Kash Patel Failed to Disclose He Bought Stock in DOJ Contractor

FBI Director Kash Patel failed to properly disclose a six-figure stock purchase in a company that’s been contracted by the Justice Department, NOTUS reported Wednesday.

Federal financial records first reviewed by NOTUS showed that on November 21, Patel  purchased between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of stock in MicroStrategy, a “bitcoin treasury company” that has done millions of dollars in business with the DOJ over the past decade.

Patel failed to disclose the purchase within 45 days of the trade, in violation of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, also known as the STOCK Act.

In a letter to the Office of Government Ethics on May 26, Patel said the purchase had been “inadvertently omitted” from his financial disclosure. Two days later, in a letter to the Office of Government Ethics, Deputy Assistant Attorney General William Taylor said the purchase had been omitted due to a miscommunication. “I continue to believe that Director Patel is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest,” he wrote.

An FBI official told NOTUS that Patel’s late reporting was “not realized and unintentional.” However, Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, acting vice president of the Project on Government Oversight, told the outlet that Patel’s stock purchase disclosure is “absolutely” late under the letter of the STOCK Act.

“That’s violating the law—no other way to put it,” Hedtler-Gaudette said.

Patel has yet to face the customary $200 fine for his breach of conduct—and he probably won’t.

Centrist House Democrats are alarmed after realizing that democratic socialists can beat them in primaries outside of New York City.

On Tuesday, 29-year-old democratic socialist, lawyer, and Ethiopian immigrant Melat Kiros defeated 15-term incumbent Colorado Representative Dianna DeGette in a high-turnout election by an impressive ten-point margin, according to early results.

DeGette is a longtime member of the Democratic establishment and was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. But even with her progressive status, her support from dark money corporate super PACs and pro-Israel PACs, as well as her staunch support for Israel, made her particularly vulnerable to an attack from a candidate like Kiros—who was fired from her job over a social media post criticizing law firms’ support for Israel. Yet establishment Democrats still seem to be stunned by DeGette’s loss.

“One more case in the growing dynamic of performative politics,” an anonymous House Democrat told Axios. “Diana was an excellent representative with seniority—but the style of someone younger and more outspoken has become more attractive to that cohort of motivated urban left voters.”

Another senior House Democrat called it a “wake-up call.”

“I told everyone that would listen in 2024, that Trump winning was like manna from heaven to DSA,” another told the publication. “That DSA is … winning some safe seat primaries with these young white college-educated voters is just no shock. It’s literally their entire playbook.”

But Kiros’s supporters point to the will of the voters, not a greater playbook.

“If DeGette didn’t deserve a primary, Denverites wouldn’t have elected Melat by 10 points,” Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi told Axios. “All this outrage proves is the Democratic establishment’s contempt for their own voters.… It’s time for the party to catch up to its own base who are no longer interested in politicians who call themselves progressive but are bankrolled by corporate lobbies and AIPAC while voting to fund genocide and ICE.”

Kiros’s victory comes on the heels of a clean sweep of Democratic Socialists of America victories in New York City, as Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated Representative Adriano Espaillat and Assemblymember Claire Valdez became the Democratic nominee in the 7th congressional district.

“Denver voters of all ages, of all races, of all religions, sends a clear message: We will not wait,” Kiros said in her victory speech Tuesday night. “We will not wait to take the fight to Donald Trump and the oligarchy. We will not wait. We will not wait to abolish ICE and Medicare for all. We will not wait to put an end to the politics of the past, to get big money out of our politics, and to reject corporate packs at AIPAC. And no, we will not wait to end the genocide in Palestine. We believe that fundamental change can and will happen if we fight for it.”

The multimillion-dollar renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was done with highly toxic materials.

The contractor that the Trump administration hired used products by the popular truck bed coating company Rhino Linings, according to the company’s website. But a closer examination of the materials used indicates that they could cause serious harm to the local wildlife that frequent the 6.5-million gallon basin.

A barrel of “RHINO 405 A Thixotropic High Viscosity Epoxy Resin” was spotted by the pool during the restoration process. According to an OSHA data sheet, the chemical is “toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.” It’s also a strong irritant capable of causing allergic reactions.

It’s only been a couple of weeks since the administration finished its renovation and refilled the pool, but already visitors have noticed and documented areas of the pool lining that are peeling and sloughing off.

Several dead ducks have also been spotted in and around the pool, adding to the massive brouhaha.

Records indicate that the Trump administration spent at least $14.7 million renovating the Reflecting Pool—a project that was, apparently, all for naught. (As well as a far cry from the president’s original promise of a $1.8 million price tag.) The money was spent in an apparently futile effort to rid the premises of a relentless algal bloom. That, too, has already returned to the pool, mere weeks after the monument’s reopening.

Fixing the Reflecting Pool is a headache that’s plagued pretty much every administration since its construction in 1923, because what makes the Reflecting Pool beautiful is exactly what makes it so difficult to maintain. The pool’s expansive length is possible due to the use of multiple large concrete slabs as its bottom. But those slabs are also prone to serious, structural leaks, which require the White House to replace roughly 16 million gallons of water each year. And the pool’s shallow depth—which creates its mirror-like appearance—also detracts from the pool’s health by creating a breeding ground for algae blooms that turn the water green.

President Donald Trump raked in more than $86 million last year from suing media companies.

Trump’s annual financial disclosure revealed just how lucrative the president’s pastime of lobbing lawsuits at media companies has become. In 2025, the president made a total of $86.5 million off of settlements from his lawsuits against media companies. 

His most profitable lawsuits were his First Amendment challenges against media companies that had removed him from their platforms in the wake of the January 6 riot. Trump raked in a whopping $24.5 million as part of a settlement with Meta, $22 million off a settlement with YouTube, and $8 million from a settlement with Twitter.  

Trump also also managed to turn silencing the press into a moneymaking scheme. He made $16 million from his settlement with CBS in a lawsuit over the editing of Kamala Harris’s interview on 60 Minutes in 2024. The settlement was supposedly made to ease Paramount’s sale to Skydance Media—a deal that needed approval from the president. (Months later, CBS chopped up an interview with Trump to make him sound normal.) 

Trump made another $16 million from a settlement with ABC News over a defamation lawsuit spurred by George Stephanopoulos’s use of the phrase “liable for rape” while discussing Trump’s E. Jean Carroll case. The jury in that case found Trump liable for sexual abuse, not rape. The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s plea to review the Carroll case Monday. 

MAGA world is practically apoplectic over the Supreme Court’s birthright ruling.

Speaking with Fox News late Tuesday, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller suggested that the nation’s highest court had decided to “suicide” the country by upholding the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Here’s a pretty good clue your constitutional interpretation is wrong: If your ruling requires you to suicide your civilization, your reading of the Constitution is wrong,” the Project 2025 adviser said, apparently attempting to school the nation’s highest judiciary on constitutional law.

“President [Ulysses S.] Grant … in the nineteenth century, did not want to create an automatic third-world citizenship requirement for America,” Miller argued. But that’s not exactly true.

Grant played a major role in the codification of the Fourteenth Amendment, fiercely advocating that the burgeoning concept of birthright citizenship should be granted to Native Americans, immigrants, and the millions of men, women, and children that had been recently freed from slavery.

Even then, the idea was controversial and fiercely debated. Opponents to birthright citizenship included former Confederate states, white former slave owners, and racist terrorist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan.

But the idea was popular enough that Grant won the presidency in 1868, the same year that the amendment was ratified.

Nonetheless, in Miller’s worldview, the 158-year-old legislation is “an abomination.”

“But let’s thank President Trump, because of President Trump’s courage and leadership, we are now on the precipice—yes, we were dealt a setback—but because of his courage alone, we are on the precipice as a nation of being in the position of ending this travesty once and for all,” Miller said.

Trump himself downplayed the Supreme Court decision, claiming that he and his allies could avoid the lengthy constitutional amendment process and “easily make it up in Congress through Legislation,” even though doing so would run afoul of the law.

The U.S. is not unique in granting birthright citizenship: 32 countries around the world offer unconditional, automatic citizenship to people born within their territory, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. Pretty much the entire western hemisphere permits it. Another 50 countries offer something similar. Nor was the U.S. the first to conceive of birthright citizenship: The concept originated in the United Kingdom in 1608 during a debate over whether or not a child owed allegiance to the English crown.