Jerome R. Corsi's Blog, page 33

WATCH: ICE officers use teargas, make arrests in Portland

Federal officers made several arrests of people Saturday afternoon outside the federal ICE facility after dispensing teargas as hundreds gathered to protest.

The site has been a flashpoint for nightly protests opposing President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement actions, including a plan to send hundreds of National Guard troops to Portland.

The day began with a march from Elizabeth Caruthers Park to the ICE facility organized primarily by Portland Contra Las Deportaciones (PDXCD), reports KOIN TV.

Several journalists and others posted video of arrests and other activity outside the ICE facility.

Beware rough language from protesters:

ANTIFA: With Portland Police refusing to protect the ICE facility Federal Police are being forced to make arrests themselves. Journalist, Katie Daviscourt is embedded with Federal Protective Services this afternoon. Stay safe. pic.twitter.com/EJUaehj0XJ

— @amuse (@amuse) October 4, 2025

Federal agents in Portland, Oregon make more arrests.

?: @Julio_Rosas11 pic.twitter.com/FeVGXNjdot

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) October 4, 2025

Federal agents deploy tear gas to repel anti-ICE crowd blocking ICE facility’s driveway in Portland, Oregon.

?: @Julio_Rosas11 pic.twitter.com/MeM7wIJu6g

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) October 4, 2025

‘Heat waves’: Climate crusaders running out of options, so go for new tactics

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

In the wake of a federal government no longer serving as its obedient lapdog, the desperate lengths to which the climate cult goes to maintain its standing is increasingly imaginative.

Case in point: CNN recently reported that “for the first time, scientists have quantified the causal links between worsening heat waves and global warming pollution from individual fossil fuel and cement companies, pushing the boundaries of extreme weather event research in multiple surprising ways.”

In other words, the climate crusaders – apparently believing that it’s necessary to ratchet up the alarm factor in order to retain relevance – are now claiming the ability to pinpoint exact companies and actions that are allegedly leading to “worsening heat waves” – an interesting finding in the midst of one of the coolest Augusts and Septembers in much of the U.S. in recent years.

The study “encompasses 213 heat waves around the world from 2000 to 2023.” The conclusion? Wait for it – heatwaves “became much more likely and severe during that period, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.” Shocking.

Accusations that fossil fuels are causing global warming, or cooling, or any weather pattern varying from what is claimed to be “normal,” are nothing new, of course. What’s new is that the study, published in the journal Nature, now claims to identify the specific culprits.

“Of the extreme heat events the researchers focused on, as many as a quarter of them would have been ‘virtually impossible’ without the climate pollution from any of the 14 biggest ‘carbon majors’ — the largest fossil fuel and cement producers responsible for the lion’s share of the world’s carbon pollution,” according to the report. The alleged “carbon majors” include industry giants ExxonMobil and Chevron, of course, along with nations such as the former Soviet Union.

“The study also found these companies are responsible for 50% of the increase in heat wave intensity since before humans started adding so much planet-warming carbon and methane pollution to the atmosphere,” according to CNN’s story.

Now we get to the kicker, the apparent practical application of such a specific report: “The conclusions may have far-reaching ramifications, including aiding those who seek in court to make oil and gas companies pay for climate change-related harm, a task that has proven extremely difficult in the U.S.”

Indeed, the radical climate movement has increasingly attempted to win court judgments against companies that provide our most affordable and reliable fuels. These “scientific studies” could provide left-leaning judges with a new justification to side with climate change zealots. One study co-author acknowledged that the conclusions provide another weapon in the legal arsenal.

“Courts are indicating a willingness to hold carbon majors accountable, but at the same time asking for more scientific certainty, and our study helps to close a part of that gap,” said Corina Heri, a study co-author and law professor at Tilburg Law School in Zurich.

It’s difficult to claim as coincidence the fact that the ramped-up effort to apply a shiny new veneer to rusty climate theories comes as the federal government is exponentially moving away from the grip of climate change fever.

The New York Times recently reported that Chris Wright, energy secretary in the Trump administration, has argued that “renewable energy projects developed with the aim of reducing fossil fuels were not beneficial to the United States.” Wright recently “defended the Trump administration’s decision to block a nearly completed $6.2 billion wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island by saying offshore wind increases electricity prices and by downplaying the jobs at stake.”

Speaking on Sept. 5 to the council on Foreign Relations, a Washington research organization, Wright said, “Climate change, for impacting the quality of your life, is not incredibly important. In fact, if it wasn’t in the news, in the media, you wouldn’t know.”

Adding insult to injury as far as climate zealots are concerned was a follow-up announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency that it will no longer require greenhouse gas emission reports “for thousands of coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, steel mills and other industrial facilities across the country,” as the Times reported. EPA head Lee Zeldin called greenhouse gas reporting “nothing more than bureaucratic red tape,” and said ending the program could save U.S. businesses $2.4 billion over the coming decade.

Naturally, the energy “experts” contacted by the Times disagreed with Wright’s assessment, and critics similarly assailed the end of greenhouse gas emission reporting, claiming it would seriously set back the fight against climate change.

It’s no wonder that those invested in the global warming movement (by whatever moniker it embraces in any given decade), once riding on easy street with the full backing of the Biden-Harris administration, are attempting to retrench and regroup with a new method to attack their favorite bogeyman – traditional, reliable, affordable energy – in sympathetic courtrooms.

But they may be running out of road, at least in the U.S. If the Trump administration continues to dismantle the statutory mechanisms that have kept the Climate Doom Squad alive, pretty soon there won’t be any far-flung climate regulations left to use as legal ammo – freeing up courts to concern themselves with issues grounded in fact, removed from politics, and more pertinent to average Americans.

 

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for  The Empowerment Alliance , which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Fix needed: The case for a citizen-only census

Who is the census for? Or more importantly, who does Congress represent? If you answered “U.S. citizens,” you’re correct – or at least you should be.

At the start of each decade, the federal government tallies who’s living in the country and where, citizens and non-citizens alike. That census data determines how many seats in the House of Representatives each state receives, as well as its share of Electoral College votes for president. This whole process is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the part most focused on proper representation.

But representation for whom? Since 1790, anyone and everyone living within America’s borders, “excluding Indians not taxed.” That’s approximately 300 million Americans and 41 million non-citizens, the most in our nation’s history, nearly half of them living here illegally.

Non-citizens have never been allowed to vote in congressional elections. But they receive improper representation in Congress because the census fails to exclude them from the apportionment process, when all 435 House seats are divvied up between the 50 states and D.C. That’s dramatically inflated Democrats’ power in the House of Representatives as the non-citizen population has grown, at Americans’ expense.

Simply excluding 18.6 million illegal aliens – the most plausible estimate given by the Federation for American Immigration Reform – from the 2020 apportionment would shift eight House seats, mostly from blue to red and purple states. Removing all 41 million non-citizens would shift a stunning 22 seats the same way. In either case, these are districts that should represent U.S. citizens; instead, they’re brimming with non-citizens, and Democratic Party politicians prefer it this way.

Blue states, on average, report nearly double the percentage of non-citizen residents than red states: 6.3% to 3.7%. Of the top 20 states with the largest percentage of non-citizens, only six vote red or purple. Democrats also control seven of the 10 House districts with the most non-citizens; the other three are held by Republicans, either born in Cuba or who are children of Cuban immigrants. Those seats were, until recently, Democrat-controlled. I’ve documented more such revelations in my recent investigative report, “The Emerging Permanent MAGA Majority.”

Immigrants tend to flock to states with more job opportunities, which tend to be in states with big cities such as California and Texas, the states with the largest foreign-born populations. But as people have abandoned unlivable “progressive” fiefdoms for conservative southern states, this has turned the problem of representation inflation into a cynical opportunity to unfairly boost Democrat power.

To show this in action, imagine two congressional districts with equal populations of 760,000 residents, the national average. District A contains 700,000 U.S. citizens and 60,000 non-citizens. District B has 400,000 U.S. citizens and 360,000 non-citizens (some of them illegal aliens). Both districts elect one congressional representative, but District A’s congressman represents 360,000 more voters than District B.

As a result, a vote in District B is effectively worth twice as much as a vote in District A, because there are far fewer District A voters dividing up the same congressional seat.

Stacking blue districts with so many non-citizens lets a smaller electorate punch above its weight. This isn’t a mystery; it’s a core feature of Democratic electoral strategy. Take it from Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), who admitted of illegal aliens in 2021 that “I need more people in my district, just for redistricting purposes.” Thirty-five percent of Clarke’s constituents are foreign-born, the 23rd-highest in Congress.

Counting non-citizens also artificially boosts the number of House seats in blue states, even as Americans flee Chicago and New York City for Phoenix and Jacksonville. Democrat-run states lost a net seven House seats between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, and would’ve lost three more seats had the Census Bureau not overcounted six blue states. In 2030, they could lose between six and nine House seats, according to recent projections.

Ironically, many of the immigrants who are unintentionally boosting Democratic seats hold traditional social views, yet they skew congressional representation toward the far left simply by living in blue cities. They’re moderates represented by radicals. They’re also “voting” without a vote.

This has been the logic governing Democratic strategy for nearly three decades: Encourage mass immigration, discourage border enforcement, and reward illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship. It’s why Democrats bet the farm on Hispanics building a permanent majority in Washington – never imagining that Donald Trump could convert millions of Hispanic voters into America First populists.

That’s good, but it isn’t enough to restore America’s greatness. We have to push further and end Democrats’ cynical exploitation of the census for good.

Conservatives are hawks on closing the border, but they’ve largely missed or ignored the injustice of counting non-citizens in the census. This isn’t good politics, nor is it ethical. States such as Idaho, Ohio, and Tennessee are robbed of congressional representation because California, New Jersey, and Texas house so many non-citizens. In other words, some states are punished for having a big population of Americans – including naturalized immigrants – while others are rewarded for attracting migrants, even if they entered illegally.

This is why it’s crucial to ask who the census is for, rather than how we’ve always done it.

The founding generation viewed the census with a very different priority than we do today: Building a nation rather than preserving one. They adopted an expansive definition of American citizenship, assuming that loyalists, British sympathizers, and other Tories would self-deport from the republic – as some 80,000 actually did. The 1790 census counted as citizens everyone who claimed the new identity of “American” and proved it by remaining within the nation’s borders after the war.

Article I, Section 2 counted three-fifths of indentured servants and black slaves, but excluded Indian tribes. Why the distinction? Because one group lived under U.S. jurisdiction while the other did not. The census was never fundamentally about collecting interesting demographic data, but apportioning congressional representation. It was already outrageous and hypocritical that slaves, denied citizenship and legal rights, still inflated the southern states’ seats in the House. Yet the principle was already clear: Representation belongs to those who owe allegiance to the United States Constitution, not foreigners under another sovereign power.

This is the same logic that limits voting rights to U.S. citizens. No one outside of woke Berkeley is offended that non-citizens cannot vote for our leaders, although a few blue states are trying to normalize it. In fact, bipartisan voters have approved recent Citizen-Only Voting Amendments in huge numbers in red and blue states alike.

Paul Jacob, who chairs Americans for Citizen Voting, the group behind these ballot initiatives, points out that voting and representation are inextricably linked. “Only citizens should be voting in our elections, and each state’s representation should be based on the number of U.S. citizens in the state. Not on how many illegal aliens they’ve let in,” he told me. “No longer can we allow states to grab extra voting power in Congress by counting their illegal population.”

To fix that, we don’t need to deport every single illegal alien (though we should strive for that). We simply remove them from congressional apportionment and let the process play out fairly. Call it a “Citizen Only Census,” a return to the Founders’ high regard for citizenship after decades of being dragged through the mud by Democrats. The simplest way to do this is to restore a citizenship, or place of birth, question to the 2030 Census. This was the case in all but one census from 1820 to 2000.

The first Trump administration tried to in 2019 and lost 5–4 in the Supreme Court, but only because the court ruled the Commerce Department hadn’t provided sufficient procedural justification. The high court did not rule that it’s unconstitutional. Quite the opposite, actually: “The Enumeration Clause [Article I Section 2] does not provide a basis to set aside the Secretary’s decision,” the justices explained.

President Trump’s first administration started late, used the wrong arguments, and still came within one vote of winning that fight. The takeaway is obvious: Start earlier with a better strategy. The court’s transformation since 2019 ought to encourage them. Originalists have gained control of two liberal Supreme Court seats, establishing a supermajority and raising hopes that the court would approve restoring the citizenship question if given a second chance.

That’s an opportunity patriots – and America itself – can’t afford to miss.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump says Israel agrees to first withdrawal line in ceasefire talks with Hamas

Oct 4, 2024: 5:27 p.m.:

Trump says Israel agrees to first withdrawal line in ceasefire talks with Hamas

BREAKING: TRUMP SAYS ISRAEL AGREES TO FIRST WITHDRAWAL LINE FOR CEASEFIRE

Trump just posted that Israel has accepted an initial withdrawal line and shared it with Hamas.

“After negotiations, Israel has agreed to the initial withdrawal line, which we have shown to, and… https://t.co/J6FKwcgsFw pic.twitter.com/sip1Gy4td2

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 4, 2025

The heart of Judaism and the heart of God for His Jewish people

Is Judaism simply a formalistic, legalistic religion? For some Jews, I’m sure it is, just as Christianity can be formalistic and legalistic for some professing Christians. But for many religious Jews, the beauty is in the details, and every word carries meaning.

Jews around the world have just completed their observance of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. During a 25-hour period, from sundown to sundown, they abstain from food and drink and spend most of their time in the synagogue, repeating lengthy prayers of confession of sin and repentance, asking for mercy.

One of the prayers that is recited says this:

We are Your nation and You are our God.
We are Your children and You are our Father.
We are Your servants and You are our Master.
We are Your congregation and You are our portion.
We are Your inheritance and You are our lot.
We are Your sheep and You are our Shepherd.
We are Your vineyard and You are our Keeper.
We are Your handiwork and You are our Creator.
We are Your spouse and You are our Beloved.
We are Your treasure and You are our God.
We are Your nation and You are our King.
We are Your distinguished ones and You are our Distinction.
We are brazen-faced and You are merciful and gracious.
We are stiff-necked and You are slow to anger.
We are filled with iniquity and You are filled with compassion.
We – our days are like a fleeting shadow and Your years will never end.

Can you feel the depth of these words?

There is also a prayer normally prayed at the Sabbath dinner called Yedid Nefesh, which literally means, “Beloved of the soul,” referring to God. The first stanza, translated into English, reads: “Beloved of the soul, Compassionate Father, draw Your servant to Your will; then Your servant will hurry like a hart to bow before Your majesty; to him Your friendship will be sweeter than the dripping of the honeycomb and any taste.”

And then these words from the stanzas that follow, as the author (and now, the Jewish person praying) longs for intimacy with God and for the redemption of his people: “Majestic, Beautiful, Radiance of the universe, my soul pines for Your love”; and, “Enduring One, may Your mercy be aroused and please take pity on the son of Your beloved, because it is so very long that I have yearned intensely to see speedily the splendor of Your strength.” And, finally, this: “Please, my Beloved, reveal Yourself and spread upon me the shelter of Your peace; illuminate the Earth with Your glory, that we may rejoice and be glad with You; hasten, show love, for the time has come, and show us grace as in days of old.”

We must change our stereotyped views about the Jewish religion. It is a law-based religion (meaning it finds sanctity in keeping God’s commandments and believes that God’s fullest revelation is found within the Torah, the authoritative divine Teaching). It is a religion emphasizing works (meaning, it is based more on the deed than on the creed). It is a religion exalting intellectual prowess and study (indeed, Rabbinic literature, especially the Talmud, is very difficult to master). It is a religion stressing legal argument and debate (that is part of the very essence of Talmudic study). And it is a religion in which, in many ways, tradition takes precedence over Scripture.

But it is also a religion that makes constant reference to the Hebrew Bible, that sees the Song of Solomon as a love song between God and Israel, that says that loving the Lord with heart, soul and strength is the greatest of all commandments, and that teaches the importance of repentance, ethics and personal holiness, also emphasizing the mercy and forgiveness of God. In many ways, it is a beautiful religion, the greatest religion man has made, perhaps the loftiest effort by human beings to please God – if it were in man’s power to please Him.

With all my heart, I believe that there were and are religious Jews who would be counted righteous before God, if it were possible for man on his own to be righteous. That’s why, as I interact with religious Jews who are so sincere and devoted, my heart cries out on their behalf. It brings me pain to think of them being so devoted and still not knowing the Messiah. But I also recognize the depth of human sin – in every single one of us – which is why I believe that only through the Messiah’s blood can we be redeemed. Only through His merits can we be saved. Without Him, we are, at best, a fallen race trying very hard.

But trying very hard is not enough. Even asking for God’s mercy, as every religious Jew does every day, is not enough. We need a totally transforming miracle of God’s grace. Jesus-Yeshua is that miracle. The rabbis need Him too.

How, then, should we view these traditional rabbis? How should we think about religious Jews? Some might be hypocrites, filled with spiritual pride (such people are found in every religion). Some rabbis might be rabbis just because they think it’s a good job. But many others are deeply sincere. Like Paul, they might be “faultless” as far as “legalistic righteousness” is concerned (Philippians 3:6). They may even live a better life than many of us! “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Romans 10:2). They are zealous to this very day.

Let us, then, not be so quick to judge and condemn. Instead, let us share our faith in compassion. Let us pour out our souls to God, asking Him to break our hearts in prayer and to expose legalism and hypocrisy in our own lives. And let us intercede with our Father on behalf of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

May they find the only One who can satisfy the longing of their souls and bring forgiveness to their hearts!

May they encounter the Lord and His Anointed!

May they experience, on a personal and corporate level, the redemption for which they long!

May their prayers for salvation be answered!

(Excerpted and adapted from Michael L. Brown, “Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the Church and the Jewish People.”)

How the West is killing itself

England and Wales are preparing to legalize assisted suicide. The “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill” was passed by the House of Commons in June and now moves on to the House of Lords. The bill has plenty of detractors, including the former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, who referred to it as the “license to kill bill.” May warned of “normalizing” suicide and of the message such a law would send to the elderly, mentally ill and disabled about the value of their lives. Kim Leadbetter, the Labour Party member of Parliament who introduced the bill, offered the same tired assurances: The powers granted by the bill won’t be abused, this isn’t about devaluing the lives of the ill and disabled, and so on.

The trajectory is predictable: The bill’s proponents will win, with the typical initial argument that assisted suicide or euthanasia will be limited to terminally ill adults with less than six months to live. Even that limitation glosses over what most physicians will tell you: that it is nearly impossible to predict with any certainty how long someone will live, notwithstanding the diagnosis of a terminal illness.

But it never stops there. Soon the argument becomes, “What about adults suffering from mental illness? Why should they be forced to live if they don’t want to?” That, in turn, morphs into arguments that people who have no diagnosed mental illness should have access to assisted death if they’re unhappy and don’t want to live anymore.

Then the push comes to make euthanasia available to people under the age of 18 who are terminally ill; then, it’s young people who are depressed or dealing with other mental or emotional illness.

Advocates in England cheered the bill’s passage within the House of Commons as “the triumph of facts over fear.” You’d think they would pay more attention to the facts in other countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia have already been legalized, like the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada.

The Netherlands legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002, and has never required diagnosis of a terminal illness as a prerequisite. The number of deaths by both has been increasing every year, and jumped 10% in just one year, from 2023 to 2024.

More worryingly, the number of people who chose to end their lives for psychiatric reasons (as opposed to terminal physical illness) rose from two in 2010 to 219 last year – an increase of more than 10,000%. (One Dutch patient suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder ended her life because a back injury left her unable to clean as much as she wanted.) An even greater concern is that a growing number of these deaths are in people under 30; the Netherlands now permits children as young as 12 to request euthanasia.

Belgium’s laws permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide are the most permissive in Europe, having eliminated all age limits in 2014. In theory, any child requesting assisted death must be in “constant and unbearable suffering,” be lucid when making the choice, and have his or her parents’ consent (although it is unclear what happens if the parents disagree).

Canada’s Parliament passed its “Medical Assistance in Dying” law in 2016. MAID offers assisted suicide or euthanasia to anyone suffering with a terminal illness or chronic (even if not terminal) condition. Neither minors nor those with mental illness qualify for MAID in Canada – yet. Even so, there have been more than 60,000 MAID deaths in just the past nine years.

Both England and Canada boast about their “universal health care,” but both countries have yearslong wait times. England’s National Health Service admits that waits for tests and shortages of physicians and hospital beds are impacting cancer diagnoses and thus access to lifesaving treatment. Canada’s population is a third of England’s, but wait times are just as long, if not longer. This matters because when the inevitable shortages occur, euthanasia and assisted suicide start looking like cost-cutting measures or viable options for the ill and the disabled. By way of example, disabled Canadian veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier had been fighting for five years to get a wheelchair ramp installed at her home and was told by the Department of Veterans Affairs that they could send her the equipment for medical assistance in dying, instead.

It isn’t just the embrace of death that threatens the West. There’s also abortion and the declining birth rate. None of the western European countries has a birth rate at the population replacement level of two children per family. The birth rate in the United States is barely at replacement level. Abortions were declining in the U.S. until 2017 but have been steadily increasing each year since, with more than 1 million abortions performed in 2023 for the first time since 2012.

And now, American society has a new obsession: chemically castrating and surgically mutilating the bodies of otherwise physically healthy young people, rendering them incapable of sexual reproduction (and, in some cases, sexual performance or pleasure).

This is madness. Western civilization is destroying its fertility and its future.

These trends are direct consequences of the West’s abandonment of Christianity, the faith that built modern Europe and which is the cornerstone of the United States of America. Christian majorities in the U.S. and in countries like France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Canada have been ignoring the tenets of the faith, watering them down, apologizing for them, and even condemning them as “racist,” “patriarchal” and “colonialist.”

The results are predictably catastrophic. Christianity views the value of each God-given human life as inherent, immutable and immeasurable, not dependent upon the whims or wishes of any particular individual. That value has, among other achievements, driven unprecedented advances in medical care, healing, child life expectancy, longevity and the alleviation of suffering. It should not surprise us, therefore, that as Christianity is gradually eroded as a cultural foundation, humans become disposable rather than indispensable, and the value of life becomes transactional rather than transcendent; about money rather than morals.

As England prepares to join other nations that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, it appears to miss the irony: If Christianity is cast aside, it will take Western civilization with it.

The West is killing itself.

Both hats fit

Biden judge gives just 8 years to transgender man who plotted to kill Justice Kavanaugh

Oct 4, 2025: 5:10 p.m.:

Biden judge gives just 8 years to transgender man who plotted to kill Justice Kavanaugh

HOW DID A DOMESTIC TERRORIST GET JUST 8 YEARS ON A 30-YEAR GUIDELINE? …. THEY'RE TRANSGENDER.

Nicholas Roske, the transgender man who plotted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was sentenced to only 8 years by a Biden-appointed judge who admitted the… https://t.co/D8AHvpAQUF pic.twitter.com/kuIiGlLRFt

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 4, 2025

Chaos in Chicago as agitators waving Mexican flags attack federal agents

Oct 4, 2025: 17:07 p.m.:

Chaos in Chicago as agitators waving Mexican flags attack federal agents

BREAKING: CHAOS ERUPTS IN CHICAGO AFTER ATTACK ON FEDERAL AGENTS

Chicago police have arrived at the scene as tensions have exploded following the assault on federal officers.

Several agitators were spotted waving Mexican flags during the unrest, with federal sources… https://t.co/2lKtyDtEnT pic.twitter.com/vJXZEejt1A

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 4, 2025

Donald Trump posts on Truth Social at 4:48 PM EST

Oct 4, 2025: 5:00 p.m.:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaving New York

Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 04:48 PM EST 10/04/25 pic.twitter.com/GMRmmddMpM

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) October 4, 2025