The FBI is investigating an incident of vandalism and arson at a federal warehouse facility owned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Surprise, Arizona.

The incident occurred early Saturday morning around 1:30 a.m. local time, involving a broken window and evidence of “minor and limited fire activity.”

Local authorities from the Surprise Police Department initially responded to the scene. The FBI, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has taken over the investigation.

No arrests have been made, and no suspect information has been released.

The warehouse has been making headlines this month as outraged Democrats attempt to stop its use.

Arizona Democrats like AG Kris Mayes are pushing back against a proposed ICE facility in Surprise. She sent DHS Sec. Kristi Noem a letter seeking answers about plans to convert a 418,000‑square‑foot warehouse into a detention center for 1,500 people.https://t.co/iMCN4Pocpn

— KTAR News 92.3 (@KTAR923) February 11, 2026

This incident follows a separate attempted arson at a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office in Meridian, Idaho, just days earlier.

In that case, a suspect stole an ambulance and tried to use an accelerant, but was interrupted.

Fox News reports:

The suspect allegedly stole an ambulance from a bay at St. Luke’s West hospital on Wednesday, drove the ambulance through the parking lot, and retrieved gas cans that were staged in nearby vegetation, according to Meridian Police Chief Tracy Basterrechea.

The suspect, who has not been identified, then drove the ambulance directly into the North Portico building, which houses DHS offices, Basterrechea said.

Federal officials have noted a sharp uptick in attacks and vandalism targeting ICE and related immigration facilities in recent years.

In July 2025, a coordinated ambush occurred at the Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, where a group used fireworks and vandalism to lure officers into gunfire, wounding one police officer.

Ten individuals were charged with attempted murder of federal officers following the incident.

In June 2025, protests at an ICE facility in Southwest Portland, Oregon, led to vandalism with graffiti, resulting in several arrests for criminal mischief.

In October, a U.S. Homeland Security office in Williston, Vermont, was vandalized with threatening graffiti amid protests over surveillance plans.

More recently, in January, protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, following ICE-related shootings included instances of vandalism and threats and doxing of agents.

The post FBI Investigating Vandalism and Fire Set at ICE Warehouse in Arizona appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

New York City Councilwoman Crystal Hudson has reintroduced a bill that would require police to divert “young people” involved in certain crimes to community-based organizations for services, instead of arresting them.

The legislation, proposed for the third time since 2022, aims to keep young people out of the justice system but is vague about which crimes they would be allowed to get away with.

The bill mandates that officers refer “young individuals,” without specifying the ages included, to nonprofits offering community services or to trade unions with apprenticeship programs.

Hudson, a Democrat representing parts of Brooklyn including Fort Greene and Prospect Heights, described the measure as a way to “allow officers to divert young people to appropriate community-based organizations in lieu of criminal enforcement, creating a pathway to support before deeper system involvement occurs.”

Currently, the legislation has five co-sponsors and would need 26 to pass the full Council, or 34 to override a potential mayoral veto.

Previous versions in the 2022-2023 and 2024-2025 sessions garnered 11 and seven co-sponsors, respectively, but never reached a vote.

The New York Post reports:

But with comrade Mamdani — whose soft-on-crime tactics since taken office include dropping plans to increase the Police Department’s ranks by 5,000 officers — at Gracie Mansion, Hudson’s best shot could be now.

“She has a listening ear with a mayor who would like to see nobody put in jail,” said Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens).

“In the past, not only was there no appetite for this kind of thing on the Council, but if it did pass, it would likely get vetoed. Councilmember Hudson is betting on that not happening with this administration – and that is a good bet.”

“This is much too vague as written,” Ariola added. “We need a clear definition of what a ‘young person’ is. Nobody wants to see ten-year-olds in jail, but we also don’t want violent 17-year-old offenders skirting justice either.”

The proposal comes amid ongoing debates about youth justice reforms in New York City, including the “Raise the Age” law implemented in 2018, which raised the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18.

Violent youth crimes hit an all-time high in the city last year.

The New York Post reported in January:

Youth violence across New York City hit historic highs during 2025, with staggering numbers of shooters and shooting victims falling under the age of 18, NYPD data released Tuesday shows.

Last year, 14% of shooting victims and 18% of shooters were youths, NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said during an otherwise-triumphant news conference outlining drops in crime.

“These are the highest percentages that we’ve ever seen for both measures since we began tracking this data in 2018,” Tisch said.

The horrific shooting numbers solidified concerns among some parents about New York’s controversial “Raise the Age” law’s effect on youth violence in 2025 — a year otherwise marked by crime hitting historic lows.

The bill’s future remains uncertain, with the possibility of hearings before the Council’s Public Safety Committee.

The post NYC Bill Seeks to Ban Young Criminals from Being Arrested as Teen Gun Violence Hits All-Time High appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

WATCH: How Trump Can Still Impose Tariffs After the Supreme Court Ruling

The latest episode of The Patriot Perspective tackled a question many conservatives are overlooking: a Supreme Court loss under one tariff statute does not equal the end of the broader tariff strategy.

The discussion began with a straightforward premise. The Court’s ruling did not evaluate whether tariffs are sound economic policy. The ruling addressed legal authority. 

Congress writes tax law. Tariffs function as a tax on imports. When an administration attempts to anchor broad, long-term tariff policy in emergency “regulation” language, the legal vulnerability becomes predictable: regulating commerce is not the same as imposing duties.

“Even if you support Trump’s tariffs, which I do, I love tariffs,” Gregory Lyakhov said during the episode. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to be against this ruling.”

That distinction matters because it reframes the real story: alternative statutory pathways.

If the emergency-powers route is narrowed, the Trump administration can pivot to statutes specifically designed for trade enforcement rather than generalized emergency management. 

The legal setback constrains one mechanism, not the policy objective as a whole.

One immediate option discussed was a temporary, across-the-board import surcharge authority that can reach up to 15% and last approximately 150 days before requiring further congressional involvement. 

That authority is not a permanent solution, but it functions as a stopgap measure that preserves leverage and maintains revenue flow while agencies construct longer-term cases under more durable statutes.

From there, the tariff strategy becomes less blunt and more procedurally grounded. 

The most defensible routes are trade statutes that anticipate formal investigations, evidentiary findings, and administrative records—precisely the elements courts examine when reviewing executive action.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act provides the clearest national security pathway. 

If the Department of Commerce documents that foreign dependence in sectors such as steel, aluminum, critical minerals, semiconductors, or defense-linked supply chains creates a national security vulnerability, tariffs may follow. 

That framework is narrower than a universal tariff, but it is structured to withstand judicial scrutiny because the justification is tied to specific national security risks.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides a separate avenue for addressing unfair trade practices, particularly relevant to China. 

If an administration documents forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, discriminatory trade barriers, or currency practices that distort market conditions, Section 301 authorizes retaliatory duties. 

The process is slower than invoking emergency authority, but it is structurally stronger because it is tethered to documented findings and defined misconduct.

There are also quasi-tariff mechanisms that function similarly in practice. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties, for example, are not branded as “Trump tariffs,” but they can significantly raise import costs when the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission determine that foreign producers are dumping goods below fair value or benefiting from improper subsidies.

The episode’s throughline was clear: the Supreme Court made tariffs more procedurally burdensome to implement, but not impossible. 

The ruling narrowed one shortcut. It did not dismantle the broader legal architecture available to an administration committed to reshaping U.S. trade policy.

The Patriot Perspective has recently switched its main platform from Rumble to YouTube, and we would greatly appreciate it if our old subscribers would subscribe to us there. [HERE]

The post How Trump Can Still Impose Tariffs After the Supreme Court Ruling appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrat Senator Adam Schiff has announced he will boycott President Donald Trump’s upcoming State of the Union address on Tuesday.

This marks the first time Schiff, who has been in office for over two decades, has ever skipped the annual event.

Schiff, a vocal critic of Trump who played a prominent role in the former president’s impeachments during his first term, made the announcement in a video statement.

“Donald Trump is violating the law and the Constitution. He is ignoring court orders, he is weaponizing the Justice Department to go after his enemies, he is letting loose ICE troops in our streets that are getting people killed,” Schiff said. “I will not be attending the State of the Union. I’ve never missed one. I have always gone, both to inaugurations and to States of the Union, but we cannot treat this as normal.”

He added, “I won’t give him the audience he craves for the lies that he tells.”

I won’t attend Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday.

This isn’t business as usual.

Here’s what I’ll be doing instead: pic.twitter.com/54GcZdvApP

— Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) February 22, 2026

Instead of attending the address, Schiff plans to participate in an alternative event called the “People’s State of the Union,” organized by the progressive media outlet MeidasTouch and the advocacy group MoveOn Civic Action.

The rally is set to take place on the National Mall outside the Capitol at 8 p.m. Eastern Time that evening.

According to reports, Schiff will speak at the event, joining other Democrats in what organizers describe as a “counter-narrative” to Trump’s speech.

Several others, including Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, have also indicated they will skip the address in favor of the alternative rally.

Trump is preparing to outline his agenda for the coming year, including priorities like border security, economic policies, and potential executive actions.

The post Schiff Announces He Will Not Attend President Trump’s State of the Union Address, Will Speak at Rally Organized by MoveOn and MeidasTouch Instead (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.