Kash Patel Scrambles to Lock Down Leaks, Sending FBI Into Chaos

It’s always a sign that things are going well when you have to break out the polygraph machines!

FBI Director Kash Patel has directed the use of “lie detector” tests to root out leakers at national security agencies, The Washington Post reported Monday, a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent sources from disclosing information to the press that could undermine the president’s policies.

“The seriousness of the specific leaks in question precipitated the polygraphs, as they involved potential damage to security protocols at the bureau,” the FBI spokesperson said of the Trump administration’s latest McCarthyist antic.

While polygraph tests are regularly used by government agencies in hiring practices, as well as by law enforcement for interrogating suspects, they are widely considered to be unreliable indicators of actual deception, instead indicating a subject’s anxiety levels.

“They are stress detectors,” said Steven Aftergood, an expert on intelligence policy formerly with the Federation of American Scientists, to the Post. “If for any reason the questions being posed are upsetting to an individual, your pulse might accelerate even if you’ve done nothing wrong. So polygraphs do not measure truth or falsity.”

Aftergood said the use of polygraphs was the result of “thin-skinned” agency heads who were afraid of “adverse news coverage.”

Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a startling internal memo rescinding a Biden-era policy that protected journalists from leak investigations. The updated policy would allow for the use of subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders to collect information and testimony from journalists. “Federal government employees intentionally leaking sensitive information to the media undermines the ability of the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe. This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” Bondi wrote in the memo.

Bondi pointed to reports that Dan Caldwell, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s senior adviser, had been fired. She also included a report that revealed a “secret assessment” by the National Security Council that determined that Venezuela was not directing members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to invade the U.S. as an example of leaked classified information.

Aftergood told the Post that Bondi’s memo had wrongly presumed that the White House’s communications were all “sacrosanct.”

“It’s like saying dissent will not be tolerated. It is both absurd and offensive,” Aftergood added.

Concerns over leaks within the Trump administration have been escalating since before the humiliating Signalgate scandal last month. On a podcast Sunday, an ex-Hegseth aide said that the secretary and his team had become “consumed” by leaks. “If you look at a pie chart of the secretary’s day, at this point, 50 percent of it is probably a leak investigation,” the aide said.

The growing crackdown in intelligence agencies has created what one former official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence anonymously described to the Post as “a culture of fear that there will be personal retribution.”

A former FBI field office head was more blunt. “Morale’s in the toilet,” they told the Post anonymously. “When you see people who are being investigated, or names [of agents who worked on January 6 cases] being passed over to the DOJ, it’s what the fuck?”

Amazon was almost going to break down tariff prices on its shopping platform for consumer transparency—before the White House threw a tantrum.

Shortly after the e-commerce giant announced Tuesday that it would display tariff costs for its customers alongside its marketplace items’ original prices, Amazon balked, caving to the Trump administration’s demands that it reconsider what the MAGA leader viewed as a “hostile and political act.”

“Why did Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level in four years?” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt during a press briefing, adding that “it’s not really a surprise” that Amazon would do such a thing since it has, per the Trump administration, “partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm.”

Hours after Leavitt made the accusation, an Amazon spokesperson said that the larger website had never considered such a move, instead deferring blame to one of its smaller storefronts for low-priced goods, Amazon Haul.

“The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products,” the spokesperson told The Washington Post in a statement. “This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties.”

Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos made unexpected political waves when he appeared at Donald Trump’s inauguration, visually backing the president’s forthcoming administration. Since then, Bezos’s net worth—which is tied up mostly in Amazon stock—has tanked by some $36 billion as Trump has proposed a 145 percent tariff on imported Chinese goods, a move that would practically shatter Amazon’s supply chain and irreparably damage sellers on the market’s platform.

During the same press briefing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that 18 countries have issued trade proposals to lower tariffs. Earlier this month, the White House promised to make 90 deals in 90 days to drive down predicted costs and erase the trade war, a pledge that economists argue is no less than a monumental task.

Major big box retailers have already rung the alarm bells over Trump’s paused plan. Last week, representatives from Walmart, Target, and Home Depot met at the White House to discuss concerns over Trump’s aggressive tariff plan.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday bragged about ending a military program he described as “yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative.”

But that initiative—the Women, Peace & Security program—was started by the Trump administration in 2017 after he signed a bipartisan bill authored by Kristi Noem and Jan Schakowsky. The measure was also supported at the time by Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio. Three of those four people named now work at the highest levels of the Trump administration.

“This morning, I proudly ENDED the ‘Women, Peace & Security’ (WPS) program inside the @DeptofDefense. WPS is yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops — distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING,” Hegseth wrote on X. “WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it. DoD will hereby executive the minimum of WPS required by statute, and fight to end the program for our next budget. GOOD RIDDANCE WPS!”

Yet in 2020, Trump-appointed Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Rath Hoffman described this same program as a worthwhile national effort.

“By recognizing the diverse roles women play across the spectrum of conflict—and by incorporating their perspectives throughout plans and operations—DOD is better equipped to promote our security, confront near-peer competitors, and defeat our adversaries,” he said.

“When we recognize the diverse roles women play as agents of change; and when we incorporate their perspectives throughout our plans and operations, we are better equipped to promote our security, confront our near peer competitors, and defeat our adversaries,” said Stephanie Hammond, another Trump Defense Department staffer. “It will help the department strengthen alliances and attract new partners by demonstrating U.S. commitment to human rights and women’s empowerment, making the United States the partner of choice.”

The program Hegseth is now vilifying was fully backed by MAGA, and it takes anyone about 30 seconds to figure that out. Another honest blunder from Hegseth—whose name has been rightfully followed by words like “embattled” and “controversy” ever since his Cabinet nomination—would be unsurprising. Or maybe he’s just lying blatantly again.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is trying to prevent Democrats from opening up inquiries into the Trump administration.

Johnson used his authority on Monday to advance a measure in the House Rules Committee that would prevent any votes on “resolutions of inquiry,” which would take away one of the few oversight tools that House Democrats have as the minority party in the chamber.

These types of resolutions are privileged, which push them to the top of the House agenda. If the majority party on a committee does not report a resolution of inquiry to the full House, the resolution can be brought to the floor without the speaker’s permission, forcing a vote.

At the moment, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee are using one of those resolutions to demand answers from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about U.S. attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, and about how the Pentagon is handling classified and sensitive information. Hegseth’s use of private group chats on the Signal app to discuss U.S. airstrikes in Yemen have prompted House Democrats to push for more information.

Republicans, with Johnson’s backing, have responded by pausing resolutions of inquiry until September 30, hoping that questions about “Signalgate” (and any other oversight attempts) from the Democrats will die out. Republicans hid the pause inside another set of resolutions attacking former President Biden’s environmental policies.

With this cowardly move, Johnson and the House GOP have made it harder for Democrats to ask the Trump administration for documents about Signalgate, or any other issue. It’s a blatant favor to President Trump, and effectively weakens Congress’s oversight powers over the executive branch. It’s more proof that Trump owns the Republican Party and wants to exercise total control over the government, the constitutional separation of powers be damned.

Donald Trump has received failing marks from voters in his first 100 days in the White House.

A new poll by NPR/PBS/Marist published Tuesday found that when asked to give the president a letter grade for his efforts during the first three months of his presidency, 46 percent of respondents who were registered voters selected an “F.”

Twenty-four percent of respondents graded Trump with an “A.”

The poll was conducted between April 21 and 23, amid the president’s crackdown on immigration, threats against the judiciary and due process, and a 90-day easing of his sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs, which have rocked global markets.

But Trump isn’t very interested in receiving a report card. “The Polls from the Fake News are, like the News itself, FAKE! We are doing GREAT, better than ever before,” he wrote on Truth Social late Monday night.

This is just one in a spate of humiliating polls for the president.

An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll published Sunday found that Trump’s approval rating had plummeted to 39 percent, a 6 percent drop from February. Fifty-five percent of Americans said they disapproved of the job he’s doing in office, which is the lowest first-100-day rating of a president since modern polling began roughly 80 years ago. A poll from The New York Times was similarly bleak, with 66 percent of respondents thinking “chaotic” accurately described Trump’s first 100 days. Fifty-four percent thought Trump had exceeded his executive powers, and 50 percent already said he’s made the economy worse.

Trump was so incensed by that result that he demanded a criminal probe into the pollster.

A top GOP pollster suggested that while Trump wasn’t necessarily alienating his own voter base, he was bleeding independents, nonpartisans, and people who already didn’t like him.

The president is following through on his threats to transform the American military into domestic watchdogs.

Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Civilians,” effectively tasking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to work out the kinks in determining “how military and national security assets” and personnel “can most effectively be utilized” to hamper crime.

The executive order also directed the creation of a legal defense mechanism to further shield law enforcement from potential consequences, and specifically tasked Bondi with prioritizing “holding state and local officials accountable” for potential wrongdoing, such as “directly and unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties.”

It’s not the first time that Trump has threatened to turn the U.S. military on American citizens. Before Election Day, he suggested that the National Guard could be tapped to subdue “radical left lunatics” and individuals that he described as the “enemy from within.”

But Trump has  obviously been ruminating on the idea for a while. In September 2020, he warned that he would use force against Democrats if they chose to protest in the streets following his potential win on Election Day.

“We’ll put them down very quickly if they do that. We have the right to do that. We have the power to do that, if we want,” Trump said at the time, according to Politico.

“Look, it’s called insurrection,” he continued. “We just send in, and we do it very easy. I mean, it’s very easy. I’d rather not do that because there’s no reason for it, but if we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes.”

Ironically, it was his own followers who violently protested the election results.

The Trump administration is baring its teeth after Amazon announced it will show consumers exactly how much they’re being hurt by the president’s sweeping tariffs. 

The multinational corporation divulged on Monday that it would begin displaying how much of a product’s price is due to Trump’s tariff increase right next to the final cost, a level of transparency that makes it clear that the Trump administration bears responsibility for any price increases.  

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt took this act as a declaration of war, calling it a “hostile and political act.” 

“It was reported this morning that Amazon will soon display a little number next to the price of each product that shows how much the Trump tariffs are adding to the cost of each product,” a reporter asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who appeared alongside Leavitt at a press briefing early Tuesday morning. “So isn’t that a crystal clear demonstration that it’s the American consumer, and not China, who is gonna have to pay for these policies?” 

Leavitt stepped in. 

“This is a hostile and political act by Amazon. Why didn’t Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level in 40 years? And I would also add that it’s not a surprise. As Reuters recently wrote: ‘Amazon has partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm,’” she stated. “So this is another reason why Americans should buy American; it’s another reason why we are onshoring critical supply chains here at home to sure up our own critical supply chain and boost our own manufacturing here.” 

“So is Jeff Bezos still a Trump supporter?” the reporter followed up.

“Look, I will not speak to the president’s relationships with Jeff Bezos, but I will tell you that this is certainly a hostile and political action by Amazon,” Leavitt replied.

This is a very confusing response. Amazon is showing the very real impact of the president’s wanton and spiteful tariff policies, something it has no control over. And yet the administration is describing it like some act of terror. How is it hostile to let Americans know just how much their president is costing them? This administration is willing to lie and finger-point to keep Americans in the dark about the negative impacts of Trump’s trade war.

A legal analyst for the conservative television station Newsmax accused the Trump administration of going on a “bit of a jihad” against judges in its public arrest of a sitting judge last week.

During an appearance on Newsmax Monday night, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for the channel, argued that the Trump administration had gone too far by arresting Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan, and doing so in such a public manner.

“I think they overreached by arresting her,” Napolitano said.

“In a white-collar case with a public official—like there was here in New York with Mayor Adams—you don’t stop them on the street and put handcuffs on them. You say to his lawyer, ‘We need to talk to you about whether or not you will voluntarily surrender because we’re about to charge you with a crime,’” Napolitano explained.

“But because they’re on a bit of a jihad against judges, they decided to make an example out of this,” Napolitano continued. “I think this is the wrong case out of which to make an example. I think she has immunity.”

Dugan was arrested on obstruction charges for supposedly misdirecting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents away from Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an immigrant attending a pretrial hearing. According to the Department of Justice’s filing, Dugan allegedly let Florez-Ruiz exit the courtroom through a side door typically reserved for a jury. He then used a public hallway in the courthouse to get into an elevator and exit the building before ICE officers could stop him.

But Napolitano argued that Dugan had the authority to “decide where a person leaves her courtroom from and what she says to that person, and she can’t be prosecuted for it.” Napolitano noted that while there had been no arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz, the FBI had been able to receive an arrest warrant for Dugan from a magistrate judge.

In fact, ICE officials had received an administrative warrant for Flores-Ruiz, which, unlike a judicial warrant, does not allow agents to enter private spaces and was not signed by a judge.

If Dugan is convicted, the charges may result in a maximum penalty of six years in prison.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been touting Dugan’s arrest as a crackdown on “deranged” judges attempting to aid and abet undocumented immigrants that the Trump administration wants to round up and deport.

Dugan’s arrest is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to thwart judges who oppose the president’s political agenda. On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wouldn’t rule out arresting Supreme Court justices.

Canada overwhelmingly voted to keep Prime Minister Mark Carney in power Monday, siding with the interim leader over his right-wing alternative, conservative lawmaker Pierre Poilievre, who practically modeled himself on Donald Trump.

In the months leading up to the election, Canada’s Liberal Party was believed to be on its deathbed. But that all changed with Trump’s tariff talk, which radically ramped up anti-American sentiment among Canadian voters, with boycotts of American products sweeping the country.

Hours after Carney secured the win, he made it abundantly clear what Canada’s foreign policy will be toward its southern neighbor under his continued leadership.

“As I have been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. But these are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us,” Carney said. “That will never ever happen.”

Carney’s acceptance speech served as yet another eulogy for Canada’s relationship with America, marking the end of a prosperous and friendly relationship between the two countries while announcing the beginning of an era of Canadian independence.

“Our old relationship with the United States, our relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over. These are tragedies, but it’s also our new reality,” Carney said.

“We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons. We have to look out for ourselves. And above all, we have to take care of each other.”

Trump has actively aggressed U.S. relations with Canada since his first term. Recent rhetoric about annexing Canada to become America’s “fifty-first state” has not played well with the Canadian people or its leaders, causing some residents of the country to candidly dub Trump an “asshole.”

On an economic level, Trump has repeatedly claimed that Canada’s trade deficits with the United States are “subsidies,” rather than indicators that America’s neighbors were purchasing more of its goods than they were selling in return. In 2023, that differential—or deficit—was nearly $41 billion with Canada, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The president has also vastly overinflated the reality of the deficits, wrongly asserting that the U.S. is “subsidizing” its neighbors to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars each. The obvious solution to that problem, per Trump, is to take Canada and its independence, folding it into his increasingly centralized government.

So much for poor, huddled masses: Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee intend to make it prohibitively expensive to immigrate to the United States. 

In a 116-page reconciliation amendment from Chairman Jim Jordan, Republicans have proposed a whopping $1,000 fee for asylum-seekers—the first of its kind in U.S. history. 

The fee would be no less than $1,000, they wrote, and would increase each subsequent year to the amount from the previous one rounded to the lowest multiple of 10 and multiplied by the percentage increase of the consumer price index for all urban consumers, year over year, starting in 2026. For every year that the case remains pending, the immigrant would be charged an additional fee of no less than $100. 

An application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, known as an I-589, currently costs $0 according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services fee schedule. 

The amendment also proposed a fee of $550 for those applying for employment authorization under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The permits would elapse every six months, making it extremely expensive to work in the U.S. as an immigrant. It previously cost $520 to file an I-765 form by paper and $470 to file online. 

The amendment also proposed a $3,500 fee to sponsor the immigration of an unaccompanied child as “partial reimbursement to the Federal Government” for its processing and care of the child.  The amendment also proposes a $5,000 fee that can be reimbursed at the end of the child’s immigration proceedings “if such sponsor demonstrates that the unaccompanied alien child in the care of such sponsor was not ordered removed in absentia.” 

The proposed legislation would balloon up-front fees for sponsoring an immigrant child to a whopping $8,500. Previously, an I-130 petition for an alien relative would cost $675 for paper filing and $625 for online filing.

The bill also included several provisions that would make defending oneself in immigration court far more expensive. As previously stated, the bill imposed a $100 fee for any continuance past a year, except for “exceptional circumstances.” 

Additionally, it imposes a $1,050 fee for filing a waiver on the grounds of admissibility, or where the application for a waiver is adjudicated. These are waivers used by anyone who is not technically allowed to enter the U.S. for any number of reasons, ranging from health to national security and to prior removals. 

The bill also imposes a $900 fee to appeal a decision from the Department of Homeland Security, which currently costs only $110. This fee would not apply to appeals of a bond decision. 

These new exorbitant legal fees come as Donald Trump’s administration seems adamant on denying immigrants their due process and attacking U.S. immigration judges, several of whom were fired or placed on leave earlier this month. 

Other new fees included a $500 fee to apply for any Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, a $250 visa bond for all nonimmigrant visa applications, and a $1,500 fee for certain nonpermanent residents to apply to adjust a status before an immigration judge. The Trump administration has reportedly stopped weighing green card applications from asylum-seekers and refugees altogether, and even moved to detain individuals who petition for them. 

In a post on X, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee wrote that they were committed to “restoring immigration integrity, enhancing national security, and reining in the out-of-control administrative state.”