For years Democrats argued that “Antifa” is not a real organization; rather, they claim it is a set of ideals with no concrete membership.  This illusory definition of the movement is quite deliberate in that it is designed to protect Antifa members from being defined as terrorists or facing direct consequences for their actions.  

Legal questions have been growing over the use of federal terrorism laws against leftist activists.  Democrats claim they’re engaging in constitutionally protected civil protest – rationale used justify attacks on ICE agents during the execution of deportations.  It was also used extensively as legal grounds for violence and property destruction during the BLM riots.

Now, there’s been a conviction.

On Friday, nine defendants accused of being part of a North Texas “Antifa Cell” were convicted by a federal jury in Fort Worth. The incident in question took place on July 4th, 2025, at the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas – where anti-ICE protests functioned as cover for the vandalization of government property (vehicles, guard shack, security cameras), the use if exploding fireworks at the facility, and the shooting of a police officer.

The nine defendants faced a total of 65 charges that included attempted murder, aiding terrorists, and weapons charges. Those supporting the defendants have called those charges “outrageous”, saying the defendants were there protesting ICE and that the government has gone overboard to send a message.

The most serious charge (attempted murder, on which group member Benjamin Song was convicted) was against an Alvarado police lieutenant (Lt. Thomas Gross), a local law enforcement officer who responded to the scene after a 911 call. He was ambushed and shot in the neck by gunfire from a wooded area as he exited his vehicle (he survived). 

Shots were fired toward responding officers and possibly toward the facility/guards, but no reports confirm any ICE agents (as in deportation/enforcement officers) were directly shot or injured.  Leftists on social media are already calling for violence against the jury who convicted their “comrades”. 

The attack is only one among a long list of Anti-ICE operations by activists over the past year, many of them involving efforts to maim or kill ICE agents.    

It should be noted that the establishment media nearly buried this story and it has only gained widespread attention due to the trial.  There has been a concerted effort by progressive news outlets to run cover for Antifa and Anti-ICE protest groups; often deliberately minimizing violence and blaming agents when they use force to respond. 

NGO funded protesters often rely on agitation tactics, provocation and sabotage to trigger police and political opponents into using physical force.  They then hold up these incidents as “proof that they are being oppressed and their rights are being violated.  Often referred to as DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender), the political left strategy relies on negative public optics to disrupt otherwise lawful government policies. 

The Texas case goes far beyond DARVO and into the realm of open insurgency.  It is perhaps the first real attempt by the federal government to punish an Antifa group under terrorism laws.  Leftists argue that the convictions will lead to federal violations of free speech rights, but these are the same people that believe violence against anyone they label “fascist” is a form of free speech.              

Via The Cradle

Iran is considering allowing a “limited number” of oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz on the condition that the oil cargo is traded in Chinese yuan, CNN has reported.

A senior Iranian official told the US news outlet that Tehran is working on a new plan to manage tanker traffic through the strategic waterway on Iran’s southern coast.

via Associated Press

Iran has effectively sealed off the strait, allowing only its own and Chinese ships to pass. Before the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran on February 28, at least 20 percent of the world’s oil flowed through it.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it will attack vessels linked to “aggressor nations,” such as the Gulf states that allow the US and Israel to use their territory for attacks on the Islamic Republic. The IRGC announced that the world should prepare for oil prices “reaching $200.”

For decades, most international oil has been traded in US dollars. The earnings from oil sales by Gulf countries, known as “petrodollars,” were mostly reinvested into the US economy through the purchase of sovereign bonds issued by the US Treasury.

Since Washington imposed economic sanctions on Moscow in 2022 following the start of the war in Ukraine, sanctioned Russian oil has increasingly been sold in rubles.

For years, China has used a covert, barter-style financial system to help pay Iran for oil, circumventing US sanctions. The system allows Iran to ship crude oil to China, while Chinese state-owned firms carry out infrastructure projects in Iran as payment.

Two tankers carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) passed through the Strait of Hormuz early Saturday morning and are heading towards India, according to an Indian foreign ministry official speaking with CNN.

Iran’s ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, told India Today that Iran allowed Indian vessels to travel through the strait, without providing details of how they obtained permission.

India heavily depends on imported LPG and liquefied natural gas (LNG) from West Asia. The South Asian nation has experienced shortages of both fuels since the US-Israeli conflict with Iran started two weeks ago.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday, CNN noted.  During the conversation, Modi reiterated that the “unhindered transit of goods and energy” remained one of India’s top priorities.

The UN has warned that restrictions on shipping through the strait could have dire effects on the world economy, including on food production.

“When ships stop moving ⁠through that Strait, the consequences travel fast,” said Tom Fletcher, the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs.

“Food, medicine, fertilizer, and other supplies become harder ⁠to move ‌and more ⁠expensive to deliver,” he added.

Along with surging oil prices, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused fertilizer costs to rise by up to a third. If the strait remains closed, reduced fertilizer use could lead to lower harvests and potential food shortages worldwide in the coming year.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is urging Albany to consider a sweeping overhaul of New York’s estate tax, proposing to sharply lower the exemption threshold and dramatically increase the top rate on large inheritances. His plan would cut the exemption from more than $7 million to $750,000 while boosting the highest tax rate from 16 percent to 50 percent, Bloomberg reported. 

The idea was included in a policy memo his administration recently shared with state lawmakers as they negotiate the state budget, according to NY Focus.

The estate tax proposal is one of several revenue measures Mamdani’s office has floated as the city prepares for a significant budget gap. New York City is projecting a $5.4 billion deficit for the fiscal year that begins July 1, and the mayor is asking state officials to help identify new sources of funding to help close the shortfall.

Among the other proposals is a narrower package of business tax increases aimed specifically at companies operating in the city. The administration estimates those changes could generate about $1.75 billion annually. Under the plan, the city’s corporate tax rate would rise to 10.8 percent for financial firms and to 10.62 percent for other corporations, while the tax on large unincorporated businesses would increase modestly for firms earning more than $5 million.

Mamdani is also proposing to scale back the Pass-Through Entity Tax credit, which currently allows certain business owners to use company tax payments to fully offset what they owe in personal income taxes. Limiting that credit to 75 percent of its value would produce roughly $700 million a year, according to city estimates. The mayor continues to advocate for raising the local income tax rate on residents earning more than $1 million annually, a measure projected to bring in about $3 billion each year.

The report says that several ideas in the memo target high-end real estate transactions and ownership. They include a one percent surcharge on homes valued above $5 million, a one percent tax on cash-only property purchases exceeding $1 million, and a broader version of the existing mansion tax on luxury home sales. Combined, these changes could generate roughly $1.2 billion in additional annual revenue. Mamdani has also backed eliminating the sales-tax exemption on gold bullion and similar precious metals, which city officials estimate would produce about $300 million for the city each year.

Despite the aggressive estate tax proposal, it appears unlikely to gain traction in the current budget negotiations. Neither chamber of the state legislature has included it in their spending plans, and Governor Kathy Hochul did not incorporate it into her own budget proposal. Lawmakers in both the Senate and Assembly have, however, endorsed separate plans that would increase income and corporate taxes.

Longer-term fiscal pressures are also shaping the debate. Mark Levine has warned that New York City could face cumulative deficits of at least $28 billion over the next four fiscal years, suggesting that state and city officials may continue exploring tax increases and other revenue measures in the years ahead.

As we wrote just hours ago, Moody’s changed its outlook on New York City’s credit rating to negative while keeping its Aa2 rating in place, citing growing concerns about sizable and persistent projected budget deficits that suggest a structural imbalance in the city’s finances and reduced fiscal flexibility.

The shift follows updated spending projections showing larger gaps than previously expected, with the city needing to close at least a $5.4 billion deficit across this year and next as expenses continue to rise faster than revenues. New York’s $127 billion budget also relies on using its rainy-day fund, potentially limiting its ability to manage a future economic downturn.

Moody’s decision signals that a formal downgrade could follow in the coming months if the city fails to address its widening fiscal gaps.

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Some U.S. pharmacies are scrambling to fill estradiol transdermal patch prescriptions as demand for the menopause treatment continues to soar following the Trump administration’s decision to remove what it determined was an outdated cancer warning.

“Manufacturers have been unable to provide sufficient supply of hormone replacement therapies [HRT] over the last several weeks,” CVS pharmacy spokeswoman Roslyn Guarino told The Epoch Times March 9.

In November, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started the process of removing the so-called “black box warning” from estrogen and estrogen-progesterone replacement therapy added in 2003, ending more than two decades of fear that the treatments increased risk of breast cancer.

As a result, estradiol transdermal patch prescriptions have increased by about 86 percent since 2021, according to the latest study by Epic Research.

CVS pharmacies—the largest U.S. chain—are working with patients to make sure they have access to their medications when the interruptions occur, Guarino said.

Sandoz and Amneal Biosciences, two major producers of estradiol transdermal patches for the U.S. market, listed 10 transdermal patch products currently affected by the shortage. Neither manufacturer gave reasons for the shortages.

Sandoz said the company takes the current supply situation “very seriously” and is making adjustments to meet the demand.

“Recent changes in prescribing behavior due to the FDA’s removal of boxed warnings on HRT patches have created an unprecedented demand that cannot be fully met at present,” Sandoz spokeswoman Jeanne LaCour told The Epoch Times in an email.

“We know this situation is frustrating and inconvenient for the women who rely on these patches. As a global leader in affordable medicines, Sandoz cares deeply about the well-being and health of the women who rely on these treatments. We are working on increasing global capacity to ensure adequate supply of HRT transdermal patches and to support continuity of treatment for patients around the world.

“In the interim, to help women in the U.S. specifically, we have allocated additional quantities to the States to better meet the increase in demand,” LaCour added.

Amneal Biosciences did not immediately return a request for comment.

Viatris, Noven, and Zydus had available product, according to the latest report.

“For more than two decades, bad science and bureaucratic inertia have resulted in women and physicians having an incomplete view of [hormone replacement therapy],” U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy said in a statement about the decision.

“We are returning to evidence-based medicine and giving women control over their health again.”

The warning was preventing millions of women from receiving the life-changing and long-term health benefits of hormone replacement therapy, according to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary.

Studies show that women who start the therapy within 10 years of the onset of menopause, usually before the age of 60, can reduce all-cause mortality and bone fractures. They may also lessen the risk of heart disease by half, and Alzheimer’s disease by a third, the FDA reported.

The president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Dr. Steven Fleischman, applauded the decision to remove the black box warning, saying the organization has long advocated for its removal on low-dose vaginal estrogen because of the barrier it posed for people who suffered from menopause symptoms.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.in Washington on Jan. 7, 2026. Alex Wong/Getty Images

“ACOG commends the HHS leadership for improving the lives of perimenopausal women by making the estrogen products they need more accessible to them,” Fleishman said. “The modifications to certain warning labels for estrogen products are years in the making, reflecting the dedicated advocacy of physicians and patients across the country. The updated labels will better allow patients and clinicians to engage in a shared decision-making process without an unnecessary barrier, when it comes to treatment of menopausal symptoms.”

Dr. Sharon Winer, a reproductive endocrinologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said patients should be cautious about the decision.

“The FDA ruling gives clinicians and patients space to individualize care, but it’s not a license to assume [menopause hormone therapy] is universally beneficial,” Winer said. “The FDA’s action is progress, but it doesn’t mean [menopause hormone therapy] will solve every aging-related concern. There’s a lot we still don’t know.”

The Department of War is reportedly building a 30-person investment banking team, called the “Economic Defense Unit,” to deploy $200 billion in private equity over three years into defense companies and, more importantly, war unicorns, as the race to secure the Western Hemisphere and counter China, Russia, and Iran intensifies in the Trump era.

Seamfor reviewed a slide deck from the headhunting firm Heidrick & Struggles that says DoW is seeking to stack EDU with bankers from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, and Bank of America.

The presentation pitches bankers a once-in-a-lifetime chance to “serve your country” and deploy “more capital than most investors deploy in their entire careers,” as well as an opportunity to sell a large amount of stock tax-deferred.

Seamfor noted that EDU will report to former Cerebrus alums David Lorch and George K. Kollitides II, the former Remington CEO who is now a partner at private equity firm Alvarez & Marsal Capital. 

Heidrick & Struggles’ deck also promises bankers “unmatched access to top-level government officials and privileged information flow—whatever you need, you can get.”

Finance influencer High Yield Harry published on X what he claims is the deck that headhunters sent to investment bankers.

Intro

Situation Background

Situation Background

The Mission

The Investment Team

Value Proposition

Managing Director Candidates

Vice President Candidates

Associate Candidates

The Trump administration has invested in a handful of companies critical to the survival of the US, from Intel to MP Materials to L3Harris Missile Solutions to USA Rare Earth, Trilogy Metals / Upper Kobuk Minerals Project, and soon a whole bunch of war unicorns (read here).

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics,

Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.

Gabby Giffords

In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United, tweeted the following:

“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”

What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?

Currently on its website, Brady United explains: “Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”

The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.

“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.

“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.

These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.

Gun control groups sometimes openly acknowledge their goal of banning all guns. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, for example, Gabby Giffords – who heads the Giffords Law Center – answered a question about her goal by saying: “No more guns.” When the interviewer asked whether she meant no more gun violence, Giffords clarified: “No, no, no. Lord, no. Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

Time magazine itself treated the remark as significant enough to place Giffords’ line – “No more guns, Gone” – in the headline.

If firearms are bad per se, it should be easy to find places where either all guns or all handguns have been banned and murder/homicide rates have gone down. One would think out of randomness there should be at least one place where murder rates have gone down or at least stayed the same, but every single time, even for island nations, murder rates have gone up immediately after the ban.

A simple logic is at play here: Who is most likely to obey the law? While such statutes may take a few guns from criminals, they primarily disarm the most law-abiding citizens, making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

Similar problems exist for police. Taking away the guns that both civilians and police have doesn’t mean that criminals will readily forfeit their weapons. Criminals have strong incentives to keep and obtain weapons. Drug gangs can’t go to the police and ask for help to get their drugs back when another gang steals their drugs. The gangs have set up their own little paramilitaries to protect their valuable stash.

Gun control advocates point to the low murder rate in the United Kingdom, with its largely unarmed police forces, as evidence that disarming police can make people safer. But they ignore that the U.K. had an even lower homicide rate relative to the U.S. before they enacted strict gun controls, and that after a 1997 handgun ban, Britain experienced increases in homicide rates.

Gun control advocates often frame their proposals as modest steps to reduce violence, but their own statements often reveal a far broader goal. The evidence from places that have banned guns also shows a troubling pattern: Disarming the law-abiding does not disarm criminals. If we want to reduce crime and protect the public, policies must focus on stopping criminals – not on leaving both citizens and police defenseless.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp delivered an apocalyptic warning to progressives, particularly “highly educated, often female voters, who vote mostly Democrat,” stating that their influence over the economy and broader society will erode as technologies such as artificial intelligence transfer power to working-class, right-leaning men.

“This technology disrupts humanities-trained, largely Democratic voters, and makes their economic power less. And increases the economic power of vocationally trained, working-class, often male, working-class voters,” Karp told CNBC hosts on Thursday.

He continued, “And so these disruptions are gonna disrupt every aspect of our society. And to make this work, we have to come to an agreement of what it is we’re going to do with the technology; how are we gonna explain to people who are likely gonna have less good, and less interesting jobs.”

Karp, whose software company builds surveillance and defense products for the U.S. government, is essentially saying that AI will shift economic power away from highly educated, so-called “woke Karens” and toward working-class, often right-leaning male voters.

He then shifted the conversation toward military uses of AI, admitting that these technologies are “dangerous” while claiming that Palantir will enable an American future.

“These technologies are dangerous societally,” Karp said, adding, “The only justification you could possibly have would be that if we don’t do it, our adversaries will do it. And we will be subject to their rule of law.… Why is it that we’re absorbing the risk of disrupting the very fabric of our society, including the most powerful parts of our society, if it’s not because it’s about maintaining our ability to be American in the near term and long term?”

The CEO of Palantir just said the quiet part out loud.
Alex Karp — whose company builds surveillance and defense technology for the U.S. government — just openly stated that AI will deliberately shift economic power away from highly educated, often female, Democratic-leaning… pic.twitter.com/mqznkz4V90

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) March 12, 2026

Karp’s view is that AI will restructure the American class system and shift the balance of economic power. That’s one way to present the AI narrative to the everyday person.

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong warned in February, “This is where the volatility starts kicking in.” 

What do we have?  Oil, gold and silver spiking in price, and violent exchanges between Iran, the United States and many other countries in the Middle East. 

Now, water assets like desalination plants in Bahrain and Iran are being blown up.  Add the worst water shortage in decades in Iran as a backdrop to constant bombing, and you have a situation that could turn very ugly, very fast. 

The water shortage is so bad that there has been water rationing in Tehran for months.  This water rationing was part of the reason there were huge protests in Iran a few months ago.  Armstrong explains:

“Part of the protests (in Iran) were about water rationing.  The Islamic Republic Guard were called the ‘water mafia.’  They control the water. 

It’s kind of like North Korea.  If you want to be fed, you join the army.  All food goes to the army first, and water will also go to the military first.”

Remember, they are water rationing in Iran now, and they don’t have a lot left.  So, what happens if the US, Israel and other Persian Gulf nations knock out what’s left of Iran’s water?  What happens if Iran is completely out of water?  Armstrong says:

“Personally, I would ask Pakistan for a nuke.  Look, you are talking about the death of a country.  When you get to that point, if you’ve got a nuke, you are going to use it.”

So, what happens if the dams and reservoirs are bombed and Iran is completely cut off from water?  Armstrong says:

“If you do that, is that a war crime because you are wiping out the average population and civilians?  Would you do that?  This is a mess.  It’s a complete mess.”

On the other side, what happens if Iran knocks out all the Persian Gulf oil refineries?  Armstrong says:

“If I were Iran, I would attack all the oil refineries of the neighboring states.  You do that, and you will bring the entire West to its knees.  The US only gets about 3% of our oil from the Middle East.  You would wipe out Europe for sure.”

Armstrong sees gold going as high as “$8,800 an ounce . . . and silver $150 per ounce. . .. Oil could test $200 a barrel. . .. It’s going to get worse this summer, and it’s a 250-year drought cycle in Iran.  I wrote about this on my site.”

In closing, Armstrong says, “Winston Churchill said, ‘In time of war, truth is very precious, and it needs a bodyguard of lies to protect it.’”

There is much more in the 54-minute interview.”

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with Martin Armstrong to talk about the volatility that got kicked into high gear with the bombing of Iran for 3.10.26.

Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations,

When an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Good after she allegedly obstructed immigration authorities with her vehicle, disobeyed their commands, and attempted to flee – drawing fatal fire from an officer nearly struck by the vehicle – politicians and pundits decried her death as murder. They called it particularly unjust because she was not acting as a protester but a legal observer.

After federal agents arrested Don Lemon for allegedly disrupting a St. Paul church service in protest of the same Twin Cities immigration enforcement surge Good had opposed. His lawyer defended the former CNN anchor as a journalist, persecuted by the Trump administration for having carried out “constitutionally protected work” in violation of his First Amendment rights.  So too did myriad media organizations ranging from the National Association of Black Journalists to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

While Good’s shooting presents a distinct issue, her case and Lemon’s highlight the complex legal issues surrounding those who claim to be chronicling protests. Legal observers and journalists have long worked on the frontlines of civil unrest, the former documenting instances of alleged police misconduct in violation of constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, and the latter chronicling the assemblies. Their efforts have brought transparency and accountability. But what happens when legal observers and journalists act, or are seen by authorities as unlawful protestors rather than the neutral parties they are supposed to be? To what degree do their titles afford them special protections from prosecution in a court of law?

These questions have been brought into sharp relief as the Trump administration has brought hundreds of cases against people whom it alleges have not merely monitored but participated in illegal actions impacting immigration enforcement operations. 

“We respect the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest,” a DOJ spokesperson told RealClearInvestigations, but “journalists and observers are not provided special protections to obstruct law enforcement operations.”

Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Lubet, who has criticized the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, concurred that legal observers “have no special legal status,” nor do journalists have “license to engage in violence or disruption.” But, he added, “law enforcement authorities should have a heavy burden to show that a journalist…or legal observer…had overstepped their role.”

Although it did not respond to a request for comment, the American Civil Liberties Union has litigated against federal law enforcement authorities in connection with ICE’s activities in Minnesota. It argues that the government is violating the “constitutional rights” of people “observing, documenting, and protesting ICE activity in their neighborhoods.”

Like so many issues, the very nature of protest and the definitions of legal observers and journalists have come into question during the Trump years. America has a long history of protest, but the anti-ICE protests are different. Typically, protestors have engaged in somewhat organized demonstrations, with law enforcement responding if there is violence or property damage. But residents of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other sanctuary jurisdictions to which the second Trump administration has surged ICE agents have turned this dynamic on its head by arriving at the scene in response to law enforcement actions, and sometimes challenging such efforts.

It is hard to distinguish protestor from legal observer as many self-described ICE-watchers pursue officers in their cars and approach them during encounters – often times with phone in hand to record the events, and, they claim, to deter misconduct. Alex Pretti, an armed man who was killed by border patrol agents in Minneapolis after appearing to come to the assistance of another protestor, had been filming the scene before his deadly encounter. While he was widely described as a legal observer, just a few days prior, he had kicked in the taillight of an ICE vehicle, raising the murky issue of whether one can toggle back and forth between protester and observer depending on the circumstances.

The fine line between participant and observer also emerged during the Kyle Rittenhouse murder case. Rittenhouse shot three people, two fatally, during the Black Lives Matter unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020. The lone survivor, Gaige Grosskreutz, testified that he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, leading the then-17-year-old to shoot in apparent self-defense – a turning point in the trial leading to Rittenhouse’s acquittal. Grosskreutz was operating not only as a paramedic when the incident occurred, but also as an ACLU legal observer.

The decline of traditional news outlets has also muddied the waters, giving rise to the concept of citizen journalists. Given his long career at CNN, Lemon, who works independently, may qualify as a journalist – though the government alleges he was not just reporting on but participating in the church disruption. The question, however, can be harder to answer when it involves bloggers and those who post news on social media. Similarly, where journalists have long been constrained by the fear of being fired for violating professional standards of neutrality, such guardrails have been weakened in the new, highly politicized media landscape.  

As growing numbers of Americans have vowed to ramp up resistance to President Trump’s policies, and the administration seems committed to arresting what it deems unlawful actors, these definitions may take on added significance. Judges and juries will have to weigh First Amendment-protected activities against law enforcement imperatives and make judgment calls about where to draw the line based on the facts and evidence in each case. So too will prosecutors, often operating in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions, who must weigh these competing claims.

Black Panthers and the Constitution

Legal observers exist to help vindicate the First Amendment rights of the assembled. According to the National Lawyers Guild, which formalized the practice, such observers “create documentation during events which can later be use (sic) in defense cases, public statements, and litigation which aims to hold law enforcement agencies accountable for the actions of their officers.” 

The Guild notes that legal observation has its roots in the Black Panthers’ “cop watch” activities of the late 1960s, whereby that militant organization “conducted armed citizens’ patrols in order to monitor the behavior of law enforcement officers in the Oakland Police Department.”

In 1968, in connection with anti-war and racial justice demonstrations in New York City, the Guild “took components from this practice” of cop watch to develop its legal observer program – the self-described “eyes and ears” of a larger infrastructure of “arrest hotlines, jail support teams, community bail funds … attorney referral networks, and more.”

Those who have adopted the Guild’s practice, such as the Minnesota ICE Watch group with which Good was reportedly affiliated, have advocated for activities that blur the line between observation and participation in protests. They defend their actions as a response to ICE agents who, they claim, routinely use excessive force, including in the killings of Good and Pretti.

According to its social media postings, Minnesota ICE Watch exists not only for the purpose of “documenting” and “archiving” but “resisting … ICE, Police and all Colonial Militarized Regimes.” 

Minnesota ICE Watch’s Instagram account shows the group has disseminated materials detailing how to share intelligence about agents’ movements and tipping off illegal aliens to impending raids. They also advise taking “direct action” against authorities to prevent such a “kidnapping,” including harboring those being pursued in one’s car or a “lockable room.” 

Likewise, according to a City Journal review of trainings and communications of “Defend the 612,” a prominent organizer of anti-ICE activities, including ICE watch trainings in Minnesota, “members and related officials have encouraged protesters to impede law enforcement; pushed civilians toward legally and physically risky confrontations; and helped mobilize a counterprotest that turned violent.” 

Blurry Lines

Some anti-ICE groups, as well as the Guild and the ACLU, warn activists that there is a line between protected behavior and that which might run afoul of the law, and that observers may sometimes become liable as actors. 

The Guild warns that law enforcement may smudge that line. “Just because you have legal rights does not mean the government will respect them. In fact, law enforcement will generally trample over your rights,” its “Know Your Risks” pamphlet reads. 

Leigh Ann O’Neill, the chief legal affairs officer of the conservative America First Policy Institute, told RCI that “Observing…officials in public is generally lawful, but conduct that harasses, intimidates, doxxes, obstructs, or aids evasion of lawful enforcement can trigger criminal liability.” 

For its part, DOJ has slapped some 650-plus individuals with charges under federal law since the summer of 2025, according to a recent Reuters analysis – including for allegedly following federal agents in their cars. In some instances, media reports suggest that prosecutors have downgraded such charges or chosen not to prosecute.

In Minnesota, prosecutors have reduced charges from felonies to misdemeanors or dismissed them in 20 cases pertaining to alleged attacks on law enforcement. In cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, prosecutors have similarly found some of their cases dismissed or unsuccessful due to a lack of sufficient evidence or from overcharging defendants, judges have suggested. A Wall Street Journal analysis suggests similar trends regarding cases in which defendants were accused publicly of assaulting federal officers.

Arrests and Lawsuits

In response to media scrutiny suggesting an overzealousness in pursuing such cases, outgoing Department of Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem reported that vehicular attacks, death threats, and assaults against ICE agents increased dramatically from when Trump took office to the end of 2025. DHS officials reported 275 assaults as compared to the 19 reported assaults during the same period in 2024.

Meanwhile, in a counter-offensive against the immigration cops, the ACLU, TNG-NCWA, and dozens of individuals, including self-described observers and journalists, have filed suit in Minnesota against the Trump administration, claiming federal agents violated their rights during “Operation Metro Surge” and in analogous operations in cities across the country. “[O]bservers and protesters have been met with gratuitous uses of force, threats, detention, and intimidation … all in an attempt to chill, discourage, prevent, and retaliate against protesters and observers from exercising their First Amendment rights,” the plaintiffs allege.

Amid an outcry from Democratic officials and anti-ICE activists over outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s casting of Good’s conduct as “domestic terrorism,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in January that the department would not be investigating Good’s killing.

Conversely, shortly after the shooting of Pretti, the Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation into the incident.

While opponents of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy try to halt it, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have indicated the bureau is probing the networks behind anti-ICE activism.

Journalism or Activism?

Although reporters have a well-established constitutional right to gather the news, they cannot break the law to do so.

“Journalists have no special exemption from generally applicable laws if they trespass, interfere with someone’s right to worship, or otherwise engage in illegal activity,” O’Neill said. Many journalists, for example, have been jailed for refusing to identify anonymous sources of classified material.

In Don Lemon’s case, the government alleges that he – and 38 others – conspired to and violated the rights of worshippers at St. Paul’s Cities Church to freely practice their religion. Prosecutors allege in their indictment that Lemon did not act exclusively as an independent journalist but as a co-conspirator in an illicit operation. Among other things, they claim that he “took steps to maintain operational secrecy” when livestreaming in advance of what Lemon described as the “resistance” action; hounded the pastor with questions “to promote the operation’s message;” ignored the pastor’s request to leave the church; and stood at the church’s main door “where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit…”

Lemon said in a statement that he was arrested “for doing what I have been doing for 30 years. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects that work for me and countless other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them, and I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.”

While accepting a Samizdat Prize last month from the RealClearFoundation – which supports RCI – for his work defending free speech, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argued that Lemon “helped promote the cause of journalism.”

“Now, he may have gone beyond journalism. He may have blocked entrances. He may have done things that don’t deserve journalism,” Dershowitz said. “But to the extent you have any doubts, they should always be resolved in favor of the First Amendment and in favor of journalism.”

Unequal Justice?

Just as supporters of Lemon believe that Trump officials are targeting journalists they see as liberal – with AG Bondi ordering agents to arrest Lemon, and three others – some say prosecutors under the Biden administration went after reporters it considered ideological foes. William Shipley, a former federal prosecutor turned criminal defender who represented some 90 defendants connected to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C., said one of his clients, conservative freelance journalist Steve Baker, was at the Capitol capturing footage that would be licensed to several outlets subsequently. Chasing the story, he entered the Capitol during the riot.

Several years later, Baker was charged with four nonviolent misdemeanor counts, including trespassing and disorderly conduct, for which he was arrested.

Shipley would argue in court that he had identified some 60 other journalists who had done some or all of the same things Baker did that day, but went unprosecuted.

The government “singled out conservative members of the press and used commentary by them either recorded in real time, or things they reported later, to show ‘support’ for the rioters and then prosecuted them based in part on that commentary,” Shipley said. 

“At the same time, left-wing reporters who did the exact same acts were not prosecuted and won awards for their ‘coverage’ because they expressed condemnation of the rioters.”

Baker would plead guilty to charges shortly after the 2024 election, only to be pardoned by President Donald Trump several weeks later.

Filmmaker Georgia Fort was charged as a co-conspirator alongside Lemon in the Cities Church disturbance. She said following her release from jail that “As a journalist who has worked in media for more than 17 years, I leave this federal courthouse today with one question, ‘Do we have a Constitution’?”

Lawyers for Lemon and Fort, in a joint filing, asserted that they were each present at Cities Church “in their capacities as journalists.” “At no point did either engage in chanting or other behavior characteristic of protesting or activism,” they represented to the court.

Lemon has publicly said he didn’t enter the church with the protestors and didn’t impede or intimidate anyone. “They said that I peppered people with questions. That’s what reporters do,” he argued.

Meanwhile, despite ICE having decamped from the Twin Cities, the administration’s opponents are ramping up for more activism.

In February, the No Kings movement launched a series of trainings nationwide as part of its “Eyes on ICE” monitoring program – a precursor to what the group is billing as the “largest nonviolent protest in American history” on March 28th.

“When the Trump administration sends mass militia to terrorize neighborhoods, retaliates against people who protest, or uses federal power to punish those who speak out, it sends a clear message: to stay silent or to pay the price,” the emcee to one such training session, progressive activist Ash-Lee Woodard Henderson said.

Documenting and recording ICE agents while carrying out their duties, she and those who followed her argued, would be a critical tool to “resist” such “occupying” forces.

Meanwhile, Congress remains at an impasse over immigration enforcement, with Democrats seeking to impose significant restraints on ICE, while Republicans seek to curtail sanctuary policies – and potentially dramatically increase the penalties for interfering with ICE officers.