Hundreds of employees across the United States are facing layoffs in October, with some big names in American business looking to trim their workforces.
By Andrew Stanton
Layoffs can occur for many reasons; while they can be viewed as a signal about how companies view economic headwinds, the reasons may also be more localized to individual companies amid restructuring or plans to maximize profits. An August report from outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas found that hundreds of thousands of layoffs have occurred so far in 2025—many of which were part of President Donald Trump’s changes to the federal workforce.
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires employers to give 60 days’ notice ahead of mass layoffs.
According to the group Legal Aid at Work, a mass layoff occurs under the WARN Act when at least 50 employees are laid off during a 30-day period and affects one-third of the workplace if 500 employees are laid off during a 30-day period regardless of the company's size or an entire work site is closed down and at least 50 employees are laid off during a 30-day period.
What To Know
Among the companies facing layoffs is Microsoft, which is set to lay off 40 workers in Redmond, Washington, and FedEx, which is laying off workers at a Memphis, Tennessee, facility.
These are tracked online via WARNTracker.com, which indicates that many businesses across the country have filed WARN notices. The following companies have WARN notices with a layoff date in October, according to the tracker.
AccelerEd
Adventist Health
Air Wisconsin Airlines
Amentum
Anaheim Arena Management
Azoteas Mex LA
Battelle
Berco Redwood, Inc.
Block
Burlington Trailways
Car Toys, Inc.
Catalent
CDM Field Services
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
Cisco
CNN/Warner Bros
CooperVision Inc.
Cornucopia Logistics, LLC
Dandelion Payments, Inc.
Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality Services
Downtown Streets, Inc.
Enloe Health
F5, Inc.
Farmers Insurance Group
FedEx
Fred Meyer
Gilead Sciences
GXO Logistics
Horizon Lobby
Hudson News Distributors
Jack in the Box
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Jabil
Marathon Staff Solutions
Marriott International
Maverick, Inc.
Microsoft
National Distribution Centers
Navient Solutions
Oracle America
Owens Corning
Paradies
Pasa Services
Pactiv Corporation
PL Developments
Providence Health & Services
Silgan Containers
Smurfit Westrock
Solarcycle Inc.
Southwest Key Programs Inc.
T-Mobile
TriLink Biotechnologie
University of Southern California
Upstate Niagara Cooperative
Vistar Green Rabbit
Warner Music Group
Web to Door Corporation
Wells Fargo
Winnebago Industries
Zeco Systems, Inc.
Zumtobel Lighting
There are many different economic forces that can lead to layoffs, including a decrease in demand for a product or service, Justin Ren, department chair of operations and technology management at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business, told Newsweek.
“But what is less obvious—and perhaps more relevant today—is that companies may lay off people while doing well with steady or even increasing demand. This is because companies can become more efficient in their internal operations, either from technology upgrades such as automation and process innovation, or from better organization of their workflows and their supply chains,” he said.
Moving forward, high-tech industries may see more layoffs due to increased productivity, he said.
While the redundancies are at times necessary, some businesses may be short-sighted in laying workers off hen facing short-term shocks, he said. When considering layoffs, businesses should consider whether a changing environment is temporary or not, as well as how they can let current employees create more future value rather than dismissing them, according to Ren.
Kirabo Jackson, faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, told Newsweek that companies may be laying off workers due to an uncertainty in the markets fueled by Trump’s tariffs.
“In a world where there’s a general uncertainty, it’s not an environment where people want to put down large sums of money and make investments in new people,” he said.
Companies generally do not like to make layoffs, he said. Eventually, many end up hiring new workers to replace those who have been made redundant and will have to train them, so it’s generally better for businesses to only downsize when changes are going to last for a long period of time, he said.
Companies would typically pass on price changes to consumers and would only lay off employees when they are unable to do so due to weak demand, he said.
What People Are Saying
Justin Ren told Newsweek: “Employment changes are complex, and are often industry- and geography-specific. There are multiple forces acting and counteracting together.”
Andrew Challenger, senior vice president and labor expert at Challenger, Gray & Christmas: "We are seeing the federal budget cuts implemented by DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] impact nonprofits and health care in addition to the government. AI was cited for over 10,000 cuts last month, and tariff concerns have impacted nearly 6,000 jobs this year."
Joni Ernst Urges Vought to Cut ‘Silly Science,’ Government Mascots, and $2 Trillion in Waste Amid Schumer Shutdown
Jasmyn Jordan
4 Oct 2025
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) is pressing the Trump administration to take advantage of the ongoing shutdown, suggesting more than $2 trillion in federal spending reductions in a detailed letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought that lists a wide range of programs and expenses for potential cuts.
In a message on X, Ernst previewed the effort, writing, “I heard @russvought was looking for waste to cut during the Schumer Shutdown. Here is a list of non-essential government expenditures that would save taxpayers more than $2 trillion.” Her October 3 letter to Vought lays out a sweeping list of proposed reductions spanning multiple agencies and programs.
The Iowa senator first called for rescinding more than $23 billion in unspent COVID-19 relief funds identified by the Government Accountability Office, along with trillions of dollars she said remain in “secret slush funds” not obligated for any specific purpose. She also urged the administration to auction or consolidate vacant federal office buildings, noting agencies have not met the occupancy standards required under the Use It Act.
Among her other recommendations are 750,000 “non-essential” federal employees currently furloughed during the shutdown, which she estimated cost taxpayers roughly $400 million per day in compensation. She encouraged OMB to coordinate with the Office of Personnel Management to “right-size” the federal workforce.
Ernst also pointed to Biden-era initiatives such as the $7.5 billion electric vehicle charging station program, which has produced only 60 stations nationwide, and the U.S. Postal Service’s purchase of electric delivery trucks, which she observed remains mostly undelivered despite $3 billion in available funds. Both, she argued, should be rescinded.
Her letter highlighted federal employee purchase cards, based on government audits that found more than 11,000 questionable transactions, including spending at casinos and nightclubs. She advocated for stronger controls to prevent former employees from retaining active cards after leaving government service.
Ernst revisited projects she has previously referred to as billions of dollars over budget, including Honolulu’s rail transit system, Maryland’s Purple Line, and California’s Silicon Valley subway extension, urging OMB to work with the Department of Transportation to rescind federal funding. In August, following a federal audit of California’s high-speed rail project, she separately sought to have DOT claw back $14 billion across these and other transit projects.
Other examples she cited include federal employee performance bonuses despite delays and cost overruns, as well as what she labeled “silly science” projects — taxpayer-funded research she characterized as frivolous — ranging from experiments with shrimp treadmills to studies of potato chips resembling Elvis.
Ernst also criticized the more than $1.5 billion agencies spend annually on promotional items and mascots, listing figures such as “Franklin the Fair Market Fox” and “Sanctuary Sam.” She noted consolidating federal cloud computing licenses could save $750 million a year, and opposed taxpayer dollars funding research at Chinese laboratories, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
She further proposed OMB to reevaluate the nation’s $15 billion in voluntary contributions to the United Nations, citing concerns over U.N. involvement in planning activities that she contended undermine U.S. security, and pointed to longstanding Pentagon waste, including duplicate storage operations and overpriced spare parts.
Ernst concluded by warning against taxpayer dollars going to USDA programs such as subsidies for cricket farms or pig video game research, and pushed for stricter project management principles to address what she described as systemic inefficiencies in federal spending.
The senator’s recommendations arrive as President Trump and Vought continue rolling out cuts during the shutdown, including an $8 billion reduction in green energy programs, $18 billion in paused New York City infrastructure projects, and $2.1 billion in Chicago transit funding put on hold. Trump has framed the shutdown as a chance to take “irreversible” steps in eliminating programs Democrats support, and Vought has overseen broad reductions in the federal workforce.
World Jewish Congress President: Trump Deserves Nobel Prize If Gaza Peace Forged — Vows to Personally Lobby Committee
Joshua Klein
5 Oct 2025
World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder said Saturday that President Donald Trump “is the Peace President,” declaring that if ongoing efforts result in Hamas’s disarmament, the return of all hostages, and an end to the Gaza war, Trump “without question deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Posting his statement on X, Lauder said that if reporting bears out — and all factions come to the table with a result that Hamas returns the hostages “after nearly two years to the day in captivity,” followed by “a sequence of events” leading to disarmament and a plan for Hamas to exit Gaza — then Trump will have “brought about a miracle for the history books that has eluded all others.”
“Donald Trump is The Peace President. If reporting bears out, and all factions come to the table with a result that Hamas returns the hostages - after nearly two years to the day in captivity - and that a sequence of events leads to an end to this war, including disarmament and a…
He added that he would “personally dedicate” himself to lobbying the members of the Nobel committee “to achieve that end.”
Lauder said such an outcome would mark a historic breakthrough and reaffirm Trump’s record as “the Peace President.”
His remarks came as President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared close to finalizing a framework that could see all hostages freed and Hamas forced from Gaza, as Breitbart News reported Saturday.
Lauder, who has led the World Jewish Congress since 2007, has long praised Trump’s leadership on Middle East diplomacy and his stand against antisemitism. Earlier this year, he lauded Trump’s decision to cut federal funding to universities that tolerate campus antisemitism and hailed Arab League resolutions calling for Hamas’s disarmament as “historic moral clarity.”
Hamas has reportedly agreed to President Donald Trump’s proposed peace deal, under which the remaining hostages held in Gaza will be released and a ceasefire with Israel with begin. pic.twitter.com/RzKRii1oJS
Support for recognizing Trump’s peacemaking has grown for months, with at least seven nations publicly endorsing a Nobel bid. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also said he nominated Trump — while noting the process is secretive — adding to mounting international calls to honor what supporters describe as one of the most consequential peace efforts in decades.
Lauder said that if the current diplomatic efforts succeed — resulting in Hamas’s disarmament and the hostages’ release — Trump will have “brought about a miracle for the history books that has eluded all others,” adding that he will personally lobby the Nobel committee “to achieve that end.”
A Republican-appointed federal judge in Boston sharply ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s policy targeting foreign students and faculty for pro-Palestinian activism violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
By Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant
The decision by Judge William Young, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, came in a lawsuit filed by academic groups, including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, challenging visa revocations and deportations tied to political expression. The judge stated that the policy chilled political speech and constituted ideological retaliation.
“This case—perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court—squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us," Young wrote. "The Court answers this constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence.”
The judge also took a swipe at the media, law firms, and higher education institutions for what he saw as failing to stand up for First Amendment rights.
"Behold President Trump’s successes in limiting free speech—law firms cower, institutional leaders in higher education meekly appease the President, media outlets from huge conglomerates to small niche magazines mind the bottom line rather than the ethics of journalism," he wrote.
Why It Matters
Earlier this year, the Trump administration began revoking the legal status of student visa holders who had been associated in some way with campus protests or debates around Israel's war with Hamas, namely those who were pro-Palestine. This sparked various legal challenges, with individuals such as green card holder Mahmoud Khalil and doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk seeing their cases hit national headlines over efforts to deport them.
What To Know
The lawsuit filed in March alleged that the Trump administration was engaging in "ideological deportations," which plaintiffs viewed as being in violation of the First Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional. A trial took place over nine days in June, where 15 witnesses outlined the impact of the policies on college campuses across the United States.
Senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were among those to testify, saying that there was a so-called "Tiger Team" created to investigate reports of students and staff who were seen as pro-Palestine, and by extension, pro-Hamas.
Some agents said they had felt pressure to locate and detain student protesters, something they had previously not been instructed to do, but other officials said they were simply enforcing longstanding immigration laws.
Young ruled that targeting individuals for their beliefs, in this case, being pro-Palestine, for deportation was in violation of their First Amendment rights.
In his 161-page decision, Young referred to other instances in which he had ruled against the current Republican administration, including on plans to cut National Institutes of Health grants. He has also made a dig at the U.S. Supreme Court for its handling of cases relating to Trump since January.
On Tuesday, Young continued his rebuke of Trump, saying that the president liked to ignore everything, including the Constitution.
"This is not to suggest that he is entirely lawless. He is not," Young wrote. "As an experienced litigator he has learned that—at least on the civil side of our courts -— neither our Constitution nor laws enforce themselves, and he can do most anything until an aggrieved person or entity will stand up and say him 'Nay,' i.e. take him to court."
What People Are Saying
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement to Newsweek: “Less than a week after a terrorist attack at an ICE facility in Dallas, a craven Judge is smearing and demonizing federal law enforcement. Our federal law enforcement officers face a 1000% increase in assaults against them, unprecedented online doxing of our agents and their families, and they’re being stalked and pummeled by rocks and Molotov cocktails.
"Our ICE law enforcement should be thanked for risking their lives every day to arrest murderers, pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and terrorists instead of vilified by sanctuary politicians. It’s disheartening that even after the terrorist attack and recent arrests of rioters with guns outside of ICE facilities, this judge decides to stoke the embers of hatred.”
State Department principal deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott, in a statement to Newsweek: "The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, in a press release: “This is a historic ruling that should have immediate implications for the Trump administration’s policies. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t imprison people simply because it disagrees with their political views. We welcome the court’s reaffirmation of this basic idea, which is foundational to our democracy.”
Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, in a press release: “The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values. This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out. Defending democracy means standing up now—loudly, visibly, and together.”
Victoria Santora, an administration attorney, told the court: “There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech. The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws.”
BREAKING: Over 100,000 Federal Workers RESIGNED Today!
by Noah
Sep. 30, 2025
Can you feel the fat being gutted away?
How about 100,000 less federal workers sucking off the Government cheese?
It’s a beautiful thing and it happened this morning:
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Nearly 100,000 federal workers resigned this morning.
The largest resignation in history.
— Remarks (@remarks) September 30, 2025
🚨#BREAKING: Nearly 100,000 federal workers have resigned this morning making it the largest resignation in history.
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) September 30, 2025
MASSIVE: Over 100,000 federal employees are reportedly set to resign tomorrow in the largest mass resignation in U.S. history under President Trump’s plan to cut the federal workforce. pic.twitter.com/jXDmUAddOk
MASSIVE: Over 100,000 federal employees are reportedly set to resign tomorrow in the largest mass resignation in U.S. history under President Trump’s plan to cut the federal workforce. pic.twitter.com/jXDmUAddOk
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 29, 2025
But now let’s get into the details because while this report IS true, it might not be exactly what you think.
This all ties into the deferred resignations, not necessarily related in any way to the Government shutdown.
FedWeek explained:
While the impending September 30 end of the current fiscal year brings a threat of a potential partial government shutdown, for many federal employees it will bring a more definite change: the end of their “deferred resignation” periods.
That is the most common deadline under both the original government-wide offer—which kept employees in paid status on administrative leave up to a set separation date—and individual agency-specific offers that followed. In some cases, agencies allowed for a later date in order for employees to qualify for retirement benefits.
OPM’s most recent count is that nearly 300,000 positions will be eliminated by the end of this year—about an eighth of the total as of the start of the year.
That number includes some 275,000 due to: normal attrition as a general hiring freeze has remained in effect (with various exceptions); deferred resignation; and acceptance of other types of incentives, such as standard buyouts and/or early retirement offers.
Although OPM did not break out the figures, the large majority of those likely are leaving under deferred resignation; OPM over the summer put the acceptance figure for those offers at above 150,000. Some already have left that status, for example to take other jobs; ethics restrictions including those against outside employment still apply during deferred resignation.
I love it when a plan comes together!
President Trump is about to get EXACTLY what he wanted, and Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are going to hand it to him on a silver platter!
It seems fairly certain at this point that the Government will indeed shut down tomorrow evening.
Here is VP Vance confirming that's where we're headed:
🚨 VP VANCE: "I think we're headed to a [government] shutdown." pic.twitter.com/Gz41x7JKl6
In the past, the party not in power would always want a shutdown because then they'd blame the party in power for all the Government workers who are not getting paid.
And Chuck Schumer thinks he's just going to roll out that same plan here, but he doesn't realize this time is different!
Think about it...
What has President Trump spent most of the past 9 months fighting to do?
He's been up to the Supreme Court many times on the issue of who in Government he can and can't fire.
He's won most or all of those cases, but they're taking a lot of time and a lot of effort.
What would be better?
Just shut the whole damn thing down and start over!
Clean house!
Wipe things clean and later on rebuild only the people and things you need.
And the cherry on top?
Of course Trump couldn't do this on his own, Democrats would be outraged! So the cherry on top is to get Chuck Schumer to do it for him!
And Chuck is playing right into Trump's hand -- but hey, no one ever said this guy was smart:
Mark it down, President Trump and Russ Vought are going to PERMANENTLY eliminate thousands of jobs out of the Government during this process:
If there is a govt “shutdown”, Trump has ordered Russ Vought to permanently eliminate jobs when funding lapses.
In past shutdowns, they just get a vacation and backpay a few days later (furlough). This time employees will be fired, eliminating thousands of govt union jobs. pic.twitter.com/bygL7UKYAg
If there is a govt “shutdown”, Trump has ordered Russ Vought to permanently eliminate jobs when funding lapses.
In past shutdowns, they just get a vacation and backpay a few days later (furlough). This time employees will be fired, eliminating thousands of govt union jobs. pic.twitter.com/bygL7UKYAg
And I almost considered not publishing this article so I didn't tip off Chuck Schumer but let's be honest, he has no good options here and as I said he's not smart enough to figure it out anyway!
Here was President Trump earlier today:
Under a new White House plan, potentially tens of thousands of federal employees could be laid off for good if there is no deal to fund the government before the deadline expires. @edokeefe reports. https://t.co/mWCenFh96J pic.twitter.com/yLwZd9a3S8
Under a new White House plan, potentially tens of thousands of federal employees could be laid off for good if there is no deal to fund the government before the deadline expires. edokeefe reports. https://t.co/mWCenFh96Jpic.twitter.com/yLwZd9a3S8
— Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) September 29, 2025
TRANSCRIPT:
But their whole thing is, "It's up to you." That's their message. Uh, what do you say to that?
Well, I- I don't know where they come up with that because we are Republicans united, House Republicans, Senate Republicans, President Trump. The House Republicans have passed a short-term funding resolution that is clean, nonpartisan, and came over to the Senate. It's sitting at the desk in the Senate. We could pick it up and pass it tonight. The president would sign it into law. The government stays open. It's that simple.
And what they're trying to do is create a, uh, counter-narrative that, uh, suggests that they can add trillions of dollars of spending, uh, free healthcare for illegals to this thing, and it's just flat, you know, there, there, there's just, there isn't a, um, a world in which they're being realistic. This is a totally unserious proposal.
You wrote an op-ed and you said, in fact, uh, the Democrats voted 13 times for clean funding bills while President Biden was in office. So what is the explanation, uh, why not this time to continue negotiating the appropriations bills?
Well, we, this is And that's exactly what we wanna do, and I've made this very clear. You pass a short-term funding resolution that will enable us to finish the other appropriations bills through the normal regular process. So we wanna fund the government the way that it should be funded, which is through regular order. And that's the appropriations committee marking up bills, reporting 'em to the floor, opening it up to the amendment process. That's the way it used to work.
Um, in Chuck Schumer- Schumer's universe, we didn't do appropriations bills. It was all written behind closed doors in his office. And now he's upset because he isn't being consulted on everything because we're doing things the way we should be doing 'em, allowing Republican senators and Democrat senators to work together to pass these bills. And what we need is to fund the government, give us some time to, to do the rest of the appropriations bills.
And if there are other issues they wanna talk about, one of which is this premium tax credit issue, we're wel- you know, we welcome that conversation. But you can't hold the federal government hostage. Release the hostage, and then we can start talking about these other things.
You know, Leader Jeffries said, um, in the Oval Office, there was a frank and direct discussion. In Washington, that translates to heated at times. Was it heated?
Well, I mean, I think it was, uh, it was-
Lively?
It was lively. It was spirited. And, um, you know, obviously they're in a tough spot politically. And I, and I get it. I mean, they've got a base that is demanding that they fight anything related to President Trump. This, you know, you mentioned the 13 times they did this. When they, when they had the majority, the Democrats did, you had Joe Biden in the White House, passed 13 short-term continuing resolutions.
Well, what's changed? Donald Trump's the president. That's what's changed. But, you know, on the health issue, health providers could lose 32 billion if ACA credits at the center of the shutdown fight expire. The lapse in Obamacare subsidies could also lead to an additional 7.7 billion in unpaid medical bills for uninsured patients, from uninsured patients. Big deal, right? For a lot of people.
Well, the premium tax credit issue is something we're willing to have a conversation about. But the fact of the matter is, it is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. It needs reforms. It is a program where the government pays, makes direct payments to insurance companies. Insurance companies get subsidies to cover more people, so through their agents and brokers, they go out and auto enroll people, many of whom don't even know they have coverage.
And of the 23 million people who were covered in the exchanges last year, 12 million never filed a claim 'cause a lot of 'em don't even know they have coverage. And there's no income caps on it. There's a couple in West Virginia making $580,000 a year that's getting subsidies from the federal government for their healthcare.
Um, there are, you know-
But you're willing to work on this issue in particular?
Yeah, I mean, part of this is the, the base Obam- Obamacare program is not gonna be affected. What's gonna be affected is the enhancements that the Democrats added when they had the majorities. So we're-
What about-
But we're willing to have that conversation. But you gotta do that in, you can't do that in the context of a hostage-taking situation, which is where we are right now.
What about the OMB director's letter, uh, Russ Vought, in which he asks the department heads or tells them there might be possible permanent layoffs, uh, saying, "Agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider reduction in force notice for all employees that don't fit under, uh, being funded by the funding that continues."
Right. Well, and that's, and that's exactly why we oughta keep the government open.
So that's a real threat?
Well, I mean, I think that Look, if you, you have to manage a shutdown. If you're Russ Vought, you have to figure out in the middle of a shutdown, "What am I gonna do? How am I gonna shift money around?" It is the American people that get hurt by this. There is no reason for a government shutdown. Republicans are united, House Republicans, Senate Republicans, the president of United States, all agree to keep the government open.
All it takes is Chuck Schumer to agree to put the bill that's sitting at the Senate desk. The House has passed it. We can pass it. President signs it into law. Government stays open.
You know, we saw this train coming down the tracks. I interviewed you in July and asked specifically about this. Take a listen. You're gonna need Schumer's support to keep the government open. We are.
And we, and we- And so how are you gonna get it?
Well, I mean, we, it, at some point, you hope that in the interest of the country, that they will work with us on issues like funding the government. But it's been very hard because at least right now, they're, anything that the president wants, they're against. Said anything the president wants, they're against. And we're at this moment.
Are you in the same place?
Well, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about because it is. This is a clean, short-term, bipartisan funding resolution, something we did 13 times when the Democrats had the majority. And all we have to do is pick it up and pass it and then we can go to work on the other appropriations bills and the other things that Democrats want to address.
But they've tried to introduce, you know, a trillion dollars in new spending, free healthcare for illegals, uh, as part of their proposal. And we can't do that by tomorrow night at midnight. And we're not gonna do most of that stuff anyway. But if they wanna do something on premium tax credits, uh, we're open to having that conversation.
Su- But you can't do it in this context. Schumer is running scared from his political left. I mean, it's that simple. And again, this is all about who's in the White House. They did this 13 times when Biden was in the White House.
So chances right now, standing in the White House driveway, that the government shuts down, where do you put it?
Well, I mean, it's up to them and, uh, I don't know-
So above 50%.
Well, if the Democrats are coming out and saying flatly, um, "We will vote," repeatedly, and they will have to because we won't force 'em to vote 'cause the bill is sitting in the Senate to, to keep the government or to shut the government down, not to fund the government. It's up to them. The ball is in their court and, um, this is-.
The ruling comes a day after ICE confirmed it would offer unaccompanied minors money to self-deport to their home countries.
By Eric Bazail-Eimil
A federal judge on Saturday blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement from immediately transferring minors into federal immigration detention once they turn 18, a day after the agency rolled out changes to its policy around unaccompanied minors.
In a two-page order, Judge Rudolph Contreras — an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — sided with two immigration advocacy groups who filed an emergency motion Friday over the new policy.
Contreras blocked the agency from making any changes to how unaccompanied minors are treated once they turn 18, and from further contravening a 2021 injunction which requires ICE and the Department of Health and Human Services to pursue the least restrictive and punitive arrangements possible in addressing age-outs, the term for those unaccompanied children who turn 18 in federal custody or foster care with pending cases.
The ruling came just a day after ICE quietly rolled out a related policy to grant minors $2,500 if they agreed to leave the U.S. and withdraw their claims in immigration court once they turned 18. The policy was framed by ICE as a “strictly voluntary” way to allow unaccompanied minors to return to their home countries if they so wished.
The self-deportation would also need to be approved by a judge and the offers were only being extended to 17-year-olds at this stage, ICE said. Thousands of children who came by themselves to the United States remain in shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services or in foster care or the care of guardians in the United States.
But in a filing with the court, the American Immigration Council and National Immigration Justice Center argued that ICE had also informed field offices this week that age-outs should immediately and indefinitely be sent to adult detention facilities.
“It’s clear that they’re testing out several policies of dubious legality — or clearly illegal in the case of the policy referenced in our lawsuit — and seeing what sticks,” Michelle Lapointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, said in an interview.
ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the temporary restraining order.
Saturday’s ruling is a win for immigration advocates, who warned that in addition to violating the nationwide injunction, the policy could have resulted in unaccompanied minors with potentially legitimate claims for asylum and other legal status in the United States self-deporting out of fear in light of the related cash offer.
Advocates had said Friday that this would especially be the case if the offer for financial support for returning to their home countries was accompanied by threats to arrest family members or send minors immediately into federal detention facilities once the minors in question turned 18.
The order could potentially preclude the immediate detention of any unaccompanied minors who turn down the cash offer and opt to remain in the U.S. while their claims work their way through the immigration court system, the advocates said.
Dem Senator Busted On-Air After Denying Party Wants Healthcare for Illegals
By Kyle Becker
Oct. 05, 2025
The internet never forgets — and on Thursday morning, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire learned that the hard way.
Appearing on Fox & Friends to discuss the ongoing government shutdown, Shaheen attempted to push back against one of the Republican Party’s most potent talking points: that Democrats are holding the federal government hostage in pursuit of taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants.
But her attempt at damage control unraveled on live television when Fox host Lawrence Jones “rolled the tape,” reminding viewers — and Shaheen herself — of her party’s past promises.
The exchange, which quickly went viral online, captured in real time the political peril Democrats now face as the shutdown drags into its second week, with both parties accusing the other of intransigence.
“I haven’t heard anybody in my party saying that illegal immigrants should get access to the health insurance marketplace,” Shaheen said confidently, trying to draw a distinction between her position and that of progressives like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“I’m so glad you said that,” Jones replied. “Actually, I have some tape of your Democratic Party members saying this on the debate stage. Let’s play the clip.”
Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: I haven't heard anybody in my party saying illegals should get taxpayer-funded health care!
*ROLLS THE TAPE*
Fox: "That's literally every member of your party from moderate to more progressive..." pic.twitter.com/ziu6pMhLKO
Viewers then saw footage from the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries — a moment that aged poorly for Shaheen’s argument. On stage, every single candidate, from Kamala Harris and Joe Biden to Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and even the lesser-known hopefuls, raised their hands when asked if they supported healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants.
The crowd at the time cheered. But on Thursday morning, there was only awkward silence.
As the clip ended, Jones turned back to the senator. “That’s literally every member of your party,” he said pointedly.
“I beg to disagree with you,” Shaheen fired back. “I have not said that in the past. In New Hampshire, we do not provide health insurance for illegal immigrants. We have never done that, and you’re just wrong.”
Jones didn’t respond further — he didn’t need to. The video had already spoken louder than any talking point.
Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have hammered Democrats for weeks over what they describe as “a shutdown over illegal immigrant healthcare.” The GOP maintains that Democrats refused to approve a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government unless it reinstated subsidies for undocumented immigrants under emergency Medicaid and “temporary protected status” programs.
Democrats, for their part, have denied that claim, insisting they only seek to restore Affordable Care Act subsidies and prevent premium spikes for low-income Americans. Yet, as Jones demonstrated on-air, their record tells a different story.
Clips from past debates, campaign speeches, and policy proposals show top Democrats repeatedly supporting expanded healthcare access for noncitizens. In 2019, for example, then-candidate Biden promised that undocumented immigrants “should be able to buy into the system like everyone else.” Sanders went further, proposing taxpayer-funded universal coverage “regardless of immigration status.”
That history makes the current denials ring hollow — especially amid growing public concern about border security and illegal immigration. Polling from Pew Research and Gallup over the summer found that nearly 70% of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, including a majority of independents and more than a quarter of Democrats.
In that context, Shaheen’s televised stumble was more than an awkward moment — it was emblematic of a broader messaging problem within her party.
“The Democrats are trying to rewrite history,” conservative commentator Guy Benson said. “They were for it when it played well with the progressive base. Now that voters are angry about open borders, they’re suddenly pretending they never said any of this.”
Even moderate Democrats have quietly acknowledged the problem. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who voted with Republicans to fund the government earlier this month, said his party is “giving in to far-left groups” and losing credibility with working-class voters.
Kash Patel Blasts MSNBC As An ‘A** Clown Factory Of Disinformation,’ As Agency Weighs Perp Walking Predecessor Comey
by Daily Caller News Foundation
October 4, 2025 at 5:01 pm
FBI Director Kash Patel blasted MSNBC on Saturday, branding the publication a “ass clown factory of disinformation” after one of the network’s legal analysts appeared to criticize reports the former FBI director would be perp walked.
Patel railed against MSNBC after Barb McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, wrote on X that Department of Justice (DOJ) policy prohibits “perp walks” in front of news media. Her post followed multiple Friday reports that the FBI relieved an agent of duty for failing to arrange one for former Director James Comey. Patel did not deny the reports he terminated an agent, though he did write that, under his leadership, the FBI demands agents “follow the chain of command or get relieved.”
“MSNBC still an ass clown factory of disinformation,” Patel wrote Saturday. “Same circus animals that slobbered all over perp walks of Stone, Navarro, Bannon… MSNBC has no facts and no audience. In this FBI, follow the chain of command or get relieved.”
BREAKING: MSNBC still an ass clown factory of disinformation. Same circus animals that slobbered all over perp walks of Stone, Navarro, Bannon…
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) October 4, 2025
Comey was indicted on Sept. 25 for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation.
Patel also stated in his post that MSNBC previously “slobbered all over” incidents involving conservatives subjected to “perp walks.” Political consultant Roger Stone and journalist Steve Baker both replied with images taken of their arrests which were publicly circulated.
MSNBC did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Republicans are losing ground with their own base as the government shutdown drags into a third day, with new polling showing voters siding with Democrats on preserving enhanced Obamacare subsidies.
By Jesus Mesa
Seventy-eight percent of U.S. adults want Congress to extend the tax credits that lower monthly premiums for millions buying insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, a new Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll finds. Support cuts across party lines: 92 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of independents, and 59 percent of Republicans back the credits. Even among MAGA-aligned Republicans, a majority—57 percent—say they should remain.
Why It Matters
The ACA tax credits, originally expanded under the 2021 American Rescue Plan, are a lifeline for roughly 24 million Americans. Without them, premiums are expected to double for many, and millions could lose coverage according to according to an analysis by KFF. The subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year.
Democrats have demanded that the subsidies, first put in place in 2021 and extended a year later, be extended again. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's mega-bill passed this summer, which don't go into effect immediately but are already driving some states to cut Medicaid payments to health providers.
What To Know
The public isn’t just siding with Democrats on policy; they’re also ready to assign blame if the subsidies disappear. Among Americans who support extending the credits, 39 percent say Trump would be most responsible, while 37 percent point to Republicans in Congress. Only 22 percent would blame Democrats.
"This month’s poll shows that large majorities of the public, including majorities of Democrats, independents, Republicans, and MAGA supporters are concerned about many of the potential consequences of letting these enhanced tax credits expire," the report notes.
Even among those who buy their own insurance—many of whom lean Republican—42 percent say they would fault congressional Republicans if the credits expire, and 37 percent would blame Trump. Only 21 percent would blame Democrats.
The financial impact for these households is also concerning Americans. According to the poll, 70 percent of adults who buy their own insurance say they could not afford their current plan if monthly premiums doubled, which is what experts project would happen if the subsidies expire. Forty-two percent say they would drop coverage entirely, while just 30 percent say they could afford to keep their plans.
Despite the broad support for preserving the tax credits, awareness remains low: 60 percent of U.S. adults say they have heard "a little" or "nothing at all" about the looming expiration. Even among people whose insurance costs would be directly affected, nearly six in ten are unaware.
Three months after the passing of President Trump’s major legislative achievement, the "One Big Beautiful Bill," most people polled remain unaware of how the effects of the tax and budget legislation will impact them. Six in ten adults say they do not have enough information as to how the legislation will impact them personally, while four in ten report that they do have enough information.
What People Are Saying
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, on X Wednesday: "Democrats passed CRs 13 different times when they had the majority and Biden was president. They have lost all rationale when it comes to their hatred for President Trump. I hope Democrats will come to their senses and reopen the government."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also on X Wednesday: "Republicans shut down the government because they can’t be bothered to protect health care for Americans across this country. Premiums are set to more than double! Americans cannot afford this."
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said: "We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the health care of everyday Americans."
Newsom Says California Will Cut Funds For ‘Sell-Out Universities’ Complying With Trump Education Crackdown
By Antonio Pequeño IV
Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., said Thursday that California will cut funding for California schools that comply with the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” an agreement providing colleges with funding benefits if they agree to make policy changes in line with President Donald Trump’s education agenda.
The compact was sent to some of the top public and private schools in the U.S. on Wednesday, according to The New York Times, demanding the institutions freeze tuition for five years, cap international student enrollment and “commit to strict definitions of gender.”
The compact also demands universities stop grade inflation, bring back the SAT requirement for applicants and ban the use of race and sex when making hirings and admissions decisions, The Wall Street Journal reported, noting another demand that asks schools to make changes and remove departments that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
“Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits,” the compact says.
Newsom said in a statement the agreement is “nothing short of a hostile takeover of America’s universities” that “even dictates how schools must spend their own endowments.”
Newsom threatened to pull state funding, including need-based grants for California residents known as Cal Grants, from state schools that “SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.”
What Schools Received The Compact?
The University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia were sent letters, according to the Journal and the Times, meaning USC is the only California school Newsom’s statement applies to unless more compact offers are sent out.
How Much Money Is On The Line For Usc?
USC received $1.35 billion in federal funding in the 2024 fiscal year. While the private university does not receive state funding in the same way public California schools do, its in-state students can still receive Cal Grants, which can cover up to $11,000 per year for certain students.
In an opinion dismissing the felony cases against two people charged as part of Trump’s invasion of DC, Donisha Butler and Terrance Wilson, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui tallied how many of the federal cases charged in the last eight weeks (roughly the beginning of Trump’s invasion) US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has subsequently chosen to dismiss.
The term unprecedented is casually bandied about. But as Judge Sooknanan identified, these recent weeks literally have been “unprecedented.” To contextualize how unprecedented things have been, the undersigned had the clerk’s office run the numbers. Specifically, the Court pulled every motion to dismiss filed by the government in cases charged by complaint for 10 years. The results speak for themselves. Of the over 4,000 cases charged by complaint between 2014 and 2024, the government moved to dismiss less than 20 defendant’s cases. In the last eight weeks, the government has charged 95 cases by criminal complaint. And in that time, the government has moved to dismiss 20 defendant’s cases.
In the previous ten years — a period including the flood of January 6 cases, which were especially challenging given the volume of defendants, the national reach, and COVID — DOJ dismissed fewer than 20 of the 4,000 cases they charged, or less than .5%.
In the last 8 weeks, Pirro has chosen to dismiss 20 of the 95 federal cases that actually got charged, or 21%. That’s on top of cases — close to a dozen — that grand jurors have rejected. There is overlap in the cases; at least three of the cases that Faruqui lists as having been dismissed — Nathalie Jones, Edward Dana, and Paul Bryant — were dismissed after the grand jury rejected the charge.
But not all the cases overlap. Some of the cases (such with Sydney Reid, who was charged with assaulting an FBI officer) were refiled in Federal court as misdemeanors. DOJ is choosing to — or having to — dismiss cases for reasons beyond no bills, including because of Fourth Amendment violations, physical abuse of the defendant, or charges of assaulting a Federal officer in which the victim did not qualify as a federal officer (either because they were a DC cop doing DC cop things, or because they were a National Guard person from another state).
Which means Pirro has chosen to dismiss at least a fifth and close to a quarter of the cases since the invasion of DC started. Not all the cases arose out of the invasion. Two were overblown threat cases, and Reid’s predates the surge.
Nevertheless, it is an unprecedented failure, and a failure that cannot be attributed entirely to grand jurors disliking these cases.
Pirro is choosing to pursue felony charges that simply don’t hold up. And for a number of these defendants, she’s detaining them for days in the process.
The Texas senator delivered the flubbed remark during a committee hearing in September 2025.
By Jordan Liles
Claim:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said, "How about we all come together and say, 'Let's stop attacking pedophiles.'"
Rating: Correct Attribution
In late September and early October 2025, online users shared either a video or simply a quote claiming U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said, "How about we all come together and say, 'Let's stop attacking pedophiles.'"
Snopes received reader emails asking whether Cruz truly made this remark. One asked, "Did Ted Cruz say to stop attacking pedophiles?" Another inquired, "Did Sen. Ted Cruz say, 'Stop attacking pedophiles?'"
For example, on Sept. 30, a popular X account that historically shared content opposing President Donald Trump reposted (archived) a five-second video originally posted (archived) by another account. The text caption read, "Ted Cruz: 'How about we all come together and say let's stop attacking pedophiles.'" That post and the account that uploaded the clip — also one that historically posted content opposing Trump — each received millions of views.
Cruz truly — and mistakenly — said the words, "How about we all come together and say, 'Let's stop attacking pedophiles,'" so we've rated this claim a correct attribution. At the same time, the brief video clips did not include his full remarks showing he intended to say "Let's stop pedophiles" or a similar statement.
The Texas senator delivered the flubbed remark, which news media outlets referenced as a gaffe, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 30, 2025.
The Houston Chronicle reported that a spokesperson for Cruz told the outlet, "It was a verbal slip. Senator Cruz was rattling off a series of crimes we should unite in opposing, started a sentence about opposing pedophilia, and added a stray word while talking it out."
Snopes contacted Cruz's Washington office to independently ask about the matter and will update this article if we receive further information.
Here's what Cruz said
C-SPAN hosted a video featuring the entire hearing, including the moment Cruz misspoke. The hearing's title reflected that it was a gathering to discuss combatting crime, including Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Washington. The title read, "Hearing on Trump Admin. Response to Crime in Cities."
Beginning at the 1:50:38 mark in the above-linked clip, Cruz referenced Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., then gestured to a fall in Washington crime statistics appearing on a chart behind him. That chart displayed attribution to the Metropolitan Police Department website.
Cruz said:
Now, Sen. Booker also said, "We should have bipartisan agreement." I think that's a great idea. We should have bipartisan agreement.
How about we all come together and say, "Let's stop murders." How about we all come together and say, "Let's stop rape." How about we all come together and say, "Let's stop attacking pedophiles."
I want you to look at what happened when the National Guard went to D.C. Robbery fell by 57%. Homicide fell by 58%. Sex abuse fell by 40%.
Cruz did not correct his flub during the rest of his remarks.
The Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel hosted a longer video showing the context of Cruz's mistaken remark:
Cruz once genuinely said in 2016, "Trump has a consistent pattern of inciting violence."
James Comey, a former director of the FBI, was indicted on two criminal counts on Sept. 25 by a federal grand jury in Virginia. But the barely two-page indictment provides very little information about the underlying evidence for the charges of lying to Congress.
By D'Angelo Gore
The indictment came just days after President Donald Trump publicly pressed the Department of Justice to prosecute Comey and installed Lindsey Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a former personal attorney for Trump, replaced Erik Siebert, who was pushed out of the position.
ABC News reported, based on anonymous sources, that Siebert and other career prosecutors who led the investigation of Comey had believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against him. It was Halligan, who had no prior experience as a prosecutor, who presented the case to the grand jury.
Comey was FBI director from 2013 to 2017, when Trump fired him.
In this story, we cover the few details we know about the indictment and what Comey told Congress.
What are the charges against Comey?
The grand jury indicted Comey on two criminal counts: one for making a false statement to Congress and the other for obstructing a congressional proceeding. The grand jury declined to indict him on a third charge.
All we know for certain is that the indictment pertains to congressional testimony Comey gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020.
The indictment alleges that Comey “willfully and knowingly” made a “materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to a senator that day when Comey said he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.” The statement was false, the indictment says, because Comey “then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.”
The indictment does not identify “PERSON 1,” “PERSON 3” or the news reports in question. But the indictment appears to be referring to an exchange Comey had when questioned in the 2020 hearing by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who had asked Comey about previous testimony Comey gave to Congress on May 3, 2017, days before Trump fired Comey.
What did Cruz ask Comey?
Cruz said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley had asked Comey in the 2017 hearing if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” and if he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration.”
Grassley actually had asked about reports about the “Clinton investigation” – not the “Clinton administration,” as Cruz said. (The Trump investigation was about alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election, and the Clinton investigation was about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.)
Comey answered “never” and “no” to Grassley’s questions, Cruz pointed out.
Cruz then said that Andrew McCabe, who was Comey’s deputy director at the FBI, had admitted to leaking information to the Wall Street Journal in October 2016 and said that Comey was “directly aware of it” and “directly authorized it.” When Cruz said that Comey and McCabe could not both be telling the truth, Comey said: “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
Is the indictment about McCabe?
But Cruz was wrong when he claimed that McCabe had said Comey approved the leak. McCabe had already admitted that he – not Comey – authorized two other FBI officials to provide information about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation to the Wall Street Journal for an Oct. 30, 2016, story. A 2018 inspector general report concluded that Comey learned of the leak after the story was published, and that McCabe, in a meeting with Comey, was not initially forthcoming about being the one who permitted the disclosure to a Wall Street Journal reporter.
McCabe told IG investigators that he “did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the [Wall Street Journal] article that he intended to authorize or had authorized” the leak “although he said it was possible he did.” McCabe told investigators that after the article was published, he told Comey that he had authorized the leak and Comey “did not react negatively, just kind of accepted it” and that Comey thought it was “a ‘good’ idea,” according to the IG report.
Comey gave IG investigators a different account, saying that, at the time, McCabe “definitely did not tell me that he authorized” the leak. The IG investigators concluded based on “considerable circumstantial evidence” that “the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation.”
McCabe spoke to the issue this week, saying in a Sept. 28 CNN interview that because Comey didn’t approve the leak, “I absolutely do not believe” that issue is the premise for the Comey indictment.
McCabe said the Justice Department has not interviewed him as part of its investigation. “If my interactions with Jim Comey nine years ago in October 2016 was going to be the basis of this entire prosecution, it’s unbelievable to think that prosecutors wouldn’t at least want to sit down and hear what I had to say about it,” McCabe said.
What else could the indictment be about?
Jake Tapper, who interviewed McCabe on CNN, reported on his weekday show Sept. 26 that an unnamed source familiar with the indictment told Tapper that “PERSON 3” is Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is currently a law professor at Columbia Law School. Richman is a personal friend of Comey and worked as a “special government employee” at the FBI from June 2015 until February 2017, during Comey’s tenure as head of the FBI.
Comey previously admitted to Congress in June 2017 that, after he was fired as director by Trump the month prior, he had Richman relay to the New York Times the “substance” of a February 2017 memo Comey made documenting a dinner conversation with Trump about an FBI investigation of Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Comey said he had Richman do it in hopes that it “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel” in the investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 election.
But Comey had Richman do that after both men were no longer employed by the FBI.
How else could Richman be involved?
Tapper said his source told him that Comey’s indictment is related to the FBI’s “Arctic Haze” investigation of leaked classified information that wound up in news articles published early in 2017. The articles in question, written by reporters for the Washington Post, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, included details about the Russia investigation and the investigation of Clinton’s emails.
Clinton is believed to be “PERSON 1” mentioned in the Comey indictment, according to news reports citing unidentified individuals briefed on the charges.
Comey and Richman were interviewed as part of the “Arctic Haze” investigation, and an FBI memo about the probe released in August said that Comey often used Richman “as a liaison to the media” and that Richman “contacted journalists to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage.” However, the memo said Richman told FBI investigators that “Comey never asked him to talk to the media.”
And while Richman acknowledged being a source for a New York Times reporter who co-authored one of the stories featuring classified information about the Clinton emails investigation, Richman told investigators that he believed that he neither provided nor confirmed the classified details, which he said the reporter knew more about than him.
The FBI memo ultimately concluded, “The investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” The source of the leaks was never identified, the memo said.
News outlets reported earlier this month that Richman was subpoenaed and interviewed as part of the investigation into whether Comey had him leak FBI information and then lied about it. But “Mr. Richman’s statements to prosecutors were not helpful in their efforts to build a case against Mr. Comey, according to two people familiar with the matter,” the New York Times reported.
When may we see more evidence?
More specifics about the evidence against Comey may not become known until the case goes to trial – if there is a trial. Several legal experts have said the judge overseeing the case could end up dismissing it because of a potential political motivation for the indictment.
For one, the indictment came days before the statute of limitations to charge Comey for his 2020 testimony was set to expire. In addition, the same day that he named Halligan to be the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Trump made it publicly known that he wanted the Justice Department to prosecute Comey and other officials Trump has sparred with for years.
“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump wrote in a Sept. 20 Truth Social post addressed to “Pam,” presumably referring to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
The president said he had seen statements and social media posts arguing that “Nothing is being done” about Comey, as well as Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James – two more of Trump’s perceived political foes under DOJ investigation. “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump quoted the alleged messages as saying.
It's entertaining to watch the Democrats defend their decision to close down the government. Yes they did, no matter how many times they try to blame the Orange Man. In other words, Chuck has a bad hand and he knows it. This is from Ingrid Jacques:
Democrats have decided to enter their fight era.
As they try to refurbish their reputation and lagging poll numbers, party leaders have decided that causing a government shutdown is the way to go.
Good luck with that.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have refused to back down on costly demands they want included in a continuing resolution backed by Republicans to keep the government funded for the next few weeks. Democrats want to extend Obamacare subsidies, among other unlikely wishes.
Democrats may think their tough talk will earn them points come the 2026 midterm elections, but I don’t think it’s going to work out the way they envision.
Republicans and President Donald Trump stand to win in the court of public opinion, as their liberal counterparts will bear the blame for blocking funding.
Yes, not the way they envisioned? Indeed not. The problem for Democrats is that their case doesn't go over well with voters listening to these explanations. On one hand, the GOP wants to continue negotiating. On the other hand, the Democrats want to fight over cancelling provisions of the "beautiful bill."
So why would someone like Senator Schumer do this? What's driving Chuck these days? First, the senator knows that there is an ideological and generational war involving their side. The senator also knows that he is going to get "primaried" by AOC with the support of the new mayor of New York City. It's not an easy position to be in and Chucks knows it.
So this shutdown will pass, but the party's problems will only get worse.
Kash Patel’s tenure rests solely upon pleasing the president. If accountability is to happen, it will have to come from Congress, whose Republican majority has so far not exercised its power to hold Trump or his administration accountable.
By The Conversation
Three converging events in the 1970s—the Watergate scandal, the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War and revelations that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had abused his power to persecute people and organizations he viewed as political enemies—destroyed what formerly had been near-automatic trust in the presidency and the FBI.
In response, Congress enacted reforms designed to ensure that legal actions by the Department of Justice and the FBI, the department’s main investigative arm, would be insulated from politics. These included stronger congressional oversight, a 10-year term limit for FBI directors and investigative guidelines issued by the attorney general.
Some of these measures, however, were tenuous. For example, Justice Department leaders could alter FBI investigative guidelines at any time.
Donald Trump’s first presidential term seriously tested DOJ and FBI independence—notably , when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. Trump claimed Comey mishandled a 2016 probe into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email server, but Comey also refused to pledge loyalty to the president.
Now, in Trump’s second term, prior guardrails have vanished. The president has installed loyalists at the DOJ and FBI who are dedicated to implementing his political interests.
As a historian of the FBI, I recognize the FBI has had only one other overtly political director in the past 50 years: L. Patrick Gray, who served for a year under President Richard Nixon. Gray was held accountable after he tried to help Nixon end the FBI’s Watergate investigation. Whether Trump’s current director, Kash Patel, has more staying power is unclear.
After Hoover
Ever since Hoover’s death in 1972, presidents have typically nominated independent candidates with bipartisan support and law enforcement roots
to run the FBI. Most nominees have been judges, senior prosecutors or former FBI or Justice Department officials.
While Hoover publicly proclaimed his FBI independent of politics, he sometimes did the bidding of presidents, including Nixon. Still, Nixon felt that Hoover had not been compliant enough, so in 1972 he selected Gray, a longtime friend and assistant attorney general, to be Hoover’s successor.
Gray took steps to move the bureau out of Hoover’s shadow. He relaxed strict dress codes for agents, recruited female agents and pointedly hired people from outside the agency—who were not indoctrinated in the Hoover culture—for administrative posts.
Gray asserted his authority with blunt force. FBI agents at field offices and at headquarters who resisted Gray’s power were censured, fired or transferred. Other senior officials opted to leave, including the bureau’s top fraud expert, cryptanalyst and skyjacking expert, and the head of its Crime Information Center.
Agents regarded these moves as a purge, and press reports claimed that bureau morale was at an all-time low, charges that Gray denied. According to FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, who became Gray’s second in command, 10 of 16 top FBI officials chose to retire, most of them notable Hoover men.
Gray surrounded himself with what journalist Jack Anderson called “sharp, but inexperienced, modish, young aides.” FBI insiders called these new hires the “Mod Squad,” a reference to the counterculture TV police series.
Gray Helps Nixon
In contrast to Hoover, who had rarely left FBI headquarters and publicly avoided politics, Gray openly stumped for Nixon in the 1972 campaign. He was so rarely spotted at FBI headquarters that bureau insiders dubbed him “Two-Day Gray.” At the request of Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, Gray told field offices to help Nixon campaign surrogates by providing local crime information.
Gray cooperated with Nixon to stymie the FBI’s investigation of the 1972 Watergate break-in and the ensuing cover-up. He provided raw FBI investigative documents to the White House and burned documents from Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt’s White House safe.
When Nixon had CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters ask Gray, in the name of national security, to halt the FBI’s investigation, Felt and other agency insiders demanded that Gray get this order in writing. The White House backed down, but Nixon’s directive had been recorded. That tape became the so-called “smoking gun” evidence of a Watergate cover-up.
Felt, in classic Hoover fashion, then leaked information to discredit Gray, hoping to replace him. Gray resigned in disgrace.
While Felt never got the top job, he is now remembered as the prized anonymous source “Deep Throat,” who helped Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate investigation. But it was internal FBI resistance, from Felt and agents at lower levels, that led to Gray’s departure.
Political From the Start
Campaigning in 2024, Donald Trump vowed to “root out” his political opponents from government. Realizing he was a target because of his investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, FBI director Christopher Wray, whom Trump had nominated in 2017, resigned in December 2024 before Trump could fire him.
In Wray’s place Trump nominated loyalist Kash Patel, a lawyer who worked as a low-level federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2016 and then as a deputy national security appointee during Trump’s first term.
Patel publicly supported Trump’s vow to purge enemies and claimed the FBI was part of a “deep state” that was resistant to Trump. Patel promised to help dismantle this disloyal core and to “rebuild public trust” in the FBI.
Even before Patel was confirmed on Feb. 20, 2025, in an historically close 51-49 vote, the Justice Department began transferring thousands of agents away from national security matters to immigration duty, which was not a traditional FBI focus.
Hours after taking office, Patel shifted 1,500 agents and staff from FBI headquarters to field offices, claiming that he was streamlining operations.
Patel installed outsider Dan Bongino as deputy director. Bongino, another Trump loyalist, was a former New York City policeman and Secret Service agent who had become a full-time political commentator. He embraced a conspiracy theory positing the FBI was “irredeemably corrupt” and advocated “an absolute housecleaning.”
In February, New York City Special Agent in Charge James Dennehy told FBI staff “to dig in” and oppose expected and unprecedented political intrusions. He was forced out by March.
Patel then used lie-detector tests and carried out a string of high-profile firings of agents who had investigated either Trump or the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Some agents who were fired had been photographed kneeling during a 2020 racial justice protest in Washington, D.C.—an action they said they took to defuse tensions with protesters.
In response, three fired agents are suing Patel for what they call a political retribution campaign. Ex-NFL football player Charles Tillman, who became an FBI agent in 2017, resigned in September 2025 in protest of Trump policies. Once again, there are assertions of a purge.
Will Patel Be Held Accountable?
Patel’s actions as director so far illustrate that he is willing to use his position to implement the president’s political designs. When Gray tried to do this in the 1970s, accountability still held force, and Gray left office in disgrace. Gray participated in a cover-up of illegal behavior that became the subject of an impeachment proceeding. What Patel has done to date, at least what we know about, is not the equivalent—so far.
Today, Patel’s tenure rests solely upon pleasing the president. If formal accountability—a key element of a democracy—is to survive, it will have to come from Congress, whose Republican majority has so far not exercised its power to hold Trump or his administration accountable. Short of that, perhaps internal resistance within the administration or pressure from the public and the media might serve the oversight function that Congress, over the past eight months, has abrogated.
I was a lowly, enlisted Airman in the USAF, holding down the home front during the Cold War so very long ago. That war was still going full tilt, and I served in the Strategic Air Command--the original--at a missile and bomber base. That SAC, unlike the mess that replaced it until it was stood back up, didn’t lose track of nuclear weapons.
Everyone at the bottom of the rank structure understood the mission: everything every one of us did was aimed at ensuring that when our pilots need to fly, they could. For them to fulfill their part in our military’s war fighting mission, all of us needed to very seriously do our parts. For me, that was law enforcement and base security.
We won the Cold War but squandered the peace dividend by hollowing out and wussifying our military as the terror war overtook us. That’s a war we still fight, as we, once again, keep a wary eye on nation-state bad actors like Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. We’ve also been fighting—sort of—and badly losing the drug war.
All that came to a head during Biden’s Handler’s Administration when the left was allowed to go for crazy with our military. Drag queens, trans, climate lunacy, anti-white male racism, DEI and every aspect of wokeness, all anti-American, all hostile to Normal Americans and military discipline and purpose, ruled. Traditional military virtues like duty, honor, country, courage, single-minded purpose and merit were abandoned, even punished, and our military academies became perverse social justice factories.
Then along came Donald Trump—again—and Pete Hegseth, a decorated, warrior veteran as Secretary of Defense and suddenly, Secretary of War. When Hegseth summoned every general admiral and senior NCO for a face-to-face meeting, anti-Americans, civilian and military, had an “uh-oh” moment. He can do that via Zoom. What’s he up to? This is most irregular!
It turns out that meeting, that speech, that restoration of our warrior culture, was as much for the American public and our allies and enemies around the world as it was for the military, perhaps more. As all that brass and all those stripes sat, stone-faced for Hegseth’s 45 minute speech—available here—Hegseth began the revamping of our military’s purpose and culture:
This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department, to rip out the politics. No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship, no more division, distraction or gender delusions, no more debris.
As I’ve said before, and we’ll say again, we are done with that s*it.
One can only imagine the sinking feeling a great many perfumed princes in that audience felt at that. And this:
It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War can do regular, hard, PT, so can every member of our joint forces.
Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country in the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are. So whether you’re an Airborne Ranger or a chair born Ranger, a brand new private or a four-star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass the PT test.
From now on, combat jobs will require the highest standards of fitness and ability. If women can qualify, great. If not, too bad. No more climate change, no more mandatory racist/sexual trainings. Instead, our troops are going to spend their time in the motor pool and on the range. Hegseth touted peace through strength.
Hegseth made it abundantly clear that anyone who wasn’t on board with being a part of a restored military needed to resign or retire, and I suspect the aides of a great many fat, socialist, DEI generals and admirals are filling out retirement paperwork as I write.
Reviews, military and civilian, are largely positive—no, ecstatic. Active duty and retired military members are delighted. Pilots planning to retire are rethinking their plans. Recruitment was already up, and as a preview of what’s to come, the Marines met their yearly goals early because they’ve always maintained the standards Hegseth is reinstituting elsewhere.
Our enemies, foreign and domestic, civilian and military are horrified and worried. They ought to be.
Now it falls to Hegseth to ensure resistance elements in the military are rooted out and his orders are uniformly implemented. It’s going to be glorious to see.
U.S. President Donald Trump's approval rating has plummeted among young people, according to new survey data.
By Kate Plummer
According to analysis by data journalist G. Elliott Morris posted in his Substack blog Strength In Numbers, Trump's net approval among people aged 18 to 29 has declined by 35 percentage points since November 2024.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Newsweek: "President Donald Trump is keeping his promises and Making America Great Again: whether it’s securing the border, securing historic investments in American manufacturing, taming Biden’s inflation crisis, or fighting against the Democrats’ radical demands of free health care for illegal aliens." Referring to a Rasmussen Reports poll from September 25, she added: "That’s why over 57 percent of Americans approve of the President and the incredible job he’s doing!"
Why It Matters
Young people tend to support the Democratic Party, but a conservative shift among younger voters proved key to Trump's success in the November 2024 elections.
According to AP VoteCast, voters ages 18 to 29 supported Joe Biden by 61 percent to Trump's 36 percent in 2020. But four years later, the proportion of Democratic-supporting young people declined and 51 percent voted for then Vice President Kamala Harris and 47 percent opted for Trump.
If the trend toward the GOP is reversing and the Democrats are seeing success among young people once more, Republicans may struggle to hold onto gains they made in 2024.
What To Know
Morris analyzed 7,000 interviews delivered over the course of five months and compared them to previous reports from the poll respondents about their 2024 election choices to track changing opinions.
He found that Trump's approval rating among this group has declined by 35 percentage points, from -3 to -38.
He said that in particular, Trump had lost the support of young Hispanic voters, something he said had occurred because of Trump's tariff and immigration policies.
However, other polls suggest Trump's fortunes with young people are less bleak. As per new polling by AtlasIntel, Trump's approval rating among adults ages 18 to 29, has improved by 35 percentage points in two months.
Meanwhile, in July, YouGov/The Economist polling found that Trump's favorability among Gen Z was improving. His net approval among this group stood at -28 percent percentage points, an improvement on July when this figure was -38.
What People Are Saying
Speaking to Newsweek Olivia Julianna, a Gen-Z political activist said: "Since Donald Trump took office, the cost of living has gone up everywhere—housing, groceries, fuel, utilities. If Republicans keep the government shutdown, health care prices will be next.
"Many young people supported Trump because they thought he had real answers. Instead, they’ve seen a president more focused on culture war stunts—renaming the Department of Defense, fighting over the name of the Gulf of Mexico, and attacking celebrities from official accounts.
"All the while, he’s been focused on enriching himself and his donors, not helping the people who believed in him."
Thomas Whalen, an associate professor who teaches U.S. politics at Boston University, told Newsweek: "Well, they weren’t enthused with Biden, so it’s no surprise they’re not crazy for Trump, who is equally ancient and out of touch in their eyes."
Last week a Grand Jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional hearing. Comey, unsurprisingly, claimed innocence and insisted the charges against him were nothing more than Donald Trump taking “revenge.”
Many other Democrats have said the same: Trump is out for revenge!
It’s an old refrain. Democrats have been accusing Donald Trump of seeking revenge since he was re-elected. For example, November 6th, 2024, the day after the election, Susan Glasser wrote “Donald Trump’s Revenge” in the New Yorker. On April 7th, 2025, The New York Times ran with the headline “In Trump’s Second Term Retribution Comes in Many Forms” with the opening sentence reading “President Trump’s campaign to exact revenge against his perceived foes….” And a March 30, 2025 article in The Guardian reads, “Revenge is his number one motivation: how Trump is waging war on the media.”
In response to the FBI raid on former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s home last August, The New York Times editorial board wrote “ Trump gets his revenge on John Bolton. Who’s next?” The Washington Post editorial board opined “FBI raid targeting Bolton crossed a line in the Trump revenge campaign.” And, Nicholas Riccardi of the AP recently wrote “Trump ran on a promise of revenge. Now he’s making good on it.”
“Revenge” appears to be a key Democrat talking point these days.
Of course none of these Democrat “journalists” or politicians considered either the early morning raid on Mar-a-Lago or the far-fetched criminal indictments of Trump as “revenge.” Nor is the attempted assassination of Trump at Butler seen as an act of revenge. The early morning FBI raid on Roger Stone’s home, the jailing of Trump confidants Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, and the disbarring of Trump attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani aren’t called acts of revenge either.
Ironically, by labeling Trump’s actions as “revenge”, Mr. Comey unintentionally indicts himself.
“Revenge” is a very specific act. An individual seeking (or taking) revenge acts to “inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.” No wrong, no revenge. In fact an individual can’t even consider revenge until an injury or wrong has been done to them. There is no preemptive revenge. Revenge is always reactive. First the wrong, then the revenge.
By claiming Trump seeks revenge, Comey tacitly admits that wrongs were done to Trump. And since Comey claims he is the object of “Trump’s revenge” then he must be the one who committed those particular wrongs. It’s a simple equation. Trump seeks revenge on Comey, Comey did something to deserve the revenge. First the wrong, then the revenge.
And “revenge” and “justice” are not the same thing. “Justice” is determined by law and administered by the state. Lady Justice, depicted as blind, always aims for a fair and impartial application of law, processed through established court procedures, arbitrated by neutral judges and a 12-person jury of one’s peers.
“Revenge” on the other hand, is ruled by emotion — usually rage — and enacted by an aggrieved individual for personal reasons. There is no neutral arbiter between the “revenge” taker and the “revenge” receiver. In the application of justice, there is.
While considering the subject of “revenge,” fiction can be illustrative. In a story, the “wrong” is always unequivocal, appalling, and witnessed by the audience. This emotionally connects the audience to the “wrong.” This connection means that “revenge” is both justified and desirable. Who doesn’t want the bad guy to get his comeuppance?
For example in the 1990 Kevin Costner movie “Revenge”, a Mexican drug lord (played by Anthony Quinn) has his much younger wife (played by Madeline Stowe) raped and brutalized because she was sleeping with his much younger friend, Kevin Costner’s character. This brutalization means Costner’s character is entitled to take “revenge” for the wrong done to his lover. It also means that the audience is on his side. The complexity, and horror, of this particular “revenge” tale lies in the fact that the initial misdeed was the wife’s betrayal of her husband. However the husband’s “revenge” is wildly disproportionate to the wife’s transgression, making her lover’s revenge both acceptable and desired by an audience.
With “revenge,” wrong leads to wrong leads to wrong. The cycle of “revenge” is cruel and never ending.
So what was the initial “wrong” in this case?
When Comey said, “Let’s have a trial,” he is asking that justice supersede “revenge.” After all, the charges against him come from the Justice Department. If Trump were out for “revenge,” Comey should be looking over his shoulder for club-wielding thugs coming out of the darkness, not a notification of charges and a summons for his arrest delivered by gray-suited lawyers.
Comey will get his wish. There will be a trial. And since the bar for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” Comey may be guilty but still be acquitted. Or he may be innocent and still get convicted. Justice is imperfect. Trials don’t always deliver a verdict in line with the truth, but they are never, theoretically, acts of revenge.
This touches on a more overarching and complex issue than James Comey and the Democrats’ whining that Trump is out for “revenge.” For many years, the Left has insisted the justice system is more concerned with retribution than with justice. Since 2020, there has been a movement to defund the police, turn felonies into misdemeanors, reduce sentences, selectively prosecute certain crimes, make bail cashless, and to use social workers instead of police to deal with street crime. This attitude presumes the victim of a crime is always less important than how the perpetrator is handled by an imperfect justice system.
In this case, Mr. Comey is the perpetrator. He is already, by Democrat standards, aggrieved.
Ironically, James Comey once ran the premier law enforcement agency in the nation. His accusation that Trump is getting revenge indicts the agency he once headed. After all, if the FBI can be used as an instrument of revenge, it is not an agency that enforces law. Law enforcement officers don’t do the bidding of some mafia-like chieftain. Perhaps Mr. Comey suggesting the Justice Department and the FBI can be used as instruments of revenge tells us something about how he ran the agency.
Indicting Mr. Comey, and putting him on trial is certainly not “revenge.” A trial is a long, laborious, and expensive process that “presumes” the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt is proven by facts and determined by a jury of 12 people.
So let Mr. Comey’s wish come true: let’s have a trial and see what the facts tell us, and what a jury decides.
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
