Federal authorities arrest Ohio man for allegedly threatening to murder ICE agents
Anthony Kelly of Cincinnati will face federal charges for allegedly threatening to kidnap, assault and murder a U.S. official, according to Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS.
"Thank you to our law enforcement," McLaughlin said in a post on X. "These threats will not be tolerated. You will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
In the X post, McLaughlin attached several photos of social media posts from an account seemingly linked to Kelly that threatened to shoot and kill ICE agents. The user also discussed plans to buy a gun.
Replying to a post on X about ICE officials, the user said, "You come here for me, you're getting shot. … I'm shooting for the kill. I won't give a f--- about your names, who you are or anything else."
In another post on X responding to a post about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the user wrote, "The shotgun is being bought later on this week … you're also invited b-----."
Replying to a post on X about Trump border czar Tom Homan, the user seemingly referred to ICE agents when he wrote, "Thanks for giving We The People permission to shoot …"
During a search of Kelly's home in Cincinnati, authorities found one gun and ammunition, McLaughlin said.
The arrest comes amid ongoing concerns from DHS about the doxxing of ICE agents. Attacks on agents have skyrocketed by 830% since January, the agency announced recently.
In a memo released earlier this month, DHS called on the Justice Department to prosecute anyone suspected of doxxing ICE agents by posting agents' photos and personal information online or in public.
"We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. These criminals are taking the side of vicious cartels and human traffickers," DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in the memo. "We won't allow it in America."
The DHS and ICE did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
Go Back To The Office, But Bring Your Own Snacks. Blame Congress.
I ncreasingly, companies have been asking (or demanding) that employees return to the office, claiming that it fosters a stronger company culture and enhances productivity. To woo employees back, or to make sure they're not angry/hangry when ordered back, companies have been expanding perks such as on-site gyms, childcare facilities, and, of course, free food and beverages. Beginning January 1, the food part will be more expensive for employers, meaning more of them could revert to B.Y.O.S (Bring Your Own Snacks). Congressional Republicans, who extended so many other tax breaks (and added some new ones) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) President Donald Trump signed on July 4th, decided they would allow a current deduction for employers who provide meals and snacks to expire—except that is, for certain employees, such as those working in restaurants and in Alaskan fishing vessels and fish processing facilities. (No, we're not making it up. The fishy part was one of the concessions Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski extracted from her Republican colleagues for her crucial support.) Before Trump's first term tax cuts—the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—employers who provided meals for their employees—and the employees who benefited from them—were entitled to tax breaks under one of two sections of the tax code. Under section 119 of the tax code, employees are not taxed on on-site meals provided by employers for the employer's convenience. For tax purposes, whether meals are for the convenience of the employer depends on all the facts and circumstances, but typically means that there's a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay (the exclusion doesn't apply to cash allowances instead of meals). So feeding employees who would otherwise be gone too long at distant lunch spots would be deductible for the employer and not taxed to the worker. Even if the meals couldn't be considered for the employer's convenience, they might still be tax-favored under Section 132(e) of the tax code as a de minimis fringe benefit—something so small or inconsequential as to not be worthy of attention. For tax purposes, it means something that has so little value that accounting for it would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable. Typically, this includes items such as coffee, doughnuts, or soft drinks, as well as occasional meals provided to allow employees to work overtime (although how coffee could be considered so inconsequential as not to be worthy of attention is a mystery to me). The de minimis exclusion also applied in most cases to restaurants' staff meals—the kind you see in The Bear . (Technically, it's deductible if the facility's annual revenue equals or exceeds its direct operating costs. Direct operating costs include the cost of food, beverages, and labor costs for cooks and waitstaff, and others who provide services primarily on the premises.) Note that the meals that qualified for the convenience of the employer and the food provided under the de minimis fringe benefit weren't (and still won't be) taxable to the employees. That was a win-win, since employees were not taxed on the perk and employers got a deduction. Trump 1.0: TCJA The TCJA made several changes to the tax treatment of meals and entertainment expenses. Entertainment expenses were disallowed. Plus, that 2017 law created section 274(o), which, beginning in 2026, disallows 100% of the deduction for expenses for food or beverages provided to employees, as well as expenses for the operation of certain eating facilities for employees. As part of the Congressional pattern of frontloading tax goodies and backloading tax pain, the TCJA provided that through 2025, 50% of the cost of on-site employee meals would be deductible (provided it was for the employer's convenience). And, although de minimis snacks aren't considered meals, they were also 50% deductible under the TCJA rules. Trump 2.0: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act The new tax law extended many expiring tax provision in TCJA, but did not extend the rules that had temporarily allowed deductions for snacks and employer convenience perks. Both are now set to expire at the end of the year, which means that U.S. companies that provide snacks, coffee, or on-site meals at the office will no longer receive a tax deduction for doing so. You might think that it was just an oops—that Congress forgot that the provision might expire. But that's not the case. OBBBA didn't roll back the provision for all industries—two notable exceptions have been carved out. One exception applies to very specific businesses—those on a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, or fish tender vessel, or at a facility for the processing of fish for commercial use or consumption located in the U.S. north of 50 degrees north latitude, and is not located in a metropolitan statistical area. It might not surprise you to learn that the only state north of 50 degrees north latitude is Alaska. Notably, the lobster industry wasn't similarly spared; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was a no vote on OBBBA. A second exception applies to establishments that sell food and beverages to customers and also provide meals to their employees—in other words, restaurants. The restaurant industry can continue deducting employee meal expenses for kitchen and waitstaff. As for everybody else? Businesses outside of the Alaskan fishing industry and restaurants may be out of luck now, but Congress apparently thinks it's worth it. The Joint Committee on Taxation found that eliminating the deduction will raise $32.5 billion over the next decade. That might not seem like a lot of money in a law that includes tax cuts that will reduce federal revenues by $4.475 trillion between 2025 and 2034. But consider this: The $25,000 tax deduction for tips, which lasts only through 2028, costs just $32 billion. And here's the weird part, the cost of throwing holiday parties for employees will still be 100% deductible. As for business meals—if say, an employee is taking a potential client to dinner—that is now, and will still be, 50% deductible. Will Employers Care About A Deduction Lost? Food at the office can be a big draw for employees. A 2023 survey found that 80% of workers say catered meals encourage them to come into the office. And anyone who is a regular reader knows that the pull of free coffee and a snack can get me in the door. Plus, let's face it: Sometimes the little, consumable things make a big difference, with 98% of employees saying free meals at work made them feel appreciated. Nearly two-thirds of those who receive free meals say it helps them eat healthier food, and over half (55%) of those who don't receive free meals say they would feel less stressed if they did. For employers, the small act of providing food to busy employees goes a long way towards retention. The survey—which we should point out was sponsored by EZCater, which delivers food to workplaces—found that seven out of ten tax professionals said they'd be more likely to stay at their company if they received free meals during the busy season. On the employer side, investing in employees' meals benefits overall well-being, work performance, and, importantly, employee retention. How much difference will the loss of the tax deduction make? That remains to be seen, but no doubt some employers will be putting out the B.Y.O.S. sign. More from Forbes Forbes IRS Issues Guidance On New Deductions For Seniors, Tips, Overtime And Car Interest By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes Questions About The New Tax Bill? Taxgirl Has Answers By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes This Barely Used Child Care Tax Break For Employers Just Got An Overhaul By Danielle Chemtob
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Everyone Hates Alina Habba So Much She's About to Be Out of a Job
Alina Habba, Trump's shamelessly biased personal lawyer, will soon be out of the job he gave her. The president appointed Habba, who defended him in his hush-money and E. Jean Carroll defamation cases, as interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey in March. The role was for 120 days, allowing Habba to bypass Senate confirmation. But those 120 days are up next Tuesday, and all signs currently point to Habba not getting officially confirmed, as New Jersey Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker have sworn to block her nomination. A source close to the situation told The New Jersey Globe that Habba admitted to her staff on Thursday that she's not sure what's next. 'I don't know what's going to happen, and I'm grateful for my time. This is an amazing office, and I hope I can stay,' she reportedly said. The end of Habba's DA tenure prevents one of Trump's most ardent supporters from grasping even more power. Her history indicates that she would have only used her role to blindly carry out the president's agenda. In October, amid the tragedy of Hurricane Helene, Habba falsely claimed that the Biden-Harris administration left 'babies floating in the water.' Fox News of all outlets checked her live on air. When Trump fell fast asleep during his own trial, Habba chalked it up to him having tired eyes. 'President Trump, he reads a lot,' she said. 'He's been sitting there, as he's forced to, at the threat of going to jail if he's not sitting there, for what I assume would be a very mundane day.' She demonstrated a shocking lack of legal expertise at that same trial when she clearly misunderstood what 'due process' entailed. And in March, she said that the thousands of military veterans that DOGE fired were simply unfit. New Jersey seems to be safe from Habba's sheer incompetence for the time being. Only time will tell if she remains in Trump's orbit or fades into MAGA obscurity. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
