Two New Indictments Illuminate China’s Unconventional War Against The U.S.
China doesn't need missiles to attack the United States. They're already using hackers, spies, and meth engineers.China doesn't need missiles to attack the United States. They're already using hackers, spies, and meth engineers.Trump’s DOJ takes a side in high-stakes SCOTUS trucking dispute — and it may not be the one you expect
A battle over America's roads is unfolding in the Supreme Court, where demands for accountability clash with efforts to deregulate the industry, as the national spotlight remains on accidents caused by non-domiciled, non-English-speaking truck drivers.
The court's ruling could have major implications for the more than 150,000 Americans injured and the over 5,000 killed in large truck accidents each year, by potentially stripping or safeguarding the legal recourse available to victims and their families.
'Remove any legal accountability for brokers, and you remove the incentive for them to care.'
SCOTUS heard oral arguments on March 4 in the case of Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, which involves a December 2017 collision between two semi-trucks: one operated by the plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, and the other by an individual employed by Caribe Transport II, a small motor carrier hired by broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide.
The complaint explains that Montgomery was parked on the shoulder of Interstate Highway 70 in Cumberland County, Illinois, when another truck rear-ended his vehicle at high speed, resulting in severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of Montgomery's leg.
Montgomery's lawsuit was filed against the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson. He accused C.H. Robinson of "negligent hiring," citing Illinois common law. His case reached the Supreme Court after a lower court moved to dismiss it, arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act bars state-level negligence suits against brokers — third-party providers that connect shippers with carriers without owning trucks or hauling freight themselves — for their carrier selections.
The ongoing case has caught the attention of those in the trucking industry who are concerned that a SCOTUS ruling in favor of C.H. Robinson would set a precedent that prevents crash victims and their families from seeking legal recourse against brokers.
While President Donald Trump's administration has been receptive to concerns about reforming the nation's broken trucking industry, the U.S. position in the Montgomery v. Caribe case indicates a potential shift.
Trump's Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief supporting C.H. Robinson, arguing that the FAAAA preempts any state law related to the "price, route, or service" of a broker. This, the DOJ claimed, includes how brokers select carriers. Although the rule carves out a safety exception allowing states to enforce such laws, the U.S. government contended that the exception does not apply to this case.
The U.S. argues that brokers are already required to select an authorized motor carrier, which means that the carrier has met the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's "rigorous safety standards." Allowing such lawsuits against freight brokers would "require brokers to second-guess federal registration decisions and independently evaluate the safety history of the carriers they select."
"A judgment for petitioner on that claim would thus necessarily impugn Caribe's overall operations, thereby undermining FMCSA's determination that Caribe satisfies federal registration requirements, including rigorous safety requirements," the U.S. amicus brief reads.
American Truckers United, an advocacy group, warned that if SCOTUS agreed with the U.S. government's argument and ruled in favor of the respondent, it could allow freight brokers to have "blanket immunity" when selecting unsafe and high-risk carriers, leading to a "race to the bottom."
ATU filed its own amicus brief, urging SCOTUS to side with Montgomery.
"If brokers are immunized from tort liability, they will have an unrestrained incentive to hire the cheapest motor carriers available for every load, regardless of poor safety records, regulatory non-compliance, defective equipment, and other red flags. Low-cost, low-quality carriers will completely displace safe carriers in the market," ATU wrote.
ATU noted that many carriers maintain only the minimum required liability insurance, which covers just a small portion of the cost for crash victims and their families. The group also pointed out the FMCSA's lack of resources to keep up with the "chameleon carrier" crisis, explaining that when carriers lose their operating authority due to noncompliance, they "dissolve, reincarnate themselves under new identities, and reenter the market."
A separate amicus brief filed by the Institute for Safer Trucking on behalf of Montgomery wrote, "The reality of the compliance-review scheme is bleak. FMCSA is apparently unable to conduct compliance reviews of carriers within a reasonable time. More than ninety-four percent of all active interstate freight carriers remain 'unrated' as of 2023."
The FMCSA has previously admitted its limitations. In a 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FMCSA stated that it "has resources to issue safety ratings to only a small percentage of motor carriers each year," adding that the agency's rating "does not necessarily reflect the current safety posture of a motor carrier."
FMCSA officials said that "they do not have the resources to vet all for-hire carriers that apply for new operating authority," according to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report.
The Truck Safety Coalition, a network of victim and survivor volunteers, also filed an amicus brief supporting Montgomery that referred to freight brokers as “gatekeepers in determining who hauls freight on the roadways and who doesn’t.” The TSC stated that the industry has exploded in recent decades, from just 70 brokers in 1975 to over 28,000 today.
Rena Leizerman, from the Law Firm for Truck Safety and co-counsel for Montgomery, told Blaze News in a statement, “Broker negligence lawsuits aren't filed in every crash. They get filed when there's evidence that a broker hired someone with a known, serious safety history and chose to look the other way.”
“C.H. Robinson argued to the court that it should be completely off the hook for negligence. No exceptions. Not even if it knowingly hires a carrier with no insurance. Not even if the carrier isn't legally registered to operate. Not even if it already knows the carrier has a dangerous record. Zero accountability, no matter what,” Leizerman’s statement continued.
“Brokers make money on the gap between what shippers pay them and what they pay the carrier. The wider the gap, the more profit. So they push carrier rates down, and carriers survive by cutting costs — driver screening, safety training, equipment upkeep, insurance — until the day everything goes wrong.
“Remove any legal accountability for brokers, and you remove the incentive for them to care. Safe carriers, the ones who invest in doing things right, end up getting underbid by carriers who skip basic safety. It's a race to the bottom, and it's the rest of us sharing the road who pay the price,” she added.
Dorothy Capers, chief legal officer at C.H. Robinson, also provided a statement to Blaze News.
"A single, uniform federal framework is essential to keeping interstate commerce safe, efficient, and consistent with Congress' design," Capers said. "Allowing a patchwork of state tort laws to regulate broker services would undermine that system, increase uncertainty, and disrupt the flow of goods Americans rely on every day."
Real-world impact
The stakes of the pending Montgomery case are already playing out in the nation’s courtrooms.
On May 24, 2024, a semi-truck driver allegedly blew through a stop sign on U.S. 84 in Texas, killing 28-year-old Tiana Moore and her mother, Tanya Maria King. Moore’s family sued the driver, the carrier, and the freight broker that had hired the carrier.
When the case was about to go to trial, the broker, citing the ongoing Montgomery case before the Supreme Court, requested and received a stay, leaving the family in limbo.
Moore's father, David Moore, spoke to Blaze News about the tragic accident. He expressed his goal of raising awareness to inspire policy changes and help the American public understand how regulations affecting the trucking industry impact lives nationwide.
"The impact that it's really had on our lives, and even this ongoing process, it's been, obviously, the most difficult thing that I've ever had to deal with — and not just me, but my family," David Moore said.
Ultimately, the Moore case was closed a short time later when the parties reached a confidential settlement. While in this instance the family was able to reach an agreement outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Montgomery case will determine whether crash victims and their families retain or lose a major avenue for accountability in the future.
SCOTUS is expected to give a decision in the Montgomery case by June.
The Department of Transportation deferred comment to the Department of Justice, which stated it had no further remarks beyond its amicus brief.
Legal counsel for Caribe Transport II did not respond to requests for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
SPLC Finally Faces A Reckoning For The Political Violence It Stoked
Those who weaponize the language of justice while violating its core principles will ultimately answer for it.
Trump's Fed pick clears a major hurdle
President Donald Trump's pick to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell just got one step closer to confirmation.
The White House can breathe a sigh of relief after the Senate Banking Committee advanced Kevin Warsh's nomination along party lines in a 13-11 vote on Wednesday. Warsh's nomination is now headed to the Senate floor, where he is expected to be confirmed in a simple majority vote.
'This is a necessary and appropriate measure.'
Warsh's main hurdle was none other than Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who vowed to oppose the nominee until the administration dropped its investigation into Powell's overbudget construction project of the Fed building.
The retiring Republican's calls were heard by the White House, and the DOJ's investigation was punted to the inspector general, which was enough to regain Tillis' support for the committee vote.
RELATED: Trump administration calls off criminal probe into Fed Chair Powell
"I welcome the Inspector General's investigation," Tillis said in a post on X, despite his vehement opposition to the DOJ-led investigation into Powell. "This is a necessary and appropriate measure, and I have confidence it will be conducted thoroughly and professionally."
"Only a criminal referral from the inspector general would cause a reopening of the investigation," Tillis added. "With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh's confirmation."
Powell, whose term expires in May, said he will remain in the role until his replacement is officially confirmed.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Pipe-bomb suspect Brian Cole's defense hits prosecutors with unexpected demands after feds pile on more charges
Brian Cole Jr., the FBI's suspect in the Jan. 5 to 6, 2021, pipe-bomb case, appeared before a federal judge on April 22 and pleaded not guilty to the two additional felony charges filed against him in a second superseding indictment.
Federal authorities arrested Cole in December, accusing him of planting two pipe bombs, one outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters and one outside the Republican National Committee headquarters, in the hours leading up to the Jan 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol. The bombs did not detonate.
A 'real mic-drop' moment.
A second superseding indictment, filed Apr. 14, included the original charges of interstate transportation of explosives and a malicious attempt to use explosives. It also added two additional charges: an attempt to use weapons of mass destruction and an act of terrorism while armed. If found guilty of these new charges, Cole could face a sentence of life in prison.
The status hearing last week included an arraignment for the additional charges, to which Cole pleaded not guilty.
Cole's defense team requested early in the hearing to discuss setting a trial date, suggesting early December, according to the hearing's transcript obtained by Blaze News.
Prosecutors proposed holding another status hearing before setting a trial date, explaining that they were not yet prepared to estimate how long the trial would take, particularly with the additional charges.
Cara Castronuova, a reporter with LindellTV, called the defense's request a "real mic-drop" moment.
"I think that really surprised the prosecution. Their mouths sort of fell open. A lot of the FBI agents and the DOJ that were sitting there watching sort of looked at each other in disbelief," Castronuova stated.
"I don't think that they expected that. I think that they added all of these new charges sort of hoping that this young man, Brian Cole Jr. … would be scared and plea out."
The attorneys for both sides provided the judge with an update on the discovery process.
Prosecutors stated that they had obtained "over a terabyte of data" and that they were still gathering additional information, including witness interview materials.
Cole's attorney, Alex Little with Litson PLLC, said the defense intended to subpoena Congress for Jan. 6 committee records. Little explained to the judge that they had plans to review lawmakers' investigation into the pipe bomber, stating that he believes that they may "have materials that we think would be useful."
The defense also shared potential plans to present "a third-party perpetrator defense" and indicated that they want to "rebut potential alibis of that third party."
During the hearing, the attorneys and judge also discussed the controversy surrounding a recent motion filed by the defense team.
Cole's legal team previously filed a motion on Apr. 1 claiming that former Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff was "named as a person of interest in the January 5–6, 2021 pipe bomb investigation." The court filing claimed Kerkhoff was subjected to an FBI polygraph examination and that she "failed" after she was asked, "Did you place those pipe bombs?" and "Did you place those pipe bombs that evening?" Cole's attorneys further noted that the polygraph examiner called Kerkhoff's responses "seemingly rehearsed."
Kerkhoff has been officially cleared by the FBI and is no longer a suspect in the case.
Federal prosecutors argued that the motion violated the case's protective order, which set guidelines for handling confidential and sensitive discovery materials, including identifying information. Prosecutors requested that the judge hold Cole's attorneys in contempt for the public filing.
RELATED: Former Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff files lawsuit against Blaze Media
Cole's defense team asserted that the motion did not violate the protective order in the case, stating that they "were surprised" the government believed it did.
"Your Honor, they immediately jumped to ask to hold me in contempt," Little stated.
"I find it important to make this record for the court. There was nothing in that protective order that we believed are satisfied by the things we put in that motion. We wouldn't have filed them. That's not the way we do things."
He expressed regret and referred to as a "mistake" that the motion contained an individual's home address. He noted that the address should have been removed.
Cole's attorney stated that other than that one instance, prosecutors did not specify any other personally identifiable information in the motion. He claimed that prosecutors were unnecessarily labeling discovery materials as sensitive, including "photographs of shoes that you can get on the web."
"I think the difficulty is when we have now two terabytes, three terabytes of discovery, do I need to show the government a draft of each of my motions to decide whether the information" could be submitted in a public court filing, Little stated, adding that prosecutors had made "half" of the discovery material "sensitive."
Prosecutors argued that the defense's "gambit worked," stating that the public motion "went everywhere" and was "covered by the media."
"The damage was done," a federal attorney told the judge.
Little stated that they "immediately" moved to get the motion "under seal" after being notified by prosecutors that the address was in the public motion.
The defense withdrew the motion, which removed it from the public docket, and filed it under seal. Cole's team then requested that the motion be unsealed with redactions.
The judge ordered counsel to confer and come back to the court with "a proposed redacted version" of the defense's motion.
Castronuova highlighted a moment when the judge reportedly "just started yelling" at the defense attorneys.
"He went from zero to 10 out of nowhere on the defense," she continued. "No one really understood why. He just got angry at something they said and just started reprimanding them, embarrassing them, and yelling at them in court."
At multiple points throughout the hearing, the judge told the defense to "stop talking," according to the transcript.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) reacted to updates from the status hearing last week, suggesting that the defense "put the plainclothes Capitol Police officers who 'found' the second bomb on the stand."
Massie urged them to ask, "Why didn't you immediately begin looking for a third bomb?" "Who told you to go to that area and look for it?" and "Why was the bomb not immediately dealt with?"
"And a new question: why did you look so intently under the empty bush where the pipe bomber dwelled for so long the night before?" Massie continued.
"This trial could get interesting."
Cole's defense team declined to comment. He is scheduled to appear back in court on May 29 for another status hearing.
On Friday, Cole's defense team submitted a motion further arguing for the dismissal of the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. His attorneys previously contended that President Donald Trump's broad pardons related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, which applied to "individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol," should also cover Cole's case.
The government rejected the argument, stating that Cole had no pending indictment at the time the presidential proclamation was issued on Jan. 20, 2025. Prosecutors also asserted that the pipe bombs were placed on Jan. 5, 2021, and therefore were not related to the protest on Jan. 6.
Cole's lawyers responded to the government's arguments by stating that "a strict time limit does not exist in the text of" the president's pardon and, therefore, should not be inferred from it. They claimed it was "an on-going directive." They also reasoned that the timing and proximity of the pipe-bomb incident to the Jan. 6 protest indicate a connection.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
James Comey INDICTED amid assassination attempt against Trump over apparently threatening social media post
Former FBI Director James Comey has once again been indicted by the Department of Justice, this time for an infamous social media post that appeared to threaten President Donald Trump.
Comey posted a photo to his Instagram last May showing seashells on a beach writing the numbers "8647," with the now-deleted post captioned, "Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” The phrase "86" in slang commonly refers to getting rid of something, and the number "47" is assumed to be a reference to Trump, who is the 47th president of the United States.
'This indictment comes just days after a crazed gunman attempted to assassinate Trump.'
The basis of this second indictment is that the post could be considered a threat to kill Trump, a threat that Comey has repeatedly denied.
“It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down,” Comey said after deleting the post.
RELATED: Stunning new details reveal the 'depraved' motivation of the suspected WHCD shooter
This indictment comes just days after a crazed gunman attempted to assassinate Trump, rushing through a security checkpoint in the lobby of the Washington Hilton, where the president, several Cabinet members, and hundreds of attendees were seated at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The suspect, later identified as 31-year-old Cole Allen, allegedly opened fire and struck a Secret Serviceman wearing a bulletproof vest before being quickly subdued and apprehended.
A manifesto was later made public detailing Allen's alleged political motivations to kill Trump and members of his Cabinet. In light of the third serious assassination attempt against Trump, the DOJ has indicted Comey for the second time.
Comey was first indicted in September for making false statements to Congress and for obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The indictment was later dismissed and is no longer active.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Analysts: SPLC Fraud, Money Laundering Charges Could Be The Tip Of The Iceberg
'That’s certainly an admission of fraud against the bank,' Byrnes told The Federalist.Breaking: New FBI Clinton Doc Reinforces Deep State’s Dual Standard Of Justice
The extensive evidence of potential pay-to-play criminality among the Clinton family confirms Department of Justice politicalization.Trump says suspect who shot Secret Serviceman at WHCD identified: 'It's always shocking'
President Donald Trump briefed the press Saturday night following a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, prompting Secret Service to evacuate the president and other dignitaries from the area.
Trump said a sole gunman rushed Secret Service agents in the lobby of the Washington Hilton, where he shot an agent before being detained. The agent was rushed to the hospital and was wearing a bulletproof vest, according to the president.
Several outlets have reported the shooting suspect as 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California.
'I want to live because I want to make this country great.'
"This is not the first time in the past couple of years that our republic has been attacked by a would-be assassin who sought to kill," Trump told reporters.
Trump also released a photo of the suspected gunman being detained in the lobby as well as footage of the assailant rushing past security.
RELATED: Trump evacuated from White House Correspondents' Dinner following possible gunfire
Law enforcement confirmed that the assailant is in custody, with Trump saying he had "multiple weapons." Trump also said the suspected gunman's apartment in California is being searched.
Officials believe the gunman was acting alone. The motivation has not yet been determined or disclosed.
Trump, who has already survived two assassination attempts, reflected on the political violence waged against him and other politicians, saying, "I want to live because I want to make this country great."
Trump was flanked by various members of his inner circle, including first lady Melania Trump, FBI Director Kash Patel, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
"It's always shocking when something like this happens," Trump said. Trump also confirmed that the dinner will be rescheduled to a later date.
"We’re not going to let anybody take over our society."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com