DOJ Quietly Deletes Study on Politics of Domestic Terrorists

404 Media has reported that in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Trump’s Justice Department deleted a study from its website stating that right-wing violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States. This comes as the Trump  administration and Republicans generally blame political violence solely on the left.

The study was available online at least until Friday, according to 404 Media, but can now only be found via a Wayback Machine link. 

The study, published in 2024 and conducted by the National Institute of Justice, is titled, “What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism.” The first words are: “Militant, nationalistic, violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.”

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives,” the study noted. “In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

It’s highly likely that the DOJ took this study down because it doesn’t fit with the narrative the GOP is trying so desperately to push about the left being to blame for the bulk of political violence in this country, willfully ignoring countless examples of that not being the case at all.

Indiana Governor Mike Braun wants state legislators to get moving on approving a new congressional district map, to spare them from President Donald Trump’s wrath. 

Speaking on Fort Wayne’s WOWO radio Monday, Braun floated the idea of lawmakers returning for a special session in November, to scrounge up extra GOP seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 

“If we try to drag our feet as a state on it, probably, we’ll have consequences of not working with the Trump administration as tightly as we should,” he said.  

Braun is the only lawmaker in Indiana with the authority to call a special session in November. Special sessions are historically pretty expensive for taxpayers. If Braun doesn’t call a special session, Republicans’ redistricting efforts would have to wait until the next session begins in January 2026. 

Braun said Tuesday that he preferred to start working “earlier rather than later,” or “anytime from early November through the very earliest part” of the next legislative session. 

“All I’m telling you is that we’re going to look at [the current maps], we’re going to poll our legislators, and if it’s there, we’re going to do it,” he continued. “My feeling is it probably will happen,” he said. 

The Trump administration has previously urged Indiana to follow the lead of other states’ redistricting efforts, and deliver Trump one or two additional Republican House seats. In August, Vice President JD Vance visited with more than 55 Republicans at the Indiana state House, pressing them to approve a new map, and Trump met privately with the Republican heads of the Indiana House and Senate in the Oval Office.

In Texas, Republican state legislators passed a new congressional map that could help the GOP gain five more seats in the House of Representatives—launching a mirrored initiative in California for the Democrats. Earlier this month, Trump personally bullied Missouri lawmakers to approve a freshly gerrymandered map that would erase the Democratic seat in Kansas City. Republican lawmakers in Kansas, Ohio, and Florida are also considering taking up redistricting efforts in their states, as well as Democrats in Illinois and Maryland. 

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday seemed to throw a sidelong barb at Attorney General Pam Bondi for foolishly suggesting the existence of a “hate speech” exception to free speech.

As the far right wages an ongoing crusade against people accused of mocking slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Bondi said on a Monday podcast that “hate speech” is not free speech. The Department of Justice, she vowed, will “target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

The sentiment was widely criticized, including by MAGA commentators, for undermining the First Amendment. Bondi attempted to walk back her statement on Tuesday.

During a Tuesday morning panel at New York Law School, Sotomayor seemingly took aim at Bondi but did not mention the attorney general by name.

“Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed,” the liberal justice reportedly said. “If any student who becomes a lawyer hasn’t been taught civics, then that law school has failed,” she added. “Because it is for that system that you’re working as a lawyer.”

Sotomayor also raised concerns about people’s awareness, or lack thereof, of constraints on the power of the executive branch—evidently referencing Donald Trump, without mentioning him by name, either.

“Do we understand what the difference is between a king and a president?” Sotomayor said (a distinction that was blurred by the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling on presidential immunity in United States v. Trump, as she warned in her dissent at the time). “I think if people understood these things from the beginning, they would be more informed as to what would be important in a democracy.”

FBI Director Kash Patel is apparently not making child sex predators a priority at the bureau.

Patel finished his latest—and potentially last—hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee kicking and screaming Tuesday, raising his voice to Senator Adam Schiff after the lawmaker questioned the recent transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison in Texas.

Schiff pointed out that the facility was “not suitable for a sex offender” and that Maxwell’s transfer had been arranged after she provided testimony to federal authorities, including members of the FBI.

“Who made that decision and why?” asked Schiff.

Patel responded hastily: “The Bureau of Prisons.”

“The Bureau of Prisons decided on their own—without any consultation from [Deputy Attorney General Todd] Blanche or anyone else—that they were going to suddenly after this interview, completely unrelated to this interview, completely unrelated to anything she said, move her to a prison not suitable for a sex offender?” pressed Schiff. “Do you want the American people to believe that? Do you think they’re stupid?”

“No, I think the American people believe the truth, that I’m not in the weeds on the everyday movements of inmates,” Patel said, referring to the longtime associate and girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein, who on her own stands as one of the most notorious child sex offenders of the century. “What I am doing is protecting this country, providing historic reform and combating the weaponization of intelligence by the likes of you, and we have countlessly proven you to be a liar in Russiagate, in January 6.”

That’s when Patel turned up the temperature.

“You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate,” Patel yelled, calling Schiff’s political career a “charade.”

“You are a disgrace to this institution and an utter coward,” he told Schiff. “You are a political buffoon, at best.”

Schiff, however, was willing to throw it back.

“You can make an internet troll the FBI director, but [you] will always be nothing more than an internet troll,” Schiff said as the pair spoke over one another.

The exchange concluded with a final word from Patel, though his dismissive attitude toward the topic of Maxwell’s incarceration didn’t paint a pretty picture for the podcaster’s apparently hyperpartisan priorities.

“All you care about is a child sex predator that was prosecuted by a prior administration,” Patel said. “And the Obama Justice Department and the Biden Justice Department did squat. And what did President Trump do? Bring new charges, courageously.”

Patel’s disinterest in catching child predators stretches far beyond a quick beef in the annals of Congress. Instead, there appears to be a top-down transformation at the agency influenced by Patel’s personal ideology: Just about every agent on the FBI’s Baltimore domestic terrorism squad was directed to refocus their attention on detaining immigrants, forcing agents to pause investigations into violent child predators and pedophilia networks, MSNBC reported Tuesday.

Two communities are reeling after two men, one Black, one white, were found dead hanging from trees in Mississippi just hours apart from one another. Demartravion “Trey” Reed, a 21-year-old Black student, was found Monday morning on his campus of Delta State University. Hours later, Corey Zukatis, 36, was found in Vicksburg. Zukatis was homeless.

Local police are reporting Reed’s death as a suicide, while they are still investigating Zukatis’s.

“At this current time, we are conducting a thorough death investigation,” read a statement from the coroner’s office on Reed’s death. “Based on the preliminary examination, we can confirm that the deceased did not suffer any lacerations, contusions, compound fractures, broken bones, or injuries consistent with an assault. At this time, there is no evidence to suggest the individual was physically attacked before his death.”

Still, the timing and imagery of the hangings has caused rampant speculation, with many recalling the racist lynchings of mostly Black people—something Mississippi, and the greater American South, has dealt with for centuries.

The Delta State community has been especially disturbed, as Reed’s body was found on campus during the week of the school’s centennial celebration.

“Our community is deeply saddened by their loss. We extend our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends impacted,” the university said in a statement earlier in the day.

FBI Director Kash Patel played defense Tuesday for Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring by claiming that not only did the disgraced financier have no client list—he had no clients at all.

Speaking during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Senator John Kennedy asked: “Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to, besides himself?”

“Himself,” Patel quickly answered. “There is no credible information, none. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information that we have—again—is limited.”

“So, the answer is no one?” asked Kennedy, somewhat incredulously.

“For the information that we have,” Patel replied, clarifying that he meant the Epstein files.

The FBI director also admitted that he hadn’t actually done the reading. “I have not reviewed the entirety of [the Epstein files] myself, but a good amount,” he said.

Patel’s claim that Epstein, who was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges related to sex trafficking minors in 2019, had procured dozens of women just for himself directly contradicts a trove of testimony from the survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

Virgina Giuffre previously alleged that she had been sexually exploited by Prince Andrew and Epstein’s other “adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.” The Duke of York denied the accusation, and the suit was settled in 2022.

In January 2024, hundreds of documents were made public as part of Giuffre’s defamation suit against Epstein, including 150 names of individuals associated with the alleged sex trafficker. And though not all of the names were directly implicated in his crimes, some were.

One survivor, Sarah Ransome, testified under oath in 2017 that she had been “lent out by him to his friends and associates” in New York City and that guests at his home in the Virgin Islands had used girls for “instant sexual entertainment.” Another unnamed survivor claimed that she was forced to have sex with two high-profile politicians, both of whom had their names redacted from the documents.

Earlier this month, a group of survivors declared their intention to compile their own list of abusers and accomplices who participated in Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking.

As Donald Trump embarks Tuesday on his second state visit to the U.K., demonstrators have spread an enormous banner depicting the president with notorious sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein across a lawn outside Windsor Castle—where King Charles III is set to host him.

The banner is one of many antics planned for the trip by Everyone Hates Elon, a British guerilla group formed earlier this year to troll billionaire Elon Musk with viral stunts.

For Trump’s visit, Everyone Hates Elon is endeavoring to put the 1997 photo of the president and his former friend Epstein “everywhere he goes,” thus making it “the defining image” of the trip, according to a fundraising page. (As of this writing, almost 1,800 donors have contributed 31,760 pounds—or more than $43,000—to the cause.)

For every 15 pounds raised, the group vowed to add another square meter to the banner, which was unveiled Tuesday as “the WORLD’S BIGGEST PHOTO of Donald with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.”

The Everyone Hates Elon Instagram page also boasts of sneaking Trump-Epstein merchandise into the gift shop at Windsor Castle, installing posters of the photo in a bus stop advertisement near the U.S. Embassy in London, and placing a plaque memorializing Epstein on a bench at Trump’s golf course in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, which reads: “In loving memory of Jeffrey Epstein—a terrific guy. See you very, very soon. From Donald.”

The group has additionally floated displaying the photo on a mobile billboard van, as well as placards and projections.

“Picture Trump spitting out his tea and scones as he sees the image of him with notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein at every iconic UK location,” the fundraising page states.

The New York Times is fighting back after President Trump filed a massive $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the paper.

“This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics,” a spokesperson for the Times said in a statement. “We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.”

Trump is essentially filing this lawsuit on the grounds that the Times’ coverage isn’t kind enough to him. The 85-page lawsuit specifically calls out Times writers Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner. The latter two wrote the book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, published last year.

“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar [sic] Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party,” Trump wrote Monday evening on Truth Social. “I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The ‘Times’ has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole.”

This is a tried and true method for Trump, as he sued Disney’s ABC and Paramount Global’s CBS News for defamation, settling each case for millions of dollars. The Times likely isn’t planning on folding in the same way, as publisher A.G. Sulzberger told media members in a Monday gala speech before Trump’s announcement to “stand up for your journalism. Stand up for your journalists. Stand up for your rights.”

FBI Director Kash Patel published his own enemies list in 2022, but he doesn’t want to be held accountable now that he’s actually taken retribution against them.

Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Patel plainly rejected that he had ever drafted the kind of list that he included in his book Government Gangsters, which made reference to dozens of individuals who he claimed were “a cabal of unelected tyrants.” But the proof was in the pudding.

“It appears to me that there have been adverse actions of various kinds taken against about 20 of the 60 people on your enemies list,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. “You’ve been in office for seven months. At that rate, you’ve got 14 months until you’ve hit all 60.

“Can you explain that?” asked Whitehouse.

“Again, that is an entirely inaccurate presupposition,” Patel said. “I do not have an enemies list.

“You can continue to characterize it as you wish, the only actions we take—generally speaking—for personnel at the FBI are what’s based on merit qualifications and your ability to uphold your constitutional duty. You fall short, you won’t work there anymore,” he added.

“Well, there was a list,” Whitehouse said. “You don’t like it to be called an enemies list, but it had about 60 names, and about 20 have had adverse actions. So I think those are pretty clear facts.”

Some of those names included former President Joe Biden, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, and former USAID administrator Samantha Power.

When Patel’s name was floated in December as an option to run the FBI, Paul Rosenzweig, the former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, warned that Patel would be the “poster child of vindictiveness.”

“His infamous public declarations of retribution may lead to the dismissal of any politically motivated prosecutions he initiates against his enemies list of ‘Deep State’ opponents,” Rosenzweig wrote in The Bulwark at the time.

But a fire appears to be growing against Patel in the inner echelons of the Trump administration. Patel’s clumsy handling of the manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer left the White House thoroughly unimpressed, with insiders reportedly on the lookout for Patel’s replacement.

Kash Patel got slammed Tuesday for complaining that a Democratic senator’s question didn’t include the FBI director’s side of the story—while refusing to provide an answer.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Ranking Democrat Dick Durbin asked Patel to explain why he had fired FBI field officers and combat veterans Chris Meyer and Walter Giardina in August, even after Patel was warned that their terminations were unlawful.

“It appears that you terminated these two agents. Why?” asked Durbin.

“I’m not going to get into personnel decisions that we made,” Patel replied.

“So you’re not accountable for your decisions to take people who’ve served our country so admirably, and terminate them without any cause?” Durbin asked.

“That’s a one-sided story,” Patel said.

“So, tell your side of the story,” Durbin interjected, but Patel kept ranting.

“Anyone that has been terminated from the FBI generally speaking failed to meet the needs of the FBI and uphold their constitutional duties, and you providing a one-sided story from your perch is absolutely disgraceful because the men and women of the FBI deserve better,” Patel continued. “And your attack on the current leadership of the men and women of the FBI is equally disgraceful, ’cause now you’re attacking the leaders that are our brave SACs in the field that are doing the job that this county needs, and we will continue to do it.”

“It’s disgraceful when Mr. Meyer and Mr. Giardina, who served our country so well, are terminated apparently because of the rants of a podcaster,” Durbin said.

“That is your opinion, it is not a fact,” Patel retorted.

“Well, it certainly is my opinion I could back up with fact,” Durbin said.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Meyer had been removed after a pro-Trump influencer had falsely declared him the “main” agent behind the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago that allegedly uncovered a trove of classified documents. But Meyer said he wasn’t assigned to the operation. Senator Chuck Grassley had relayed claims from whistleblowers who accused Giardina of only expressing animosity toward Donald Trump and claimed he had corroborated the infamous Steele dossier. Giardina vehemently denied those accusations and said he never worked on the Steele dossier.

In July, Steven Jensen, the head of the FBI field office in Washington, D.C., urged Patel to shield Giardina, who he felt was being unfairly targeted while his wife was dying from an aggressive form of cancer—but Patel fired him anyway, and then fired Jensen too.