Great news! Dan Bongino is headed back to Fox News –– he starts as a contributor tonight on Hannity. pic.twitter.com/V9IhW7Cvb6
First Appearance Back Focuses on High-Profile Disappearance
Bongino’s first major appearance after returning centered on the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC Today co-host Savannah Guthrie.
Speaking on Hannity Monday night, Bongino outlined three troubling possibilities in the case, emphasizing that investigators are still operating with very limited evidence.
“The first [possibility] would be, obviously, it’s a kidnapping. That was an intended kidnapping for a ransom payment…” he said.
He then explained a second scenario — that the situation may have spiraled out of another crime entirely.
“The second possibility would be this was just a crime that went awry. Someone was at the house, maybe it was a burglary, maybe something went bad, and you’ve got some bad actors committing another crime unrelated — in other words, requesting a ransom for something you didn’t do just to take advantage of a situation like this.”
Bongino’s third possibility raised an even more unsettling idea: that the disappearance may not involve a kidnapping at all.
The third possibility, he said, is that Guthrie’s disappearance could have resulted from a medical emergency or another non-criminal event that was later misunderstood or misrepresented.
Bongino Highlights Lack of Evidence
Bongino pointed to the complete absence of digital and forensic indicators — no DNA, no license plate hits, no cellphone activity, and no surveillance leads — as a major reason investigators are struggling.
He explained that when authorities cannot locate someone within the first few days, it can suggest either extremely sophisticated perpetrators or something else entirely.
“The story you’ve been told, or you may have believed may not be the story,” he said.
While Bongino declined to push one theory more strongly than the others, he emphasized that the lack of proof-of-life communication is unusual for legitimate ransom kidnappings.
He also referenced commentary from veteran FBI Special Agent Lance Leising, noting that real ransom cases typically involve rapid contact and early confirmation that the victim is alive — patterns missing here.
Multi-Agency Search Continues
Nancy Guthrie vanished from her Arizona home earlier this month, triggering a multi-agency investigation that now includes the FBI.
As the search intensified, Savannah Guthrie issued an emotional public plea, describing the situation as an “hour of desperation.”
Authorities are also investigating an alleged ransom note tied to the disappearance, though the deadline referenced in the note passed Monday night without proof of life or resolution.
Back to Media — and Still on Rumble
Bongino will continue hosting his podcast on Rumble, which he recently rebooted after leaving the FBI in December.
Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham said at the time she wasn’t surprised by Bongino’s departure, noting that he “loved his lucrative media life” and wanted to “get back to it.”
President Trump joined Bongino’s first show back on Rumble.
The president made headlines during his appearance when he said Republicans should “nationalize” the voting process in order to block “crooked” Democrat-led states from allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
“These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally,” Trump said. “And it’s amazing the Republicans aren’t tougher on it. The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting in at least 15 places.’”
The White House initially sought to soften Trump’s remarks, but the president doubled down on Tuesday, arguing that federal intervention could be warranted if states fail to administer elections fairly.
“If states can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over,” Trump said. “The federal government should get involved.”
Trump framed his argument as a response to what he described as “corruption” at the state and local level, particularly in more than a dozen states he has criticized in recent months.
In response, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said he plans to introduce a Senate resolution on Monday denouncing any effort by a president to “nationalize” or “take over” state-run election systems ahead of the 2026 midterms.
