Border Patrol Chief Praised Agent Who Shot Unarmed Woman Five Times

Gregory Bovino praised the agent who shot Chicago resident and U.S. citizen Marimar Martinez five times in an October email newly released by federal prosecutors Tuesday.

Bovino, who was leading Border Patrol at the time, wrote, “In light of your excellent service in Chicago, you have much yet left to do!!” to Charles Exum, who shot Martinez, and other federal agents in the city.

The government had assembled text messages from Exum as part of evidence in an attempt to prosecute Martinez, a U.S. citizen and teacher’s assistant. Exum had screenshot the email and sent it in a text to a family member. Prosecutors ended up dropping their case against Martinez after her attorneys raised questions about the mishandling of evidence.

On the day of the shooting, Exum texted his fellow agents that “she was trying to run me over.” Other text messages from Exum’s phone show praise from his fellow agents, with one of them calling him “a legend among agents.”

Exum also claimed in his text messages that Bovino passed along congratulations from high-ranking members of the executive branch. A member of a group text asked Exum, “Are they supportive?”

Exum replied, “Big time. Everyone has been including Chief Bovino, Chief Banks, Sec Noem and El Jefe himself … according to Bovino.”

That would seem to indicate that President Trump supported an agent who bragged, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys,” after shooting a U.S. citizen. Bovino has already lost his job due to his conduct in Minneapolis following his supervision of violence in Chicago. Will any other federal agents—and the people in the White House who gave them such extraordinary power—face any consequences?

At the eleventh hour, a trio of Republicans decided the president’s tariff program is worth questioning.

Representatives Thomas Massie, Kevin Kiley, and Don Bacon voted alongside Democrats late Tuesday, rejecting a rule that would have blocked future efforts by Congress to challenge economic tariffs enacted by the White House. The final vote was 217–214.

Their sudden position change came hours after Donald Trump casually admitted—or perhaps boasted—to Fox News that his global levies were motivated by power and retribution.

“You know, I had an incident with a very nice country, Switzerland,” Trump said. “They were paying no tariffs when sending stuff over here like nobody could believe, and we had a $42 billion deficit and we weren’t taking anything.”

“So I put on a 30 percent tariff, which is very low. Still we were having a big deficit, but it was after,” he continued.

Trump then said he received an “emergency” phone call with Swiss leader Karin Keller-Sutter, a member of the country’s seven-member Federal Council and chief of the country’s Department of Finance. Trump, however, mistakenly referred to her as the country’s prime minister.

“She was very aggressive but nice, but very aggressive. She said, ‘Sir, we are a small country. We can’t do this. We can’t do this.’ I couldn’t get her off the phone,” Trump told Fox. “I said, ‘You may be a small country, but we have a $42 billion deficit with you.’”

“And I didn’t really like the way she talked to us and so instead of giving her a reduction, I raised it to 39 percent,” Trump said.

“But I realized: You know Switzerland, you think of it as ultra-chic, ultra-perfect. They’re not. They are only that because we allow them to rip us off and make all this money,” he added.

The tiny Republican coalition’s revolt signals that the House is not so willing to hand over the country’s purse strings to the executive branch, even if 214 conservative lawmakers voted in favor of doing so.

The opening gives Democrats the opportunity to challenge and officially disapprove of Trump’s economic agenda. That includes the chance to force a vote “as soon as this week” on a resolution that would object to his 25 percent levy on Canadian products.

Bacon, one of the three conservatives to side with Democrats on the issue, in part seemed motivated by Trump’s recent dealings with America’s northern neighbor.

“We have a trade agreement with them, and I don’t like how the White House has treated our neighbor and ally,” Bacon told Politico Monday.

Donald Trump’s outrageous threat to close a new bridge between Michigan and Canada appears to have been at the behest of a billionaire who operates another bridge between the two countries.

Just hours before Trump published a scattered tirade Monday night against the new Gordie Howe International Bridge, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick met with Matthew Moroun, whose family operates the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, two officials told The New York Times Tuesday.

Moroun’s family has spent years mounting legal challenges against the new six-lane bridge, which threatens to dilute trade across the Ambassador Bridge. After the meeting, Lutnick called Trump and the two discussed the matter, officials told the Times.

Shortly after their call, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would block the Gordie Howe opening unless Canada “fully compensated” America “for everything” and gives him what he wants: “at least half” ownership of the bridge.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was forced to clarify that Michigan already has an ownership stake in the bridge, and that—despite Trump claiming otherwise—the construction was made with U.S. steel and labor.

Speaking at a White House press briefing Tuesday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that the sudden opposition to the bridge was “just another example of President Trump putting America’s interests first.”

Rather, it’s just another example of Trump apparently taking orders from billionaires. Since 2019, Moroun has donated more than $605,000 to Trump and the Republican Party.

House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia swiftly launched an investigation into Lutnick’s conspicuous act of crony capitalism.

In a letter addressed to Lutnick Wednesday, Garcia wrote: “It is flatly unacceptable and undeniably corrupt to allow a wealthy donor to dictate our foreign and economic policy in order to protect his personal business interests, and the public deserves to know if you or President Trump stand to receive additional benefits from Mr. Moroun in exchange for your sudden interference.”

“Your interference could increase traffic congestion, reduce economic opportunity, and damage trade between the United States and Canada,” Garcia wrote. “As such, I request information regarding any communications and undue influence the Moroun family may have had with the Trump Administration.”

This story has been updated.

The Department of Justice tried and failed to indict Democrats in Congress who made a video urging troops not to obey illegal orders. Now the legislators are triumphant, but also furious. 

A federal grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict the members of Congress in the video: Representative Jason Crow, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Maggie Goodlander, Senator Elissa Slotkin, Representative Chris Deluzio, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan. It’s not clear if all the lawmakers or only some of them were referred to the grand jury, but they’re all pissed.

“Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Slotkin said in a post on X Tuesday.  

Kelly, a former Navy captain who has also been targeted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, called the attempted indictment an “outrageous abuse of power.”  

“It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like. That’s not the way things work in America,” the Arizona senator said in a statement. 

On X, Deluzio said, “I will not be intimidated for a single second by the Trump Administration or Justice Department lawyers who tried and failed to indict me today.” 

Crow said that Americans “should be appalled by the fact that Donald Trump and his goons at Department of Justice and everywhere else are weaponizing their justice system just to try to silence dissent and to crush political opponents.” 

“Not only should Americans be angry at that—they have chosen the wrong people. If these fuckers think that they’re going to intimidate us and threaten and bully me into silence, and they’re going to go after political opponents and get us to back down, they have another thing coming,” Crow said, adding that the “tide is turning” with Americans “rising up against the corruption and the rank abuse of this administration.” 

In a statement on X, Houlahan said, “This is good news for the Constitution and the free speech protections it guarantees. The grand jury upheld the rule of law—this is a win for all Americans.” 

Goodlander vowed in a statement that “no matter the threats, I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.” 

President Trump had accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by death” simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. Now it seems that he and the DOJ wanted to prosecute them as some kind of petty attempt to prevent criticism of his administration’s disregard for the law. While it failed this time, how much further will Trump go in breaking the law and punishing those who point it out? 

The Federal Aviation Administration will now reopen the El Paso Texas Airport and surrounding airspace, after initially planning to close it for 10 days, a bizarre reversal of an even more bizarre move that would have a massive negative impact on the communities and businesses in the region.

“The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso has been lifted,” the FAA wrote on X Wednesday morning. “There is no threat to commercial aviation. All flights will resume as normal.”

But the FAA had just said late Tuesday that the flight restrictions were being imposed for “special security reasons.”

A Trump administration official told NBC News on Wednesday that the planned 10-day closure was actually because Mexican cartel drones had entered U.S. airspace, but they have since been disabled.

There has been no additional explanation for the decision—or the sudden reversal—but there were multiple theories about why Trump’s FAA would halt all aviation activity above this southern border town of 700,000.

Other possibilities that were floated included a planned military action or exercise, a credible security threat, or a very sensitive package or person that needed to be transported.

“Important context: the El Paso TFR is not like the 9/11 nationwide airspace shutdown. DC & NY restrictions were created later,” CNN’s Pete Muntean said. “A ban on all flights over a U.S. city—including medevac and police helicopters—has no modern precedent.”

What could have merited shutting down a major airport—and a hub of U.S.-Mexico trade—for 10 whole days?

“The highly consequential decision by FAA to shut down the El Paso Airport for 10 days is unprecedented and has resulted in significant concern within the community,” said Representative Veronica Escobar, who represents the El Paso region. “From what my office and I have been able to gather overnight and early this morning there is no immediate threat to the community or surrounding areas.”

This story has been updated.