A federal judge has temporarily extended an order blocking President Trump from deploying the National Guard to Portland, dealing a blow to his efforts to militarize Democrat-run cities.
In her 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, said she needs time to consider the evidence from a three-day trial that was held last week, according to Oregon Public Radio.
While the ruling is preliminary, the judge made it clear she is skeptical of Trump officials' claim that Portland is in a state of rebellion.
"Although there were sporadic instances of unlawful behavior, federal law enforcement, along with local law enforcement, were able to
manage the situation and arrest and prosecute those responsible for criminal conduct," the judge wrote.
Portland is just one of several Democratic cities where Trump has sought to use the military to quell unrest and violence against federal immigration officials.
In her ruling, Judge Immergut acknowledged some violent disruptions to federal immigration enforcement have occurred in Portland, where rioters have blocked traffic and even forced the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building to close down for three weeks due to property damage.
Still, the judge concluded that these events were not serious enough to constitute the type of "rebellion" that calls for a federal response.
"Although the evidence so far showed that protesters frequently blocked the driveway of the ICE building, the evidence also showed that federal law enforcement officers were able to clear the driveway," she wrote.
The judge also said the chaos has eased since a period of more serious unrest in June, thereby removing the justification for Trump's move in late September to send in the troops.
The judge said the violence in Portland doesn't compare to historic rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, which both involved organized groups of armed insurgents seizing federal institutions.
By contrast, the chaos in Portland amounted to "sporadic isolated instances of violent behavior toward federal officers and property damage to a single building.”
The judge also found that Trump's move to deploy troops from California and Texas likely violates the state sovereignty of Oregon.
The upshot of the ruling is that Trump continues to be blocked from deploying National Guard troops until Friday at least, but likely longer.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the fight isn't over and the administration expects to be “vindicated by a higher court."
“President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets," Jackson wrote.
A former morning news anchor with Fox affiliate KTVI has been charged with murdering her own mother, in what the former journalist claims was an act of self-defense.
Angelynn Mock, 47, was charged in the gruesome slaying of her 80-year-old mother, Anita Avers, on Halloween. A woman and her boyfriend became witnesses to a real-life horror movie when Mock approached them covered in blood, asking for help.
"There was a woman who approached our vehicle with like blood, like her hands were filled, her body was filled with blood, asking to call 911,” Alyssa Castro told KAKE.
Castro said Mock took her boyfriend's phone and ran back to the house, where Mock called 911 to report stabbing her mother to "save herself," dispatchers said. The cellphone was returned by police later on.
"I asked her if she was okay, and she was pretty shooken up and she seemed scared, and she just ran off,” Castro said.
The police responded to the scene around 8 a.m. on Friday and found Mock outside with bloody cuts on her hands. Her mother was found in her bed with multiple stab wounds. She was brought to a hospital, where she died.
Mock was also treated for her injuries and booked on charges of first-degree murder.
She was brought to Sedgwick County Jail, where she is being held on a $1 million bond.
"I'm just glad we were able to help you know what I mean. Like, we never know what anyone is going through. This happened randomly, but as long as we were able to get 911 and see what we can do, that's all I really care about,” said Castro.
Avers' husband told KAKE that she was a marriage and family therapist at Wichita Counseling Professionals.
Residents of St. Louis may recall seeing Mock on the morning news on local station Fox 2, where she was an anchor from 2011 to 2015.
But some could be forgiven if they have trouble recognizing Mock in her rather disheveled mugshot. Here's a before-and-after comparison:
Former morning news anchor at FOX 2 in St. Louis, Angie Mock, accused of fatally stabbing her elderly mother on Friday, police say.
A motive is unknown. pic.twitter.com/N9knFk5M3Y
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 3, 2025
Photos from Facebook show Mock and Avers looking happy together. It is unclear what led to this horrific incident, but more details are sure to emerge in the future.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, famous for her lawfare agenda against President Donald Trump, has been revealed to be caught up in yet another federal investigation.
She's already under indictment for alleged mortgage fraud involving claims she bought a house and claimed it was her residence to get a better interest rate, then rented it out. Further, one of her mortgage application documents allegedly listed her father as her "spouse."
She had created a massive "fraud" claim against Trump and his companies, and with the help of a leftist judge, obtained a massive half billion dollar penalty against Trump, a penalty that was thrown out by an appeals court for being unconstitutional.
Now a report at the Daily Caller News Foundation explains a judge has unsealed details about her fight against a federal criminal probe for alleged "selective enforcement."
Those allegations involve her lawfare against Trump, his business operations, and even a separate case involving the National Rifle Association.
"James's effort to block subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) touches 'on matters of national concern, with implications that stretch well beyond this action,'" Judge Lorna Schofield wrote in her order making the filings public.
"Unsealing this action is not only permissible but compelled," the judge wrote. "One simple fact drives this conclusion: the information at issue is not secret."
Just weeks ago, it was revealed acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York John A. Sarcone III subpoenaed documents concerning James's civil fraud case against Trump and his company, along with her case against the National Rifle Association.
James has claimed that an investigation of her lawfare agenda actually is "retaliation" against her.
Her lawyers have told the court that she is being targeted by Trump administration over her lawfare agenda against him.
She already faces two charges for alleged bank fraud and false statements in a case in Virginia.
WND previously reported she had claimed she is not guilty of mortgage fraud but in a commentary Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said she incriminated herself and the charges appear to be justified.
"She'll also claim, of course, 'Oh, it's a big misunderstanding, paperwork snafu, somebody else is to blame.' But under her own stated standard in the Trump case, she declared that is never an excuse. So she's hoisted on her own petard, as Shakespeare would say in Hamlet," Jarrett said.
Jarrett said that the case against James rests squarely on the paperwork she personally executed.
"It's a pretty serious case against her, Sean. You cannot claim an occupied residence, get a lower mortgage rate, and then rent it out. You're cheating the lender by lying, and James actually incriminated herself. Both her mortgage and her insurance documents said she occupied it, but on an IRS records form she admitted it was purely a rental with zero personal occupancy," Jarrett said.
"Predictably, today she just whined that the law is being weaponized against her. Spare me the moral outrage. It was phony. She was the one who campaigned on the promise to get Trump, then conjured up that ludicrous case only to get slapped down by the appellate court in an epic embarrassment," Jarrett said. "I think he or she's going to do exactly what James Comey is doing, claim selective, vindictive prosecution, try to get the case dismissed, avoid trial entirely. But, you know, under the law the burden shifts to her to prove by clear evidence that the case has an unjustifiable motive."
It was the Federal Housing Finance Agency that referred James to the Justice Department for the alleged crimes.
A Virginia jury last week decided that a man who had encouraged violence against President Donald Trump and openly fantasized about his death was not guilty under the law, arguing that his free speech rights allowed him to do so.
Former Coast Guard Officer Peter Stinson wrote on social media that someone should "take the shot" at Trump and added, "Realistically the only solution is violence."
He also said he "would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh" and that he "would be willing to pitch in" to contract a hitman to kill him.
"He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him," Stinson wrote during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite these comments, the jury said he was not guilty of soliciting a crime of violence, but the case has raised questions about how far it is permissible to go when making public statements about violence against someone.
Defense witness Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland said people "rooting for Trump to die online" is common.
"On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media," Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. "On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. . . . It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died."
Program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Brennen VanderVeen thought the acquittal might have had more to do with the fact that Stinson didn't actually solicit any one individual to carry out his wishes on Trump.
"Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation," VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. "Without more . . . that probably does not meet the elements of actual solicitation."
Stinson's attorneys characterized his comments as "political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect."
"They lack the ‘specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action’ required to fall outside constitutional protection," the attorneys said.
Given Stinson's comments, there is some gray area about whether he was actually threatening Trump with violence.
The solicitation charge might have been a stretch, but surely a charge of making terroristic threats would have had a better chance.
The problem is, the left has dehumanized Trump, which makes it all too easy to engage in violence against him, whether real or in a fantasy. Until they realize this, nothing will change.
“Plaintiffs seek a ruling from this Court that would effectively disarm the President in the highly competitive arena of international trade,” warned the Department of Justice in a sharp brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a battle cry from the Trump administration as it fights to preserve the “Liberation Day” tariffs. The stakes? Nothing less than America’s leverage on the global stage.
The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear arguments Wednesday on whether President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), overstep his authority, the Washingtong Examiner reported.
At the heart of this showdown are the Trump administration, defending its trade and foreign policy muscle, and opponents who argue the president is trampling on Congress’s constitutional taxing powers. The tariffs target nations like Canada, Mexico, and China, tied by the administration to trade deficits and the fentanyl crisis. But that wasn’t the only revelation.
The administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, enacted via IEEPA, have already reshaped trade with major partners. They’ve been a bargaining chip in framework deals with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and China. The Justice Department insists these tariffs are vital to addressing declared emergencies.
“Plaintiffs would unwind trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars,” the Department of Justice argued in its brief, emphasizing how President Trump has turned IEEPA tariffs into negotiated wins with global heavyweights. That’s a bold claim, but it underscores the administration’s stance: stripping these powers would cripple U.S. negotiating strength.
Yet, the road hasn’t been smooth. The Trump team lost at both the federal district and appeals court levels in related cases, setting the stage for this Supreme Court clash. Do you agree with the idea that tariffs are a foreign policy necessity? Many readers might not.
Digging deeper, this case is the first major test of Trump’s policy agenda before the Supreme Court since his return to office in January. For those catching up, the administration filed a reply brief defending the tariffs as lawful under the 1977 IEEPA, claiming they’re essential to combat trade deficits and crises like fentanyl. Historically, courts have often deferred to the executive on foreign policy matters, which could tilt the scales.
Still, the phrase “disarm the President” from the Justice Department’s brief echoes through this debate. It’s a stark warning of what’s at stake if the tariffs are overturned.
Opponents aren’t backing down, though. They argue IEEPA was never meant to grant tariffing power, a point they’ve hammered home in their legal challenges. Their position is clear: no president before Trump has used this law or its predecessor to slap on tariffs, despite its invocation 69 times since 1977.
On the other side, challengers insist that taxation, including tariffs, is a power the Constitution reserves for Congress. “IEEPA does not give the President any taxing or tariffing power,” their brief bluntly states. They warn that Trump’s actions rewrite U.S. trade laws without legislative approval.
Here’s how we got here: the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two combined cases, Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, following lower court defeats for the administration. The fallout from these earlier rulings has only intensified the stakes.
The clash isn’t just legal—it’s a fundamental question of power balance. Who gets to control America’s trade arsenal? And it’s far from over.
For everyday Americans, the message is clear: this isn’t just about tariffs—it’s about whether the president can wield unilateral economic weapons in a cutthroat world. If the Supreme Court sides with opponents, the ripple effects could unravel trade deals worth trillions. If Trump wins, it’s a green light for even bolder moves.
That phrase “disarm the President” rings louder now than ever. It’s a reminder of the tension gripping this case, as both sides brace for a decision that could redefine U.S. trade policy. What will the justices prioritize—executive leverage or congressional authority?
The courtroom drama is just beginning. Wednesday’s arguments are set to ignite fierce debate among policymakers, businesses, and citizens alike. The next ruling could change everything.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide if President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, imposed under emergency powers, exceed his authority, with major implications for U.S. trade and foreign policy.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani has ordered the Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits funded as the government shutdown continues to drag on.
On Friday, Judge Talwani issued an order requiring the Trump administration to direct emergency funds to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, funded as the government shutdown is beginning to drag into the months.
The order will ensure that SNAP benefits continue to flow to the 42 million Americans who receive aid just hours before the funding was set to expire.
This order was issued just before a separate federal judge in Rhode Island issued an order mandating similar action from the Trump administration.
While military members and air traffic controllers face uncertainty about their next paycheck, these federal judges are making sure that those abusing welfare to support their lifestyle can still take advantage of the notoriously exploited SNAP program.
A coalition of 25 Democratic governors and state attorneys general sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its refusal to keep SNAP benefits funded during the ongoing government shutdown.
Considering Democrats are reliant on votes from those perpetually on welfare, it's no surprise to see Democrats push hard to keep those benefits paid out while doing nothing to fund the troops' paychecks.
Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in her decision that, "It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people need their SNAP benefits."
The issue is there isn't much money to go around as the USDA only has a $5 billion contingency fund which will now need to be spent on food stamps.
The Trump administration wanted to keep that contingency fund intact in order to respond to possible natural disasters.
Democrats don't care about ensuring that disaster response is maintained through the shutdown. After all, its Democrats in Congress who refuse to fund the government unless they secure absurd concessions from the GOP.
It's unclear what will happen from here as the Trump administration has yet to announce how it will proceed following these decisions. It's possible that there will be an appeal, but it would take months for this case to be decided, long after the emergency fund is drained.
Ideally, the GOP will take drastic action to end the shutdown but at this point, it seems unlikely that the GOP will unite and end the filibuster.
This decision also highlights the problem of federal judges appointed by Democrat presidents who consistently make activist rulings at the expense of good governance.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A justice on the state Supreme Court in Maryland has undermined the public's confidence in that institution by posting on his lawn leftist political ideologies.
Like "Here lies the Constitution," "RIP Freedom of Speech," "RIP Food Aid," "Beware Health Insurance Cuts," "RIP Due Process" and "RIP Climate Science."
Those political agendas all have been in government, the courts and the news recently, and have divided America.
Now is it Justice Peter Killough, an appointee of a Democrat governor, who is pushing the leftism in the public, a move that is raising concerns from those who note that the public expects courts, and justices, to publicly be neutral on controversial topics, regardless of their personal agendas.
The fact that the global warming ideology is prominent especially raised concerns, as the court now is considering a high-stakes environmental fight. In that fight, Baltimore politicians are suing major oil companies under their claims that the corporations misled the public about the role of fossil fuels in what has been claimed to be "climate change."
An official with the court system claimed the signs "belong to Justic Killough's wife."
"No further comments," the official added.
A report at Fox explained, "In an interview with Fox News Digital, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould said these signs indicate a clear bias on Killough's part and raise serious questions about whether he should be involved in such a high-stakes climate case."
Gould said the display now has "cast a shadow over the decision."
"The public, whatever side you're on, is inevitably going to feel distrust. If it's a case where he has such strong political leanings, then he shouldn't have sat on it. The problem now is … the case has already been argued. The briefs have already been submitted. It's already been sent to the court to issue a ruling. How can you un-ring the bell now?"
It's not the first controversy to engulf Killough. In 2022 he was accused of a "catch and release" agenda to release dangerous criminals brought before him.
The report said, "In one particularly egregious case, he released a 12-year-old who admitted to shooting and killing another teen, giving the perpetrator monitored probation instead of detention."
"People have to believe that judges are fair; they haven't prejudged the case. So, it is a problem.," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate who repeatedly have demanded the continuation of the Schumer Shutdown, the suspension of the federal budget and its spending programs, on Friday got a short reprieve from a federal judge.
The Democrats in the Senate have refused to allow a short-term continuing resolution promoted by the Republicans that effectively would keep funding at the same levels for the next few weeks.
They have demanded that Congress raid Americans' bank accounts for $1.5 trillion to use for propaganda, for health coverage for illegal aliens, and such.
They were under intense pressure right now because food stamp benefits were scheduled to expire Friday night.
There is a $5 billion reserve account but Trump administration officials explained they were not allowed to access that during a shutdown.
A judge ordered them to do it anyway.
A Fox report said, "The rulings mark a blow for the administration and, for the time being, the loss of another pressure point on Democrats in the Senate to reopen the government."
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said, "We're looking at all the options."
It was Jack McConnell, a judge in Rhode Island, who took over the administration's decision-making process in light of the fact Democrats have refused to fund government programs.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was to run out of money Friday night, and even with $5 billion, won't last through the month of November.
Reports said about 42 million people get taxpayer funded help with their groceries all the time.
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Democrat states.
An appeals court has blocked an Obama judge's insane plan to micromanage President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol commander-at-large Greg Bovino had been ordered to appear every weekday before U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis, an Obama appointee, to share updates on Trump's Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago.
But the 7th Circuit Appeals court has struck down Ellis' order, calling it a violation of the separation of powers, as the Chicago Tribune reports.
Judge Ellis had said the daily check-ins were needed to ensure compliance with a temporary restraining order she issued in October that restricted federal agents' use of force against crowds of journalists and sometimes violent protesters.
The judge wanted Bovino to appear at 5:45 p.m. every weekday until a preliminary injunction hearing on Nov. 5.
The Trump administration sought to overturn Ellis' order, calling it the latest instance of activist judges trying to micromanage Trump and hamstring his agenda.
The order "significantly interferes with the quintessentially executive function of ensuring the Nation’s immigration laws are properly enforced by waylaying a senior executive official critical to that mission on a daily basis.”
“Absent a stay, the government will be irreparably harmed because Chief Bovino will be required to prepare and sit for questioning in open court today and every weekday thereafter, with no stated endpoint in sight,” the administration's motion stated. “Every occasion that Chief Bovino is required to prepare and appear for those daily court sessions is time that he would otherwise spend carrying out the important law-enforcement functions he has been assigned.”
The administration's request for a reversal was temporarily granted by the 7th Circuit Appeals court on Wednesday, shortly before Bovino's first check-in.
Then, the appeals court made its order permanent in a striking decision on Friday that reprimanded Ellis for playing the role of "inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator."
The appeals court's three-judge panel said Ellis' order "sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino's activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch."
"These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers," the court ruled.
Bovino has been a highly visible presence in Chicago, where immigration agents under his command have been accused of using excessive force.
But Bovino says that immigration agents, including himself, are under attack by unruly mobs.
"Did Judge Ellis get hit in the head with a rock like I did this morning? I had to apply gas this morning against people," Bovino told Telemundo last week. "Was she hit in the head with a rock? Maybe she needs to see what that's like before issuing an order like that."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer agrees that some of then-President Joe Biden's autopen pardons could be "null and void" given his cognitive decline and lack of involvement toward the end of his term, Breitbart reported. The Kentucky Republican made this bombshell admission while appearing on Fox News Channel's The Ingraham Angle on Tuesday.
Biden's cognitive decline was apparent even to outsiders, but those closest to him allowed him to continue on with his presidency and even run for reelection. The persistent questions about his possible impairment that they tried to sweep under the rug have come full circle with pardons he granted with the use of the autopen.
Other presidents have used the device, which signs documents in the president's handwriting, but there is a fair amount of evidence that these important documents were signed off on, perhaps without Biden's full knowledge or consent. Comer believes this is enough to undermine some of his most high-profile pardons.
Earlier in the interview, Comer had said that many factors, including the use of the autopen and the lack of evidence that Biden was fully aware it was happening, made his pardons "null and void." The host and former attorney, Laura Ingraham, pressed Comer on whether he truly thought that would be the outcome.
"Are you of the view that, for instance, Biden’s pardon of his brother Jim or, let’s say, Anthony Fauci, are you of the view that those pardons are null and void, given what you know?" Ingraham asked him of the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "I am — absolutely 100%," Comer insisted.
"If anyone doubts whether or not there was a cover-up, they need to watch every minute of the testimony that we got, all of the hours and hours of depositions from these staffers, where you had people like Ian Sams, who was his spokesperson, who would come out every day and give press conferences, blasting me or blasting Robert Hur, or Jim Jordan or someone under oath when we asked him, 'How many times did you meet directly with Joe Biden?'" Comer recalled. Ian Sams had said it was just twice in two years, as did his executive secretary.
"That position is one of the closest to the president, whether it’s Obama, Trump, George Bush, Obama, she admitted that she would go weeks without having any interaction with Joe Biden. They clearly shielded him, not only from the American people, but from their inner staff. If he was an active participant, there would be notes," Comer said.
"There would be notes. The National Archives has no record of notes. There are no emails. It almost looks like they went back and changed their story from he approved it verbally and orally to we had memos and things like that. There were so many inconsistencies," Comer charged.
If what Comer says is true, he believes this will be enough for an investigation and perhaps for the pardons to be vacated. "And I think that the Department of Justice can bring all these people in, especially the three staffers and the doctor who pled the Fifth Amendment, and pressed them for more information, because at the end of the day, the American people know that Joe Biden was in a mental state of decline," Comer said.
"He hasn’t given a TV interview since he left office. The statement blasting my report today wasn’t from him. It was from an unnamed staffer," Comer went on.
The Kentucky Republican went on to say that the matter has been referred to Attorney General Pam Bondi. "We have handed her this investigation on a platter. We have done the heavy lifting: all the hours of depositions, traced the emails. We have proven no evidence Joe Biden was involved in the decision-making process," Comer said.
"She needs to bring people in, threaten accountability, threaten prosecution, get the truth from these people, and hold them accountable. We had a president of the United States who wasn't fit to serve, like tried to run him for a second term, and then they abused the autopen during the lame duck period," Comer said of the Democratic Party.
This issue is not going away regardless of how the left tries to ignore it. Many on their side have finally admitted that he was deteriorating, but none have gone as far as to say that they must scrutinize every action taken, including the times an autopen signed anything.