Home Blog Page 58

Report: FBI Doubted Probable Cause For Mar-a-Lago Raid, Pushed Ahead Under Biden’s Pressure

Marine One lifts-off after returning President Donald J. Trump to Mar-a-Lago Friday, March 29, 2019, following his visit to the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike near Canal Point, Fla., that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. The visit was part of an infrastructure inspection of the dike, which is part of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee Everglades system, and reduces impacts of flooding for areas of south Florida. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian) [Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

Newly declassified documents reviewed by Fox News Digital show that FBI officials repeatedly questioned whether they had probable cause to raid President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in 2022—yet the operation moved forward under pressure from the Biden Justice Department. One DOJ official reportedly dismissed concerns about political optics, saying he did not “give a damn about the optics” of the search.

Fox News Digital obtained internal email exchanges between FBI and DOJ personnel from the months leading up to the unprecedented raid. The emails reveal deep internal hesitation about whether the facts supported such an intrusive action against a former president.

In one email, an assistant special agent in charge wrote to colleague Anthony Riedlinger:

“Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents. From the interviews, WFO has gathered information suggesting that there may be additional boxes (presumably of the same type as were sent back to NARA in January) at Mar-a-Lago.”

He continued, explaining that the Washington Field Office was struggling to build a reliable affidavit:

“WFO has been drafting a search warrant affidavit related to these potential boxes, but has some concerns that the information is single source, has not been corroborated, and may be dated. DOJ CES opines, however, that the SW’s meet the probable cause standard.”

The agent also suggested pursuing a voluntary approach rather than immediately resorting to a search warrant:

“Even as we continue down the path towards a search warrant, WFO believes that a reasonable conversation with the former president’s attorney…ought not to be discounted.”

He added that even if Trump believed the documents were declassified, they could still be secured cooperatively:

“At a minimum… it can be reasonably argued that the documents remain sensitive and should be properly secured until the matter of classification is sorted out.”

Weeks later, another agent expressed frustration that the FBI still lacked new evidence:

“We haven’t generated any new facts, but keep being given draft after draft after draft. Absent a witness coming forward with recent information about classified on site, at what point is it fair to table this? It is time consuming for the team, and not productive if there are no new facts supporting PC (probable cause)?”

Another internal message was even more direct:

“WFO does not believe (and has articulated to DOJ CES), that we have established probable cause for the search warrant for classified records at Mar-a-Lago.”

Despite the FBI’s objections, the DOJ insisted probable cause existed and pushed for a broad search scope.

The FBI also warned leadership that a raid would likely be “counterproductive” and recommended “alternative, less intrusive and likelier quicker options for resolution.” Those concerns were ultimately overruled.

On Aug. 4, 2022—days before the raid—one agent described the plan:

“The FBI intends for the execution of the warrant to be handled in a professional, low key manner, and to be mindful of the optics of the search.”

Nevertheless, the August 2022 raid went ahead, leading to the seizure of boxes of materials that included documents potentially protected by attorney-client and executive privilege. Trump’s attorneys said they were not allowed to observe the search and questioned how agents were determining which items belonged to Trump personally.


Deadly Force Policy Included in DOJ’s Operations Order

Fox News previously reported that the Biden administration authorized standard DOJ “use of deadly force” language in the operations order for the raid—language also used when searching President Joe Biden’s home in a separate classified documents review.

According to a court filing, the operations order stated:

“Law Enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.”

The order also showed that agents planned to bring:

“Standard Issue Weapons,” “Ammo,” “Handcuffs,” and “medium and large sized bolt cutters,”

while being instructed to wear “unmarked polo or collared shirts” and keep “law enforcement equipment concealed.”


Legal Aftermath

Special Counsel Jack Smith ultimately charged Trump with 37 felony counts related to alleged improper retention of classified material, later adding three more counts in a superseding indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. After Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Smith dropped the case.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Trump Files $5B Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC

2
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over its deceptive editing of a speech delivered by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Miami. In the 46-page filing, Trump’s team argues the edit gave the “mistaken impression” he called for violence on that day.

“This instance of doctoring–in the form of distortion of meaning and splicing of entirely unrelated word sequences–is part of the BBC’s longstanding pattern of manipulating President Trump’s speeches and presenting content in a misleading manner in order to defame him, including fabricating calls for violence that he never made,” the lawsuit states.

“The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses,” it continues.

The footage used in the broadcaster’s Panorama documentary spliced together two separate clips, creating the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

The two clips are separated by 55 minutes in Trump’s original speech, and the documentary also left out Trump’s explicit calls for supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

Speaking in Washington DC, the president accused the broadcaster of “putting terrible words in my mouth that I didn’t say” and claimed the BBC “may have used AI” in its investigative Panorama show. He later added: “They actually have me speaking with words that I never said, and they got caught… Let’s call [it] fake news.”

In a statement to The New York Times, Trump’s legal team said: “The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”

The fallout has already triggered resignations at the top of the BBC, including director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.

The BBC later issued an apology to Trump for his portrayal in the documentary:

“[W]e accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the statement said.

“The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added.

Trump’s latest lawsuit follows a string of high-profile legal battles against U.S.-based media outlets, including The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Biden Struggles To Raise Funds For Presidential Library

    3
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    More than a year after its launch, former President Joe Biden’s presidential library foundation has raised a modest sum, inviting questions about whether the project can move forward as a standalone institution.

    According to a report by The New York Times, public filings and donor interviews reveal that the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Presidential Library Foundation expects to raise just $11.3 million by the end of 2027. The foundation received no new donations in 2024, and its initial funding came largely from $4 million leftover from Biden’s 2021 inauguration.

    As of late 2025, Biden has not held any major fundraising events for the library. The first donor reception was scheduled for Monday, Dec. 15, in Washington, D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood. The foundation has not disclosed how much it raised in 2025, saying only that Biden has begun fundraising more actively.

    The projected fundraising total places Biden far behind other recent presidents. The Obama Foundation has raised more than $1.5 billion for the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, which is scheduled to open in 2026. Although the project has faced cost overruns and criticism from local residents, more than $850 million has already been committed to construction. Financial filings have nonetheless raised concerns about the center’s limited endowment and the potential for future taxpayer liability due to rising operating costs.

    President Donald Trump is also pursuing a far more ambitious library effort. Trump plans to build his presidential library in Miami and is hoping to raise nearly $1 billion. His project has already secured land and funding from private donations and legal settlements and received formal approval from the Florida Cabinet in September 2025, though a lawsuit presents potential issues. The library is being promoted as a major civic attraction.

    Biden’s fundraising challenges appear to be compounded by donor fatigue and dissatisfaction within Democratic fundraising circles. Several prominent donors have expressed reluctance to contribute. Longtime Democratic bundler John Morgan told The New York Times, “He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile,” citing frustration with how Biden’s staff treated donors. Other contributors said they are prioritizing efforts to defeat Trump or were disillusioned with Biden’s presidency.

    According to Axios, Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, further alienated some Democrats, with several donors reportedly threatening to withhold support for the library effort.

    The Biden library foundation is chaired by Rufus Gifford, a Democratic fundraiser and former U.S. chief of protocol. Its executive directors include two of Biden’s closest aides, Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal. Over the summer, the foundation hired CCS Fundraising to evaluate its financial prospects. In September, Joe and Jill Biden sent letters to prospective donors inviting them to participate in 45-minute interviews to assess their willingness to give.

    Given the fundraising shortfall, some donors have suggested merging the future library with existing Biden-related institutions at the University of Delaware. The university has raised at least $22 million, including $20 million from the state of Delaware, to build “Biden Hall.” A merger could allow the library project to share resources and reduce costs, though both the university and the foundation declined to comment on whether such a consolidation is under consideration.

    At present, the Biden presidential library exists only as an entity listed on the National Archives website and as a corporate organization incorporated in December 2024. No specific site has been selected, though locations in Wilmington, Delaware, have been discussed. The foundation’s stated fundraising goal of $200 million remains far out of reach.

    Nobel Laureate Praises Trump’s Tough Stance on Maduro

    By Kevin Payravi - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=179718533

    Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, one of Venezuela’s most prominent pro-democracy leaders, is strongly backing President Donald Trump’s hard-line approach toward Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime. In a new interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation, Machado said Trump’s strategy has given hope to millions of Venezuelans suffering under socialist rule.

    Asked whether she supports increased U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan officials and further U.S. seizures of illicit oil shipments, Machado was unequivocal.

    “Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere,” Machado told host Margaret Brennan.

    Speaking from Oslo, where she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize after spending nearly a year in hiding, Machado noted that she had dedicated part of the award to Trump.

    “I think that he finally has put Venezuela in where it should be, in terms of a priority for the United States’ national security.”

    Machado argued that Maduro’s regime is far more dangerous than a conventional dictatorship.

    “This is a very complex criminal structure that has turned Venezuela into a safe haven of international crime and terrorist activities, starting with Russia, Iran, Cuba, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Colombian guerrilla [groups], [and] the drug cartels operating freely and directed in partnership with Maduro and his regime.”

    Machado has long been one of Maduro’s most effective opposition figures. After she overwhelmingly won the opposition primary in 2023, the regime barred her from running, then orchestrated an election that independent experts later declared “mathematically and statistically impossible.” Despite that, Maduro claimed victory and refused to relinquish power. Machado endorsed a stand-in candidate but remained the movement’s central figure—until she was forced into hiding for her safety.

    Now, speaking publicly for the first time in months, Machado is calling for increased international pressure.

    “We want every legal action through law enforcement … not only from the United States, also from other Caribbean, Latin American and European countries that further block the illegal activities of the regime.”

    Her argument is straightforward:

    “We need to increase the cost of staying in power by force. Once you arrive to that point in which the cost of staying in power is higher than the cost of leaving power, the regime will fall apart. And it’s the moment where we advance into a negotiated transition.”


    Additional Context: Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize

    Machado’s praise comes as Trump has repeatedly been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, particularly for:

    • The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations—an achievement some foreign-policy experts called one of the most important diplomatic breakthroughs in decades.
    • His diplomatic efforts in reducing tensions with North Korea, which earned him multiple nominations from European lawmakers.
    • His support for democracy movements in Latin America, including Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

    Report: Trump Border Czar Homan, DHS Chief Noem Barely Speaking Or Meeting

    3
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    A simmering feud between Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan has grown so strained that the two leaders reportedly barely speak or meet with each other, according to a new Axios report. Despite the tension, neither official is in danger of losing their job, and President Trump continues to stand by both as key figures in his aggressive border-security agenda.

    The clash—with roots that appear more personal than ideological—has raised eyebrows inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A White House adviser told Axios that Trump views the competition between Noem and Homan as a healthy dynamic that can improve overall performance. “Kristi’s doing a great job,” Trump reportedly said. “Her and Tom don’t get along, but they’re doing great.”

    Personality Clash, Not Policy Collapse

    Sources say the feud stems largely from a personality clash and differing leadership styles. While both leaders support tough enforcement of immigration laws, Noem’s backers have criticized Homan for oversaturating conservative media with frequent appearances, especially on Fox News, which they say sometimes carries him past official channels or consultation with DHS communications staff. Homan has appeared on conservative outlets far more than Noem this year, which insiders say has aggravated the divide.

    Career Officials Bristle, But Trump Wants Results

    Career immigration officials have reportedly bristled at Noem’s leadership style, including her public-facing promotion of policies like the CBP Home self-deportation app and the outsized influence of her senior adviser, Corey Lewandowski, who can only officially serve limited days under federal rules.

    At the same time, Noem’s allies say Homan’s media presence sometimes strays into self-promotion, making news on policy pronouncements without coordination. But neither side is backing down, and several White House sources say Trump is satisfied with the job both are doing.

    What This Means for Border Security

    Despite internal friction, the Trump administration’s border enforcement efforts remain robust. Deportations have reached record levels under this team, and DHS continues to pursue hard-line priorities. That focus on illegal immigration enforcement aligns with what Trump was elected to deliver and remains popular among the president’s base.

    In public remarks—such as Noem’s recent testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee—Noem has defended the administration’s approach as strengthening national security and deterring illegal entries, insisting DHS is enforcing the law without selective leniency.

    Erika Kirk Says All livestreams ‘On Hold’ Until After Private Meeting With Candace Owens

    1
    Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Erika Kirk announced that she will meet privately with commentator Candace Owens, marking the first direct conversation between the two since a period of public disagreement and discussion following her late husband’s death.

    In a brief statement posted Sunday on X, Kirk said both women have agreed to pause all public commentary until after their meeting.

    “Candace Owens and I are meeting for a private, in-person discussion on Monday, December 15,” Erika said.

    “@RealCandaceO and I have agreed that public discussions, livestreams, and tweets are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward to a productive conversation. Thank you,” she added.

    The planned meeting reflects a joint effort to move beyond weeks of escalating tension and online conspiracy theories by creating space for a more personal and thoughtful exchange.

    Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    During a recent CBS town hall, Erika spoke candidly about the emotional toll of the speculation surrounding her husband’s passing. When asked what she would say to those spreading unfounded claims, she responded, “Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop.”

    She also addressed the issue during a Dec. 10 appearance on Outnumbered, saying, “When you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this, no.”

    Despite their earlier collaboration and personal friendship, the relationship between Kirk and Owens has deteriorated sharply in recent months. Their decision to meet privately signals a mutual desire to communicate directly, clear up misunderstandings, and reduce further speculation.

    Since the tragic death of her husband, Charlie Kirk, in September, Erika has focused publicly on preserving his legacy while navigating the intense scrutiny surrounding the circumstances of his passing.

    Earlier this month, Charlie Kirk Show producer Blake Neff announced that Kirk’s friends will be holding an event to refute Owens’s incendiary claims. Owens has turned down an invitation to attend it in person.

    Owens has a reputation for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, including once staking her entire professional reputation on the claim that the First Lady of France, Brigitte Macron, is a man. Owens has also suggested that Israel was somehow connected to Charlie Kirk’s death.

    Kirk, who founded the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed at a Utah university in September, and his alleged assassin is currently awaiting trial on murder charges. Neff called Owens’s claims “either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth,” and added, “I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder.”

    He concluded by saying Turning Point will host a live stream to further debunk Owens’s conspiracies and invited her to participate.

    “We wanted to use this segment at the top of this hour to say something important, something very important. For the past two and a half months, there is a topic that has flooded our Freedom inbox. It has been nonstop on social media, but which we have almost totally avoided on this show. You probably already know what I’m talking about, which shows just how ubiquitous it has been,” Neff began.

    Read his full statement below:

    Ever since Charlie’s murder, Candace Owens has leveled a flood of allegations against people at Turning Point USA, people at Turning Point Action, and people who work for this show. She has made them against some of Charlie’s closest friends and against some of his most dedicated employees. She has suggested that Michael McCoy, Charlie’s chief of staff, knew Charlie would be murdered, was happy that he died, and stayed silent because he was told he would be the next Charlie.

    She has suggested Michael is not his real name. It is—I have seen his birth certificate myself. She has called it suspicious that Mikey’s wife, who works at Turning Point, helped plan the campus tour event where Charlie was murdered, which she didn’t, by the way. She doesn’t work on campus events.

    Candace has suggested the Utah Valley University event was unusual and its details suggested a quote “inside job.” She has claimed that foreign aircraft have followed Erica Kirk around the country and that Turning Point has lied about this happening. She has accused us of lying about Charlie wanting Erica to take over for him if he died. She has suggested Charlie’s security team intentionally denied him first aid after the shooting to ensure that he died. She has raised suspicions about the head of our technical team because he took an SD card out of a camera. She has spread absurd claims that Tyler Boyer, who we just had on the show, sexually abuses male interns. She has suggested that TPUSA Faith-affiliated pastors, like theologian Frank Turek, who we’ll have on in a moment, and Pastor Rob McCoy, are part of a military quote “infiltration” of Turning Point, either because they are veterans or because they have family members who are.

    Even if not everyone has been named specifically, though, Candace has effectively tarred everyone here with complicity in Charlie’s death by repeatedly saying he was, quote, “betrayed by,” quote, “everyone.” She has said Charlie’s murder, quote, “had to be approved by Charlie’s friends,” and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote “knowing the truth.” She has made claims of financial impropriety and fraud at Turning Point, adding up into the millions of dollars, which again is not true. Charlie made sure the organization was audited by a third party every year. He personally reviewed and signed off on every expense report and literally every single bill paid by the organization down to a single United States dollar. We have never missed a 990 deadline.

    Candace has made other, stranger allegations involving French paratroopers in maroon shirts, Egyptian Air Force planes flying out of Provo, Utah, and potential underground assassins traveling through unseen tunnels. At one point in early November, she started wildly throwing suspicion on members of Utah Valley’s soccer team for wearing hoodies. I could go on. There is always something new coming up, and none of it ever pans out. Because from the start, there has been nothing there.

    The attacks and allegations from Candace are either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth, so that Candace can manipulate and string along an audience of people who don’t realize they are being played. Instead of being able to grieve properly after one of the most heinous murders in American history, a murder many of us had to witness, my friends have had to endure harassment from people who have gotten whipped up by what Candace is saying. I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder. And just like a lot of those Antifa members, many of these people take delight in how gross and unpleasant they can be. What our friends have had to endure is not funny and it’s not insignificant. It is evil. I have seen it.

    For months, we have received hundreds, thousands, I suspect, of emails and calls asking us to respond. People have wanted us to invite Candace on the show. But for a long time, our approach was to say nothing. We did that for several reasons. First, we thought that her prevarications were so absurd that nobody would believe them. We shouldn’t have to answer questions about secret tunnels or Egyptian Air Force planes. That sort of thing is just—it’s beneath contempt to respond to. Lastly, we didn’t respond because Charlie always viewed Candace as a friend, and we were holding out hope that she would return that friendship and stop what she was doing.

    But a week from now it’s going to be three months since Charlie’s murder. Candace has not changed her behavior. She has continued to spread falsehoods about Charlie’s friends, and she continues to concoct new ones about new people. She’s using these falsehoods to enrich herself while dividing the conservative movement at an absolutely critical time for this country. And far too often, we here have heard from ordinary people, people who loved Charlie and who Charlie loved so much in return. These people have expressed the worry that we are staying silent out of cowardice or as some sort of tacit admission that some of the attacks are true. Neither is the case. Our silence has never been, and it will never be, equal to complacency or approval.

    Still, we decided Charlie would not allow this to go on. Charlie was not a coward. Charlie was a fighter. Charlie would not allow someone to spread lies about the people closest to him with impunity. And he would feel ashamed if other people were stepping up to defend his friends while he never did so himself. Candace has mentioned several times that the ball is in our court.

    So here’s what is going to happen. In the near future, there will be a livestream here in Phoenix where we address in a clear and comprehensive way the claims and accusations, the false accusations that have been made against Charlie’s family, friends, and the people here at Turning Point. We plan to walk through everything carefully and thoroughly. If Candace is available, we would sincerely welcome her participation in that livestream at our studio here in Phoenix. At this point, we believe the ball is back in her court.

    Our motivation for doing this is not out of any obligation to Candace. It is about honoring Charlie. We feel a deep responsibility to protect his legacy, his work, and the truth. I feel that. I owe Charlie everything in my life. I feel it immensely. And that is why we feel compelled to speak clearly and openly now. We’ll have more on this in the near future.

    Report: FBI Thwarts New Years Eve Terror Plot

    Federal law enforcement officials announced over the weekend that they successfully disrupted a credible terrorist threat, arresting four alleged members of a radical pro-Palestinian extremist group who were reportedly planning coordinated bombing attacks in Los Angeles on New Year’s Eve.

    According to the FBI, the suspects self-identified as part of a radical offshoot of the Turtle Island Liberation Front (TILF)—an extremist organization driven by a combination of pro-Palestinian, anti-law-enforcement, and anti-government ideology.

    Federal agents say the group intended to deploy improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in a series of synchronized attacks targeting five separate locations across the Los Angeles area. Authorities believe the suspects were preparing to test explosive devices in Lucerne Valley when they were taken into custody. Each of the four has been charged with conspiracy and possession of a destructive device.

    In a related development, the FBI announced Monday that a fifth individual believed to be connected to the same TILF extremist network was arrested in New Orleans in connection with a separate planned attack.

    Social media accounts linked to TILF describe the group’s mission as freeing what they call “Turtle Island”—an Indigenous name used by some activists to refer to North America—from the “illegal American empire.” One Instagram post attributed to the group declared: “Free Palestine. Free Hawaii. Free Puerto Rico.” The post continued, “Freeing the world from American imperialism is the only way to a safe and peaceful future.”

    These arrests come amid a broader pattern of the FBI and other federal agencies disrupting terror plots across the country during President Donald Trump’s second administration. In recent months, federal authorities have thwarted an alleged ISIS-inspired terror plot in Michigan that involved suspicious encrypted communications and preparations at gun ranges, leading to multiple arrests before a planned attack could take place.

    Earlier this year, the FBI also intercepted another potential terror plot in Dearborn, Michigan, charging suspects with conspiracy to provide firearms and ammunition knowing they would be used to commit acts of federal terrorism—again highlighting the agency’s proactive work in identifying and stopping threats before they materialize.

    These disruptions follow a national trend in which federal law enforcement has prioritized identifying and intercepting violent extremist plots before they can harm Americans. According to recent FBI press releases, multiple individuals have been charged or convicted this year for providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations like ISIS and attempting to aid violent extremist causes from within the United States.

    Republican leaders have emphasized the importance of strong law enforcement and border security in preventing homegrown terrorism and protecting American communities. The arrests in Los Angeles and New Orleans underscore the ongoing threat from ideologically motivated violent extremists and the need for vigilant counterterrorism efforts.

    As the nation enters the holiday season, federal officials say their work will continue to ensure that Americans can celebrate safely, free from the specter of coordinated terror attacks.

    Watch:

    This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

    Trump ‘Going To Campaign Like It’s 2024’ Ahead of Midterm Elections

    0
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said Monday that President Donald Trump will play a far more active role on the campaign trail ahead of next year’s midterm elections—signaling a strategic shift designed to energize the GOP base and capitalize on Trump’s unique voter appeal.

    In an interview with The Mom View, Wiles emphasized that Republicans intend to harness the enthusiasm Trump generates among grassroots conservatives, particularly low-propensity voters who often turn out only when the president is directly involved.

    Typically in the midterms it’s not about who’s sitting at the White House. You localize the election, and you keep the federal officials out of it. We’re actually going to turn that on its head and put him on the ballot because so many of those low propensity voters are Trump voters,” Wiles said.

    Her comments underscore a growing recognition within the GOP that Trump’s presence remains the party’s strongest electoral asset. While midterms traditionally revolve around local issues, Republicans are betting that nationalizing the races around Trump’s leadership—and his policy agenda—will boost turnout in key battleground states.

    Wiles noted recent election results as evidence of what happens when the president is not visibly engaged.

    “We saw a week ago Tuesday what happens when he’s not on the ballot and not active,” she said, referencing GOP underperformances in off-year contests in Virginia, New Jersey, and a special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District. Despite strong fundamentals in these states, Republican turnout lagged noticeably without Trump’s direct involvement.

    “I haven’t quite broken it to him yet, but he’s going to campaign like it’s 2024 again,” she added with a laugh—suggesting that the president’s relentless campaign style, which galvanized millions of new Republican voters in both 2016 and 2024, will be making a return.

    So far in his presidency, Trump has spent less time on the campaign trail than in previous cycles, focusing instead on high-stakes foreign policy initiatives and diplomatic travel. But that dynamic may shift as early as Tuesday, when he heads to Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, to highlight the administration’s efforts to lower costs for American families—a top priority for voters and a central theme in Trump’s economic messaging.

    Republicans hope that a more active presidential schedule will help counteract recent Democratic gains and re-energize the coalition that powered Trump to victory. With control of Congress on the line, the party is preparing for a midterm season unlike any in recent memory—one in which the sitting president will again be front and center.

    Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Block Trump From Putting Face on Dollar Coin

    2
    President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) introduced legislation Tuesday aimed at preventing President Trump—or any sitting or living former president—from appearing on U.S. currency. Their proposal, titled the Change Corruption Act, comes as the U.S. Treasury considers issuing a commemorative $1 coin featuring Trump’s image in recognition of America’s 250th anniversary.

    The bill, cosponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), states plainly: “No United States currency may feature the likeness of a living or sitting President.” The lawmakers argue that the measure reflects historical practice, noting that U.S. currency has traditionally featured only deceased presidents and statesmen.

    A Preemptive Strike on a Potential Semiquincentennial Honor

    The U.S. Mint is reportedly close to announcing whether it will release a limited-run Trump coin as part of the nation’s celebration of the 250th birthday of the United States in 2026. Commemorative coins—distinct from circulating coins—are historically used to honor major anniversaries, public achievements, and historic figures. Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have been featured posthumously on such special-issue coins.

    A draft image circulating within the Treasury Department shows Trump’s profile above the word “Liberty,” a standard placement for American coinage.

    Democrats Frame the Coin as a Threat to Democratic Norms

    In unusually heated language for a discussion about commemorative currency, Merkley compared Trump’s potential appearance on a coin to the behavior of authoritarian regimes:

    “President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, not the United States of America,” Merkley said in a statement.

    He argued Congress must take action to limit the executive branch’s influence over commemorative designs:

    “We must reject his efforts to dismantle our ‘We, The People’ republic and replace it with a strongman state by demanding strong accountability to prevent further abuse of taxpayer dollars.”

    Cortez Masto echoed Merkley’s claims, asserting that any depiction of a living president on U.S. coinage would resemble an outdated monarchical tradition:

    “While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king.”

    She added:

    “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.”

    ICE Tracking App Maker Sues Over Trump Administration Pressure

    4
    President Donald J. Trump participates in a roundtable discussion on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station Friday, April 5, 2019, in Calexico, Calif. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

    The creator of ICEBlock—an iPhone app designed to alert users to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming federal officials violated his free-speech rights by urging Apple to pull the app from its store.

    Joshua Aaron, the developer behind the app, contends in his complaint that building, distributing, and promoting ICEBlock is “First Amendment-protected speech.” He alleges that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other administration officials engaged in a coordinated “pressure campaign” to force Apple to remove the app, calling the effort an unlawful act of censorship.

    “We’re basically asking the court to set a precedent and affirm that ICEBlock is, in fact, First Amendment-protected speech and that I did nothing wrong by creating it,” Aaron told The Associated Press on Monday. “And to make sure that they can’t do this same thing again in the future.”

    The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to bar any criminal prosecution of Aaron, citing what he describes as “unlawful threats” from Bondi, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons, and White House Border Czar Tom Homan—all of whom, according to Aaron, indicated they would investigate him for creating the app.

    He told the AP that one of his motives for suing is “to basically have them stop threatening myself and my family.”

    Why the App Was Removed

    Apple removed ICEBlock and similar apps in October after Bondi publicly warned that the tools endangered federal immigration officers by allowing the public—including individuals seeking to evade law enforcement—to monitor ICE activity in real time.

    Bondi defended the removal in a Fox News interview, arguing that Aaron’s app could compromise officer safety. “He’s giving a message to criminals where our federal officers are. And he cannot do that,” she said. “And we are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not protected speech.”

    Broader Context: Trump’s Immigration-Enforcement Strategy

    The dispute comes amid the Trump administration’s continued efforts to restore aggressive federal enforcement of immigration law—an agenda that has been a central pillar of the president’s policy platform. ICE has been directed to prioritize arrests of criminal offenders, expand cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies, and counter efforts by progressive “sanctuary” jurisdictions to obstruct federal operations.

    Officials like Noem, Homan, and Bondi have repeatedly emphasized the dangers facing ICE officers on the ground. From hostile sanctuary-city policies to the rapid spread of mobile apps that help individuals avoid lawful apprehension, the administration argues that these challenges make it more difficult to enforce immigration laws and protect communities.