Upon his nomination to the role of FBI director, Kash Patel vowed to clean house and eliminate left-wing bias perceived to have taken hold among agency leadership in recent years.
It appears that Patel is making good on that promise amid reports that the FBI has fired a number of agents who were seen kneeling during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in the nation’s capital, as Breitbart explains.
Details of the dismissals were reported by the Associated Press, which cited three individuals familiar with the situation.
According to the outlet, the firings impacted agents who had been reassigned in the spring, and though the total number of affected employees was not disclosed, sources suggested it was somewhere around 20.
The agents in question were photographed taking a knee during the aforementioned demonstration, an event which followed the police-involved death of George Floyd, which sparked destructive protests in cities across the country.
Images of federal agents kneeling in apparent solidarity with sometimes-violent demonstrators sparked outrage at the time, though some observers took a more charitable view of their decision.
Those defending the agents’ conduct suggested that kneeling amid the protests was a means of de-escalating what had regularly become dangerous scenarios over the course of that summer.
The administration’s prior decision to reassign the agents at issue was viewed as part of President Donald Trump’s push to rid federal agencies, particularly those involved in law enforcement and intelligence matters, of woke ideology, and the dismissals have amplified the voices of White House critics.
Not surprisingly, the FBI Agents Association has weighed in, blasting the agents’ firings and suggesting that litigation and congressional investigation are in order.
“As Director Patel has repeatedly stated, nobody is above the law. But rather than providing these agents with fair treatment and due process, Patel chose to again violate the law by ignoring these agents’ constitutional and legal rights instead of following the requisite process,” the union said in a statement.
The union also declared, according to NPR, “Patel’s dangerous new pattern of actions are weakening the Bureau because they eliminate valuable expertise and damage trust between leadership and the workforce, and make it harder to recruit and retain skilled agents -- ultimately putting our nation at greater risk.”
The FBI, for its part, did not offer comment on what were described as personnel matters, and the specific identities of fired agents were not immediately available.
These dismissals come amid a broader personnel reshuffling at the FBI under Patel, with a series of top-level officials also facing ouster in recent weeks, as Fox News explains.
Three former agents recently filed suit over their own respective job losses, alleging that current agency leadership has exhibited blatant disregard for the law to exact retribution on behalf of the president, but whether those claims will eventually prevail in court, only time will tell.
President Donald Trump campaigned in part on a pledge to secure accountability for those who weaponized federal agencies in recent years, and last week’s indictment of one of his longstanding foes has been greeted by many supporters as a promising start.
As Just the News reports, former FBI Director James Comey, now facing criminal charges of making false statements to Congress, placed himself in legal peril by holding firm in 2020 testimony to prior denials of questionable conduct related to leaks of classified information.
The actions of the former FBI director were previously scrutinized amid the agency’s earlier Arctic Haze and Tropic Vortex leak inquiries.
Though details of Comey’s actions were reviewed by former U.S. Attorney John Durham, the controversial ex-FBI chief never faced criminal charges -- until this week.
This week, it was announced that a federal grand jury handed up two charges against Comey -- one for making a false statement and another for obstruction -- both stemming from claims that Comey misled lawmakers in September 2020 when he reiterated a prior 2017 denial of having approved a leak of information to the media regarding the Trump-Russia collusion probe or Hillary Clinton-linked investigations.
The indictment at hand claims that Comey “did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing….”
At issue was Comey’s reiteration of his prior statement that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI probe concerning “PERSON 1,” an individual whose identity was not included in the indictment.
The 2017 exchange that laid the groundwork for Comey’s later testimony came during a May 2017 Judiciary Committee hearing in which Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked whether the witness had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”
Comey flatly replied, “Never,” prompting Grassley to continue his line of questioning.
The senator then asked Comey if he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” to which the longtime bureaucrat said, “No,” and when asked if details of the same had been declassified and shared with journalists, he replied, “Not to my knowledge.”
Though his exchange with Grassley is beyond the reach of the statute of limitations, Comey was again questioned on the topic in 2020 by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
When asked about testimony from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe indicating that such leaks did occur and that Comey authorized them, he said, “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
Though many of the president’s supporters certainly hope that Comey’s own statements will be his undoing as the criminal case against him progresses, at least one prominent legal commentator has cast doubt on federal prosecutors’ ability to make these charges stick.
As The Hill reports, Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy has already gone on record saying, “I don’t think there’s a case, noting, “If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to the Wall Street Journal and told Comey about it after the fact. So it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OKing it before it happened.” Whether his take on the situation ultimately proves correct or Comey ultimately receives the legal reckoning millions believe is long overdue, only time will tell.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's name appeared in the latest batch of documents from the estate of convicted human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released the latest batch of documents from the Epstein estate and Musk's name was one of a few high-profile names that were mentioned. Of course, there were more names that went unreleased, but Democrats clearly saw it as a political opportunity to highlight Musk's name.
Alongside Musk, billionaire Peter Thiel, the CEO of data mining company Palantir, was also mentioned as having a meeting scheduled with Epstein that never took place.
Oversight spokesperson Sara Guerrero stated, "It should be clear to every American that Jeffrey Epstein was friends with some of the most powerful and wealthiest men in the world. Every new document produced provides new information as we work to bring justice for the survivors and victims."
It's well known that Epstein knew anyone who was anyone, the real question is who was actually connected to Epstein's sordid crimes. In that sense, these new documents do little to explain what kind of connection existed between Musk, Thiel, and Epstein.
Over the past decade, it's become apparent that Epstein was an aggressive networker who did everything in his power to build relationships with other rich and powerful individuals.
Epstein;s connections to President Donald Trump are well known as the two often crossed paths in New York's elite circles. Democrats have often pointed to this fact to try and establish some kind of deeper connection.
Of course, Epstein and Trump had a falling out in 2004 over alleged bad behavior on the part of Epstein. So a connection between Epstein and another powerful figure doesn't tell that much on its own.
The new files show that Musk was scheduled to visit Epstein’s island in December 2014. Peter Thiel had a meeting scheduled in 2019. Most surprisingly, Stephen Bannon, a key Trump ally, was set to meet with Epstein in 2017.
However, the files had little to offer aside from those scheduled meetings. It's looking like this release was a publicity stunt to get these names associated with Epstein in a sensational news cycle.
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee blasted Democrats for selectively releasing names and withholding the names of Democrat officials who were mentioned in the Epstein files.
A spokesperson stated, "They are intentionally withholding documents that contain names of Democrat officials, and the information they released today is old news. We are focused on delivering transparency and accountability for the survivors, and will release documents in full."
It isn't even clear if Elon Musk actually met with Epstein in 2014, and seeing as how Democrats didn't release that information, it seems likely that planned meeting fell through.
Democrats are desperately trying to pin Epstein on the GOP despite the fact that Epstein's strongest relationships were with Democrats like former President Bill Clinton. Democrats spent the better part of two decades covering that relationship up.
It was Trump who knew that Epstein was no good for business decades ago but Democrats are doing everything in their power to cover that inconvenient fact up.
In a significant loss to the legal and publishing worlds, Robert Barnett, a towering figure in Washington, D.C., known for brokering major book deals for political giants, has died at the age of 79, Fox News reported.
Barnett, who shaped the intersection of politics and media through decades of high-profile negotiations, passed away on Thursday night at Sibley Memorial Hospital due to an undisclosed illness.
Born in Illinois, Barnett built a remarkable career as an attorney, distinct from the typical literary agent, by focusing on elite clients and billing by the hour rather than taking royalties.
Early in his journey, Barnett contributed to Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign, marking his entry into the political arena.
He later played a key role in Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, further cementing his influence among Democratic leaders.
Barnett also aided Clinton and other candidates with debate preparation, showcasing his strategic acumen beyond legal negotiations.
One of Barnett's landmark achievements was securing the deal for Bill Clinton’s 2004 memoir, "My Life," which became a defining moment in his career.
He also negotiated multiple book contracts for Hillary Clinton, including "Living History" in 2003 and "Hard Choices" in 2014, along with related film and TV projects.
His ability to represent figures across the political divide, such as Barack and Michelle Obama, Edward M. Kennedy, Dick Cheney, and Mitch McConnell, highlighted his unique bipartisan approach.
Barnett's influence extended to the media world, with a 30-year professional relationship with Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott, who praised his integrity and counsel.
Scott noted, "Bob Barnett was legendary as an industry titan across media, politics and law, and, at his core, a wonderful man."
She added, "His pristine integrity, wise counsel and knowledge of our business were an invaluable resource to me over the course of our 30-year relationship."
Scott concluded, "He will be deeply missed by the Fox News Media family and the many anchors and correspondents he represented. We extend our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Rita, and his entire family."
The Clintons also mourned his loss, calling him a "brilliant lawyer" who meant a great deal to them. "He was a dear friend, a trusted advisor and a wise, faithful, and steadfast guide to the publishing and entertainment worlds," their statement read.
They further emphasized, "In everything he did, Bob brought his own special spark of joy. Bob had an insightful eye for editorial detail and a keen ear for language and nuance, but more importantly, he was utterly devoted to his clients, always unfailingly generous with his time and his considerable talents."
President Donald Trump isn't messing around when it comes to keeping American citizens safe, and he's proving that once again by vowing to send troops into another city with a crime problem.
According to Fox News, amid ongoing, often violent anti-ICE protests in the deep blue city of Portland, Oregon, President Trump has directed War Secretary Pete Hegseth to protect ICE facilities at virtually all costs.
In a Truth Social post this week, Trump described Portland as "war ravaged Portland," making it crystal clear that Hegseth has the full authority to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on the ground there.
There has been an insane uptick in violence against ICE agents and it's also clear that the president is ready to end it now before it worsens.
The president, in a Truth Social post, announced that the backup had been requested by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sec. Kristi Noem.
"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," Trump wrote.
Doubling down, the president went one further and authorized "full force" for the troops when deployed.
"I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump added, which immediately triggered sensitive Democrats and their media allies.
While Portland is one of the most liberal cities and it shouldn't be surprising that the situation there with ICE protests is out of control, it doesn't get mentioned like other cities often do.
Fox News noted:
Portland has been declared a sanctuary city since 2017, which means it largely does not comply with federal immigration enforcement activities. Blue cities have become flash points amid Trump's immigration crackdown, including when troops were sent into Los Angeles during anti-ICE protests in June, and the clash with New Jersey Democrats and authorities outside Delaney Hall in Newark in May.
Users, especially those tired of the crime and anti-ICE activities in Portland, were cheering for the National Guard to be deployed there.
Portland man praises President Trump for sending the National Guard to Portland
“We’ve been asking for help for months and we’re finally gonna get it!”
The legacy media will never show you this
Video @KatieDaviscourt pic.twitter.com/6FTCb5tEPf
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 28, 2025
"Americans want law and order," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Can confirm. I know of several families who are excited about this. And hey! Maybe I’ll go visit them now!"
Democrats on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are working overtime to do whatever they can to keep the Epstein situation open and connect as many Trump-aligned people to the disgraced, deceased financier as possible.
The latest to be named by the committee was Elon Musk, who didn't take kindly to the Sky News article that noted Musk's name was mentioned in the newly released papers by Democrats on the committee.
According to the Daily Mail, Musk hit back quick and hard, writing on his X account, "Shame on Sky News for this utterly misleading headline."
Musk went on to explain that he had, in fact, been invited to Epstein's mysterious island, but refused the invitation, unlike many other power brokers and high-profile people at the time.
Musk immediately responded to the article, denying that he had any connection to Epstein or his island, unlike Prince Andrew, who had actually gone there.
Shame on Sky News for this utterly misleading headline. Anyone pushing this false narrative deserves complete contempt," Musk wrote.
He added, "Epstein tried to get me to go to his island and I REFUSED, yet they name me even before Prince Andrew, who did visit."
Shame on Sky News for this utterly misleading headline. Anyone pushing this false narrative deserves complete contempt.
Epstein tried to get me to go to his island and I REFUSED, yet they name me even before Prince Andrew, who did visit. https://t.co/9Pd3LXFeFm
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 27, 2025
The documents released dropped Musk's name, but it was clear that he wasn't involved, as the report noted that Epstein or his secretary had never confirmed Musk was going to take the offer.
The Daily Mail noted:
The documents, which included phone messages, flight logs, financial ledgers, and Epstein's daily schedule, including mention figures such as Musk, billionaire Peter Thiel, Trump ally Steve Bannon, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and Prince Andrew.
One of the documents revealed Epstein's schedule for the first week of December 2014 with a reminder that read: 'Elon Musk to island Dec. 6 (is this still happening?)'.
Musk's supporters were not happy with the way the story was reported.
"Total garbage headline. Elon said no to Epstein, but Sky News makes it sound like he was involved. Meanwhile, Prince Andrew actually went — but somehow Elon’s name comes first? Pure smear job," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "You and Trump are friends again, so of course these headlines are coming back. Hilarious how it all works."\
It'll be interesting to see what the left and their media allies try next.
Another government shutdown is on the horizon, and despite canceling an earlier meeting with Democratic leaders, President Donald Trump will now attempt another meeting with them to hopefully negotiate a deal to avoid shutdown status.
According to Fox News, after canceling a meeting with Democrats earlier this month, citing "unserious and ridiculous demands," Trump is willing to give the other side another chance at serious talks.
The original meeting was set to take place with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.
A partial government shutdown is looming, with Sept. 30 the day it happens unless a deal between the two sides happens.
The meeting between the two sides has been rescheduled, and it will include the aforementioned Democratic leaders, the president, and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), and Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
Leaders Schumer and Jeffries issued a joint statement regarding the rescheduled meeting with President Trump.
"President Trump has once again agreed to a meeting in the Oval Office," the statement said.
"As we have repeatedly said, Democrats will meet anywhere, at any time and with anyone to negotiate a bipartisan spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people. We are resolute in our determination to avoid a government shutdown and address the Republican healthcare crisis. Time is running out," the two Democrats wrote.
Both sides of the aisle are ready to pounce if no deal is struck with reasons as to why it's not their fault and the other side is to blame.
Democratic leadership had accused the president's short-term fix for avoiding a shutdown a "dirty" plan.
Fox News noted:
They argued that the Trump-backed short-term extension was "dirty," which would mean it had partisan policy riders or spending attached to it, and panned it for continuing "the Republican assault on healthcare," ignoring expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies, and possibly leading to the closure of hospitals and other healthcare facilities across the country.\
Users across social media reacted to the news of the rescheduled meeting between the two camps.
"Chuck spent weeks playing tough guy on TV, now he’s on speed dial begging Trump for a meeting. Power shifts fast when you’ve got no leverage," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Don't give the Dems anything! Hold the line!"
In a striking turn of events, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deported a Cuban judge known for her harsh rulings against dissidents, Breitbart reported.
The deportation of Melody González Pedraza, a Cuban communist judge, followed her failed asylum bid on May 21, 2025, amid backlash from Cuban exiles over her record of oppressive sentencing.
González Pedraza first arrived in the United States in late May 2024, traveling from Havana to Tampa, Florida. She entered under the Biden administration’s “humanitarian parole” program, launched in January 2023. This initiative allowed up to 30,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to stay and work legally in the U.S. for two years, though the program no longer exists.
Upon her arrival at Tampa airport, authorities denied González Pedraza entry due to her history as an official under Cuba’s communist regime. She promptly requested political asylum to remain in the country.
Before fleeing to the U.S., González Pedraza had a notorious reputation in Cuba for her judicial decisions. The Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba (FHRC) identified her as a representative of the Castro regime. She was particularly known for imposing severe penalties on peaceful protesters and dissidents.
Just days before her departure to Florida, she sentenced four young Cuban men, all under 30, to four years in prison on questionable “assault” charges in Encrucijada, Villa Clara. Families of the convicted men called the trial a sham, citing a lack of evidence or witnesses.
Marisol Rodríguez Milián, the mother of one of the convicted men, expressed relief at the judge’s deportation. She thanked U.S. authorities for delivering what she called “justice.” Rodríguez Milián told Martí Noticias, “she tried to fabricate it, but couldn’t find any.”
Another Cuban national, Uziel García, shared his personal experience with González Pedraza’s rulings. He told Martí Noticias in 2024, “She has done a lot of damage to the municipality of Encrucijada, in Villa Clara. I am one of her victims.”
García continued, detailing his own sentencing. “I have in my hands the letter of release after having been imprisoned for going out on July 11 to demonstrate peacefully. She sentenced me to two years in prison,” he recounted to Martí Noticias.
González Pedraza defended herself in June 2024, claiming to Diario de Cuba that Cuban state security forced her into issuing harsh penalties. She also denied having sentenced protesters from the July 2021 anti-communist demonstrations. However, García’s testimony directly contradicted her assertion, highlighting her role in his imprisonment for protesting on that date.
García further revealed the judge’s dismissive attitude during his trial. He recalled asking why his sentence for contempt exceeded the standard penalty, to which she responded, “she did what she wanted because she was the judge,” as reported to Martí Noticias.
Complaints from Cuban exiles in the U.S. significantly influenced the outcome of González Pedraza’s case. Unnamed sources indicated that their objections were pivotal in her prosecution and eventual removal from the country.
On May 21, 2025, González Pedraza lost her asylum case before an immigration judge in Pompano Beach, Florida. She opted not to appeal the decision, sealing her fate for deportation.
Samuel Rodríguez Ferrer, a prosecution witness in her case, believed the deportation was only partial justice. He told Martí Noticias, “In reality, she should have been tried in Cuba under a new democratic government for systematic human rights abuses. I told her that to her face during the trial.”
González Pedraza wasn’t alone in her journey to the U.S., arriving with her husband, William Hernández Carrazana, and her brother, Ruber González Pedraza. Hernández Carrazana was also deported in 2025, while Ruber, who once ran a pro-Castro blog supporting communist spies, was detained by ICE in Florida and chose self-deportation after erasing his online presence.
As one would expect, Charlie Sheen's new book, "The Book of Sheen," revealed all kinds of juicy tidbits regarding his high-profile upbringing and stardom, which had him brushing shoulders with political elites like then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas.
According to Fox News, Sheen confirmed in the book that a person who said Clinton asked about Sheen's girlfriend during their visit to the governor's mansion in 1987 was telling the truth.
Actress Dolly Fox, who dated Sheen in the 1980s, confirmed that Clinton had asked about her while she was there with Sheen during a movie shoot for "Three for the Road" in 1987.
Fox, who had family ties to the Clintons, largely wrote off Clinton's inquiry as harmless, saying it was the 80s and it was no big deal when men flirted with attractive women.
"That is true. ... That did happen," Fox told Fox News when asked if the rumors of Clinton whispering about her nearly four decades ago were accurate.
Fox News noted:
In his new memoir, "The Book of Sheen," the actor wrote that Clinton leaned in and whispered to an aide, "Find out what you can about the brunette." The brunette, Sheen revealed, was Fox.
The actress wrote off the moment as no big deal as she confirmed what had happened that day to Fox News.
"We were in Arkansas, 1987, shooting a movie. … We did go to the governor's mansion," Fox said. "It wasn't creepy. Clinton was never creepy. … He did not do anything wrong to me."
She added, "I shook his hand, said, ‘Hello … How are you? I wasn't looking at the governor. I was in love with Charlie."
Charlie Sheen’s ex, Dolly Fox, confirms ‘80s memoir tale about Bill Clinton trying to hit on her https://t.co/ppvskWy9cs pic.twitter.com/IXQINbuuWn
— Page Six (@PageSix) September 25, 2025
Fox added, "He was never a creep. Utmost respect for the Clintons. … You know, it's the '80s. Guys saw a pretty girl, they flirted. It's no big deal. He didn't do anything wrong to me."
Sheen had a slightly different take on the situation, though he largely wrote it off as flattering that the governor was hitting on his girlfriend at the time.
"Clearly the behavior that transformed a harmless intern a few years later into a household name had been in play long before her blue dress became famous," the actor wrote.
Sheen added, "It was quite the moment in time to be ringside for that slice of creepy history … I felt bad for Dolly to be objectified and skeeved-out like that, but still had to take some pride in ‘Bubba’ fancying my gal."
Depending on whether or not President Donald Trump ultimately approves it, Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Hasan, who claimed the lives of 13 people during a shooting spree in 2009, could get the first military death penalty in six decades.
According to Fox News, the Pentagon is reportedly preparing to request that President Trump authorize the death penalty for Hasan, which would mark the first military execution in over 60 years.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is fully behind the decision to put Hasan to death, saying he's "100% committed" to making sure the convicted killer is sentenced to death.
Hasan was sentenced to death in 2013 after he was convicted by a jury.
Hasan is one of four death row prisoners under military jurisdiction, and if his execution is approved, it could pave the way for the others to meet the same fate.
In 2009, Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, killed 13 people and wounded 32 more.
Fox News noted:
Hasan entered Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center armed with a semi-automatic pistol and opened fire on fellow service members preparing for deployment.
During his subsequent trial, Hasan admitted to the shooting and claimed it was necessary to protect the "Islamic Empire" from American forces.
Secretary Hegseth provided a statement to Fox News Digital.
"I am 100% committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan," Hegseth told the outlet.
He added, "This savage terrorist deserves the harshest lawful punishment for his 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. The victims and survivors deserve justice without delays."
Users across social media responded to the news of the potential military execution.
"This deranged murderer has live 16 years longer than the 13 military members he killed.
Whatever the Trump administration determine as his fate is fine by me as long as it’s the most harsh punishment and deterrent out there," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Don't ever forget that the Obama Administration classified this as 'Workplace Violence' initially, and many were therefore unable to get combat benefits. This was sheer madness and the compliant lapdog press gave him a pass on this as usual"
It'll be interesting to see if Trump signs off on the request. Clearly, many believe it's about 16 years in the making.