LAPD defies Newsom: Chief refuses to enforce mask ban on ICE



The Los Angeles Police Department says it will not enforce a new California law that restricts federal immigration agents from wearing face coverings, pushing back against a measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the department will not stop or cite federal agents for violating the state’s mask ban, citing safety concerns and the risk of escalating confrontations between law enforcement agencies.

'It's not a safe way to do business.'

“The reality of one armed agency approaching another armed agency to create conflict over something that would be a misdemeanor at best or an infraction — it doesn’t make any sense.”

RELATED: Anti-ICE rioter's deadly mistake: Woman allegedly tried to run over federal agents before she was fatally shot

Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The No Secret Police Act, signed by Newsom in September, prohibits most law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks or facial coverings while carrying out official duties, with limited exceptions for undercover work or protective equipment. Supporters say the measure increases transparency and prevents the use of “secret police” tactics during immigration operations.

Federal officials and Republican leaders have sharply criticized the law, arguing it endangers agents by exposing their identities and unlawfully interferes with federal authority. The U.S. Department of Justice has challenged the law in court, saying it violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

RELATED: 'You should f**king kill yourself': DHS releases terrifying audio of anti-ICE agitator threatening Minnesota agent

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

McDonnell said the LAPD’s role is to maintain public safety, not to police federal officers engaged in immigration enforcement.

"You have the ICE agents who are doing their job. And for us to come in then and try and create an enforcement action for wearing a mask, it's not a safe way to do business," McDonnell said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Propaganda Press Keeps Trying To Turn Radical Anti-ICE Agitators Into Victims

Corporate media outlets have covered the Minneapolis ICE story like they’ve covered much of Homeland Security’s efforts to secure the homeland: dishonestly.

'You don't want this smoke': Philly DA and sheriff threaten ICE officers — DHS just laughs



Larry Krasner, the Philadelphia district attorney who was impeached in 2022 for "dereliction of duty and refusal to enforce the law upon assuming office," was among the leftists who condemned the fatal Jan. 7 shooting of anti-ICE activist Renee Nicole Macklin Good.

Multiple videos of the incident, including cellphone footage from the agent's perspective, show the 37-year-old Colorado native drive into a federal law enforcement officer after disobeying repeated orders to exit her vehicle. As Good accelerated into the ICE agent — who had been dragged hundreds of yards by a fleeing suspect during a previous ICE operation — the agent opened fire in self-defense.

During a press conference on Jan. 8, where officials held a moment of silence for Good, then engaged in a cultish chant of her name, Krasner claimed the ICE agent's actions were not only "unlawful" but amounted to a "criminal homicide" executed by a member of an agency that has supposedly taken a "Nazified approach to mass deportation."

'Do you hear me, ICE agents? Do you hear me, National Guard?'

Krasner — flanked by fellow anti-ICE radicals Aniqa Raihan of the group No ICE Philly and Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal, the latter of whom claimed that ICE was "fake" law enforcement — not only complained about the ICE officer's decision to fire multiple shots but his location at the time of the vehicular attack.

According to Krasner, who referred to the incident in passing as a "murder," the officer's positioning in front of Good's speeding SUV was a "violation of police directives in almost every jurisdiction."

"Self-defense? So that is one layer of criminality," said Krasner.

RELATED: Shocking cellphone video of Minneapolis lethal shooting from ICE agent's perspective released — and JD Vance

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

After characterizing the agent's act of self-defense as a crime, Krasner — who has spent years championing dangerous criminals — stated, "If any law enforcement agent, any ICE agent, is going to come to Philly to commit crimes, then you can get the eff out of here because if you do that here, I will charge you with those crimes. You will be arrested. You will stand trial. You will be convicted, whether it's in state or federal court."

"Donald Trump cannot pardon you for a state court conviction," continued Krasner. "Do you hear me, ICE agents? Do you hear me, National Guard? Do you hear me, military?"

Sheriff Bilal attempted to outdo Krasner's expression of contempt for federal law enforcement officers, stating, "If any [ICE agents] want to come in this city and commit a crime, you will not be able to hide, nobody will whisk you off."

"You don't want this smoke, 'cause we will bring it to you," threatened the sheriff whose crime-ridden city had 826 shootings in 2025.

Over the weekend, Krasner posted a picture of himself on social media with the acronym "FAFO," which stands for "f**k around, find out." The post was captioned, "To ICE and the National Guard: If you commit crimes in Philadelphia, we will charge you and hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

The post was quickly ratioed on X.

"Unlike criminals in Philadelphia who get their charges dropped by the DA," replied the National Police Association.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, noted, "The fullest extent of the state law would be nothing since they're Federal officials. Don't lose your bar license dude."

The Department of Homeland Security responded with multiple dismissive posts, noting, "Oh no! Anyway."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Administration Moves Closer To Dismantling Unnecessary Education Department

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said shifting programs out of her department will help 'break up the federal education bureaucracy.'

'Hybrid era is over': Trump's effort to force federal workers back into the office is a giant success



President Donald Trump returned to the office on Jan. 20 and made immediately clear that he expected federal bureaucrats to follow suit.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office indicated in a recent study that as of June 2024, over 200,000 federal employees — 9% of the federal workforce — worked remotely. Gallup survey data indicates that in the fourth quarter of last year, 61% of federal employees were working in a flexible hybrid work model.

'That's what we've been looking to do for many, many decades, frankly.'

Trump noted in a day-one memo to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch that "as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis."

"We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and therefore our government will get smaller and more efficient," the president later told reporters. "And that's what we've been looking to do for many, many decades, frankly."

Despite naysaying by academics, bureaucrats, and the liberal media, Trump's effort to get workers back has yielded serious results besides the voluntary exit of tens of thousands of bureaucrats.

RELATED: Buc-ee’s gets rich by doing everything Wall Street hates

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

According to a new Gallup survey of 542 federal employees in "remote-capable" jobs, 46% of federal employees are now working in the office — up from 17% in the fourth quarter of 2024 and double the national average.

The percentage of federal employees engaged in hybrid work arrangements is now 28%, down 33 points since Q4 2024. Twenty-six percent of federal employees are reportedly engaged in fully remote capacities, said the survey published on Tuesday.

"In Washington, the hybrid era is over," said Gallup's Ryan Pendell.

Blaze News has reached out to the Office of Personnel Management for comment.

The survey further indicated that unlike the federal government sector, across the board, on-site work has not rebounded among full-time, remote-capable American employees. In 2019, over 60% of workers were in the office full-time. Now, 21% of employees are working on-site full-time. Fifty-one percent are engaged in hybrid work.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The DC nobody talks about — and Trump finally did



President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration — placing the D.C. police under federal control — cited a now-famous stat: Washington, D.C., has higher violent crime, murder, and robbery rates than all 50 states.

Yes, even higher than my home city of Los Angeles.

DC is bigger than the Mall, and outside the quaint Capitol Hill and Eastern Market townhouses, the city sings a much different tune.

The order also noted that the city’s homicide rate — 27.54 per 100,000 residents — surpasses that of Havana, Cuba, and Islamabad, Pakistan.

Left-wing media immediately scoffed. They downplayed the numbers, pointing to D.C.’s “declining violent crime” stats — conveniently reported right after city leaders reclassified crimes like felony assault and carjacking as non-violent offenses.

It’s a neat trick to save face at the expense of victims.

In Georgetown, Woodley Park, and Chevy Chase, the chaos hides well. But walk through Columbia Heights or Dupont Circle and men strung out on drugs sprawl across the sidewalks. At Union Station, homeless people bathe in the historic site’s iconic fountains, just a few blocks from the Capitol.

“All cities have a homeless problem,” they say. Sure. But not all cities are the capital of the free world.

D.C. is bigger than the Mall, and outside the quaint Capitol Hill and Eastern Market townhouses, the city sings a much different tune.

A tale of two DCs

Take Anacostia.

This historically black neighborhood in Southeast D.C. has been ravaged by decades of violent crime and neglect in the overwhelmingly Democratic city. Today, it holds an “F” public safety grade and ranks in the seventh percentile for safety nationwide. The neighborhood sees 12.3 violent crimes per 1,000 residents annually, with assault topping the list, followed by robbery, rape, and murder.

As D.C.'s cost of living explodes, many young residents — like my friends — are pushed into cheaper, more dangerous areas. They often choose Anacostia.

I’ve stayed with them several times. It’s the kind of place where you don’t stop at a red light. Homeless men stagger toward your car. Groups of young men tail you from stop sign to stop sign. If you're catching an early flight, you’ll see prostitutes walking home from the night before.

Residents of this once-vibrant neighborhood mourn what it has become. Times were never easy, but now crime has made it unlivable.

One neighborhood, a larger pattern

Anacostia isn’t an outlier. It’s the blueprint.

It’s the story of every community that doesn’t fit the left’s narrative and so gets ignored. As more staffers and young professionals move into these neighborhoods, perhaps they’ll finally draw some media coverage. But reform shouldn’t wait until political aides feel unsafe.

D.C. was meant to be the crown jewel of American cities. In many ways, it still is. But beauty doesn’t excuse such damning crime statistics.

Unchecked crime in forgotten neighborhoods is spilling into tourist hot spots and government grounds. Elites can’t ignore it any more.

RELATED: The capital of the free world cannot be lawless

Photo by ClassicStock/Getty Images

President Trump’s order is delivering what Anacostia residents — and so many others — should have received years ago: law, order, and the simple freedom to walk outside without fear.

That’s not too much to ask. That’s the bare minimum.

It’s a promise every American deserves.

So thank you, President Trump, for doing what should have been done long ago. I hope D.C. is just the beginning. Do L.A. next.

Wisconsin judge facing 6 years over illegal alien debacle turns to SCOTUS' Trump ruling to avoid consequence



Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law. Dugan — who could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on Thursday.

Dugan's attorneys appear to think that the U.S. Supreme Court has provided her with the means to dodge accountability.

They noted in a Wednesday motion to dismiss the indictment obtained by Axios that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."

Here, attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

This is the ruling that prompted apoplexy among Democrats, demands for conservative justices to be impeached, and accusations that the high court was "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."

RELATED: Despite Democrat hysteria, Wisconsin judge accused of thwarting ICE faces 6 years in prison after grand jury indictment

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution," adding that "judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally."

'Unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.'

The apparent suggestion is that the following actions, which the indictment accuses her of taking, were official acts:

  • Confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
  • Directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
  • Addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
  • "Directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
  • Advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.

In Trump v. United States, the high court wrote:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.

Dugan's attorneys further argued on the basis of this specific assertion by the high court that the Wisconsin judge's "subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity."

RELATED: Dems condemn Trump admin over arrest of judge who allegedly helped illegal alien escape: 'A red line'

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

"The government's prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional," wrote the attorneys. "Judge Dugan reserves her right to seek other relief, including by other motions before and at trial. But the immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her."

When asked about the use of the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Blaze News, "I don't think the analogy is appropriate in this case," adding, "the dispute is going to be whether she acted in her capacity as a judge."

"The government's response is going to be, 'What you did has nothing to do with judicial decision-making, the management of your court room. You went out; you interfered with federal law enforcement; you came back in, and ushered people out of the courtroom in a way to obstruct justice that had nothing to do with your so-called management in the courtroom,'" continued Fitton. "'This was a crime that was being committed in a courtroom, not by a judge, but by ... a person acting as a citizen, not as a judge.'"

Fitton suggested further that the Trump DOJ would likely appeal a ruling in Dugan's favor, in part due to the administration's "seriousness about protecting their agents and the public from these illegal alien criminals" and the possible emboldening impact such a ruling might have on other activist judges.

"It doesn't matter what line of work you are in. If you break the law, we will follow the facts, and we will prosecute you," Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the case last month.

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, is next expected in court on July 9. Her trial is reportedly set for July 21.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan's case. That's likely good news for Dugan, as the Democratic lawmaker turned Clinton appointee has made no secret of his animus toward President Donald Trump and Republicans.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Appeals court delivers Trump a 'huge victory' in VOA layoffs suit, sets stage for additional wins



The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered the Trump administration a "huge victory" on Saturday, blocking the order of a lesser court that required the reinstatement of over 1,000 Voice of America employees.

Kari Lake, senior adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which supervises Voice of America, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and a handful of other state-funded outfits including Radio Free Europe, called the ruling a "BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II."

"Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to," added Lake.

The appeals court's 2-1 ruling, which saw Trump-appointed Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao pitted against dissenting Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard, held that "the government is likely to succeed on the merits because the district court likely lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin USAGM's personnel actions and to compel the agency to restore RFA's and MBN's FY 2025 grants."

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 14 aimed at reducing various "unnecessary" elements of the federal bureaucracy "to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law." Among the entities targeted was the USAGM.

'Ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.'

In a corresponding fact sheet, the White House shared links to articles criticizing the quality and neutrality of the state media outfit's output, as well as a link to a write-up of the American Accountability Foundation's 2022 lawsuit alleging that VOA had "been infiltrated by anti-American, pro-Islamic state interests."

Blaze News previously reported that pursuant to the president's executive order, approximately 1,300 VOA journalists and other employees were placed on administrative leave, and funding was suspended to VOA's sister networks.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled against the administration on April 22, noting that its stated efforts to "ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda" were "arbitrary and capricious" and "likely in direct violation of numerous federal laws," including the VOA's congressionally established charter in the International Broadcasting Act.

Lamberth ordered the administration to "take all necessary steps to return USAGM employees and contractors to their status" prior to Trump's March 14 EO; to restore VOA programming; and to restore fiscal year 2025 grants to Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He also demanded that the administration provide him with monthly status reports "apprising the Court of the status of the defendants' compliance with this Order."

'The injunction threatens its prerogative to "speak with one voice" on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs.'

The appeals court said in its Saturday ruling that Lamberth "likely lacked jurisdiction over the USAGM's personnel decisions" as federal employees may not use the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge agency employee actions.

"Congress has instead established comprehensive statutory schemes for adjudicating employment disputes with the federal government," noted the court.

While the dissenting Obama judge on the appeals court expressed doubt that Congress' chosen administrative methods could properly process agency-wide claims for over 1,000 employees, the majority noted that "administrative agencies are not powerless to issue broad-reaching relief in large-scale personnel matters."

The court said that Lamberth similarly lacked jurisdiction to restore Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks' grants for fiscal year 2025.

"If a claim against the United States is contractual 'at its essence,' district courts have no power to resolve it," wrote the majority. That authority belongs to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The appeals court also recognized that Lamberth's order requiring the restoration of all employees and contractors is a harmful "intrusion" that implicates the Trump administration's foreign-affairs authority since USAGM is responsible for presenting the views of the government and supporting U.S. foreign policy.

"By depriving the Executive Branch of control over the individuals involved in its international broadcasting, the injunction threatens its prerogative to 'speak with one voice' on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs," said the court.

Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent at the Federalist, noted that this "conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications" because many of the legal challenges brought against the Trump administration "are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide."

The appeals court's decision landed a day after the Department of Justice notified lawyers representing VOA workers that they could return to work this week.

In a letter obtained by The Hill sent to VOA staffers' lawyers, the DOJ wrote, "USAGM currently expects staff to begin to return to the office next week, as security, building space, and equipment issues require a phased return."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wisconsin Supreme Court Removes Federally Charged Judge From The Bench

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is charged with interfering with the arrest of an illegal immigrant facing battery charges.

What A Waste: Federal Agencies Spent $4.6 Billion On Furniture For Empty Buildings

The hefty expenditures are part of the federal government's big property problem, wasting mountains of taxpayer money.