Independent: Reporter and House candidate Kat Abughazleh thrown to the ground by ICE as 400 arrested in Chicago

‘This is what it looks like when ICE violates our First Amendment rights,’ said Kat Abughazaleh

Kat Abughazaleh, a former journalist and Democratic congressional candidate, was thrown to the ground by an ICE agent during a protest in Chicago on Friday, with video of the incident going viral.

The 26-year-old running for Congress in Illinois’s 9th District in 2026 posted videos of the incident on X, writing, “This is what it looks like when ICE violates our First Amendment rights.”

In the first video, an armed agent grabs Abughazaleh around the chest and throws her onto the road, landing on her backside.

The other shows Abughazaleh seated on the street alongside other protestors wearing face masks and holding signs.

A group of ICE agents walks up to the group, and one picks up Abughazaleh, dragging her further back. She gets up to be shoved by other agents as multiple bystanders record the interaction.

“What ICE just did to me was a violent abuse of power — and it’s still nothing compared to what they’re doing to immigrant communities,” Abughazaleh added in another post. “I’ve been fighting the right as a journalist and now I’m running for Congress to do the same in DC.

“I hope you’ll join me in this fight,” she said, providing a link to her campaign website.

Some right-wingers appeared gleeful at the assault.

“I love watching communists get body slammed by ICE,” MAGA commentator Laura Loomer posted. “Communist and Palestinian. Pick a struggle.”

Abughazaleh first made a name for herself at Media Matters for America, where she drew attention for her sharp critiques of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Her work has also appeared in outlets like Mother Jones and The New Republic.

“First off they shot pepper balls to the ground, and then said, ‘Your First Amendment rights are on the sidewalk,'” Abughazaleh told Newsweek. “And then when we tried to get in the way of the van, they picked us up or dragged us away, for some people, shoved people. I was picked up and thrown.”

“No one was violent. No one did anything that could possibly warrant being detained by federal officers. But they didn’t care,”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kat-abughazleh-ice-chicago-protest-b2830203.html

Alternet: ‘This is insane’: Conservatives demand Trump official’s removal over ‘hate speech’ blunder

The Guardian reports prominent conservatives are attacking U.S. Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi for pledging to “absolutely target” people who use “hate speech” in the wake of the killing of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk.

[“Bimbo #3”] Bondi declared on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller, the wife of the right-wing White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, that there is “free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society”.

The U.S. attorney also went so far as to threaten to prosecute an Office Depot employee who allegedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk.

But legal experts and conservative pundits are condemning the comments because there is no “hate speech” exception in the First Amendment right to speech, so targeting people for frank or even hurtful comments is unconstitutional.

“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason,” said conservative pundit Matt Walsh posting on X

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson, also writing on X, said: “Our Attorney General is apparently a moron. ‘There’s free speech and then there is hate speech.’ No ma’am. That is not the law.”

Savanah Hernandez, a commentator with Turning Point, described [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s statement as the “most destructive phrase that has ever been uttered … She needs to be removed as attorney general now.”

Heidi Kitrosser, a Northwestern University law professor, told the Guardian that [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s talk of targeting people who use “hate speech” is not legal because the “first amendment creates very, very strong protections from punishment for speech that’s offensive or for speech with which people disagree.”

“The bar for punishing speech based on content, and especially based on viewpoint, is extremely, extremely high,” Kitrosser said.

What else would you expect from a brainless bimbo?

https://www.alternet.org/pam-bondi-free-speech

‘I’ve Asked Pam To Look Into That’: Trump Openly Discusses Plans To Dismantle Democracy, Says All His Critics Should Be ‘Put In Jail’

Donald Trump signed a memorandum to deploy troops in Memphis, Tennessee several days ago from the Oval Office. During his gaggle with the press, Trump threw a temper tantrum over protestors who crashed his recent restaurant visit in D.C. Trump stated that he asked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into whether or not these protestors can be charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and put in jail. “They should be put in jail. What they’re doing to this country is really subversive,” Trump remarked.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-ve-asked-pam-to-look-into-that-trump-openly-discusses-plans-to-dismantle-democracy-says-all-his-critics-should-be-put-in-jail/vi-AA1MJ0o6

USA Today: Federal judge hands press groups wins in lawsuits against LAPD, DHS

  • U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera issued preliminary injunctions in lawsuits against the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Homeland Security over officers’ treatment of journalists.
  • Vera wrote that federal officers “indiscriminate use of force … will undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts” to cover protests and that the police department violated both state and federal law.
  • Press groups filed lawsuits against both agencies in June following protests over President Donald Trump’s immigration raids in Los Angeles.

A federal judge handed press and civil liberties groups wins in two separate cases against the Los Angeles Police Department and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over the treatment of journalists covering immigration raid protests.  

U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera’s preliminary injunctions bar, among other actions, the police department from arresting journalists for failing to disperse or otherwise interfering with journalists’ ability to cover Los Angeles protests. The DHS officers are also barred from “dispersing, threatening, or assaulting” journalists who haven’t “committed a crime unrelated to failing to obey a dispersal order.”

In his Sept. 10 order in the LAPD case, Vera wrote that the department’s “heavy-handed efforts to police this summer’s protests” violated both state and federal law.  

In granting the motion in the DHS case, Vera said federal officers “unleashed crowd control weapons indiscriminately and with surprising savagery” during the protests. 

“Specifically, the Court concludes that federal agents’ indiscriminate use of force … will undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts to cover these public events and protestors seeking to express peacefully their views on national policies,” Vera wrote.  

He went on to condemn individuals who engaged in violent action during such protests, but said “the actions of a relative few does not give DHS carte blanche to unleash near-lethal force on crowds of third parties in the vicinity.”  

In taking such actions, Vera wrote, federal officers have “endangered” peaceful protesters, journalists and the broader public. 

“The First Amendment demands better,” he wrote.  

USA TODAY reached out to the police department and the DHS for comment.  

“There’s an old line in policing: We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,” Adam Rose, press rights chair of the Los Angeles Press Club, said in a news release following the rulings. “Press organizations have been trying to help LAPD for years take the easy way, just asking them to train officers and discipline offenders. They wouldn’t stop resisting. LAPD failed to police themselves. Now a judge is doing it for them.” 

The First Amendment Coalition filed the federal lawsuit against the police department in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of the press club and the independent media outlet Status Coup in mid-June.  

Days later, a similar lawsuit was filed against Noem over what the plaintiffs, which include the Los Angeles Press Club and the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America, described as federal officers’ unconstitutional actions against journalists.

Vera issued a temporary restraining order in the LAPD case on July 10 that barred officers from using less-lethal munitions against journalists not posing a threat to law enforcement. The plaintiffs later accused the department of violating the order by hitting journalists with batons and arresting them during an August protest.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/09/15/lapd-dhs-la-press-club-court-wins/86112156007

Money Talks News: Foreign Students Face New Reality: 6,000 Visas Revoked for Law Breaking

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/foreign-students-face-new-reality-6-000-visas-revoked-for-law-breaking/vi-AA1LRsYP

“Between 200 and 300 students lost visas over [so called] terrorism support allegations.”

Supporting the Palestinians — especially the Gazans who are being abused and slaughtered by the thousands — is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. So much for the “Land of the Free”.

Western Journal: DOJ Finds Biden Admin ‘Weaponized the Full Weight of the Federal Government Against Christians’

A new Trump administration report condemned the Biden administration for its treatment of Christians.

The initial report of the Department of Justice’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias has been released, and it categorized what it called “numerous instances of anti-Christian bias during the Biden administration.”

“Joe Biden weaponized the full weight of the federal government against Christians and trampled on their fundamental First Amendment rights,” White House representative Taylor Rogers said, according to Fox News.

“Unlike Joe Biden, President Trump is protecting Christians, not punishing them,” Rogers said.

The report said that in recent years, America’s Christian underpinnings have been “undermined. The political, social, and humanitarian contributions of Christians have been devalued, their beliefs marginalized, and their communities unlawfully targeted by their own government.”

“A review of federal departments and agencies revealed a consistent and systematic pattern of discrimination against Christians during the Biden Administration. Where there should have been ‘equal justice under law’  there was unequal treatment — policies and practices that singled out Christian people, Christian houses of worship, and Christian convictions for disfavored treatment,” the report said.

The report included the task force’s vow that “the federal government will never again be permitted to turn its power against people of faith.”

“Under President Trump and Attorney General Bondi’s leadership, in partnership with all members of this Task Force, the rule of law will be enforced with vigor, and every religion will be treated with equality in both policy and action. The days of anti-Christian bias in the federal government are over. Faith is not a liability in America — it is a liberty,” the report said.

The report cited various departments that imposed prejudicial actions against Christians.

For example, it said, the Department of State “provided limited humanitarian relief to Christians relative to other populations and offered muted responses to attacks on Christians compared to other groups.”

In the State Department, “preferential employment practices were afforded adherents of non-Christian religions, while Christian employees were disfavored. It was particularly concerning that employees were less likely to be permitted leave for observation of certain Christian holidays as opposed to non-Christian ones.”

It also “imposed radical LGBTQ gender ideology on foreign governments and State employees, including the forced usage of preferred pronouns and rainbow flags, violating the sincerely held religious beliefs of many Christians and other Americans of faith.”

The Department of Justice “arrested and convicted approximately two dozen individuals under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities. Yet, the same DOJ refused to apply the FACE Act to protect places of worship and crisis pregnancy centers,” per the report.

Over at the Department of Education, “The Biden Administration’s ‘book ban coordinator’ role within ED, investigated school boards for removing age-inappropriate materials from school libraries, typically in response to religious objections by parents.”

“Though these investigations remain in their early stages, the evidence uncovered is unmistakable: during the Biden Administration, people of faith, particularly Christians, were repeatedly subjected to anti-religious bias at the hands of their own government,” the report’s conclusion noted.

“By eradicating anti-Christian bias in the federal government, the Task Force is reaffirming a principle older than the Republic itself, that freedom of religion is not granted by government but guaranteed against it.

“America must remain One Nation Under God if she is to remain Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. The Task Force will never permit the federal government to be used as a weapon against faith.”

This is f*ck*ng ludicrous, just one more gratuitous against Biden by the Trump clan. Biden himself is a Christian (Roman Catholic).

Washington Post: DHS moves to bar aid groups from serving undocumented immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security is now barring states and volunteer groups that receive government funds from helping undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post analysis of updated guidelines and interviews with Federal Emergency Management Agency employees. The new rules also require groups to cooperate with immigration officials and enforcement operations.

Several disaster assistance groups, FEMA employees and emergency management experts said the new requirements in the department’s fiscal 2025 aid contracts would make it harder for nonprofits to help the most vulnerable people in the aftermath of a disaster. Some members of the national volunteer disaster group network also questioned whether the new requirements are constitutional and point out that they seem to violate some local and state laws that prevent asking about a person’s immigration status.

By accepting the federal grants and awards, the new documents state, volunteer organizations that help after disasters must agree to not “operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.”

That could put groups that provide food, housing, mental health support and other assistance in disaster-stricken states in the position of having to verify aid recipients’ legal status before providing assistance, experts said.

“There is no historical context for this,” said Scott Robinson, an emergency management expert and FEMA historian who teaches at Arizona State University. “The notion that the federal government would use these operations for surveillance is entirely new territory.”

The affected contractors include faith-based groups and nonprofits such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, which states usually rely on to set up shelters and deliver basic assistance. They often serve communities with large Latino populations, where people often have trouble getting federal aid because they are uninsured or live in multigenerational households so they can’t all apply to FEMA. They serve those who have lost their homes or incomes after a catastrophic event but are not in the United States legally. Such humanitarian organizations typically do not ask about religious beliefs, political affiliation or documentation status when offering aid.

The federal government first awards funds to states, which then bring in organizations once they have accepted the contract and its rules. The DHS document states an award recipient, such as a state, must make all contractors and sub-recipients follow its terms.

In a statement, acting FEMA press secretary Daniel Llargues said any recipient of a DHS or FEMA grant “is required to follow the DHS Standard Terms & Conditions,” noting most funding is awarded directly to states, tribes and territories.

Another new section of the document states all award recipients must comply with federal statutes that prohibit state and local governments from keeping information about a person’s immigration status from DHS. They are also barred from “harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens”; have to agree to “provide access to detainees, such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien”; and not leak or publicize an enforcement operation.

“This is likely to have a chilling effect on any undocumented person” seeking assistance, Robinson said, adding that it might even deter someone who fears their legal status may be questioned.

While the federal government has always had wide-ranging authority when setting conditions for grants, a review of contracts going back to 2016, the first year they were posted, found past DHS contracts for federal assistance have not had any language about undocumented immigrants. One FEMA official said the new regulations move away from past terms that focused on civil rights and “place more emphasis on exclusionary powers the government has.”

These standards are not just limited to nonprofits but could apply to all applicants, sub-applicants and even other federal agencies that work with FEMA, such as search-and-rescue groups, said a former senior FEMA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter.

Officials at disaster volunteer organizations across the U.S., many of whom embed all across communities after major hurricanes, floods or fires, said they were caught off guard by the new conditions. Several members raised concerns that federal contracts cannot make nonprofits violate local laws that protect people’s privacy. The bulk of disaster volunteer groups that work with the federal government are also faith-based organizations, which some groups said could create constitutional concerns.

“We see this as a free-exercise issue under our First Amendment rights,” said Peter Gudaitis, the executive director of New York Disaster Interfaith Services. “First, the federal government has never attempted to tell the nonprofit sector who we can and cannot serve. Further, as a faith-based organization we have the right to determine who we serve.”

The new terms and conditions also target diversity, equity and inclusion policies, stating that the department’s awards cannot be used “to advance or promote DEI and/or DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) or discriminatory equity ideology.”

To meet the needs of the communities they serve, nonprofits often hire Spanish speakers and people of color, and Gudaitis and other members of the nation’s disaster volunteer network questioned whether the anti-DEI provision would affect this approach.

There are states and cities that don’t allow such organizations to ask about a person’s immigration status. In New York, for example, disaster workers can register anyone in any affected Zip code regardless of their citizenship.

These groups, represented by a broader umbrella group called National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, are grappling with the new requirements, said the Rev. David Guadalupe, the organization’s interim president who also runs Puerto Rico’s volunteer disaster aid group. Each group will have to make an independent decision as to whether they can and will abide by these terms when a state asks them to assist, he said. That could put many groups in a very difficult position, he said, and goes against an ethos to serve anyone in need.

“Their shared mission is to serve all disasters’ survivors with compassion and dignity, especially those most vulnerable, and to work together to help communities recover,” he said.

The network reached out to the administration on Monday about the new terms and is awaiting a reply, Guadalupe said. It is hosting a town hall next week to discuss the new policy and how its members “will proactively prepare for impacts” on the funds they rely on to manage disasters, according to an email obtained by The Post.

These groups often work with states through FEMA’s Disaster Case Management Program. In its description of the program, DHS notes, “without federal support, the state may be inundated and unable to address the size and scope of the needs or unable to sustain the length of time the services are needed.”

There are already strict rules surrounding federal assistance that states and subrecipients, such as volunteer groups and nonprofits, have to follow. These entities have to cooperate with compliance reviews and investigations; they are audited several times a year; and, according to the conditions, have to give “DHS access to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the federal award and permit access to facilities and personnel.”

If a state rejects these conditions, an agency official explained, it would be ineligible for FEMA funds.

Nonprofits and disaster response groups worry that the terms could have a ripple effect on mixed-status households, where the parents might be undocumented but their children are citizens, which means they would be entitled to federal disaster assistance.

“So will our government now deprive a household with a citizen member of assistance because undocumented people live in the household, too?” asked a state VOAD chair who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “Is the federal government saying that a disaster case manager can’t even advise someone where to get help if they are undocumented or their family is? Is that really what we’ve come to?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/08/27/dhs-fema-undocumented-immigrants-aid-groups-grants

No paywall:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dhs-moves-to-bar-aid-groups-from-serving-undocumented-immigrants/ar-AA1Ll1Yi

Axios: Trump threatens “harsh measures” against Colorado if Tina Peters is not freed from prison

President Trump is once again demanding that Colorado officials “free” former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters from prison, this time adding a threat to “take harsh measures” if she is not let go.

Why it matters: The remark, made Thursday on his Truth Social platform, is the latest attempt by Trump to intervene on behalf of Peters, one of the nation’s most prominent 2020 election deniers.

What he’s saying: Trump called Peters “a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians” and criticized the state’s mail-in ballot elections.

  • He added that Peters, 69, “is an old woman, and very sick.”

Reality check: Federal authorities cannot overturn a state court conviction, raising questions about the premise of Trump’s threat.

Yes, but: The administration could target Colorado by withholding federal funds or pursuing legal action regarding the state’s immigration laws.

Catch up quick: Last October, a Colorado judge sentenced Peters to 8 ½ years and six months in jail after a jury found her guilty on seven of 10 counts related to her role in tampering with county voting equipment after the 2020 election.

The latest: In July, Peters asked a federal court to free her on bond while she appeals her conviction, arguing that the state is trying to silence her in violation of her First Amendment rights.

  • U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak rejected the motion, saying there’s no legal precedent for granting her request.

The other side: Mesa County District Attorney Daniel P. Rubinstein, a Republican who prosecuted Peters, said earlier this year that politics did not play into her case.

  • “Ms. Peters was indicted by a grand jury of her peers, and convicted at trial by the jury of her peers that she selected,” Rubinstein told the Associated Press in a statement.

https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2025/08/21/trump-threat-colorado-tina-peters

Daily Mail: DHS under fire for controversial staffer comments

The Department of Homeland Security is defending the First Amendment rights of a staffer who has come under fire for posts and political commentary related to the Capitol riot. Before joining DHS, Eric Lendrum (pictured right) likened the political fallout conservatives faced from the January 6, 2021 rally to slavery and the Holocaust.

He slammed Democrats for ‘cowering’ under their desks as thousands of angry Americans descended on the Capitol that day. ‘There’s something so gratifying about seeing the images of these members of Congress — especially the Democrats — crouching under their chairs, putting on those stupid, like, bubble masks, those anti-gas bubble masks, and then taking selfies,’ Lendrum said on an episode of his podcast The Right Take just days after the riot.

He also said in a 2021 blog post on the conservative website American Greatness: ‘American conservatives are, right now, on a course for being every bit as ostracized and alienated from broader society as Jews were in the years leading up to Nazi Germany.’ The junior-level speechwriter at DHS also shared anti-immigrant rhetoric on multiple platforms before joining the second Donald Trump administration. In an October 2022 podcast episode, he endorsed the far-right ‘great replacement theory,’ which is a belief that nonwhite immigrants are diminishing the influence of white people across the world.

While a spokesperson for DHS declined to comment on the social media activity of a junior staffer before joining the agency, they instead sent the Daily Mail a link to the text of the First Amendment of the Constitution when asked for comment. Lnedrum did not respond to the Daily Mail’s request for comment on the reports detailing his online activity. Lendrum published on American Greatness until March 2025.

n his post-riot rant in 2021, he said conservative Americans are facing oppression like that faced by enslaved black people in America and Holocaust victims. ‘It has been said that the most surefire way to create an authoritarian regime is to completely dehumanize a significant portion of the population, so that their subsequent enslavement by the state will not face any larger resistance. It was true during slavery, it was true during the Holocaust, and it is true now,’ he wrote.

Lendrum has a relatively low profile, his employer and previous social media activity was first reported by NOTUS on Monday. The last time Lendrum posted to his X account was on the president’s birthday on June 14 this year when he published an image of himself alongside Trump. Lendrum has only 449 followers on X as of time of publication and appears to mostly use it recently to repost messages from Trump cabinet officials and allies. But he has used his X account in the past to share anti-immigrant sentiments.

He expressed lament with a New York Post headline saying that veterans were kicked out of hotels to make way for providing shelter to illegal ‘migrants’ during President Joe Biden’s term. ‘They are not migrants. They are not ‘undocumented.’ They are an invading army. The largest invasion in American history,’ Lendrum wrote on May 13, 2023 in a post to X. He added: ‘And what are you supposed to do with an invading army? Crush it, by any means necessary.’ Lendrum also claimed that asylum seekers are ‘scum.’

Before joining DHS, Lendrum also had a short stint as a press assistant at the Department of the Interior during Trump’s first term. ‘If I could work more closely with him, that is the one case in which I would ever go back into government work. Government work is not fun,’ Lendrum said in December 2022. And now, he’s back in Washington, D.C. for Trump’s second term working for one of the largest and most influential agencies in the federal government. A DHS speechwriter is responsible for preparing a myriad of public content for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and her deputy. This includes ‘speeches, talking points, editorials, Congressional testimony, video scripts, web content and other written content,’ according to a description of the job.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dhs-under-fire-for-controversial-staffer-comments/ss-AA1KN9Jf

Kansas City Star: Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling

Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil judgment issued against her for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her actions, which took place shortly after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, have continued to spark legal debate. While plaintiffs and LGBTQ advocates have criticized the move as an attempt to undermine established rights, conservative activists have rallied behind Davis.

Davis argued that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause shielded her from personal liability while in office. She urged the Court to overturn Obergefell.

Attorney Mathew Staver wrote, “The mistake must be corrected.” Staver argued that Davis is “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

Lower courts rejected her defenses and affirmed liability for state action in her role. A federal appeals panel concluded that she may not invoke the First Amendment against such claims.

Attorneys for David Ermold and David Moore have urged the Court to deny review. They noted that no appellate judge supported rehearing.

Attorney William Powell said, “Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”

The petition has arrived amid efforts in several states to limit recognition of same-sex marriages. Public support has remained high, but partisan divides have notably widened.

If the Supreme Court hears the case, it could revisit same-sex marriage precedents, though existing marriages remain protected under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-asked-to-review-marriage-ruling/ar-AA1KMc10