Judge Rips CBP Chief for Lying Under Oath About Attacking Protesters

A federal judge called out Border Protection Commander Gregory Bovino on Thursday for lying on the stand, before issuing a preliminary injunction against federal law enforcement using force against protesters and journalists.

During a hearing, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said that Bovino had plainly lied about deploying tear gas on protesters while leading an immigration operation in Chicago’s Little Village earlier this month.

The CBP chief had originally claimed that Bovino deployed tear gas canisters after he was hit in the head by a rock, but in his hourslong deposition, Bovino “admitted that he lied about whether a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas in Little Village,” Ellis said, according to Jon Seidal of the Chicago Sun Times.

Ellis said she’d reviewed video evidence that “disproved” his prior claim, as well as seen a mountain of evidence that federal agents in Chicago had used force against protesters, in violation of protesters’ First Amendment rights and contrary to the government’s claims. “I find the defendant’s evidence simply not credible,” Ellis said.

“Agents pushed, shoved, tackled protesters, pointed guns at them, threw tear gas and deployed smoke canisters. Everyone that agents detained [was] released by the FBI, and none of them are currently charged with assault,” she said, according to Seidal.

Ellis refuted the government’s claim that protesters weren’t practicing free speech because they’d intermingled with some individuals acting unlawfully. “But as I’ve previously stated,” Ellis said, “I don’t find defendants’ version of events credible.”

Ultimately, the judge moved forward with a preliminary injunction in line with her previous temporary restraining order, barring the use of force against protesters “unless such force is objectively necessary to stop an immediate threat.”

The injunction will require officers to issue two clear warnings before administering crowd-control measures, to place identifiers conspicuously on their person, and to wear a body camera. In line with her request from a previous hearing, the government’s lawyer confirmed that Bovino would now wear a body camera.

A Senate subcommittee hearing on the Affordable Care Act devolved into a shouting match Thursday, with one lawmaker focused on providing affordable health care solutions to millions of Americans while another was fixated on small pleasantries.

Republican Chairman Ron Johnson excoriated ranking member Richard Blumenthal in a sprawling rant that transformed the hearing—formed to “assess the damage done by Obamacare”—into a contentious back-and-forth more fixated on decorum than tangible solutions.

The Wisconsin lawmaker was obviously irate that Blumenthal had dared to make the case for salvaging the ACA by delivering an “eight-minute” opening statement, calling multiple witnesses, and accusing Johnson of “trying to muzzle” him from “calling attention to the facts” of the federally subsidized health care marketplace.

“The ranking member has been incredibly disrespectful of these hearings,” Johnson said. “He was going to filibuster for about 30 minutes.”

“May I just say, I wish I had a half an hour more, but there’s no way that I did,” Blumenthal interjected.

“Again you are just being rude,” Johnson cut back in. “You have been rude as ranking member since I took over the chair. It’s unfortunate, but I’d appreciate it if you’d stop being rude, follow the norms of this committee, and if you want an extra witness, request it beforehand. And please, keep your opening statements to a reasonable length of time.”

The government shut down more than 36 days ago—the longest federal suspension in U.S. history—in large part over a debate on the merits of the ACA’s enhanced premium tax credits, which assist individuals making upward of 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Still, neither national political party appears willing to shatter Congress’s stalemate on how to fund Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget, which included details to slice billions from Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid.

A record 24 million Americans signed up for coverage through the ACA marketplace at the beginning of this year, roughly double the number of people who enrolled just four years earlier amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

President Trump took time out of his Thursday press conference to fat-shame his own staff for taking Ozempic, the popular weight-loss drug. 

The press conference, which featured multiple Cabinet members, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, was to announce a deal with drug manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly—who make Ozempic and Zepbound—that would lower the cost of their popular weight-loss drugs to around $150 per month (they currently cost around $350 per month).

“Secretary Howard Lutnick. You take any of this stuff, Howard?” Trump asked while making the announcement. 

“Not yet,” Lutnick replied. 

“OK, good,” Trump said before going back to reading names of people on his team. “CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, he doesn’t take it. Food and Drug Administrator, Commissioner Marty Makary, and Director of Medicare Chris Klomp. And we have Steve.… Where’s Steve? Is he here? Head of public relations for the White House? He’s taking it.” 

Now the entire country knows (or at least believes) that Steven Cheung, 43, a longtime comms staffer and attack dog for Trump who once called Florida Governor Ron DeSantis a “desperate eunuch,” is on Ozempic.  

Ozempic has grown increasingly popular as Americans of all demographics look for a simpler way to cut weight. Nearly half of adults age 40–59 are considered obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Former Justice Department paralegal Sean Dunn, who went viral this summer for chucking a Subway sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent during President Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C., has been found not guilty on misdemeanor charges.

Dunn walks free on Thursday after countless attempts from the Trump administration to prosecute him both federally and criminally.

The man known locally and nationally as the “D.C. Sandwich Guy” reportedly called the heavily armed officers “fucking fascists,” and yelled “I don’t want you in my city!” before hurling the wrapped sandwich straight at CPB agent Gregory Lairmore’s chest. The agent was obviously unharmed. Dunn fled the scene but was caught, later saying, “I did it. I threw a sandwich.”

The next evening, Dunn was arrested at his apartment by multiple federal agents in a dramatic operation the Trump administration posted on all platforms.

Lairmore, who was in a bulletproof vest, testified in court that the sandwich “kind of exploded” on him. “I could smell the onions and mustard,” he said.

“This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in August, after the bloodless incident. “You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement.” Dunn was then fired from his job. (Bondi’s post ignored that at least one January 6 insurrectionist who was openly hostile to law enforcement currently has a job within the Trump administration.)

Dunn was first tried on a felony assault, but federal prosecutors failed to convince grand jurors that throwing a sandwich qualified—an embarrassing outcome that rarely occurs given how skewed federal grand juries usually are in favor of the government. They then moved on to charging Dunn with one count of misdemeanor assault, which again failed miserably on Thursday.

“I’m relieved and looking forward to moving on with my life,” Dunn said, after the verdict.

The DOJ spent months of its resources and days in court just for multiple judges to tell it that its desired charges for Dunn—from felony assault to a misdemeanor—were completely absurd. This wasn’t the only example of the Trump administration trying and failing to make an example out of someone standing up against the unprecedented influx of armed federal troops into the nation’s capital. It also gave up on charging D.C. woman Sidney Lori Reid with a felony after it couldn’t convince three different grand juries that she deserved eight years in prison for allegedly placing herself between ICE agents and someone they were detaining.

This story has been updated.

Donald Trump is getting more honest about the impacts of his inconsistent tariff plan.

Speaking to the press inside the Oval Office Thursday, Trump admitted to knowing that his overhaul of America’s trade relationships has come at the cost of American consumers.

“Do you agree then that Americans are paying those tariffs?” asked a reporter.

“I think they might be paying something, but when you take the overall impact, the Americans are gaining tremendously,” Trump said. “Look, I’m ending war because of these tariffs. Americans would have to fight in some of these wars.”

Trump has touted himself for months as a great peacemaker, pushing a narrative that he has—so far—solved eight foreign conflicts. He has claimed responsibility for inventing peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda, between Cambodia and Thailand, between Israel and Iran, between India and Pakistan, between Serbia and Kosovo, between Egypt and Ethiopia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan (although he has previously forgotten and said Albania instead of Armenia), between Israel and Gaza, and for “doing the Abraham Accords.”

He has repeatedly cited his tariff plan as the key to solving those wars, even though several of them never existed to begin with.

But it’s not the first time that Trump has fessed to the ramifications of his tariff proposals. During a Cabinet meeting in April, the president acknowledged that his plan would spike prices on American goods, such as children’s toys, though his solution that Americans should simply buy less was as anti-American and anti-capitalist as it was anti-Trumpian. (Some of Barron Trump’s childhood toys included a customized mini Mercedes convertible featuring a “BARRON” license plate, several life-sized stuffed animals, and famously, a Louis Vuitton “soot-case” that reportedly now retails for nearly $10,000.)

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is in the midst of debating the validity of Trump’s tariff plan. Justices on both sides of the ideological fence have expressed their skepticism over the policy, questioning the administration’s foundation to base the legitimacy of the supposedly unrestricted levy power on a vague federal law that has never before been used for this purpose.

If they rule against Trump, it will be the first major break between the conservative-majority court and the president since he was inaugurated in January.

So far, the nation’s highest judiciary seems to share little in common with Trump when it comes to their perspective on the trade plan, apparently disagreeing on even the most basic details, such as the definition of “tariff.”

“Chief Justice Roberts said that tariffs are taxes and that they’re paid by Americans. He said this pretty clearly. And yet you’re saying this money is rolling in from other countries. How do you square those two?” asked a reporter.

“Well, it is. It’s coming in because they charged us,” Trump said. “You know those same countries that you talk about are charging us massive amounts of money.”

He then went on to blame the national debt on imbalanced tariff sheets between America and its trade allies.

“We had presidents who didn’t know how to use tariffs, presidents who had no understanding of business,” Trump said.

Once such prior president would be Ronald Reagan, who became a central figure in Trump’s trade war with Canada last month when Ontario’s provincial government aired an anti-tariff advertisement aimed at Americans. The political advert featured snippets of the conservative icon’s 1987 radio address, in which Reagan argued that tariffs undermine economic prosperity, and that they only serve to “hurt every American.”

An 80-year-old congressman representing suburban Atlanta has not voted in six straight elections, including the 2024 presidential election.

Representative David Scott, a Democrat in Georgia’s 13th district, is facing a primary challenge from state Representative Dr. Jasmine Clark, who discovered Scott’s voting record through a public records request and posted about it on X Thursday.

“Our right to vote is sacred and constantly under attack. I cannot fathom any elected official asking his constituents for their votes every two years without even bothering to go vote himself,” Clark posted, claiming that Scott doesn’t live in the district he represents.

Scott has drawn negative attention this year for appearing to drift in and out of lucidity. In June, he claimed to have attended the film premiere for the movie The Ten Commandments in 1956, when he would have been 11 years old. In February at a congressional hearing, Scott gave a long, incoherent speech about tariffs, going over his allotted time before being cut off.

“You have the president just using these tariffs as a means of fight or like a war. And this is not going to do it. Everybody is not going to be Mexico or Canada,” Scott said at the time. In December of last year, Scott also cursed at a photographer for taking his picture as he was being pushed in a wheelchair outside of the Capitol.

Scott’s reelection campaign for his twelfth term in 2024 drew alarm from his colleagues, staff, and lobbyists, who told Politico that the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee has trouble carrying out detailed conversations and often reads from a script. Since then, Scott has seldom given interviews.

This year, three members of Congress, all Democrats over the age of 70, have passed away: Representatives Gerry Connolly, Sylvester Turner, and Raúl Grijalva. Their absence from the House has aided Republicans’ narrow margin in the chamber. Scott represents a safe Democratic district in Georgia. Perhaps he should follow former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lead and announce his retirement.

A man who was reportedly taking weight loss medication appeared to collapse Thursday during a press conference to debut a deal to make those drugs more affordable, while President Donald Trump simply looked on.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the daytime talk show host Trump picked to run the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, rushed to help the man to the ground (Oz was a heart doctor before he became a pseudoscience-peddling daytime host). Meanwhile, Trump, who was sitting behind his desk while others ran the show, slowly stood up as he watched the man take to the floor.

As members of the press were quickly ushered out of the room, Trump turned away from the fallen man, staring off into space.

Multiple sources told The Washington Post’s Dan Diamond that the man was a patient who uses Elli Lily’s GLP-1 medication.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the man was “okay” and being seen by the White House Medical Unit. Newsmax was quick to report that Trump—who was clearly not involved in the incident at all—was also okay.

Though, Trump didn’t exactly seem up-to-par while dully reading the announcement from his seat.

A senior administration official said that under Trump’s new deal with Novo Nordisk and Elli Lily, weight-loss drugs could have an out-of-pocket cost of between $50 to $350 per month, as opposed to the current list price of more than $1000. However, prices would likely not be significantly cheaper for those whose prescriptions are covered by insurance.

TrumpRx, the president’s scheme to transform the federal government into a pharmacy, is already raising red flags for legal and health experts. They warn that the marketing gimmick isn’t likely to help the average American, and could actually expose private information to a government that clearly doesn’t know how to handle it. Already, other drug companies such as Pfizer and EMD Serono, which produces fertility drugs, have made deals to sell discounted products through TrumpRx, in exchange for being spared from the president’s sweeping tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

A federal agent enforcing Donald Trump’s violent mass deportations in Chicago bragged about shooting a woman in text messages to his fellow agents.

The texts were presented at a hearing in federal court Wednesday, where the woman, a U.S. citizen named Marimar Martinez, and another man, Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz, faced charges of impeding a federal officer with a deadly weapon. In reality, as captured on video, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Charles Exum shot Martinez after their cars collided in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood October 4. (The deadly weapon Martinez is accused of brandishing is the car she was driving when Exum crashed into her.)

Martinez said that Exum’s car rammed hers after she was warning the neighborhood’s residents about the presence of federal immigrant agents. Federal prosecutors are claiming that Exum’s actions, including his shooting at Martinez, were done in self-defense. Martinez and Ruiz were indicted October 10.

At the hearing, Exum’s messages from a Signal chat with other agents were shown, in which he said, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.” He also sent a news article about the incident to a different recipient with the message, “Read it. 5 shots, 7 holes.”

When Martinez’s lawyer Christopher Parente asked Exum in court what he meant, the agent said, “I’m a firearms instructor and I take pride in my shooting skills.”

After the crash and shooting, Exum drove the damaged car, a government-issued Chevrolet Tahoe, to Maine, where his Border Patrol unit is posted, for repairs to be made by a Border Patrol mechanic. The trip took place before any investigation could take place or the defense could examine the damage. Exum allegedly told an FBI interviewer that he had asked for the repairs, while prosecutors later claimed that his supervisor, Kevin Kellenberger, approved them.

To an outside observer, these events seem to show federal agents trying to cover up their own wrongdoing. The events of October 4 resulted in protesters immediately showing up only to be met with tear gas from the agents. Since then, federal agents in Chicago have continued to violently attempt to carry out Trump’s agenda, even ramming more cars in the process and directing their weapons at any protesters who show up.

President Donald Trump can’t convince voters that he’s making life more affordable, so now he’s resorted to lying to Americans about how much Thanksgiving dinner will cost. 

Following sweeping election losses for Republicans Tuesday, it’s never been more clear that the GOP has lost sight of issues that actually matter to Americans—namely, affordability. But rather than address constituents’ actual concerns, Trump took to Truth Social Thursday morning to plug Walmart’s 2025 Holiday Meal as a sign that voters were mistaken about wanting lower prices.

“2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under Biden, according to Walmart. My cost are lower than the Democrats on everything, especially oil and gas! So the Democrats ‘affordability’ issue is DEAD! STOP LYING!!!” Trump wrote. 

But Trump’s claim wasn’t the whole truth, not even sort of. 

Walmart’s 2025 Holiday Meal contains only 15 items, while the company’s 2024 Holiday Meal included 29 items. This year’s basket nixes multiple Thanksgiving staples, including pecan pie, cranberry sauce, whipped cream, mini marshmallows, corn muffin mix, as well as fresh sweet potatoes, celery, and onions. Additionally, many of the name-brand items have been replaced by Walmart’s Great Value items. 

A quick trip to Walmart’s website revealed that while the price of Walmart’s Holiday Meal has decreased due to the removal of items, the actual grocery prices have remained pretty much the same.  

Walmart’s 2024 Holiday Meal served eight people for less than $7 per person, placing the total cost at around $55. According to the retail giant’s website, last year’s haul with this year’s prices would actually cost about $52.43 before sales tax, which totals to about $6.50 per person. 

Walmart CEO John Furner wrote in a statement that Walmart’s 2025 Holiday Meal, which costs a total of $35.51, was 25 percent less than the cost of the 2024 Holiday Meal. The company’s new seasonal offering claims to serve 10 people for less than $4 per person. 

In a meeting with Republican lawmakers Wednesday, Trump reportedly underscored that if they wanted to win elections, they needed to emphasize his economic accomplishments. In his own address about the economy later that day, though, Trump repeatedly strayed off this topic. 

It is hard to believe that the Trump administration actually cares about feeding vulnerable Americans, as the White House has threatened to upend SNAP benefits amid the ongoing government shutdown, agreeing to pay only half for November. 

Tuesday’s elections saw big Democratic wins in a lot of small towns: In 29 Connecticut cities and towns, residents flipped local leadership from red to blue.

Governor Ned Lamont and Danbury Mayor Roberto Alves celebrated the wins as a blue wave.

“That is remarkable. That is historic, and we did it with a broad spectrum of folks in the electorate,” said Alves to the CT Mirror. “We had moderate candidates, we have progressive candidates. We are the big-tent party.”

In Connecticut, Democrats now control local government in 102 of the state’s 169 cities and towns, as well as two-third of the seats in the General Assembly, and every constitutional office like governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Chris Anderson, the local Democratic chair of a district that flipped blue, said this was a sign the electorate was rejecting what’s happening nationally. “This was an absolute referendum on the direction that the city and country is going. New Britain voters, for the first time in a very long time, elected Democrats to represent every single seat in the city,” Anderson said.

Connecticut’s races point to the broader pattern observed in the recent off-year elections across the country: Voters are rejecting Trumpism. This leftward course correction from the 2024 elections isn’t altogether unexpected; usually, the out-of-power party gains back ground in the midterms. But with a rightward shift observed across the United States in 2024, Democrats are hungry for confirmation that they could take back power in Congress in 2026.