The Dictatorship
Federal immigration agents keep shooting at drivers. We tracked 15 cases since July.
Last August, federal immigration agents in unmarked cars pulled over Francisco Longoria as he drove through a majority Hispanic neighborhood in San Bernardino, California, with his teenage son in the passenger seat.
Cellphone and surveillance videos show masked agents surrounding the pickup truck, at least one with a gun drawn. When Longoria refused to roll down his window, one agent smashed the driver-side glass and reached inside. That’s when Longoria hit the gas and fled, and an agent fired multiple shots at the passenger side of his truck. Longoria and his son were not injured.
That same day, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement asserting that Longoria “drove his truck at the officers and struck two CBP [Customs and Border Protection] officers with his vehicle,” and that an officer fired his gun “in self-defense.” But video recordings from inside the truck and a nearby business appear to show no agents or vehicles in Longoria’s path as he drove away.
Longoria was charged with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon. Weeks later, during a court hearing, prosecutors acknowledged they couldn’t identify a lawful basis for the stop and had no evidence that any officers were injured. The Department of Justice dropped the case less than a month after filing it.
Like the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, the Longoria case is part of a pattern of behavior exhibited by federal immigration agents since the Trump administration escalated its immigration enforcement campaign last summer. According to an MS NOW review of court records and media reports, federal agents – some working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, others for the Border Patrol, a part of CBP – have shot at people in their cars at least 15 times since July.
These agents have escalated what’s always been a problem with policing in America… I think we’re going to see a lot more people get killed.”
E. Paige White, defense attorney
These incidents cast new light on the Trump administration’s aggressive and, in the view of critics, reckless federal crackdown on American cities. The shootings occurred most often in places Trump has targeted with federal deployments — mostly Democratic-led jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, including California, Illinois, Minnesota and Washington, D.C.
The agents work in different subdivisions and units under the DHS banner, each agent with a unique combination of training and field experience. All of them were reassigned by the Trump administration to “roving patrols” tasked with arresting as many undocumented immigrants as possible. Jonathan Ross, the agent who killed Good in Minneapolis, had military training and almost 20 years’ experience with both Border Patrol and ICE. But in nearly every other case, the agents remain publicly unidentified, so the nature of their training and experience is unknown.
After each shooting, federal officials and agencies worked promptly to justify their officers’ actions using the same assertion: The drivers attempted to run over or ram agents with their vehicles. In many cases, the government offered this rationale in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, well before officials could produce evidence or file charges, let alone complete an investigation. But the claim frequently falls apart under public scrutiny, when video or other evidence comes to light.
Of the 15 incidents reviewed by MS NOW, eight resulted in criminal cases, four of which were dropped or dismissed by judges, and four of which are ongoing. In three other cases, civilians were placed in deportation proceedings and remain in ICE custody, but have not been criminally charged, despite DHS’s public claims that they committed serious offenses. In two of the incidents, criminal charges were never filed because the civilians were fatally shot. The status of the remaining cases is unclear.
None of the federal agents who fired their weapons at civilians has been charged with a crime. Defense attorneys working on the cases told MS NOW that they haven’t been informed of any agents being placed on administrative leave or subjected to internal discipline.
Former DHS officials and law enforcement experts suggest these shootings are the product of dramatically escalated enforcement tactics deployed during Trump’s second term. But it’s hard to say with certainty whether federal agents are shooting at drivers more frequently today than in previous years. Although DHS publishes partial data for use-of-force incidents, the nature of the data and the Trump administration’s changes to standard operating procedure make historical comparisons difficult. But former officials told MS NOW that this kind of event — agents firing guns at vehicles in urban areas, far away from their standard posts on the border — used to be exceedingly rare.
Police experts who reviewed the cases told MS NOW that almost every officer who fired their weapon acted outside deadly-force guidelines accepted by most of the U.S. law enforcement community.
“The tactics you’re seeing used by ICE and CBP are absolutely not in line with best practices in American policing,” said Art Acevedo, the former police chief in Houston, Miami and other cities. “It’s a recipe for disaster.”
Before Trump’s second term, ICE and Border Patrol agents very rarely engaged in the kinds of operations that are now a common sight in American cities: large-scale, indiscriminate sweeps in urban environments, often in the presence of community members.
For its part, DHS disputes these assertions.
“The pattern is NOT of law enforcement using deadly force,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told MS NOW. “It’s a pattern of vehicles being used as weapons by violent agitators to attack our law enforcement. … Our officers are experiencing a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks. When faced with dangerous circumstances, DHS law enforcement used their training to protect themselves, their fellow officers, and the public.”
McLaughlin did not provide evidence to support the claim of a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks.
“Officer-created jeopardy“
Daniel J. Oates worked for the New York Police Department for 21 years before becoming police chief, a title he held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Aurora, Colorado, and Miami Beach, Florida. At each of the departments he led, Oates — following the model set by New York in 1972 — imposed rules strictly forbidding officers from firing at moving cars, including in cases when drivers try to ram officers.
“The cops were somewhat resistant, but eventually they accepted the rule and the reasons behind it,” Oates said.
His rationale is simple: The ban makes interactions between officers and civilians safer. One of many concerns is that firing a gun and incapacitating the driver of a moving car puts bystanders in danger. Instead, Oates focuses on training officers to avoid what law enforcement professionals call “officer-created jeopardy” — in other words, police actions that lead people to behave in ways that might justify deadly force.
Oates and other law enforcement experts interviewed by MS NOW suggested that Good’s shooting was a case of officer-created jeopardy. Oates stressed that only a full and impartial investigation could resolve the case. But based on publicly available video, Oates said, it appears that Ross put himself in danger by walking in front of a running vehicle with a driver at the wheel. For this reason, even if Ross genuinely believed Good was trying to run him over, the shooting would be unjustified, Oates said.
“Those of us who have had executive positions and have had to hold cops accountable would not accept that explanation,” Oates said. “If you place yourself in front of the vehicle and then you shoot someone because you’re in front of the vehicle, that’s not acceptable in American policing.”
Strict rules against firing at moving vehicles are now common across local and state law enforcement in the U.S., and are recommended by the Police Executive Research Forumwhich advises police on use-of-force standards. ICE and CBP have their own use-of-force standards predating the Trump administration that, while less explicit, embrace similar principles, including keeping officers out of unnecessary danger.
“ICE law enforcement officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the public and our officers,” McLaughlin said in her statement. She stressed that many federal immigration agents also have experience with other law enforcement agencies and the U.S. armed forces.
“To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations.”
STEPHEn miller, White House deputy chief of staff
“Officers are highly trained in de-escalation tactics and regularly receive ongoing use of force training,” she said.
Yet federal agents are firing into vehicles at a rate that’s raising concern among experts, who are starting to wonder whether the training McLaughlin touts is effective — or even still in use.
“I would hope that every police officer, anyone who’s allowed to carry a firearm, would be trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a criminologist at the University of South Carolina who specializes in high-risk police activities.
A change in tactics
Before June of last year, ICE and Border Patrol agents very rarely engaged in the kind of operations that are now common in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and other American cities: large-scale, indiscriminate sweeps in urban environments, often in the presence of community members observing or actively antagonizing them.
Federal agents’ work used to look much different, especially before Trump’s second term. Officers with ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO, typically picked up detainee transfers at local county jails. Border Patrol agents were accustomed to pursuing and detaining people in rural border areas where the agency manages multiple layers of surveillance and exerts near total territorial control.
Tactics changed dramatically last year, when the administration began an aggressive recruiting campaign and directed ICE and Border Patrol to roam metro areas — starting with Los Angeles in June — to detain as many people as possible rather than going after preselected targets.
As a result, streets across the country are flooded with agents who do not necessarily have appropriate training for the operations they’re conducting, according to a former high-level official who was with DHS during the Biden administration. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because they are still employed by the government.
While some units are trained for high-impact urban operations — including ERO’s Fugitive Operations Division and the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (or BORTAC) — even that training, the former official said, is inappropriate for the operations of today, which often involve all kinds of civilians in situations that require tact and care.
“They’re trained to start off at 10 out of 10 as far as aggression and perception of risk,” said the former official.
The shift in tactics has created dangerous conditions for civilians and officers alike, said one former CBP oversight official with experience in internal use-of-force investigations. The official, who worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations, asked not to be named for fear of politicizing the work of their former unit.
“Attempting to conduct enforcement operations in chaotic urban environments where you’re having all kinds of unknown variables injected in the middle of your operation is extremely fraught,” said the former CBP official. “It’s risky for the public and it’s risky for the agents.”
I didn’t even see them. They didn’t pull me over, like with red and blue flashing lights. No, this was me at a stop sign, as if I was getting carjacked.”
Philip Brown, u.s. citizen shot at by agents
What remains unclear is whether DHS or any of the agencies under its umbrella are following up with officers after their operations go awry. When an agent fires their weapon, standard DHS protocol suggests placing the agent on administrative leave while ensuing investigations run their course. In her statement, McLaughlin said that “every use of force incident and any discharge of an ICE firearm must be properly reported and reviewed by the agency in accordance with agency policy, procedure, and guidelines.” She didn’t respond, however, when asked whether any agents involved in the shootings reviewed by MS NOW were placed on administrative leave.
Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have publicly urged ICE and Border Patrol agents to operate with little restraint. Five days after Good’s killing, DHS’ official X account reposted an October interview with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
“To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties,” Miller said. “You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.”
“Who shot?”
At least three of the cases examined by MS NOW involved evidentiary and due process failures after the shootings, according to court records and interviews with defense attorneys.
Marimar Martinez, a U.S. citizen who was shot in Chicago in October, was the victim of one of these failures. DHS and federal prosecutors said she rammed her car into a government vehicle driven by the Border Patrol agent who shot her. The agent then drove the vehicle out of state and, with agency authorization, had it cleaned and repaired before Martinez’s defense team could inspect it. The agent also bragged about the hearing in text messages released as evidence in the criminal case, sending one text that read: “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your books boys.”
Prosecutors later dropped the charges against Martinez.
In the case of Carlitos Ricardo Parias — a Mexican national and TikToker known by the moniker Richard LA for filming federal agents in Los Angeles — a federal judge threw out the indictment three days before it was set to go to trial, citing violations of Parias’ constitutional rights.
According to court documents, Border Patrol agents surrounded Parias’ car on Oct. 21 with a warrant for his arrest on immigration violations. Footage from a body camera worn by Border Patrol agent Jaime Avina shows that Parias, with his car boxed between two agents’ vehicles, accelerated in place, producing a thick plume of smoke. After the smoke cleared, Avina — who had his gun drawn — approached the smashed passenger-side window of Parias’ car and, while attempting to open the door from the inside, swapped the gun from his right hand to his left and fired it. The vehicle did not appear to be moving at the time.
“Oh!” Avina can be heard exclaiming in the video after firing the weapon. “Fuck!”
The bullet struck Parias in the elbow and ricocheted, striking an agent with the U.S. Marshals in the hand. Other agents yelled, “Who shot?” Avina backed away from the car and replied, “I shot.”
In a statement, McLaughlin said that Parias had “weaponized his vehicle and began ramming the law enforcement vehicle in an attempt to flee. Fearing for the safety of the public and law enforcement, our officers followed their training and fired defensive shots.”
Parias was charged in federal court with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, but authorities did not produce the body camera footage that cast doubt on the government’s version of events until six weeks after the incident — five days after the discovery deadline imposed by the court.
A federal judge dismissed the charges, citing the government’s failure to turn over evidence, as well as violations of Parias’ right to counsel. Court documents show that ICE, which had Parias in its custody at the time, repeatedly obstructed his lawyers’ efforts to meet with their client by, among other things, allowing their calls and emails to the ICE detention center to go unanswered for long periods of time.
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment in this case, and DHS did not respond specifically to questions about its handling of evidence and due process after the incidents in question.
“As if I was getting carjacked”
In August, federal immigration agents began appearing on patrols in Washington alongside officers from the Metropolitan Police Department, following a Trump administration order temporarily federalizing the city’s police force under a declared “crime emergency.” During the 30-day takeover, ICE and Border Patrol personnel accompanied MPD officers on routine patrols. Although formal federal control expired in September, ICE and CBP agents continued operating in the district in visible coordination with local police.
On Oct. 17, on Benning Road NE, Philip Brown, a Black man and U.S. citizen originally from Brooklyn, New York, was in his Dodge Durango at a stop sign with another vehicle directly in front of him when armed men suddenly approached his car.
“I didn’t even see them,” Brown told MS NOW. “They didn’t pull me over, like with red and blue flashing lights. No, this was me at a stop sign, as if I was getting carjacked.”
An MPD officer present at the scene named Jason Sterling later testified in court that officers stopped Brown over his dark window tinting and a missing front license plate. As they approached, Sterling said he heard Brown’s car rev and then collide with the car in front of him, followed by the sound of gunshots. It was later determined in a preliminary court hearing that an agent with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations — the agency’s criminal investigations division — fired his gun at Brown’s vehicle at least four times.
The bullets narrowly missed Brown. One went through the collar of his jacket.
“I’m still in shock from it,” Brown said.
Days later, DHS said in a statement that Brown had driven his car at officers “in a deliberate attempt to run them down.” Brown denies this, and Sterling testified in court that there were no officers positioned in front of Brown’s vehicle when he heard the gunshots.
Brown was charged with felony fleeing — not with assault or attempted assault on an officer. During the first hearing in D.C. Superior Court, Sterling admitted that, under the advice of another MPD official, he intentionally omitted the shooting from his police report. The judge dismissed the charges during the hearing, citing a lack of probable cause for the arrest and Sterling’s glaring omission from the charging documents.
Brown’s lawyer, E. Paige White, who used to work as a public defender in Washington, said the MPD officers’ actions were unusual and likely influenced by the presence of armed federal agents.
“The feds being involved makes it totally different,” she told MS NOW. “The MPD is not moving the way the MPD normally moves.”
White is still awaiting the results of an investigation MPD said it was conducting into the incident. Brown, meanwhile, has watched events unfold in Minneapolis and feels grateful to be alive.
“Those three bullets that they let off at [Good] are the same three bullets that they let off at me,” Brown said. “I just so happen to be the survivor. I’m able to see my daughter turn 5 years old.”
If federal agencies continue to subvert law enforcement norms while carrying out Trump’s escalating federal crackdown on American cities, White worries that Brown’s experience — and Good’s — will become more common.
“These agents have escalated what’s always been a problem with policing in America to a level that none of us have seen before,” said White. “I think that we’re going to see a lot more people get killed.”
This story is part of Cities Under Siege, an MS NOW effort to document how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics are affecting communities across America.
David Noriega is a MS NOW Reporter based in Los Angeles.
Kay Guerrero
Kay Guerrero is a senior producer of newsgathering for MS NOW.
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.
Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuitsboth filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, saying in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order seeking to create a federal list of eligible voters and using the U.S. Postal Service to determine who can receive a mail ballot are “legally void” because they “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”
It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.
Order targeted mail voting, administration likely to appeal
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose state was among the plaintiffs, celebrated the court’s decision.
“Millions of independents, Republicans and Democrats across Arizona have voted by mail for decades,” she said in a statement, noting that nearly 80% of ballots in the state are cast by that method.
Mayes, a Democrat, singled out military families, voters in the state’s rural expanses and Native Americans who cast ballots from tribal lands.
“Donald Trump’s executive order targeted all of these voters,” she said. “But today, the courts affirmed what the Constitution makes clear: States run their elections, not the President.”
AP AUDIO: Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list
AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump has suffered a legal setback for a second straight day in his bid to get oversight of the nation’s elections.
The White House stood by Trump’s executive order and indicated the administration would appeal the ruling. The order, said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, “lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation.”
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order, argued that the motions were premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.
Executive order sought to give Postal Service a central role in elections
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government — through the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration — create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list.
Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.
The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
Postal Service workers have pushed back against the order, saying they are not equipped to determine who is eligible to vote in each state. After Trump issued his order last spring, the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association said forcing its members into such a role “risks politicizing one of the nation’s most trusted public institutions.”
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat whose state was among the plaintiffs, said the executive order illustrated how Trump was attempting to “abuse power in previously unthinkable ways” to interfere in elections.
She said it “strains credulity” to think the U.S. Postal Service could set up a workable system for pre-screening individual voters to determine whether they would be allowed to vote by mail, adding that it would be “a shocking violation of American constitutional rights.”
The Postal Service did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.
Trump’s second election executive order faces multiple legal challenges
The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.
The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.
The other lawsuit filed in Talwani’s court was by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, which have sought a preliminary injunction against the executive order.
In yet another lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, which have appealed.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe BidenTrump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigationsincluding ones run by Republicansfound it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
___
Barrow reported from Atlanta and Hanna from Topeka, Kansas.
California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.
The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.
“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and many traditional allies of the union oppose the measure. They argue it is a temporary fix for an ongoing problem and that it would push the ultrawealthy to leave the state, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. Newsom, who is considering a presidential run as he prepares to leave office in January, has generally opposed tax increases during his time as governor.
A coalition of healthcare, education and housing groups — including the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association — banded together last week to fight the tax.
“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the coalition said in a statement.
Brian Brokaw, a Newsom political adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said it would “make California’s biggest challenges worse.”
“Driving away the state’s sustainable tax base for a one-time grab is bad policy and an even worse deal for 40 million Californians who will be left holding the bag,” he said in a statement.
Under the proposal, the state would spend the money generated from the tax over multiple years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the proposal would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues would subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Many of the Silicon Valley tech moguls who oppose the measure have already moved their assets to other states or threatened to do so to avoid the possible tax. They have also spent millions to try to defeat it.
Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.
California relies on its top 1% of earnersfor nearly half of its personal income tax revenue.
The union offered to scale back its proposal last week, asking Newsom to back a 2% tax on billionaires instead. But the governor’s office said the lower rate didn’t change his stance.
The proposed tax may have piqued the interest of many Democrats because it comes at a time when they are particularly concerned about affordability, income inequality and federal cutbacks to government programs, said Martin Gilens, a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“There’s kind of a perfect storm that sort of bolsters preexisting inclinations to be sympathetic to the idea of raising taxes on the well-to-do,” he said.
But there’s a catch. Support for ballot initiatives often declines as the election nears, and if the measure passes, it’s likely to face legal challenges, Gilens said.
Since taking office one week ago, Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has busied himself on social media posting flattering photos of President Donald Trump, trivia about a former counterintelligence agent and praising his current staff.
What the Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience has not done is address the public about his plans, or calm the unease and confusion inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is being described by top officials as “chaotic” amid firings of senior personnel with threats of more to come.
One image posted to the official X account of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, apparently artificial intelligence-generated, features Trump raising a clenched fist in the air with two B-2 stealth bombers in the sky behind him. Another is an image of the president, his fist clenched, glowering as he stands behind the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk.
In another post, Pulte, who was expected to gut the workforce of the National Counterterrorism Center, instead declared the staff there “true professionals and American patriots” after he said he spent time with them, adding “it is a privilege to work beside them.”
And in an apparent attempt at levity, Pulte reposted a message reminding Americans that Tuesday was “National Typewriter Day” and informing them of the role that a former Army counterintelligence agent played.
“Fun CI fact,” the post reads. “Former Army CI Special Agent Leroy Anderson composed ‘The Typewriter’ on October 9, 1950.”
But Pulte’s arrival has sparked anxiety and fear among the office’s workforce, three former U.S. intelligence officials told MS NOW, granted anonymity to address a sensitive topic.
They said that a half dozen political appointees were removed from their posts and several dozen staffers were sent back to their home intelligence agencies. Beyond that, little else is known about Pulte’s plans.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MS NOW that his requests for more information from the office, known by the acronym ODNI, have been rebuffed.
“I’ve been calling over there all day and can’t get my calls returned,” said Himes.
He later said, “I spoke directly to their office of congressional affairs. They said they had nothing for me.”
“It seems like it’s totally chaotic at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a podcast Wednesday. “There was word that there was going to be firings and then he said he changed his mind. We don’t know.”
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA official and now an MS NOW contributor, said that staff in the intelligence community do not know what to think.
“Everyone is in the same boat and unsure of what is going on,” he said. “That said, there is no love lost for the DNI, as many believe that there is redundancy that does need to be cut.”
The other former U.S. intelligence officials said they agree that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of reform. The agency was created after a lack of information sharing among U.S. intelligence agencies played a role in the failure to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ODNI’s mission is to ensure that the country’s now 18 different intelligence agencies share information with one another.
But the former intelligence officials said Pulte is patently unqualified to design or carry out those reforms.
“As with many things Trump alights upon, there is a sliver of truth here but he goes about addressing it in the worst possible way,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official told MS NOW, granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation. “But mass firings without any kind of sense of what you are trying to accomplish is addressing it in the most ham-handed way.”
That former official, as well as Warner and Himes, have said they fear that Pulte’s mission is to use his position as the nation’s top intelligence official to help Trump interfere in the midterm elections in November.
Pulte, who simultaneously serves as the Trump administration’s top federal housing official as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, used government mortgage information to file several criminal referrals against Democrats whom Trump considered enemies, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. None of Pulte’s referrals have resulted in criminal convictions.
One fear expressed by Warner and some former intelligence officials is that Pulte may try to falsely claim that his office has found evidence that foreign governments are secretly funding Democratic candidates.
One way he could do that, they say, is by falsely claiming foreign actors have hacked U.S. voting machines and altered vote totals in favor of Democrats. And Pulte and FBI agents could seize voting machines, ballots and election records in November — as Gabbard did in Fulton County, Georgia, last year at Trump’s behest — as part of voter fraud investigations that please the president.
“I have to tell you, I was extraordinarily concerned about the former director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, interfering in our election,” Warner told NPR earlier this month. “The concerns I had with Tulsi Gabbard now, upon reflection, look small versus the concerns I have with Bill Pulte.”
David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.
- The “Pride Match” that wasn’t
- Congressional Black Caucus blasts Slotkin over her calls for new leadership in the House
- Why Belgium’s prime minister isn’t cheering on the Red Devils
- Key Democrats urge House to reject kids’ safety proposal
- World Cup match collides with Florida GOP bash
- A drag queen, a rainbow festival and a game FIFA can’t control
- Envoy’s pharaoh well party
- The world’s not big on the US. The World Cup might help.
- Judge halts executive order seeking to create federal voter list…
- Pete Buttigeig says he was targeted by false abuse allegation in Michigan
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words