ICE Hires Contractors Accused Of Torturing Children Durning Trumps First Term. Again, For Immigrant Children

Federal Agents Walked Into a Polling Site to Silence a Citizen. This Is The Interview You Can’t Miss.

Think about what I am about to tell you. Federal agents walked into an active polling location in Syracuse, New York — in the middle of a primary election and confronted a poll site manager while she was working. They handed her a warning form and tried to get her to sign it. They told her to remove a months-old Instagram post or face possible state or federal prosecution. Now I have that post. And what it shows should make every American stop and pay attention. Because the post that the Department of Homeland Security called a federal crime? It does not contain a home address. It does not contain a phone number. It does not contain private information of any kind. It contains a name. A name that was already published by a newspaper. And an opinion. That is it. What Happened to Paigelynne Gonyea The woman at the center of this story is Paigelynne Gonyea, a poll site manager in Syracuse, New York. On January 8, 2026 the day after ICE agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good, a U.S. citizen and mother, during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis Gonyea made a post on her Instagram account, @turndapaigeofficialm. The post read: “BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Jonathan to be indicted!” That is the entire post. She cited the Minnesota Star Tribune. She named the officer whose name that newspaper had already published. She stated her opinion that he should face charges. And then she moved on with her life. For five months, nothing happened. Then federal agents showed up. The Name Was Already Public Before we go any further, let me be clear about the journalism behind what Gonyea posted. The Minnesota Star Tribune identified Jonathan Ross as the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good the day after the shooting — January 7, 2026. The newspaper identified him through court records, including documents from a separate case in which Ross was injured while making an arrest. Federal officials declined to identify the shooter, but the day after the shooting, the Minnesota Star Tribune identified the ICE agent as Jonathan Ross through court records. The Intercept also independently confirmed his identity on the same day. The Minnesota Star Tribune was the first to publicly identify Ross. Ross’s name appeared in news coverage across multiple major outlets. His background — military service, years with ICE, prior use-of-force incident — was all reported and publicly available. DHS had not said when or if they would release the agent’s name, but the Star Tribune named Ross because he is a government employee involved in a high-profile federal investigation. Gonyea did not discover this name. She did not dig it up from private records. She read it in a newspaper and shared it citing that newspaper along with her opinion that the officer should be indicted. That is protected speech. That is what the First Amendment exists to protect. What DHS Called a Federal Crime Five months later, federal agents came looking for Gonyea. The first contact did not happen at the polling place. Agents went to her previous address first — she had moved on June 1. The person now living there gave agents her phone number. Gonyea says he later told her the agents had their guns out when they came to the door. That specific allegation has not been independently confirmed. It needs to be verified directly with that person and through any available camera footage. I am not reporting it as fact I am reporting it as an allegation that requires follow-up. But what is confirmed is serious enough on its own. After visiting her old address, Gonyea received a voicemail from a man who identified himself as Dave Brody, a special agent with Homeland Security. He said agents had been to her apartment. He said they were calling about a post she had made “where you doxxed an ICE agent back in January.” Then he said this: “You’re not in any type of trouble.” Gonyea called him back and told him she was at work and could not leave. She was working as a poll site manager at the Central Library polling location on Salina Street in Syracuse. It was a slow primary day. No voters were inside at that exact moment but it was still an active, official polling location in the middle of an election. She said agents first asked her to come outside. She refused she was one of the poll site managers on duty and could not leave her post. So the agents came inside. Before they entered, Gonyea handed her phone to another poll worker to record the encounter. When the agents approached her, they handed her a form from ICE, DHS, and ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The form said ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility had identified a post on Gonyea’s account that it believed “may constitute a violation” of federal law. They told her to remove the post. They tried to get her to sign the form. She refused. The Post Does Not Say What DHS Claims I have reviewed the Instagram post at the center of this story. Here is what it contains: a name, Jonathan Ross. A source — the Minnesota Star Tribune. A photo of a masked agent that had already circulated widely in news coverage. And an opinion that he should be indicted. Here is what it does not contain: a home address. A phone number. A personal email. Private financial information. Any information that was not already in the public record. DHS said publicly on the record that Gonyea “committed a federal crime by posting the address of an ICE law enforcement officer online.” The post contains no address. That is not a matter of interpretation. That is what is in the post and what is not in the post. DHS made a specific factual claim. The post directly contradicts it. What DHS Said — And What It Leaves Out DHS provided a full statement for this story. Here it is in full: “This individual committed a federal crime by posting the address of an ICE law enforcement officer online. Doxxing federal law enforcement officers is a federal crime that puts their lives and their families in serious danger. This danger is not hypothetical. Our law enforcement officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists. Our officers are experiencing coordinated campaigns of violence against them and facing a more 1,300% increase in assaults against them, a 3,300% increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats. Publicizing their identities puts their lives and the lives of their families at serious risk. If you doxx our officers, we will investigate you, and you will be brought to justice.” Let me go through that carefully. DHS says she posted an address. The post I reviewed contains no address. I have submitted a follow-up question to DHS asking them to specify what information they are characterizing as an address and to cite the specific federal statute they believe she violated. I will update this story when they respond. DHS cites statistics — a 1,300 percent increase in assaults, a 3,300 percent increase in vehicular attacks, an 8,000 percent increase in death threats. Those are extraordinary numbers. DHS did not provide a source or specify the time period. I could not independently verify them before publication. They deserve scrutiny before being accepted as fact. DHS says “publicizing their identities” puts officers at risk. That is a significant statement. It is not the same as posting a home address. It is not the same as doxxing. It is saying that naming a government employee involved in a high-profile public shooting is itself dangerous. If that is DHS’s position that naming a federal officer whose identity was already reported by the Minnesota Star Tribune, the Intercept, and multiple other news outlets constitutes a federal crime then DHS is not just coming after Paigelynne Gonyea. It is coming after journalism itself. And then there is this. The same agent who left Gonyea a voicemail told her she was “not in any type of trouble.” DHS’s public statement says she committed a federal crime. Those two things cannot both be true. Nobody from DHS has explained the contradiction. The Warning That Was Left for Everyone Read the last line of DHS’s statement one more time. “If you doxx our officers, we will investigate you, and you will be brought to justice.” That is not a statement about Paigelynne Gonyea. That is a warning to everyone. Every journalist who names a federal officer connected to a shooting. Every citizen who shares a news article that identifies an ICE agent. Every person who posts an opinion about a government employee whose name is already in the public record. DHS is telling all of them: we will investigate you. That is a chilling threat. And it comes at a moment when 66 percent of Americans said in a poll that the agent who shot Renee Good should be investigated, and 53 percent said ICE behaved unprofessionally during the encounter. The public has serious questions about what happened to Renee Good. Those questions deserve answers — not federal agents showing up at polling places to silence the people asking them. The Questions That Still Need Answers Gonyea says she has been in contact with election officials, local officials, the New York attorney general’s office, the New York State Board of Elections, and the office of Rep. John Mannion. Those offices and officials now owe the public some answers. Did federal agents notify election officials before entering the polling site? Were they legally permitted to confront a poll worker inside an active polling location during a primary election? Did they know she was working in an official election capacity? Did anyone ask them to leave? And has DHS contacted anyone else over speech that named or criticized a federal officer? That last question matters because Gonyea says another person reached out to her after her story became public someone who claims the same agents visited their home after they sent a critical email to an ICE official. That claim is unverified. It requires direct interview and documentation. But if it checks out, this stops being a story about one woman and one post. It becomes a story about a pattern. What This Is Really About I want to say this clearly. Federal law enforcement officers deserve to be safe. Nobody should post a law enforcement officer’s home address or private personal information online with the intent to endanger them. That is a serious matter. But Paigelynne Gonyea did not do that. She shared a name that was already in the newspaper. She cited her source. She stated her opinion. She used her First Amendment rights the exact way the First Amendment was designed to be used to hold government power accountable. And five months later, federal agents came to her polling place and tried to make her sign a form telling her to take it down. DHS has two paths here. Either they can show, specifically and clearly, what information in that post they believe constitutes a federal crime and what law they believe was violated or the public is going to draw its own conclusion. And that conclusion is this. The federal government targeted a citizen not for posting private information but for posting a name, a source, and an opinion about an ICE agent who killed a woman. If that is who gets investigated in America in 2026, every single one of us should be paying attention. Sources: Interview with Paigelynne Gonyea, DHS public statement, agent voicemail cited by Gonyea, Minnesota Star Tribune, The Intercept, Common Dreams, Wikipedia, court records [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Take reviewed the Instagram post at the center of this story. The post contains the name Jonathan Ross, a citation to the Minnesota Star Tribune, and an opinion that Ross should be indicted. It does not contain a home address, phone number, or private personal information. DHS was asked to specify what information in the post it characterizes as an address and to cite the specific federal statute it believes was violated. DHS has not responded to those follow-up questions as of publication. The allegation that agents had weapons drawn at Gonyea’s former address has not been independently confirmed and is presented as an unverified claim. This story will be updated as new information becomes available.] Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe [https://jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Betraying Our Troops: with Jarrod Zisser

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe [https://jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

while trump & hegseth dine on lobster 🦞 and steak 🥩 deployed service members reportedly famished?

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe [https://jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Trump’s DOJ turns back to 2020 as the Hantavirus comes out of hiding.

Good morning, While families are still trying to keep up with health care bills, grocery prices, rent, and daily costs, Washington is once again consumed by political fights, investigations, raids, and expensive projects. If you value fact-based independent reporting, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work and get full access to deeper coverage, detailed breakdowns, and subscriber-only posts. Here’s the news: * DOJ seeks names of 2020 Georgia election workers: The Justice Department is seeking names and information tied to people who worked the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County has been at the center of Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election, even though Georgia’s 2020 presidential vote was counted three times, including once by hand, and each count confirmed Joe Biden’s win. This matters because poll workers are not powerful politicians. They are regular people who helped run an election. When the federal government seeks their names years later, it raises serious questions about privacy, pressure, and the safety of election workers. * Fulton County loses fight over seized ballots, for now: A federal judge ruled that the government can keep 2020 ballots and election materials seized by the FBI from Fulton County. County lawyers had argued the seizure was improper and unconstitutional. The Justice Department says it is investigating possible irregularities from the 2020 election. The larger issue is not just one county. It is whether old election fights are being used to keep pressure on local election offices heading into the next election cycle. * FBI raids office and business tied to Virginia state Sen. Louise Lucas: The FBI searched offices and a cannabis business connected to Virginia Democratic state Sen. Louise Lucas, one of the most powerful Democrats in the state. Federal officials say it is part of an ongoing corruption investigation, with reported questions tied to bribery and a cannabis dispensary. Lucas was not arrested. Her team says no legislative materials were seized. Lucas called the raid political and pointed to her role in pushing Virginia’s redistricting fight. At the very least, this is a story that needs careful reporting, not instant conclusions. The public needs facts, not spin. * Trump’s ballroom promise faces new taxpayer questions: Trump said his White House ballroom project would be paid for by private money. Now Senate Republicans have proposed $1 billion in taxpayer funding for Secret Service security upgrades that could include the ballroom. Trump says the ballroom cost is now expected to be under $400 million, up from the original $200 million estimate, and he still says private donations will cover the project itself. But the question is simple: if taxpayers are helping pay for related costs, the public deserves a clear answer about what is private, what is public, and why this is a priority while families are still struggling. * Cruise ship hantavirus outbreak triggers global monitoring: Health officials are monitoring travelers after a hantavirus outbreak linked to the MV Hondius cruise ship. Three people have died, and several others are suspected of being infected. The CDC says the risk to the American public is extremely low right now. People in Georgia, Arizona, and California are being monitored, and officials say the known U.S. travelers have not shown symptoms. Hantavirus usually spreads through infected rodents, but the Andes strain is the one type known to sometimes spread between people through close contact. This is not a reason to panic. It is a reason to pay attention to public health systems, because early tracking is how outbreaks are contained. This is the part that matters. When government power is used against election workers, lawmakers, immigrants, protesters, or anyone else, the public has a right to demand answers. And when public money may be used for a project that was sold as privately funded, people have a right to ask why that money is not going toward the costs hitting families every day. That is the job of a free press. Not to assume. Not to protect the powerful. To ask the questions out loud. If you value fact-based independent reporting, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work and get full access to deeper coverage, detailed breakdowns, and subscriber-only posts. See you Tonight for the evening News Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe [https://jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

363 Journalists Killed in 940 Days: The Cost of Silencing the Press

On This World PRESS Freedom Day I want to talk about the Three hundred sixty-three journalists killed in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon over the last 940 days. Independant journalism survives because readers like you help support it. If you can please support my work by becoming a paid subscriber. 363 journalists. Sit with that number for a moment. Because it is specific. Because behind every one of those 363 names was a person who got up, picked up a camera, opened a notebook, charged a phone, checked a source, put on a press vest, and stepped into a place most people would do everything possible to avoid and escape. That number, 363 means roughly one journalist was killed every two and a half days. that means nearly 12 journalists killed every month. That is about 141 journalists killed per year. That is a huge number. By any historical measure, that is extraordinary. Press freedom groups and researchers have already described this war as the deadliest conflict on record for journalists. Brown University’s Costs of War Project found that a lower Gaza-only total had already exceeded the number of journalists killed in the U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan combined. That comparison should stop anyone who cares about journalism, war reporting, or the public’s right to know. I write this as an Independent journalist that has been on the ground all over this country documenting and reporting the people’s response to the Trump Administrations policies, But I also write this as someone who has seen combat in the Middle East. Before I worked in news, I served in the United States Marine Corps infantry and completed two separate tours in Iraq. I know what it feels like to be in a place where the sound of incoming fire changes the air around you. I know what it means to read a street, a rooftop, a window, a vehicle, or a crowd differently because your life may depend on it. I know what fear feels like when it has to be managed, not performed. I know what it means to keep doing your job while your body is telling you to find cover. That does not mean I know what these journalist in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon has experienced. I do not. No one can fully claim another person’s war or experience. But I do understand something about the pressure of operating in a conflict zone. I understand the exhaustion. The calculations. The constant awareness of danger. The way ordinary decisions become life-or-death decisions. The way you can be afraid and still move forward because people are counting on you to do the job. And that is what makes the deaths of these journalists so significant. They were not covering war from a safe distance. Many were living in it while documenting it. They were reporting on bombings, displacement, starvation, grief, collapsed hospitals, destroyed neighborhoods, and mass civilian suffering while their own families and communities were often in danger. That is a level of professional and personal burden most journalists and people will never be asked to carry. War and conflict reporting has always been dangerous. Reporters have died in battlefields across the world for generations. But the scale and speed of this death toll stand apart. When journalists are killed at this rate, the issue is no longer only individual risk. It becomes a collapse in the basic protection of the people whose job is to document war for the rest of the world. Journalists are not combatants. They are not supposed to be treated as targets. Their role is to gather evidence, verify claims, document consequences, and help the public understand what is happening when governments, militaries, and armed groups all have reasons to control the story. That work matters most in war because war is where truth is often hardest to reach. In conflict, every side has a narrative. Every side has language designed to justify its actions. Every side wants certain images shown and others ignored. Journalists are the people sent into that fog to bring back facts. Who was killed? Where did it happen? What was hit? Who gave that order? What do the records show? What do witnesses say? What does the evidence support? Those questions are the basic foundation of journalism. And when the people asking those questions are killed by the hundreds, the public loses more than reporters. It loses witnesses. It loses documentation. It loses independent records of what happened in real time. It loses the ability to challenge official versions of events with facts gathered on the ground. That is why 363 is not just a death toll. It is a warning. It is a warning about what happens when war becomes too dangerous to cover. It is a warning about how quickly the historical record can be weakened. And it’s a warning about how civilian suffering can be minimized when the people documenting it are no longer alive to file the story. For journalists, there is also a professional grief in this number. We know what it means to chase confirmation under pressure. We know what it means to get the wording right because one wrong sentence can mislead the public. We Also know what it means to keep calling, keep checking, keep recording, and keep asking questions when powerful people want nothing more than to silence us. We cannot be silenced. The free press will never be silenced for one simple reason. The truth belongs to the people, and that truth matters more than the dangers that come with it holding power accountable. The journalists killed in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon were doing more than producing content. They were preserving a record. They were making sure the world could not say it did not know or that it never happened. That is the core of the profession. Journalism, at its best, is an act of public service. I would argue the most important and powerful as well. It is not about fame or followers. It is not about access. It is not even about being seen. It is about making sure the public can see, remember, and maybe not go in a certain direction again. That is why the deaths of 363 journalists should matter far beyond the media industry. It should matter to anyone who believes war must be documented. It should matter to anyone who believes civilians should not disappear into statistics. It should matter to anyone who believes power should be watched, especially when bombs are falling and borders are closed. From one journalist to the journalists who have covered this war, and to those who have covered combat and conflict anywhere in the world Remember, your work matters. To those still reporting under threat, your work is seen. To those who have been killed, your work remains part of the record. To the families who lost them, I hope the world will understand this clearly. Those men and women were are not just names on a list. They were witnesses. They were professionals. They were human beings doing one of the most dangerous and necessary jobs on earth. I have seen combat. I know enough to understand that no one walks into danger casually. You feel it everywhere. You carry it constantly. You try like hell to manage it. And, you know with every part of you that your job is so important you do it anyway. The people deserve their story being told no matter the sacrifice. That is what these journalists did. They documented and reported war while living inside it. They gave the world evidence, images, names, dates, places, and testimony. They made sure history had witnesses and future generations had facts. When 363 journalists are killed in only 940 days, the world has a responsibility to say what that really means. It means the press has suffered a historic loss. It means the public has lost hundreds of people who were trying to show the truth. And it means every journalist killed in conflict deserves to be remembered not only for how they died, but for what they were doing when they were killed and who for. They were bearing witness. A free press only works because of the journalists and the people. Independant journalism survives because readers like you help support it. If you can please support my work by becoming a paid subscriber. Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe [https://jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]