JOB OPPORTUNITY  рабочих мест

Russians should spy for Britain, says departing head of MI6

Dominic Nicholls
Fri, September 19, 2025 
THE TELEGRAPH

Richard Moore leaves his post as head of the Secret Intelligence Service at the start of next month - Dilara Irem Sancar/Getty Images


Russians should spy for Britain to “redeem their country’s honour”, according to the outgoing head of MI6.

Sir Richard Moore warned that Vladimir Putin was “stringing us along” in Ukraine and claimed that the Kremlin had its sights on nothing “short of Ukrainian capitulation” in his last public speech as head of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS).

He said: “In the end, if we hold our nerve, Putin will need to come to terms with the fact that he has a choice: risk an economic and political crisis that threatens his own rule, or make a sensible deal.”

Speaking in Istanbul, Sir Richard said Russia was much weaker than many people realised and was “accelerating this decline”.

It comes after Donald Trump, who previously claimed he could end the war within one day of entering the White House, said he has been “really let down” by Putin at a press conference during his state visit to the UK.

Sir Richard Moore says Vladimir Putin (second from right) has ‘lied to the world’ 

- Daniel Torok/The White House

In a speech that also announced the launch of a new dark web portal through which sensitive information can be sent directly to MI6, Sir Richard said: “Putin has bitten off more than he can chew.”

“He lies to the world. He lies to his people. Perhaps he even lies to himself.

“Putin is mortgaging his country’s future. Russia’s economy and demography and its means to project imperial power are in long-term decline, and Putin’s war is accelerating this decline.

“Greater powers than Russia have failed to subjugate weaker powers than Ukraine.”

Russia’s war with Ukraine is well into its fourth year 

- Yevhen Titov/EPA/Shutterstock

The spy chief also used his final public-facing engagement to reflect on his time as head of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6’s official name.


He lamented that only 40 per cent of his agency’s staff were women, with the figure for ethnic minorities being “just under 10 per cent”.

Sir Richard did, however, point to “some measurable achievements”, saying many more women were in leadership roles in MI6 than five years ago, including in intelligence operations in the UK and overseas, and in the spy agency’s technical teams.

He paid tribute to the “nimbleness” of MI6 which, although thought to be less than half the size of the CIA – exact staffing levels for both organisations are not publicly known – is very highly regarded by US officials.

He said John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, recently told him, “you guys can really hustle”.
Praise for ‘nameless’ heroes

Sir Richard reserved particular praise for the agents who provide MI6 with information about threats to the UK.

“Because of their bravery,” he said, “and the bravery of other agents around the world, our ministers very often play their cards, knowing at least some of what is in the other side’s hand.

“Neither I nor any other chief will confirm their names.

“Many of our most consequential agents will travel through history faceless and nameless to the public, but quietly celebrated within MI6 by those few, even in the Service, who know.”

Sir Richard hands over to Blaise Metreweli on Oct 1. She will be the 18th chief of MI6 and is expected to continue the custom of writing in green ink, even in emails; a tradition started by the original “C”, Sir Mansfield Cumming.

Sir Richard said he looked forward to reflecting on his career “in private”.

“I am now hanging up my cloak, returning my imaginary dagger to its scabbard and handing over my famous green pen.”

Exiting MI6 chief Moore: Russian PM Putin not interested in negotiated peace with Ukraine

Danielle Haynes
Fri, September 19, 2025 

UPI


The building housing the Britain's MI6 is seen by the river Thames in London. On Friday, outgoing MI6 chief Richard Moore said Russian President Vladimir Putin has no interest in negotiating peace with Ukraine because he doesn't recognize the former Soviet republic's sovereignty. File Photo by Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPAMore


Sept. 19 (UPI) -- Britain's outgoing spy chief, Richard Moore, warned Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no intention of negotiating peace with Ukraine because he doesn't view the former Soviet republic as having its own sovereignty.

Moore made the remarks at the British consulate in Istanbul as he prepares to step down from his role as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. He has led the organization, also known as MI6, for five years.

"I have seen absolutely no evidence that President Putin has any interest in a negotiated peace short of Ukraine capitulation," Moore said as he address efforts by Britain and the United States to broker a deal to resolve the conflict.

Putin "is stringing us along," Moore added. "Because the issue ... has always been sovereignty: Putin denies Ukraine's sovereignty and its very existence as a country and nation."

Moore said Putin has attempted to portray that Russian victory over Ukraine is "inevitable," but accused the president of lying to his people and the world.

"He seeks to impose his imperial will by all means at his disposal," Moore said, adding that Putin doesn't have the ability to take Ukraine by force.

"Bluntly, Putin has bitten off more than he can chew. He thought he was going to win an easy victory. But he -- and many others -- underestimated the Ukrainians," Moore said


"Indeed, Putin's actions have strengthened Ukrainian national identity and accelerated the country's westward trajectory, as well as persuaded Sweden and Finland into joining NATO."

Moore chose Istanbul for his farewell speech because he said Turkey is of "pivotal importance" to the international community.

"On almost all of the issues that I have grappled with as chief of MI6, Turkey has been a key player," he said.


Moore spent eight years living there, including four as British ambassador from 2014 to 2017. He also studied in the country as a student and his daughter was born there.

D.E.I. LONG AFTER JAMES BOND

Upon Moore's departure later this month, MI6's current technology lead, Blaise Metreweli, will take over as head of the organization. She will be the MI6's first female chief since its founding in 1909.

Outgoing MI6 chief says Putin has ‘bitten off more than he can chew’ in Ukraine

Ruth Michaelson in Istanbul

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, September 19, 2025


‘Come spy with us,’ said Richard Moore in his call to recruit more operatives to MI6.Photograph: Dilara Irem Sancar/Anadolu/Getty Images


The outgoing head of MI6 has issued a damning indictment of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying that Vladimir Putin has “bitten off more than he can chew”.

Related: Blaise Metreweli named as first woman to lead UK intelligence service MI6

Richard Moore, known within MI6 as C, used his farewell speech in Istanbul to say that while Russia was unlikely to win on the battlefield, his agency was seeking to recruit spies inside Russia and worldwide in order to fight back.

“Putin has sought to convince the world that Russian victory is inevitable, but he lies. He lies to the world. He lies to his people. Perhaps he even lies to himself,” said Moore. “But we should not believe him. Or credit him with strength he does not have.”

Any Russian victories on the battlefield remained incremental, said Moore, and incurred massive costs as the president’s army fell far short of its original aims to swiftly capture all of Ukraine.

The rising costs now included more than a million casualties – a quarter of them “poorly trained troops from Russia’s poorest regions” that were “fed into the meat grinder”, he said.

Related: Abandoning Ukraine means ‘infinitely higher’ long-term security costs, MI6 chief says

A former ambassador to Ankara, Moore appeared to choose Istanbul as the place to launch a drive to recruit spies due to the large numbers of Russian visitors to Turkey as well as its proximity to Ukraine.

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has long sought to position his country – a Nato member and the host of slow peace talks that have come to little – as an important interlocutor with Moscow.

The outgoing spy chief also cited other threats to British and global security, notably Iran. Millions of Iranians visit neighbouring Turkey each year, and Moore pointedly added that MI6’s recruitment offer via a new portal on the dark web was open to anyone.

“Our door is always open,” he said. Citing his entreaties to Russian citizens during a previous visit to Prague, he added: “Come spy with us.”

Iran, China and North Korea had all aided Putin’s war in Ukraine, Moore said, allowing Putin to avoid possible internal collapse or an inevitable ceasefire deal.

“In the end, if we hold our nerve, Putin will need to come to terms with the fact that he has a choice to risk an economic and political crisis that threatens his own rule, or make a sensible deal,” he said. “This is a choice he would have had to confront earlier, if not for the outside help he had been receiving.”

Moore used his speech to launch MI6’s secure messaging platform, named Silent Courier, as a way for potential recruits to contact the organisation and offer their services. He presented this as a way to help Britain and its allies repel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and possibly accelerate the decline of Putin’s rule.

“Not all Russians subscribe to Putinism,” he said. “Some keep their heads down and try to get on with their lives as best they can. Some, like Alexei Navalny, resist openly and die for their beliefs, but others do so secretly – by working for MI6.”

Promising potential Russian recruits security and protection, Moore framed the offer as an opportunity to bring peace to Europe.

Starbucks employees sue company over dress code: “It’s unfair that a billion-dollar company puts this burden on workers”

THIS SHOULD INCLUDE BRASSIERS FOR WOMEN BARISTAS 

Ljeonida Mulabazi
Sat, September 20, 2025 



photosounds/Sorbis/Shutterstock /


Starbucks is facing legal heat again, this time not over unions or strikes but over what its employees are allowed to wear on the job.

Workers across multiple states say the coffee giant’s new dress code forced them to shell out their own money for clothes, and they want that money back.

Previously, the Daily Dot reported that many Starbucks baristas were walking out of their jobs due to the changes when the policy first rolled out in May.

Lawsuits filed in three states

On Wednesday, baristas in Illinois and Colorado filed class-action lawsuits claiming Starbucks violated state laws by failing to reimburse them for the new clothes required under the updated dress code.

In California, workers went a step further and submitted complaints to the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, accusing the company of the same thing. Those workers also flagged separate issues with Starbucks allegedly not reimbursing phone and vehicle expenses tied to work.

If California’s labor agency declines to pursue the case, the employees say they plan to move ahead with a civil suit themselves.
What the new dress code requires

Back in April, Starbucks announced that beginning May 12, workers in all North American stores would be required to follow a stricter set of attire rules.

Instead of the looser guidelines baristas had previously, the new policy requires solid black crewnecks, collared shirts, or button-ups paired with khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms. Shoes have to be in muted tones like black, gray, brown, navy, tan, or white.

Sorbis/Shutterstock

The company also banned “theatrical makeup” and nail polish and limited facial piercings to one small stud or hoop.

Starbucks said the shift was meant to “simplify” its expectations, make the coffeehouse feel more consistent, and give workers “clearer guidance.” To offset the change, the company provided each employee with two free shirts.

But according to employees, that wasn’t enough.

Workers say they had to pay out-of-pocket

“Starbucks hasn’t reimbursed me for these expenses, and it’s unfair that a billion-dollar company puts this burden on workers already struggling with unpredictable hours and understaffed stores,” said Shay Mannik, a barista from Colorado for Quartz.

“That’s why I’m standing up for myself and my coworkers so we can all be reimbursed and treated fairly.”

Starbucks has defended its policies, pointing to low turnover and strong employee satisfaction.

In a statement, the company said worker turnover “is at record lows and about half the industry average. More partners are getting the shifts they want. And more partners than ever recommend Starbucks as a great place to work.”

UN chief says world should not be intimidated by Israel

ZIONIST CRYBABIES

Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS
Fri, September 19, 2025 

AFP


Guterres spoke to AFP ahead of the UN's signature high-level week at which 10 countries will recognize a Palestinian state according to Paris (ANGELA WEISS)ANGELA WEISS/AFP/AFPMore

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told AFP Friday the world should not be "intimidated" by Israel and its creeping annexation of the occupied West Bank.

In an interview at UN headquarters in New York, he also called for more ambitious climate action saying that efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels were at risk of "collapsing."

Guterres spoke to AFP ahead of the UN's signature high-level week at which 10 countries will recognize a Palestinian state, according to France -- over fierce Israeli objections.

The meeting of more than 140 heads of state and government, which paralyzes a corner of Manhattan for a week each year, will likely be dominated by the future of the Palestinians and the war in Gaza.

Israel has reportedly threatened to annex the West Bank if Western nations press ahead with the recognition plan at the UN gathering.

But Guterres said, "We should not feel intimidated by the risk of retaliation."

"With or without doing what we are doing, these actions would go on and at least there is a chance to mobilize international community to put pressure for them not to happen," he said.

"What we are witnessing in Gaza is horrendous," Guterres said as Israel threatened "unprecedented force" in its ongoing assault on Gaza City.

"It is the worst level of death and destruction that I've seen my time as Secretary-General, probably my life and the suffering of the Palestinian people cannot be described -- famine, total lack of effective health care, people living without adequate shelters in huge concentration areas," he said.

Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for annexation of swaths of the West Bank with an aim to "bury the idea of a Palestinian state" after several countries joined the French push on statehood.

But Israel's staunch ally the United States has held back from any criticism of the war in Gaza or vows to annex the West Bank -- and excoriated its allies who have vowed to recognize a Palestinian state.


- Climate goals face collapse -


Also on the agenda will be efforts to combat climate change which Guterres warned are floundering.

Guterres said efforts to cap climate warming at 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels were in trouble.

The climate goals for 2035 of the countries that signed the Paris Agreement, also known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), were initially expected to be submitted several months ago.

However, uncertainties related to geopolitical tensions and trade rivalries have slowed the process.

"We are on the verge of this objective collapsing," he told AFP.


"We absolutely need countries to come... with climate action plans that are fully aligned with 1.5 degrees (Celsius), that cover the whole of their economies and the whole of their greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

"It is essential that we have a drastic reduction of emissions in the next few years if you want to keep the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit alive."

Less than two months before COP30 climate meeting in Brazil, dozens of countries have been slow to announce their plans -- particularly China and the European Union, powers considered pivotal for the future of climate diplomacy.

Efforts to combat the impact of man-made global warming have taken a backseat to myriad crises in recent years that have included the coronavirus pandemic and several wars, with Guterres seeking to reignite the issue.

The UN hopes that the climate summit co-chaired Wednesday in New York by Guterres and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will be an opportunity to breathe life into efforts ahead of COP30.

Guterres said he was concerned that Nationally Determined Contributions, or national climate action plans, may not ultimately support the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

"It's not a matter to panic. It's a matter to be determined, to put all pressure for countries."

Containing global warming to1.5C compared to the pre-industrial era 1850-1900 is the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement. But many scientists agree that this threshold will most likely be reached before the end of this decade, as the planet continues to burn more and more oil, gas, and coal.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Trump border czar Tom Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents

Maya Yang and Robert Mackey

THE GUARDIAN
Sat, September 20, 2025 


Tom Homan in Washington on 9 September 2025.Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Pool/Yuri Gripas - Pool/CNP/Shutterstock

The FBI reportedly recorded Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan accepting $50,000 in cash from undercover agents who were posing as business contractors last year.

A new report from MSNBC on Saturday reveals that the agents recorded Homan, six weeks before the 2024 election, allegedly promising to assist in securing government contracts across the border security industry during Trump’s second term.

Six sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC that the FBI and justice department – then run by Joe Biden’s administration – had intended to hold off and assess whether Homan would follow through on his alleged promises after he was appointed as Trump’s border czar. However, the investigation stalled after Trump took office, and in recent weeks, officials appointed by Trump decided to close the case, according to MSNBC.

According to the sources, a justice department official who was appointed by Trump called the case a “deep state” investigation.

In a separate statement to MSNBC, the FBI director, Kash Patel, and the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said: “This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and justice department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”

The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.

If you have something to share on this subject, you can contact us confidentially using the following methods.

They added: “The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. As a result, the investigation has been closed.”

The White House deputy press secretary, Abigail Jackson, told MSNBC the investigation was “blatantly political”. Jackson added that it was “yet another example of how the Biden Department of Justice was using its resources to target President Trump’s allies rather than investigate real criminals and the millions of illegal aliens who flooded our country”.

Homan was captured on video accepting $50,000 in cash at a meeting spot in Texas on 20 September 2024, according to an internal summary of the case reviewed by MSNBC and sources who spoke to the outlet.

Four sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC that multiple federal officials believed they had a solid criminal case against Homan for conspiracy to commit bribery. However, since Homan was not a public official at the time he accepted the money and Trump had not yet become president, his actions did not meet the criteria for a standard bribery charge.

Officials eventually decided to continue monitoring Homan once he joined Trump’s second presidential administration. MSNBC reports that officials had been looking at four potential criminal charges including conspiracy, bribery and two kinds of fraud, before Trump’s new justice department shut down the investigation.

Homan, who was previously the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) during Trump’s first term, was appointed by Trump to run what he has described as the “biggest deportation” project the US has ever seen. Prior to his appointment as border czar, Homan was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the Washington DC-based thinktank behind Project 2025.

After the MSNBC report was published, Adam Schiff, a California Democratic senator and a former federal prosecutor, wrote on social media: “Border Czar Tom Homan was caught by the FBI accepting bribes – on camera – to deliver government contracts in exchange for $50,000 in cash. Pam Bondi knew. Kash Patel knew. Emil Bove knew. And they made the investigation go away. A corrupt attempt to conceal brazen graft.”

In an angry outburst on his social media platform on Saturday night, Trump appeared to direct his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to appoint a White House aide, Lindsey Halligan, interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, so that she could seek criminal charges against Schiff and another of the president’s political rivals, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. Trump has demanded that both Schiff and James be prosecuted on mortgage fraud claims both deny.

On Friday, the prosecutor who was serving as the district’s interim US attorney, Erik Siebert, was forced out, reportedly for refusing to bring charges against James, due to a lack of evidence. Trump insisted on Saturday that he had fired Siebert for political reasons. Late Saturday, Trump announced that he would nominate Halligan, his former personal lawyer and a one-time contestant in the Miss Colorado USA beauty pageant now serving as a special assistant to the president, to replace Siebert.

Tom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump's DOJ shut it down.

Carol Leonnig
Sat, September 20, 2025 
MSNBC


White House border czar Tom Homan walks toward the West Wing of the White House, on May 29. (Andrew Harnik / Getty Images file)

In an undercover operation last year, the FBI recorded Tom Homan, now the White House border czar, accepting $50,000 in cash after indicating he could help the agents — who were posing as business executives — win government contracts in a second Trump administration, according to multiple people familiar with the probe and internal documents reviewed by MSNBC.

The FBI and the Justice Department planned to wait to see whether Homan would deliver on his alleged promise once he became the nation’s top immigration official. But the case indefinitely stalled soon after Donald Trump became president again in January, according to six sources familiar with the matter. In recent weeks, Trump appointees officially closed the investigation, after FBI Director Kash Patel requested a status update on the case, two of the people said.

It’s unclear what reasons FBI and Justice Department officials gave for shutting down the investigation. But a Trump Justice Department appointee called the case a “deep state” probe in early 2025 and no further investigative steps were taken, the sources say.

The federal investigation was launched in western Texas in the summer of 2024 after a subject in a separate investigation claimed Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for awarding contracts should Trump win the presidential election, according to an internal Justice Department summary of the probe reviewed by MSNBC and people familiar with the case. The U.S. Attorney’s office in the Western District of Texas, working with the FBI, asked the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section to join its ongoing probe “into the Border Czar and former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan and others based on evidence of payment from FBI undercover agents in exchange for facilitating future contracts related to border enforcement.”

Homan, who served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement early in Trump’s first term, openly claimed during the 2024 campaign that he would play a prominent role in carrying out Trump’s promised mass deportations.

Asked for comment about MSNBC's exclusive reporting, the White House, the Justice Department and the FBI dismissed the investigation as politically motivated and baseless.

In a statement provided to MSNBC, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. As a result, the investigation has been closed.”

White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson slammed the probe as a "blatantly political investigation, which found no evidence of illegal activity, is yet another example of how the Biden Department of Justice was using it’s resources to target President Trump’s allies rather than investigate real criminals and the millions of illegal aliens who flooded our country."

"Tom Homan has not been involved with any contract award decisions. He is a career law enforcement officer and lifelong public servant who is doing a phenomenal job on behalf of President Trump and the country," she added on behalf of Homan, a senior White House employee.

Homan did not reply to requests for comment.

Undercover FBI agents posing as contractors communicated and met several times last summer with a business colleague who introduced them to Homan, and with Homan himself, who indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money once he was in office, according to documents and the people familiar with the case.

On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources.

FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors took no further investigative steps in the final months of 2024, the people said, and expected to keep monitoring Homan to determine if he landed an official role and would make good on steering contracts in a future Trump administration.

When special agents in Texas began probing the subject’s claim that Homan was soliciting bribes, the White House border czar, 63, was president and owner of a private consulting business that said it could help companies in the border security industry win government contracts. Homan often accompanied Trump on the campaign trail in 2023 and 2024, and for months before the presidential election publicly touted that he expected to oversee implementation of Trump’s immigration policies.

“Trump comes back in January, I’ll be on his heels coming back, and I will run the biggest deportation operation this country’s ever seen,” Homan said at the National Conservatism Conference in July 2024.

Tom Homan speaks as Donald Trump listens at a primary election night party in Nashua, N.H., on Jan. 23, 2024. (Matt Rourke / AP file)

Several FBI and Justice officials believed that they had a strong criminal case against Homan for conspiracy to commit bribery based on recording him accepting cash and his apparent promise to assist with contracts, according to four people familiar with the probe. Homan could have been charged with a crime then, legal experts say, but his case was unusual: He was not a public official, and Trump was not president at the time he accepted money in the FBI’s undercover sting, so his actions didn’t clearly fit under a standard bribery charge.


Top officials privately debated the possible charges given Homan’s status at the time, people familiar with the case said. But several concluded it would be better for the investigation to continue to monitor his actions once he was back in public office. According to a document reviewed by MSNBC, Justice officials were eyeing four potential criminal charges in his case: conspiracy, bribery and two kinds of fraud.

MSNBC asked legal experts about a hypothetical situation similar to the Homan probe. They said a person who promises to influence federal contracts when they become a public official can’t be charged under the federal bribery statutes until they are named or appointed to such a post. If the person did get the administration job and then reaffirmed his promise or communicated in some way about his plan to deliver on his agreement, investigators could make a strong bribery case.

It is still a crime, however, for anyone to seek money to improperly influence federal contracts, the legal experts said, whether they are a public official or not, and whether they ever delivered on their promise or not. People in this category could be charged with conspiracy or fraud, they say.

“If someone who is not yet a public official, but expects to be, takes bribes in exchange for agreeing to take official acts after they are appointed, they can’t be charged with bribery,” said Randall Eliason, the former chief of public corruption prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. and former white-collar law professor. “But they can be charged with conspiracy to commit bribery. In a conspiracy charge, the crime is the agreement to commit a criminal act in the future.”

On Nov. 11, 2024, President Trump announced he would make Homan his border czar, a White House adviser role, which — unlike the job of director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — did not require Senate confirmation or an extensive FBI background check.

Several FBI and Justice Department officials believed Homan’s acceptance of the cash provided strong evidence that they should continue to pursue after Homan took public office. The Public Integrity Section, a squad of seasoned public corruption prosecutors typically assigned to sensitive cases involving elected and other high-profile figures, agreed to join the case in late November 2024, according to documents reviewed by MSNBC.

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, however, in either late January or February 2025, former acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove was briefed on the case and told Justice Department officials he did not support the investigation, according to two people familiar with the case.

Around the same time, the Public Integrity Section was battling with Bove over his demand that they dismiss a bribery case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The section’s supervisors, who would resign one by one in February rather than agree to dismiss the Adams case, had assigned a top supervisor to help oversee the Homan case with federal prosecutors in the Western District of Texas, where the investigation began, two people said

Homan had spent three decades in federal border protection and immigration enforcement. A former police officer from upstate New York, Homan had started work as a Border Patrol agent in the 1980s and later was promoted to several supervisory jobs. In 2013, President Barack Obama elevated Homan to serve as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation branch.

When Trump was first elected president in 2017, he appointed Homan as acting head of ICE. In that role, Homan pushed the controversial “zero-tolerance” policy for immigrants seeking to cross the border, resulting in the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents and family members.

Homan’s nomination to become the permanent ICE director stalled in the Senate amid widespread criticism over the administration’s family-separations policies and Senate Democrats’ opposition to his confirmation. After his lengthy career in government service, Homan announced in April 2018 he would retire.

Homan then launched his consulting firm, Homeland Strategic Consulting. Its website boasted of its work with the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice and others: “We have a proven track record of opening doors and bringing successful relationships to our clients, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of federal contracts to private companies.”

During the Biden administration, as Trump prepared to run again for president, Homan remained close to Trump and his advisers, working as a Fox News contributor and with the Heritage Foundation, as well as contributing to Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for Trump’s second term.

When Homan became Trump’s top border official in 2025, his consulting work and financial ties to border security and immigration-related contractors spurred questions from Democrats in Congress about his potential conflicts of interest.

Many expected Homan, a trusted Trump ally, to serve if Trump were re-elected in 2024. In a December 2023 interview on the slain conservative activist’s eponymous podcast “The Charlie Kirk Show,” Homan promised he’d be pushing a robust removal of immigrants when Trump was re-elected.

“We’re going to have the biggest deportation operation this country has ever seen,” Homan told Benny Johnson, a right-wing commentator and host on the show. “And I’m not going apologize for it.”

After Trump was elected a second time in 2024, amid questions about Homan’s financial relationships with clients who sought work related to the border, Homan said he had no conflict and would take steps to prevent one. He said he was shutting down his consulting business and would remove himself from discussions of specific contracts to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

“As Border Czar, you are uniquely positioned to help your former business client reap a huge windfall from the Trump Administration’s spending on immigration enforcement,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter last month asking for documents and communications with another firm Homan worked for, Geo Group, a major immigration detention contractor. Raskin was joined by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, in pressing for answers about Homan’s potential conflicts.

Asked about a hypothetical situation of a person promising help with contracts once they get into public office, Eliason said federal law makes it a crime to strike a corrupt agreement to help influence government contracts and decisions, no matter the identity of the person or whether they succeed. He said a person who is not a public official yet but promises to exert influence improperly when they get the job — and accepts or solicits money to do so — can be charged with conspiracy.

Eliason pointed to the Reagan-era bribery scandal involving the now-defunct defense contractor Wedtech. Eugene Wallach, a lawyer and friend of Attorney General Edwin Meese III, was convicted of conspiracy to commit crimes by taking substantial payments from Wedtech while promising to influence contracts once he landed a high-level Justice Department job under Meese. (A higher court later overturned Wallach’s conviction due to a faulty jury instruction.


“The defendant is agreeing that he will commit the crime of bribery once he is appointed to be a public official,” Eliason added. “That agreement itself is the conspiracy crime, and the fact that it never actually took place is not a defense. That would be true if he were never even appointed to anything at all.”

Cuba foreign minister slams Rubio amid fears of U.S. military action in Venezuela

Nora Gamez Torres
Fri, September 19, 2025 



Cuba’s foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez presenting a report on the impact of the U.S. embargo, in Havana, Sept. 18,2025.


Cuba’s foreign minister lashed out at U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, calling him “a fraud” and “an international criminal,” in a personal attack that suggests the island’s government has given up on improving its strained relationship with the Trump administration amid heightened fears of a potential U.S. military action in Venezuela.

Asked in a press conference Tuesday about his expectations for the relationship with the United States, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez accused Rubio of executing a “violent” and “politically motivated agenda “tied to dark, corrupt interests, particularly in Florida,” to provoke egime change in Cuba.

“The Secretary of State is a fraud, who was neither born in Cuba nor knows anything about Cuba,” he said during a press conference that followed a presentation to foreign diplomats in Havana of Cuba’s latest report about the impact of the U.S. embargo.

“His nefarious role in relation to the genocide in Gaza,” he added, “places him as an international criminal.”

The U.S. Department of State declined to comment.

Rodriguez is known to use inflammatory rhetoric against the U.S. regularly. Still, the personal accusations against the secretary of state in a room full of foreign diplomats suggest the island’s government has given up on diplomacy and is bracing for further confrontation.

Soon after Trump won the presidential election and Rubio was nominated as secretary, Cuban officials quietly reached out to contacts in the U.S. They were seeking advice on how to circumvent Rubio — a Cuban American former senator and a hardliner on Cuba policy — and how best to deal with President Donald Trump, whom the Cubans perceived as more transactional, Herald sources said.

For months, Cuban diplomats and state media outlets have relentlessly criticized Rubio and the U.S. ambassador in Havana, Mike Hammer. Rubio’s “tough Cuba policy” has included sanctions on the island’s handpicked president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, and military officials and enterprises. He has also pressured foreign governments, including several in the Caribbean region, to stop hiring Cuban doctors through the Cuban official missions, due to allegations of forced labor. But to this day, Cuban officials are careful not to name Trump by name when disparaging his policies towards Cuba, Venezuela and the war in Gaza.

Cuba has continued receiving deportation flights from the U.S. in an effort to cooperate on an issue high on Trump’s agenda, although Havana continues refusing to accept Cubans with criminal records.

In July, Johana Tablada, a top Cuban Foreign Ministry official responsible for the U.S., complained that she and Vice Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío had been snubbed by the State Department and could not arrange any meetings when they traveled to Washington. She accused Rubio and other U.S. officials of wanting “to blow up what’s left of the relationship,” but she said Cuba was not going to take the bait.

“The adult in the room is the Cuban government,” Tablada said. “If we did what they wanted, we’d be giving a pretext for those people who want to break off relations, create a migration crisis and prompt a military intervention from the United States.”
Worries about Venezuela grow

The latest events in the Caribbean have been another test of the Cuba-U.S. relationship.

Rodriguez’s virulent tirade against Rubio comes in the middle of increased tensions in the region because of the sizable deployment of U.S. military assets near Venezuela, Cuba’s closest ally. Cuban top officials, including Díaz-Canel, have said the United States is preparing for some sort of military action against the Nicolás Maduro regime in Venezuela, beyond the deployment’s stated purpose of fighting drug cartels in the Caribbean.

Cuba’s intelligence forces are known to operate in Venezuela and provide security services and advice to Maduro. It is not known what kind of support the Cuban government is prepared to provide in case of a military action against Venezuela. On Thursday, Roberto Morales Ojeda, a top official in the island’s Communist Party Central Committee who is seen as a contender to succeed Díaz-Canel, met with Diosdado Cabello, Maduro’s interior minister.

“The enemy has always been the same, but now it’s even more voracious,” Cabello said about the United States during the meeting, according to Cuban official media. “Whoever messes with Cuba messes with Venezuela, and vice versa.”

In a publication on X, Morales said that his visit, which coincided with military exercises conducted by Maduro’s forces, is “a demonstration, as always, of the total willingness to collaborate and be on the side of the Venezuelan people in their struggles.”

On Thursday, Rodriguez shared a statement by “the Revolutionary Government of Cuba” calling on other nations to mobilize to prevent “a military aggression” against Venezuela, blaming it again on Rubio “and other like-minded senators and Congress members.”

“Cuba has repeatedly warned that the deployment of U.S. military forces in the Caribbean in recent weeks is a provocation intended to unleash a military conflict that would compel the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the statement said. “The true purpose of these actions is to seize the oil and natural resources of Venezuela.

Blaming the economic crisis on the embargo

Rodriguez also accused the United States of inflicting “extraordinary humanitarian damage to our people,” in remarks presenting an annual report that precedes a United Nations vote on a resolution to end the U.S. embargo on Cuba. The minister claimed the embargo caused damages estimated at $7.5 billion between March 2024 and February 2025 and that if the sanctions had not been in place, Cuba’s economy would have grown by 9.2%.

Cuban economists have noted that U.S. sanctions are one of several factors in the country’s current crisis, and that the Cuban government is able to pass on the effect of sanctions to the population. But research efforts to quantify the effects have been scarce.

The figures presented regularly by the government are believed to overestimate the financial cost of the sanctions because they include several estimates based on hypothetical situations, including, for example, estimated revenue for the sale of Cuban products to American consumers and savings on shipping costs based on the premise that Cuba would almost exclusively import goods from the United States, including supplies like syringes that American companies source in other markets such as China. The figure is particularly high this year because the government also included $2.5 billion in damages for the loss of workers to a migration wave Cuban authorities blame on the United States.

The report also claims the embargo deprived the government from the money needed to buy medicines and other necessities. But a recent Herald investigation based on a leak of secret accounting documents for the country’s largest military conglomerate, GAESA, shows it had $14,5 billion deposited in bank accounts and $18 billion in assets as of March 2024.

Fired MSNBC Analyst Calls Out Colleagues For Being Outraged Over Jimmy Kimmel Instead of Him

Mediaite
Fri, September 19, 2025 


Fired MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd called out his media colleagues for being outraged over Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension while ignoring what happened to him.

Dowd was one of the guests on Katie Couric’s podcast focused on Kimmel’s suspension, and the former senior analyst for MSNBC said he was confused at the outrage over Kimmel’s dismissal versus his own, saying:


All the shows are talking about how this is awful for America that Jimmy Kimmel was indefinitely suspended, and isn’t this awful for America, it’s a chilling thing for the First Amendment. And they’re saying that on every platform.

Not one person has said anything about me. Not one on that network has said — they’ve all gone out of their way to say, isn’t this horrible what happened to Jimmy Kimmel? Including Morning Joe [Scarborough] and Mika [Brzezinski], who went after me after the show, basically saying they were glad I was terminated.

And now today, they’re talking about how awful it is for our country that somebody like Jimmy Kimmel can’t say what he said and he is indefinitely suspended and not an iota about what their employer just did to another employee.

Both Dowd and Kimmel faced repurcussions from their employers after comments related to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Kimmel found himself facing the wrath of affiliates and suspended indefinitely by ABC after a comment about “MAGA” and 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, the man now facing murder charges over Kirk.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” Kimmel said on his show.

Utah officials have made clear that Robinson was “indoctrinated” with leftist ideologies in the years leading up to Kirk’s murder.

Dowd was dismissed by MSNBC after his commentary on Kirk’s shooting in which he suggested the activist could have been killed by a supporter firing off a gun in celebration.

“I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” he said. “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have, and then saying these awful words, and then not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”

Dowd defended his comments, accusing his critics of falsely framing his words as blaming Kirk for his own assassination.

“I said, ‘I think you guys are making a huge mistake,'” Dowd recalled about his interactions with the network. “I said, ‘you know and I know that’s not anything what I meant. You know it’s been misconstrued,’ and they agreed with that. They agreed it had been misconstrued. But they said it didn’t matter. The decision’s been made.”

Watch via Katie Couric’s YouTube.

Trump Snaps at Ted Cruz’s Shock Warning About Free Speech

Farrah Tomazin
Fri, September 19, 2025 


Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

President Donald Trump has defended his Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr after Republican Senator Ted Cruz compared him to a mafia boss for demanding Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.

In a stinging rebuke on his podcast this week, Cruz blasted Carr’s actions, describing them as “dangerous as hell” and “right out of GoodFellas.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has issued a surprise warning to the Trump administration about the dangers of suppressing free speech. / Evelyn Hockstein / REUTERS

“Let me tell you, if the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’—that will end up bad for conservatives,” Cruz said.

“They will silence us,” he added, warning what might happen if the Democrats returned to power and followed suit.

“They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly.”

But speaking in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon, Trump described Carr as “an incredible American patriot” who had shown courage for taking on broadcast networks that criticized him.

Donald Trump, alongside Brendan Carr, in Brownsville, Texas, in November last year. / Brandon Bell / via REUTERS

“I disagree with Ted Cruz,” he told reporters.

“I think Brendan Carr doesn’t like to see the airwaves be used illegally and incorrectly, and purposely horribly.

“He doesn’t like to see a person that won the election in a landslide get 97 percent bad publicity before the election.

“(The networks) have to show honesty and integrity… When they take a great success, like you often do, and you make it into like it’s a loser, or you put a negative spin on it, I don’t think that’s right. So I think Brendan Carr is a great American.”

Protest signs outside the El Capitan Theatre, home of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025. / David Pashaee / Middle East Images via AFP

The comments came days after Jimmy Kimmel Live! was taken off the air after its host, Kimmel, made comments about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.


Kimmel criticized some in the MAGA movement for trying to distance themselves from the shooter, effectively suggesting they were politicizing the murder.

Carr, a Project 2025 architect whom Trump picked to chair the FCC, then threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license, suggesting the comments violated obligations that broadcasters have to serve the public interest.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said on the Benny Johnson podcast.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

House Democratic leaders called for Carr’s resignation and accused him of “bullying” ABC into suspending Kimmel.

In a joint statement, the leaders—including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—said the move was part of Trump and Republicans’ effort to wage a “war on the First Amendment.”

Jimmy Kimmel at an Emmys Party on Sept. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. / Chad Salvador/Variety via Getty Images

But while GOP members have been fairly cautious in their response, Cruz hit out at Carr’s actions. He said that while Kimmel had become “profoundly unfunny” over the years, the push to suspend him set a dangerous free speech precedent.

Putting on a mobster’s accent, Cruz also declared: “That’s right out of a mafioso going into a bar, and going, ‘Nice bar you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it!’

Kimmel’s suspension was not the only attack on free speech this week.

Late on Monday, the president filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and some of its most prominent reporters for articles and a book that made the case that he built his business fortune, in part, through fraud.

On Tuesday, he lashed out at Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist John Lyons for asking him if it was “appropriate” for a president to be enriching himself while in office.

He also took aim at ABC reporter Jonathan Karl that day for asking him about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s threat to prosecute people for hate speech, something that is protected under the First Amendment.

“She’d probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart,” Trump fired back.

And on Thursday, he suggested that broadcasters allowing overt criticism of him should, “maybe lose their license.”


'The View' hosts conveniently forgot to mention Jimmy Kimmel's cancellation on their show & fans are outraged

After the talk show hosts failed to even address Jimmy Kimmel's suspension, fans of The View took to social media to express their anger and disappointment

Cassandra Brooklyn•
Updated Fri, September 19, 2025 

Fans of The View are angered that the hosts didn't address Jimmy Kimmel's suspension

Last night, FCC Chair Brendan Carr sparked fresh controversy after threatening to revoke ABC affiliate licenses—a move that led to the immediate suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live'. By this morning, Carr had turned his attention to another ABC mainstay: The View.

In a conversation on CNN commentator Scott Jennings’ radio show, Carr questioned whether The View should continue to benefit from the FCC’s “equal opportunity” exemption—a rule that typically requires broadcast stations to offer comparable airtime to political candidates, but exempts programs deemed “bona fide news,” according to CNN.

So, is The View on the chopping block?

Though talk shows and late-night programs have long sidestepped the rule under the “bona fide news” classification, Carr now seems unconvinced that The View still qualifies.

“I would assume you can make the argument that The View is a bona fide news show, but I’m not so sure about that,” Carr said. “And I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether The View and some of these other programs still qualify as bona fide news programs.”

Will 'The View' be canceled?

While late-night shows and talk programs typically sidestep that rule by qualifying as “bona fide news” under FCC guidelines, Carr may decide to challenge whether The View still fits that bill.

“I would assume you can make the argument that The View is a bona fide news show, but I’m not so sure about that,” Carr said. “And I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether The View and some of these other programs still qualify as bona fide news programs.”

Fans of The View are disappointed hosts didn't address Jimmy Kimmel's suspension
'The View' hosts silent regarding Kimmel's suspension

Though The View is known for its hot takes on just about everything (most notably, celebrities, culture, and politics), fans were outraged that none of the hosts so much as mentioned Kimmel's suspension on today's show.

Several posted on The View's Instagram immediately after the show, expressing their anger and disappointment. One wrote: "KIMMEL?? Hello??? NOT A WORD TODAY????? This is insanity"

Another said "I guess some topics are just too hot. Disappointing to say the least."

A third chimed in "No Kimmel?? Are you all be silenced as well? This is so scary. The episode isn’t even on YouTube. What is going on??"
Who spoke up for Jimmy Kimmel?

While the ladies of The View remained noticeably silent on the topic, many celebrities spoke out in support of Kimmel. In the first late-night broadcasts after Kimmel's suspension, many late-night hosts addressed the situation with satirical stagings of "government-approved" monologues, like Jon Stewart's viral "patriotically obedient" monologue.

Yahoo CreatorCassandra BrooklynI'm Cassandra, a freelance writer, guidebook author, and photographer who loves all things outdoors. I've written for The New York Times, National Geographic, Wall Street Journal, Lonely Planet, Travel + Leisure, and dozens more. My work tends to focus on sustainability, accessibility, and the outdoors and I have a special love for hiking, biking, and kayaking. I started as a solo traveler, now do a lot of family travel, and also multi-gen and accessible travel

Fox News Host Rips Trump’s Remarks on Jimmy Kimmel: ‘Something Putin Would Say’

Mediaite
Fri, September 19, 2025 



Fox News host and former congressman Harold Ford Jr. pulled no punches this week in blasting the Trump administration for putting its fingers on the scale regarding the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

“If you make your living in this world through words—written word, the said word, the spoken word—today or last night might cause you to think differently about where we are,” Ford began, referring to the free speech crackdown following Charlie Kirk’s horrific killing. Kimmel was suspended after Trump’s FCC chairman threatened ABC over a recent monologue from Kimmel on Kirk’s alleged shooter.

“I watched the president today, and I give the president the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things. He was on Air Force One coming back from a very successful trip to London,” Ford said, adding:

He says, “They’re 97% against. They give me only bad press.” He was talking about the broadcast news. “People get public licenses. They’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It would be up to Brendan Carr.”

Now, if you didn’t tell me who said that, I would never think that quote was an American president—Democrat, Republican, whatever.

“I would think that sounds like something Putin would say. He took one of our own. Thank God we got him out, Evan. I would think it’s something Orbán would say in Hungary. I would think it’d be something that the North Korea guy would say,” Ford argued, making clear he found Trump’s comments to be authoritarian in nature. He added:

Number two: is SNL next? The president, in his quote last night, said that NBC ought to be on notice as well. And Saturday Night Live has done some of the great skits. I love that first part of it where they take on the political news of the day. I remember how much they took on Clinton. I was in Congress at the time. I had to think Clinton was probably upset. I laughed about some of the things. Some of the things I didn’t laugh about, but it was funny. They took on H.W. Bush. There were so many—they took on Ross Perot when he was running, they took on W, they took on Clinton.

“They also got rid of Shane Gillis, which means they made a decision about people they didn’t want on the show,” interjected Greg Gutfeld.

“So Greg, I’d say this to you, brother: if there’s a Democrat that gets elected and he or she decides to come after Greg Gutfeld, I will defend you as much as I’m defending this,” Ford said, adding:

I just think this is—as much as we disagree with what he said, some of it was not funny what Jimmy Kimmel said. But there were so many aspects of this that we’re not talking about: the company Nexstar, which is a great company, they’re in the middle of trying to acquire a company, and the person who’s going to make the decision about whether or not they can acquire the entity is the FCC. And Mr. Carr made—did not run away from that point last night on television on our great Sean Hannity show. He was quoted last night and said, “We can do this the hard way or the easy way.” Again, I would think this was a foreign leader saying this, not the United States.

So some of this humor I don’t like, and I don’t laugh at some of the stuff at night. But I’m just not convinced that the state should be deciding free press. And more importantly, when Mr. President—when President Trump said “he has no talent, he should be off”—I didn’t realize that the person that would be deciding whether or not talent should be on television would be the president of the United States.

There’s no doubt people get suspended for things that they say or that they don’t say or the way they say it in networks. And for that matter, companies have every right to do that. But I would only say to Mr. Carr, who said that these broadcast licenses—that these people have to act in the public interest—and he said they have every right to go get a podcast or go online… Think about this: on most broadcast shows, news shows, the local licenses, they can’t have a show for 30 minutes on how to build a Molotov cocktail. You know why? Because it’s not in the public interest. They can’t tell you how to build a nuclear bomb. You know why? It’s not in the public interest. But you can do it here.

Mr. Carr, spend some of your time trying to figure out how we regulate these people, how we regulate the radicalization and all of this stuff online that’s pummeling our kids and pummeling our society as much as you are this.

The courts—you’re right, Emily—will make the determination here, but I got to tell you, I’m a little alarmed today because I can’t believe we’re going to allow the government to tell us what’s funny, what’s not, and what’s permissible.

Watch The post Fox News Host Rips Trump’s Remarks on Jimmy Kimmel: ‘Something Putin Would Say’ first appeared on Mediaite.

This is how Trump ends democracy

Zack Beauchamp

VOX
Fri, September 19, 2025 


Donald Trump speaks during a “Make America Great Again” rally at Aaron Bessant Amphitheater in Panama City Beach, Florida on May 8, 2019. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension — the direct result of an FCC threat to pull the licenses of networks that aired him — has shown us how authoritarianism can come to America.

I mean this literally. The specific threats that Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr made against networks, involving a little-used doctrine called “news distortion,” show how easy it is to weaponize vaguely worded statutes and the executive’s discretionary powers against the president’s enemies. Such tools can also be used to reward friends — to provide regulatory favors, like merger approvals and exemptions from tariffs — who toe a politically correct line.

This is how authoritarianism has taken root in other democracies, most notably Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. And from the get-go, President Donald Trump’s second term had been moving the United States down this road. But for much of the time his efforts appeared too haphazard and poorly planned to produce a consolidated authoritarian regime — meaning one that could durably compromise the basic ability of its opponents to contest elections under reasonably fair conditions.

But in the past few weeks, a series of developments — most notably, but not exclusively, the authoritarian energies unleashed after Charlie Kirk’s death — have revealed a disturbingly credible policy pathway to power consolidation. We can now see how American Orbánism could take full root before the 2028 elections. We now know what a Trump-led authoritarian state in America would look like — and how we would get there from here.

Such a future would unfold in roughly four parts.

First, using hiring and firing powers to purge career civil servants from key agencies, like the Justice Department, and erode the traditional barriers preventing undue political influence on law enforcement and regulatory decisions. We saw this in the DOGE cuts, in the appointment of political hacks like Carr and Pam Bondi to top positions, and (most recently) Trump’s move to fire a federal prosecutor who refused to file politically motivated charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Second, using the power of these newly Trumpified agencies to target dissent in civil society — a broadening of the assaults on Ivy League universities. This would include following through on threats to use racketeering charges against liberal NGOs and going after other prominent critics the way they went after Kimmel.

Third, bullying and bribing large corporations until significant economic power is concentrated in the hands of regime allies dependent on the president’s goodwill for their survival. To a degree, this is already happening — see Trump’s habits of granted tariff exemptions to connected companies or using the threat of antitrust enforcement to bend CBS to its will. In an authoritarian America, such politicization would be expanded and deepened to the point where any corporation that crossed the White House would expect to pay a crippling financial cost.

Fourth, turn this accumulated power against the political opposition — turning elections into facially free contests where, in fact, Democrats face enormously unfair hurdles (and would likely be unable to govern even if they managed to succeed). This began with a nationwide push for mid-cycle redistricting, but would require further steps (like turning the Justice Department investigation into the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue into actual criminal charges).

At this point in the Trump administration, only the first has been accomplished to any significant degree. The efforts in other areas have been of limited effectiveness, stymied both by the courts and the Trump team’s incompetence.

But recently, and especially in the immediate wake of Kirk’s death, the administration has taken startling new swings in the second and third areas. If these efforts succeed, the fourth will become a live possibility: That is, we could be living in a country whose elections are no longer free and fair in any meaningful sense.

There is still plenty of time to prevent this future. Much depends on whether the Trump administration can get better at the nuts and bolts of lawfare, developing tactics that avoid legal hurdles or provoking a potent backlash. Acts of courage in Congress, the courts, the streets, and even corporate boardrooms could stymie Trump until at least the midterms.

But the risk of authoritarian consolidation is real and growing. Now that the endgame is clear, it’s time for all of us to start thinking about how to stop it.

The anatomy of American authoritarianism

The kind of authoritarianism I fear is emerging in the United States, which political scientists call “competitive authoritarianism,” doesn’t involve the outright criminalization of the opposition or formal martial law. Instead, it depends on perverting the law, modifying and twisting it with the intent of incrementally undermining the opposition’s ability to compete fairly in elections.

Such a government can be constructed along the lines of what Princeton University’s Kim Lane Scheppele calls a “Frankenstate:” that is, “an abusive form of rule, created by combining the bits and pieces of perfectly reasonable democratic institutions in monstrous ways. … No one part is objectionable; the horror emerges from the combinations.”

It is probably necessary, for example, to give the president a degree of discretion when it comes to policy areas that affect national security. It is also true that tariffs are often just taxes, not a tool for authoritarian control.

But when you combine those two things — creating a situation where the president has wide latitude to raise tariffs and provide exemptions to them on vague national security grounds — you create a situation where it’s all too easy for the president to weaponize his powers against corporations that cross his administration politically.

The Frankenstate targets opposition parties through burdensome tax audits, dubious criminal investigations, and uneven application of campaign finance regulations. It also focuses on attacking the civil foundations of the opposition — meaning attacking the donors who might fund them, the activist groups who might stand up for their rights, and the free media they depend on to get their message out.

Silence or coopt enough of these voices, and the ruling party doesn’t actually have to outlaw political opposition or stuff ballot boxes. The opposition will simply be weak enough that letting them compete poses little threat.

So what would this look like in the United States?

Elon Musk speaks alongside President Donald Trump to reporters in the Oval Office on May 30, 2025. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

In this America, corporations depend on the goodwill of the White House to remain profitable — depending on White House tariff exemptions and staying in the good graces of policitized regulators to avoid crippling punishments. Liberal billionaires like George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Mark Cuban would be made into examples: their corporate interests targeted by antitrust regulators and tax enforcement, while corrupt Justice Department attorneys would launch selective civil and even criminal charges against them personally. The rest of the billionaire class, getting the message, would largely avoid funding liberal causes, let alone the Democratic Party.

In this America, the press would be owned — in large part, though not entirely — by the regime’s favored and trusted oligarchs. These individuals would be able to control what enough Americans see to swing several percentage points of marginal voters from the “persuadable” to “solid R” column, putting Democrats at a severe disadvantage.

And in this America, what remains of the independent media and liberal activist class would be subject to the same kind of harassment directed at left-leaning billionaires. Fighting back would drain valuable resources Democrats would require to overcome their other financial and attentional disadvantages, creating near-insurmountable barriers to national viability.

Such a future may sound impossible. But recently, the Trump administration has taken specific actions that could — left unchecked — would bring us far too close to comfort.
How we get there from here

First is a pursuit of media control, which goes well beyond censoring Kimmel. Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced that it had struck a deal with China that would spin off TikTok USA as a separate entity. Eighty percent would be owned by three US firms — two of which, Andreessen Horowitz and Oracle, are themselves controlled by Trump-aligned billionaires.

Oracle’s owner, Larry Ellison, is partnering with his son David to build a broader media empire. David owns CBS; he is reportedly about to buy Bari Weiss’ the Free Press and put the anti-woke conservative in charge of CBS as well. The Ellisons are also in serious discussion to purchase Warner Bros. Discovery — which operates, among other properties, CNN and HBO.

“Two independent journalistic voices, CBS News and CNN, could soon be combined into something potentially almost unrecognizable, something way too close to what is served up on a daily basis by the Murdochs,” the business journalist William D. Cohan writes in the New York Times.

Imagine all of this together not just with the Murdoch network, but Jeff Bezos’ right-wing remaking of the Washington Post, Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-Trump turn, and Elon Musk’s control over X.

The government and its allies would have control over a massive portion of the informational landscape for young and old Americans — encompassing unprecedented portions of television, digital, and social media, plus what remains of print. The vast nature of their empires would make them dependent on the goodwill of increasingly politicized regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department, meaning that they would have powerful incentives to ensure their audiences were getting Trump-friendly content.

This would matter a great deal. High-quality political science research has repeatedly demonstrated that Fox News significantly increased the GOP’s vote share, the effect large enough to swing presidential elections. Now imagine not one Fox, but several — spreading regime-friendly propaganda across new and old media.

Democrats might try to compensate by leaning on activists and donors. But the Trump administration has long signaled an intent to attack those: In April, the Justice Department opened an sketchy investigation into ActBlue, by far the most important Democratic platform for political donations in the country. The investigation will issue a report next month; it is possible some attempt at charges will follow.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi. | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The ActBlue investigation began before Kirk’s death. Since then, the Trump administration has engaged in a campaign of incitement against liberal activists and donors — alleging, with absolutely no evidence, that they played some role in radicalizing Kirk’s killer. Now Stephen Miller, perhaps the most important White House policy official, is vowing to wield the power of the state to crush them.

“The last message that Charlie sent me was…that we need to have an organized strategy to go after the left-wing organizations that are promoting violence in this country. And I will write those words on my heart and I will carry them out,” Miller said during a podcast taping with Vice President JD Vance. “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have to [at] the DOJ, DHS, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

Defiance, collective defiance, can make a big difference.

During that taping, Vance specifically named two large liberal organizations — the Open Society Foundation, funded by billionaire George Soros, and the Ford Foundation — as potential targets of Trump’s wrath. Now, the administration is preparing specific plans to go after these organizations. The Wall Street Journal reports that they are planning to strip liberal groups of their tax-exempt status; Trump is openly talking about prosecuting Soros under the RICO Act, an anti-racketeering law primarily used against organized crime.

The Trump administration does not need to win in court for such cases to end up as strategic victories. If they can impose steep litigation costs, or successfully inhibit the operation of liberal groups during the process of litigation, they will have already weakened the opposition. They would then put their opponents in a no-win situation: either have their resources tied up in court while trying to vindicate their rights, or else choose to fold and negotiate a surrender package.

This is the playbook that they ran against universities, with real and continuing success.

Harvard, the principal institution fighting back, suffered severely even though it keeps winning in court. Despite its pushback, the school has still given the White House some of what it wants and has been widely reported to be negotiating a broader settlement. Meanwhile, the first institution to capitulate — Columbia — has surrendered both money and institutional autonomy.

This “heads I win, tails you lose” dynamic shows how Trumpian lawfare could, if applied as aggressively as the administration has been threatening since Kirk’s death, end up starving the Democratic Party of vital resources ahead of the 2028 presidential election. The tactic could even be used to punish the independent press, as we’ve seen with Trump’s recent lawsuits targeting the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Whether all this would be enough to tip America over into a full-blown competitive authoritarian regime like Hungary’s is tough to say. But that’s by design: In such a Frankenstate, the entire government system is built such that each individual action can seem democratic (at least, on a surface level). The Trump regime would need this to give room for GOP partisans, who do not see themselves as authoritarian, to rationalize what’s happening in democratic terms.

Without clear benchmarks like the abolition of elections, it’s impossible to tell precisely when democracy has been lost.

How to fight back

It’s easy to read all this and think the fight for democracy is already lost. The Supreme Court is controlled by a 6-3 conservative majority in thrall to Trump, and Democrats are a minority in both houses of Congress until at least the 2026 midterms. Aren’t we just cooked?

To which I say: No! This attitude is part of the problem.

The slide toward competitive authoritarianism in America depends, crucially, on acquiescence — on the idea that people are unwilling to bear the costs of standing up to each individual attack on liberty before they can combine into true authoritarian control over society.

Even the most pessimistic assessments would say we’re not there yet: that Trump can’t pull something like what he did with Kimmel and expect to avoid mass pushback. That doesn’t mean a wave of popular and media protest will soon win Kimmel back his job. But Trump is immensely unpopular, and Republicans are likely to lose at least one house of Congress in the midterms — which could significantly limit his ability to silence other prominent voices.

Trump’s approach also depends on a tactic that political scientists call “salami slicing”: cutting off one little bit of democracy at a time by targeting one specific person or group, thus avoiding a sense that the collective needs to stand up for shared rights. That’s why we’ve seen not an attempt to criminalize dissent per se, but a series of discrete individual efforts like the Kimmel threats and the New York Times lawsuit.

Defiance, collective defiance, can make a big difference. The more that people across sectors take public and coordinated action — Congress, the media, the business world, even ordinary civil society — the more they can puncture Trump’s sense of inevitability, by fighting against and delaying his power grabs until 2027, when Democrats could hold real power to stop and hold him accountable for them.

This means, specifically, that we need more senators talking about democracy the way Chris Murphy does. It means more business organizations refusing to implement Trump’s directives and working with pro-democracy organizations like Leadership Now to demand nonpartisan regulatory policy. It means donors making a show of putting more money, not less, toward anti-Trump causes in general and toward the legal funds of targeted institutions in particular. It means media refusing to cow to Trump, and providing relentless coverage of situations like Kimmel’s.

And it means individual citizens attending protests and volunteering with the organizations under threat, as well as with political campaigns that could change things in 2026.