A wave of attention swept across social media after reports surfaced that former DEA official Paul Campo had been criminally indicted. The allegation connecting him to cartel-linked money laundering immediately ignited political reactions. The news prompted claims that former President Barack Obama was “scrambling” in response, as critics tied Campo’s past government service to the unfolding scandal.

According to the allegation circulating online, Campo was accused of assisting cartel operations in a major way. The charge centers on an alleged agreement to participate in laundering a substantial amount of money. The figure frequently cited is striking: twelve million dollars. The accusation contends that Campo was willing to help move these funds on behalf of criminal organizations.

News of the indictment spread rapidly, gaining the tone of a breaking development. Commentators framed the situation as a major breach of trust within federal law-enforcement ranks.

Political voices immediately seized on the headlines. Some suggested that the case raised broader questions about oversight and accountability within agencies operating under past administrations.

The claims added fuel to existing partisan disputes surrounding law-enforcement integrity. The idea that a former official might be tied to cartel activity heightened the intensity of the discussion.

In online conversations, users debated the seriousness of the charges. Many expressed shock that someone who once held a position of authority could face such allegations.

Others focused on the political implications, arguing that the indictment could have ripple effects far beyond the case itself. Some saw it as evidence of deeper institutional issues.

As the story continued spreading, it became a flashpoint for renewed scrutiny of federal agencies, past leadership, and the broader fight against organized crime.

Fox News’ Peter Doocy provided chilling details after a report this week indicated a possible connection between President Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, Thomas Crooks, and Tyler Robinson, the man charged with killing Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk.

“Insisting there is nothing helpful in Thomas Crooks’ digital footprint, there are newly discovered posts believed to be linked to Crooks showing him with guns and showing him with an affinity for assassins. There is a new push to visit bipartisan congressional investigation as investigators claim they were never briefed about any Crooks posts,” Doocy said on Fox & Friends while outside the White House.

“I want to know everything there is to know about this country. I think our country deserves it. I think our family deserves it. I think the world deserves it. By the way, forked credibility of the Secret Service, and I love men and women of the Secret Service, dear friends, better get the real story up. Lack of information could be
made public so far,” Doocy added.

“People at the FBI said the president assured them he is satisfied with the investigation of what he has been told. What are you to believe? People who brief the president or Miranda, Levine of the New York Post, or both, or maybe the president changed his mind,” co-host Brian Kilmeade said.

New reporting indicates a connection between Crooks and Robinson.

TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said the development is “a five-alarm fire,” responding Monday on social media to a report by New York Post columnist Miranda Devine.

Devine highlighted Crooks’ online interest in transgenderism and the “furry” subculture. Robinson’s roommate was described as his transgender partner, who also reportedly had a furry fetish.

Devine reported that investigators have provided little clarity about Crooks’ motive for attempting to assassinate then-candidate Trump in July 2024.

“Crooks was shot dead by a Secret Service sniper, but not before he killed rallygoer Corey Comperatore, 50, and seriously wounded David Dutch, 58, and James Copenhaver, 75, who were sitting in the bleachers behind Trump,” Devine wrote.

“There is something very wrong with the official story and that invites conspiracy theories,” she said.

Devine added that a source revealed new details from Crooks’ digital footprint, including posts showing he shifted from enthusiastically pro-Trump to openly hostile toward the former president and his supporters beginning in 2020.

“How can you people call others sheep, but you are [too] brainwashed to realize how dumb you are,” he wrote on Feb. 26, 2020.

“I mean literally you guys sound like a cult at times.”

In August 2020, Crooks posted that “the only way to fight the gov is with terrorism style attacks,” urging followers to bomb essential buildings and assassinate political leaders.

Rod Swanson, a former senior FBI agent and former chief of investigations for Nevada during the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, said there is no scenario in which the FBI would have missed Crooks’ online behavior.

“No matter how ridiculous the allegation, no matter if it’s COVID or not, somebody is going to knock on somebody’s door,” Swanson said.

“If they investigated that kid there’s a record of it and there’s an assessment that some leader made that this was not a threat or it rose to a level and they did something else.”

Devine also noted Crooks’ identification with “they/them” pronouns on the art platform DeviantArt, a major hub for the furry community.

She wrote that he showed a deep interest in anthropomorphized animal characters, often associated with sexual themes.

Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s roommate, was also reportedly involved in the furry subculture.

Turning Point USA’s Jack Posobiec said Robinson’s trial should be televised.

“There’s questions coming out about the strange relationship between Lance Twiggs and Tyler Robinson,” Posobiec said.

“Drug use, obsessions with ChatGPT, the furry lifestyle, black market HRT (hormone treatment).”

Both the Crooks and Robinson cases appear to involve similar underlying mental health struggles.

Tim Walz Under Fire As Multiple Scandals Mount

Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz is facing two massive scandals that could put his re-election campaign at risk. Walz is being slammed for using $430,000 of taxpayer money for “debate prep,” as well as allegations that he was aware of large-scale fraud involving state aid programs within the Somali community.

Nearly 500 employees in Minnesota’s state government say Walz ignored repeated internal warnings about large-scale fraud involving state aid programs within the Somali community and that he retaliated against staff who raised concerns.

The employees, who work within the state Department of Human Services, have for several years operated an anonymous X account outlining what they describe as ongoing cases of fraud and misuse of public funds.

The group has previously issued warnings to state leaders and to Minnesota residents about patterns of financial abuse they say they identified in program oversight.

In a new post, the employees alleged that Walz not only failed to act on their alerts but also took punitive measures against staff members who attempted to report the issues through official channels.

“Tim Walz is 100% responsible for massive fraud in Minnesota,” the group said in a November 29 post referencing a New York Times article on the crimes. “We let Tim Walz know of fraud early on, hoping for a partnership in stopping fraud, but no, we got the opposite response.

“Tim Walz systematically retaliated against whistleblowers using monitoring, threats, repression, and did his best to discredit fraud reports,” they added. “Instead of partnership, we got the full weight of retaliation by Tim Walz, certain DFL members, and an indifferent mainstream media. It’s scary, isolating, and left us wondering who we can turn to.”

The whistleblowers also allege that Walz “disempowered the Office of the Legislative Auditor” to allow the fraud to continue freely and “attacked whistleblowers who were trying to raise red flags on fraudulent activities.”

Scrutiny of Walz has intensified following reports that some Minnesota state aid dollars may have been diverted to an African terrorist organization, Breitbart News reported.

Beyond the allegations of widespread fraud within Minnesota’s welfare programs, investigators have identified instances in which Somali migrants allegedly funneled millions in taxpayer funds to al-Shabaab, an Islamic extremist group operating in East Africa.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that his department is examining whether Minnesota state funds were improperly routed to al-Shabaab.

The investigation follows earlier reports that fraud within the state’s aid programs reached far beyond financial losses and may have contributed to overseas terrorist financing.

Fraud allegations have surfaced across multiple Minnesota welfare and aid programs, extending well beyond the Department of Human Services.

One of the earliest and largest cases involved Feeding Our Future, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit whose operators — many of them members of the local Somali community — are accused by federal prosecutors of stealing approximately $250 million in child nutrition funds.

Additional investigations have uncovered tens of millions of dollars in alleged fraud within Minnesota’s autism treatment program, as well as more than $550 million in losses tied to the state’s coronavirus pandemic relief efforts.

A separate Feeding Our Future–related case also centers on the alleged theft of over $250 million in state pandemic-era aid meant to provide meals for children. Federal authorities say the various schemes represent some of the largest cases of public-assistance fraud in state history and involve networks of individuals across multiple programs.

That’s not the only scandal Walz is facing.

Republican state lawmakers in Minnesota have sharply criticized Walz after it was revealed he spent $430,000 of taxpayer money preparing for a recent House congressional hearing investigating blue state governors’ “sanctuary city” policies.

Walz’s office hired the prominent global law firm K&L Gates to assist with preparations for his mid-June testimony before the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee, which focused on questions about his and other blue state governors’ sanctuary city policies.

In May alone, Walz incurred approximately $232,000 in legal fees, with an average hourly rate of about $516, according to the invoices obtained by the Star Tribune.

The outlet further reported that K&L Gates worked with Walz’s office from April 10 through the June 12 hearing, with the legal preparation costing taxpayers a total of $430,000.

Minnesota Rep. Jim Nash, one of two Republicans on the state’s Legislative Advisory Commission, questioned why Walz chose to hire outside counsel instead of relying on the state’s attorneys and public relations experts.

Republican Minnesota state Rep. Harry Niska added there “appears to be no legitimate legal interest in the state racking up nearly half-a-million dollars in what amounts to PR consulting.”

At this point, it feels like every week brings another revelation about just how far the Biden regime went to weaponize the government against its political opponents. The pattern is undeniable — and the American people are fed up. They’re not tired of outrage; they’re tired of the inaction. Bombshell after bombshell drops, exposing layers of corruption and abuse of power that could fill a 10-story library — yet not a single person is ever held accountable. No indictments, no perp walks, no justice.

The fatigue is real, and it’s justified. Americans are sick of watching the powerful skate by while the rest of us are expected to play by the rules. The system isn’t just broken — it’s rigged, and people know it.

The newest bombshell — and hopefully the final straw — is something called Operation Arctic Frost.

We now know that under Joe Biden’s watch, the FBI and Special Counsel Jack Smith secretly spied on nine Republican members of Congress, including eight sitting U.S. senators. And no, this isn’t some “right-wing conspiracy theory.” It’s straight from official documents released by Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Those documents make it clear this wasn’t just some rogue surveillance blunder — it was a coordinated, authorized operation targeting elected officials for the “crime” of questioning the 2020 election. In other words, the Biden DOJ went after sitting lawmakers for doing their jobs. It’s the kind of abuse of power you’d expect to see in a banana republic, not the United States of America.

Here’s the backstory that lit the fuse on this bombshell. According to a New York Post report, the Biden DOJ and FBI went completely rogue — North Korea–style — by spying on Republican senators under the phony pretext of investigating “election interference.”

That’s the cover story they used to justify one of the most blatant abuses of power in modern history. This is where it all started — a politically motivated surveillance operation dressed up as law enforcement:

Arctic Frost began in April 2022 and was taken over by former special counsel Jack Smith later that year. It examined efforts by President Trump and his allies to challenge the 2020 election results, including by furnishing an alternative slate of electors.

On Monday, Grassley publicly released a Sept. 27, 2023, document titled “CAST Assistance,” which refers to the bureau’s cellular analysis team. That document claimed that the bureau had conducted “preliminary toll analysis on limited toll records.

Lawmakers targeted were Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), as well as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.)

Attorney General Pam Bondi needs to step up and make sure the next revelation doesn’t end in another shrug, and that it ends in handcuffs. Because bombshells are great, but perp walks are better.

They weren’t just going after Trump — not by a long shot. They had an entire laundry list of political targets, and Jack Smith was reportedly listening in on their calls. This wasn’t oversight; it was surveillance — pure and simple. Here’s more:

JACK SMITH CAUGHT SPYING ON GOP SENATORS’ PHONE CALLS

FBI documents reveal Smith’s “Arctic Frost” team tracked private communications of Graham, Blackburn, Hawley, and 8 other Republican senators.

They monitored who they called and their locations.

Dan Bongino (FBI Deputy Director):

“It is a disgrace… that the FBI was once weaponized to track the private communications of U.S. lawmakers”

Smith spent $50 million taxpayer dollars surveilling senators who questioned the 2020 election.

This proves the surveillance state wasn’t just for Trump.

The same political party that never stops lecturing America about “protecting democracy” was secretly spying on the phone records of sitting U.S. senators. Think about that — Richard Nixon was run out of office for thinking about something like this, yet the Biden regime did it in broad daylight and tried to pass it off as “national security.”

And now, thanks to new reporting, we know this wasn’t some rogue side project gone off the rails. It went straight to the top. FBI Director Christopher Wray knew. Special Counsel Jack Smith knew. Attorney General Merrick Garland knew. They didn’t just look the other way — they approved it:

So much for “no one is above the law,” right? That slogan went out the window the moment the Biden regime took power.

Under this administration, law enforcement has been transformed into the political brown shirt arm of the Democratic Party — punishing dissent, silencing critics, and spying on anyone who dares to question their narrative or the sham that was the 2020 election.

What used to be the Department of Justice now looks more like a department of political enforcement — and the message is clear: if you oppose them, they’ll come for you.

Again, AG Pam Bondi (well, and President Trump, of course) cannot let this go. There have to be indictments this time around, and the people responsible have to be held accountable. James Comey is a start, but that’s all he is. Let’s go.

General Michael “Erik” Kurilla has officially concluded his military career after three years leading U.S. forces in the Middle East, a tenure that included overseeing President Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran.

Kurilla, known by the nickname “The Gorilla,” capped a four-decade career with his role as chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), where he directed the unprecedented June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

He is succeeded by U.S. Navy Admiral Charles Bradford Cooper Jr., who was appointed earlier this month to take command of CENTCOM and oversee U.S. military operations across the region, the UK’s Daily Mail reported.

It remains unclear why Kurilla is stepping down now, even after earning the confidence of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the outlet reported.

At the height of tensions between Iran and Israel earlier this summer, Hegseth granted Kurilla broad operational authority and frequently deferred both decisions and public statements to him.

Kurilla’s departure comes during a period of upheaval at the Defense Department. Hegseth recently dismissed Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, after he or someone in his office was suspected of leaking an Iran damage assessment suggesting Trump’s strikes on Iran may not have fully destroyed its nuclear program. Kruse’s removal was part of a wave of firings that signaled a sharp shift inside the Pentagon.

In June, Trump announced he had authorized strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in response to escalating conflict between Israel and Tehran, the Daily Mail added. The U.S. military employed 12 massive 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs and 30 Tomahawk missiles in strikes on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear facilities.

However, just days later, CNN reported that the DIA’s initial assessment concluded the attacks had not destroyed core components of the sites and may have delayed Iran’s nuclear program by only a matter of weeks. What the report did not say was that the DIA’s assessment was also of “low confidence” in the intelligence.

Viewed by colleagues as highly cautious about Iran’s intentions, Kurilla successfully advocated for a major U.S. military buildup in the Middle East. His recommendations — including dispatching aircraft carriers and increasing the number of combat aircraft — were quickly approved, underscoring both the urgency of the situation and the Pentagon’s confidence in his leadership.

“I know that under the leadership of Admiral Brad Cooper, with the support of the Defense Department and Joint Staff, the counsel and contributions of our allies and partners, and support of our headquarters and component teams, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coastguardsmen, and Guardians of Central Command who serve this nation on the front lines of freedom will always succeed,” Kurilla said this week upon retiring.

“It has been the honor of my life to have been their commander,” he added.

The Democratic California government is preparing to sue the federal government after the Senate voted to nix its electric vehicle mandate.

On Thursday, the Republican Senate voted to roll back several key Biden-era waivers that allowed the state to set its own emissions standards, CNN reported. The vote undid a last-minute approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for California to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

“This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a press release.

“With these votes, Senate Republicans are bending the knee to President Trump once again,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution. As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”

“If this gambit works, it will not be the last time this tactic is used,” California Sen. Adam Schiff said as he accused Republicans of blowing “a hole in the filibuster for the oil industry.”

Senate Minority Leader and New York Senator Charles Schumer was furious with the Republicans for circumventing the filibuster.

“It’s going nuclear, plain and simple. It’s overruling the parliamentarian. And second, what goes around comes around,” the senator said to reporters.

And New Mexico Democrat Sen. Martin Heinrich echoed the words of the Senate Minority Leader.

“If Senate Republicans force a vote on the California Clean Air Act Waivers, they set a precedent that will allow Congress to overturn nearly any agency decision nationwide,” he said before the vote. “I urge my colleagues to reject this gross overreach.”

“By opening this door, Republicans threaten to destroy our permitting and regulatory system, leading to higher energy costs for Americans and making it impossible for new developments to come online. Indeed, nearly every major and minor project the federal government touches could be stalled, creating significant uncertainty if not complete chaos. That is not what the American people want, and it cannot be what Senate Republicans want, either,” he said.

But Republicans were not impressed, as Democrats have done the same thing many times.

“The only people that have attempted to get rid of the legislative filibuster – the Democrats – every single one up there that’s popping off and spouting off has voted, literally, to get rid of the legislative filibuster,” Senate Majority Leader and Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday.

“This is a novel and narrow issue that deals with the Government Accountability Office and whether or not they ought to be able to determine what is a rule and what isn’t, or whether the administration and the Congress ought to be able to make that decision,” he said.

Senate Majority Whip and Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso called California’s plan for EVs a “fantasyland” that will damage ranchers and farmers in his state.

“California’s EV mandates ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks. They threaten the freedom of every American to choose what they drive,” he said. “EVs currently make up 7% of the US market. Even in California, they account for only 20% of vehicle sales. And sales are stalling. Yet California’s radical mandates require 35% of all vehicle sales to be electric by 2026 – six months from now. By 2035, it jumps to 100%.”

President Donald Trump has reignited one of his most ambitious economic ideas: eliminating federal income tax for American citizens and replacing it entirely with revenue generated from tariffs on foreign goods. While he expressed this concept frequently during his 2024 presidential campaign, his recent remarks suggest that the idea has moved from campaign rhetoric into a proposal he now wants to advance during his time in office.

Speaking during a Cabinet meeting and in recent interviews, Trump framed the idea as a sweeping transformation of the U.S. tax system—one that, according to him, could be achievable “in the not too distant future.” His vision is rooted in a broader argument that the United States should fund its government primarily through tariffs rather than through taxes on citizens’ wages.

### A return to an older system
During his campaign, Trump often cited the earlier periods of American history when tariffs were the primary source of federal revenue. He has repeated the idea that relying on import taxes, rather than taxing personal income, made the country more prosperous and allowed American workers and industries to thrive.

“It’s time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before,” Trump said in earlier remarks, emphasizing that foreign producers should bear more of the financial burden of supporting the U.S. government, rather than American workers.

When asked by podcaster Joe Rogan whether he was serious about eliminating personal income taxes, Trump responded simply: “Yeah, sure, why not?” He argued that tariffs could be increased to levels that would generate sufficient revenue to cover government operations.

### A goal he says is within reach
In his recent Cabinet meeting, Trump expanded on the concept, suggesting that the federal income tax could be reduced dramatically or even eliminated entirely. “Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, but you won’t be paying income tax,” he said, reiterating that revenue from tariffs could eventually offset the need for income taxes.

Trump highlighted what he described as strong tariff revenues already being collected and suggested that these funds could rapidly accelerate with more aggressive policies. “The money we’re taking in is so great, it’s so enormous, that you’re not going to have income tax to pay,” he claimed.

This outlook represents one of the most dramatic tax overhauls proposed in modern U.S. history. While he has previously suggested eliminating income taxes for individuals earning under $150,000, exempting tips from taxation, and removing federal taxes from car loan payments and Social Security benefits, Trump’s latest statements go further—implying a full removal of the federal income tax itself.

### The numbers tell a different story
While Trump’s proposal has generated a wave of excitement among supporters who favor lower taxes and reduced government involvement in personal finances, many economists and tax experts argue that the math behind the idea is far more complicated than it might appear.

According to data from the U.S. Treasury Department, individual income taxes accounted for more than half of all federal revenue in the most recent fiscal year. Tariffs, by comparison, generated a small fraction—just under 4% of total revenue. Even during years with higher tariff levels, such as 2024, the numbers remained far from sufficient to match the revenue from income taxes.

Economists caution that replacing a revenue stream that makes up more than 50% of federal funding with one that currently represents only a few percentage points would require either unprecedented tariff increases or major reductions in federal spending. Brandon DeBot, a senior attorney adviser and policy director at New York University’s Tax Law Center, stated that the proposal is not mathematically feasible under present conditions.

Analysts across the political and economic spectrum share similar conclusions. Even with significant tariff hikes, import activity tends to decline as prices rise, which reduces revenue and can lead to disruptions in domestic markets. “It’s not possible. It’s not feasible mathematically or economically,” DeBot said.

### Economic and legal uncertainties
Beyond the revenue gap, tariffs come with economic side effects that experts say must be considered. Higher import taxes often lead to increases in consumer prices, since companies that rely on foreign goods pass the cost along to buyers. Because lower-income households spend a larger portion of their earnings on goods, tariffs can disproportionately affect them—making tariffs effectively regressive.

There is also the matter of international responses. When one country imposes steep tariffs, other nations often retaliate with their own trade barriers, which can affect American exports. Such retaliatory cycles can lead to reduced trade, slower economic growth, and increased uncertainty for businesses.

The legal dimension adds another layer of complexity. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing challenges to presidential tariff authority, brought forward by major businesses including Costco. If the Court curtails the president’s ability to unilaterally impose new tariffs, Trump may need Congressional approval for sweeping changes—something that would likely spark extensive debate.

Even with potential legal limitations, Trump has indicated he could rely on older statutory powers, including emergency authorities or trade laws dating back to the Great Depression, to continue implementing tariff policies.

### Support, skepticism, and what comes next
The idea of eliminating income taxes is naturally popular with many Americans who associate the federal income tax with financial stress and government overreach. The prospect of keeping more of their earnings is appealing, and the simplicity of a tax-free paycheck resonates with those who favor limited taxation and smaller government.

However, economists argue that the transition from the current system to a tariff-based model would require a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. economy. Everything—from the cost of everyday goods to the health of international trade relationships—would be affected. The U.S. has not relied primarily on tariffs since the early 20th century, and today’s globalized economy operates in a vastly different environment.

Supporters of Trump’s proposal see it as a bold reimagining of American financial policy—one that could strengthen domestic manufacturing, reduce reliance on foreign goods, and bring jobs back to the United States. Critics contend that the proposal oversimplifies complex revenue and trade dynamics and may lead to higher consumer costs and economic instability.

For now, Trump has not released a formal legislative plan outlining how income tax elimination would be structured, phased in, or replaced. Without detailed figures or a clear roadmap, the proposal remains an ambitious long-term goal rather than a near-term policy shift. Still, his repeated emphasis on the concept suggests it will remain a key feature of his economic agenda.

Whether the idea becomes a transformative policy or remains a symbolic vision will depend on a combination of economic conditions, political dynamics, legal authority, and the ability to reconcile the realities of federal revenue with public expectations.

What is clear is that Trump’s comments have reignited a national conversation about taxation, trade, and the future direction of American economic policy—a conversation that is likely to continue as the administration develops its broader financial agenda.

Justice Dept. Dares Anti-Trump Judge to Hold Admin Officials In Contempt

The Justice Department told U.S. District Judge James Boasberg it has provided all the information it is willing to share about the deportation flights to El Salvador in March and said that if he finds the response insufficient, he should move ahead with the criminal contempt proceedings he has threatened.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said under oath in a filing Friday evening that she ordered the flights to continue, despite what Boasberg views as clear instructions to halt the planes, The Washington Times reported.

Two senior lawyers, one from Homeland Security and one from the Justice Department, said they offered her legal advice but declined to disclose the details.

Tiberius Davis, a Justice Department attorney, said they continue to believe the judge’s orders were not clear and that Noem did not intentionally defy the court. He said that if Judge Boasberg disagrees, he should proceed with a referral for criminal contempt rather than compel testimony from Noem or other officials, the Times reported.

“Accordingly, if the court continues to believe its order was sufficiently clear in imposing an obligation to halt the transfer of custody for detainees who had already been removed from the United States, the court should proceed promptly with a referral,” Davis wrote.

He argued that requiring Noem to testify would violate separation-of-powers principles, adding that the appropriate time for a defendant to testify would be at trial.

“It would be prejudicial and constitutionally improper to compel testimony in advance of a referral for prosecution, particularly when all of the facts that are necessary for a potential referral are already known and have been presented under oath,” Davis wrote.

The dispute centers on the flights of Venezuelan migrants the government said were members of Tren de Aragua, along with Salvadorans, who were transported to El Salvador on three flights on March 15.

The Venezuelans were removed under the Alien Enemies Act, which allowed the government to bypass standard immigration procedures. One of the migrants was Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a repeat offender who had a previous immigration order of removal signed by judges.

Boasberg had ordered the planes grounded during a hearing that day without any thought regarding the logistical challenges or the fact that the planes were already in international airspace, according to the administration.

The government argued that two planes were already airborne and the migrants on board had technically been removed from the country before the order was issued.

A third plane departed after the judge’s directive, but the Justice Department said everyone on that flight was being deported under standard immigration law and was not covered by the judge’s ruling.

The Supreme Court later determined Boasberg did not have jurisdiction over the flights.

Boasberg has said that ruling does not erase his concerns about whether his orders were intentionally ignored. Those concerns were heightened by claims from Erez Reuveni, a former Justice Department lawyer who said he joined a meeting where senior officials discussed disregarding any judge who tried to stop the flights.

Reuveni specifically accused Emil Bove, a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump who served in a senior Justice Department role at the time and has since been appointed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lawyers for the migrants said they want Judge Bove to be compelled to testify.

They also said Reuveni should testify about what he witnessed.

Judge Boasberg said during a hearing last month that he is weighing whether to require in-person testimony or accept written declarations.

He said he would begin by seeking declarations from those “involved in the decision.”

Davis said they understood that to refer to the final decision-maker, Noem, as well as the lawyers who advised her.

Beets have long been admired for their vibrant color and natural nutritional value, earning a place among foods known for supporting overall wellness. Their naturally occurring nitrates convert into nitric oxide in the body, a compound that helps relax and widen blood vessels. This gentle effect supports healthy circulation, encourages smoother blood flow, and allows oxygen to move more efficiently throughout the body. Because of this, many people—whether athletes, older adults, or anyone staying active—often report feeling more energized when they include beets as part of a balanced diet. Rather than being a trendy food, beets offer benefits rooted in how the body naturally responds to their nutrients.

In addition to supporting circulatory health, beets are rich in dietary fiber, making them a helpful food for digestion and metabolic balance. Fiber plays a key role in keeping the digestive system running smoothly, promoting regularity, and nourishing beneficial gut bacteria. It also helps slow the absorption of carbohydrates, which can contribute to steadier energy levels throughout the day. The natural sweetness of beets, paired with their fiber content, allows them to offer flavor without causing the rapid spikes in energy associated with sugary snacks. When enjoyed consistently, they may contribute to a sense of balanced energy and overall comfort.

Another unique feature of beets is their deep red pigment, called betalains. These natural compounds function as antioxidants and help support the body’s normal inflammatory processes. They also assist the liver in its everyday detoxification work, offering gentle support without the intensity claimed by many extreme cleansing programs. People who include beets in their routine often describe feeling refreshed or lighter, which may be connected to the steady, natural support these pigments provide. Rather than acting as quick fixes, they contribute to overall well-being in small but meaningful ways.

Beets also supply a collection of essential vitamins and minerals, including folate, potassium, manganese, and iron. These nutrients support many basic functions—such as cell repair, fluid balance, bone strength, metabolism, and oxygen transport—helping the body operate smoothly day to day. While beets are generally safe for most people, a few considerations are worth noting. Beet juice without fiber may raise blood sugar more quickly, and some individuals may notice harmless red discoloration in urine or stool after eating them. Those who need to monitor oxalate intake or who are on certain medications should consult a healthcare professional when making major dietary changes. Ultimately, the real value of beets lies not in dramatic promises but in their consistent contribution to balanced meals. Whether roasted, blended, or added to salads, beets fit easily into everyday eating patterns and provide steady, nourishing support to long-term health.

Lynda Carter is far more than a Hollywood beauty—she is a lasting symbol of strength, grace, and charisma. Best known as the original Wonder Woman of the 1970s, Carter captivated audiences with her powerful yet compassionate portrayal of Diana Prince. At a time when strong female leads were rare, she redefined what a superhero could be and inspired generations of fans.

Born on July 24, 1951, in Phoenix, Arizona, Carter first gained national attention after being crowned Miss World USA in 1972. Unlike many beauty queens, she used her platform as a launchpad into entertainment, driven by a deep love for music and acting. Just a few years later, she landed the role that would change her life forever.

From 1975 to 1979, Carter’s performance as Wonder Woman became the gold standard for superhero portrayals on television. Her iconic costume, commanding presence, and unforgettable transformation spin made her instantly recognizable worldwide. Audiences admired not only her beauty, but the dignity and strength she brought to the role.

Beyond Wonder Woman, Carter built a diverse career in television, film, music, and voice acting. She released several albums and continued appearing on screen for decades. Just as important, she became a passionate advocate for women’s rights, LGBTQ+ causes, and Alzheimer’s research.
Her influence continues today, paving the way for modern superheroes like Gal Gadot. Decades later, Lynda Carter remains a beloved icon—proof that true legends never fade.