Suspected MS-13 gangbanger and wife-abuser Kilmar Abrego Garcia will reportedly soon be sent to the home he'll occupy for the foreseeable future.
According to the Daily Caller, the Trump administration appears to be set on shipping Garcia off to the African country of Liberia, and hope to have it all said and done by the end of October.
The bombshell news came via court documents that were filed on Friday by Justice Department prosecutors, which is yet another legal twist in the ongoing saga that is Garcia's deportation situation.
Garcia's lawyers have kept the matter in court ever since the Trump administration first shipped him off to El Salvador, only to be returned home and held until another destination could be confirmed.
Garcia and his attorneys had provided the court with a list of 20 countries that he fears would torture or persecute him -- but as the DOJ pointed out, Liberia is not on that list.
“Federal Defendants hereby provide notice that they have identified a new country for removal that has agreed to accept Petitioner: the Republic of Liberia,” attorneys for the Justice Department stated.
They added, "Although Petitioner has identified more than twenty countries that he purports to fear would persecute or torture him if he were removed there, Liberia is not on that list."
The Trump administration says it plans to deport Salvadoran illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia as soon as Oct. 31.
DHS says Liberia is “a thriving democracy” and “committed to the humane treatment of refugees.” pic.twitter.com/Z1nt69xtCY
— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 25, 2025
The Justice Department also stressed that Liberia is an ideal destination as it's committed to taking care of refugees.
“Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the U.S.’s closest partners on the African continent," the DOJ added.
Users across social media had a variety of thoughts with regard to his deportation status.
"Can you just announce it once he is gone? This is the 4th or 5th time he’s been scheduled for deportation and he’s still here," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Perfect why wait ? The media has made this criminal a superstar and to think about the overall cost to the American taxpayer. Pathetic."
It'll be interesting to see when he's actually deported and what happens from there.
While Democrats keep the government in shutdown mode, hardworking U.S. troops and other federal workers are at risk of not receiving their paychecks, but luckily, President Donald Trump is working overtime to change that.
According to the New York Post, the president dropped a bombshell this week about an anonymous $130 million donation to the Pentagon from a "friend" of President Trump to help offset the costs of paying the troops during the shutdown.
The Pentagon confirmed the donation, saying it received it through its "general gift acceptance authority."
President Trump was able to find unused research and development funds to make sure that troops were paid during their Oct. 15 pay period.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell released a statement regarding the staggering donation.
“On Oct. 23, 2025, the Department of War accepted an anonymous donation of $130 million under its general gift acceptance authority,” Parnell said.
He added, "The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost of service members’ salaries and benefits. We are grateful for this donor’s assistance after Democrats opted to withhold pay from troops."
The Pentagon confirmed Friday it has accepted an anonymous $130 million donation to help pay troops if the government shutdown continues — a bill expected to cost some $6.8 billion in total. https://t.co/4IhkbSx3wO pic.twitter.com/gPIhUaLDXp
— ABC News (@ABC) October 25, 2025
Some legal experts have expressed concerns that the administration might not be legally able to use the money to pay troops, at least without congressional authorization.
"The department is welcome to acknowledge this donor’s intent, but that does not change the legal restrictions on Congress needing to appropriate funds to pay military salaries," said Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute.
While the number is staggering for most, it still won't cover nearly enough to ensure all troops get paid.
Reportedly, it takes about $6.5 billion per pay period to get members of the military their paychecks, so $130 million, compared to that number, is only good for about one-third of a day's pay, surprisingly.
Still, the gesture is amazing and it simply highlights how stubborn and goofy Democrats are being in refusing to open up the government so our troops get what's rightfully theirs.
It'll be interesting to see if any additional private donors come forward to help offset costs.
It seems like it was only a matter of time before Democrats went so far left that the party's leadership would endorse a certified democratic socialist. It just happened.
According to Breitbart, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) just gave New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani his endorsement, setting in stone the current extremism of the Democratic Party as a whole.
Jeffries, in a statement to The New York Times, somehow justified the party supporting a democratic socialist like Mamdani by invoking President Donald Trump, proclaiming that the party must "unite" behind Trump's "existential threat."
The endorsement came weeks after Jeffries dodged publicly supporting Mamdani, with many claiming that the pressure was too much and he finally gave it.
Jeffries' statement to the Times was as ridiculous as one would expect it to be.
Breitbart noted:
In a statement to The New York Times, Jeffries acknowledged the two men had “areas of principled disagreement.” But he said that Mamdani had won “a free and fair election” in the Democratic primary and emphasized that the party needed to unite in the face of an “existential” threat from President Trump.
The House Minority Leader added: "Zohran Mamdani has relentlessly focused on addressing the affordability crisis and explicitly committed to being a mayor for all New Yorkers, including those who do not support his candidacy."
"In that spirit, I support him and the entire citywide Democratic ticket in the general election."
Congressman Mike Lawler pointed out in an X post that Democrats like Jeffries fear being primaried should he refuse to support Mamdani.
Democrats have no plan on how to get out of the shutdown that they created. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have kowtowed to AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Zohran Mamdani because they are petrified of a primary.
They have repeatedly voted not only to shut the government down, but… pic.twitter.com/woMl5FrNcD
— Congressman Mike Lawler (@RepMikeLawler) October 24, 2025
National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Mike Marinella issued a statement in the wake of Jeffries' endorsement.
"So-called ‘Leader’ Hakeem Jeffries has officially surrendered to Zohran Mamdani and the socialist mob now running the Democrat Party. Their far-left takeover has torched Democrats’ hopes of retaking the House and turned their agenda into pure electoral poison. Every single Democrat is a willing accomplice to their own party’s collapse," he said.
The Democrats are still fractured, with a sizeable group of them refusing to get behind a Democratic socialist as one of the face's of a party that was absolutely destroyed in the 2024 election over its move to the far left.
It'll be interesting to see how many more Democrats tuck tail and give in to the growing radical element of the party.
President Donald Trump has abruptly terminated trade talks with Canada over a deceptive ad that used Ronald Reagan's words to attack Trump's protectionist agenda, the Daily Mail reported.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford released the ad, which selectively quotes a 1987 speech that Reagan gave defending so-called free trade.
"When someone says, 'Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs," the 40th president says. "And sometimes for a short while it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American, worker and consumer."
It is true that Reagan was a staunch critic of tariffs in general, but the ad leaves out the context of his remarks, which related to his imposition of duties on Japanese electronics.
In the speech, Reagan argued that tariffs have limited uses, but in the long term, they "inevitably" lead to market contractions and unemployment.
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute has called the Canadian ad misleading and has threatened legal action.
"The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address, and the Government of Ontario did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks," the group tweeted Thursday.
In a Truth Social post, Trump announced that he is terminating trade negotiations because of Canada's "egregious behavior."
Trump accused Canada of peddling a "fake" ad to influence a pending Supreme Court decision on his tariffs.
"The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
"They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts. TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED."
The abrupt cessation of trade talks has blindsided Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has spent months negotiating with Trump and trying to get on his good side.
During a sit-down at the White House this month, Carney praised Trump as a "transformative president" and rattled off some of his achievements.
Trump raised tariffs on Canadian imports to 35% in July, in addition to sector-specific tariffs on things like steel and cars, placing enormous pressure on Canada's export-dependent economy.
Hold onto your hats, folks -- Michelle Obama has stirred up a hornet’s nest with her latest podcast remarks on teen romance.
The former first lady, recently marking 33 years of marriage with Barack Obama, sparked a fiery online debate after discussing dating during a podcast with television writer Mara Brock Akil on Wednesday, as the Daily Mail reports.
At 61, Obama sat down for a candid chat on her podcast, IMO, where she urged teenagers, especially Black teens, to explore relationships before heading to university.
Obama suggested that many Black students reach college without ever having a romantic partner, linking this partly to growing up in mostly white settings.
“There are a lot of Black people, they get into college, [and] they've never had a boyfriend or girlfriend,” Obama stated during the podcast.
With respect, this view seems off-base -- shouldn’t young folks prioritize academics and self-discovery over early romance?
Akil supported Obama’s take, arguing that missing out on early dating deprives teens of key skills to manage attraction or seek parental advice.
“[If not] there's no memory of a mutual desire and how to negotiate those feelings, those conversations, those opportunities -- maybe to come to mom or dad for advice,” Akil remarked.
While emotional growth matters, isn’t it a stretch to frame a lack of high school dating as a critical flaw?
Clips of the podcast raced across social media, igniting a storm of varied opinions from the public.
Some users sharply disagreed, with one stating, “This is a slippery slope. Why are they encouraging minor romance?”
Frankly, there’s sense in this caution -- nudging kids toward dating before they’re ready adds undue stress when they’re already navigating so much.
Conversely, some backed Obama, with one commenter warning it’s “dangerous” to enter college without dating experience, hinting at potential pitfalls.
Obama herself has stood by this advice, noting in an August podcast that she encouraged her daughters, Malia, 27, and Sasha, 24, to stay open to relationships, reflecting on her own dating history before marrying Barack in 1992.
While her intentions may be to prepare young people, one wonders if this push for early romance overlooks the value of letting life unfold at its own pace.
Senate Republicans have voiced skepticism of President Donald Trump's nominee for ambassador to Kuwait, Amer Ghalib.
While Democrats could be counted on to oppose Trump's pick, Republicans are indicating they won't support him over troubling statements about Israel and Jews, the Hill reported.
Ghalib, the first Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, endorsed Trump in 2024 as he courted Arab and Muslim voters outraged by the war in Gaza.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Ghalib downplayed his social media activity, which included praise for Saddam Hussein and hitting "like" on a post comparing Jews to monkeys.
"It’s definitely antisemitism, but clicking on it doesn’t mean I endorse that," Ghalib said.
“Actually, ‘like’ means exactly that,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) replied.
If one Republican joins every Democrat on the committee, Ghalib's nomination will not advance. And Senator Cruz, a fervent Israel backer, has already said he plans to vote no.
“It appears you have a deep-felt and passionate view about the Middle East,” Cruz told Ghalib. “But it is a view that is in direct conflict with the policy positions of President Trump and this administration.”
In another post, Ghalib called Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who invaded Kuwait in 1990, a "martyr."
“Given that you’d be the United States’s highest ranking diplomat in Kuwait, a country that was invaded by Saddam, how do you justify calling Saddam Hussein a martyr to us, but also to the people of Kuwait?” asked Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), who served in the Gulf War.
Ghalib said he praised Hussein in a fit of anger after the Iranian regime attacked U.S. bases in Iraq in 2020. Hussein launched an eight-year war with Iran in 1980.
“In a moment of anger, I complimented Saddam because he kept Iran in check, and probably that’s the only positive thing he did in his life,” Ghalib said.
The nominee was also asked why he did not take action against a city council member who called the Holocaust a punishment in advance for Israel's bombing of Gaza. Ghalib said he did not have the power to remove the official, but the committee wasn't convinced by his answer.
“Do you believe it’s appropriate to equate Israel, a democratic ally defending itself from terrorism, with the Nazi regime that systematically murdered 6 million Jews?” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) asked Ghalib.
The backlash is a rare example of Senate Republicans breaking with Trump on one of his nominees.
In an emotional dissent, the Supreme Court's liberal wing condemned the use of nitrogen gas to kill condemned criminals as a form of "cruel and unusual punishment."
The fiery dissent came after the court's majority declined to stop the execution of Anthony Boyd, an Alabama man convicted of burning a man to death over a $200 debt, CNN reported.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused her conservative colleagues of prolonging Boyd's suffering by denying his request to die by firing squad.
"The Constitution would grant him that grace,” Sotomayor wrote. “My colleagues do not. This court thus turns its back on Boyd and on the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.”
Sotomayor urged the reader to set a four-minute timer and imagine they can't breathe.
“Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “You want to breathe; you have to breathe. But you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face pumping your lungs with nitrogen gas.”
“Your mind knows that the gas will kill you,” she continued. “But your body keeps telling you to breathe.”
Boyd is among a handful of people who have been executed with nitrogen since Alabama first used the controversial method in 2024. It was adopted as an alternative to lethal injections, which have become more difficult to perform due to drug shortages.
In her dissent, Sotomayor said the use of nitrogen gas is "not at all what it was promised to be" and that the condemned can experience "up to seven full minutes of conscious, excruciating suffocation."
The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for denying Boyd's petition. A federal judge who rejected Boyd's request noted the Eighth Amendment "does not guarantee Boyd a painless death" and that those condemned to die inevitably experience feelings of terror.
"Walking to the gallows, feeling the electric chair’s straps tighten, having a target affixed to one’s chest, or being secured to a gurney each evokes strong feelings that death is imminent and results in corresponding psychological and emotional pain," U.S. District Judge Emily Marks wrote.
Witnesses of Boyd's execution Thursday told the New York Times that he convulsed for about 15 minutes before he was pronounced dead.
Boyd's victim, Gregory Huguley, was bound to a bench, doused in gasoline, and burned alive by a group of four men including Boyd, who duct-taped the victim's feet. The killers watched Huguley burn for up to 15 minutes until the fire went out.
Moments before the gas was administered, Boyd maintained his innocence of the crime.
“I just wanna say again, I didn’t kill anybody, I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” Boyd said. “I just want everyone to know, there is no justice in this state.”
Patty Durand, who unsuccessfully ran for the Georgia Public Service Commission as a Democrat, was arrested for stealing Georgia Power's trade secrets, Breitbart reported. Durand was arrested on Tuesday and charged with felony theft after she allegedly took a booklet from the energy company and left the room with it during a public hearing.
The power company is in negotiations with the local government to increase power production for data centers. Durand, who runs the energy watchdog group Georgia Utility Watch, opposed the move and the rate increases it would bring.
In August, Durand slammed Georgia Power for not being forthcoming with information about its proposal. "The Public Service Commission allows very heavy redactions and trade secrets. So the contracts between Georgia Power and the data centers are also redacted and trade secreted. So no one will know what they actually charge data centers," she said in an interview.
The Public Service Commission held the hearing with Georgia Power over its proposal to generate another 10,000 megawatts of power and pump it into the Peach State's power grid. The company plans to generate about 40% from renewable sources, with the rest coming from building or expanding gas-generated power plants.
For her part, Durand charged that the company was more interested in its natural gas profits than in any public service, as Georgia Power oversees five gas companies. She believes that is why other options, such as battery storage and solar panels, weren't pursued to the same extent.
She believes this shows the company is somehow unethical and is engaged in "immoral" actions, which is ironic considering what she's been accused of doing. "There is no court in the land that would allow that kind of corruption to go on, and I have no idea why the state of Georgia does," Durand said.
Some believe Durand's opposition is warranted, given that customers are already feeling the squeeze of rising energy prices without this new, significant draw on demand from the power grid. "The cost of living has gone just insane right now," Harriet Reddan, a Georgia Power customer, told WAGA-TV.
She and others like her have seen an increase, with Reddan reporting that her bill went from around $100 last year to $140 this year. "It’s hard. It’s not easy. It’s good to add more data centers — but not good to be passing that on to the customer," she added.
The power company's proposal hinges on the idea that these data centers will definitely come to Georgia. "It’s a good idea if we need it. But so far, we don’t," Jennifer Whitfield, who is a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, told the news outlet, noting that they may never come.
"Right now, we are planning additional power for companies that may or may not actually demand energy on the grid, and that creates real risk for customers who are currently paying bills today." This would mean that everyday consumers would foot the bill for the expansion to accommodate something that may never happen.
"If all the data centers come to Georgia that Georgia Power is hoping for, bills should stay stable. If data centers don’t appear the way Georgia Power is expecting, all of us are going to be on the hook," Whitfield added.
Regardless of the merits of the argument, the fact remains that Durand allegedly stole from the company during a hearing that she would have overseen had she won her election. "Patty Durand built her brand attacking the Public Service Commission, and now she’s been arrested for stealing from it," Georgia Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon noted.
The debate over adding data centers that increase energy demand and the pricing residents face is worth having. However, that will be impossible if people like Durand allegedly don't act in a moral way to get it done. There's no excuse for lowering standards and violating ethics regardless of the issue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that federal law enforcement officers should be subject to arrest if they break local laws that prevent illegal immigration enforcement, Breitbart reported. The California Democrat seems poised to go toe-to-toe with the Trump administration, but may be in legal trouble after making these statements.
President Donald Trump has begun to crack down on illegal immigration throughout the nation. Part of that includes sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions.
"While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. Our state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law — and if they are convicted, the President cannot pardon them," a joint statement from Pelosi and Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA) said.
This tough talk came after San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins allegedly saw federal agents "roughing people up" in Chicago and Los Angeles. "I had lead time to think about what authority I have and what I can do. This is something I felt very strongly about, and I had my office research it," Jenkins claimed.
Democrats don't care about the regular people who suffer at the hands of criminal illegal immigrants and other deviants who prowl about city streets. Instead, they're worried that these people might be treated a little roughly by law enforcement agents who aim to get them off the streets.
They want to see the agents, not the criminals, arrested, though Jenkins claimed it wouldn't come to having local officers cuffing federal agents. She said that they would use surveillance camera footage to determine if the criminals are treated too unkindly, and she would direct a judge to issue a warrant for the agent's arrest.
To really drive home that their priority is the comfort of suspected illegal immigrants, California Democrats passed a law banning government agents from wearing masks while making arrests, which would make it easier for Jenkins to pursue them. Of course, the agents were forced to do this after several attacks on ICE agents that put them and their families at risk, but Democrats seem unconcerned about that.
Meanwhile, Jenkins worries that Trump may ignore the arrest warrants altogether or challenge the move in court. "For me, this is about San Francisco and what I need to do for San Francisco," Jenkins claimed.
Others, like Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, believe this is not an overreach at all and see it as a stopgap against abuses. "As long as the ICE agents are acting legally, the state can’t prosecute them and hold them liable, even if it dislikes what they’re doing," Chemerinsky said.
Pelosi's tough talk against federal agents is not without consequences. While speaking to Fox News host Jesse Watters on Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned Pelosi and others making these threats that they could face consequences. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is among those actively opposing federal agents and their mission to clean up crime on city streets.
She created the ICE Accountability Project, a nonprofit focused on making ICE officers "unmask" while making sure to log "purported criminal actions of ICE and CBP agents." Bondi warned Lightfoot that she "will be getting a letter from us tomorrow to preserve anything she has done as well, to make sure that she’s not violating the law," she told Watters.
"It appears she is. You cannot disclose the identity of a federal agent—where they live, anything that could harm them," Bondi added. She had the same warning for Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Jenkins, and Pelosi. "We told them: ‘Preserve your emails, preserve everything you have on this topic.’ Because if you are telling people to arrest our ICE officers, our federal agents, you cannot do that. You are impeding an investigation, and we will charge them.”
🚨 BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi has just ORDERED NANCY PELOSI to “PRESERVE HER EMAILS” after she ORDERED ICE to be ARRESTED 🚨@PamBondi: “You are impeding an investigation, and we will charge you. If they think I won’t, they have not met me” 🔥 pic.twitter.com/l79LRwQNwP
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) October 24, 2025
This crusade against agents enforcing federal law has got to stop, but the Democrats believe they have a right to run roughshod over the laws of the land. Pelosi and her ilk are about to see what the Trump administration is willing to do to enforce the laws of the land and the will of the American people.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the national ban on transgender women competing in female powerlifting is discrimination after a biological male, JayCee Cooper, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 over being excluded.
“USA Powerlifting’s policy at the time of the decision was to categorically exclude transgender women from competing in the women’s division,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote for the court.
“Because USA Powerlifting’s facially discriminatory policy provides direct evidence of discriminatory motive, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cooper’s transgender status actually motivated USA Powerlifting’s decision to prohibit Cooper from competing. We therefore reverse the part of the court of appeals’ decision on this issue,” Hudson continued.
Cooper got a partial win in the suit, but the court also sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether USA Powerlifting had a “legitimate business purpose” for its policy to exclude biological males from its women's events.
USA Powerlifting President Larry Maile said that the organization “created rules that uphold the principles of fair play” and didn't seek to exclude anyone.
The organization created a division specifically for those claiming to be transgender and nonbinary in 2021.
“Since science shows those who were born biologically male have a profound physical advantage over female-born athletes, our responsibility is to define legitimate categories to fairly place athletes within them,” Maile said.
The organization's attorneys said the decision on Wednesday is a partial win for both sides.
Ansis Viksnins said that USA Powerlifting will get to tell a jury “why excluding a transgender woman from competing in the women’s division was for legitimate reasons, for maintaining fairness in athletics.”
If transgender women, who are biologically male, are allowed to compete against biological females, the males would win every trophy and prize because males have greater muscle mass than females, even males who now identify as females and even those who have taken hormones or had transgender surgeries.
It is only common sense to separate these categories and have a separate division for those who are non-binary or transgender.
Then again, if the "T" part of LGBT had any common sense, they would know you can't just change your gender because you want to.
Transgender women will never have many of the struggles biological women have, including monthly menstruation, pregnancy risks, or anything related to the female reproductive system, which they don't have.
Just because you say you're something, doesn't make it true. And if women's sports is forced to lose all common sense, it will be destroyed beyond any repair. That's the bottom line people don't take into account, and they really should.