ICE Agent Charged With Intentionally Hitting Someone With His Car

A Texas grand jury indicted an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Friday for intentionally running a man over with his vehicle earlier this month.

Officer Mario Alberto Morales is facing a charge of assault with a deadly weapon after running over Miguel Parra Hernandez, who was on foot, with a black unmarked SUV. Hernandez broke his leg and also injured his hip and ankle, according to his family. He is currently undergoing rehab in ICE custody, and Morales was placed on administrative leave.

Hernandez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was driving to his construction job when immigration agents tried to pull him over. Hernandez and another passenger fled from the vehicle. According to street camera and body cam footage, Morales then turned his vehicle and accelerated over Hernandez. Hernandez can be heard screaming “You ran over me,” while Morales replies, “You got hit with the car, bro.” ICE backed Morales’s version of events, saying in an official statement that Hernandez “ran in front of an ICE vehicle and was struck.”

ICE still maintains that story, saying that Morales’s indictment “is nothing more than a political stunt by Houston sanctuary politicians.” It also argues that the local government doesn’t have jurisdiction to try and investigate Morales in the first place, a claim Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare says is “false.”

“An ICE badge does not give you free rein to injure, kill, or violate the constitutional rights of anyone,” Teare said.

Morales is only the second ICE officer to face any legal consequences for their actions since the beginning of President Trump’s immigration crackdown. ICE officer Christian Castro was charged with four counts of assault for shooting Venezuelan immigrant Julio Sosa-Celis in Minnesota in January.

With just days until the midterm elections, moderate Democrats are still finding ways to undermine Michigan’s Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi criticized El-Sayed on a recent episode of the On Brand podcast. Host Donny Deutsch claimed El-Sayed had made “concerning” comments opposing the existence of a Jewish state. “That’s antisemitic as far as I’m concerned,” he said.

“No, it’s more than concerning. It’s wrong,” Pelosi said. “It’s wrong, and it isn’t a reflection of the Democrats in the Congress of the United States. This new person in Michigan, we’ll see if he gets elected to the Congress.”

Since launching his campaign, El-Sayed, who is Muslim, has been bombarded by baseless claims of antisemitism. The Democrat has stated that he opposes any state’s right to be organized around an ethnic or religious group, and has been clear that his issue is with the Israeli government, not Jewish people. “An ally that takes your money to push you into wars you shouldn’t be fighting is not an ally,” he said during one interview on ABC News.

But Pelosi appeared more interested in defending Israel than a Democrat on the eve of an important election. (Her spokesperson said Friday that she was urging people to support El-Sayed.)

Representative Haley Stevens, whom El-Sayed defeated in the Democratic primary, also took an eleventh-hour shot at her party’s only hope to keep control of the state’s Senate seat. Stevens issued a statement Friday suggesting that her support for El-Sayed was contingent on whether he condemned a political advertisement that was not even produced by his campaign.

The video was made by Rebellion PAC, a left-wing fundraising group led by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks—who Stevens wants everyone to know is also “Hasan Piker’s uncle.” The video, which originally aired in February 2024, blamed the rising price of groceries on America’s continued support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“Why does Mike Rogers care so much about what Israelis want, and so little about what you want?” the ad asks, claiming that pro-Israel PACs had poured $228,808 into Rogers’s campaign.

Stevens said she had agreed to appear at an event with El-Sayed and Representative Jim Clyburn, expecting that El-Sayed would formally condemn the ad. “A disclaimer is not condemnation, and everyone in my community knows the difference,” Stevens said in the statement.

But that wasn’t all she was expecting. Stevens called for El-Sayed to apologize for his own statements tying Israel to Michiganders’ affordability crisis, though it wasn’t immediately clear that he actually had made any such claims. She also asked him to take down another campaign advertisement that included a clip of Tucker Carlson, among a montage of right-wing media figures.

Again, with Stevens, we see Democrats placing continued support for Israel before the success of their own party and their own constituents. Is it any wonder that Stevens lost?

A federal judge on Friday announced the appointment of a special master to investigate whether Trump officials repeatedly lied to her about the president’s attempted takeover of the East Potomac Park golf course in Washington, D.C. The investigation will begin in a matter of days.

In court Friday, a Justice Department lawyer tried to play dumb about what’s going on in the park, what Trump has publicly said about the park, and how the administration has flouted court orders. When U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes asked the lawyer if he “made any false statements of material fact that you’d like to correct,” the attorney said “not to my knowledge,” drawing Reyes’s ire.

The lawyer claimed that he was new to the case, saying, “We have lots of binders.” Reyes tried to remedy the situation by calling an Interior Department official and asking them the same question, only to get the same answer: “Not to my knowledge.” When Reyes asked if the official’s boss, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, was involved in the park project, the official asked, “What do you mean by ‘involved?’” This prompted Reyes to pull out a dictionary to read the definition of “involved.”

The official then said that Burgum was aware of the renovation project, but wasn’t involved, to which Reyes noted that he toured the golf course. “He doesn’t have a body double, does he?” Reyes quipped.

After Reyes asked when the Department of Interior became aware of plans to close the park on November 15, the official seemed ignorant, prompting Reyes to ask if she needed to look up “plan” in the dictionary.

Reyes noted that Trump wrote on Truth Social October 18 that the park was closing on November 15, and that the DOJ “swore up and down” the next day that park wasn’t closing then, only to later change its story and confirm the November 15 closure date. At that point, assistant Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the number three person at the DOJ, intervened and tried to halt the questioning of the Interior Department official.

“It sounds like you don’t want him to answer a very straightforward question,” Reyes said, before allowing the official to step away. Woodward then started answering Reyes’s questions, saying that the closure plan was “noticed” on October 28. He tried to claim that Trump’s post said the park “should” be closed, only for Reyes to correct him and point out that Trump wrote “will be” closed.

The hearing didn’t get any better from there, as Woodward attempted to explain away Trump’s posts by claiming there were no plans to close the golf course, questioning whether those words constitute “plans” or “orders.” Woodward went as far as to try to claim “executive privilege” over Trump’s social media posts, frustrating Reyes, who said, “That’s quite an extraordinary view of executive privilege.”

The entire hearing continued on in this absurdity, with the DOJ letting slip that a new seawall at the park would cost between $150 million and a whopping $400 million. Trump administration lawyers became noticeably cagey about questions regarding the renovation’s costs after that.

Trump is insisting on this project despite court orders and the law, and openly admits he’s ignoring Reyes’s rulings. Friday’s drama in court is an indication that Trump’s lawyers can’t come up with believable justifications for his haphazard decisions.

Trump Media & Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, expects to be paid $350,000 for running ads about America’s 250th birthday celebrations.

The 250th celebrations, a series of very disappointing events over the summer, were led by Freedom 250, a Trump-created group that took over a bipartisan committee commissioned by Congress to plan the anniversary. Freedom 250 was officially housed under the National Park Foundation, a nonprofit that is supposed to raise money for the National Park Service—on whose board Trump Media board member Meredith O’Rourke also happens to sit.

Trump still owns a 41 percent stake in Trump Media, raising further alarm about Trump essentially paying himself for ads on the social media company he owns.

A Thursday merger filing first reported on by Wendy Seigelman at NewsTRACS reveals that Trump Media, or TMTG, reported the expected $350,000 payment directly from Freedom 250.

“TMTG performed advertising services to Freedom 250 LLC, an entity created by, and administered by the National Park Foundation, the official charity of the National Park Service. Meredith O’Rourke, a member of TMTG’s Board of Directors, also serves on the Board of Directors of the National Parks Foundation,” the filing reads. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2026, TMTG earned revenue of $175.0 related to the advertisement of Freedom 250 events. As of September 30, 2026, TMTG had $175.0 of outstanding receivables from Freedom 250 LLC.”

Freedom 250 relies mostly on taxpayer money, as National Park Foundation CEO Jeff Reinbold told the House Natural Resources Committee in February. “The majority of Freedom 250’s operating funds come from federal funds appropriated by Congress specifically for the 250th anniversary commemorations,” he said.

It appears that Trump went out of his way to create lackluster, cheap, and gaudy events, all to funnel more money into his own pockets. It is yet another example of just how committed to corruption this administration is, wringing out every penny they can get from their time in power.

The U.S. oil industry has made more than $130 billion in profit during the Iran war—while normal Americans continue to pay exorbitant prices at the gas pump.

The New York Times reported that the country’s 50 largest oil and gas companies raked in a massive profit from April to September. The $130 billion profit margin eclipses the $47 billion that these companies made during the same six-month period last year. The last comparable economic windfall was after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when the oil and gas industry made slightly higher profits.

American households have spent $1,100 on fuel alone since the war began. That’s an extra $147 billion all together, according to Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab.

Once again, it is massive corporations that stand to gain the most from violence and conflict.

President Trump said it himself a few days ago.

“And while oil prices are temporarily high … the United States oil and gas business is making hundreds of billions of dollars.... Our country is making hundreds of billions of dollars ‘cause of what’s happened in the Middle East … trillions of dollars,” he told a rally crowd in Georgia on Saturday. “My people said, ‘Please don’t mention that sir, because people are paying a little higher’ ... I said, ‘I don’t give a damn, I’m gonna say it: We’re making a freaking fortune.’”

When the president says “we,” he means Exxon, Chevron, and Valero. Not you.