“The records are part of a tranche of heavily redacted internal documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the nonprofit obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Though Martinez’s death on March 15, 2025, was reported by local media outlets at the time, federal and state authorities did not disclose that the shooting involved the team from HSI. In a statement Friday, DHS said the driver who was killed “intentionally ran over a Homeland Security Investigation special agent,” resulting in another agent firing “defensive shots to protect himself, his fellow agents, and the general public.”
The department did not respond to questions about why it had made no media release or other public notification of the officer-involved shooting over the last 11 months.
…
The HSI officer who the report says was struck by the vehicle was treated for an unspecified knee injury at a nearby hospital and released.
…
Reyes said she first learned her son had been shot by a federal agent, rather than a local police officer, about a week after he was killed. She was contacted by an investigator from the Rangers who she said told her there were videos of the shooting that contradicted the account provided by federal agents. DHS did not immediately respond to an email Friday about the claim that there is video showing a different account.
She said she was told by the investigator that the state report into the shooting was completed in October and that the case would be presented to a grand jury for potential criminal charges.
The Texas Department of Public Safety, which includes the Rangers, said in a statement Friday that the investigation into the shooting is still “active” and declined to offer more information.
…
Martinez’s mother said she didn’t believe he would ever intentionally assault a law enforcement officer.
“They didn’t give him a chance,” Reyes said. “It’s so excessive. They could have done anything else besides that. It’s like they shoot first and ask questions later.””
“The White House said the new tariffs take effect Feb. 24. Trump’s proclamation exempts a long list of products from the new levies, including beef, tomatoes, oranges, pharmaceuticals, passenger vehicles and certain critical minerals. It also excludes products governed by a trade deal with Canada and Mexico.
Trump vowed Feb. 20 to forge ahead and enact tariffs through other methods after the high court ruled the president doesn’t have the congressional authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
…
Trump cited another section of the 1974 Trade Act for the 10% tariffs. The new tariffs apply to countries that send the United States more than they import. But that type of tariff lasts for only 150 days, unless Congress votes to extend them.
…
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said investigations over unfair trade practices could lead to other tariffs. Trump’s proclamation directs Greer to “investigate certain unreasonable and discriminatory acts, policies, and practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.”
“We have a lot of tools out there,” Greer said. “You can look forward in the coming days and weeks to see all of that come out.””
Canadian prime minister says the US is pushing out intellectual capital by its hostility toward immigrants and against diversity, and Canada can take those brains instead to make Canada stronger rather than the US.
Iran is an evil regime and has been evil and aggressive toward the US and its friends for a long time. But, regime change without a land invasion will require a sustained effort that includes cooperating with groups on the ground, and it’s not clear the Trump administration has the strategy to succeed in such an effort.
“In just the past few weeks, Trump has floated—and senior members of his administration have defended—four policy proposals that would have been loudly denounced as socialist overreach had they come from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And for good reason. Progressives champion similar big-government policies.
Start with the proposal to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. This is not conservative policy; it’s the federal government deciding who should be allowed to buy property based on identity rather than on behavior. It substitutes political discretion for voluntary market exchange and treats ownership itself as suspect.
The proposal rests on the false premise that allowing corporate investors to own and subsequently rent out homes is a major driver of high home prices. The practice is supposedly diverting capital away from construction, limiting the number of homes changing hands and crowding out owner-occupiers.
The data say something much different. Depending on the source, institutional investors own only about 1–2 percent of U.S. single-family homes. Estimates from the American Enterprise Institute and HousingWire show that even at the upper bound, this share is far too small to plausibly explain the 50 percent nationwide increase in home prices since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
…
the idea of ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, a kind of housing-specific version of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, in an effort to lower mortgage rates. Conservatives spent the last election cycle correctly explaining that subsidizing demand in a supply-constrained housing market only pushes prices higher.
…
the proposed 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates. Price controls on unsecured credit don’t make borrowing cheaper; they make it disappear for anyone deemed risky. When banks cannot price risk to certain borrowers, they stop lending to them. But borrowers don’t stop needing credit; they just get pushed into far worse alternatives.”