The Trump administration has now announced or completed deals to take ownership stakes in 40 private companies. Just this week, the Commerce Department added four more proposed stakes to the running count we maintain at the Cato Institute’s Restoring Free Enterprise initiative. Those inclined to applaud the president’s dealmaking should consider what a Democratic president might do with those stakes after Trump is no longer in office.
Democrats are certainly thinking about it. Semafor reports that former Biden officials are licking their chops at the prospect of using government ownership to pressure gun and oil companies. Doug Farrar, who worked for then-Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan during the Biden administration, sees a future president leveraging government ownership to turn the screws on AI companies, "especially a Democrat who wants to seriously regulate this industry." Remember when the Biden administration bullied social media platforms to remove content it didn’t like during the COVID pandemic? That was done without government ownership.
I warned about this two weeks into Trump’s second term after he signed an executive order seeking to create a sovereign wealth fund, noting that a government investment fund would eventually become a vehicle for Democratic administrations to pursue policies Republicans oppose. The White House ditched the idea for a formal fund and proceeded to cobble together an ad hoc presidential portfolio despite having no clear legal authority to do so.
INSIDE TRUMP’S DEAL TO GIVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS A MASSIVE STAKE IN NEW $6.6B SUBMARINE DEAL
If a Democratic administration had done this, it would be practically impossible to imagine a Congress controlled by Republicans allowing it to continue. And yet congressional Republicans, who never miss a chance to tag Democrats as socialists and communists, have collectively done nothing to stop the Trump administration. In fact, congressional Republicans are actively trying to give the executive branch—and thus future administrations, not just the current administration—the legal authority to continue doing it.
The Trump administration’s supporters cite its claims that equity stakes are better for taxpayers than blank checks, or that they are necessary to bolster supply chains for national security. Setting aside that they aren’t the administration’s true motivation, neither justifies Washington becoming a shareholder in a portfolio of companies.
Sure, if the government is already handing a company money, getting shares in return sounds better than a straight giveaway. But the trade-offs can’t be ignored.
When the government picks a racehorse, that horse is given advantages and privileges that leave the competing horses at a disadvantage. But the danger goes well beyond current competitors. Upstart firms, including those that don’t yet exist, already face a steep hill to climb in bringing their products and ideas to market. Government ownership steepens that hill, threatening to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit critical to America’s economic success.
The value of the shares on the government’s books isn’t the same as revenue in the Treasury. Realizing the gains requires selling the shares and subtracting what taxpayers put in. And as my colleague Scott Lincicome explains, Intel’s stock gains partly reflect expectations of government favoritism, including pressure on other companies to use Intel products. That points to the possibility that the government is diverting private investment from businesses with better commercial prospects.
WE WILL ALL PAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS’ ANTITRUST CRUSADE THAT KILLED SPIRIT AIRLINES
Even if the administration could sell its entire Intel stake today, it would net roughly $28 billion—less than 1.5% of the $2 trillion deficit Washington ran up in the fiscal year just ended under President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. The stakes the administration has acquired should be divested, regardless. But if the administration wants to raise funds productively, it could revisit Cato’s recommendations to sell excess federal buildings and privatize government businesses like Amtrak.
The national security rationale also sounds reasonable until you realize the federal government already has plenty of ways to support companies on such grounds without becoming an owner. Our Restoring Free Enterprise initiative lays out both market-based and government alternatives to equity stakes that would help bolster critical supply chains. Easing permitting requirements and removing tariffs on production inputs would make it easier for private companies to invest and expand supply. And the government can address specific defense needs through purchase contracts or stockpiles of critical materials.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Invoking "national security" also has a long-standing tradition in Washington as an excuse for politicians to justify actions they might not otherwise get away with. Back in April, the administration pursued a bailout that could have given the government 90% of Spirit Airlines on dubious national security grounds, until a group of the airline’s bondholders balked at the terms.
Last week, Politico reported that the Federal Aviation Administration is exploring an ownership stake in a company that develops software for managing air traffic control. National security or not, having the government become an investor in a company it is supposed to evaluate objectively is an objectively bad idea.
Defenders will also point to promises that the government will remain a passive shareholder and argue that concerns about federal control over the corporate boardroom are overblown. That’s a painfully naïve view of how Washington works. The Trump administration is already using contracts and regulatory authority to favor companies it owns.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
While Trump’s supporters may applaud that favoritism today, will they still applaud when a President Gavin Newsom or President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does it?
No.
That is why Republicans should use the time they still have to end this ownership experiment instead of waiting until a Democratic president makes them wish they had.
Among the more amazing things about Donald Trump’s crusade against Rep. Ilhan Omar is how utterly brazen it is. The president and his team could at least try to keep up appearances, to maintain some kind of pretense that the scrutiny of the Minnesota Democrat is legitimate — but the Republican officials have largely decided not to bother.
On the contrary, Trump publicly demanded an investigation into a political opponent — which is itself an abuse — all the while making clear that he hoped to strip Omar of her citizenship and to deport a sitting congresswoman who dared to cross him. Soon after, federal departments did as they were directed to do, in pursuit of the president’s stated goal.
“It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say,” Barack Obama said in a statement. “But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.”
Despite highly dubious evidence of wrongdoing, federal agents seized the laptop, cellphone and passport of a sitting member of Congress, at which point the president who demanded this probe received a highly unusual briefing from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
While there’s still no evidence that the Minnesotan has done anything wrong, Trump took some time during his Thursday night rally in Iowa to insist that Omar resign. The Republican added that “the Democrat [sic] Party has conceded her seat” and she will no longer be permitted to serve in Congress.
Trump calls for Ilhan Omar to immediately resign & says, "please inform our great Speaker, James Michael Johnson that the Democrat Party has conceded her seat … she will not be allowed to me a member of that body any longer"Trump's crowd in Iowa then starts chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-23T00:27:55.342Z
At that point, as if on cue, his followers chanted, “Lock her up! Lock her up!”
After the event, the president published a statement to his social media platform, again calling on Omar to “IMMEDIATELY resign from Congress,” adding that someone should inform House leaders that the congresswoman has “openly admitted to FRAUD, and she will not be legally allowed to be a Member of this August Body.”
In reality, of course, Omar has not “openly admitted” to any wrongdoing and has repeatedly denied the White House’s allegations. No one has conceded their seat — Omar is likely to be re-elected in 11 days — and she is absolutely still permitted to serve on Capitol Hill, doing the job Americans in her district elected her to do.
I have no idea what, if anything, will come of this relentless campaign. Given that Team Trump also ordered an investigation into Omar’s records in his first term and that probe was eventually abandoned for lack of evidence, the president might want to temper his expectations.
But that this is happening at all reflects unmistakable authoritarian tactics.
“The investigation of her is a chilling example of the federal government using its immense power to silence a critic,” the editorial board of The New York Times explained. “It is an affront to free speech, the rule of law and American ideals.”
The editorial added, “In the case of Ms. Omar, the administration has gone back more than a quarter-century to investigate a prominent critic. If her naturalization can be revisited, it suggests that no naturalized citizen is safe. It also indicates that the federal government can go searching for any decades-old problem to hound somebody who has criticized the White House. Those are the tactics of authoritarian societies.”
The post Trump’s crusade against Ilhan Omar follows a familiar authoritarian playbook appeared first on MS NOW.
While many Republican candidates are keeping Donald Trump at arm’s length, Iowa’s Joe Mitchell has moved in a far more obsequious direction, despite running in one of the nation’s most competitive congressional districts.
The 29-year-old former state representative, hoping to succeed Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson in Iowa’s 2nd District, joined the president during a rally Thursday night and offered the kind of gushing praise Trump likes to hear. Mitchell said Trump has “kept this country more safe than any other president, ever,” before expressing outrage that Trump hasn’t been given a Nobel Peace Prize.
It was at that point when the Iowan decided to give the president a different honor — one he had made up.
Joe Mitchell gives Trump "the man of the century" award (that he just made up)
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-23T01:40:34.634Z
Mitchell held up a framed certificate and said, “So what I came up with, Mr. President, is a new award. It’s called the ‘Man of the Century Award.’” The congressional hopeful went on to insist that Trump has “fought more for humanity and for America than any other president ever” and has become “the greatest president we’ve ever had.”
The president accepted the certificate, handed it to an aide and continued with his rally.
Time will tell whether locals in one of the nation’s true toss-up House races are impressed with such sycophancy, but the presentation got me thinking about the larger pattern: Trump has struggled to earn the kind of awards he desperately wants, but he has managed to receive all kinds of fake honors.
Earlier this year, for example, several coal industry executives and miners in hard hats presented Trump with a trophy that labeled him the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”
This was not an isolated incident. Shortly after Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020, the National Republican Senatorial Committee made up an honor for him called the Champion for Freedom Award.
More recently, after the president’s begging didn’t lead to a Nobel Peace Prize, soccer’s global governing body, FIFA, concocted its own peace prize in the hopes of making Trump feel better.
A month after Trump picked up a trophy from coal industry representatives, House Speaker Mike Johnson held an event in which he announced another made-up honor, called the America First Award. The Louisiana Republican then handed the president, the first recipient, with a giant eagle statue.
Let this be a lesson to those hoping to curry favor with the White House: If you haven’t already visited a store that makes trophies and prizes, you’re making a mistake.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
The post ‘Man of the Century’: Republicans keep presenting Trump with made-up awards appeared first on MS NOW.
After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, overturning the ruling from the Alaska Division of Elections. A few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system, and both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.
That Donald Trump and his political team are worried about the race is obvious, but what the president’s team is doing about it is another matter entirely.
Late Thursday, Trump’s Justice Department filed a preemptive lawsuit that intends to block certification of the Senate race — but only if the Republican incumbent loses while the rival with the similar name remains on the ballot.
As The Associated Press reported, the litigation kicks off “what many have feared could become a lengthy battle between the U.S. government and states over certifying an election where the president’s party is struggling.”
What’s more, it’s entirely possible that former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola will win this race and the efforts by Trump’s DOJ will determine whether she’s seated — and which party ultimately holds a majority in the Senate.
The lawsuit is a dramatic escalation, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. At a White House event in early September, the president publicly urged Attorney General Todd Blanche to pursue a case in Alaska specifically focused on the competing candidates with nearly identical names.
Last week, Trump went further, claiming that federal authorities were “looking into” the matter and pushing assorted conspiracy theories for which there was no evidence. As recently as Wednesday of this week, the president used his social media platform to publish a statement that read, in part, “Dan S. Sullivan is leading by a lot, but this is CHEATING in an Election, and the Judge that allowed this to happen should be ashamed of himself. We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness.”
The statement included obvious falsehoods — most recent polling in Alaska shows the Republican incumbent trailing, not “leading by a lot” — and there is nothing to suggest Democratic officials have engaged in “election interference,” other than championing their party’s nominee.
Nevertheless, there have long been concerns that the Trump administration might try to derail election results it doesn’t like, and the DOJ’s new lawsuit regarding Alaska suggests those concerns are well grounded.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
The post Trump administration sues to block possible Democratic win in Alaska Senate race appeared first on MS NOW.
US First Lady Melania Trump has secured an agreement for a localized ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine in the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky, Kherson Oblast, to allow humanitarian aid deliveries and civilian evacuations to begin on 29 October, the White House announced on 23 October.
The proposed truce comes after months of worsening conditions in Oleshky, where Russian restrictions have left residents without reliable access to food, drinking water, medicine, and medical care. Ukrainian officials and international monitors have called for a humanitarian corridor as civilians face hunger, landmines, and regular attacks, with residents unable to leave safely.
Update 21:31: Ukraine’s Human Rights Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets announced the launch of a humanitarian mission to Russian-occupied Oleshky in Kherson Oblast, saying an agreement had been signed following negotiations coordinated by the US side, with mediation by US First Lady Melania Trump.
The agreement provides for several stages, including preparations for a ceasefire, clearing routes of mines, delivering humanitarian aid, and unblocking evacuation routes.
Lubinets said his office had been raising the alarm about the looming humanitarian catastrophe in Oleshky since late February 2026 and would report on each stage of the mission.
According to the White House, Trump and her representative worked directly with Russian and Ukrainian leadership to agree on the ceasefire's terms, timing, and procedures. Civilian representatives from both countries are expected to visit residents to assess their needs, while those wishing to leave will receive transportation to their preferred destination.
The White House said an American media organization would accompany the teams to document the process and help ensure families' wishes are respected.
Trump said she initiated discussions after learning about the crisis during a private conversation at an event in New York during the 81st United Nations General Assembly. She said the agreement also involves technical preparations, including demining.
Oleshky, on the Russian-occupied left bank of the Dnipro River, had around 24,000 residents before Russia's full-scale invasion. Recent estimates put the remaining population at roughly 1,700 to 2,000, including about 50 children.
Residents face severe food and medicine shortages, while Russian forces have restricted movement and attacked vehicles attempting to deliver humanitarian supplies. Ukrainian officials have also said Russian troops have seized food parcels delivered by Ukrainian drones and detained or beaten some residents who received them.
The crisis has drawn growing international attention. Pope Leo XIV appealed to Russian leader Vladimir Putin for a truce to allow aid deliveries and safe civilian evacuations, while Ukraine's human rights ombudsman, Dmytro Lubinets, said on 18 October that negotiations over a ceasefire and evacuation had advanced to the stage of agreeing on final details.
The White House announcement sets 29 October as the start date for the localized ceasefire. Its implementation will determine whether aid can reach residents and civilians can leave safely after months of isolation.
“If Donald Trump defies court orders because the Supreme Court said he cannot be prosecuted for actions he takes as president, could those people who carry out his illegal requests be prosecuted or fined even though they are acting on his orders?” — Kit Read
Hi Kit,
Maybe.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States only dealt directly with criminal immunity for presidents, holding that they have at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, as well as absolute immunity for acts within their “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority.
What all that means in practice hasn’t been fully fleshed out. It would take a follow-up case to clarify the ruling’s limits, and it’s unclear if or when such a case will come.
At any rate, the court focused on presidents in that ruling. It did not grant immunity to aides acting on the president’s behalf.
Yet, while arguments have been made against subordinate immunity, it’s technically an open question that the justices haven’t decided one way or the other.
So the answer to your question at the moment is: maybe.
But you might wonder: What could the argument be for immunizing presidential underlings?
One scholarly account argued that the logic of the immunity ruling “renders the President’s subordinates absolutely immune for a potentially broad range of official acts, even if those acts are otherwise unlawful.” That’s because if the president has complete power over executing the law, then, the argument goes, subordinate actions that implement that power are lawful, as opposed to being unlawful but immune from prosecution.
As with clarifying the immunity ruling’s limits as it applies to presidents, whether the Supreme Court will decide the subordinate immunity question depends on the court taking an appeal that raises that issue in the future. And as with presidential immunity itself, there is no clear candidate for an appeal the court would take to answer that question.
Either way, if a president wants to ensure that any of his henchmen won’t be federally prosecuted, he could always pardon them.
Please submit “Ask Jordan” questions through this form for a chance to have your question featured in a future edition of the Deadline: Legal newsletter.
The post Ask Jordan: Does presidential immunity extend to subordinates who carry out illegal orders? appeared first on MS NOW.
Any story about a family dispute is bound to be complex, but the politics surrounding Vivek Ramaswamy’s abhorrent attack ad are relatively straightforward. Amy Acton, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Ohio, was allegedly raped by her stepfather when she was a child.
Her Republican opponent, Ramaswamy, is trying to weaponize this in despicable fashion, pushing a campaign commercial that features Acton’s estranged mother, who sided with the stepfather even after his arrest and stayed with him until his death.
But in recent days, it’s become clear that this ad has taken on far greater significance than one commercial in one gubernatorial election. As The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg summarized in her latest column:
It’s quite a feat, in this numb and debased era, to create a political advertisement so shocking and indecent that people from across the political spectrum feel the need to denounce it. The Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who has long fashioned himself as a kind of Donald Trump 2.0 — younger and brainier but just as brash — has managed it.
By releasing what may be the most disgusting ad in American political history, he’s done more than just reveal his own low character. He’s opened a kind of proxy debate on the right about whether a post-Trump conservatism should try to reclaim some base-line morality or continue along its current smashmouth course.
Donald Trump has changed his party and his nation’s politics in a great many ways, but among the most important shifts is the degree to which the president has championed the politics of cruelty and dishonor. There are messages — from attack ads to speeches to social message postings — that Republican officials used to avoid, even when they agreed with the underlying point, in part to avoid backlash and in part to maintain their public reputations and credibility.
In recent years, however, those scruples have been cast aside. GOP officials and candidates no longer hedge on depraved messaging: After having seen Americans twice elevate a malicious television personality to the nation’s highest office, they now routinely echo his amorality and cynicism, seeing it as a way to satisfy the party’s far-right base, to advance their own ambitions or both.
Most decent people can and will agree that Ramaswamy’s attack ad is indefensible, but the ad has also taken on totemic value.
“What the ad represents … is an opening salvo in the post-midterms fight for the Republican Party’s future,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin explained. “It’s a battle that will accelerate next year but may not culminate until the 2030s. Put simply, what sort of party does the GOP want to be — and what will the market bear?”
Trailing in polls and short on options, Ramaswamy made his choice, and the stain on his character is likely to be permanent. What the Ohioan might not have anticipated, however, is just how much his disgusting tactic has divided his own party.
Several prominent Republicans in the state, including outgoing Gov. Mike DeWine, have publicly condemned the ad, and others outside of Ohio have taken similar steps. Former GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley, for example, said via social media that Ramaswamy is “a bad guy.” A day later, Rep. Ashley Hinson, the party’s Senate hopeful in Iowa, called the commercial “absolutely terrible.”
On the other side, there’s the White House, where the politics of cruelty and dishonor still thrive, and where there are Republican leaders who still believe repugnant messaging will dominate for the foreseeable future.
JD Vance, for example, declared this week that he’s “a little bit disgusted,” not by Ramaswamy’s gutter politics, but by members of his own party who are “whining” about civility.
The vice president’s reaction itself drew swift rebukes — The Bulwark published a piece that described Vance as a “sociopath” — but that didn’t stop Trump from picking up where his vice president left off.
On Wednesday, the president told reporters he didn’t “know anything about it,” before shifting gears and talking about how important he considers it to see a mother “hate her daughter that much.”
A day later, Trump went much further and spent much of Thursday defending the ad, urging Ramaswamy to keep running it, demanding the public take the underlying claims “seriously” and at Iowa rally, predicting that the ad would work in the GOP candidate’s favor.
In other words, Trump took care to keep dividing Republicans — with less than two weeks remaining, during the early voting period — in one of the nation’s most important gubernatorial races, by leaning into support for one of the most repulsive campaign ads in recent memory.
Election Day is 11 days away. Watch this space.
The post Ramaswamy’s vile ad is dividing the Republican Party. Trump is leading the wrong side. appeared first on MS NOW.
For nearly two years, Donald Trump’s Justice Department has been unusually aggressive in pursuing the White House’s political opponents. Now, however, it appears that a presidential ally is the one facing scrutiny from federal law enforcement.
MS NOW has confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general has sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department over allegations that Corey Lewandowski profited from his role at DHS.
A Lewandowski spokesperson issued a statement Thursday saying that the former DHS official hadn’t been contacted by the Justice Department, adding that Lewandowski “denies any wrongdoing when he was proudly serving his country in a voluntary capacity.”
For those who would benefit from a refresher on Lewandowski, around this time 10 years ago, it appeared that his role as a member of Trump’s team had run its course. The Republican operative was Trump’s campaign manager for several months in 2016, but after clashing with his colleagues and facing a criminal charge after a confrontation with a reporter, the future president ousted Lewandowski from his political operation.
Although it seemed implausible, the operative gradually worked his way back into Trump’s good graces, and when the president returned to power after the 2024 election, Lewandowski received a striking reward: Trump tapped him to serve as a “special government employee” to help run the Department of Homeland Security alongside then-Secretary Kristi Noem.
Predictably, Lewandowski’s tenure proved controversial — in part because of the policy agenda he championed; in part because he wanted to carry a gun (for reasons that were never fully explained), to the alarm of DHS officials; and in part because of the nature of his close relationship with Noem.
But it’s the corruption allegations that are of particular and ongoing significance.
In July, for example, The Wall Street Journal reported that federal investigators found evidence that Lewandowski “may have been involved in improperly awarding government contracts” during his time at DHS. Last month, the Journal published a separate report, alleging that the operative used his role in the department to pursue side deals for himself with officials in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. (Lewandowski slammed the reporting as “fiction.”)
Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the inquiry, though if it reaches a more serious stage, it will create a difficult test for the president and his political operation.
Indeed, if Trump’s former campaign manager faces a possible federal criminal indictment, it’s an open question as to whether the president will intervene and derail the case, or whether he’ll add Lewandowski to his list of close allies whom he pretends not to know.
Complicating matters further, it was just last week when Trump sat down with Newsmax for a lengthy interview, and when the discussion turned to pardons, the Republican said, “I can tell you this, I don’t want to see my people go through — because these people are lunatics on the, on the left — I don’t want to see people that work for me go through years of nonsense, hire lawyers and everything else, all for nothing.”
This came a few weeks after Trump also told Time magazine that he’s prepared to issue pardons to members of his administration. Watch this space.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
The post Corey Lewandowski faces Justice Department inquiry, creating key test for Team Trump appeared first on MS NOW.
EXCLUSIVE – The White House is highlighting the brutal hammer killing of a Florida mother as President Donald Trump prepares to headline a midterm rally in Fort Myers on Friday, with a spokesperson telling Fox News Digital that the case demonstrates the consequences of former President Joe Biden's border policies.
Trump is scheduled to speak at 2 p.m. at Florida Gulf Coast University's Alico Arena ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. The White House is pointing to the killing in the same city as it prepares to put a spotlight on the president's immigration enforcement record.
"A few short months ago, an illegal alien barbarically killed a woman outside of a gas station in Fort Myers by hitting her on the head with a hammer multiple times," White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told Fox News Digital exclusively.
DEM-LED PUSH TO EXTEND PROTECTIONS FOR HAITIANS FACES OUTRAGE AFTER BRUTAL HAMMER KILLING
"This heinous murderer was RELEASED into the country by the Biden administration. Not only did the Biden administration release him into the country, but they then gave him Temporary Protected Status. This is the result of Democrats open-border policies. If you import the third world, you become the third world."
Trump previously condemned the killing in an April Truth Social post, calling the surveillance video "one of the most vicious things you will ever see" and blaming the Biden administration for allowing the suspect into the country.
"This one killing should be enough for these Radical Judges to STOP impeding my Administration’s Immigration Policies," Trump wrote at the time.
The remarks refer to the brazen killing of a Florida mother in April. Haitian national Rolbert Joachim is accused of repeatedly striking the woman in the head with a hammer outside a Fort Myers gas station.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, surveillance video showed the suspect smashing the woman's windshield before approaching her and repeatedly striking her in the head with a hammer in broad daylight. The victim, a gas station clerk and mother of two teenage daughters, died in the attack.
Fort Myers police enlisted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help locate Joachim, who was subsequently arrested on Mango Street, DHS said.
The department said Joachim entered the United States in August 2022 and was released into the country under the Biden administration. A federal judge issued a final removal order against him that year, but he later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which expired in 2024.
The designation allows eligible foreign nationals from certain countries to remain and work temporarily in the United States because of conditions in their home countries. It does not provide permanent residency.
TRUMP ADMIN MARKS 15 STRAIGHT MONTHS WITH ZERO BORDER RELEASES AS APPREHENSIONS PLUNGE 94%
The White House is putting a spotlight on the case as Trump prepares to address supporters in southwest Florida, a region that has delivered strong election results for the president.
Trump carried Florida in all three of his presidential campaigns, expanding his statewide winning margin from roughly one percentage point in 2016 to more than 13 points in 2024.
In Lee County, home to Fort Myers, Trump won 63.6% of the vote in 2024, compared with 35.3% for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to official county election results.
The White House says Trump's immigration crackdown has led to 17 straight months without releases at the border and the deportation of more than 3 million people who were in the United States illegally.
DHS said in April that ICE had lodged an immigration detainer against Joachim following his arrest and that he would face deportation regardless of the outcome of his criminal case.
Prosecutors later announced they would seek the death penalty against Joachim, according to local reporting.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Friday's rally comes as Trump continues to hit the campaign trail supporting Republican candidates across the country ahead of the midterm elections.
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr issued a threat this week that adds a sinister new dimension to the Trump Censorship Industrial Complex.
Without citing specifics, Carr decried what he called “a significant surge in entirely Fake Polls and Suppression Polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm.”
“Broadcasters are advised to avoid engaging in News Distortions or running Broadcast Hoaxes by airing Polls that would violate their regulatory obligations,” Carr warned Wednesday.
It’s possible Carr was referring to news this week that an obscure group called Wedgewood Polls had propagated fraudulent polling data that, despite news outlets’ due diligence, made its way into polling aggregations at several outlets, including The New York Times and MS NOW. The problem of apparently malevolent actors fudging poll numbers before an election is not something to take lightly, but responsible news organizations have been transparent with their audiences, appending corrections, editor’s notes and updating their aggregations as needed. (The commission’s lone Democratic appointee, Anna Gomez, posted to X on Wednesday, “FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith.”)
This would hardly be the first time Carr has used his office to threaten broadcasters from airing bad news about his boss.
But Carr’s track record as an anti-free-speech warrior for Trump makes it hard to see his comments as an earnest effort to prevent the distribution of incorrect information before an election. In nearly two years as FCC chair, Carr has demonstrated that he’s an unprincipled, hyperpartisan hack who cosplays as an advocate of free speech and limited government. Examples abound of him using his office to try to silence Trump critics and strong-arm risk-averse media corporations that prioritize nothing more than their bottom lines.
More likely, Carr is helping lay the groundwork for Trump to — once again — falsely claim fraud in the event of a GOP wipeout in the midterm elections, lest Trump’s historic unpopularity be blamed for Republicans losing control of one or both houses of Congress or any number of statehouses.
In March, as it became evident that Trump’s war on Iran was destined to become an unwinnable quagmire, Carr threatened broadcasters from airing “hoaxes and news distortions” in war coverage. Those words, in MAGA-speak, typically translate to “reports that accurately reflect the president’s incompetence.”
Carr also effectively censored Jimmy Kimmel after the September 2025 assassination of Charlie Kirk by jawboning ABC’s corporate parent, The Walt Disney Company, into suspending the late-night comic, even boasting, “When we see stuff like this, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” So egregious was this government gangsterism that no less a Trump lickspittle than Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, condemned it as “mafioso” behavior. When Carr wasn’t acting as the comedy police, he went after ABC’s daytime talk show “The View,” claiming the program violated the FCC’s antiquated “equal time” rules regarding political candidate interviews, despite the fact that talk shows had historically been considered exempt from that regulation.
Sadly, the FCC’s censorship campaign has been such a success that ABC’s lawyers claimed in court recently that the network’s news division has been tempering its election coverage to avoid further harassment by the Trump administration.
This spring, Carr himself bragged about how effective Trump’s authoritarian attacks on the free press have been: “Look at the results so far. PBS defunded. NPR defunded…[Stephen] Colbert is leaving. CBS is under new ownership. And soon enough, CNN is going to have new ownership as well.” (Skydance, the company controlled by the Trump-friendly billionaire trust fund baby David Ellison, now owns CBS and CNN.)
The FCC’s censorship campaign has been such a success that ABC’s lawyers claimed in court recently that the network’s news division has been tempering its election coverage to avoid further harassment by the Trump administration.
Thankfully for Carr, his efforts earned him a good-boy pat on the head from Trump at an Alaska campaign rally this month, when the president praised his FCC attack poodle as “the most-feared man in government.” If you were wondering, yes, it is bizarre that the head of the historically bipartisan FCC would be attending a partisan political rally. But then, Carr — who’s known for wearing a lapel pin in the shape of Trump’s head — broke decades of precedent when he told a Senate committee in December 2025 that the FCC is not an independent agency. References to “independent” have also been removed from the FCC’s website.
Twelve former FCC officials — who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations — issued a joint statement Wednesday condemning Carr’s “dangerous and unconstitutional” attempt to “censor and control the information available to Americans as they prepare to vote.” They added, “Make no mistake: this is a direct attack on free and fair elections, which is especially concerning in the days and weeks when Americans are heading to the polls.”
In an X post Wednesday, The Bulwark’s Will Saletan aptly summed up Carr’s pathology: “Stephen Miller might look the part, but Brendan Carr is actually Trump’s most dedicated authoritarian apparatchik. In a fascist regime, he would do anything the boss ordered.”
Trump’s recent claim that Carr is the “most feared” person in government is in keeping with the president’s flattery of thugs, and Carr no doubt appreciated the ego-stroking. That’s probably overstating the case a bit — the Trump administration does have high-ranking officials who brag about committing likely war crimes, after all — but Carr is most certainly a giddy soldier in Trump’s war on the Constitution.
The post FCC Chair Brendan Carr is bringing Trump’s Censorship Industrial Complex to our elections appeared first on MS NOW.
Login