Reports of ICE Operation Spark Panic in Minnesota’s Somali Community.

MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota’s Somali community is bracing for a sweeping immigration enforcement operation after President Donald Trump escalated his rhetoric against Somali immigrants and moved to strip legal protections from some refugees.

The tension has intensified with reports that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is preparing a major operation targeting Somali nationals who have final deportation orders.

According to a person familiar with internal planning, ICE has mobilized officers from across the country for coordinated actions in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area. While the stated focus is on individuals with removal orders, incidental arrests are possible—a prospect that has triggered widespread anxiety among Somali families.

The Department of Homeland Security would not confirm the operation, insisting only that ICE “enforces the law every day.”

Local officials say the atmosphere in the Twin Cities has already shifted. Community organizers report multiple arrests of Somali men this week, though the purpose and scale of those apprehensions remain unclear.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Brian O’Hara held an emergency press conference Tuesday, warning that the community is on edge.

The anxiety follows a series of harsh comments from the president. During a Cabinet meeting, Trump said he does not want Somali immigrants in the United States, claiming without evidence that they rely heavily on public assistance.

In recent days he has accused Somali refugees of “taking over Minnesota,” described Somalia as “barely a country,” and called for sending Somali immigrants “back to where they came from.”

Independent researchers dispute Trump’s claims, noting that Somali Americans work in critical sectors including health care, logistics, and manufacturing, and that a large share of the community holds citizenship or lawful status.

Minnesota is home to roughly 80,000 people of Somali descent, many of whom arrived fleeing civil war.

The looming enforcement action coincides with renewed political scrutiny over fraud schemes tied to state-run nutrition programs. While federal prosecutors have charged dozens of individuals—many of East African descent—with misusing pandemic-era child nutrition funds, investigators have repeatedly stated they found no evidence that money was funneled to terrorist groups.

Nonetheless, a recent City Journal article alleging that diverted Minnesota tax dollars “funded al-Shabaab” has taken hold in conservative media and drew direct attention from activist-writer Christopher Rufo, who urged Trump to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Somalis.

Trump soon announced he would end TPS protections, a move affecting a relatively small number of residents but one that carries symbolic weight.

Gov. Tim Walz has criticized the administration for, in his view, scapegoating an entire community for the actions of a few.

Somali American leaders say the combination of inflammatory rhetoric, sudden policy reversals, and the threat of large-scale immigration raids is creating an atmosphere of fear designed to unsettle immigrant communities.

Federal officials maintain that enforcement will focus solely on individuals with final removal orders. But for many Somali families in Minnesota—now caught in a national political battle—the distinction is becoming harder to believe.

Ireland Joins EU Push to Counter Disinformation and Strengthen Democratic Resilience. 

Ireland has formally backed a sweeping European Union initiative aimed at fortifying democratic institutions against rising threats ranging from foreign disinformation campaigns to sabotage of critical infrastructure and hybrid warfare.

At a meeting of EU cultural ministers in Brussels, Ireland’s media minister, Patrick O’Donovan, joined 25 other member states in approving a new Council policy designed to expand access to “reliable news” and enhance Europe’s ability to resist destabilizing influence operations. Only one EU state opted out.

The measure is part of the EU’s developing European Democracy Shield — a multi-pronged strategy intended to harden the bloc’s political systems, communication networks, and public institutions against a broad spectrum of threats. Officials described the effort as essential amid increasingly aggressive information manipulation tactics employed by Russia and other hostile actors.

The Democracy Shield’s mandate extends far beyond countering propaganda. It integrates long-term “preparedness and resilience” measures into cooperation frameworks between EU member states, NATO, and other international partners. The initiative is also embedded within the EU’s larger review of security, defense, and crisis readiness.

Under the new framework, the EU will intensify support for independent media organizations, expand protections for public-service newsrooms, and coordinate cross-border strategies to ensure citizens have consistent access to trustworthy information — especially during crises or elections.

A statement from the Council emphasized that cultural resilience is now recognized as a core component of European security.

“Ministers approved a comprehensive framework for protecting and promoting European values and democratic resilience in the context of geopolitical challenges,” the EU said. The policy underscores the “essential role of culture and cultural diversity in fostering cohesion, a sense of community, and civic engagement.”

The Democracy Shield initiative emerges as Europe confronts simultaneous pressures: Russian disinformation networks targeting Western public opinion, cyber intrusions into critical state infrastructure, and the lingering security vulnerabilities exposed during the pandemic.

Extreme weather events, natural disasters, industrial accidents, and armed aggression against member states are also central to the new preparedness agenda.

By joining the policy, Ireland signals its alignment with the growing European consensus that defending democracy now requires coordinated, continent-wide action — not only to counter hostile states, but to reinforce the societal foundations that make democratic governance possible.

The Omar Obstacle: How a Single Power Center in Washington Complicates Somaliland’s Path to Recognition. 

For more than three decades, Somaliland’s campaign for international recognition has rested not on military conflict but on diplomacy—on persuading the world’s major capitals that its stability, democratic governance, and distinct political identity warrant sovereign status.

Yet the greatest resistance to this goal does not come from African battlefields or regional rivals. It emerges, unexpectedly, from inside the U.S. Congress.

At the center of this resistance is Representative Ilhan Omar, whose influence over U.S. policy toward the Horn of Africa has become a formidable barrier for Somaliland’s advocates.

While framed publicly as defending Somalia’s territorial claims, her critics in Hargeisa view her role as far more consequential: a one-woman veto bloc capable of shaping Washington’s perceptions and blocking pro-Somaliland initiatives before they ever gather momentum.

From Somaliland’s vantage point, Omar’s statements on the Ethiopia–Somaliland memorandum and her sharp opposition to any departure from Mogadishu’s preferred narrative carry significant weight.

In a Congress where foreign policy bandwidth is limited and internal divisions run deep, a single influential voice—especially one representing a large Somali-American constituency—can define the entire scope of debate.

That influence effectively channels Somalia’s centralized political position into U.S. policymaking, countering Somaliland’s three decades of democratic development and self-governance.

Recent Republican outrage over Omar’s remarks underscores how polarizing—and strategically potent—this dynamic has become.

Calls for her deportation, though legally baseless as experts have emphasized, reveal something far more relevant for Somaliland: a widening political fault line in Washington.

On one side: a high-profile lawmaker advocating strongly for Somalia’s view of the region. On the other: senior Republican figures, including Governor Ron DeSantis and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, urging a hard reassessment of U.S. engagement in the Horn of Africa and increasingly receptive to Somaliland’s security and strategic value.

This division presents Somaliland with an unmistakable strategic opportunity. As interest in the Red Sea corridor intensifies and U.S. security planners look for reliable partners in a troubled region, Somaliland’s stability stands out.

Key voices within the Republican foreign-policy establishment have already signaled openness to deeper engagement, and in some cases, to formal recognition.

The objective for Somaliland’s advocates is not to inflame partisan battles, nor to pursue unrealistic outcomes. Rather, the goal is political neutralization—ensuring no single congressional figure can unilaterally shape the U.S. understanding of Somaliland’s position.

That requires cultivating a broader coalition in Congress, particularly among those who have expressed willingness to challenge longstanding U.S. policy assumptions toward Somalia.

The current controversy surrounding Omar’s remarks has created a rare opening. As Republicans publicly question her foreign-policy posture, Somaliland has an opportunity to elevate its own narrative: one grounded in democratic performance, counterterrorism reliability, and strategic relevance.

The task now is to anchor Somaliland’s case within the growing chorus of policymakers who see the region through a security lens rather than through Somalia’s internal political disputes.

If seized effectively, this moment could shift Somaliland’s standing in Washington from a peripheral issue to a serious policy consideration—reducing the disproportionate influence of its most determined political opponent and clearing space for a long-overdue reassessment of U.S.–Somaliland relations.

Democrats Launch Inquiry Into Kash Patel’s Use of FBI Jet.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have opened a formal inquiry into whether FBI Director Kash Patel improperly used a government-owned Gulfstream jet for personal travel, escalating a controversy that has simmered for months and now threatens to overshadow his leadership of the bureau.

The investigation, announced in a letter sent to the FBI late Friday, follows a series of media reports alleging that Patel used the bureau’s aircraft for trips that appeared to have little connection to his official duties—among them a flight to Pennsylvania to watch his girlfriend perform at a university wrestling event and a separate weekend excursion to Texas hosted by a major Republican donor.

In their letter, Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California describe a pattern of conduct that “raises serious ethical, fiscal, and security concerns,” asserting that Patel’s trips blur the line between official travel requirements and personal indulgence.

Patel flew to Pennsylvania in late October, the lawmakers wrote, “because your girlfriend was performing,” and returned with her to Nashville the next day aboard the government jet.

The Democrats also highlighted a previously reported trip to San Angelo, Texas, where Patel stayed at a private ranch owned by Republican megadonor Bubba Saulsbury. The ranch advertises itself as a place to “waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects,” a detail the lawmakers cited with pointed irony.

The FBI declined to comment when asked about Patel’s travel.

The inquiry relies heavily on public flight logs and social media posts by Patel’s girlfriend, which Democrats say corroborate the timing and destinations of the flights.

They have requested detailed travel records, passenger manifests, and internal communications related to the trips by December 15. But as members of the minority party, they lack subpoena power and can only request—not compel—the FBI to produce the documents.

Patel is required by executive-branch security protocols to travel on government aircraft for both official and personal trips, a rule intended to ensure immediate access to secure communications systems.

Directors must reimburse the government for the cost of personal travel at commercial coach rates, and guests must do the same. It remains unclear whether Patel has fully reimbursed the government for the flights in question.

Concerns about the director’s travel practices first came to light in May, when Senate Democrats asked the Government Accountability Office to review his use of the FBI’s fleet.

CBS News later reported that Patel appeared to use FBI aircraft for multiple weekend trips to Las Vegas—where he owns a home—and to Nashville, where his girlfriend lives.

The new House inquiry introduces a political edge to what had been, until now, a largely procedural dispute. Patel, a polarizing figure in Washington, has strong allies within the Republican Party, and his critics argue that personal travel aboard an FBI jet—even if technically permissible—undermines public confidence in the bureau’s leadership.

Raskin and Kamlager-Dove framed their request in stark terms: “These planes are not yours,” they wrote. “They belong to the American people.” Whether Patel’s use of those aircraft remains within policy boundaries is now a question that Democrats hope to answer—and one that may carry consequences far beyond reimbursement forms.

Spanish authorities say they have dismantled the country’s first known cell linked to The Base, a neo-Nazi terrorist organization designated by the European Union and known for promoting violent accelerationism.

The police operation, announced Monday, resulted in three arrests and the seizure of a weapons cache that underscores how deeply transnational extremist networks have penetrated Europe.

Investigators say the suspected cell leader—now in pre-trial detention—was operating from the province of Castellón and maintained direct contact with Rinaldo Nazzaro, the U.S.-born founder of The Base.

That connection appears to have been active and recent: officials noted that Nazzaro issued a message only weeks ago urging the consolidation of overseas cells, a call that Spanish authorities believe this group was answering.

The weapons recovered paint a stark picture of preparation rather than ideology alone. Among the items seized were two operational firearms, seven imitation weapons used for training, ammunition, more than twenty knives, tactical gear, and propaganda promoting accelerationism—the belief that democratic institutions should be violently destabilized to trigger social collapse.

Police say the individuals were “highly radicalized,” had conducted paramilitary drills, and were openly expressing readiness for selective attacks. Recruitment attempts through social media were also documented, suggesting the cell was attempting to grow.

Spain’s security services have long warned that far-right extremism, though smaller in scale than jihadist networks, is evolving into a more organized and internationally plugged-in threat.

The arrests come amid a broader rise in nationalist sentiment, particularly among young voters, and a renewed cultural debate over Spain’s authoritarian past.

That tension has created fertile ground for extremist narratives imported from abroad, especially groups like The Base that deliberately target disaffected youth seeking identity and belonging.

While the police operation appears to have disrupted a group still in early stages of formation, the case highlights how accelerationist ideology travels easily across borders and adapts to local contexts.

The fact that an American-founded extremist movement has found adherents in Spain who were preparing for violence suggests European security officials may now have to confront an increasingly networked form of far-right militancy—one that is inspired, radicalized, and coordinated online, but operational in physical space.

Spanish officials say more arrests are possible as investigators analyze digital communications and trace potential connections to other extremist circles in Europe.

For now, the dismantling of this cell represents an early-warning moment: a reminder that the threat from violent white supremacist organizations is no longer confined to the United States but is actively embedding itself inside Europe’s political and social vulnerabilities.

ANALYSIS — Trump’s $2 Trillion Ukraine Plan Isn’t About Peace. It’s About Profit.

The most explosive element of President Trump’s emerging plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war is not the territorial concessions or security guarantees that have dominated diplomatic debate. It is the money.

According to a detailed Wall Street Journal investigation, Trump’s envoys—real estate magnate Steve Witkoff and former White House adviser Jared Kushner—have been negotiating directly with Russian officials to position U.S. businesses, donors, and Trump-aligned investors to reap extraordinary gains once a cease-fire is reached.

The discussions center on reshaping Russia’s postwar economy into a joint U.S.-Russia commercial ecosystem, leveraging American capital to unlock Russia’s immense natural resources and revive its $2 trillion economy.

Witkoff, in comments to the Journal, described a future where the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine become partners in sweeping reconstruction and investment schemes. The pitch is simple: if everyone profits, conflict becomes less likely.

At the heart of these talks lies roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets—funds Moscow wants redirected not to Ukraine or its allies, but to U.S.-led investment vehicles that would allow sanctioned Russian industries to reenter global markets under American supervision.

Russian officials have dangled lucrative ventures: Arctic mineral extraction, natural gas megaprojects, and even joint space initiatives with SpaceX.

Trump-adjacent donors stand to benefit. Gentry Beach—Trump Jr.’s longtime friend and a campaign donor—is reportedly pursuing a stake in a Russian Arctic gas enterprise. Another megadonor, Stephen P. Lynch, has been working with Trump Jr. to purchase the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if sanctions are lifted.

For Moscow, the strategy is geopolitical as much as economic. By offering American investors a central role in rebuilding Russia’s commercial power, the Kremlin seeks to fracture the transatlantic consensus, drive a wedge between Washington and European capitals, and reshape the postwar order in its favor.

Trump’s initial 28-point peace proposal, drafted with input from Russian officials, reflected this tilt: it required Ukraine to make significant territorial concessions and reduce its military capabilities to a level critics say would leave it defenseless.

The plan met an immediate backlash from European governments and from members of Trump’s own party, prompting ongoing revisions.

The updated European-backed framework removes the requirement that Ukraine cede territory upfront and raises the cap on its future military strength.

Negotiations are continuing, but the underlying tension remains: Washington’s diplomatic effort is increasingly intertwined with a potential economic realignment centered on private U.S. investment in Russia.

Lost in this swirl of billion-dollar ventures is Ukraine itself. Trump rejected Kyiv’s request for Tomahawk missiles earlier this year, a decision that Ukrainian officials say weakened their negotiating leverage.

Witkoff instead suggested that Kyiv request a 10-year exemption from U.S. tariffs—an offer that underscores how economic priorities now sit at the center of Washington’s approach.

Meanwhile, Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, abruptly resigned, saying he had been “frozen out” of the peace process as business figures took a more prominent role.

The shift raises profound questions about whether U.S. policymaking is being driven by national strategy or by private commercial ambitions aligned with the president’s inner circle.

What the leaked plan reveals is not simply a diplomatic blueprint, but a vision of a postwar order in which profit is the stabilizing force. It is a bet that economic interdependence—not accountability for aggression—will prevent future conflict.

Whether Ukraine can survive such a model, economically or territorially, remains far less clear.

$1.7 Billion Question: Where Did Minnesota’s Money Really Go?

Minnesota’s Republican congressional delegation has escalated a brewing political and security controversy, calling for a sweeping federal investigation into alleged large-scale welfare fraud and the possibility that stolen taxpayer funds may have been diverted to the Somali extremist group Al-Shabaab.

In a formal letter addressed to U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the delegation — including Representatives Tom Emmer, Pete Stauber, Michelle Fischbach, and Brad Finstad — urged the Justice Department and DHS to launch an immediate probe into what they describe as systemic failures under Gov. Tim Walz’s administration.

Their request marks a significant escalation of concerns that have simmered for years in Minnesota, home to one of the largest Somali populations in the United States and the epicenter of several high-profile fraud cases.

Representative Pete Stauber drew renewed attention to the scale of remittances leaving the state, claiming that in 2023 alone, an estimated $1.7 billion was transferred from Minnesota to Somalia — a figure he argues should prompt rigorous scrutiny in light of recent criminal cases.

At the heart of the lawmakers’ letter is an allegation with national-security implications: that money stolen through state welfare programs may have been redirected, directly or indirectly, to Al-Shabaab.

The delegation wrote that it was “bad enough” that public funds may have been siphoned away from vulnerable Minnesotans, but warned that “there is good reason to believe” those dollars may be “going straight into terrorists’ hands.”

Al-Shabaab, designated by the U.S., U.N., and African Union as a terrorist organization, remains one of the most active militant groups in East Africa. A financial link — even indirect — between Minnesota’s fraud cases and the group would represent a profound breach in oversight and a major intelligence failure.

While no federal agency has publicly confirmed such a connection, the Republicans argue that state authorities have mishandled fraud investigations and failed to implement safeguards capable of preventing large-scale abuse.

They are now urging federal prosecutors to examine not only individual fraud schemes but also the broader architecture of state oversight under Gov. Walz.

If launched, a federal inquiry of this scope could become one of the most politically explosive investigations in recent Minnesota history. It would also broaden the debate from questions of administrative competence to matters involving counterterrorism, financial tracing, and international security.

For now, the delegation’s push signals a profound shift: what began as a state-level welfare scandal is being reframed as a potential national-security failure with implications far beyond Minnesota.

The coming weeks will determine whether federal authorities embrace the call for an expanded investigation — and how deeply they are willing to dig into one of the most contentious issues now gripping the state.

Abdiaziz Farah Sentenced to 28 Years in Feeding Our Future Fraud

Minneapolis Man Convicted in Massive $250M Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme

Lakeville Man Pleads Guilty in $250 Million Feeding Our Future Fraud Case

Key Figure in Feeding Our Future Scandal Pocketed $1.6 Million

The Feeding Our Future Fraud: FBI Unmasks Massive Scam in Minnesota

Aimee Bock Trial: Prosecutors Unravel Massive $250M Feeding Our Future Fraud

Minnesota Woman Pleads Guilty in $5.7M Feeding Our Future Fraud

Somali-American Leader Sentenced to 17 Years for Role in $250M Feeding Our Future Fraud

FBI Forensic Accountant Tracks Misused Taxpayer Funds in Feeding Our Future Trial

Minnesota: Somali Journalist Admits Guilt in $250M Fraud Scandal

Somali Refugee Pleads Guilty to Stealing Millions in COVID Fraud Scheme

Lakeville Man Arrested for Intimidating Witness in Major Federal Fraud Case

Fatal Attack in DC: Trump Goes Nuclear on Immigration Policy.

The deadly shooting that left one National Guard member dead and another critically wounded just blocks from the White House is poised to dominate this week’s Sunday political shows, reshaping the national conversation on security, immigration, and executive power.

The attack — which officials say was carried out by an Afghan national who entered the U.S. in 2021 — has already prompted sweeping federal actions and injected new volatility into an already fevered political climate.

Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, of the West Virginia National Guard, died on Thursday from her injuries. Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in critical condition.

Their service and sacrifice will be central to West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s appearance on Fox News, where he is expected to call for federal accountability while honoring the two Guard members.

President Trump responded within hours of the shooting, ordering an immediate halt to all immigration from Afghanistan and directing additional federal forces into Washington. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the deployment of 500 more National Guard troops, portraying the move both as a show of strength and a warning.

“If criminals want to conduct things like this… we will never back down,” Hegseth said during a trip abroad. “President Trump will never back down.”

The suspect, identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, entered the United States under Operation Allies Welcome — the Biden-era resettlement program for Afghans who assisted U.S. forces.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has seized on that detail, calling the admissions process “unvetted” and “reckless,” setting the stage for her high-profile interviews on NBC and ABC.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is expected to go further on Fox News, where she will outline the Justice Department’s intention to pursue the death penalty. The charges against Lakanwal already include first-degree murder, assault with intent to kill, and multiple firearms violations.

The shooting arrives at a delicate moment for the administration, which is engaged in a broader confrontation over military obedience and political influence. Trump and Hegseth have escalated their clash with Sen.

Mark Kelly and several Democratic lawmakers after the group released a video urging troops to reject “illegal orders.” Trump labeled the video “sedition,” even suggesting it could be “punishable by death.” The Pentagon has since opened an inquiry into Kelly — a move that will weigh heavily on his interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Kelly will be joined by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Markwayne Mullin, ensuring the dispute becomes one of the weekend’s central flashpoints.

The convergence of a deadly security incident, a sweeping immigration freeze, and an emerging constitutional fight over military command guarantees one of the most charged Sunday news cycles in recent memory.

With Trump accelerating federal actions and critics warning of political overreach, this weekend’s interviews will not merely analyze the news — they will help define the trajectory of national debate in the weeks ahead.