This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The American people still do not know, and may never know, all of the players in Washington and elsewhere who carried out the Democrat party's lawfare against President Trump over the years.
But they now know those who were the pushers behind the agenda: Former Attorney General Merrick Garland, ex-Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and ex-FBI chief Chris Wray.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has released documents showing those names as the activists who were pushing for the "Arctic Frost" investigation that produced much of the Democrats' lawfare against Trump.
Already released, earlier this year, were documents proving the FBI and DOJ weaponized themselves in order to put a bull's-eye on Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and others.
It was that investigation, "a taxpayer-funded witch hunt," that was begun in early 2022, seizing government-issued cell phones from Trump and Pence.
Jack Smith, the inappropriately appointed lawyer who orchestrated the scheme after it was launched, also spied on eight Republican senators during his campaign against Trump.
"Opening of this full investigation is governed by the DOJ Memo. The DOJ Memo requires written notification to and consultation with the Assistant Attorney General and U.S. Attorney with jurisdiction over the matter and written approval of the Attorney General, through the Deputy Attorney General, prior the opening of any investigation of a declared candidate for president or vice president, a presidential campaign, or a senior presidential campaign staff member or advisor," the paperwork charges.
"It is assessed that the pool of potential subjects may include individuals who fall into one or more of these categories. Although members of the 45th Presidential administration are no longer in office, the DOJ Memo states that the scope of this policy should be broadly construed to ensure that Department leadership is made aware of the opening of matters that could potentially be disruptive to the democratic process if publicly disclosed prior to an election, encouraging the FBI to err on the side of caution or seeking approval if there could be any question as to whether such actions are required under this policy," it said.
The Washington Examiner reported that four-page memo was approved by Garland.
"Proof that Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland + Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco + FBI Dir Chris Wray all PERSONALLY APPROVED opening Arctic Frost," Grassley wrote on X. "This investigation unleashed unchecked government power at the highest levels. My oversight will continue."
The report noted the FBI at the time cited "no confidential sources or independent corroboration of suspected wrongdoing." Instead its claims came from "media reporting, podcasts…"
Members of Congress have described the Democrats' schemes as worse than Watergate, and have demanded full access to all evidence of "Arctic Frost."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the revelations about the corruption involved in Jack Smith's lawfare against President Donald Trump during Joe Biden's time in office was that the federal government was weaponized to spy on the telephone records of Republican senators.
That scheme now has resulted in a pledge by one of those senators, Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to sue.
A report from Just the News notes that phone records of multiple senators were seized by Smith during that time frame.
He had brought several lawfare cases against Trump, and internet commentaries suggest he wanted to file more cases against Trump, and he might have been collecting information on GOP senators in order to create a larger case by naming more defendants.
Blackburn, in a statement to Just the News, confirmed, "The infringement is deep and wide."
The actions violated her personal civil liberties and her protections as a member of Congress, the report said.
She cited the 1st and 4th Amendment protections of free speech and privacy, her separation of powers protections and even the Stored Communications Act because her carrier Verizon "retained and turned over information on her geographic locations when she made calls," the report said.
She charged that Smith and his minions in the federal government, under Biden, misbehaved badly.
"I can assure you this, we will be suing the Biden DOJ, Jack Smith and his CR-15 team, which, of course, has already been fired by (current FBi Director) Kash Patel, thank goodness," the senator said.
"These guys just hated Donald Trump, and they hated us because we supported Donald Trump, and we were standing with Donald Trump."
She continued, "The common thread that runs through this is all eight were Republicans. We all supported President Trump, and we had valid questions about the outcome of the 2020, election."
She said, "It just shows you how Jack Smith and Arctic frost, they were so out over their skis, and they were out to get President Donald Trump, and they wanted to convict him of conspiracy. And of course, when you look at what they were doing with us, they were probably looking for obstruction or co-conspirator charges…"
WND previously reported that Smith's targets believe he should be disbarred.
It was the New York Post that confirmed a letter from elected officials, led by Blackburn, to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accuses Biden's DOJ of having "spied on duly elected members of Congress."
It demands that Smith be investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility.
"As part of Jack Smith's weaponized witch hunt, the Biden DOJ issued subpoenas to several telecommunications companies in 2023 regarding our cell phone records, gaining access to the time, recipient, duration, and location of calls placed on our devices from January 4, 2021, to January 7, 2021," Blackburn charged.
The letter continued, "We have yet to learn of any legal predicate for the Biden Department of Justice issuing subpoenas to obtain these cell phone records."
Other lawmakers joining the demand were Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Penn.
Smith is accused of using his power as a government appointee to infringe on the constitutional rights of elected officials and "trampled on this separation of powers principle that underlies our system of government."
The lawmakers continued, "This is especially true given the invasion of our privacy was directly connected to our core legislative functions protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of our Constitution. To the best we can tell, Smith's team went on this fishing expedition for one simple reason: we are Republicans who support President Trump."
They asked for Smith to be referred for disbarment to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility and the New York Attorney Grievance Committee, since he is licensed to practice law in both states.
President Donald Trump said the Department of Justice "probably owes me a lot of money" for the many federal investigations against him that amounted to nothing but a hassle, Fox News reported. Sources say Trump is seeking $230 million in damages, but the president said it wasn't about the money but about principle.
There were several investigations launched against Trump, beginning with the Russia-collusion hoax during the 2016 campaign that was built on a false dossier. The FBI later raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 over the supposed mishandling of classified documents, which again was thrown out in court.
These investigations turned Trump's life upside down for years and threatened to keep him off the ballot, but they ended up being mostly baseless. Now, the New York Times claimed that Trump is seeking $230 million in compensation, which would be well within his rights.
After all, Trump spent millions on his legal defense and likely lost earning potential as his time and attention were turned toward these baseless investigations. However, when asked about it at the Oval Office by a reporter, Trump seemed genuinely unconcerned about the money and instead wanted justice.
When Trump was asked about the possibility of a lawsuit, he noted that it was certainly something to consider, given how much time and money had been wasted defending himself in these cases. "Well, I guess they probably owe me a lot of money for that," Trump told the female reporter.
The president made it clear he wasn't in it for the money. "No, I get no salary. I gave up my salary. It's a good salary. Not as much as these guys make, but that's OK. It's a lot of money, and I don't, as you know, I didn't take it in the first four years. I didn't take it these four years either," Trump pointed out.
However, he did acknowledge that the DOJ owes him. "But as far as all of the litigation, everything that's been involved, yeah, they probably owe me a lot of money," Trump said.
"But if I get money from our country, I'll do something nice with it. Like, give it to charity or give it to the White House while we restore the White House, and we're doing a great job with the White House, as you know, the ballroom is under construction," Trump added. A clip of the exchange was posted by RedWave Press to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.
Reporter: “Are you asking the Justice Department to pay you compensation for [the] federal investigations into you?”
President Trump: “Into me? I don’t get any compensation. I do it for nothing. I gave up my salary… They probably owe me a lot of money for that.”
“If I get… pic.twitter.com/w5Lgygvv3X
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) October 21, 2025
While the media was singularly focused on the financial implications, Trump just wants justice after all he's been through. "We'll see what happens. We have numerous cases having to do with the fraud of the election, the 2020 election, and because of everything that we found out, I guess they owe me a lot of money," Trump said.
"But I'm not looking for money. I'm looking for — really, I think it's got to be, it's got to be handled in a proper way… We don't want it to happen again," Trump said, once again alluding to the fact that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from under him.
"We can never let what happened in the 2020 election happen again. We just can't let that happen," Trump added.
The president went on to say that he does not know the exact figure his legal team may be seeking. "I don't know what the number is. I don't even talk to them about it," Trump said. He noted that he would be the one to decide based on the law ultimately, but Trump admitted it would be "awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself."
Since the day the results came in, the president has contended that he was robbed of his 2020 victory. Though he has never produced definitive proof of those accusations, Trump notably went on to win the 2024 presidential election handily, clinching both the popular vote and the Electoral College. He accomplished this even while the government was busy prosecuting him, and Trump deserves justice for this.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An economics and social studies teacher in Orange County, Florida, has won a battle with his school district, which means displaying a poster of Charlie Kirk in his classroom is now allowable.
As WND reported, William Loggans, a teacher at Horizon High School, had put up the poster shortly after Kirk's assassination on a Utah campus Sept. 10.
Along with Kirk's image, the poster included one of his quotes: "Never underestimate the power of your voice and the impact you can have on the world when you speak up for what you believe in."
In an interview with Not the Bee, Loggans shared his motivation behind the poster, saying that he has a variety of such banners around his room featuring notable public figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Ronald Reagan.
Loggans was forced to take the poster down after a student complained, telling his teacher that Charlie Kirk "is a Nazi and a fascist."
The teacher subsequently filed a grievance with the school, which has ruled that the poster can go back up.
Andrew Jackson, principal of Horizon High School, responded to Loggans this week: "Based on my review and your representation, your grievance is granted and you may redisplay the poster."
"This is quite a victory, and it's not my victory – this victory is the students' victory," Loggans told Fox News Digital. "Instead of being told what they can have or what kind of inspirational quotes they can have in the room and on the person, now they can hear different viewpoints. They can make up their own minds. And so, this is a clear victory for my students and, frankly, for students across this nation."
Loggans' attorney, Anthony Sabatini, posted on X about the victory:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Few states can speak with any accuracy of being further left than Colorado.
That's where abortion is a constitutional right, where Democrats run the governor's office, the legislature, and even the state Supreme Court. That was where justices wildly tried to bar President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. In the legislature, lawmakers decided to simply run around a constitutional limit on tax hikes by calling the new charges "fees."
It's gone even further, in some situations, than California, by creating circumstances where teachers have been known to sexually assault students.
Now these leftists are on trial for continuing … slavery.
In fact, a Denver judge has held a two-week trial on the issue, just visited a state prison to review the situation, and soon will rule.
A report from Courthousenews said the state initially abolished slavery in 1877. But lawmakers left an exception that allowed slavery and involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for crimes.
Then in 2018, voters changed their state constitution to remove that exception.
David Maxted, representing inmates who complained that they lost privileges if they refused to work, said, "Part of the reason voters passed this is because they believed the state should not have the power to compel individuals to work against their will. This is a moral judgment."
When the change was made in 2018, the state prison department didn't change its work requirements, rules that require inmates to do certain jobs in order to obtain certain privileges.
An earlier court ruling, from Judge Alex Myers, gave the state a partial win, determining laws requiring inmates to work did not violate their rights unless they faced legal or physical force as punishment. That ruling said losing privileges did not violate their rights, since they are, in fact, privileges.
The state Court of Appeals then declined to review the case, initiated on behalf of inmate Harold Mortis.
And the case was moved for other issues to another judge.
Ann Stanton, a lawyer for the state, said in closing, "This case isn't about the fact that there are consequences, it's about the degree of consequences. You haven't heard evidence that the consequences reach the level of involuntary servitude."
She pointed out some inmates were in restrictive housing for being difficult to manage, having banned items, or some other rule infraction.
The new judge gave the two sides time to submit findings, questioning, "Do the plaintiffs have to prove that involuntary servitude is rampant throughout the state corrections system, or do they just have to prove that the current policies and practices enable involuntary servitude?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Steele dossier, that collection of wildly false claims about President Donald Trump that was funded by supporters for twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and used by Democrats to undermine Trump's presidency, is coming back to bite.
It was the CIA, through an officer, that drafted an annex containing a summary of the dossier, which actually came from a hired former British agent. And it was John Brennan, then CIA chief, who decided to include information from the dossier in an "Intelligence Community Assessment." And it was Brennan who overruled senior CIA officers who opposed the inclusion of that material.
The circumstance now is that, after Brennan "made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" about the dossier when testifying under oath to the House Judiciary Committee, he's being referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.
The letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the committee, said, "We write to refer significant evidence that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan knowingly made false statements during his transcribed interview before the Committee on the Judiciary on May 11, 2023. While testifying, Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the CIA.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if he 'knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false . . . statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of the Congress[.]' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony. Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight," the letter said.
Government records from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the CIA reveal that Brennan's false testimony included: "denying that the CIA relied on the discredited Steele dossier in drafting the post-2016 election Intelligence Community Assessment; and … testifying when he told the Committee that the CIA opposed including the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)."
This scenario was detailed on Jordan's letter:
On January 6, 2017, the CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and National Security Agency published a declassified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. The ICA stated, among other things, that Russia 'developed a clear preference' for President Trump and 'aspired to help' him win the election. This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which 'was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.' The Steele dossier was a series of reports containing baseless accusations concerning President Trump's ties to Russia compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump's purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier. In July 2025, the Trump Administration declassified numerous documents showing that the ICA's main findings were false and that the Obama Administration knowingly fabricated the findings for the purpose of undermining the Trump Administration.
Further, evidence now confirms "Brennan falsely testified to the Committee. During a transcribed interview on May 11, 2023, Brennan stated that 'the CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier.'"
Brennan's claims, the letter charged, "cannot be reconciled with the facts."
And Brennan's claim the CIA was "very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment" was undermined by "multiple sources that reveal Brennan's support for including the dossier in the ICA."
The letter continued, "The HPSCI report and the CIA memorandum confirm not only that the Steele dossier was used as a basis for the ICA, but that Brennan insisted on its inclusion. This stands in stark contrast with Brennan's testimony to HPSCI that the dossier was not used in drafting the ICA. Brennan's testimony is also contradicted by the ICA itself, which references the dossier in the main body of the assessment and summarizes material from the dossier in an annex."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two priests and a journalist have been acquitted in a Spanish court of wild claims about "hate speech" over their discussion about the elements of Islam.
It was Custodio Ballester and Jesús Calvo who had been accused by Muslims of hate crimes during a talk show in 201`7.
Also accused was the director of a digital media outlet, Armando Robles.
"The public prosecutor's office had requested a four-year prison sentence for Robles along with a 10-year ban from teaching and a 3,000-euro ($3,500) fine. In the case of the priests, the prosecutor sought a three-year sentence," according to a report from Catholic News Agency.
The decision came from a Provincial Court of Malaga.
The ruling focused on whether the spoken and written words were criminal, the report said.
Franklin Graham, chief of the worldwide Samaritan's Purse Christian ministry, said, "It's unbelievable that this Catholic priest from Spain had to go to trial to defend his right to speak the truth about radical Islam. I appreciate the fact that Father Custodio Ballester wouldn't back down, even in the face of a jail term. He was also threatened with a 10-year ban from preaching. Good news—the Spanish court acquitted him last week! I'm not a Catholic, but I'll be preaching in Spain next year and I hope to have a chance to meet him!"
CNA said the critical ruling focused on whether the statements were "hate crimes" or whether they were protected by Spain's precedents for freedom of expression.
While the court itself blasted the priests' comments, fretting "no matter how despicable and perverse the message" or how "clear offensive" the statements, it found that the elements of hate crimes were not there.
"Not only is there speech protected by freedom of expression, but we could even accept that there is intolerant speech that also exists within the scope of freedom of expression, even though it may be offensive, not only to the group or person to whom it is directed but even to the person listening to it," the court said.
It was the Association of Muslims Against Islamophobia that had complained to the prosecutor's office in Barcelona about the comments from the men during a talk show.
In a statement to ACI Prensa, CNA's Spanish-language news partner, shortly before the trial, Ballester said he felt at peace: "As Jesus Christ says, they will take us to the synagogue and the courts, and there the Holy Spirit will give us wisdom that our adversaries cannot counteract," the report revealed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a dispute involving a town's attempts to put Christian speech in a box and keep it there.
The practice of "free speech zones" has become common across the nation, at colleges and universities, in towns and counties and more.
The basis is that authorities determine that they will allow free speech by Christians, often involving members of the faith asking passersby about their relationship with Jesus, but they will allow that only in a specified area.
And that area often is in a remote, isolated and unseen location, behind buildings, on the far side of athletic stadium parking lots and the like.
The fight that the Supreme Court now has agreed to review involves Gabriel Olivier of Mississippi.
In the town of Brandon, officials adopted an ordinance that bans religious speech on public sidewalks near the city's amphitheater.
According to First Liberty Institute, the background is this: "Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who desires to share his faith with others. Standing outside of well-attended events, Olivier shares the gospel of Jesus Christ, hoping to have peaceful conversations and reach as many people as possible. He was silenced when the City of Brandon, Mississippi, adopted an unconstitutional ordinance that prohibits him from communicating his religious beliefs to others in a city park."
City officials assigned him a "protest" area "that was so far removed from the crowds no one could receive his message." When he moved closer to the traffic areas, he was arrested.
He was fined, then sued the city in federal court and challenged the ordinance.
At the district court level, the judge dismissed the case without considering the facts. That ruling cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Heck v. Humphrey, that concerns prisoners and had nothing to do with these free speech circumstances.
When the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals traveled down the same path, an appeal went to the Supreme Court, which now will review.
"Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court," Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, said. "Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans."
Allyson Ho, a partner at Gibson Dunn, which also is involved in the case, added, "We're pleased the Court agreed to take up this important case, and we look forward to presenting our arguments that Mr. Olivier is entitled to his day in court."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alfred Kinsey, who used sex convicts and pedophiles to make up studies with wild claims that children are sexual from birth, largely is credit with triggering the dive into the massive promotions of deviant and damaging sex ideologies across America.
He was described by officials at Liberty Counsel, who have fought his agenda for years, as "a sexual pervert whose unscientific propaganda exploited women and harmed children."
He inflicted torture on children as they sobbed in pain and then claimed they were enjoying his sex experiments on them.
The results have included rampant pornography in schools, story book hours with drag queens, the claims that abuse of children is normal and more.
It was commentator Linda Harvey who said, "Let's be frank about school sex education. Many classes have become unapologetically pornographic, yet many parents are unaware their kids learn dangerous messages laced with obscenity in the guise of 'health education.'"
Liberty Counsel pointed out at the time 43 states have exemptions from obscenity laws that let sexually explicit materials be used in schools.
"Educational obscenity exemptions are but one example of the toxic legacy of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his claim that children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sexual activity," explained Mary E. McAlister, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, who has been researching the exemptions and bringing their toxic history to light.
"That claim, borne out of records of systematic child sexual abuse, was used as a basis for wholesale revision of our criminal laws through the Model Penal Code, of which the educational obscenity exemptions are a part," McAlister said.
But there has been work to respond. Just two years ago, lawmakers in Indiana killed state tax funding for the Indiana University institute launched by Kinsey.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver charged that Kinsey's actions are "indefensible" and Indiana University "should disassociate itself from anything related to Alfred Kinsey."
In fact, Kinsey's "research" resulted from what actually included data from "serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles, and pederasts."
The late Dr. Judith Reisman was a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law and documented the criminal abuse of more than 300 infants and children in the production of Kinsey's research. These children were ages two months to 15 years.
Now, it is time for the next step, a congressional investigation of Kinsey.
That's according to Rhonda Miller, the chief of Purple for Parents United, who explained in a column at the Federalist, "Kinsey's fraudulent research and criminal experiments in the 1940s and '50s ignited the sexual revolution with the lies that sexual perversion is normal and that children are sexual from birth. His reports, 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male' and 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,' laid the groundwork for comprehensive sexuality education and the repeal of legal protections for women and children. Through the United Nations, Kinsey's perversion has spread worldwide, and grassroots leaders from around the world are calling on Congress to step in."
She reported that that the idea of an investigation into what may have involved serious crimes against children arose in 1995, when Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas proposed H.R. 2749 to require an investigation to determine whether Kinsey's research resulted from "fraud or criminal wrongdoing" — and defunded agencies and institutions teaching it as credible if that was the case.
She explained, "If Congress had investigated and eradicated Kinsey's influence in 1995, the world's children would not have been perverted by it. It is time for Congress to do what it should have done 30 years ago: investigate Kinsey's crimes and fraud and defund any agency or institution that promotes them."
She pointed out Kinsey's "science" was used to damage social sciences, culture, laws and education.
"Fifty-two state laws protecting women and children were weakened or repealed as states shifted from the common law to the Model Penal Code, which was based on Kinsey's research. Many states exempted schools, museums, and libraries from laws against distributing pornography to children. Penalties for sexual crimes were lessened, and plea bargains became the norm."
Now the internet ha normalized "abusive and violent sexual behavior and fueling the demand for sex trafficking."
She noted it was her organization that worked with Indiana lawmakers to defund Kinsey's agenda.
"It's time for the federal government to step in," she said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has won the latest fight brought against his anti-crime and pro-national security agenda, with a court ruling that he is allowed to dispatch National Guard troops to Portland, Ore., to oppose rampant crime.
It was a three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted a lower court's order that blocked Trump from exercising his authority.
"After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,'" the judges wrote.
They cited multiple violent attacks on federal operations in Portland, including at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, arsons, assaults on federal officers and more.
Before the ruling was released Monday, rioters over the weekend staged their latest assault on the government, with several people arrested, for assault, harassment, and more.
Further, the ruling pointed out that there's been a "lack" of support for federal authorities from Portland's police, and that the Federal Protective Service has had to "rely almost exclusively on ICE and SRT for assistance in preventing violent protesters from attacking officers and the facility in which they work."
A politically active lower court judge had blocked Trump from deploying both in Oregon and other states.
Trump, earlier, had said, "At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"