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.
In a surprising financial twist, millions of dollars donated to the Obama Foundation for a sprawling Chicago campus have been redirected to the Tides Foundation, a progressive organization linked to contentious anti-Israel groups, as the New York Post reports.
This development raises questions about the Obama Foundation’s allocation of over $2 million to Tides in 2022 and 2023, alongside scrutiny over hefty executive pay and construction delays at the Obama Presidential Center.
The Obama Foundation, established to honor former President Barack Obama, has been collecting donations to build a 19-acre campus in Jackson Park on Chicago’s South Side.
This ambitious project, which began construction in 2021, includes a museum, athletic facility, and gardens for fruits and vegetables.
However, federal tax filings reveal that $2 million of these donations were transferred to the Tides Foundation in 2022 and 2023.
The funds were reportedly designated to aid local groups focused on reducing community violence, according to the nonprofit’s records.
The Tides Foundation, which also receives support from Democrat donor George Soros, acts as a fiscal sponsor for organizations not registered as charities with the IRS.
Currently, Tides is under investigation by the House Ways and Means Committee for channeling money to anti-Israel groups such as the Adalah Justice Project, Samidoun, and the People’s Forum.
These groups are accused of orchestrating pro-Palestinian protests and campus encampments at Ivy League schools following the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which left 1,200 Israelis dead.
Beyond its ties to anti-Israel entities, Tides has managed funds for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which sued Tides in 2023 in California Superior Court over alleged mismanagement of more than $33 million.
That legal battle remains unresolved, casting further doubt on Tides’ financial practices.
Meanwhile, the Obama Foundation also allocated over $3 million during 2022 and 2023 to Gofundme.org for initiatives supporting girls’ education through grassroots efforts, though specific recipients remain undisclosed.
Back in Chicago, the Obama Presidential Center has already cost over $615 million, surpassing its initial $500 million budget due to construction setbacks.
The center, set to open in spring 2026, has drawn local criticism for its impact on the surrounding community.
Ken Woodward, a lawyer and local resident, voiced frustration earlier this year, saying, “It’s a monstrosity … it’s taking way too long to finish and it’s going to drive up prices and bring headaches and problems for everyone who lives here.”
In a striking admission, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed on MSNBC that the Republican Party has outpaced Democrats in connecting with young male voters through digital platforms.
Clinton highlighted the GOP's superior engagement on social media and podcasts as a key reason for the Democrats' declining support among various demographics, especially young men.
During her appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Wednesday, Clinton faced a pointed question from host Joe Scarborough about the Democrats’ loss of ground with groups like working-class white men, Black men, Latinos, and young men.
Scarborough pressed, “Why have Democrats lost, not only working class white men, but working class Black men, Latinos, go down the list, young men, so many others. What’s gone wrong?”
Clinton responded candidly, acknowledging that her party has struggled to keep pace with modern communication trends.
She explained, “You know, the Republican Party, I have to say, has done a much better job dominating social media, dominating the podcast ecosystem, getting messages out and aiming, particularly at young men.”
Clinton went further, pointing to data showing a significant drop in Democratic Party registration among young men, with a 20% decline among younger white men and a 12% decrease among nonwhite men of similar age.
She also noted that young male voters favored Donald Trump by a 12% margin in recent elections.
This shift, Clinton argued, stems from the GOP’s strategic focus on engaging young men who spend considerable time online.
Clinton credited Steve Bannon, a prominent Republican strategist, for recognizing the potential to mobilize young men immersed in gaming and internet culture.
She recalled, “This was one of the insights that Steve Bannon had that, you know, young men who were into gaming, young men who were on the internet a lot, you know, they could be recruited.”
Clinton added, “They could be persuaded to be political supporters of the Republican Party if the Republican Party actually engaged and talked to them in the right way.”
Reflecting on her party’s shortcomings, Clinton admitted, “And I think Democrats missed a lot of opportunities on that.”
She contrasted the GOP’s active presence in digital spaces, including Bannon’s “War Room” podcast returning to Spotify this past summer after a five-year ban, with the Democrats’ limited engagement.
Additionally, Clinton noted that Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance frequently appeared on podcasts before and after the election, while Kamala Harris, Trump’s 2024 opponent, opted for different platforms.
In a surprising development, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has openly criticized a social media post from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press office, labeling it “menacing” and revealing the fear it instilled in her family, The Hill reported.
A controversial message posted on Saturday by Newsom’s office on the platform X, stating Noem would have a tough day, drew sharp rebuke from Noem and Trump administration officials, who saw it as a threat, alarming her family amid a history of past dangers.
The issue surfaced on Saturday when Newsom’s press office shared a post on X declaring, “Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”
Noem addressed the controversy during a Monday night interview on Fox News’ “Hannity,” expressing her deep concern over the message.
She called the post vague and troubling, noting how it instantly sparked worry among her inner circle.
“It immediately panicked my family and friends,” Noem stated, mentioning the flood of worried texts and calls she received soon after the post appeared.
Noem explained that her family has endured threats in the past due to her high-profile role in politics.
“They know the threats that they’ve had, the things that have happened to them because of politicians like this that say things and somebody grabs onto them that has an agenda,” she added.
She stressed that such alarming messages hit close to home, especially given prior hostility from groups like cartels and criminals.
Trump administration officials also condemned the post, with Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin directly calling it a threat.
“This reads like a threat. This is ugly, @GavinNewsom,” McLaughlin responded publicly on social media.
White House communications director Steven Cheung further criticized the timing, calling the message “beyond the pale and totally disgusting,” as it coincided with a memorial weekend for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, recently killed in Utah.
Newsom countered the criticism by posting a “SpongeBob SquarePants” meme on X with the caption, “tHiS ReAdS LiKe a tHrEaT,” appearing to dismiss the accusations with sarcasm.
Noem reflected on the broader impact, citing the tragic loss of Charlie Kirk as a stark reminder of how harmful words from leaders can lead to serious consequences.
“I hope we all learn that it’s time to start listening to each other, having civil discourse, and stop ridiculous, irresponsible posts like Governor Newsom put out there,” Noem urged, advocating for more responsible communication among public figures.
In a stunning turn of events, White House border czar Tom Homan has found himself at the center of controversy over allegations of accepting $50,000 in bribes from undercover FBI agents.
The allegations, which surfaced over the weekend, claim Homan accepted cash from agents posing as business executives, though both he and White House officials have denied any criminal activity and labeled the incident as an entrapment scheme, the Washington Examiner reported.
Reports of the alleged incident first emerged over the weekend when MSNBC broke the story, later confirmed by the Associated Press.
According to the reports, FBI agents, operating under the administration of former President Joe Biden, posed as business executives and recorded Homan accepting $50,000 in cash.
The money was allegedly offered in exchange for assistance in securing a government contract, though specific details of the interaction remain unclear.
Homan has neither confirmed nor denied the specifics of the cash exchange but has repeatedly asserted that no illegal actions took place.
On Monday, Homan addressed the allegations during an interview on Fox News with host Laura Ingraham.
He emphasized that the Department of Justice and the FBI investigated the matter and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Homan declared, “I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal. And this is hit piece after hit piece after hit piece.”
He continued, “And I'm glad the FBI and DOJ came out and said ... that nothing illegal happened and ... no criminal activity.”
Homan also spoke about the personal toll of his role, stating, “Not only did I sacrifice ... my family sacrifices. I make sacrifices every day. I get more death threats than anybody.”
He added, “So after all the sacrifices, after serving my nation for all these years, they want to come out and dirty me up. And it's not going to end. There's a hit piece on me every two weeks.”
Homan remained defiant, saying, “But keep coming because you know what? Tom Homan is not going anywhere.”
He further asserted, “Tom Homan isn't shutting up and Tom Homan is going to keep doing what he's doing because working with President Trump is the greatest job of my life. We're making this country safer again every day.”
Throughout the interview, Homan portrayed himself as a dedicated public servant who has endured significant personal and professional challenges to serve in his current position.
In a striking display of confrontation, a viral video capturing Illinois Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh being pushed to the ground by federal officials during an anti-ICE protest in suburban Chicago has ignited fierce debate across social media platforms.
The incident, which unfolded on Friday in Broadview, Illinois, involved a heated clash between protesters, including Abughazaleh, and armed federal agents attempting to move ICE vehicles obstructed by demonstrators, Fox News reported.
The protest in Broadview targeted an ICE operation known as "Operation Midway Blitz," which focuses on addressing illegal immigrant crime in the Chicago area.
During the demonstration, Abughazaleh, wearing a mask, positioned herself in front of an ICE vehicle to block its path.
Federal agents directed her and other protesters to clear the way, but tensions escalated quickly.
Video footage shows an agent shoving Abughazaleh, who resisted and subsequently fell onto the street.
Another angle of the video reveals Abughazaleh rising after the fall and charging toward the agents again, prompting further pushback from the officials.
Throughout the encounter, protesters can be heard shouting expletives and taunting the federal agents.
Abughazaleh later shared the video on her X account, claiming the vehicle she attempted to block held a fellow protester arrested earlier that day.
She accused ICE officials of nearly running over someone during the incident and deploying pepper balls and tear gas to control the crowd.
Federal officials also used riot control smoke at one point to manage the escalating situation.
Three protesters were arrested during the Friday demonstration in Broadview, adding to the day's chaos.
Abughazaleh condemned the actions of ICE on X, stating, "This is what it looks like when ICE violates our First Amendment rights."
She further criticized the response, saying, "What ICE just did to me was a violent abuse of power — and it’s still nothing compared to what they’re doing to immigrant communities."
In a statement to a reporter, she added, "We have no weapons. We have signs and chants and songs, and they are treating us like it's a war zone."
In a striking testimony before the House Oversight Committee, former U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta opened up about his controversial decision to negotiate a plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007, the Daily Caller reported.
Acosta's Friday testimony detailed his role in securing Epstein’s immunity from federal prosecution, the rationale for the agreement, and addressed claims involving President Donald Trump’s ties to the case.
Back in 2007, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Acosta played a pivotal role in crafting a plea deal with Epstein, who faced severe federal charges that could have meant a life sentence.
The agreement allowed Epstein to sidestep federal trial by pleading guilty to two state charges in 2008, resulting in a mere 13-month jail term, sex offender registration, and victim compensation.
Acosta testified that a critical issue was whether to handle Epstein’s prosecution at the federal or state level, given the high stakes involved.
He mentioned that the lead prosecutor flagged significant evidentiary hurdles that might have weakened their case if it proceeded to trial.
Acosta revealed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office ultimately agreed on a negotiated settlement to mitigate the risk of a trial loss.
He feared that failing to convict Epstein could imply he dodged justice, potentially enabling further offenses.
Despite his office’s stance against work release for Epstein, Acosta noted that Palm Beach County permitted it, contrary to expectations.
Acosta emphasized that had his office foreseen the state’s lenient handling, including work release and weak prosecution, they would not have transferred the case to state authority.
He accepted accountability for the plea decision and conveyed regret over the subsequent outcomes.
A Justice Department report later determined that Acosta displayed “poor judgment” in the matter, though it found no professional misconduct.
Addressing rumors about President Donald Trump, Acosta confirmed he never encountered Trump’s name in any Epstein-related files, a view supported by former Attorney General Bill Barr.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer stated, “To be clear: former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr has stated there is no evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump. We call on Democrats to end these distractions and instead focus on what truly matters: transparency and accountability.”
Comer commended Acosta’s participation, saying, “Alex Acosta cooperated with our questions today and provided information that will help advance our investigation into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. This information will guide our next steps as we work to bring accountability, and we expect to announce new action soon. We will also release the transcript of Mr. Acosta’s interview to ensure transparency for the American people.”
President Donald Trump has unexpectedly pulled his pick for U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, a move that has stirred fresh political debate in Washington, JustTheNews reported.
Trump's decision to withdraw Erik Siebert, originally nominated in May, came after Siebert received bipartisan backing from Virginia’s Democratic senators amidst a stalled Senate confirmation process and his possible oversight of a high-profile mortgage fraud investigation.
Trump selected Siebert for the federal post earlier this year, aiming to fill a significant position responsible for prosecuting federal crimes in one of the nation’s busiest judicial districts.
Unexpectedly, Siebert attracted vocal support from Virginia Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Democrats, who are known for their partisan opposition to many of the Trump administration's nominees.
This bipartisan approval initially appeared to offer Siebert a rare path through a Senate confirmation process that has been slowed by sharp political conflict.
However, as the Senate continued to delay action on most nominations through procedural roadblocks, Siebert’s confirmation never came to a vote.
If confirmed, Siebert would have overseen a sensitive investigation involving New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was accused by a federal housing agency of mortgage fraud.
The case centered on allegations that James had improperly listed two properties, including one in Virginia, as her primary residence when applying for home loans.
Letitia James has denied the mortgage fraud claims and insisted that her niece resides at the Virginia address in question, seeking to clarify the circumstances surrounding the property’s status.
According to President Trump, Siebert’s confirmation support from Warner and Kaine was the primary reason for his change of heart.
"I want him out," the president told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, openly expressing distrust in the bipartisan endorsement Siebert received.
Trump elaborated further, saying he directed the withdrawal after seeing Siebert approved by "two gentlemen that are bad news, as far as I'm concerned."
Critics of the mortgage fraud investigation into James suggest political motivations are in play, noting James’ history of opposition to Trump’s administration and her high-profile legal disputes involving Trump interests.
Despite these claims, the accusation against James remains based on her housing loan filings, not on political actions or statements.
As of now, Siebert’s nomination has been formally withdrawn, and Trump’s decision leaves the post for U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia vacant as the administration weighs its next steps.
President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign thousands of pardons, sparking a heated debate over the legality and transparency behind these actions, as Fox News reports.
The controversy revolves around Trump’s claims that Biden did not personally authorize many of the 4,245 clemency acts signed during his administration, particularly those finalized in his last months in office using an autopen machine.
Trump’s objections to Biden’s use of an autopen, a device that replicates a person’s signature through programmed movements, have been ongoing for months.
Trump argues that the thousands of pardons signed this way are invalid because Biden was unaware of the specific documents being authorized.
During his recent trip to the U.K., Trump reiterated his stance to reporters.
He stated, "It was illegally used. He never gave the orders. He never told them what to do."
Trump further added, "And I guess the only one he signed, or one of the few he signed, was the pardon for his son."
The criticism centers on the process during Biden’s tenure, where an autopen, capable of using various pens like ballpoints or markers, was employed for signing important orders and pardons.
A spokesperson for Biden did not immediately provide a comment when approached by Fox News Digital regarding these allegations.
According to a July report from the New York Times, several significant preemptive pardons were finalized in Biden’s last days in office with the approval of his chief of staff, Jeff Zients.
While Biden reportedly decided on these clemency acts during a meeting, it was Zients who gave the final go-ahead for the autopen to be used in cases involving prominent figures like Anthony Fauci, former chief medical advisor, and Gen. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Biden, however, told the New York Times that he personally made every clemency decision independently.
Data from the Pew Research Center shows that Biden granted a total of 4,245 acts of clemency during his presidency, with 96% of these occurring between October 2024 and January 2025, his final months in office.
In contrast, a White House official previously informed Fox News Digital that Trump uses his own hand signature for all legally binding documents. However, he has admitted to using an autopen for personal letters.
Adding to the scrutiny, Zients appeared before the House Oversight Committee this week to address concerns over Biden’s mental acuity during his term, adding to what is sure to be continued controversy.
In a fiery outburst on social media, President Donald Trump has accused former special counsel Jack Smith and the Biden administration of targeting conservative organizations like Turning Point USA with politically motivated investigations.
This controversy centers on Trump's claims of a weaponized Justice Department, Smith's investigations into Republican groups, and ensuing legal and political battles with Senate Republicans.
The issue gained traction earlier this year when Trump took to Truth Social on Wednesday to express outrage over an investigation into Turning Point USA, a nonprofit co-founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012.
Trump questioned the motives behind the probe, suggesting it was an attempt to silence conservative voices.
He stated, “Why was the wonderful Turning Point under INVESTIGATION by ‘Deranged’ Jack Smith and the Corrupt & Incompetent Biden Administration?”
In another post, he added, “They tried to force Charlie, and many other people and movements, out of business. They Weaponized the Justice Department against Sleepy Joe Biden’s Political Opponents, including ME!”
The investigation, part of a broader election interference probe by Smith and the Biden administration, targeted Republican-led organizations and donors who backed Trump’s claims regarding the 2020 election.
Among the efforts was a specific operation dubbed “Arctic Frost,” which examined 92 GOP-affiliated groups and individuals.
On Tuesday, Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released audio and records related to this probe, shedding light on its extensive reach.
Grassley also highlighted past actions during the Trump administration, noting the removal of certain FBI agents for alleged partisan behavior.
He remarked, “Since the Trump administration took power, many FBI agents have been removed. The removals included agents and prosecutors who became partisan weapons that lost their way, and I’ve made records public to prove it.”
Additionally, Senate Republicans initiated a watchdog investigation earlier this year into Smith, alleging violations of the Hatch Act, though Smith’s legal team dismissed these claims as baseless.
Smith, who resigned from his special counsel position earlier this year ahead of Trump’s inauguration, has staunchly defended his actions in the 2020 election investigations.
He asserted, “The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully.”
In a January letter, Smith further clarified, “To all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”