SACRAMENTO — Atty. General Rob Bonta said Monday that he anticipates the Trump administration, which last week announced plans to use federal election monitors in California, will use false reports of voting irregularities to challenge the results of the Nov. 4 special election.
Bonta, California’s top law enforcement officer, said on a call with reporters that he is “100%” concerned about false accusations of wrongdoing at the polling places.
Bonta said it would be “naive” to assume Trump would accept the results of the Nov. 4 election given his history of lying about election outcomes, including his loss to President Biden in 2020.
The attorney general also warned that Trump’s tactics may be a preview of what the country might see in the 2026 election, when control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and the fate of Trump’s controversial political agenda — will be at stake.
“All indications, all arrows, show that this is a tee-up for something more dangerous in the 2026, midterms and maybe beyond,” Bonta said.
The U.S. Department of Justice last week announced it would send election monitors to five California counties where voters are casting ballots in the Proposition 50 election to decide whether to redraw state’s congressional boundaries.
Federal election monitors will visit sites across Southern California and in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, the Justice Department said last week.
Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move an “intimidation tactic” aimed at suppressing support for Proposition 50 and inappropriate federal interference in a state election.
While federal monitoring is routine, particularly in federal elections, it recently has been viewed with heightened skepticism from both parties. When the Justice Department under President Biden announced monitoring in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states during last November’s presidential election, some Republican-led states balked and sought to block the effort.
Democrats have been highly suspect of the Trump administration’s plans for monitoring elections, in part because of Trump’s relentless denial of past election losses — including his own to Biden in 2020 — and his appointment of fellow election deniers to high-ranking positions in his administration, including in the Justice Department.
The California Republican Party requested the election monitors and cited several concerns about voting patterns and issues in several counties, according to a letter it sent to the Dept. of Justice.
Bonta, in his remarks Monday questioned the GOP claims, and denied the existence of any widespread fraud that would require federal election monitors. He compared the monitors to Trump’s decision to dispatch the National Guard to Democratic-led cities, despite an outcry from local politicians who said the troops were not necessary.
More broadly, Bonta told reporters that the Trump administration appears to be ready to fight the Nov. 4 results if Prop. 50 passes.
“People vote and you accept the will of the voters — that’s what democracy is. But that’s not what they’re teeing themselves up to do based on everything that we’ve seen, everything that’s been said,” said Bonta, describing Trump’s recent call on social media for Republicans to “wake up.”
Bonta also said that the state would dispatch observers — potentially from his office, the secretary of state and county registrars — to watch the federal monitors at polling places.
Early voting has already started in California, with voters deciding whether to temporarily reconfigure the state’s congressional district boundaries. The Democratic-led California Legislature placed the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot in an effort to increase their party’s numbers in the U.S. House of Representatives .
Gov. Gavin Newsom and other backers of the measure have said they generally support independent redistricting processes and will push for nonpartisan commissions nationwide, but argued that Democrats must fight back against Trump’s current efforts to have Republican states reconfigure their congressional districts to ensure the GOP retains control of Congress after the 2026 election.
Natalie Baldassarre, a spokesperson for the U.S. Dept. of Justice, declined to comment on Bonta’s remarks. Baldassarre also declined to say how many election monitors would work in California.
Federal election monitors observe polling places to ensure compliance with the federal voting rights laws, and are trained to observe and act as “flies on the wall,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan and nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, in an interview last week.
“Generally, what you do is walk inside, stay off to the side, well away from where any voters are, and take some notes,” said Becker, an attorney who formerly worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The U.S. Department of Justice will monitor polling sites in five California counties as voters decide on Proposition 50 on Nov. 4, it said Friday, after being asked to do so by state GOP officials.
Monitoring, which is routinely conducted by the Justice Department, will occur across Southern California and in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, the Justice Department said.
Proposition 50 — one of November’s most hotly-watched electoral issues, with national political implications — asks California voters whether the state should redraw its congressional districts to better favor Democrats. It is a response to President Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans, and is considered a must-pass measure if Democrats hope to regain control of the House in next year’s midterms.
The Justice Department said its monitors would work to “ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law,” including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Civil Rights Act.
“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”
“Our democracy depends on free and fair elections,” said acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the L.A. region, who will be helping to coordinate the monitoring effort. “We will work tirelessly to uphold and protect the integrity of the election process.”
The Justice Department also announced monitors will be stationed in Passaic County, N.J. That state is holding a consequential gubernatorial election.
While federal monitoring is routine, it has been viewed with heightened skepticism from both parties in recent years. When the Justice Department under President Biden announced monitoring in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states during last November’s presidential election, some Republican-led states balked and sought to block the effort.
Democrats have been highly skeptical of the Trump administration’s plans for monitoring elections, in part because of Trump’s relentless denial of past election losses — including his own to Biden in 2020 — and his appointment of fellow election deniers to high-ranking positions in his administration, including in the Justice Department.
Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, had specifically asked the Justice Department to send monitors to the five counties in a letter to the Justice Department on Monday.
Rankin wrote that the party had “received reports of irregularities” in each of the counties during recent elections, which they feared could “undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election” this November.
Rankin called Proposition 50 a “politically charged question,” and said it was “imperative to have robust voter participation and public confidence in the results regardless of the outcome.”
Matt Shupe, a spokesperson for the California GOP, declined to comment on the letter Friday.
California officials, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have promised safe and fair elections and said their teams will also be out in the field enforcing California’s election laws in November.
“Our election laws provide the backbone for a free and fair election, and as California’s top law enforcement officer, I will do everything in my power to protect your right to vote,” Bonta recently said. “In the lead-up to the election and on Election Day, my office will be on call to provide assistance to the Secretary of State’s Office in enforcing California’s election laws, as needed, through a team of attorneys and administrative staff located across the state.”
Dean Logan, elections chief for Los Angeles County, said in a statement Friday that federal election monitors are welcome to view election activities and that the state has “clear laws and guidelines that support observation and prohibit election interference.”
“The presence of election observers is not unusual and is a standard practice across the country,” Logan said.
Logan didn’t directly address the California GOP’s specific statements about Los Angeles County, but said that the county regularly updates and verifies voter records in coordination with state and federal agencies and protects the integrity of the election process.
“Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that the federal government owes him “a lot of money” for prior Justice Department investigations into his actions and insisted he would have the ultimate say on any payout because any decision will “have to go across my desk.”
Trump’s comments to reporters at the White House came in response to questions about a New York Times story that said he had filed administrative claims before being reelected seeking roughly $230 million in damages related to the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago property for classified documents and for a separate investigation into potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump said Tuesday he did not know the dollar figures involved and suggested he had not spoken to officials about it. But, he added, “All I know is that, they would owe me a lot of money.”
Though the Justice Department has a protocol for reviewing such claims, Trump asserted, “It’s interesting, ‘cause I’m the one that makes the decision, right?”
“That decision would have to go across my desk,” he added.
He said he could donate any taxpayer money or use it to help pay for a ballroom he’s building at the White House.
The status of the claims and any negotiations over them within the Justice Department was not immediately clear. One of Trump’s lead defense lawyers in the Mar-a-Lago investigation, Todd Blanche, is now the deputy attorney general at the Justice Department. The current associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward, represented Trump’s valet and co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the same case.
“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” a Justice Department spokesperson said. A White House spokesperson referred comment to the Justice Department.
Trump signaled his interest in compensation during a White House appearance last week with Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who was part of Trump’s legal team during one of the impeachment cases against him.
“I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said: ‘I’m suing myself. I don’t know. How do you settle the lawsuit?’” he said. ”I’ll say, ‘Give me X dollars,’ and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit and now I won, it looks bad. I’m suing myself, so I don’t know.”
The Times said the two claims were filed with the Justice Department as part of a process that seeks to resolve federal complaints through settlements and avert litigation.
One of the administrative claims, filed in August 2024 and reviewed by the Associated Press, seeks compensatory and punitive damages over the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and the resulting case alleging he hoarded classified documents and thwarted government efforts to retrieve them.
His lawyer who filed the claim alleged the case was a “malicious prosecution” carried out by the Biden administration to hurt Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House, forcing Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars in his defense.
That investigation produced criminal charges that Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned last November because of department policy against the indictment of a sitting president.
The Times said the other complaint seeks damages related to the long-concluded Trump-Russia investigation, which continues to infuriate the president.
GREENBELT, Md. — John Bolton arrived at a federal courthouse Friday to surrender to authorities and make his first court appearance on charges accusing the former Trump administration national security adviser of storing top secret records at home and sharing with relatives diary-like notes that contained classified information.
The 18-count federal indictment Thursday also suggests classified information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked Bolton’s email account and gained access to sensitive material he had shared. A Bolton representative told the FBI in 2021 that his emails had been hacked, prosecutors say, but did not reveal that Bolton had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers had possession of government secrets.
The closely watched case centers on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019. He later published a book highly critical of Trump.
The third case against a Trump adversary in the past month will unfold against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is pursuing the Republican president’s political enemies while at the same time sparing his allies from scrutiny.
“Now, I have become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts,” Bolton said in a statement.
Even so, the indictment is significantly more detailed in its allegations than earlier cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Unlike in those cases filed by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, Bolton’s indictment was signed by career national security prosecutors. While the Bolton investigation burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington, the inquiry was well underway by the time Trump had taken office in January.
Sharing of classified secrets
The indictment filed in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, alleges that between 2018 and this past August, Bolton shared with two relatives more than 1,000 pages of information about his day-to-day activities in government.
The material included “diary-like” entries with information classified as high as top secret that he had learned from meetings with other U.S. government officials, from intelligence briefings or talks with foreign leaders, according to the indictment. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.
The indictment says that among the material shared was information about foreign adversaries that in some cases revealed details about sources and methods used by the government to collect intelligence.
The two family members were not identified in court papers, but a person familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss nonpublic details, identified them as Bolton’s wife and daughter.
The indictment also suggests Bolton was aware of the impropriety of sharing classified information with people not authorized to receive it, citing an April news media interview in which he chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details. Though the anecdote is meant by prosecutors to show Bolton understood proper protocol for government secrets, Bolton’s legal team may also point to it to argue a double standard in enforcement because the Justice Department is not known to have opened any investigation into the Signal episode.
Bolton’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that the “underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago.”
He said the charges stem from portions of Bolton’s personal diaries over his 45-year career in government and included unclassified information that was shared only with his immediate family and was known to the FBI as far back as 2021.
“Like many public officials throughout history,” Lowell said, “Bolton kept diaries — that is not a crime.” He said Bolton “did not unlawfully share or store any information.”
Controversy over a book
Bolton suggested the criminal case was an outgrowth of an unsuccessful Justice Department effort after he left government to block the publication of his 2020 book “The Room Where It Happened,” which portrayed Trump as grossly misinformed about foreign policy.
The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer had classified information.
In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security adviser. His brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine. Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure.
Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to Ukraine to that country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of Biden’s family.
Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”
Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. Durkin Richer reported from Washington.
GREENBELT, Md. — Former Trump administration national security advisor John Bolton was charged Thursday in a federal investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.
The investigation into Bolton, who served for more than a year in President Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019, burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington for classified records he may have held onto from his years in government.
The existence of the indictment was confirmed to the AP by a person familiar with the matter who could not publicly discuss the charges and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.
Agents during the August search seized multiple documents labeled “classified,” “confidential” and “secret” from Bolton’s office, according to previously unsealed court filings. Some of the seized records appeared to concern weapons of mass destruction, national “strategic communication” and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, the filings stated.
The indictment sets the stage for a closely watched court case centering on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who after leaving Trump’s first government emerged as a prominent and vocal critic of the president. Though the investigation that produced the indictment began before Trump’s second term, the case will unfold against the backdrop of broader concerns that his Justice Department is being weaponized to go after his political adversaries.
It follows separate indictments over the last month accusing former FBI Director James Comey of lying to Congress and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James of committing bank fraud and making a false statement, charges they both deny. Both of those cases were filed in federal court in Virginia by a prosecutor Trump hastily installed in the position after growing frustrated that investigations into high-profile enemies had not resulted in prosecution.
The Bolton case, by contrast, was filed in Maryland by a U.S. attorney who before being elevated to the job had been a career prosecutor in the office.
Questions about Bolton’s handling of classified information date back years. He faced a lawsuit and a Justice Department investigation after leaving office related to information in a 2020 book he published, “The Room Where it Happened,” that portrayed Trump as grossly uninformed about foreign policy.
The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript included classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer contained classified information.
A search warrant affidavit that was previously unsealed said a National Security Council official had reviewed the book manuscript and told Bolton in 2020 that it appeared to contain “significant amounts” of classified information, some at a top-secret level.
Bolton’s attorney Abbe Lowell has said that many of the documents seized in August had been approved as part of a pre-publication review for Bolton’s book. He said that many were decades old, from Bolton’s long career in the State Department, as an assistant attorney general and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
The indictment is a dramatic moment in Bolton’s long career in government. He served in the Justice Department during President Reagan’s administration and was the State Department’s point man on arms control during George W. Bush’s presidency. Bolton was nominated by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but the strong supporter of the Iraq war was unable to win Senate confirmation and resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush recess appointment. That allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.
In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security advisor. But his brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine.
Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton’s resignation. Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his 2020 book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to the country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of his family.
Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.” Trump also said at the time that the book contained “highly classified information” and that Bolton “did not have approval” for publishing it.
Tucker, Durkin Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Tucker and Durkin Richer reported from Washington.
SEATTLE — Ramón Rodriguez Vazquez was a farmworker for 16 years in southeast Washington state, where he and his wife of 40 years raised four children and 10 grandchildren. The 62-year-old was a part of a tight-knit community and never committed a crime.
On Feb. 5, immigration officers who came to his house looking for someone else took him into custody. He was denied bond, despite letters of support from friends, family, his employer and a physician who said the family needed him.
He was sent to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Tacoma, Wash., where his health rapidly declined in part because he was not always provided with his prescription medication for several medical conditions, including high blood pressure. Then there was the emotional toll of being unable to care for his family or sick granddaughter. Overwhelmed by it all, he finally gave up.
At an appearance with an immigration judge, he asked to leave without a formal deportation mark on his record. The judge granted his request and he moved back to Mexico, alone.
His case is an exemplar of the impact of the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to deport millions of migrants on an accelerated timetable, casting aside years of procedure and legal process in favor of expedient results.
Similar dramas are playing out at immigration courts across the country, accelerating since early July, when ICE began opposing bond for anyone detained regardless of their circumstances.
“He was the head of the house, everything — the one who took care of everything,” said Gloria Guizar, 58, Rodriguez’s wife. “Being separated from the family has been so hard. Even though our kids are grown, and we’ve got grandkids, everybody misses him.”
Leaving the country was unthinkable before he was held in a jail cell. The deportation process broke him.
‘Self deport or we will deport you’
It is impossible to know how many people left the U.S. voluntarily since President Trump took office in January because many leave without telling authorities. But Trump and his allies are counting on “self-deportation,” the idea that life can be made unbearable enough to make people leave voluntarily.
The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, said judges granted “voluntary departure” in 15,241 cases in the 12-month period that ended Sept. 30, allowing them to leave without a formal deportation mark on their record or bar to re-entry. That compares with 8,663 voluntary departures for the previous fiscal year.
ICE said it carried out 319,980 deportations from Oct. 1, 2024 to Sept. 20. Customs and Border Protection declined to disclose its number and directed the question to the Department of Homeland Security.
Secretary Kristi Noem said in August that 1.6 million people have left the country voluntarily or involuntarily since Trump took office. The department cited a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions.
Michelle Mittelstadt, spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said 1.6 million is an over-inflated number that misuses the Census Bureau data.
The administration is offering $1,000 to people who leave voluntarily using the CBP Home app. For those who don’t, there is a looming threat of being sent to a third country like Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan or Uganda,.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the voluntary departures show that the administration’s strategy is working, and is keeping the country safe.
“Ramped-up immigration enforcement targeting the worst of the worst is removing more and more criminal illegal aliens off our streets every day and is sending a clear message to anyone else in this country illegally: Self-deport or we will arrest and deport you,” she said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.
“They treat her like a criminal”
A Colombian woman dropped her asylum claim at a June appearance in a Seattle immigration court, even though she was not in custody.
“Your lawyer says you no longer wish to proceed with your asylum application,” the judge said. “Has anyone offered you money to do this?” he asked. “No, sir,” she replied. Her request was granted.
Her U.S. citizen girlfriend of two years, Arleene Adrono, said she planned to leave the country as well.
“They treat her like a criminal. She’s not a criminal,” Adrono said. “I don’t want to live in a country that does this to people.”
At an immigration court inside the Tacoma detention center, where posters encourage migrants to leave voluntarily or be forcibly deported, a Venezuelan man told Judge Theresa Scala in August that he wanted to leave. The judge granted voluntary departure.
The judge asked another man if he wanted more time to find a lawyer and if he was afraid to return to Mexico. “I want to leave the country,” the man responded.
“The court finds you’ve given up all forms of relief,” Scala said. “You must comply with the government efforts to remove you.”
“His absence has been deeply felt”
Ramón Rodriguez crossed the U.S. border in 2009. His eight siblings who are U.S. citizens lived in California, but he settled Washington state. Grandview, population 11,000, is an agricultural town that grows apples, cherries, wine grapes, asparagus and other fruit and vegetables.
Rodriguez began working for AG Management in 2014. His tax records show he made $13,406 that first year and by 2024, earned $46,599 and paid $4,447 in taxes.
“During his time with us, he has been an essential part of our team, demonstrating dedication, reliability, and a strong work ethic,” his boss wrote in a letter urging a judge to release him from custody. “His skills in harvesting, planting, irrigation, and equipment operation have contributed significantly to our operations, and his absence has been deeply felt.”
His granddaughter suffers from a heart problem, has undergone two surgeries and needs a third. Her mother doesn’t drive so Rodriguez transported the girl to Spokane for care. The child’s pediatrician wrote a letter to the immigration judge encouraging his release, saying without his help, the girl might not get the medical care she needs.
The judge denied his bond request in March. Rodriguez appealed and became the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit that sought to allow detained immigrants to request and receive bond.
On September 30, a federal judge ruled that denying bond hearings for migrants is unlawful. But Rodriguez won’t benefit from the ruling. He’s gone now and is unlikely to come back.
Bellisle writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Cedar Attanasio contributed to this story.
WASHINGTON — A grand jury has indicted New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James on a fraud charge in the latest Justice Department case against a perceived enemy of President Trump, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.
James was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count after a mortgage fraud investigation, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.
James’ office had no immediate comment Thursday.
The indictment, two weeks after a separate criminal case charging former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress, is the latest indication of the Trump administration’s norm-busting determination to use the law enforcement powers of the Justice Department to pursue the president’s political foes and public figures who once investigated him.
The James case remained under seal Thursday, making it impossible to assess what evidence prosecutors have. But as was the case with the Comey charges, the prosecution followed a strikingly unconventional case.
The Trump administration two weeks ago pushed out Erik Siebert, the veteran prosecutor who had overseen the investigation for months but had resisted pressure to file a case, and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who was once Trump’s personal lawyer but who has never worked as a federal prosecutor.
Halligan presented the case to the grand jury herself, as she did in the case against Comey, according to the person familiar with the matter.
Trump has been advocating charging James for months, posting on social media without citing any evidence that she’s “guilty as hell” and telling reporters at the White House, “It looks to me like she’s really guilty of something, but I really don’t know.”
James, a second-term Democrat, has denied wrongdoing. She has said that she made an error while filling out a form related to a home purchase but quickly rectified it and didn’t deceive the lender.
Her lawyer has accused the Justice Department of concocting a bogus criminal case to settle Trump’s personal vendetta against James, who last year won a staggering judgment against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he lied to banks and others about the value of his assets.
The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage-related allegations against Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, using the probe to demand her ouster, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose lawyer called the allegations against him “transparently false, stale, and long debunked.”
But James is a particularly personal target. As attorney general, she sued the Republican president and his administration dozens of times and oversaw a lawsuit accusing him of defrauding banks by dramatically overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements.
An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.
Richer, Sisak and Tucker write for the Associated Press.
On Saturday, a home belonging to a South Carolina Circuit judge burned to the ground. Three people, including the judge’s husband and son, were hospitalized with serious injuries.
The cause of the fire was not immediately clear. An investigation is underway.
Obviously, the harm and destruction were terrible things. But what turned that particular tragedy into something more frightful and ominous is the fact the judge had been targeted with death threats, after ruling against the Trump administration in a lawsuit involving the state’s voter files.
Here’s a short quiz. Using professional norms and human decency as your guide, can you guess what Dhillon did in the aftermath of the fire?
A) Publicly consoled Goodstein and said the Justice Department would throw its full weight behind an urgent investigation into the fire.
B) Drew herself up in righteous anger and issued a ringing statement that denounced political violence, whatever its form, whether perpetrated by those on the left, right or center.
C) Took to social media to troll a political adversary who raised concerns about the targeting of judges and incendiary rhetoric emanating from the Trump administration.
If you selected anything other than “C,” you obviously aren’t familiar with Dhillon. Or perhaps you’ve spent the last many months in a coma, or cut off from the world in the frozen tundra of Antarctica.
The cause of the fire could very well turn out to be something unfortunate and distinctly nonpolitical. Faulty wiring, say, or an unattended pot left on the stove. South Carolina’s top law enforcement official said a preliminary inquiry had so far turned up no evidence that the fire was deliberately set.
What matters, however, is Dhillon’s response.
Not as someone with a shred of sympathy, or as a dogged and scrupulous seeker of truth and justice. But as a fists-up political combatant.
The timing of the blaze, the threats Goodstein received and the country’s hair-trigger political atmosphere all offered more than a little reason for pause and reflection. At the least, Goodstein’s loss and the suffering of her husband and child called for compassion.
Dhillon, however, is a someone who reacted to the 2022 hammer attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband not with concern but rather cruel and baseless conspiracy claims.
By then, Dhillon — a critic of Trump before he won the 2016 Republican nomination — had shape-shifted into one of his most vocal backers, a regular mouthpiece on Fox News and other right-wing media. Her pandering paid off with her appointment to the Justice Department, where Dhillon is supposed to be protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans — not just those in Trump’s good graces.
There’s plenty of tit-for-tat going around in today’s sulfurous climate. Indeed, the jabbing of fingers and laying of blame have become something of a national pastime.
When Neera Tanden, a liberal think-tank leader and prolific presence on social media, suggested there might be a connection between the blaze and Miller’s hate-filled rhetoric, Dhillon responded like a juvenile in a flame war. “Clown … grow up, girl,” Dhillon wrote on X.
When a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed a finger at Dhillon and her criticism of the South Carolina judge, Dhillon seized on some over-the-top responses and called in the U.S. Marshals Service. “We will tolerate no such threats by woke idiots, including those who work for @GavinNewsom,” Dhillon said.
All around, a sad display of more haste than good judgment.
That said, there is a huge difference between a press staffer getting his jollies on social media and the assistant attorney general of the United States playing politics with personal calamity.
And, really, doesn’t Dhillon have better things to do — and better ways of earning her pay — than constantly curating her social media feed, like a mean girl obsessing over likes and followers?
Worse, though, than such puerile behavior is what Dhillon embodies: an us-vs.-them attitude that permeates the administration and treats those who didn’t vote for Trump — which is more than half the country — as a target.
It’s revealed in the briefings — on military plans, on operations during the shutdown — given to Republican lawmakers but denied to Democrats serving on Capitol Hill.
Dhillon is just one cog in Trump’s malevolent, weaponization of Washington. But her reflexively partisan response to the razing of Judge Goodstein’s home is telling.
When the person in charge of the nation’s civil rights enforcement can’t muster even a modicum of civility, we’re living in some very dark times indeed.
WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.
In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.
“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”
It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.
That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.
“I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”
In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.
“They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”
She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”
“It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.
Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”
Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”
“In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”
WASHINGTON — For the first time in four years, the federal government plans to begin processing initial applications for DACA, the Obama-era program that grants deportation protection and work permits to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
The move, outlined in a proposal Monday by the Justice Department, would reopen DACA to first-time applicants in every state except Texas. The proposal was filed in response to an ongoing lawsuit in U.S. district court in Brownsville, Tex.
According to the filing, Texas residents who already have DACA could continue receiving protection from deportation but would no longer qualify for employment authorization.
Lawsuits over DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, have been ongoing since President Trump moved to end the program during his first term.
Under the government’s proposal, DACA recipients who move into Texas would risk losing their legal ability to work, while moving out of Texas could allow them to resume qualifying for a two-year work permit.
The proposal is pending a final decision by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen.
“These proposals do not limit DHS from undertaking any future lawful changes to DACA,” the filing states.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream, said misinformation was circulating Tuesday on social media.
“We’ve seen a lot of folks saying initial applications will start right away. That’s not true,” she said. “The status quo stays. If you are a DACA recipient right now, even in Texas, if you can renew you should renew as soon as possible because then you have another two years.”
Other advocacy groups, such as the nonprofit Dreamers2gether, urged DACA recipients and hopeful applicants to leave Texas and file a change of address form with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
More than 525,000 immigrants are currently enrolled in DACA. Texas follows California in the ranking of states with the highest number of program enrollees, according to USCIS.
To qualify, applicants must prove they came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and have graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military. Applicants also cannot have serious criminal records.
But for years the program has sat in a state of uncertainty, stoking anxiety for many recipients, amid court battles that stopped applications from being processed and left many younger people who would have aged into qualifying for DACA instead vulnerable to deportation.
In this first term, Trump attempted to shut down the program, but the Supreme Court concluded in 2020 that his administration had acted improperly. The court did not rule on the program’s legality.
Because of the court battle, the program has been closed to new applicants since 2021, though current recipients could still renew their work permits.
Los Angeles resident Atziri Peña, 27, runs a clothing company called Barrio Drive that donates proceeds toward helping DACA recipients renew their applications.
Peña, who also has DACA, said she knows many people in Texas who are thinking about moving out of state. The latest news is another example of how the immigration system breaks families apart, she said.
“A lot of us who are DACA recipients, we don’t necessarily know what it was like to be undocumented before DACA, so most of us have careers that we won’t be able to continue,” Peña said.
United We Dream has recorded at least 19 current DACA recipients detained by immigration agents in recent months. In one case in Texas, immigration authorities have kept Catalina “Xochitl” Santiago detained despite an immigration judge saying she cannot be deported.
“It’s a way of making sure she can’t renew her DACA and then she becomes deportable,” said Macedo do Nascimento. In her view, the Department of Homeland Security’s attitude toward DACA recipients lately has diminished the protections it offers.
“The bigger picture here is DHS is moving onto a new policy on DACA anyway — without having to go through the courts, the rulemaking process or taking DACA away altogether,” she said. “They’re really trying to end the program piece by piece, recipient by recipient.”
Even so, immigrants across the country are looking forward to applying for DACA for the first time.
“While we could still get detained, it’s a little bit of a sense of safety and hope,” Peña said. “I have heard of people who are just waiting for DACA to reopen. But let’s see what happens and let’s hope they don’t use this as a way to catch more of us.”
WASHINGTON — The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is only two pages and alleges he falsely testified to Congress in 2020 about authorizing someone to be an anonymous source in news stories.
That brevity belies a convoluted and contentious backstory. The events at the heart of the disputed testimony are among the most heavily scrutinized in the bureau’s history, generating internal and congressional investigations that have produced thousands of pages of records and transcripts.
Those investigations were focused on how Comey and his agents conducted high-stakes inquiries into whether Russia had unlawfully colluded with Republican Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.
Here are some things to know about that period and how they fit into Comey’s indictment:
What are the allegations?
The indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The single quote from the indictment appears to be from an interaction with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Prosecutors contend that Comey lied when he denied having authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source to the media, alleging he had done so by telling someone identified as “Person 3” in the indictment to speak to reporters.
“It’s such a bare-bones indictment,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor and now a defense attorney in private practice. “We do not know what the evidence is going to be” at trial, he said.
What did Comey say to Congress?
Wisenberg said the testimony in question appears to have come when Cruz was pressing Comey over the role that his deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, played in authorizing a leak to the Wall Street Journal for a story examining how the FBI handled an investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server.
Cruz’s question was complicated, but it boiled down to pitting Comey against McCabe. The senator noted that Comey told Congress in 2017 he had not authorized anyone to speak to reporters. But Cruz asserted that McCabe had “publicly and repeatedly said he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.”
“Who’s telling the truth?” Cruz asked.
Comey answered: “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
At that time, Comey had been put on the spot by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Comey was asked whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”
Comey answered, “No.”
The indictment says Comey falsely stated that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports,” but Comey appears not to have used that phrasing during the 2020 hearing at issue, potentially complicating efforts to establish that he made a false statement.
What may have sparked the questions?
“Person 3” is not identified in the indictment, but appears to have been discussing an investigation related to Clinton, based on a clearer reference in a felony charge that grand jurors rejected. Comey figured in several inquiries into alleged leaks in the Clinton investigation, all of which generated extensive paper trails.
One involved McCabe and the Journal story. McCabe told the Justice Department’s inspector general that he had authorized a subordinate to talk to the Journal reporter and had told Comey about that interaction after the fact.
It’s unlikely the indictment is focused on that episode because McCabe never told investigators that Comey had authorized him to talk to the media, only that the FBI director was aware that McCabe had done so.
Two other leak investigations involved a friend of Comey’s who served for a time as a paid government advisor to the director. That advisor, Daniel Richman, has told investigators he spoke to the media to help shape perceptions of the embattled FBI chief.
Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, was interviewed by FBI agents in 2019 about leaks to the media that concerned the bureau’s investigation into Clinton. Richman said Comey had never authorized him to speak to the media about the Clinton investigation but he acknowledged Comey was aware that he sometimes engaged with reporters.
Comey has acknowledged using Richman as a conduit to the media in another matter. After Comey was fired by Trump in 2017, he gave Richman a memo that detailed his interactions with the president. Comey later testified to Congress that he had authorized Richman to disclose the contents of the memo to journalists with the hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel who might investigate Trump.
How did we get here?
Trump and Comey have been engaged in a long-running feud. Trump blames Comey for having started an investigation into Russia’s election meddling on behalf of Trump’s 2016 campaign that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller. Mueller spent the better part of two years investigating whether Trump’s campaign illegally colluded with the Kremlin.
In the end, Mueller uncovered no evidence that Trump or his associates criminally colluded with Russia, but found that they had welcomed Moscow’s assistance and that Trump had obstructed justice during the investigation. Those findings were largely adopted by bipartisan congressional reports on the matter.
Trump, who was convicted of felony fraud last year, has long vented about the “Russia hoax,” which shadowed and defined the early years of his first term. He has spent the ensuing years bashing Comey and saying he should be charged with treason.
Just days before the indictment, Trump publicly urged his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to act against Comey and two other perceived Trump enemies: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump posted on social media last week. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW.”
Within hours of the indictment being returned, Trump turned again to social media to gloat: “JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey.”
Comey has remained resolute in his defense, while criticizing Trump on a host of matters. In a 2018 memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey compared Trump to a mafia don and said he was unethical and “untethered to truth.”
Like Trump, Comey took to social media after his indictment.
“My family and I have known for years there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump,” he said. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So, let’s have a trial.”
Tau writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The FBI has fired agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in Washington that followed the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, three people familiar with the matter said.
The bureau last spring had reassigned the agents but has since fired them, said the people, who insisted on anonymity to discuss personnel matters with the Associated Press. The number of FBI employees terminated was not immediately clear, but two people said it was roughly 20.
The photographs at issue showed a group of agents taking the knee during one of the demonstrations after the May 2020 killing of Floyd, a death that led to a national reckoning over policing and racial injustice and sparked widespread anger after millions of people saw video of the arrest. The kneeling had angered some in the FBI but was also understood as a possible deescalation tactic during a period of protests.
The FBI Agents Assn. confirmed in a statement late Friday that more than a dozen agents had been fired, including military veterans with additional statutory protections, and condemned the move as unlawful. It called on Congress to investigate and said the firings were another indication of FBI Director Kash Patel’s disregard for the legal rights of bureau employees.
“As Director Patel has repeatedly stated, nobody is above the law,” the agents association said. “But rather than providing these agents with fair treatment and due process, Patel chose to again violate the law by ignoring these agents’ constitutional and legal rights instead of following the requisite process.”
An FBI spokesman declined to comment Friday.
The firings come amid a broader personnel purge at the bureau as Patel works to reshape the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.
Five agents and top-level executives were known to have been summarily fired last month in a wave of ousters that current and former officials say has contributed to declining morale.
One of those, Steve Jensen, helped oversee investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Another, Brian Driscoll, served as acting FBI director in the early days of the second Trump administration and resisted Justice Department demands to supply the names of agents who investigated Jan. 6.
A third, Chris Meyer, was incorrectly rumored on social media to have participated in the investigation into President Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. A fourth, Walter Giardina, participated in high-profile investigations like the one of Trump advisor Peter Navarro.
A lawsuit filed by Jensen, Driscoll and another fired FBI supervisor, Spencer Evans, alleged that Patel communicated that he understood that it was “likely illegal” to fire agents based on cases they worked but was powerless to stop it because the White House and the Justice Department were determined to remove all agents who investigated Trump.
Patel denied at a congressional hearing last week taking orders from the White House on whom to fire and said anyone who has been fired failed to meet the FBI’s standards.
Trump, who was twice impeached and is the only U.S. president with a felony conviction, was indicted on multiple criminal charges in two felony cases. Both cases were dismissed after he was elected, following long-standing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
At a tense political moment in the wake of conservative lightning rod Charlie Kirk’s killing, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum focusing federal law enforcement on disrupting “domestic terrorism.”
The memo appeared to focus on political violence. But during a White House signing Thursday, the president and his top advisors repeatedly hinted at a much broader campaign of suppression against the American left, referencing as problematic both the simple printing of protest signs and the prominent racial justice movement Black Lives Matter.
“We’re looking at the funders of a lot of these groups. You know, when you see the signs and they’re all beautiful signs made professionally, these aren’t your protesters that make the sign in their basement late in the evening because they really believe it. These are anarchists and agitators,” Trump said.
“Whether it be going back to the riots that started with Black Lives Matter and all the way through to the antifa riots, the attacks on ICE officers, the doxxing campaigns and now the political assassinations — these are not lone, isolated events,” said Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. “This is part of an organized campaign of radical left terrorism.”
Neither Trump nor Miller nor the other top administration officials flanking them — including Vice President JD Vance, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel — offered any evidence of such a widespread left-wing terror campaign, or many details about how the memo would be put into action.
Law enforcement officials have said Kirk’s alleged shooter appears to have acted alone, and data on domestic extremism more broadly — including some recently scrubbed from the Justice Department’s website — suggest right-wing extremists represent the larger threat.
Many on the right cheered Trump’s memo — just as many on the left cheered calls by Democrats for a clampdown on right-wing extremism during the Biden administration, particularly in light of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. In that incident, more than 1,500 were criminally charged, many convicted of assaulting police officers and some for sedition, before Trump pardoned them or commuted their sentences.
Many critics of the administration slammed the memo as a “chilling” threat that called to mind some of the most notorious periods of political suppression in the nation’s history — a claim the White House dismissed as wildly off base and steeped in liberal hypocrisy.
That includes the Red Scare and the often less acknowledged Lavender Scare of the Cold War and beyond, they said, when Sen. Joseph McCarthy and other federal officials cast a pall over the nation, its social justice movements and its arts scene by promising to purge from government anyone who professed a belief in certain political ideas — such as communism — or was gay or lesbian or otherwise queer.
Douglas M. Charles, a history professor at Penn State Greater Allegheny and author of “Hoover’s War on Gays: Exposing the FBI’s ‘Sex Deviates’ Program,” said Trump’s memo strongly paralleled past government efforts at political repression — including in its claim that “extremism on migration, race and gender” and “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” are all causing violence in the country.
“What is this, McCarthyism redux?” Charles asked.
Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, said the Trump administration is putting “targets on the backs of organizers” like her.
Abdullah, speaking Friday from Washington, D.C., where she is attending the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference, said Trump’s efforts to cast left-leaning advocacy groups as a threat to democracy was “the definition of gaslighting” because the president “and his entire regime are violent.”
“They are anti-Black. They are anti-people. They are anti-free speech,” Abdullah said. “What we are is indeed an organized body of people who want freedom for our people — and that is a demand for the kind of sustainable peace that only comes with justice.”
Others, including prominent California Democrats, framed Trump’s memo and other recent administration acts — including Thursday’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over the objections of career prosecutors — as a worrying blueprint for much wider vengeance on Trump’s behalf, which must be resisted.
“Trump is waging a crusade of retribution — abusing the federal government as a weapon of personal revenge,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X. “Today it’s his enemies. Tomorrow it may be you. Speak out. Use your voice.”
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, left, FBI Director Kash Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi listen to President Trump Thursday in the Oval Office.
(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta noted that the memo listed various incidents of violence against Republicans while “deliberately ignoring” violence against Democrats, and said that while it is unclear what may come of the order, “the chilling effect is real and cannot be ignored.”
Bonta also sent Bondi a letter Friday expressing his “grave concern” with the Comey indictment and asking her to “reassert the long-standing independence of the U.S. Department of Justice from political interference by declining to continue these politically-motivated investigations and prosecutions.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the Trump administration is twisting Kirk’s tragic killing “into a pretext to weaponize the federal government against opponents Trump says he ‘hates.’”
“In recent days, they’ve branded entire groups — including the Democratic Party itself — as threats, directed [the Justice Department] to go after his perceived enemies, and coerced companies to stifle any criticism of the Administration or its allies. This is pure personal grievance and retribution,” Padilla said. “If this abuse of power is normalized, no dissenting voice will be safe.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said it was “the highest form of hypocrisy for Democrats to falsely claim accountability is ‘political retribution’ when Joe Biden is the one who spent years weaponizing his entire Administration against President Trump and millions of patriotic Americans.”
Jackson accused the Biden administration of censoring average Americans for their posts about COVID-19 on social media and of prosecuting “peaceful pro-life protestors,” among other things, and said the Trump administration “will continue to deliver the truth to the American people, restore integrity to our justice system, and take action to stop radical left-wing violence that is plaguing American communities.”
A month ago, Miller said, “The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization” — a quote raising new concerns in light of Trump’s memo.
On Sept. 16, Bondi said on X that “the radical left” has for too long normalized threats and cheered on political violence, and that she would be ending that by somehow prosecuting them for “hate speech.”
Constitutional scholars — and some prominent conservative pundits — ridiculed Bondi’s claims as contrary to the 1st Amendment.
On Sept. 18, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that unnamed national security officials had told him that the FBI was considering treating transgender suspects as a “subset” of a new threat category known as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists” — a concept LGBTQ+ organizations scrambled to denounce as a threat to everyone’s civil liberties.
“Everyone should be repulsed by the attempts to use the power of the federal government against their neighbors, their friends, and our families,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said Wednesday. “It creates a dangerous precedent that could one day be used against other Americans, progressive or conservative or anywhere in between.”
In recent days, Trump has unabashedly attacked his critics — including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show was briefly suspended. On Sept. 20, he demanded on his Truth Social platform that Bondi move to prosecute several of his most prominent political opponents, including Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.
“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” wrote Trump, the only felon to ever occupy the White House. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Comey’s indictment — on charges of lying to Congress — was reported shortly after the White House event where Trump signed the memo. Trump declined to discuss Comey at the event, and was vague about who else might be targeted under the memo. But he did say he had heard “a lot of different names,” including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and George Soros, two prominent Democratic donors.
“If they are funding these things, they’re gonna have some problems,” Trump said, without providing any evidence of wrongdoing by either man.
The Open Society Foundations, which have disbursed billions from Soros’ fortune to an array of progressive groups globally, said in response that they “unequivocally condemn terrorism and do not fund terrorism” and that their activities “are peaceful and lawful.” Accusations suggesting otherwise were “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with,” the group said.
John Day, president-elect of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said his organization has not taken a position on Trump’s memo, but had grave concerns about the process by which Comey was indicted — namely, after Trump called for such legal action publicly.
“That, quite frankly, is very disturbing and concerning to us,” Day said. “This is not the way the legal system was designed to work, and it’s not the way it has worked for 250 years, and we are just very concerned that this happened at all,” Day said. “We’re praying that it is an outlier, as opposed to a predictor of what’s to come.”
James Kirchick, author of “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington,” which covers the Lavender Scare and its effects on the LGBTQ+ community in detail, said the “strongest similarity” he sees between then and now is the administration “taking the actions of an individual or a small number of people” — such as Kirk’s shooter — “and extrapolating that onto an entire class of people.”
Kirchick said language on the left labeling the president a dictator isn’t helpful in such a political moment, but that he has found some of the administration’s language more alarming — especially, in light of the new memo, Miller’s suggestion that the Democratic Party is an extremist organization.
“Does that mean the Democratic Party is going to be subject to FBI raids and extremist surveillance?” he asked.
WASHINGTON — On a Phoenix tarmac in 2016, former President Clinton and U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch had a serendipitous meeting on a private jet. The exchange caused a political firestorm. At a time when the Justice Department was investigating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, the appearance of impropriety prompted a national scandal.
“Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes,” Donald Trump, her Republican rival that year, would later write of the meeting on Twitter. “Totally illegal!”
It was the beginning of a pattern from Trump claiming political interference by Democrats and career public servants in Justice Department matters, regardless of the evidence.
Now, Trump’s years-long claim that it was his opponents who politicized the justice system has become the basis for the most aggressive spree of political prosecutions in modern American history.
“What Trump is doing now with the U.S. attorneys is really in complete opposition to how the people who created those offices imagined what those officials would do — the Founders simply did not envision the office in this way,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the history department at Washington University in St. Louis.
“From the inception of the Justice Department,” he added, “one of the most remarkable things is how it was never used in this way.”
On Thursday, at Trump’s express direction, federal charges were filed against James Comey, the former FBI director, alleging he gave false testimony before Congress and attempted to obstruct a congressional proceeding five years ago.
The indictment was secured from a federal grand jury after Trump fired a U.S. attorney with doubts about the strength of the case — replacing him with a loyalist, and telling Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi openly on social media to pursue charges against him and others.
“JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP,” Trump wrote on social media after the charges were filed. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, denies the charges.
“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way,” Comey said in a statement posted online. “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.
“My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. But I have great confidence in the federal judicial system,” Comey continued. “And I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”
Behind the charges against Comey, legal experts see a weak case wielded as a cudgel in a political persecution of Trump’s perceived enemy. Comey is accused of lying about authorizing a leak to the media about an FBI investigation through an anonymous source.
It is only the latest example. Over the summer, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, used his position to accuse three of the president’s political foes of mortgage fraud, referring the cases to the Justice Department for potential charges — actions actively encouraged by Trump online.
“It’s not a list,” Trump said Thursday, asked whether more prosecutions are coming. “I think there will be others. They’re corrupt. These were corrupt radical left Democrats. Comey essentially was Dem — he’s worse than a Democrat.”
The president’s overt use of the Justice Department as a partisan tool threatens a new era of political persecutions that could well backfire on his own allies. The Supreme Court has made clear that presidents enjoy broad immunity for their actions while in office. But their aides do not. Bondi, Pulte and others, just like Comey, are obligated to provide occasional testimony to House and Senate committees under oath.
“The Comey indictment is notable for its personalized politicization being so open,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College. “The same actions carried out clandestinely would seem scandalous, because they are — and the fact they were so blatantly advertised does not make them less corrupt.”
But the Comey case can also be seen as a test of the viability of a prosecution based purely on politics. Already, lawyers for Trump’s other legal targets have said they plan on using his overt threats against them to get cases against their clients thrown out in court.
This week, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended Trump’s vocal advocacy for criminal charges against political foes as a matter of “accountability.”
“We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media, from anyone on the other side who is trying to say that it’s the president who is weaponizing the DOJ,” Leavitt said.
“You look at people like [California Sen.] Adam Schiff, and like James Comey, and like [New York Atty. Gen.] Letitia James, who the president is rightfully frustrated with,” she continued. “He wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power, who abused their oath of office to target the former president.”
But Trump’s accusations against Democrats have routinely failed the tests of inspectors general, journalistic inquiry and public scrutiny.
When Trump was investigated over potential coordination between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 race, he claimed a liberal, “deep state” cabal was behind an inquiry based on, as the special prosecutor’s report concluded, “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”
And when charged with federal crimes over his handling of highly classified material, and his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, he dismissed the charges as a witch hunt choreographed by President Biden and his attorney general, a claim that had no basis in fact.
The special counsel investigations against Trump, Kastor said, were “prosecutions, not persecutions.”
“His claims that the investigations surrounding him are specious — the investigations were appropriate,” Kastor added. “These investigations are not.”
Every episode of “South Park” opens with a disclaimer: “All characters and events in this show — even those based on real people — are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated … poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.”
While some of that language must be required by an exhausted legal team behind the scenes, the long-running satirical cartoon is known for pressing hot-button topics and rapidly churning out searing parodies. Season 27, which premiered in July, is no exception, focusing on President Trump, his associates, policies and other current events. Some members of Trump’s cabinet have been outspoken about their likeness appearing in “South Park,” but others have shrugged it off. Over the years, the animated series has depicted conservatives and liberals alike, leaving almost no public figure, politician or activist shielded from critique or crude depiction.
This season has had an unusual cadence of episodes, with the first two arriving on a weekly schedule, then biweekly before the arrival of Episode 5, which aired three weeks later on Wednesday. The delayed episode arrived after the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, whose debate style was depicted in the Episode 2. However, “South Park” creators Matt Parker and Trey Stone told the Denver Post the delay was unrelated to recent events, like Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, or the content: “No one pulled the episode, no one censored us, and you know we’d say so if true.” The pair had issued a statement on Sept. 17 saying the episode wasn’t finished in time. Future episodes will air every two weeks through Dec. 10.
Here is a guide to every parody and reference so far on this season of “South Park.”
This story will be updated with each new episode.
‘Sermon on the ‘Mount,’ Episode 1
Cartman in “Sermon on the ‘Mount.”
(Comedy Central)
Cutting funding to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting
Cartman is dismayed to find out National Public Radio has lost its federal funding after he tunes in to hear static — an NPR program is his “favorite show,” he says, where “all the liberals b— and whine about stuff.” He rants to his friends about how the government “can’t cancel a show” and wonders what might be next on the chopping block.
In July, the Senate voted to approve the Trump White House’s proposal to claw back roughly $1 billion in federal funding previously allocated for public broadcasting. NPR and PBS are still operating despite the funding cuts, but layoffs and reduced programming are expected.
Christianity in public schools
Head of South Park Elementary PC Principal, whose name was a play on the initialism for politically correct, announces to the school that his name now stands for “Power Christian Principal.” He holds an assembly where he says that “our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” is the only thing that can bring back some normalcy to these “corrupt times.” He proceeds to welcome Jesus to the assembly as a guest speaker. When the students go back home, their parents and the people of South Park are alarmed to hear about the emphasis on Christianity — and the presence of Jesus — in the town’s public school.
The phrase frequently used by Trump was inscribed on a T-shirt Cartman wears after he realizes the concept of “wokeness” is no longer prominent. “Everyone hates the Jews, everyone’s fine with using gay slurs,” he says, lamenting that he no longer feels purpose if there’s no wokeness to contest.
Karoline Leavitt
The White House press secretary is depicted corralling the president, sporting a large cross necklace, as she often does during press briefings. Leavitt tells Trump a lot of his supporters are starting to turn against him and begs him to talk to them, adding that they’re “really riled up.” Trump’s base has expressed frustration over the administration’s approach to sharing information about the Jeffery Epstein case after he promised more transparency about the convicted sex offender, who died by suicide in 2019, and the sex trafficking investigation involving the late financier.
President Trump
Trump appears this season with an image of his face over an animated body, frequently repeating the phrase “Relax, guy” and threatening lawsuits against anyone who’s in his way. He is shown berating a White House portrait painter for an unflattering depiction of him and there are references to the size of the president’s genitalia. He’s also depicted as being in an abusive relationship with Satan — in which Trump is the abuser. “South Park” has previously depicted Satan as being the victim in an abusive relationship with Saddam Hussein.
The Epstein list
Satan laments the speculation that Trump’s name is on the “Epstein list,” a purported list of his alleged clients. In reality, the Justice Department has said no such list exists, walking back comments Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi made in a Fox News interview earlier this year that the list was “sitting on my desk” in preparation for release. When the list is brought up in the series, fictional Trump says, “Are we still talking about that?,” mirroring comments he made in real life.
CBS’ ’60 Minutes’ and Paramount drama
The stopwatch featured in the introduction to “60 Minutes” is strapped to a bomb when it appears on “South Park.” The hosts of the show are visibly nervous and continue praising the president while covering his lawsuit against the town of South Park, adding that they don’t agree with Trump’s detractors.
The scene references the legal tussle between Trump and Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, which airs “60 Minutes.” The president sued over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, which led to Paramount agreeing to pay $16 million to settle the lawsuit in July; shortly after, the Federal Communications Commission, led by a Trump appointee, approved Paramount’s merger with Skydance.
During the episode’s fictitious “60 Minutes” segment over Trump’s lawsuit against the town, Jesus comes to visit the townspeople. Through whispers, he tells them, “I didn’t want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount.”
“The president’s suing you?” a protester asks.
Jesus, through clenched teeth, explains: “The guy can do what he wants now that someone backed down. … You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount! You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys gotta stop being stupid. … If someone has the power of the presidency and also has the power to sue and take bribes, then he can do anything to anyone.”
“All of you, shut the f— up or South Park is over!” Jesus says.
The people of South Park end up settling their lawsuit with the president for $3.5 million, saying it will be fine as long as they cut some funding for their schools, hospitals and roads. And as part of the settlement, they have to agree to “pro-Trump messaging.” Cut to a live-action deepfake video of Trump trekking through the desert in a show of loyalty to his supporters before he strips naked.
‘Got a Nut,’ Episode 2
Cartman becomes a podcaster in Episode 2.
(Comedy Central)
Note: This episode aired on Aug. 6, more than a month before political commentator Charlie Kirk, who is parodied throughout the episode, was shot and killed.
ICE recruitment and immigration raids
This episode is focused on the ongoing raids carried out across the country by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security officials since earlier this year.
When South Park Elementary counselor Mr. Mackey is fired — the government is doing away with needless spending in schools, he’s told — he signs up for a job with ICE, enticed by a generous signing bonus and a higher salary. Mackey watches a promotional video, complete with animations of officers wearing gaiters and a theme song: “We don’t ask for experience, just show up / We don’t care if you’ve read a book or grown up / If you’re crazy or fat and lazy, we don’t care at all … If you need a job, it’s a job to have.”
Mackey is hired with alarming speed and proceeds to go on his first raid, targeting a “Dora the Explorer” live show, which has a not-so-intimidating audience of young children and abuelitas. After ICE agents hear from protesters that there are “many Latinos in heaven,” they make the pearly gates their next stop.
Kristi Noem
The Department of Homeland Security secretary leads ICE agents through a series of raids this episode, but she first appears in an orientation video. She tells the new recruits, “A few years ago, I had to put my puppy down by shooting it in the face because sometimes doing what’s important means doing what’s hard,” and she proceeds to going on a shooting spree targeting yelping puppies (including Krypto the Superdog) throughout the episode. In her 2024 book, Noem wrote about how she killed her 14-month-old dog for exhibiting aggressive behavior.
She’s also seen rounding up as many immigrants as possible in raids, shouting orders like, “If it’s brown, it goes down.”
And in a running gag, her face periodically melts off, requiring a glam squad equivalent to a pit crew, and at one point, it seems to take on a life of its own. Trump also says her face “freaks me out” during the episode.
Noem responded to the depiction on Glenn Beck’s podcast, calling it “lazy” to target her looks. “If they wanted to criticize my job, go ahead and do that, but clearly they can’t, they just pick something petty like that,” she said.
Right-wing debate podcasts
While conservative political commentator Charlie Kirk does not appear as a character in this episode, his style of debate content — and his name — are featured.
Loudmouthed Cartman is frustrated that so many others, namely his classmate Clyde Donovan, are profiting off of “his shtick” of arguing against liberal views.
Clyde has a debate podcast, inviting viewers to watch as he “totally destroys these woke liberal students.” He’s set up in a tent on a college campus where he waits as a line of students come to speak with him, and he challenges them to “prove me wrong.” Cartman eventually takes over, saying that he is the “master debater” and sporting a haircut similar to Kirk’s. He shuts down his opponents’ arguments with phrases like, “You just hate America and you love abortions.”
Clyde and Cartman’s content replicates Kirk’s well-known style. The founder of the conservative organization Turning Point USA frequently toured college campuses and hosted events just like the one depicted in the episode. The phrase “prove me wrong” was used frequently by Kirk to promote his events, inviting students to challenge his political and cultural views.
On Sept. 10, Kirk was shot and killed while hosting such an event at Utah Valley University, the first stop of his “American Comeback” tour. Weeks before he was killed, Kirk responded to the episode with a 30-minute YouTube video, finding it humorous.
“I think a lot of it was hilarious towards me,” he said. “Some of it was very funny and I don’t think we should have too thick of skin.”
He also touched on the reach of his organization and events, noting that his name is enshrined in “The Charlie Kirk Award for Young Masterdebaters” that Cartman and Clyde compete for in the episode. “So a campus thing I’ve been doing for 13 years to debate random college kids has now been so important that it gets prominent prime-time placement on Comedy Central?” he asked through laughs. “I think the whole thing is just awesome and hilarious.”
Mar-a-Lago
When Mr. Mackey is rewarded for good work as an ICE agent, he’s flown to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where he frequently stays and hosts events.
He’s greeted by giggling women who hand him a drink and put flower leis around his neck before the president meets him and gives him a brief tour of Mar-a-Lago. While there, Mackey accidentally walks in on two older men receiving massages from younger women, one of whom is a tearful Dora, detained in the raid that took place earlier in the episode. The scene is likely a reference to Epstein and accounts from survivors who say they were forced to give massages to him and his associates. Trump said this summer that Epstein “stole” young women who worked at the Mar-a-Lago spa, which caused them to have a falling-out.
JD Vance
The vice president is depicted as a version of Tattoo, the character from late-’70s drama “Fantasy Island,” and is animated similarly as Trump, except the photo used for his face is lifted directly from viral memes. He often does the president’s bidding, calling him “boss.” In turn, Trump frequently calls Vance “stupid.” Acknowledging the caricature, Vance wrote on X, “Well, I’ve finally made it.”
‘Sickofancy,’ Episode 3
Randy begins microdosing ketamine and Towelie goes to Washington, D.C., in this episode.
(Comedy Central)
Immigration raid at cannabis farm
Randy’s hemp farm business, Tegridy Farms, is the site of an immigration raid at the the beginning of this episode. While Randy is shooting a commercial, complete with calming guitar music and a trite script, ICE officers interrupt by detaining almost all the workers. “You sons of b—,” Randy screams after the vans as they drive away. “Those are my Mexicans!”
In July, chaotic raids targeting a cannabis company’s growing site and greenhouse in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties drew national attention after a man who was fleeing immigration officials died.
Microdosing ketamine
With his business in shambles, Randy rethinks his strategy with the help of an over-complimentary AI chatbot. Perhaps in a nod to Trump’s former ally and onetime “special government employee” Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman behind Tesla, SpaceX and X, Randy turns to ketamine. Randy insists a slew of “tech guys” are taking small doses of ketamine and the drug “gives their minds the edge to work with AI.” Ketamine “bolsters our focus and creativity,” he tells his partner Towelie. Under the influence of the drug, Randy transforms Tegridy Farms from a “quaint farm” into an “AI-powered marijuana platform for global solutions.”
Musk’s use of ketamine and other drugs has been previously reported, with the tech leader saying in a 2024 interview that ketamine has been prescribed to him and is “helpful for getting one out of a negative frame of mind.” He has denied abusing it. “If you use too much ketamine, you can’t really get work done. I have a lot of work, I’m typically putting in 16-hour days,” he said. “So I don’t really have a situation where I can be not mentally acute for an extended period of time.”
Musk supported Trump’s campaign and served as an advisor to the president, helming the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year with the goal of slashing spending.
Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook
Meta and Apple chief executives Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who were both present at Trump’s inauguration and have maintained friendly relationships with him, are both portrayed in this episode as members of a long line outside of the Oval Office waiting to bestow a gift on the president.
“Mr. President, your ideas for the tech industry are so innovative,” Cook says to Trump. Cook gives the president a gift on behalf of Apple, which actually happened this summer. Zuckerberg is later seen giving the president a gift that appears to be a gold and bejeweled Meta virtual reality headset.
Luxury jet from Qatar
Qatar’s leader is also seen in line holding a model gold plane with a tag that says “Air Force One.” Like everyone else, the leader compliments the president and insists his genitalia is not small before giving him the gift. Trump and the Defense Department accepted a luxury Boeing 747 aircraft from Qatar for President Trump to use as Air Force One this summer, despite ongoing questions about the ethics and legality of taking the expensive gift from a foreign nation.
Washington, D.C.
When Towelie takes a trip to the capital in this episode, he sees armed troops guarding monuments like the Washington and Lincoln memorials and the Capitol surrounded by tanks and jets. In the episode, the Lincoln Memorial has been replaced by a statue of a stern-faced Trump with exposed genitalia.
In August, Trump called up National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to assist federal law enforcement in his bid to “reestablish law and order” by targeting criminals — though crime has been down in the city — and the homeless. Although troops were not initially armed, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later ordered them to carry service-issued weapons.
Reclassifying marijuana
Randy sends Towelie to meet with Trump and give him a gift in hopes of persuading him to reclassify marijuana on the national level. (The gift is Towelie himself.) Randy, in the form of a hologram, tells Trump he thinks they can work out a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Trump said in an August press conference that his administration was considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug, which would be a significant change in policy but would not make the drug legal across the country.
‘Wok is Dead,’ Episode 4
Butters buys a Labubu for his girlfriend.
(Comedy Central)
Tariffs and Labubus
The clerk at the City Pop-Up — rebranded from City Wok — the lone purveyor of Labubus in the area, says the popular dolls are hard to keep in stock, and they’re very expensive because of tariffs. The “mystery box” that Butters has to purchase for the chance of getting the exact Labubu his girlfriend wants sets him back $85, and later, the price shoots up to $120 to offset a rise in tariffs. (The real-life dolls often fetch much more than that on resale sites, especially if they are rare.) When Butters balks at the price, the store owner explains that the cost of tariffs is passed onto the customer.
Fox News
This episode shows a clip from a Fox News segment where an anchor is overly complimentary of the president. The anchor says the president will take questions from a “diverse crowd of reporters” after returning to the U.S. from a historic tariff summit, only to reveal all of the reporters are from Fox.
The Fox News reporters also fixate on President Trump’s relationship with his wife, Melania, and his increasingly frequent appearances with Satan. There’s a heavy use of wordplay that suggests the anchors could be asking about the affair between the president and Satan or about whether Trump is actually the devil himself.
Kid Rock
Fox News reporters check in with Trump ally Kid Rock after breaking the news that — buckle up — Trump has impregnated Satan. A sobbing Kid Rock tells the reporters, “I’m just so happy.” The musician is a friend and ardent supporter of Trump, having performed at his inaugural rally in January and spoken many times publicly about his support of the president.
‘Conflict of Interest,’ Episode 5
South Park Season 27, Episode 5 “Conflict of Interest”
(Comedy Central)
Israel and Gaza
Kyle becomes irate when his classmates place bets on a popular market prediction app that his mother would “strike Gaza and destroy a Palestinian hospital.”
This episode marks the first time this season that the show has touched on the current conflict in Gaza, and it referenced real-life Israeli strikes on hospitals in the area.
Donald Trump Jr.
Trump’s eldest son appears in this episode as someone with many roles — he’s a strategic advisor for predictive markets, he answers the phone for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and also acts as a special advisor to Israel. Although he wears all those hats, the series doesn’t portray him as particularly bright — he has a complete conversation over the phone with himself.
He’s also animated to look as if he’s had extensive plastic surgery and he speaks with a strained voice, as if he can’t move his face.
Trump Jr. holds several key roles in his family’s business and his father’s political sphere in real life, and he serves as an advisor to both Polymart and Kalshi, two prediction market apps that are named and spoofed in this episode.
Trump’s stance on abortion
Less keen on the baby he’s expecting with Satan, Trump looks for different ways to harm the pregnancy in hopes of terminating it. He asks Satan if he wants to smoke and hang out in a hot tub, holds up a wire hanger, tries to get him to trip down the stairs or fall under a pile of cat feces, and even makes Satan a soup full of emergency contraceptive pills.
In reality, Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion but has most recently said he believes specific abortion policies and access should be decided not by federal law but by individual states.
Brendan Carr
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission comes into the fold this episode when Kyle goes through several hoops to try to file a complaint over the bet involving his mom, which he finds offensive. The FCC is “dealing with all the offensive stuff now,” Kyle is told.
Carr says he needs to speak with the president after learning about the offensive content, but he ends up falling victim to all of Trump’s antics in his attempt to terminate Satan’s pregnancy, which send him to the hospital. The doctors say they’re “afraid he may lose his freedom of speech.”
Vance later threatens Carr, who keeps interfering with Trump’s attempts to end Satan’s pregnancy (Vance doesn’t want anything to mess with his proximity to the presidency). “We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,” Vance says to Carr.
Those words match the phrase Carr said in real life a week before this episode aired in reference to his call on ABC to act on comments late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made about Kirk’s suspected killer and his death. Carr has remained in the headlines since then as backlash grew against the FCC’s role in Kimmel’s suspension.
Benjamin Netanyahu
Frustrated by the bet about her and the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Kyle’s mom storms into the office of the Israeli prime minister. “Just who do you think you are, killing thousands and flattening neighborhoods, then wrapping yourself in Judaism like it’s some shield from criticism?” she says. “You’re making life for Jews miserable and life for American Jews impossible.” She continues to berate him and a group of officials while the credits roll. Netanyahu does not say anything in response.
Three days after President Trump publicly accused Sen. Adam Schiff of committing mortgage fraud, an attorney for Schiff wrote privately to the Department of Justice that there was “no factual basis” for the claims — but “ample basis” to launch an investigation into Bill Pulte, the Trump administration official digging into the mortgage records of the president’s most prominent political opponents.
“We are disturbed by the highly irregular, partisan process that led to these baseless accusations; the purposeful, coordinated public disclosure of these materials containing confidential personal information, without regard to the security risks posed to the Senator and his family; and Mr. Pulte’s role in this sordid effort,” attorney Preet Bharara wrote in the July 18 letter reviewed by The Times.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, where Pulte serves as director, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
A Justice Department spokesperson said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has directed Ed Martin — a Trump loyalist and director of the department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — to “commence a probe” into criminal referrals from the housing agency, and Martin “will make public statements regarding the matter when appropriate.”
Trump previously nominated Martin — a Missouri lawyer and conservative activist with no prosecutorial experience — to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. However, Schiff, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placed a hold on Martin’s nomination, and it was ultimately withdrawn amid a lack of support from Republican senators.
Bharara outlined several reasons why he believed the president’s allegations against Schiff are without merit, and attached a copy of a letter from Schiff to the mortgage lender on his home near Washington, D.C, that Bharara said proved Schiff had been “completely transparent” about listing both that home and a unit in his home district in Burbank as primary residences in mortgage documents.
Schiff’s simultaneous designation of two different homes as primary residences was the basis for Trump’s allegations and for Pulte’s referral of the matter to the Justice Department for criminal review.
Bharara blasted Pulte as “a Presidential appointee who seems to have made it his mission to misuse the power of his office to manufacture allegations of criminal conduct against the President’s perceived political adversaries,” and advised top Justice Department officials to not become complicit in such a politically motivated campaign.
“You should decline Mr. Pulte’s invitation to join his retaliatory harassment of Senator Schiff,” Bharara wrote to Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Instead, Mr. Pulte’s misuse of his position should be investigated by a nonpartisan Inspector General to determine whether Mr. Pulte’s conduct should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.”
Democrats have questioned the legality of Pulte’s probes into several of Trump’s political opponents, including Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump; New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who has led investigations into and lawsuits against the president; and Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor who has voted to maintain federal interest rates rather than reduce them as Trump has demanded.
Pulte has lodged different allegations against each, but at their core is the claim that they all misrepresented facts in mortgage documents to secure favorable tax or loan terms, including by listing more than one home as their primary residence at the same time.
Trump cited the claims against Cook as reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which she is challenging in court. Critics have condemned the move as a partisan attack designed to allow Trump to wrest control of the economy away from the independent Federal Reserve.
Pulte has downplayed or ignored reporting by ProPublica that several of Trump’s own Cabinet members have made similar housing claims in mortgage and other financial paperwork, and reporting by Reuters that Pulte’s father and stepmother have done so as well. Additional Reuters reporting on eight years of court data found that the federal government has only rarely brought criminal charges over misstatements about primary residence in mortgage records.
With Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, Trump alleged that he intentionally misled lenders about his primary residence being in Potomac, Md., rather than in California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.” Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.
California Sen. Adam Schiff’s lawyer wrote a letter to the Department of Justice saying there was “no factual basis” for President Trump’s accusations that Schiff had committed mortgage fraud.
(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)
A memorandum from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte, previously reported by The Times, noted that investigators had been asked by the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.
Investigators said they had concluded that Schiff and his wife “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020 by simultaneously identifying both the Potomac home and the Burbank unit as their primary residence. The investigators didn’t say they had concluded a crime had been committed.
Schiff has publicly dismissed Trump’s allegations as baseless, accusing the president of making mortgage fraud claims “his weapon of choice to attack people standing in his way and people standing up to him, like me.” Bharara’s letter outlined his defense in more detail.
Part of that defense was the letter Bharara said Schiff sent to his lender on his Maryland home, Quicken Loans, a copy of which was provided to the Justice Department and reviewed by The Times.
In that letter, which he sent during a 2010 refinancing, Schiff wrote that while California was his “principal legal residence” and where he paid taxes, he had been informed both by counsel for the lender and for the House Administration Committee that the Maryland home “may be considered a primary residence for insurance underwriting purposes” because members of his family lived in it for most of the year.
Bharara called the letter a “transparent disclosure” and “the antithesis of ‘mortgage misrepresentation.’”
Schiff has previously said that neither of the homes were vacation or investment properties and were classified correctly, both in accordance with how they were used by his family and in consultation with House attorneys and his lenders.
Another part of Schiff’s defense, Bharara wrote, was that even if he had committed fraud by making false statements in his mortgage filings — which Bharara said he did not — the 10-year statute of limitations for charging him has lapsed, as the “most recent mortgage application that Mr. Pulte even accuses of inaccuracy is more than twelve years old.”
Bharara also laid out several reasons why he felt that Pulte’s actions deserve to be investigated.
Bharara asserted that the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general appeared to have asked the Fannie Mae Financial Crimes Investigation Unit to delve into Schiff’s mortgage records “at Mr. Pulte’s behest,” and that Pulte personally referred the matter to the Justice Department in May, before the Fannie Mae unit had even provided him with its findings.
He also wrote that the criminal referral was made public “as the President sought to distract from criticism related to [convicted sex offender] Jeffery Epstein.”
Schiff’s address was published as a result, which Bharara said presented a threat to the senator and forced him to take “extra security precautions.” Schiff also has launched a legal defense fund to help him defend himself against the president’s accusations.
Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in New York, described Pulte’s actions as “highly irregular,” and part of a “pattern” of him “misusing his office” to go after Trump’s political opponents.
“Opening an investigation on these deficient facts, after this much time has passed, after such an irregular and suspect process, and when the President has repeatedly expressed his longtime desire to investigate and imprison Senator Schiff, would be a deeply partisan and unjust act, unworthy of the Department of Justice,” Bharara wrote. “Instead, it is Mr. Pulte’s conduct that should be investigated.”
Last month, the White House issued a news release titled “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian,” flagging a grab bag of museum exhibits as offensive — basically anything that highlights racism or is sympathetic toward LGBTQ+ people and undocumented immigrants.
Buried in this trash heap of whines is a complaint that reflects how hell-bent Trump is on bending California to his will.
Describing a “Californio” family as losing their land to Anglo “squatters,” which the yet-to-be-built National Museum of the American Latino does on its website, is apparently a DEI thought crime, according to the news release.
My query to the White House, asking what exactly is so offensive about this characterization of the Mexicans who stayed in California after it became part of the U.S., was acknowledged yet not answered.
But the focus on “Californio” and “squatter” — and putting those words in quotes, as the news release did — suggests the underlying issue, said UC Santa Barbara history professor Miroslava Chavez-Garcia, who specializes in 19th century California.
“They’re trying to question the legitimacy” of the Californios, she said. “Who matters as an American? [To Trump], it’s not people who come from Mexico. It’s people who came from the East.”
“The level of minutiae on this — it’s not him,” she added of Trump. “He’s not a reader. It must be a vast team doing this.”
Worrying about scare quotes around two words in a White House news release might seem like distracting piffle compared with Trump’s other anti-California volleys.
But how the U.S. government frames our yesteryear is one of this administration’s main battlefronts and something I’ve repeatedly warned about in my columna. History is written by the victors, goes the cliche, allowing them to shape a people’s sense of self and decide who’s important and who isn’t.
That’s why Trump and his goons have tried to remake our nation’s past as a triumphalist, so-called Heritage American story, in which people of Western European heritage are always the main actors and the heroes. They’ve done it with the obsession of a pharaoh chipping away all mentions of his predecessors from obelisks.
In Trump’s mind, the United States has never done any wrong, and anyone who thinks so hates this country. It’s not surprising that casting Californios as victims of rapacious gringos might offend him or his lackeys. But this isn’t wokoso propaganda — it’s well-documented history.
Pio Pico State Historic Park in Whittier was home to its namesake, the last governor of California when it was part of Mexico.
(Ringo Chiu / For The Times)
In 1850, Sacramento’s sheriff and mayor died while attempting to remove white squatters, in what was quickly deemed the Squatter Riot. The following year, the U.S. government forced Californios to prove they owned the land they lived on, even though the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, had ensured their property rights. In the meantime, white settlers could largely claim rancho land as they pleased.
California’s most famous historians — Hubert Howe Bancroft, Kevin Starr and Robert Glass Cleland, to name a few — wrote extensively about so-called squatterism, with Bancroft describing what happened to the Californios as “oppressive and ruinous.”
A new generation of scholars has focused on the writings of Californios, including “The Squatter and the Don,” an 1885 novel by María Ruiz de Burton based on her family’s fight to keep their rancho in what’s now San Diego County.
This was the book described on the National Museum of the American Latino website, prompting the ignominious “Californio” mention in the White House news release.
Until now, “there’s never been much opposition, really” to the narrative of the Californios’ decline, Chavez-Garcia said, calling it “foundational” to the state’s mythology. She cited festivals in mission towns, such as Santa Barbara’s Old Spanish Days Fiesta, where people dress up like the Californios of yore to remember a romanticized era that was destined to end badly.
“The thinking was that the state’s prosperity was never meant to happen” to Californios, she said. “They were meant to die off.”
As a high school student in San José, Chavez-Garcia knew none of this history — “we learned more about the Homestead Act in the Midwest,” she joked. At UCLA, when she finally learned about the Californios, she was “outraged” and questioned why her beloved high school history teacher “didn’t teach us this basic thing.”
“Many people … don’t know our history, so whatever the government tells them to read, they’re going to accept,” she said. “You can’t just let someone take an eraser and erase these histories willy-nilly lo que no le gusta [what someone doesn’t like] and then put in whatever the hell you want because it makes you feel good.”
It can’t fall only on scholars such as Chavez-Garcia and nerds such as me to push back against Trump’s ahistorical assault. All Californians need to stand up to people who not only want to remain willfully ignorant about the bad parts of our history but also want to stop others from learning about them. Speaking only about the good prevents us from doing better and leads to a juvenile worldview that’s sadly taken hold in the White House and beyond.
We must take the stance expressed by Doña Josefa Alamar, a protagonist of “The Squatter and the Don.”
At the end of the novel, she is living in exile in San Francisco. Her husband has died from the stress of trying to keep their rancho, her sons live in hardship and her daughter is married to a white man. A friend urges her to stay silent and not malign the “rich people” who caused her so much grief. But Doña Josefa refuses.
“Let the guilty rejoice and go unpunished, and the innocent suffer ruin and desolation,” she replies. “I slander no one, but shall speak the truth.”
WASHINGTON — Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse made their voices heard Tuesday on Capitol Hill, pressuring lawmakers to force the release of the sex trafficking investigation into the late financier and pushing back President Trump’s effort to dismiss the issue as a “hoax.”
In a news conference on the Capitol lawn that drew hundreds of supporters and chants of “release the files,” the women shared — some publicly for the first time — how they were lured into Epstein’s abuse by his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. They demanded that the Trump administration provide transparency and accountability for what they endured as teenagers.
It was a striking stand as the push for disclosure of the so-called Epstein files reached a pivotal moment in Washington. Lawmakers are battling over how Congress should delve into the Epstein saga while the Republican president, after initially signaling support for transparency on the campaign trail, has been dismissing the matter as a “Democrat hoax.”
“No matter what you do it’s going to keep going,” Trump said Wednesday. He added, “Really, I think it’s enough.”
But the survivors on Capitol Hill, as well as at least one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, disagreed. Some of the women pleaded for Trump to support their cause.
“It feels like you just want to explode inside because nobody, again, is understanding that this is a real situation. These women are real. We’re here in person,” said Haley Robson, one of the survivors who said she is a registered Republican.
Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges that said he sexually abused and trafficked dozens of underage girls. The case was brought more than a decade after he secretly cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida to dispose of nearly identical allegations. Epstein was accused of paying underage girls hundreds of dollars in cash for massages and then molesting them.
Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidant and former girlfriend, was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for luring teenage girls for him to abuse. Four women testified at her trial that they were abused by Epstein as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at his homes in Florida, New York and New Mexico. The allegations have also spawned dozens of lawsuits.
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is usually closely aligned with Trump, described her support for a bill that would force the Justice Department to release the information it has compiled on Epstein as a moral fight against sexual predation.
“This isn’t one political party or the other. It’s a culmination of everyone work together to silence these women and protect Jeffrey Epstein and his cabal,” Greene said at the news conference.
She is one of four Republicans — three of them women — who have defied House GOP leadership and the White House in an effort to force a vote on their bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quash the effort by putting forward his own resolution and arguing that a concurrent investigation by the House Oversight Committee is the best way for Congress to deliver transparency.
“I think the Oversight probe is going to be wide and expansive, and they’re going to follow the truth wherever it leads,” Johnson, R-La., said.
He added that the White House was complying with the committee to release information and that he had spoken with Trump about it Tuesday night. “He says, ‘Get it out there, put it all out there,’” Johnson told reporters.
The Oversight Committee on Tuesday night released what it said was the first tranche of documents and files it has received from the Justice Department on the Epstein case. The folders — posted on Google Drive — contained hundreds of image files of years-old court filings related to Epstein, but contained practically nothing new.
Meanwhile, the White House was warning House members that support for the bill to require the DOJ to release the files would be seen as a hostile act. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who is pressing for the bill, said that the White House was sending that message because “They’ve dug in.”
“They decided they don’t want it released,” he said. “It’s a political threat.”
But with Trump sending a strong message and Republican leadership moving forward with an alternative resolution, Massie was left looking for support from at least two more Republicans willing to cross political lines. It would take six GOP members, as well as all House Democrats, to force a vote on their bill. And even if that passes the House, it would still need to pass the Senate and be signed by Trump.
Still, the survivors saw this moment as their best chance in years to gain some justice for what had been done by Epstein, who died in as New York jail cell in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges.
“Justice and accountability are not favors from the powerful. They are obligations decades overdue” Jess Michaels, a survivor who said she was first abused by Epstein in 1991, told the rally on the Capitol lawn. “This moment began with Epstein’s crimes. But it’s going to be remembered for survivors demanding justice, demanding truth, demanding accountability.”
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges, according to a memo reviewed by the Associated Press.
The military will begin sending groups of 150 attorneys — both military and civilians — to the Justice Department “as soon as practicable,” and the armed services should have the first round of people identified by next week, according to the Aug. 27 memo.
The effort comes as the Trump administration is cracking down on illegal immigration by ramping up arrests and deportations. And immigration courts already are dealing with a massive backlog of roughly 3.5 million cases that has ballooned in recent years.
At the same time, more than 100 immigration judges have been fired or left voluntarily after taking deferred resignations offered by the Trump administration, their union says. In the most recent round of terminations, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers said in July that at least 17 immigration judges had been fired “without cause” in courts across the country.
That has left about 600 immigration judges, union figures show, meaning the Pentagon move would double their ranks.
The Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, requested the assistance from the Defense Department, according to the memo sent by the Pentagon’s executive secretary to his Justice Department counterpart. The military lawyers’ duties as immigration judges will initially last no more than 179 days but can be renewed, it said.
A Justice Department spokesperson referred questions about the plan to the Defense Department, where officials directed questions to the White House.
A White House official said Tuesday that the administration is looking at a variety of options to help resolve the significant backlog of immigration cases, including hiring additional immigration judges. The official said the matter should be “a priority that everyone — including those waiting for adjudication — can rally around.”
The memo stressed that sending the additional attorneys is contingent on availability and that mobilizing reserve officers may be necessary. Plus, the document said the Justice Department would be responsible for ensuring that anyone sent from the Pentagon does not violate the federal prohibition on using the military as domestic law enforcement, known as the Posse Comitatus Act.
The administration faced a setback on its efforts to use the military in unique ways to combat illegal immigration and crime, with a court ruling Tuesday that it “willfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June.
Cases in immigration court can take years to weave their way to a final determination, with judges and lawyers frequently scheduling final hearings on the merits of a case more than a year out.
Toropin writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Will Weissert, Rebecca Santana and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the estate of Jeffrey Epstein on Monday as congressional lawmakers try to determine who was connected to the disgraced financier and whether prosecutors mishandled his case.
The committee’s subpoena is the latest effort by both Republicans and Democrats to respond to public clamor for more disclosure in the investigation into Epstein, who was found dead in his New York jail cell in 2019. Lawmakers are trying to guide an investigation into who among Epstein’s high-powered social circle may have been aware of his sexual abuse of teenage girls, delving into a criminal case that has spurred conspiracy theories and roiled top officials in President Trump’s administration.
The subpoena, signed by Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the oversight committee, and dated Monday, demands that Epstein’s estate provide Congress with documents including a book that was compiled with notes from friends for his 50th birthday, his last will and testament, agreements he signed with prosecutors, his contact books, and his financial transactions and holdings.
Comer wrote to the executors of Epstein’s estate that the committee “is reviewing the possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein’s death, the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways for the federal government to effectively combat them, and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials.”
The Justice Department, trying to distance Trump and Epstein, last week began handing over to lawmakers documentation of the federal investigation into Epstein. It has also released transcripts of interviews conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend. But Democrats on the committee have not been satisfied with those efforts, saying that the some 33,000 pages of documents they’ve received are mostly already public.
“DOJ’s limited disclosure raises more questions than answers and makes clear that the White House is not interested in justice for the victims or the truth,” Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.
Pressure from lawmakers to release more information is likely to only grow when Congress returns to Washington next week.
A bipartisan group of House members is attempting to maneuver around Republican leadership to hold a vote to pass legislation meant to require the Justice Department to release a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation into Epstein.
