As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Katherine Abughazaleh, who is running for Congress in Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, joined other anti-ICE protesters in Broadview last month to block a processing facility used by the agency.
Things quickly got out of control when an ICE agent lost a tear gas canister, which a protester picked up and threw in the direction of NewsNation reporter Ali Bradley.
Chaos continued to unfold when Abughazaleh decided to mess around with ICE. But one brave ICE agent stepped in and promptly took care of Abughazaleh.
Just one week later, Abughazaleh blocked an ICE vehicle AGAIN and bragged about it on social media.
On Wednesday, Abughazaleh was indicted along with five others for conspiring to impede the work of a federal law enforcement officer.
The indictment appears related to the second offense.
Abughazaleh called the indictment of her and the other agitators “an attack on our First Amendment rights” and vowed to fight back.
“Since I and others have exercised our First Amendment rights, ICE has hit, dragged, thrown, shot with pepper balls and teargassed hundreds of protesters, simply because we had the gall to say that masked men coming into our communities, abducting our neighbors and terrorizing us cannot become our new normal,” she said in a video posted on X.
It seems that leftists don’t believe the law should apply to them.
After years of watching BLM and Antifa burn down cities and attack law enforcement, they must have become convinced that the First Amendment covered physical violence.
What started as a custody dispute has exploded into a full-blown scandal involving federal prosecutors, judicial misconduct, and a system that seems more interested in protecting its own than delivering justice.
Gaviola, a California resident, is accused of violating a protective order involving her then-minor son in 2021. Prosecutors claim she conspired with Julio Sandoval, a Missouri boarding school dean, to remove her son from California against court orders. But instead of handling the case fairly, the government went nuclear. Why does the court have such an inappropriate interest in this case?
In 2023, Gaviola alleged that Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Tierney, one of the prosecutors assigned to her case, made highly inappropriate advances of a sexual nature toward her at a Fresno bar. He chose to become intoxicated and continue the inappropriate behavior. Rather than investigate the claim transparently, the entire Eastern District of California was quietly removed from the case. Every judge. Every prosecutor. Gone. Just like this flagrantly appalling behavior never happened.
Gaviola’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the prosecution (more than) violated her constitutional rights as a parent and her religious liberty by criminalizing her decision to send her son to a religious boarding school. That motion was denied even after her team cited the Supreme Court decision of TAMER MAHMOUD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THOMAS W. TAYLOR, ET AL.
Then came the venue shuffle. A Fresno-based judge initially ordered the case moved to the Northern District of California due to the misconduct allegations. But Chief Judge Troy Nunley overstepped his authority and reversed that decision, stating the case would remain in Fresno. Instead of transferring it, the Ninth Circuit’s Chief Judge assigned Seattle-based, Reagan-appointed Judge John C. Coughenour to be flown in to preside over the trial, setting a new precedent.
So, while the courtroom stays in Fresno, the people running it are outsiders brought in because the local bench was too compromised to continue.
George Pallas, Shana’s attorney, was asked for comment, and he didn’t mince words:
“This prosecution is a gross overreach by the federal government, turning a mother’s decision to enroll her son in a Christian boarding school into a felony charge. Shana Gaviola was simply exercising her fundamental parental rights to direct her child’s education and religious upbringing, yet she’s been dragged through the courts for over three years on a single-count indictment that carries a maximum of five years in prison—all because of a disputed state restraining order.”
“What we’re seeing here is selective and unfair prosecution. Shana believed she was acting in her son’s best interest by sending him to a faith-based school in Missouri, but instead of respecting parental autonomy, the government has weaponized a civil order into a criminal case. This isn’t justice; it’s an attack on family rights and religious freedom.”
“Imagine being a parent facing a family dispute, only to have federal authorities criminalize your choice of a Christian education for your child. That’s Shana’s reality—unfairly targeted while the real issues of prosecutorial ethics go unchecked. This case highlights how overzealous enforcement can destroy lives and erode public confidence in our justice system.”
“The prosecutorial misconduct in this case is shocking and undermines the entire process. The lead AUSA, who indicted Shana, had an improper ex parte encounter with her at a bar—without her counsel present—where he discussed the case and even urged her to speak with an FBI agent. This was never disclosed in discovery, violating her due process rights and ethical standards. Even the district judge expressed serious concerns about the appearance of impropriety.”
“Shana Gaviola has endured blatant misconduct from the prosecution, including hidden communications that should have been turned over under Brady and Rule 16. This isn’t just a mistake; it’s willful behavior that taints the case and demands dismissal. How can we trust a system where prosecutors bend the rules to secure a conviction against a devoted mother?”
This isn’t just about one woman. It’s about a justice system that’s lost its way. If federal prosecutors can behave this way and if judges can be so compromised that they all have to be replaced, what hope is there for the average American?
The Gaviola case is a warning shot. It shows how easily the government can turn a family dispute into a federal prosecution, and how quickly it can bury misconduct when it’s inconvenient.
Shana continues to fight the charges against her and the way her case has been handled is a disgrace. Americans deserve a justice system that works for them not against them. And when prosecutors cross the line, they should be held accountable, not protected by the very system they serve.
This single mother is in need of help from We the People. Supporting her younger children and having to fight this case have been battles in themselves.
Shana is facing overwhelming legal costs as she continues to fight for her life against the federal government. If you believe in parental rights, religious liberty, and the fight against government overreach, please consider donating to her legal defense fund:
DC US Attorney Jeanine Jeanine Pirro on Thursday unmasked the third suspect in the murder of 21-year-old Capitol Hill intern Eric Tarpinian-Jachym.
As previously reported, a 21-year-old intern for Republican Representative Ron Estes of Kansas was killed in late June in Washington, D.C..
Eric Tarpinian-Jachym, 21, who was a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, was shot and killed in Northwest Washington, D.C.
Eric Tarpinian-Jachym, who worked as an intern for Rep. Ron Estes, was the victim of a shooting in Washington, D.C., on Monday and died of his injuries on Tuesday. (@massgop / X screen shot)
Police reported that the shooting occurred around 10:28 pm on June 30 when the suspects fired shots at Tarpinian-Jachym and two others, which included a 16-year-old male and an adult female.
Last month Mugshots of the two ‘juveniles’ who murdered Eric Tarpinian-Jachym were finally released this weekend after authorities hid their identities for months.
Kelvin Thomas Jr. (left) and Jailen Lucas (right), face first-degree murder charges in the killing of 21-year-old Congressional intern Eric Tarpinian-Jachym
Fox News reported that investigators have stated the shooting was targeted, but Tarpinian-Jachym was not the intended target.
On Thursday it was revealed that police finally arrested the third suspect accused of killing Tarpinian and Zoey Kelley: 18-year-old Naqwan Lucas.
Jeanine Pirro went off on the Democrat DC Council for protecting young criminals.
“We live in a district where all three of these juveniles that I just mentioned are known to the juvenile court. That’s all I’m gonna say. I can’t say more and I want to,” Pirro said in a fiery rebuke.
“But I can tell you this that 2 innocent souls were taken from us in what I believe were predictable homicides based on the behavior of these individuals and the records that everyone knew about!” she said.
Pirro continued, “But the DC Council is more interested in protecting young criminals under the guise of protecting the innocence of youth. It’s time for them to start protecting the citizens of the district, because this is what we’re ending up with!”
“We’re having victims five blocks away, 79 rounds on the ground! This is normal behavior in DC! No more excuses from this council!” Pirro said.
WATCH:
ARREST MADE: Police say 18-year-old Naqwan Lucas, accused of killing congressional intern Eric Tarpinian-Jachym and 17-year-old Zoey Kelley, has been taken into custody months after the two fatal shootings. pic.twitter.com/qmzte0vVBp
The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether Black Lives Matter leaders defrauded donors of tens of millions of dollars.
The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) raised over $90 million in 2020 during and after the George Floyd riots. They also raised more than $75 million in 2021.
The donations to BLMGNF have significantly dwindled in recent years because the majority of the public no longer supports Black Lives Matter.
The Associated Press reported that DOJ prosecutors have already issued subpoenas and “at least one search warrant.”
No other details about the investigation were released.
Fox News also reported that prosecutors are investigating BLM leaders.
The Justice Department is investigating whether leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement defrauded donors who contributed tens of millions of dollars during racial justice protests in 2020, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
In recent weeks, federal law enforcement officials have issued subpoenas and at least one search warrant as part of an investigation into the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. and other Black-led organizations that helped spark a national reckoning on systemic racism, said the people, who were not authorized to discuss an ongoing criminal probe by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.
It was not clear if the investigation would result in criminal charges, but its mere existence invites fresh scrutiny to a movement that in recent years has faced criticism about its public accounting of donations they have received. The recent burst of investigative activity is also unfolding at a time when civil rights groups have raised concerns about the potential for the Trump administration to target a broad variety of progressive and left-leaning groups that have been critical of him, including those affiliated with BLM, the transgender rights movement and anti-ICE protesters.
Last year the former head of Black Lives Matter Atlanta was sentenced to prison for stealing donations to fund his lavish lifestyle.
Tyree Conyers-Page was sentenced to 42 months in prison after he was found guilty on one count of wire fraud and three counts of money laundering
Former head of BLM Atlanta Tyree Conyers-Page
Page isn’t the only BLM member who lived a lavish lifestyle after the George Floyd riots in 2020.
Marxist BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors went on a real estate buying spree after the George Floyd riots.
Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a self-described “trained Marxist” bought not just one, but four high-end homes.
In 2021, Patrisse Cullors resigned as executive director after what she called a smear campaign from ‘right wing groups’ over her real estate buying spree.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The Trump administration is moving to override state laws that protect consumers’ credit reports from medical debt.
Under the Biden administration, more than a dozen states, including California, New York, and Colorado, had passed laws to keep medical debt off credit reports, arguing that such debt can make it harder for people to buy a home, get a car, or find a job. The Trump administration contends that federal law should supersede these state-level protections.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an interpretative rule stating that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) takes precedence over any state regulations governing how debts are reported to credit bureaus such as Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. This move reverses Biden-era policies that allowed states like New York and Delaware to prohibit the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports.
The CFPB maintains that Congress intended to establish a uniform national standard for credit reporting. The agency, now primarily focused on repealing previous regulations, says state laws restricting the reporting of debt conflict with federal intent.
Medical debt remains widespread because of disputes with insurance companies but largely because of peoples inability to pay. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates Americans owe about $220 billion in medical debt, with roughly one in six residents in poorer Republican-led states carrying such debt.
The three major credit bureaus already agreed in 2023 to stop reporting medical debts under $500, which eliminated about 70% of such listings, but some states had gone further by banning medical debt reporting entirely. Critics warn that overturning these laws could hurt borrowers’ credit scores and limit access to mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards.
A credit report is like a financial report card showing your history of borrowing and repaying money. It includes your payment history on credit cards, loans, and mortgages; how much debt you currently have; how long you’ve had credit accounts; and whether you’ve had any bankruptcies or foreclosures. Lenders, landlords, and even employers use credit reports to decide whether to trust you with a loan, apartment, or job. Your credit report affects your credit score, a number that reflects how reliable you are with money.
If putting medical debt back on credit reports hurts a borrower’s chances of getting a loan, then that’s exactly what should happen. A credit score measures your ability to repay future loans. If you’re already burdened with medical debt, that affects your ability to repay other loans, and banks and lenders have every right to know that. A credit report exists for one reason: to show whether you can afford to take on more debt.
Some people argue that medical debt should not appear on credit reports because it reflects bad luck, not bad credit. But that argument is nonsense. We are all human, and there is a 100 percent certainty that each of us will experience a major illness or accident at some point in life, either personally or through our children, and will face large medical bills. This isn’t about bad luck; it’s simple statistical probability. Since these expenses directly affect a person’s ability to repay other debts, they absolutely belong on the credit report.
One argument that bears some weight is that medical debt often results from disputes with insurance companies or delayed payments that may eventually be resolved. While this is true in some cases, it is not true of all medical debt, and not all disputes are settled. In many situations, the debt, or a large portion of it, ultimately remains with the borrower, and that debt then impedes their ability to repay other loans.
Whether a person can handle more debt depends on their income, existing obligations, and payment history. It doesn’t matter whether the debt came from medical bills, credit cards, student loans, or a car accident, debt is debt. If you owe $20,000, that’s $20,000 less you have available to repay new loans. When a bank considers issuing a mortgage, it needs to know if the applicant already has major financial commitments draining their income.
At the end of the day, if researchers claim that medical debt does not impede people’s ability to repay other loans, then it can only mean that those borrowers are choosing not to pay their medical debt, which is yet another reason to give them a lower credit score.
The Biden-Harris administration pushed this policy at the same time as their student loan forgiveness plan, both of which were steps toward socialism. Forgiving student loans is essentially providing free education without calling it that, and removing medical debt from credit reports is a backdoor way of granting free healthcare.
If people can simply refuse to pay their medical bills without consequence, private healthcare would collapse. By erasing medical debt from credit scores, they would also increase defaults on other loans that borrowers would normally be unqualified to take. So this would have been the beginning of a slide into socialism.
President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the United States will reduce tariffs on Chinese imports by 10 percentage points, lowering the overall rate from 57 percent to 47 percent.
The move follows his meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea. In exchange for the tariff cut, China pledged to take “very strong action” against the production and export of precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl.
Trump said the understanding also includes commitments by China to resume large-scale purchases of American soybeans, sorghum, and other farm goods, as well as to continue the export of rare earths and critical minerals.
“China has strongly stated that they will work diligently with us to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country,” Trump said in a post on X Thursday. He added that both sides are exploring a potential U.S. energy deal involving oil and gas purchases from Alaska.
The Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card replaced traditional food stamps in 2000. Public domain image created by a U.S. Department of Agriculture employee as part of official duties.
Instagram and Twitter are abuzz with complaints about how the government shutdown is cutting SNAP benefits, and children in the U.S. are going hungry. Liberals blame Republicans for the shutdown and claim Republicans don’t care about Americans.
Of course, liberals omit the fact that the shutdown happened because Democrats refused to cut funding for illegal aliens. And as for children “going hungry,” only about 4 percent of American households face what’s called “food insecurity,” which is not the same as hunger. These households already qualify for federal assistance programs. In reality, there is almost no true hunger in the United States.
If Democrats are truly concerned about these people, they shouldn’t have allowed the government to shut down.
Moving from logic to data, liberal media claim that 89.4 percent of SNAP recipients are U.S.-born citizens and less than 11 percent are foreign-born, including 6.2 percent naturalized citizens, 1.1 percent refugees, and 3.3 percent other non-citizens (such as lawful permanent residents). Therefore, they say, Republicans are wrong to argue that benefits are going to illegals.
However, with statistics you must ask the right questions to get the right answers. The issue isn’t just individual recipients; it’s households. Illegal-alien parents can and do use their U.S.-born citizen children to qualify for benefits, and the numbers are staggering.
More than half of all illegal-immigrant households have at least one U.S.-born child through whom they can receive aid. Nearly 2.7 million households have at least one illegal head and one child, and more than 5.3 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens hold Social Security numbers. The total estimated cost to American taxpayers of providing SNAP benefits to the children of illegal aliens is almost $5.8 billion.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) indicates that 54 percent of households headed by immigrants—including naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants, used one or more major welfare programs.
By comparison, 39 percent of U.S.-born households received such benefits. Among non-citizens, the rate rises to 59 percent, and for illegal immigrants, an estimated 59 percent use at least one welfare program. The American Enterprise Institute further reports that 59.4 percent of illegal-immigrant households receive welfare benefits, and compared to the U.S.-born, illegal-headed households use every major program at statistically higher rates, except for SSI, TANF, and housing.
At the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration to the United States at the federal, state, and local levels was estimated at $150.7 billion. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reported that federal expenditures on illegal aliens alone totaled nearly $66.5 billion, including more than $23 billion in medical expenses and $11.6 billion in welfare benefits such as food stamps, child nutrition, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
An example of how disastrous federal, state, and local policies can converge into a perfect storm of benefits for migrants and illegal aliens is, of course, New York City, the city that may soon be run by a democratic socialist, Zohran Mamdani, who currently leads in the polls.
Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan provided states with $350 billion in flexible federal funds, which some states used to give unemployment payments to illegal immigrants. New York created a $2.1 billion program for illegal immigrants, paying benefits to 290,000 people who received the equivalent of $3,000 per week. This compensation was intended for those who lost their jobs during the pandemic, even though they were working illegally without a work permit.
Through September 30, 2025, New York City recorded migrant-related expenditures of $1.47 billion in FY 2023, $3.75 billion in FY 2024, $3.02 billion in FY 2025, and $498.7 million projected for FY 2026. Over a six-month period, the city distributed debit cards to more than 7,300 migrants at a total cost of $2.6 million.
Each card was loaded with $12.52 per person per day for 28 days. The $53 million contract with Mobility Capital Finance included $1.5 million in fees for the first $50 million distributed and $2.5 million for the next $100 million.
In May 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration quietly changed the state’s Safety Net Assistance eligibility rules to allow non-citizens with pending asylum applications to receive benefits. This made thousands of migrants eligible for cash payments.
Asylum-seekers can now submit their receipt notice to qualify for cash assistance of $180 per person per month, available for up to two years, along with non-cash benefits such as utility and housing vouchers, Fair Fares, and Medicaid. Approximately 7,400 migrant and refugee households in the city currently benefit from the Safety Net Assistance program, making up roughly 4 percent of all city cases.
Additional programs also provide support regardless of immigration status. NYC Care offers low-cost or free health care to residents who do not qualify for or cannot afford health insurance. Other available services include emergency Medicaid for urgent medical needs, free K-12 public school enrollment, free school meals, ESL classes, food pantries, and mental health services.
Conservatives sometimes make the mistake of saying they don’t want welfare going to illegal aliens. At that point, liberals are partly justified in responding that welfare doesn’t go to illegals, or that only a small portion does. However, many other benefits do flow to illegal aliens or reach them through their U.S.-born children. In reality, we should replace the word receive with benefit from, and replace welfare with taxpayer-funded benefits.
When we consider all benefits, including local, state, and federal taxpayer money spent on education, emergency medical care, and other services beyond traditional welfare programs, the true cost to U.S. taxpayers is roughly $150 billion.
During the government shutdown, President Trump has ordered several departments to conduct citizenship audits to ensure that benefits are only going to those legally in the country. Thanks to the Democrats, the flow of funds has been halted while the audits continue.
Kamala Harris throws a fit over the Trump ballroom on “The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart.” Credit: The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, YouTube screenshot.
Kamala Harris lost her temper during a newly released interview on Thursday after being asked about President Trump’s planned White House ballroom.
As The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft reported, construction began last week on the new Big Beautiful White House Ballroom that will have room for nearly 1,000 guests for future White House social events and state dinners with world leaders.
Trump previously announced that he was planning to build the new ballroom at the White House and told reporters that he’s paying for the $300 million project.
President Trump added, “They’ve wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years, but there’s never been a President that was good at ballrooms.
Harris appeared on washed-up leftist comedian Jon Stewart’s podcast “The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart,” where they discussed topics ranging from the challenges she faced on the Presidential campaign trail to Trump’s White House souvenirs.
The tenor of the interview changed from jovial to angry on Harris’s part when Stewart asked her about the White House Ballroom.
Harris responded by throwing a vulgar hissy fit over Trump’s long-overdue plan and accused him of deliberately ignoring babies who “are going to starve” when the SNAP benefits expire.
“Are you f**king kidding me?” Harris said. “This guy wants to create a ballroom for his rich friends while completely turning a blind eye to the fact that babies are going to starve when the SNAP benefits end in just hours from now! Come on!”
I’m not going to be distracted by, ‘Oh, does the guy have a big f**king hammer!?’ What about those babies!?
WATCH:
NEW: Kamala Harris *MELTS DOWN* over Trump ballroom
“Are you f*cking kidding me? This guy wants to create a ballroom for his rich friends while completely turning a blind eye to the fact that babies are going to starve when the SNAP benefits end in just hours from now! Come… pic.twitter.com/11iT7n3EH7
Someone might want to let Harris know that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the ballroom.
Several major companies, including Amazon and Microsoft, have stepped up to help Trump cover the cost.
Democrats can also ensure SNAP benefits do not expire by doing a straightforward thing: reopening the government. Of course, doing so would anger their far-left base, which pushed them to shut down the government to begin with.
The full Kamala Harris-Jon Stewart interview can be viewed below:
“[Diddy] is all checked in at his new home for the next two-and-a-half years … TMZ has learned he’s begun serving his federal prison sentence.
Law enforcement sources tell us Diddy was transferred to FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey early Thursday morning and began the check-in process. Remember, this is the prison he requested to serve his time at after Judge Arun Subramanian sentenced him to 50 months in prison.”
Diddy brutally beats down Cassie Ventura who tried to escape a ‘Freak-Off’ sex marathon.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons apparently granted Diddy’s request.
“The mogul’s legal team said Fort Dix is the best landing spot for Diddy because there he will be able to ‘address drug abuse issues’ and ‘maximize family visitation and rehabilitative efforts’.
[…] The federal prison is low security, but Diddy’s longtime lawyer, Mark Geragos, previously told Harvey on the “2 Angry Men” podcast that Diddy will have a target on his back wherever he ends up … and concerns about sexual assaults and other violent assaults are real.”
“Combs was transferred this morning from MDC-Brooklyn to FCI Fort Dix, the facility his legal team requested because it offers a special drug treatment problem that, if completed successfully, could knock time off his sentence.
Combs is not being housed in the prison’s general population but in the special drug program unit, the sources said.
Meanwhile, Combs is asking a federal appeals court to expedite his appeal of his conviction on two prostitution-related charges, arguing he could finish his prison sentence before his appeal is heard on a normal timetable.
Combs is appealing his conviction and his sentence.”
