Trump Judge Threatens to Hold Government in Contempt Over ICE

A Trump-appointed judge was so upset with the living conditions in which ICE detained an immigrant in Long Island, New York, that he threatened to hold the government in contempt.

U.S. District Judge Gary Brown, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, issued a 24-page ruling Thursday vehemently castigating the Department of Homeland Security for refusing to provide photos of a holding room that illegally held a noncitizen for multiple nights, calling it “putrid and cramped.”

“ICE held them, day after day, without access to bunks, bedding, soap, showers, toothbrushes or clean clothes,” Brown stated in his ruling. “The space is unheated or poorly heated at night, while the outside temperature dropped to as low as 21 degrees.... To the extent they could sleep, they did so, crammed on the filthy floor, while the lights blared 24 hours a day.

“After nearly 35 years of experience with federal law enforcement in this judicial district, encompassing service as a prosecutor and a judge, I have never encountered anything like this,” Brown wrote.

Erron Anthony Clarke, the noncitizen in question, filed a habeas corpus petition with the court after being detained by ICE on December 5. Clarke had entered the U.S. legally on an H-2B work visa in 2018, but ended up overstaying the visa before marrying a U.S. citizen in 2023. He applied for permanent residency this year, but was detained earlier this month and thrown into a small cell with eight other men.

The cell, located in the federal courthouse in Central Islip, New York, had an open toilet and was only “designed to briefly detain a single individual,” Brown wrote, noting that Clarke was held in the crowded cell long beyond ICE’s own internal standards allow. Brown ruled on December 11 that Clarke’s detention violated due process and ordered him released.

Clarke’s ordeal exposed something bigger in Brown’s eyes, particularly “ICE’s horrendous detention practices.”

“This case implicates something more,” Brown said. “There is evidence that the conditions of the detention are substandard, abhorrent and likely unlawful.”

But when Brown asked ICE and DHS for a timeline of Clarke’s location during his detention, and for photos of his holding cell, the government gave “evasive and demonstrably false” information on Clarke’s whereabouts and refused to hand over photographs. The timeline Brown received, for example, claimed that the government moved Clarke between facilities in eight minutes, despite them being separated by about a 35-minute drive.

“These misstatements of fact serve to undermine the information presented and the reliability of the records maintained by ICE,” Brown wrote in his ruling, giving the government until December 30 to argue against being held in contempt.

It’s telling that the White House is going so far in its extreme, and probably unlawful, immigration enforcement that even a judge Trump chose is ruling against the administration. The story of DHS, ICE, Border Patrol, and other federal agencies in Trump’s second term is that of moral bankruptcy, violating laws and basic human rights to enact a racist immigration policy.

The political party that has historically pitched itself as a proponent of “states’ rights” is now advocating for a mass federal seizure of state land.

Speaking with Newsmax on Friday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested that the next course of action to curb immigration across the southern U.S. border should involve transferring “strips” of California to the federal government.

“We have an opportunity to take a strip of land right along the border, transfer it to the military for a three-year period. Which then, if someone crosses into our country and steps on that, they’re stepping on a military installation,” Burgum said. “That gives our troops that are down there working to secure that border more authorities about detaining people. If they step on that land, it helps to improve the security.”

It’s an escalation of a plan that the White House enacted earlier this year, when it took a  60-foot-wide strip of federal land across three states and turned the entire region into a “military installation.” Doing so effectively allowed Donald Trump to sidestep the Posse Comitatus Act, circumventing Congress to wield the military for border control.

The military base designation was supposed to expand the troops’ authority, granting them the ability to “temporarily detain trespassers” and to “conduct cursory searches of trespassers … to ensure the safety of U.S. service members and Department of Defense (DoD) property.”

But even that effort was unsuccessful. In May, a federal judge dismissed charges against nearly 100 immigrants that the administration claimed had entered the “national defense” zone, determining that the government had failed to prove the immigrants were aware they were entering a restricted military area.

Seizing land in California could prove to be an even bigger catastrophe. In the same interview, Burgum—the former governor of North Dakota—suggested that the best location to usurp state land would be “near the Pacific,” on the basis that the region is “an area of high traffic.”

Not even Fox Business can pretend like President Donald Trump isn’t wrecking the economy.

Fox Business anchors Lauren Simonetti and Stuart Varney reported Friday that a University of Michigan survey found that an index of consumer sentiment had sunk even further since mid-December.

There had been a “surprise drop” in consumer sentiment to 52.9 percent confidence in the economy, Simonetti said. That’s down from 53.3 percent just slightly earlier this month, CNBC reported separately.

“Consumers are just worried about the price of things and long-run inflation expectations as well,” Simonetti added.

“But with rather these dull numbers, the market seems to like it. Perhaps implying that we’ll get more Fed rate cuts,” Varney noted.

“The weakness, I think, is attractive. Bad news is actually good news for the market, maybe.”

While it may be good for the market in the short term, consumer confidence is an accurate means of understanding the current economic situation and consumers’ willingness to spend, borrow, or invest. It can take several months before low consumer confidence is fully realized.

In December 2024, before Trump ever imposed his slate of disastrous economic policies, such as tariff wars and mass deportations, Michigan’s consumer sentiment index had been 74 percent, indicating a nearly 30 percent plummet year over year.

And it gets worse.

The survey’s rating of the “current economic conditions” was only 50.4 percent, down from 51.1 in November. CNBC reported that this was “a new all-time low” for the study going all the way back to the 1970s. In December, the rating had been 75.1, showing a nearly 33 percent drop year over year.

A livestream of a bearded man who goes by “Real Matt Money” inexplicably took over the White House home page on Thursday night, leading the public to ask if the page had been hacked or if the Trump administration was getting financial advice from a self-described “shepherd for individual investors.”

As Bloomberg reported, the livestream appeared and disappeared on the White House website in about an hour.

Real Money Matt seemed to be just as surprised as the rest of us.

“If I had known I would be live for the WORLD to see, I likely would have had a different message than personal finance,” he wrote Friday on X. “Let me meet the @POTUS.”

While Matt took it in stride, the randomness of his live appearance on the White House website does lend itself to questions regarding just how serious the Trump administration is about security, especially since it brought us the Signalgate scandal just one month in.

The White House has yet to publicly comment.

The more details that emerge about Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, the clearer it is that the two shared a wildly unconventional—and creepy—relationship.

Hours after The New York Times reported Thursday that Epstein and Trump bonded over “trophy hunting,” investigative reporter Nicholas Confessore told MS NOW that Epstein frequently allowed his friends and associates to listen in on private phone calls where he and Trump shared details of their “sexual conquests.”

“So we spoke to several former assistants and employees of Jeffrey Epstein’s,” Confessore said. “And he had a habit of putting Donald Trump and other famous friends on the phone. It was partly a power play and partly a way that he groomed people. ‘See how powerful I am. I can put this person on the phone. I can get them on the phone, I can put them on speaker. We’re friends. That’s how powerful I am.’

“It was a way that he groomed people and he would put Donald Trump on the phone. They would talk about sex,” he added.

Trump has vehemently denied this year that he had any sort of meaningful connection to the deceased child sex trafficker, but that wasn’t always the case. Over the last couple of decades, Trump has switched his tune on Epstein several times. In 2002, Trump told New York magazine that Epstein was a “terrific guy.” He wrote a repugnant and allusory letter to Epstein for the sex trafficker’s 50th birthday. They were spotted socializing together, with young women many times, and even ended up living in the same Florida neighborhood.

But since ascending to the forefront of American power, Trump has claimed that he had “no relationship” with Epstein, pitching—despite troves of evidence to the contrary—that he was “not a fan of his.”

People around the pair of socialites, however, were under the impression that Epstein and Trump were each other’s closest friends, and Epstein reportedly believed it too.

“I think that Jeffrey Epstein thought he was Donald Trump’s closest friend for a period,” Confessore said. “They spent a lot of time talking on the phone about women and sexual conquests. They spent time at Trump Tower or over at Jeffrey Epstein’s offices nearby on Madison Avenue. They flew on each other’s planes, and they partied together a lot. And a lot of parties with women, people who are younger than they are.”

The phone calls were an instance of Epstein using Trump, wielding the real estate magnate’s name to advance his own social standing and access, according to Confessore.

Trump has not been charged with any crimes related to Epstein or his longtime associate and sex-trafficking partner, Ghislaine Maxwell.

But the country is on the precipice of knowing just about everything there is to know about the pair’s scandalous relationship. The administration is preparing to release the totality of the Epstein files Friday, as required by a law passed by Congress last month.

So far, the administration has already attempted to waylay public expectations that the files will be exposed to the full breadth of the document load, with FBI Director Kash Patel claiming that his agency is doing everything it can to release the portions of the files that are “lawful,” despite the fact that Congress mandated their entire release.

A Wisconsin judge has been convicted of obstructing federal government proceedings by allowing an immigrant man to exit her courtroom through a side door.

Judge Hannah Dugan was acquitted Thursday night of a lesser charge of obstructing an arrest, but she still faces up to five years in prison. Having now been convicted of a felony, she is likely ineligible to continue serving from the bench. The judge’s lawyers have vowed to appeal the ruling.  

Witnesses testified that Dugan sent away several plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who came to the Milwaukee County Courthouse to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. She then told Flores-Ruiz’s lawyer that she would reschedule his hearing and directed them to exit her courtroom through a door typically used by the jury. 

In an audio recording played in court, Dugan could be heard conferring with the court reporter. “I’ll do it,” she said. “I’ll get the heat.”

Flores-Ruiz then used a public courthouse hallway, walked past a couple of DEA agents, got into an elevator, and exited the building before ICE officers could stop him.

Dugan’s lawyers had cited Trump v. United States in arguing that their client had judicial immunity for official acts and broad authority over her own courtroom. 

The ruling is a victory for President Donald Trump’s Justice Department, which seeks to paint judges who don’t greenlight his immigration crackdown as “deranged” rogue actors.

Protests and event messages about ICE could now be grounds for domestic terrorism investigations by the FBI.

The Guardian reports that the bureau has launched cases in 23 regions across the U.S. related to “threats against immigration enforcement activity.” The investigations fit into the new NSPM-7 national security strategy targeting supposed anti-American activity on the left. That document referred to protests against ICE in Los Angeles and Portland as examples of “political violence.”

The investigations were laid out in an internal report drafted by the FBI in November and shared with other law enforcement agencies. The report mentions that using encrypted messaging apps to discuss ICE was considered an indicator of whether a person would engage in terrorism, as well as “stockpiling or distributing firearms” but also “conducting online research” about agents.

The document has alarmed privacy advocates and civil rights groups, who said that it confirmed their fears that the NSPM-7 document would be used to crack down on dissent. In over 30 states, the FBI has opened cases related to anti-ICE activity or NSPM-7, a map in the document shows.

“[The FBI document] is infused with vague and overbroad language, which was exactly our concern about NSPM-7 in the first place. It invites law enforcement suspicion and investigation based on purely first amendment-protected beliefs and activities,” Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, told The Guardian. “People who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing can be subjected to surveillance or investigation. That imposes stigma. It can wrongly [enmesh] people in the criminal legal system.”

Coupled with its declaration that antifa, or anti-fascism, is a terrorist organization, these actions by the Trump administration seek to clamp down on any protests or dissent against its policies. It’s not far-fetched to imagine federal law enforcement cracking down on President Trump’s political opposition, using these documents to justify its actions, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

Right-wing commentators Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson used their speeches at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest to take shots at each other, only further emphasizing the right’s growing divide on Israel, conspiracy theories, and Jeffrey Epstein.

In his speech Thursday, Shapiro called out Carlson, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, and Steve Bannon for being “frauds and grifters.”

“The conservative movement is in serious danger,” he said, claiming it was rife with “charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.”

“When Steve Bannon, for example, accuses his foreign policy opponents of loyalty to a foreign country, he’s not actually making an argument based in evidence,” Shapiro continued. “He’s simply maligning people that he disagrees with. Which is indeed par for the course, for a man who was once a PR flack for Jeffrey Epstein.”

The TPUSA crowd reacted with an “oooh.”

This attack on Bannon—the right-wing provocateur instrumental in getting Trump elected to his first term—elicited mixed reactions.

“Shapiro constantly defames Jews who hold liberal politics or who oppose Israel’s policies as not really Jewish,” Zaid Jilani wrote. “Good for the goose good for the gander.”

“Shapiro is slamming Bannon for his ties to Epstein, but is SILENT about Trump having ties to Epstein. The irony …” wrote another.

Shapiro moved on to attacking Tucker for his platforming of Candace Owens—who has pushed the theory that Charlie Kirk was murdered for his rejection of Israel and AIPAC—and Nick Fuentes, who is a Nazi.

“The people who refused to condemn Candace’s truly vicious attacks—and some of them are speaking here tonight—are guilty of cowardice,” Shapiro said, obviously referring to Carlson. “If you host a Hitler apologist, Nazi-loving, anti-American piece of refuse like Nick Fuentes … you ought to own it.”

Carlson was apparently laughing backstage during this.

“That guy is pompous,” he said, according to Politico. “Calls to deplatform at a Charlie Kirk event? That’s hilarious.”

Carlson addressed the crowd afterward, attacking the rampant Islamaphobia present in Shapiro’s pro-Israel wing of the movement. (Carlson has recently been accused of being anti-American for his ties to Qatar, his criticism of Israel, and his acknowledgment of its genocide in Palestine. He has also faced criticism for his platforming of neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes.)

“Most Americans have more in common with each other than they disagree on … and almost everyone is willing to tolerate a good-faith argument about how to get there,” he said. “Except a few. And they’re the ones running around calling everyone an antisemite.”

“Attacking millions of Americans because they’re Muslims? It’s disgusting. And I’m a Christian!” he continued. “I’m not a Muslim, I know there’s a lot of effort to claim I’m a secret jihadi, I’m not.… What the hell are you doing? What you’re doing is trying to divide the country. All these fake race wars that they’re always promoting?”

Regardless of where you fall on this rift, it’s clear that there is no unified MAGA front right now, at least at the punditry level. People like Carlson are tired of Trump governing as a neocon while campaigning as a populist, continuing to fund endless wars for Israel, trying to do regime change in Venezuela, and spewing racism. Those like Shapiro have a more traditional view of the situation. Only time will tell whose voice is the loudest by 2028.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem thinks that the diversity immigrant visa program, commonly known as the green card lottery, was responsible for the Brown University shooting and is pausing the program.

Noem announced on X Thursday night, “At President Trump’s direction, I am immediately directing USCIS to pause the DV1 program to ensure no more Americans are harmed by this disastrous program.”

The suspect of the Brown University and MIT shootings was identified Thursday as Claudio Manuel Neves Valente. According to Noem, Valente, 48, was a Portuguese national and former Brown University student who entered the country through the program in 2017. He was found dead Thursday at a storage facility in New Hampshire, apparently having committed suicide.

Targeting the entire visa program because of one crime is excessive, but fits into a Trump administration pattern of finding pretexts for drastic immigration restrictions. Much of it is based on racism, and comes from executive actions seeking to circumvent laws passed by Congress. Afghan immigrants, for example, are facing increased difficulty because of the shooting of two National Guard members last month.

It seems the Trump administration is going to make the Brown University shooting all about immigration instead of focusing on the crime itself, showing that xenophobia is paramount in its concerns.

The White House has finally been called out for fabricating its pharmaceutical savings—and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick did not handle it well.

For months, Donald Trump has seemingly grabbed numbers out of thin air to impress an ignorant public—or his sycophantic followers—on his allegedly great pharmaceutical deals, boasting that he has “cut drug prices by 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500 percent.”

The lie continued on Wednesday night, when Trump said during his national address he had negotiated to cut drug prices by “400, 500, and even 600 percent.”

But Fox News host John Roberts saw through the numerical gibberish, excoriating Lutnick during an interview Thursday and stressing that the math was simply “not possible.”

“Well, if you cut something by 100 percent the cost goes down to zero,” Roberts said. “If you cut it by 4-, 5-, 600 percent, the drug companies are actually paying you to take their product.

“So tell me, how much of last night’s speech was hyperbole and how much was fact?” the host asked.

But Lutnick’s reply didn’t make much sense, either.

“No, what he’s saying is—bringing—if a drug was $100 and you bring the drug down to $13, right? If you’re looking at it from $13, it’s down seven times,” Lutnick said.

“No, it’s not—” Roberts interjected.

“Well, but it’s 700 percent higher price before. It’s down 700 percent now. So, $13 would have to go up 700 percent to get back to the old one. You could say, it’s down 87 percent, or you could say it would have to go up 700 percent to be the same one. So it just depends on the way you look at it,” Lutnick said, before insisting that the American public “all know what he’s saying.”

“We are hammering the price of drugs down,” Lutnick emphasized.

But the president has not tangibly lowered drug costs. In May, Trump penned an executive order that set a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to negotiate lower prices. If there was no deal, the U.S. would tie its drug prices to the costs set by other countries. But despite that threat, there hasn’t been any noticeable movement in either direction.

In November, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that it had negotiated new prices for 15 expensive drugs covered by Medicare’s prescription drug program, Part D. The negotiations were conducted in the second round of Medicare’s Drug Price Negotiation Program, which was enacted by the previous administration under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Still, the cost of those drugs—which include Ozempic and Wegovy—isn’t expected to decrease until 2027.

Instead, evidence exists that drug prices have actually gone up for some 700 medications during Trump’s second term, according to a September report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Trump has previously posited that the affordable price tags on pharmaceuticals in other countries was due to American federal subsidies, which he claimed were financially offsetting their prices. But that’s not reality: The U.S. pays more for drugs because it’s an outlier among high-income, first-world countries, which predominantly support universal public health coverage.

Potential solutions that researchers argue could meaningfully address high drug prices in the U.S. include restricting pharmaceutical monopolies within the country, reworking insurance benefits to hamper out-of-pocket expenses, and recentralizing price negotiations through the leverage of a single-payer system (such as Australia, Germany, the U.K., or any number of other wealthy nations), according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a private American foundation focused on health care reform.