This guest is an immigration attorney with expertise in ICE tactics and in ICE detention. She dispels the misunderstanding and the myths created by the tRump administartion. These detentions are civil detentions not criminal and entering the country with out inspection is a class B misdemeanor. Another thing she mentions is the ever-increasing costs for detention which is currently $200 a day per detainee and there are over 70 thousand detainees. She gives a lot of other useful to know information including the brutality in the detention centers. For example they are taking detainees out in the Everglades and forcing them to stand with hands shackled in the hot sun being eaten by misketoes and bugs. They are putting people in “hot boxes” and leaving them there in the hot Florida sun with no water or medical treatment when they are let out. She describes many more examples. Hugs
Katie Blankenship, an immigration attorney from Sanctuary of the South, a grassroots legal services organization that provides critical, affordable legal defense to immigrant families affected by detention, deportation, and abuse, joins Sam to discuss abuses at the Alligator Alcatraz ICE detention center in Florida. To find resources or ways to help those targeted by ICE in your area you can visit Freedom for immigrants, American Immigration Council or visit the ACLU to find your local affiliate.
*** Personal note*** I ran out of steam early yesterday. I only went back to bed for an hour in the morning, but by 3:30 pm, between the pain and being so tired I went to bed before 4 pm. I got up about 5:30 am. Hugs
Russia began the campaign against LGBTQ+ people by first targeting trans people as a threat to children. Then once the people got used to that line they claimed that any mention of non-cis non-straight way of living was sexualizing kids and so a threat to them. Mentioning or showing a gay person was equated with showing a kid hardcore porn. Fully nude bodies. It worked in their society. That is the play book the right wing haters / Christian nationalists have used against trans people here. How soon until they try to go the entire way to force the entire country / society to be straight and cis and that Christianity be the national religion enforced by white men who force those around them to follow their personal church doctrines. But what these nut jobs really want and understand is removing all mention and signs of being not cis or straight won’t stop LGBTQ+ people from existing. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning / queer / nonbinary, and all others not straight or cis are born to straight cis parents. What these outstanding moral Christians like Congress person Randy Fine from Florida want is that non-straight and non-cis kids be harassed and assaulted like when he was in school making them afraid to come out or be themselves publicly. In other words these haters want the facade of a straight cis country such as when one of the presidents of Iran said they did not have any gay people in his country ignoring a well know community that was there. They want anyone not like them to be afraid to live their lives in case they are discovered. They think that will please their god. The god who they believe created all people also created the LGBTQ+ ones as well. They think that the all knowing god will not know people are faking it due to fear and that they will be rewarded for causing that fear in the LGBTQ+ community. Very Christian of them. Hugs
The designation could mean anybody associated with the group risks years behind bars for supporting an extremist organization — akin to terrorism charges under the nation’s criminal code.
A gay rights activist wearing a headpiece walks ahead of a squad of gay rights activists, during a traditional May Day rally in St.Petersburg, Russia, Thursday, May 1, 2014. The poster reads : ‘Love is stronger than war!’ (AP Photo, File)
A Russian court on Monday labelled the country’s top LGBTQ rights group as “extremist,” effectively outlawing the organization and paving the way to prosecute its supporters.
Russia has for years targeted LGBTQ organizations but has become even more hostile since launching its full-scale assault of Ukraine in 2022, massively accelerating the country’s hardline conservative turn.
On Monday, a court in St. Petersburg ruled in favor of a case brought by the Russian justice ministry to brand the Russian LGBT Network — a top LGBTQ rights nonprofit — “extremist.”
“The public movement has been designated as an extremist organization, and its activities are banned in Russia,” the court’s press service said on Telegram.
The hearing was held behind closed doors.
The designation could mean anybody associated with the group risks years behind bars for supporting an extremist organization — akin to terrorism charges under Russia’s criminal code.
Amnesty International in February slammed the justice ministry’s move to seek the label.
“This move reflects a deliberate strategy by the Kremlin to legitimize and weaponize homophobia in its assault on dissent and equality,” said Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia director.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has for years denounced anything that goes against what he calls “traditional family values” as un-Russian and influenced by the West.
In 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court banned what it called the “international social LGBT movement” as an “extremist organisation”.
As part of the crackdown, Russia has in recent years targeted LGBTQ clubs and bars, raiding them and arresting owners.
Courts have also issued fines and short-term jail sentences to people displaying LGBTQ “symbols,” such as clothes, jewelry or posters featuring the rainbow flag.
Political violence is on the rise — making the job more dangerous for state lawmakers and posing new challenges for state law enforcement officials.
Every high-profile act of violence sets off new waves of threats and fears of more — the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September sent chills down the spines of elected officials throughout the country. But Utah, where he was killed, was already ahead of the curve on addressing threats to lawmakers and high-profile public officials.
Nine years earlier, it had set up a new unit to track and prevent violence against public officials.
The unit follows a four-step process, said Taylor Keys, a spokesperson for the state Department of Public Safety: It receives and identifies reports of threats and concerning behaviors, gathers the facts, assesses the individual’s risk of posing a real physical threat, and then manages the risk with intervention and case management.
But many states aren’t as proactive and prepared as Utah. Most state legislatures are in session only part-time, and many of the state enforcement agencies charged with protecting them are stretched thin and lack standardized procedures for reporting threats, collecting data and conducting regular training.
A spate of high-profile violent attacks over the past year threw this reality into stark relief.
And for some lawmakers, the environment is becoming untenable: Two recent reports show that harassment, abuse and violence are leading factors driving women and younger legislators, especially, to exit office.
State legislatures shape consequential policy and serve as a critical pipeline for higher office. But serving in office and entering the pipeline to power poses increasingly high risks to personal safety, especially for groups already underrepresented in the halls of power. While being a state lawmaker is a part-time job with a part-time salary in most states, lawmakers can’t opt out of being a full-time public figure.
“Elected and appointed officials live in a risk environment by nature of their job and their outward, public-facing positions,” said former Lt. Col. Tim Cameron of the Wyoming Highway Patrol, who spoke to The 19th in 2025 before he retired from the agency after more than 46 years in law enforcement. “Within the last year and a half to two years, that’s moved into a threat environment.”
The 19th spoke with experts and reached out to state-level law enforcement agencies in all 50 states to capture a comprehensive picture of the scope of political violence against state lawmakers and how law enforcement is responding. Officials in a dozen states told The 19th how they identify and respond to threats, what data they collect, and how they’re adapting their responses and procedures to an ever-evolving landscape.
As political violence is on the rise, many states are scrambling to keep pace. Political violence, Cameron said, was a major topic of discussion at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference he attended in 2025.
“Anyone charged with executive protection is really looking closely at what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and looking to utilize technology to leverage that in every way they can,” he said. “So it is going to be a challenge moving forward. And nobody has enough people.”
A February report from the nonprofit organization Future Caucus, based on interviews and surveys with 89 young lawmakers in 31 states, found that threats of violence “have become a serious deterrent to both candidate recruitment and retention,” especially for women, lawmakers of color and LGBTQ+ lawmakers.
“This is a four-alarm fire,” said Layla Zaidane, the president and CEO of Future Caucus, which supports young state lawmakers in bridging divides and working on policy across the political aisle.
“They can stomach the low pay. They can stomach no staff. They can handle even trying to figure out the toxic polarization and transcending that,” Zaidane said of young lawmakers. “But political violence was the thing that, when you add it all together, was the decider of: ‘I don’t know if I’m going to run again, I don’t know if this is worth it.’”
The rise in violent incidents is having an outsized impact on women, who make up half of the United States population but account for only a third of state lawmakers; even fewer women of color are represented in the political arena.
And when it comes to hyperpolarization and the increasingly toxic and hostile climate in state capitols, “women bear the brunt of this, multi-fold, compared to their male peers,” said Aparna Ghosh, the founder and executive director of the Ghosh Innovation Lab, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research and builds tools to support diverse and representative state legislatures.
A report the Ghosh Innovation Lab published last summer, based on 60 interviews and a nationally representative survey of over 300 women legislators, concluded that the assassination of Hortman “exposed a crisis that has been building for years.” Women lawmakers, the report found, “face systematic harassment, threats, and violence that compromise their safety, well-being, and democratic participation.”
The report found that 93 percent of women lawmakers said they experienced some form of harm or abuse in office, 59 percent said it disrupted their legislative duties and 32 percent said it impacted their desire to stay in office.
“It’s not just about an incident, but it’s about the everyday things that add up that push them out of office,” Ghosh said. “This is a huge problem for democracy, because this constant harm that women are facing is eroding the intent to run for office, so it’s eroding democracy in some way.”
(Emily Scherer for The 19th)
In the wake of Hortman’s assassination, several states have weighed legislation that would allow lawmakers to have their home addresses and other identifying information removed from public records. And as federal campaign spending on security expenses has continued to climb into the millions, 25 states now officially or informally authorize state candidates to use campaign funds for personal security, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Vote Mama Foundation.
The role of law enforcement has also come under scrutiny, with the Ghosh Innovation Lab report concluding that state capitols and law enforcement “systematically fail to protect women legislators.”
The top safety shortcomings identified by women legislators surveyed for the report were a lack of training in handling threats (53 percent), the absence of a panic button for reporting incidents (46 percent) and unclear reporting procedures (42 percent). They also cited inadequate technological solutions, insufficient legal support, buildings feeling overly exposed, too few security officers and poor coordination with law enforcement.
“Whatever training they’re getting is their own responsibility, and that’s part of where the system breaks down,” said Ghosh. “It’s two things: One is that we’re not a proactive system, we react to incidents, that is one huge thing. And the second is it feels like safety and security is a legislator problem, not an institutional problem.”
At the federal level, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) protects members of Congress, often in coordination with local law enforcement, and issues regular public assessments indicating that threats against federal lawmakers are on the rise.
But far less is known about the risk environment and security landscape for state lawmakers.
States have widely varying levels of security for their state capitol complexes and different open carry rules. A 2024 review from the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau found that 39 states use metal detectors in their capitol buildings, 31 use X-ray machines to scan packages and belongings and 10 require visitors to have photo identification.
Many states have dedicated capitol police forces, specialized units within state police or highway patrols responsible for protecting lawmakers and executive officials, or both. Local sheriff’s offices and police departments also respond to reports of threats from state lawmakers.
“The big problem is that there’s no standardization in the protocols and processes, and this is the gray zone where the system breaks down,” Ghosh said.
To get a clearer picture of the protection landscape, The 19th asked these questions to state agencies responsible for protecting state lawmakers in all 50 states:
What steps should a lawmaker take if they receive a threat?
What are the agency’s processes for identifying and responding to threats?
Does the agency collect data or produce threat assessments on threats to public officials, including state lawmakers? If not, are there plans to start collecting that data and/or to make it public, as the U.S. Capitol Police does?
Has the agency implemented or plans to implement any additional security measures, safety plans or training for state lawmakers/capitol protectees in the wake of the Hortman and Kirk shootings?
Representatives of law enforcement agencies in 27 states responded to The 19th’s inquiries. Representatives of agencies in four states declined to comment, and 19 did not respond to requests for comment. Of the agencies that responded, many declined to share specific security plans or details but said they were committed to ensuring the security of state elected officials and those working at and visiting state capitol complexes.
The basics are the same: All agencies said lawmakers should immediately report a threat to a state, capitol or local law enforcement agency. But where lawmakers report threats can vary depending on whether the legislature is in session and the nature of the threat: a lawmaker might report a threat to the state capitol police or the highway patrol if the legislature is in session, or to their local police or sheriff’s department if they’re in their home county.
All the law enforcement officials emphasized that keeping evidence of threats is important.
Chris Loftis, a spokesperson for the Washington State Patrol, also said lawmakers should preserve “all evidence, including emails, voicemails, and social media posts” and are “advised not to engage directly with the individual making the threat.”
States use different methods to identify and trace threats. Many said they work with other agencies to monitor, identify and respond to threats. New York State Police spokesman Beau Duffy said the agency has a team of social media analysts who identify threats. Sgt. Ricardo Breceda of the New Mexico State Police said they use a variety of sources, including law enforcement databases.
“Our response depends on the nature and severity of the threat and can range from routine follow-up investigations to the activation of specialized tactical teams if necessary,” Breceda said.
Some officials and courts have found that some harassing and abrasive rhetoric directed at public officials falls under the First Amendment’s free speech protections, a finding that has at times frustrated lawmakers. Zaidane pointed to a 2021 case in which a man charged with making a threat to a Michigan state legislator’s office was acquitted after his lawyer said he was “just blowing off steam.”
“I think, at a minimum, better enforcement of laws and coordination with law enforcement would make lawmakers feel like the system has their back,” Zaidane said. “Like there are still bright lines that we should not cross in America and that we are committed to upholding those.”
Another thing lawmakers want more of, Ghosh said, is data.
For over 20 years, the U.S. Capitol Police has published annual public threat assessments detailing the number of threats they investigate. In new data released in January, the USCP’s Threat Assessment Section reported investigating nearly 15,000 “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications” against lawmakers, their families, staff and the U.S. Capitol complex in 2025, marking the third consecutive year the USCP has investigated more threats.
But most state law enforcement and state capitol security agencies either don’t collect or don’t publish such statistics. Utah is one of just a few states in the country that collects statewide data on threats to state lawmakers and produces assessments. The lack of comprehensive data from official sources makes it difficult to know the scope and scale of political violence against state lawmakers.
“They want that kind of tracking and monitoring system,” Ghosh said of women lawmakers. “They want security briefings annually.”
Some state agencies told The 19th they don’t have a full picture of how threats are reported and investigated across their states because jurisdictions respond differently to threat reports. Several others said they do centrally collect that data but don’t release it for security reasons.
“We collect data, but sometimes we’re not aware of the other complaints that potentially could be made to the sheriff of whatever respective county,” said Cameron of the Wyoming Highway Patrol.
Some state agencies share data with other law enforcement authorities, including through fusion centers.
Ghosh said women lawmakers also want more official safety training from law enforcement — many told her that they spend thousands of dollars out of pocket for self-defense and security training.
“They want systems to back them up and say, ‘We’re going to prepare you for what’s coming,’ even if it doesn’t happen,” Ghosh said.
Many states are working to expand security as well as training for lawmakers in the wake of the Minnesota shooting, though most declined to share specifics.
Cameron said that in Wyoming, the conversation about improving protective operations “never stops.” The state Highway Patrol has a trooper focused on protective intelligence who attended a threat intelligence course at the U.S. Marshals Service headquarters in Crystal City, Virginia, and investigates threats against lawmakers, he said.
“We’re constantly training our people. We recently instituted a special response team, more or less a SWAT unit, but they’re cross-trained to do executive protection,” he added. “Sometimes we’ll activate some of those members, so our [executive protection division] has additional personnel, either for advanced work or on site work or escort work.”
He said he’d like to see more adoption of drones and drone technology, an area where law enforcement in the United States is “behind,” to protect the state capitol and lawmakers.
Ghosh said the women lawmakers she’s spoken to need three things to carry out their work: to feel prepared, protected and nurtured.
“It’s simple things, right?” she said. “Their safety needs to feel well supported and ready to do the work that they’re meant to do. They want these three things, and when it breaks down is when they’re unable to do this work.”
This is a thing for me: I’m one of those who says, “Watch the primary candidates. Pay attention, and make a decision based on who resonates with what I want. Do this without tearing apart the other primary candidates (in my party.)” Without tearing apart candidates who could end up winning the primary, because face it: in my state, and even here on Scottie’s Playtime, most people are not as liberal as I am. So, in the primary, I vote for who I want. In the general, so far, it’s always gonna be a Dem, and Dems have a hard enough time running against always well-funded Republicans, and who, in my state, are also the majority, passing laws to make it more difficult to elect anyone who isn’t a rightwingnutjob Republican. This is the thing I dislike about some “media” who count themselves as liberal: they make a choice based on a single issue (and, frankly, the gender of the candidates often figures in, like it or not; many like a “bro”) then proceed to eviscerate the primary oppo. This suppresses the actual vote because people take the message that everyone’s basically the same, so no point voting in the primary, or at all.
Here in Kansas, we’ve got an experienced woman running for Governor. She’s been in the legislature for a while, knows who she’d be working with, and is familiar with government law and procedure. So far, there really isn’t anything to undercut her, from what I know. She’s not as liberal as I am, but is left-moderate enough to allow me to communicate with her what I believe she should do in her work, and to actually consider it on some level. Then, we’ve got a young man running. Nothing wrong with him that I can see, either, except he’s not got as much experience in state governance. This will put him at a disadvantage working with our legislature, which might/maybe/could turn less red but likely will remain Republican majority. I haven’t decided who I prefer as yet. I know of her, not so much yet of him. I like what they each say, as far as we know from this report.
So, she did point out that he has accepted donations from CoreCivic and from their lawyers. He’s also said more than once that he will continue to oppose CoreCivic moving back into KS and opening an I.C.E. detention center. Personally, I believe a person can take some campaign contributions without becoming the donators’s best friend in government. It happens more frequently than people realize. In this system we have with no public campaign finance, the campaigns need money, and will have to take legal donations. Brava/o to anyone who truly has never done that; I know it can be done, but it’s a special district who will get out and support their candidate, with the price of running a campaign these days.
So I am not holding campaign contributions against anyone as yet. Actions speak louder than words. So far, there is nothing in either candidate’s actions that make me distrust either one. I also am not unhappy with the way this forum went as far aswe know; where while the candidates pointed out differences between them, there was not out-&-out “crushing” or “destroying” or “ripping” of each other. Here’s (below) a news story about KS’s Dem. Gubernatorial campaign. What I’m most disappointed about is the number of lines given to reviewing the campaign contributions, rather than each of their answers to the other questions listed in the story below. There could have been plenty of space for that if they’d merely reported the campaign contribution issue along with the rest, rather than dwelling on it. But, even the KS Reflector is not a friend of Democrats; it’s the same sort of coverage we always getthough better than known mainstream.
In the midst of the coarse political rhetoric that seems worse every passing year (and does not originate with actual Democrats!), I hope we can remember: in the primary, choose the one most close to your perfection, which means supporting them: discussing things in their favor, giving positive reasons for your support, and not eviscerating the other candidates. This works in all U.S. primary elections everywhere.After that, support the one who wins. Otherwise, we get a fkin’ Republican.
SHAWNEE — Kansas Sen. Cindy Holscher positioned herself at a Sunday night Democratic forum as the anti-establishment candidate for governor with a history of winning in legislative districts formerly held by Republicans.
Her top opponent in seeking the party’s nomination, Kansas Sen. Ethan Corson, argued he is the only one who could win in the November general election.
The candidates staked out nearly identical policy positions during the 50-minute forum at the Aztec Shawnee Theater. The questions were submitted in advance by Kansas Young Democrats.
Both support raising the state’s minimum wage, making it easier to vote, and access to reproductive health care.
And they both identified the Republican supermajorities in the state House and Senate as their real opponent.
Holscher, from Overland Park, said Republicans were unable to lower property taxes during this year’s legislative session, despite their ability to pass anything they want.
“So they keep going back to the culture war issues,” she said. “And this past session, instead of solving actual issues of affordability and putting more money in your pockets, what did we get? We got this bathroom bill. We got two Charlie Kirk bills. None of those are going to put money in your pockets.”
Corson, from Fairway, touted his endorsements from Gov. Laura Kelly, former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes.
“Leading candidates in the Republican Party want to take Kansas backwards on reproductive freedom, public education and so many other issues,” Corson said. “We cannot let that happen. That is why this campaign has earned the support of trusted leaders who understand both the stakes and what it takes to win a statewide election in Kansas.”
Holscher’s response: “I’m running on my record, not the coattails of the establishment.”
About 150 people showed up to hear the two Johnson County Democrats make their case for the August primary vote. A dozen or more people wore bright blue Holscher T-shirts, and at least a couple donned black Corson T-Shirts. An engaged crowd, and available alcohol, ensured a spirited reaction to comments.
They applauded Corson when he said the city of Leavenworth was wrong to approve a conditional use permit for CoreCivic to reopen its private prison as an immigration detention center.
“I believe that private prisons have no place in our carceral system,” Corson said. “I will never support a private prison being built in Kansas. I will never support an ICE detention facility being built in Kansas.”
But the loudest applause came when Holscher attacked Corson for having taken the maximum campaign donation from CoreCivic during his 2024 Senate campaign, and $5,000 from the law firm representing CoreCivic for his gubernatorial campaign.
“You can’t say you’re against private prisons or ICE detention facilities when your campaigns and personal life are intertwined with that very business,” Holscher said. “I have consistently stood with the community opposing ICE overreach. I have never taken CoreCivic money and never will.”
A spokesman for Holscher later clarified that Corson received donations of $4,000 from Anna Kimbrell on Nov. 19, 2025, and $1,000 from Ed Wilson on Oct. 27, 2025. The two are partners for Kansas City, Missouri, law firm Husch Blackwell, which represented CoreCivic in the company’s lawsuit against Leavenworth.
The start of the forum was delayed 45 minutes because the two candidates discovered the party had given them different sets of rules. Party chair Jeanna Repass declined to say what the discrepancy was, but she insisted it was “minor.”
Before the candidates took the stage amid the rumble of storms outside, there was a moment of silence for the attempted violence Saturday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
“Just remember,” Repass said, “we don’t solve our differences with violence. We do it by voting.”
Questions touched on affordability, water crisis, young voters and Medicaid expansion.
Corson said the state should invest in building 100,000 houses per year, including 5,000 in rural areas, and work to make higher education accessible to any young person who wants it.
“I’m going to be in my mid-40s, and my wife and I, every single month, are still paying our student loans,” Corson said. “So I understand what it means for higher education to be unaffordable, to feel inaccessible, and to feel like it’s crowding out all these other things that you want to do in your life, whether it’s buying your first home, starting a family.”
Holscher said she wants to hold landlords accountable for high rent and to put a cap on fees. She warned about the threat that water-thirsty data centers pose to farmers. And she pointed out that, as a member of the House in 2017, she helped pass a Medicaid expansion bill — although it was vetoed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. She also said she worked with the bipartisan caucus that eventually overturned the Brownback tax experiment.
It was her birthday, and her supporters served cake in the lobby.
“If you want someone fighting for the people, you want someone building a broad coalition of nurses, of teachers, people in your neighborhood, farmers, veterans, union members — that’s who I have on my side, not the establishment,” Holscher said.
Personal note. I am doing better. I am eating two meals a day most days. Not much for supper but something most nights. I am still fatigued / tired but I am not spending so many hours in bed. I am still going to bed early and staying in bed 12 to 14 hours. I go to in the morning and in the afternoon but that is partly due to the intense pain in my right butt and leg along with my back not just being too tired to stay up. I will try to get enough caught up enough to do a video. Ron has caught on and is paying a lot of attention to me. He is worried. He is doing everything he can around the house including doing the dishes when I am in bed so I find them done the next morning. But as I tell him this will take time. I did not get so ill overnight; I won’t get back to full strength quickly either. Hugs
Today, the government charged Cole Tomas Allen with attempt to assassinate the president, interstate transportation of a firearm, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Prosecutors asked a judge in the District of Columbia to detain Allen in custody pending trial.
The charges filed against Allen differ from what U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro suggested they would be over the weekend, but, as we discussed, that was to be expected, with charging decisions remaining fluid as officials learn new information. A prosecutor indicated that the attempt to assassinate Trump was made with a 12-gauge pump action shotgun, but that Allen was also carrying a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol, three knives, “and other dangerous paraphernalia.”
This is a criminal complaint, issued by a judge based on an agent’s affidavit, attesting to probable cause. The government will almost certainly follow up with a grand jury indictment in the next week or two. If they don’t, the judge will hold a preliminary hearing within 14 days if Allen remains in custody, 21 days if he’s released (which isn’t happening here), to determine whether probable cause exists. Federal prosecutors almost never go this route because it requires them to put their evidence on full display at this early stage in the proceedings, and unlike grand jury proceedings, where the defense doesn’t have a role, it permits cross-examination of the government’s witnesses. Expect a grand jury indictment shortly.
The lead charge here is “attempt” to assassinate the president, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1751, so we need to understand a little bit about that crime and what prosecutors will have to prove. An attempt is referred to as an inchoate, or incomplete crime. With attempt charges, the key questions center around whether the defendant had the intent to commit the underlying crime and whether he took a substantial step—more than mere preparation—toward completing it. Here, based on the details in the government’s affidavit, which we’ll get to in a moment, its case looks solid. Allen evidenced an intent to kill the president. And the government has plenty of evidence to argue he went beyond “mere preparation” and took a substantial step toward committing the offense, since he was armed and running for the door to the ballroom, at the point when he was arrested.
The penalties for attempt and for the underlying offense are almost always the same under federal law, and that’s true here, with the statute providing for up to life imprisonment upon conviction.
Allen is also charged, as we expected last night, with violating 18 USC 924(c), which prohibits using a firearm “in furtherance of” a crime of violence. It carries a 10-year penalty if the firearm is fired, which is how Allen is charged. The complaint adds in one count of 18 U.S.C. 924(b), which makes it a crime for anyone who intends to commit a felony to transport a firearm across state lines. The punishment for that crime is up to 10 years in prison.
In order to get the complaint, the government had to provide the judge with a sworn affidavit from a federal agent. The 7-page affidavit provides some interesting details about the government’s evidence, but contains standard language advising the judge that “This affidavit is intended to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested complaint and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.”
On March 2, President Trump announced he would attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, according to the affidavit. Allen then:
Made a hotel reservation at the Washington Hilton on April 6 for the night before, the night of, and the night after the dinner.
Traveled by train from his home near Los Angeles to Chicago, and from Chicago to Washington, D.C.
Checked into the Washington Hilton hotel the night before the dinner and remained there overnight.
We also get detail that we’ve been lacking until now about what happened when Allen approached the security checkpoint ahead of the ballroom. The affidavit recites that, “ALLEN approached and ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun. As he did so, U.S. Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot. U.S. Secret Service Officer V.G. was shot once in the chest; Officer V.G. was wearing a ballistic vest at the time. Officer V.G. drew his service weapon and fired multiple times at ALLEN, who fell to the ground and suffered minor injuries but was not shot. ALLEN was subsequently arrested.” Both of the firearms in Allen’s possession were purchased in California, which explains the transportation charge.
The affidavit also gives us a look at Allen’s full “manifesto,” some parts of which will have legal significance for the prosecution. He begins with a series of apologies to family and friends, including one that confirms his intent to kill:
“I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.”
And he specifies who his targets are, “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.” He writes that Secret Service agents, hotel security, Capitol police, and the National Guard are “targets only if necessary,” if they get in his way, and that hotel employees and guests are “not targets at all.” This careful delineation will be used by the government to establish his intent to assassinate the president. Although he doesn’t mention Trump by name, he writes: “And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” an apparent reference to the president.
The government will offer the manifesto as evidence of the intent they have to show to convict on the attempt charge. He signed the manifesto “Cole ‘coldForce’ ‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen.”
At the end, he seems to have added a rant about what he says is the Secret Service’s incompetence after he arrived at the hotel, discussing the absence of security or suspicion when he entered the hotel, before writing, “Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce [This is a nickname for the M2 Browning, a heavy machine gun] in here and no one would have noticed s–t.”
The government brought its charges promptly, they appear to be based on solid evidence, and a career prosecutor was in the courtroom today, handling the case. All of which is as it should be.
Unfortunately, it’s also now all about the ballroom, after the president did a lightning-fast pivot at his hasty press conference after the incident Saturday night to say it was why the ballroom he is building at the White House is needed. We’ve already discussed why that doesn’t make sense—the president is an invited guest to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, not the host. The dinner celebrates the freedom of the press, as in their freedom from government control, making the controversial ballroom about the last place on earth it would be appropriate to hold the dinner, unless the press association wanted to make a mockery of that treasured freedom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Political violence is horrific and deserves the condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum this incident is receiving. It’s fortunate that this incident did not result in any loss of life. There still needs to be a careful after-action report to ensure any mistakes that were made are not repeated. What this cannot become is an excuse to muddy up the freedom of the press or restrict any of the other constitutional rights Americans enjoy.
Stay with me tonight. This one runs a little long, but it’s all information you’ll need.
It’s likely that much of this week will be overshadowed by investigation into what happened Saturday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Cole Thomas Allen, a 31-year-old California man with a master’s degree from Cal Tech, approached the ballroom at the Washington Hilton armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives, and attempted to sprint through the magnetometer security checkpoint. He was stopped there. A Secret Service agent was shot, but was fortunately protected by a bulletproof vest. It’s not clear who shot him.
The White House Press Corps, still dressed in tuxedos and ball gowns, trooped into the press briefing room at the White House to hear from the President, who appeared, flanked by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and others. They, too, were still in tuxedos from the event.
It’s not clear who the “designated survivor” for the event was. CBS’ Margaret Brennan pointed out Sunday morning that “Five of the top six officials in the presidential line of succession were in attendance: Vice President JD Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.”
Trump was in good spirits as he spoke, complimenting the press and laughing about the speech he had hoped to give after dinner. It was a much more affable Trump than we’ve seen in the course of the last year as he interacted with members of the media he has often been sharply critical, or dismissive of, during his first year in office. Trump went on the attack against the press even before his January 2025 inauguration, as we discussed at the time.
This was a different Trump who spoke in a very measured fashion, far more measured than usual, almost as if he saw this incident as providing the opportunity for a reset. He respectfully took questions from reporters like CNN’s Kaitlin Collins and NBC’s Garrett Haake. He was kindly toward the press; that’s the only way to characterize it. Whether that was a momentary blip or it suggests he will try to convince the media to rebuild its relationship with him remains to be seen. He did say that the Correspondents’ Dinner would be rescheduled within a month, without seeming to understand that the Correspondents’ Association puts on the dinner and controls the event.
At the press conference, Trump was asked why this keeps happening to him—this was the third attempt on his life since he announced his run for the presidency ahead of the 2024 election. He responded that he “has studied assassinations” and that it’s the “people who do the most” that assailants go after, using Abraham Lincoln as an example. Trump said that it “only happens to impactful people” and that he didn’t want to say he “was honored” by the repeated attempts on his life, but he let the implication hang in the room.
But he did not abandon politics. As he began his comments, Trump said the incident demonstrated why the ballroom he is building at the White House is needed.
Trump reiterated his comments in a Sunday morning post on Truth Social, claiming presidents have been demanding a ballroom like the one he’s building for 150 years.
His amen corner all took up the chant on Twitter, on cue.
But, as we noted above, the dinner is run by the Correspondents’ Association, not the White House. There is no reason to believe they would use a White House ballroom for a dinner designed to celebrate freedom of the press and its independence from government. Trump can make the argument he needs a safe space to entertain, but it’s a disconnect from the event last night.
Miles Taylor commented on Threads that “The WHCD shooter will be used to justify things that have nothing to do with the WHCD shooter. Mark this moment.” That seems likely.
The immediate investigation will focus on whether the shooter was a lone wolf, as it appears, or whether there is an ongoing threat. There is reporting today that Allen was a member of a group called The Wide Awakes, who appear, based on their web presence, to be committed to “radically” reimagining the future, but look to be a group of creative, peaceful people. Law enforcement will want to determine whether someone or something radicalized Allen and directed him toward violence.
There are sure to be, and there should be, questions about the Secret Service and how this happened. Asked about that during the press conference, Trump responded that he was “very impressed by the Secret Service.” But this is the third time a would-be assassin has gotten close to Trump, and one would have expected them to tighten ranks after the first attempt. Trump, however, does not seem to have viewed any of it as a failure by the Service and he was complimentary of the D.C. police, as well, in a phoner on Fox News.
It’s important to note that the Secret Service stopped Allen at the perimeter they had established. They succeeded in that sense. The real question will be whether the perimeter should have been set further back. I’ve attended the dinner multiple times and one observes layers of security that require guests to walk up the hill to the circular drive in front of the Washington Hilton before entering the hotel, but there are parties and receptions occurring in advance of the perimeter before entering the ballroom area, and, as we now know, Allen avoided scrutiny as a guest who checked into the hotel the day before the dinner. There are real questions that will have to be confronted here to ensure protection for future dinners, to say nothing of the scads of parties that happen in connection with this dinner, and other national events that are held at the Hilton.
Late Saturday evening, D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that Allen would be arraigned on Monday. She said he will be charged with one count of assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. That could be fluid as officials learn new information. But the charges she identifies are found at 18 USC 111, which carries a 20-year maximum penalty, and 18 USC 924(c), which carries a 7-year penalty if a firearm is brandished and a 10-year penalty if it’s fired.
The motive seemed to be coming into focus throughout the day as some of Allen’s anti-administration writings were released. On Meet the Press, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said authorities believed the suspect may have been targeting Trump administration officials, including Trump himself. The basis for that belief appears to have been examination of electronic devices and some writings. But Blanche told CNN’s Dana Bash they were still looking at the motive.
As I heard seasoned journalists, many of them friends, discuss how frightening the shooting was on air Saturday night and Sunday morning, I couldn’t help but reflect on how much worse it is for America’s children. How many of them still suffer a lingering sense of trauma from the moment a shooter crashed into their classroom or their place of worship? If there’s ever been a time to pass sensible gun control laws, it’s now. If we’re going to play politics, as Trump did with immediately pivoting to justifying his ballroom, let’s play that kind and make some good trouble.
There will be in court developments in other matters to track, as well, this week:
This Wednesday will be the last regularly scheduled day for the Supreme Court to hear oral argument this term. The Court will take up two consolidated cases, Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, and consider whether the Trump administration acted properly when it revoked protected status for Syrians and Haitians living in this country. The cases involve decisions from New York and Washington, D.C., barring the administration from stripping more than 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians of protected legal status that protects them from deportation.
The cases hit the court just last month, on March 16. The Court allowed the lower courts’ decisions to remain in place, preventing deportations, determining that it would hear the case promptly, allotting an hour for oral argument. This has all happened very quickly, with the final brief being filed just last week on Monday.
There is also news on the voting front. Friday evening, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves announced that he was calling a special session of the legislature so that new maps could be drawn.
I don’t typically make news on a Friday afternoon, but today I am going to make an exception:
I’m calling a special session.
During the recently completed regular session, the Legislature discussed drawing new maps to comply with a decision from a federal judge from the… pic.twitter.com/wEnFw5xkHk
This redraw would be limited to state Supreme Court districts. A federal court found Mississippi’s state Supreme Court districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and required the legislature to pass a remedial map. But it failed to do so during the regular session. A court hearing was scheduled for this week, and the court would have likely adopted its own map. So the Governor is calling this special session in hopes the court will hold off until the legislature has time to act.
In the election last November, voters ended the Republican supermajority in the legislature, but Republicans still hold a majority of the seats in both chambers and should be able to pass a map of their own devising. So the governor likely believes a map that comes out of the legislature will be superior to one created by the court.
And finally, the SAVE Act isn’t quite dead yet. We need to stay alert to any resurgence and be prepared to call our members of Congress to demand they resist its resuscitation. Trump is again demanding that his party end the filibuster and pass the Act, saying that not doing so will “lead to the worst results for a political party in the HISTORY of the United States Senate.” It reads as an acknowledgment that only voter suppression can save the Republican Party in the midterm elections.
Utah Senator Mike Lee followed up on Trump’s command with this tweet. Lee is not up for reelection until 2028. But he, too, seems to sense that this will be a dangerous election for Republicans. The SAVE Act is one of the last-ditch efforts Republicans have to suppress the vote and hold onto power this year and again in 2028. There is no mention of crafting policies designed to win the hearts and minds of American voters. It’s just about keeping eligible American citizens from voting. We must do everything we can to resist that.
If you’ve found this useful, it’s exactly the work I do every week—reading the filings, tracking the arguments, and explaining what it means before it becomes obvious. The headlines will keep coming, but understanding them takes more than a glance. That’s what this space is for. My goal is to give you clear, careful analysis you can rely on. If that’s the kind of work you value, I hope you’ll choose to subscribe.
Scottie's Playtime 