Connect with us

Politics

Border Patrol commander vows continued tear gas use after Minnesota fedreal judge’s order

Published

on

Border Patrol commander vows continued tear gas use after Minnesota fedreal judge’s order

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

One of President Donald Trump’s most prominent immigration enforcers vowed Saturday to continue using tear gas during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis, after a Minnesota federal judge Friday barred federal officers from using it against peaceful protesters.

Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino said federal agents would continue deploying tear gas against violent protesters who “cross the line” amid ongoing unrest and heightened tension across the Twin Cities.

“We’re going to continue to use that minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish our mission,” Bovino said Saturday on “Fox News Live,” adding that immigration officers have never used tear gas against “peaceful protesters.”

“We always support the First Amendment, but when they cross the line and they’re violent, we will use those less lethal munitions because it keeps them safe, it keeps our officers safe, and it keeps the public safe,” Bovino said.

Advertisement

THREE VENEZUELAN ILLEGALS ARRESTED AFTER ICE OFFICER ‘AMBUSHED AND ATTACKED’ DURING TRAFFIC STOP: NOEM

U.S. Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino joins federal agents at the scene of a shooting, Jan. 7, in Minneapolis.  (Ellen Schmidt/MinnPost via AP)

Bovino’s comments after U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez issued a ruling Friday in a case filed in December on behalf of six Minnesota activists, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, barring federal officers from detaining or deploying tear gas against peaceful protesters who are not obstructing authorities while participating in Operation Metro Surge.

The ruling prohibits federal agents from retaliating against peaceful protesters or observers, adding that federal agents must show probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime or is interfering with law enforcement operations.

Federal agents cannot use pepper spray or other non-lethal munitions and crowd-dispersal tools against peaceful protesters, according to the ruling, and peacefully following officers “at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.”

Advertisement

MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR WHO TOLD ICE TO ‘GET THE F— OUT’ NOW CALLS FOR PEACE AFTER ANOTHER SHOOTING INCIDENT

Law enforcement officers stand amid tear gas at the scene of a reported shooting in Minneapolis on Jan. 14. (AP Photo/Adam Gray)

The order came as tensions escalated in Minneapolis after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good earlier this month during a federal immigration enforcement operation. Menendez noted in her ruling that the immigration crackdown by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Minnesota appears to be escalating.

“There is no sign that this operation is winding down—indeed, it appears to still be ramping up,” she wrote.

The City of Minneapolis applauded the court’s decision, while urging community members to be “peaceful and lawful” around immigration agents.

Advertisement

TRUMP SAYS NO NEED TO INVOKE INSURRECTION ACT ‘RIGHT NOW’ AMID ANTI-ICE UNREST IN MINNESOTA

“As this is a federal court order, we expect the federal administration to change course and comply for the safety of all,” the City wrote Saturday on X.

“We applaud the court’s decision in the ACLU’s lawsuit, which prohibits federal immigration agents from targeting or retaliating against those peacefully and lawfully protesting or observing Operation Metro Surge operations.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison reacted to the ruling, saying that “this preliminary win matters for every Minnesotan exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and witness.”

Federal agents deploy tear gas as anti-ICE agitators move through a smoke-filled street during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, Jan. 13. (Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“Thank you to the ACLU and the plaintiffs for standing firm in defense of this bedrock freedom,” he added.

After the ruling, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that the First Amendment does not protect “rioting,” adding that DHS is “taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We remind the public that rioting is dangerous—obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a felony,” McLaughlin said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Rioters and terrorists have assaulted law enforcement, launched fireworks at them, slashed the tires of their vehicles, and vandalized federal property. Others have chosen to ignore commands and have attempted to impede law enforcement operations and used their vehicles as weapons against our officers.”

McLaughlin added that law enforcement has followed their training and has “used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: How JD Vance Is Being Tested as Trump’s Chief Defender

Published

on

Video: How JD Vance Is Being Tested as Trump’s Chief Defender

new video loaded: How JD Vance Is Being Tested as Trump’s Chief Defender

Vice President JD Vance has been tasked with defending the Iran war and President Trump’s attacks on Pope Leo XIV. Our White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs describes how that’s put Vance in a particularly difficult position.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Jon Miller, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster and Jordan Gantz

April 17, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Grieving mothers scorch Dem lawmaker after he pivots during hearing to attack ‘MAGA Republicans’

Published

on

Grieving mothers scorch Dem lawmaker after he pivots during hearing to attack ‘MAGA Republicans’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A congressional hearing featuring the victims of crimes tied to illegal immigration erupted into a tense confrontation Thursday.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., drew fierce backlash from grieving mothers and Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, for appearing to dismiss their tragedies while pivoting to attacks on “MAGA Republicans.”

The fiery exchange happened during a hearing focused on “The Human Toll of Sanctuary Policies,” during which Johnson claimed the victims’ families’ comments were a “Steve Miller-approved” stunt with the sole purpose of “stir[ring] up passion and prejudice against immigrants who are people of color.”

SLAIN COLLEGE STUDENT’S MOTHER VOWS ‘FIGHT FOR JUSTICE’ AFTER ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHARGED IN CHICAGO KILLING

Advertisement

After offering brief condolences to the families of victims allegedly killed and critically injured by illegal immigrants, Johnson immediately pivoted to a partisan attack, arguing the committee should instead be holding hearings on the “human toll” of the “Trump MAGA tax cuts,” Trump’s foreign policy with Iran or the “cover up of the Epstein files.”

He went on to list a string of violent crimes committed by White men and noted the death of Renee Good, who was killed by federal authorities in January while protesting immigration enforcement.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., claimed during a congressional hearing Thursday that the victims’ families’ comments were a “Steve Miller-approved” stunt with the sole purpose of “stir[ring] up passion and prejudice against immigrants who are people of color.” (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

“I’m not minimizing the tragedy that is before us today with you three women, but the other tragedies at the hands of non-immigrants are just as important,” Johnson said.

He also accused the Republican majority of strategically “sandwich[ing]” a Democrat witness between the victims’ families for “dramatic effect.”

Advertisement

Gill fired back, calling Johnson’s tirade “one of the most disgusting testimonies I have ever heard” and blaming Democrat lawmakers for the tragedies during four years of open borders under the Biden administration.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, called Johnson’s tirade “one of the most disgusting testimonies I have ever heard.” (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

DHS SLAMS CALIFORNIA ‘SANCTUARY’ COUNTY AFTER MOM ALLEGEDLY MURDERED BY 2 HONDURAN NATIONALS

However, the most stinging reply to Johnson’s comments came from Jen Heiling, the mother of victim Brady Heiling, 18, who was killed along with his girlfriend, Hallie Helgeson, 18, in 2025, when an illegal immigrant from Honduras was allegedly driving the wrong way on I-90 while intoxicated, crashing into the teens’ car.

“You can put me in whatever order, in whatever seat. My tragedy is never going to be OK,” Heiling told Johnson. “Today’s our day. Hear us. Leave your butts in your seat. I don’t want to hear your butts.”

Advertisement

A woman holds up a sign that says “Sanctuary policy set my daughter’s perpetrator free, explain that” during a House Judiciary Committee hearing March 4 in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

She described how her 11-year-old and 16-year-old children are still waiting for the teens to come home, noting that her garage stall remains empty because her son’s car is still being held as police evidence.

“We can’t pick a headstone because that makes it too real. But you can sit here and tell us about what kind of hearing this should be,” Heiling said. “Renee Good is not the same as angel families. She made a choice. … Brady and Hallie didn’t get a choice. … They were living [by] American laws … and they were stolen by somebody who doesn’t care.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Patricia Fox, mother of Carissa Aspnes, who was seriously injured in a hit-and-run allegedly caused by an illegal immigrant, followed Heiling’s remarks by shooting back at Johnson’s comments about race, noting, “I don’t know if anybody has noticed, but I am not White. I wake up Brown every day.”

Advertisement

“I’m not sure what race has to do with any of this,” Fox said. “There’s four kids that we talked about today, and y’all can’t seem to stay on topic for what — an hour of your time. 

“Today, we’re talking about sanctuary policies and how they have wrecked our families. Y’all come and y’all feed Carissa. You get her up from her bed using a crane, and then you tell me and lecture me what this hearing should be about.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Californians are pouring money into Democrats’ Senate races in other states

Published

on

Californians are pouring money into Democrats’ Senate races in other states

Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Advertisement

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Advertisement

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Advertisement

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Advertisement

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

Advertisement

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Advertisement

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending