Leading up to the 2024 presidential election, U.S. Army veteran Sae Joon Park kept in mind a warning from an immigration officer: If Donald Trump were elected, Park would likely be at risk for deportation.
Park was 7 when he came to the U.S. from Seoul, South Korea. He joined the Army at 19 and received a Purple Heart after being shot in Panama. After leaving the military, he lived with PTSD, leading to addiction issues.
After a 2009 arrest on a drug charge, Park was eventually ordered deported. But because he was a veteran, he was granted deferred action, allowing him to remain in the U.S. while he checked in with immigration officials annually.
For 14 years he did just that, while raising children and building a new life in Honolulu. Then in June, when Park went in for his appointment, he learned he had a removal order against him. Instead of facing extended time in detention, he chose to self-deport.
“They allowed me to join, serve the country — front line, taking bullets for this country. That should mean something,” he said.
Instead, “This is how veterans are being treated.”
During his first term in office, Trump enacted immigration policies aimed at a group normally safe from scrutiny: noncitizens who serve in the U.S. military. His administration sought to restrict avenues for immigrant service members to obtain citizenship and make it harder for green card holders to enlist — actions that were unsuccessful.
Now, military experts and veterans say service members are once again targets of the president’s immigration policies.
“President Trump campaigned on a promise of mass deportations, and he didn’t exempt military members, veterans and their families,” said retired Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, a lawyer who helps veterans facing deportation. “It harms military recruiting, military readiness and the national security of our country.”
Both policies barred enforcement actions against active-duty service members, absent aggravating factors. Under the new policy, noncitizen relatives of service members are not addressed.
Some service members, like Park, are choosing to self-deport. In other instances, immigrant family members of soldiers or veterans have been detained — including Narciso Barranco, a father of three U.S. Marines who was detained earlier this year in Santa Ana, California.
“The people being ripped from our communities are hardworking, honest, patriotic people who are raising America’s teachers, nurses and Marines,” Barranco’s son, veteran Alejandro Barranco, testified in July to a U.S. Senate subcommittee. “Deporting them doesn’t just hurt my family. It hurts all of us.”
This image provided by News21 shows Michael Evans, a veteran who has been deported, hugging Diane Vega, a veteran and volunteer, at the Deported Veterans Support House on Saturday, June 28, 2025, in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. (Sydney Lovan/News21 via AP)
There is no publicly available data on how many veterans are being affected, though ICE is supposed to track service member removals and the Department of Homeland Security is typically required to share that information with Congress.
A 2019 federal report found 250 veterans had been placed in removal proceedings between 2013 and 2018. News21 could find only two DHS reports tracking removals of veterans. One, covering the first half of 2022, said five veterans had been deported; another, for calendar year 2019, said three veterans had been deported.
In June, U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona Democrat, and nine members of Congress wrote to federal officials seeking the number of veterans currently facing deportation — noting “some estimates” put the overall number of deported veterans at 10,000.
Her office did not return messages. DHS and ICE also did not respond to questions.
Federal lawmakers have proposed several bills to protect immigrant service members and their relatives. One measure, introduced in May, would give green cards to parents of service members and allow those already deported to apply for a visa.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat and Army veteran, has sponsored some of that legislation. She told News21: “This is about the men and women who wore the uniform of our great nation, many of whom were promised a chance at citizenship by our government in exchange for their service. It’s about doing the right thing.”
As of February 2024, more than 40,000 foreign nationals were serving in active and reserve components of the Armed Forces, according to the Congressional Research Service. Another 115,000 were veterans living in the U.S.
Serving in the military has long been a pathway to citizenship, with provisions providing expedited naturalization dating back to the Civil War.
During designated periods of hostility, noncitizens who serve honorably for even one day are eligible to apply for naturalization if they meet all criteria. The U.S. has been in a period of hostility since 2001.
This image provided by News21 shows Army veteran Jose Francisco Lopez holding a portrait from his time in service on June 28, 2025, at the Deported Veterans Support House in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. (Sydney Lovan/News21 via AP)
Despite that longstanding policy, the Department of Defense, during Trump’s first term, required service members to complete six months before obtaining military documents required to apply for citizenship.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued, and in 2020, a federal judge struck down the change. The Biden administration wound up rescinding the six-month policy.
Nevertheless, ACLU attorney Scarlet Kim said: “If you don’t get your citizenship while you’re serving and then you’re discharged … you can potentially become vulnerable to deportation.”
That’s the situation facing Army veteran Marlon Parris.
Parris, born in Trinidad, has been in the U.S. with a green card since the 1990s. He served in the Army for six years and received the Army Commendation Medal three times, according to court records.
Before his discharge in 2007, he was diagnosed with PTSD — which was cited when Parris pleaded guilty in 2011 to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and sentenced to federal prison.
Upon his release in 2016, the government assured him he would not be deported, according to the group Black Deported Veterans of America. But on Jan. 22, agents detained Parris near his home in Laveen, Arizona. In May, a judge ruled he was eligible for deportation.
His wife, Tanisha Hartwell-Parris, told News21 the couple plan to self-deport and bring along some of the seven children, ranging in age from 8 to 26, who are part of their blended family.
“I’m not going to put my husband in a situation to where he’s going to be a constant target, especially in the country that he fought for,” she said.
This image provided by News21 shows memorabilia from Jose Francisco Lopez’s service during the Vietnam War displayed inside the Deported Veterans Support House on Saturday, June 28, 2025, in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. (Sydney Lovan/News21 via AP)
A report published last year by the Veterans Law Practicum at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law noted that more than 20% of veterans with PTSD also have a substance use disorder, and that can result in more exposure to the criminal justice system.
That situation is “the most common scenario in terms of how deportation is triggered,” said Rose Carmen Goldberg, who oversaw completion of the report and now teaches in the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School.
The report stressed that even though deportation does not disqualify veterans from benefits earned through service, “Geographic and bureaucratic barriers may … stand in the way.”
In 2021, the Biden administration launched the Immigrant Military Members and Veterans Initiative (IMMVI) to ensure deported veterans could access Veterans Affairs benefits. The program offered parole to those needing to return to the U.S. for legal services or health care.
Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer with the Seattle Clemency Project, said the biggest flaw of the program is that parole into the U.S. is temporary — a “dead end” if a veteran doesn’t have a legal claim to restore legal residency or to naturalize.
“We had asked the Biden administration to do more to ensure that there was a further path towards restoring people’s lawful status beyond parole,” she said. “Basically, we didn’t succeed.”
In the absence of aid in the U.S., more veterans are turning to help elsewhere.
José Francisco Lopez, a native of Torreón, Mexico, and Vietnam War veteran, experienced PTSD and addiction. He eventually went to prison for a drug-related crime and in 2003 was deported.
“I almost gave my life in Vietnam, and now they just throw me away like garbage,” he said.
For years, Lopez thought he was the only deported veteran in Mexico — until he met Hector Barajas, a deported Army veteran who in 2013 founded the Deported Veterans Support House in Tijuana.
Inspired, Lopez opened his own Support House in Ciudad Juárez.
Lopez, 80, is now a legal resident of the U.S. but splits his time between El Paso and Juárez, providing deported veterans housing, food and advice about how to apply for benefits. Since opening the support house in 2017, he’s helped about 20 people.
Back in Seoul, Park, 56, is adjusting to life in a country he hadn’t visited in 30 years. When he first arrived, he cried every morning for hours.
“It’s a whole new world,” he said. “I’m trying to really relearn everything.”
Park’s attorney started a petition to urge prosecutors to dismiss his criminal convictions, to help cancel his deportation order. More than 10,000 people have signed.
Park said he’s grateful for the support but has little faith he will ever be allowed to return to the U.S. He said: “This is not the country that I volunteered and fought for.”
News21 reporters Tristan E.M. Leach, Sydney Lovan and Gracyn Thatcher contributed to this story. This report is part of “Upheaval Across America,” an examination of immigration enforcement under the second Trump administration produced by Carnegie-Knight News21.
Please watch. As she says the site is called Dunning Kruger and states it is not fake news or lies because it is totally fictional and made up. But tRump believes it. Hugs
The shutdown is over.Well, not officially, but it’s over. Seven Democrats and a Dem-caucusing independent caved, providing Republicans with the eight votes necessary to shove through a funding bill that will eventually reopen the government.
Once again, Republicans’ will to do the wrong thing was greater than Democrats’ to do the right thing.
Amazing how often that happens. With Medicare-for-all. With Senate representation for Puerto Rico and D.C. With revamping the U.S. Supreme Court. With simply seating a properly nominated Supreme Court justice.
Every single time, when the fight got hard, there were just enough Democrats willing to tuck tail and run to give Republicans another win. Just enough Democrats willing to believe that this time the GOP Lucys won’t move the football.
It’s coming again, sure as you’re reading this.
There will be no negotiation over Affordable Care Act subsidies—the lone concession that Democrats received for their spineless fold. Anyone with a working brain can see the end of this thing.
Republicans are going to renege. There’s going to be shock and outrage. Republicans and their media partners will not care. They’ll spin it in the dumbest possible way. Four million Americans will lose health care coverage. The costs of insurance premiums will go up substantially for all of us.
It’ll probably end up being Obama’s fault somehow.
Because this is how bad the Democrats are at messaging. Even when every single fact is on their side—and the facts were decidedly on their side—they can’t even get their own caucus to buy in.
I want you to consider what was happening. Take a step back. Consider all of the facts. And behold the breathtaking failure that the Democrats snatched from the jaws of accomplishment.
You have a country that is extremely angry with its current president, because that guy has failed to do anything that he promised he was going to do. (Probably because he lacks both the intelligence and the will to do any of those things.) This guy, whose policies have driven up prices and bankrupted American farmers and businesses, was publicly snatching food from the mouths of hungry children and poor people. At the same time, his party’s disastrous spending bill, which included ridiculous tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations at the expense of health care subsidies for the poor and working class, was in the beginning stage of jacking up monthly premiums from barely affordable to “I guess we’ll just die” rates.
For 41 days, the Democrats told everyone who would listen that they simply could not stand aside and allow this pain to fall upon good Americans. That this was a fight they wouldn’t abandon. That this was a fight they were in until the end.
Or until the airports got real busy.
I mean, people starving because food stamps were cut off was one thing. But long lines and cancelled flights, pfft, what are we, some sort of third-world country?
So, seven of them caved. Like sniveling, pathetic cowards.
Because more wasn’t demanded of them.
I’ve been preaching for some time now about the absolute necessity of researching and voting for the right people. For not simply voting for the party-affiliated candidate. To demand more. To vote for the people who best represent you and who have the best answers to your issues.
For most of you, particularly the working class and poor, that will be a Democrat. It just needs to be the right Democrat. We have to stop electing weak, ineffective, soft candidates, and choose people who will fight with intelligence and grit.
Look, let’s keep in mind the reality here. The things that were at the center of this fight—food stamps, health care subsidies, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security—none of them would exist without Democrats, without a progressive party that governs based on morals and decency. A party that made sure the poor have food on the table and access to medical care. A party that said senior citizens deserved to live with dignity and some security.
But what happened with the shutdown cave should highlight the fact that it’s not enough to simply elect Democrats. You have to demand more. You have to demand a commitment, a willingness to fight.
Anything less, as we’ve seen, is just a waste of everyone’s time.
Top Democratic officials put out a new guide, entitled “Deciding to Win,” that encourages Democrats to be a little more like Republicans on “identity and cultural issues.”
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Subscribe
This week, the self-styled centrist group WelcomePAC released a document entitled “Deciding to Win”—advised on by some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent strategists, including David Axelrod, James Carville, and David Plouffe—urging Democrats to act a little more like Republicans on so-called “identity and cultural issues.” The 58-page memo reads like a compendium of the consultant class’s worst instincts, encouraging candidates to become little more than poll-tested avatars and walking focus groups, trading conviction for triangulation. While the document rarely defines which “cultural issues” it means, the few times it does make it clear: queer and transgender people stand to lose the most if this vision of the Democratic Party takes hold.
The document begins with five key pillars for the party. Some of them make a lot of sense, such as “messaging on an economic program centered on lowering costs, growing the economy, creating jobs, and expanding the social safety net,” critiquing “the outsized political and economic influence of” the “ultra-wealthy,” and support for a $15/h minimum wage. Others, though, encourage the party to abandon platforms that have been central to its identity and mission to protect the most vulnerable in society, calling for the party to “Moderate our positions where our agenda is unpopular, including on issues like immigration, public safety, energy production, and some identity and cultural issues.”
While the document rarely defines what “identity and cultural issues” means, the examples make its targets clear. Support for the Equality Act—legislation that would codify gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal law—is cited as proof the party has “moved left.” Another section lists “protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans” as a priority voters supposedly don’t want Democrats to emphasize. Elsewhere, a discussion of how to mobilize voters “sitting on the couch” reveals that the most popular policy among them is “defining sex as binary and based on biology at birth across federal agencies.” Later in the document, it explicitly calls out transgender sports participation as an issue that the party should “moderate” on.
Screenshot of Deciding to Win Chart of “moderate” policies
Imagine a world where Democrats actually heeded this advice. The “define sex as binary” policy—already championed in Republican-led states and now embedded in everything the Trump administration does—has had devastating consequences for transgender Americans. It has stripped trans people of the ability to update their passports, creating serious barriers to travel; defunded organizations that affirm gender diversity; and fueled crackdowns on college campuses that allow trans students to use restrooms matching their gender identity. It’s a policy of bureaucratic erasure, one that threatens to undo decades of hard-won progress—yet it’s presented, almost casually, as a “moderate” position Democrats might adopt to win votes.
It’s a vision of politics that would turn Democrats into little more than Republican Lite—a “big tent” party spacious enough for those who despise us but not for those who most need protection. In that world, Democrats would lose not just the meaning of leadership but the very soul of why the party exists. And it’s a fantasy built on delusion: no amount of fine-tuned messaging or poll-tested calibration will ever transform the party into the perpetual winner these consultants imagine.
We don’t have to imagine what happens when Democrats follow this playbook — we’ve already seen it. In New Hampshire, Democrats capitulated on multiple anti-trans bills, including bans on youth sports participation and gender-affirming surgery, only to suffer one of the party’s worst defeats of the 2024 election cycle, losing 20 seats. By contrast, Democrats in Montana fought hard against similar measures and mounted some of the most visible resistance to anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the country, picking up ten seats in the state House—one of the party’s strongest showings nationwide, in a state Trump carried easily. In Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear vetoed anti-trans bills, including a sports ban, and still won reelection in a Trump +31 state. And in New York, a ballot measure enshrining gender identity protections outperformed Kamala Harris’s statewide margin by a wide margin.
Despite the evidence, a faction within the Democratic Party still treats queer and trans people as expendable—convinced that by trimming the edges of equality and tolerating “a little” discrimination, they can win back power. It’s a ruinous illusion. This kind of triangulation doesn’t blunt Republican attacks; it validates them. Every state that once embraced sports bans or “compromise” restrictions has since escalated to banning medical care, censoring books, and policing bathrooms. Capitulation has never advanced LGBTQ+ rights—not in policy, not in public opinion, not once. Democrats aren’t losing because they’ve been too loud or too firm in defending equality; they’re losing because the far right invests in its own moral narrative while Democrats second-guess theirs. The only way forward is to stand unapologetically on principle—as Andy Beshear did in Kentucky, citing it as the very reason for his success—not to chase the approval of consultants who mistake cowardice for strategy and appeasement for leadership.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Critics condemn Robby Starbuck, appointed in lawsuit settlement, for ‘peddling lies and pushing extremism’
Robby Starbuck speaks in an interview in New York in March. Photograph: Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images
A prominent anti-DEI campaigner appointed by Meta in August as an adviser on AI bias has spent the weeks since his appointment spreading disinformation about shootings, transgender people, vaccines, crime, and protests.
Robby Starbuck, 36, of Nashville, was appointed in August as an adviser by Meta – owner of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and other tech platforms – in an August lawsuit settlement.
Since his appointment, Starbuck has baselessly claimed that individual shooters in the US were motivated by leftist ideology, described faith-based protest groups as communists, and without evidence tied Democratic lawmakers to murders.
Starbuck’s online posts have not changed in tenor since the “anti-DEI agitator” was brought into the Meta fold, and his Trump administration connections raise broader questions about the extent to which corporate America has capitulated to the Maga movement.
The Guardian repeatedlycontacted Meta for comment on Starbuck’s role, and his rhetoric online, but received no response.
The Guardian also contacted Starbuck via an email address associated with his website. In part, he responded: “It seems your piece is an attempted hit job meant to punish Meta for working with me on AI fairness. Nothing I’ve said has been on behalf of Meta – they work with people from every political background.”
He added: “My role is simple: work to make AI fair for everyone, regardless of their views. That’s a goal anyone who believes in fairness should support. What you’re really trying here looks like cancel culture and activism dressed up as journalism, and I won’t cower for holding the same views as the political party that won the popular vote less than a year ago in America.”
Heidi Beirich, the co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, said: “It is appalling that Robby Starbuck was given a hand in Meta operations in any capacity. He peddles lies and pushes extremism, and it is hard to believe any of this will help make their platforms safer or better.”
Eric Bloem, vice-president of corporate citizenship at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, said: “People should be able to find safe, welcoming communities online. Robby Starbuck pushes a dangerous anti-LGBTQ agenda, spreading disinformation and denying the very existence of transgender people.”
Starbuck’s appointment to Meta via lawsuit
Starbuck, formerly a music video director, has gained attention as an opponent of corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. His pressure campaigns have frequently been directed at companies who are perceived as having conservative customer bases, and have induced major American firms to abandon internal DEI measures, or to end their relationships with pro-LGBTQ organizations like the Human Rights Campaign.
Starbuck won his role in the aftermath of one such campaign.
In the midst of a summer 2024 campaign aimed at motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson, Starbuck threatened Meta with a lawsuit over claims its Meta AI chatbot apparently made about him. In August 2024, Starbuck posted a screenshot purporting to show Meta AI’s summary of a Facebook thread of Harley riders angry that the “company chose to go woke “.
A screenshot in reply from a Harley-Davidson dealer appeared to show Meta AI asserting that Starbuck was, among other things, an adherent of the QAnon conspiracy theory, and had participated in the January 6 attack at the Capitol.
Starbuck responded: “Wow thanks for sending, Meta will hear from my lawyers since I was never at J6 and have been a longtime critic of QAnon.”
That lawsuit was filed last April. Starbuck’s appointment to work with Meta was part of the settlement. Other details of the settlement – including whether or not Starbuck was paid or is receiving ongoing compensation for the role – were not made public.
On 8 August, Meta’s chief of global affairs Joel Kaplan posted on X a joint statement with Starbuck.
In part, the statement read: “Since engaging on these important issues with Robby, Meta has made tremendous strides to improve the accuracy of Meta AI and mitigate ideological and political bias.”
The statement continued: “Building on that work, Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to continue to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias and minimize the risk that the model returns hallucinations in response to user queries.”
Bloem said: “There’s nothing unbiased about [Starbuck’s appointment].” He added: “Coupled with its January rollback of protections against hate speech across its platforms, this decision calls into question Meta’s commitment to keeping LGBTQ+ people and others safe online.”
‘Portland is working with the terrorists’
Starbuck has long pushed vaccine disinformation, and he has amplified false claims made by health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.
In July, he boosted a debunked claim made by Kennedy in an interview with Tucker Carlson, in which he claimed that hepatitis B vaccinations led to a 1,135% increase in autism risk, adding: “This is absolutely criminal. The people behind this belong in jail and the hep B shot should be pulled immediately from the childhood vaccine schedule.”
As part of his anti-DEI push, Starbuck has also spread overheated claims and falsehoods about transgender and LGBTQ people.
He has also boosted such claims made by members of the Trump administration.
In March, boosting a claim Donald Trump made in an address to Congress that the government had spent “$8m for making mice transgender”, Starbuck wrote: “Democrats are trying to pretend that Trump was wrong about the government funding a study to turn mice transgender. He was NOT wrong. This is the study and it’s vile. Eighty female mice were ‘sacrificed’ after their last injection. Democrats funded this.”
In fact, the mice studies sought to gauge the effect of hormone therapy on maladies such as wound-healing, HIV, and infertility.
Starbuck’s online demeanor has continued largely unchanged since he was appointed, with him backing far-right figures in America and around the world and posting dubious pro-Trump narratives.
Starbuck recently expressed support for authoritarians and he posted a video of Stephen Miller’s speech on the Memphis Safe Task Force, which has seen federal officers and national guard troops making arrests in there.
Starbuck added the caption: “I’ve been advocating for us to make Memphis safe again for YEARS now by carrying out similar initiatives @nayibbukele executed successfully in El Salvador and finally… It’s happening.”
El Salvador president Nayib Bukele, self-styled as the “world’s coolest dictator”, is celebrated by the far right in the US for his unconstitutional crackdown, which has seen up to more than 1.5% of the country’s population imprisoned, almost a quarter of those without trial, according to World Prison Brief.
Starbuck also baselessly asserted that city officials in Portland were working with anti-fascists, and appeared to urge a violent response. Starbuck claimed that injuries to rightwing online personality Katie Daviscourt indicated that “the leftist government in Portland is working with the terrorists”, adding: “It’s time to treat Antifa cells like we would treat Isis cells.”
In a comment on this allegation, Starbuck wrote: “The record is not in dispute. Portland councillors Angelita Morillo and Candace Avalos both publicly defended an antifa activist charged with assaulting a federal officer. Morillo has even posted tips to help antifa evade law enforcement. “
He added: “When elected officials openly side with violent extremists, they are enabling them.”
Morillo told the Guardian: “When influencers like Robby refer to ‘terrorists’, I’m not sure who they’re talking about – the guy in the frog suit? The people doing the Cha-Cha Slide outside the Ice facility in Portland? I can’t take anyone seriously who relies on sensationalized clips, AI content and outright lies to inform their thinking.”
Avalos said: “People are free to say what they like on social media. That doesn’t make their statements true, and it doesn’t mean we have to take them at face value.
“As a federal judge found in her recent ruling against the administration, the idea that there are coordinated attacks from ‘antifa, and other domestic terrorists’, as Trump alleged on Truth Social, is simply ‘untethered to the facts’. Who should we listen to: a sitting federal judge or someone with a Twitter account?”
She added: “When I advise my constituents on how to protect themselves from federal agents acting unlawfully, I am speaking to the vast majority of Portlanders, who rightfully oppose fascism and are certainly not terrorists.”
Starbuck also claimed that a high profile Trump detainee who was once incarcerated in Bukele’s brutal Cecot prison that “Kilmar Abrego Garcia [is] almost certainly an MS-13 member”.
Two federal judges this year rejected the administration’s claims that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS13, and the government was ordered to facilitate his return from El Salvador.
Commenting on his allegation, Starbuck wrote: “This is simple: an immigration court, DHS, and the president of the United States all identified Garcia as an MS-13 member. Denying it is no longer reporting – it’s spin in the pursuit of your own make-believe narrative. So once again, my language was perfectly appropriate.”
(*** Editorial edit from Scottie. This statement above by lying Starbuck is completely false yet he does as most hateful bigots do and repeat forcefully as it if it was a truth everyone knows and given by go. It is the tatic of a scammer, he is lying yet the maga media will report what he says as truth when again it is a lie. This guy is perfect for the tRump party area, if we say it then it must be the truth because we say it. Hugs *** )
‘This is domestic terrorism’
In recent weeks, Starbuck has energetically attempted to connect the alleged perpetrators of high-profile shootings to the Democratic party.
These claims culminated in a video posted to X in which he claimed that “in less than 2 weeks there have been 5 domestic terrorism attacks by leftists”, citing the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the armed attack on an ABC affiliate in Sacramento, California; the attack on a wedding reception in Nashua, New Hampshire; and the attack on an Ice facility in Dallas. Another example he offered were purported chants of “Fuck Charlie Kirk!” by leftists in New York in the wake of Kirk’s death.
In an earlier post, he cited the same events and claimed: “This is domestic terrorism”.
The man accused of the Sacramento ABC attack does have a long history of posting anti-Trump messages on social media, according to prosecutors, and spent two decades as “a lobbyist for healthcare, tribal and labor interests”, according to the New York Times.
Evidence for connections between the other perpetrators and the Democratic party, or even the broader left, is either tenuous or non-existent.
The claim about chanting demonstrators appears to arise from mid-September videos of counterprotesters who, according to videos taken by independent journalists, disrupted a memorial vigil for Charlie Kirk in New York’s Washington Square. The identities, allegiances, and organizational affiliations of the counterprotesters are unspecified, and few media outlets reported on the story except Russian outlet Pravda.
However, Joshua Jahn, who turned his gun on himself after the Dallas Ice attack, was reportedly registered as an independent in Oklahoma, and was described by friends as someone with “a vaguely libertarian bent who despised both major parties and politicians generally, including Trump, but who didn’t engage with politics beyond that”, according to reporting by journalist Ken Klippenstein.
Hunter Nadeau, accused of killing one and wounding two others in an attack on a country club in Nashua, New Hampshire, reportedly yelled “Free Palestine” during the attack. But state attorney general John Formella said Nadeau “made a number of statements during the shooting and appeared to be attempting to cause chaos in the moment as opposed to showing a hate-based motivation”, according to NPR.
Formella added: “We don’t have any evidence to indicate that this was a hate-based act.”
Tyler Robinson, the man accused of Charlie Kirk’s murder, was reportedly registered as a non-partisan voter in Utah, although family members indicated he had moved politically to the left, according to prosecutors.
Nevertheless, investigators reportedly told NBC News that “thus far, there is no evidence connecting the suspect with any leftwing groups”.
All of the reporting clouding the political allegiances of the shooters was on the public record on 25 September, when Starbuck replied to an X user who challenged him that “every single one of the cases I just pointed out are leftists”, blaming “left wing leaders … and their crazy followers”.
Starbuck reiterated his claims about each shooter to the Guardian and linked to four sources he claimed supported him, including a Daily Mail story about Facebook posts by Joshua Jahn’s mother, and a protest footage video published to YouTube by one of the previously cited independent videographers.
He further responded with accusations about the Guardian, writing: “Why is the Guardian fixated on trying to downplay leftwing violence instead of investigating the clear surge of it?”
He added: “I don’t have the luxury of ignoring this reality – my security team and the FBI are actively handling ongoing death threats against me. The dismissiveness from outlets like yours makes you complicit in emboldening this violence.”
Meta adviser
The lawsuit that took Starbuck to Meta was carried out by a firm with Trump administration connections.
Dhillon Law Group (DLG) filed suit in Delaware on behalf of Starbuck. In a press release, the firm said Meta’s chatbot had made “provably false and defamatory statements” about Starbuck.
Between the original posts and the lawsuit, DLG founder Harmeet Dhillon was nominated and confirmed as Donald Trump’s assistant attorney general for civil rights. Trump named her as his pick in December and she was confirmed in April, weeks before Starbuck’s settlement.
According to Office of Government Ethics filings, Dhillon divested her ownership in Dhillon Law Group in the firm in favor of her brother, a non-equity partner in the firm.
In her 27 February ethics agreement, however, Dhillon wrote that she would “retain an interest in a portion of future recovery in 21 contingency fee cases based upon a fixed percentage of compensation”.
The Guardian contacted the justice department to ask whether Starbuck’s case was one of the 21 that Dhillon retained an interest in. Initially, an automated response warned that “during the current lapse in appropriations, this inbox will not be monitored on a regular basis”.
A spokesperson subsequently responded in an email, writing: “AAG Dhillon does not currently have any role in cases involving Mr Starbuck and their relationship is one of friendship and former client.”
The Guardian then asked whether or not she had a role in his case at the time it was settled in April.
The spokesperson said no.
The Guardian previously reported that Dhillon earned a six-figure salary as CEO of a nonprofit, the Center for American Liberty (CAL), according to filings from 2021, 2022 and 2023. During that period, Dhillon Law Group received more than $1.3m as a contractor to the organization over two years. Dhillon, several CAL clients and Dhillon Law attorneys also shared the services of the same Republican-aligned PR operative.
During Dhillon’s leadership, the CAL pursued a myriad of culture-war lawsuits on behalf of rightwing influencers, “de-transitioners” and parents of transgender children, and churches that had been subject to California’s pandemic restrictions.
Beirich, the extremism expert, said: “This is just another example of Meta caving to Trump and his allies, and bogus charges of political bias, and makes a mockery of fair content moderation on Meta’s various platforms.”
Elsewhere in his comments to the Guardian, Starbuck wrote: “You should be honest with Guardian readers about the fact that you’ve been accused of extremely close ties with antifa.”
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Robby Starbuck speaks in an interview in New York in March. Photograph: Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Scottie's Playtime 