The Man Who Should Have Known Everything Knew Nothing: A January 6th Bombshell

This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

In the labyrinthine world of federal law enforcement, where agencies jealously guard their secrets and operational details, one man stood at the epicenter of one of the most scrutinized days in American political history—yet remained completely in the dark about crucial intelligence that could have changed everything. The revelation that has emerged from former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund threatens to unravel years of carefully constructed narratives about January 6, 2021, and raises profound questions about what really happened that day.

What Sund learned years after the fact has sent shockwaves through Washington’s political establishment and law enforcement community alike. The discovery that hundreds of federal agents were operating in the crowds during the Capitol breach, while he—the man charged with securing the building—knew nothing about their presence, represents either a catastrophic breakdown in inter-agency communication or something far more deliberate and disturbing.

The Chief Who Was Kept in the Dark

Steven Sund’s position as U.S. Capitol Police Chief should have made him one of the most informed law enforcement officials in Washington on January 6, 2021. His department bore primary responsibility for securing the Capitol complex, and any major law enforcement operation in his jurisdiction should have involved his direct coordination and oversight.

Yet in a Friday interview with John Fawcett of “The Great America Show,” Sund revealed a stunning truth that has implications far beyond standard inter-agency protocols: the FBI never informed him that 274 plainclothes agents had been deployed inside the crowds during the January 6 events at the Capitol.

This revelation came on the heels of Thursday’s disclosure about the true scope of FBI presence that day—a number hundreds more than previously reported and far exceeding what any reasonable person might have expected for routine crowd monitoring. The scale of this operation, conducted without the knowledge of the primary law enforcement official responsible for Capitol security, raises fundamental questions about command structure, accountability, and transparency.

Sund’s account of the January 5 meeting with federal agency representatives adds another layer of concern to this revelation. According to the former chief, he specifically asked whether any liaison would be assigned from agencies planning to have personnel on the ground. The fact that no agency disclosed such extensive deployment plans suggests either a deliberate decision to keep him uninformed or a level of compartmentalization that borders on dysfunction.

“If they were saying that they were going to have that group in the crowd already, most likely what they’d do is they’d put a liaison up in my command center,” Sund explained to Fawcett. “I mean, if you’re going to have that type of assets and resources deployed onto someone’s jurisdiction, you’re going to put somebody in their command center. That’s key.”

The Numbers Don’t Lie: 274 Agents in Plain Sight

The disclosure that 274 FBI plainclothes agents were embedded in the January 6 crowds represents a massive intelligence and surveillance operation that was conducted in complete secrecy from the very law enforcement officials who should have been coordinating the overall security response. This number far exceeds what might be considered routine surveillance for a large public event.

A senior congressional source attempted to normalize this revelation by noting that the FBI routinely embeds countersurveillance staff at large public events. However, the same source acknowledged that the FBI’s longstanding refusal to detail the scope of its presence that day would likely draw skepticism, particularly given the scale of the operation that has now been revealed.

The sheer number of agents involved suggests this was not a routine surveillance operation but rather a major intelligence-gathering effort that required significant planning, resources, and coordination—all conducted without the knowledge of the Capitol Police leadership. The deployment of nearly 300 undercover federal agents into a crowd situation represents one of the largest domestic surveillance operations in recent American history.

This revelation takes on additional significance when considered against the backdrop of the chaos and confusion that characterized the law enforcement response on January 6. While Sund and his officers were struggling to coordinate an effective response to the breach of the Capitol, hundreds of federal agents were already positioned throughout the crowd with unknown missions and unclear chains of command.

The Trail of Contradictions: Official Denials and Hidden Truth

The emergence of these facts about FBI presence on January 6 directly contradicts multiple official statements and reports that have shaped public understanding of that day’s events. The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General stated definitively in December 2024 that “We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6.”

This 88-page report, released more than three years after the events, now appears to have been either incomplete or deliberately misleading. The categorical nature of the OIG’s statement—”no evidence”—cannot be reconciled with the revelation that 274 FBI agents were indeed present in the crowds that day.

FBI Director Christopher Wray’s congressional testimony in July 2023 adds another layer to this pattern of apparent deception. When questioned directly by a GOP lawmaker about undercover FBI presence, Wray responded, “I’m not sure there were undercover agents on scene. As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on.”

Wray’s carefully parsed language—”I do not believe”—now appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead Congress while maintaining technical truthfulness. The distinction between “undercover agents” and “plainclothes agents” may represent the kind of semantic manipulation that allows intelligence officials to deny specific allegations while concealing broader operational realities.

The pattern of official denials followed by reluctant admissions of greater federal involvement has become a recurring theme in discussions about January 6. Each new revelation seems to contradict previous official statements, creating a growing credibility gap between what law enforcement agencies claim and what evidence suggests actually occurred.

The Bureaucratic Maze: Command Structure Failures

Sund’s comments about the bureaucratic challenges he faced as Capitol Police Chief reveal structural problems that may have contributed to the security failures of January 6. Unlike typical law enforcement jurisdictions where the chief of police has clear authority and command responsibility, the Capitol Police operate within a complex web of congressional oversight that can impede rapid decision-making.

“The only problem with the Capitol is the bureaucracy. Even though, as the Chief of Police, there was a chief law enforcement officer for the House and a chief law enforcement officer for the Senate that sat over top of me. That created the big bureaucracy that I ran into,” Sund explained.

This bureaucratic structure meant that even an experienced law enforcement professional like Sund could not “call the shots” during a crisis situation. The existence of multiple layers of authority above the operational commander created confusion and delays that may have contributed to the breakdown in security on January 6.

Sund’s characterization of the Capitol Police jurisdiction as “like no other jurisdiction in the world” highlights the unique challenges of providing security for the legislative branch while operating under congressional oversight. The complexity of this arrangement may have made it easier for federal agencies to conduct operations without proper coordination with Capitol Police leadership.

The former chief’s observation that “they really need to fix that” reflects his professional assessment that the current structure is inadequate for ensuring effective security coordination. This bureaucratic dysfunction may have created opportunities for federal agencies to operate independently without proper integration into overall security planning.

The Intelligence Failure: Warning Signs Ignored

Beyond the questions about FBI presence on January 6, Sund’s testimony reveals another troubling aspect of the security failures that day: the breakdown in intelligence sharing that left him unaware of specific threats. In his February 2021 testimony before Senate committees, Sund revealed that he never received an FBI report issued on January 5 that warned of potential violence at the Capitol.

This intelligence failure represents a critical breakdown in the systems designed to ensure that threat information reaches the officials responsible for security planning. The report outlined specific calls for violence ahead of the protest, information that could have significantly influenced security preparations and resource allocation.

According to Sund’s testimony, while the U.S. Capitol Police did receive the FBI warning, it never made its way to his office due to internal communication failures. A Capitol Police officer assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force received the document and passed it to an official within the department’s Intelligence Division, where it remained buried in the bureaucracy.

This intelligence failure highlights systemic problems in how threat information flows through law enforcement organizations. The fact that crucial intelligence about potential violence never reached the chief responsible for Capitol security represents a fundamental breakdown in established procedures and protocols.

The pattern of intelligence compartmentalization that kept Sund unaware of both FBI agent deployment and specific threat warnings suggests broader issues with information sharing and coordination that may have contributed significantly to the security failures of January 6.

Historical Context: Federal Surveillance and Domestic Events

The deployment of 274 FBI agents into the January 6 crowds must be understood within the broader context of federal law enforcement’s history of surveillance and infiltration of domestic political movements. The FBI has a long and controversial history of embedding agents in political organizations and monitoring domestic gatherings, dating back to the COINTELPRO programs of the 1960s and 1970s.

However, the scale of the January 6 operation appears to exceed typical surveillance activities and raises questions about the specific intelligence objectives and legal authorities under which the agents were operating. The deployment of nearly 300 federal agents into a domestic political gathering represents a significant escalation in surveillance capabilities and willingness to monitor American citizens engaged in political activity.

The secrecy surrounding this operation, particularly the decision to keep local law enforcement leadership uninformed, follows patterns established in previous controversial FBI domestic operations. The agency’s historical tendency toward compartmentalization and operational secrecy often conflicts with the coordination requirements of effective law enforcement.

The revelation of such extensive federal presence also raises questions about the role these agents may have played in the events of January 6. Were they purely passive observers gathering intelligence, or did they take any actions that may have influenced the course of events? The FBI’s refusal to provide details about their activities that day makes it impossible to answer these crucial questions.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The deployment of hundreds of federal agents into domestic political crowds without coordination with local law enforcement raises significant legal and constitutional questions about federal authority and oversight. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures may be implicated if these agents were gathering intelligence on American citizens without proper legal justification.

The secrecy surrounding this operation also raises questions about congressional oversight and the FBI’s accountability to elected officials. If federal agencies can deploy major surveillance operations without informing relevant congressional committees or local law enforcement partners, it suggests a level of autonomy that may exceed constitutional boundaries.

The use of undercover agents in domestic political contexts has always been controversial, but the scale of the January 6 operation appears to represent a significant expansion of such activities. The constitutional implications of embedding hundreds of federal agents in political gatherings warrant serious examination by Congress and the courts.

The revelation that FBI Director Wray may have misled Congress about the extent of FBI presence on January 6 also raises questions about perjury and the integrity of congressional oversight processes. If federal officials can provide misleading testimony about major operations, it undermines Congress’s ability to exercise effective oversight of the executive branch.

Political Ramifications: Trust and Transparency

The disclosure about FBI presence on January 6 comes at a time when public trust in federal law enforcement agencies has already been strained by revelations about surveillance overreach and political bias. The discovery that nearly 300 FBI agents were present during the Capitol events without disclosure to relevant officials will likely further erode confidence in federal agencies.

The pattern of initial denials followed by grudging admissions has become a recurring theme in discussions about January 6, creating the impression that federal agencies are reluctant to be transparent about their activities that day. This lack of transparency fuels conspiracy theories and undermines public confidence in official narratives about the events.

For Republicans who have long argued that federal agencies were more involved in January 6 than publicly acknowledged, these revelations provide vindication for their suspicions. The discovery that FBI officials may have provided misleading testimony to Congress will likely intensify calls for further investigations and accountability measures.

Democrats who have emphasized the need for thorough investigations of January 6 now face the challenge of explaining why federal agencies withheld crucial information about their own activities. The credibility of January 6 investigations may be compromised if it appears that federal agencies were not fully transparent with investigators.

The Broader Pattern: Institutional Accountability

Sund’s revelations about January 6 fit into a broader pattern of institutional failures and accountability gaps that have characterized the aftermath of that day’s events. The former Capitol Police chief’s account suggests that multiple federal agencies failed to coordinate effectively and may have actively concealed their activities from local law enforcement partners.

The bureaucratic dysfunction that Sund describes within the Capitol Police structure reflects broader problems with institutional accountability and command authority in federal security arrangements. The complex web of oversight and authority that hampered effective response on January 6 continues to exist and may impede future security operations.

The intelligence failures that kept crucial threat information from reaching the Capitol Police chief represent systemic problems that extend beyond any single incident. The compartmentalization of information and breakdown in communication channels that characterized January 6 likely affect other aspects of federal law enforcement coordination.

The revelation about FBI presence adds to a growing list of institutional failures associated with January 6, from intelligence sharing breakdowns to command structure problems to transparency failures. The cumulative effect of these revelations suggests that the security failures of that day were not simply the result of inadequate preparation but of deeper institutional dysfunctions.

Looking Forward: Reform and Oversight

The revelations about FBI presence on January 6 and the intelligence failures described by Sund highlight the need for significant reforms in federal law enforcement coordination and oversight. The current system’s inability to ensure basic communication between federal agencies and local law enforcement partners represents a fundamental security vulnerability.

Congressional oversight of federal agencies will likely intensify as a result of these revelations, particularly regarding the FBI’s activities on January 6 and the accuracy of previous testimony by agency leaders. The discovery that federal officials may have provided misleading information to Congress demands accountability and reform measures.

The complex bureaucratic structure that hampered Sund’s ability to effectively command Capitol security operations requires examination and potential reform. The current arrangement, which places multiple layers of authority above the operational commander, may be fundamentally incompatible with effective security coordination.

The intelligence sharing failures that kept crucial threat information from reaching Capitol Police leadership demonstrate the need for reforms in how threat intelligence flows through law enforcement organizations. Current procedures appear inadequate for ensuring that critical information reaches the officials responsible for security decisions.

Conclusion: The Questions That Remain

Steven Sund’s revelations about January 6 raise more questions than they answer about federal law enforcement activities that day and the institutional failures that contributed to the security breakdown. The discovery that 274 FBI agents were present in the crowds while the Capitol Police chief remained unaware of their deployment represents either catastrophic coordination failure or deliberate deception.

The pattern of official denials followed by reluctant admissions about federal involvement in January 6 events has created a credibility crisis that extends beyond any single agency or incident. The public’s right to understand what happened that day and who was responsible for security failures requires full transparency from all involved agencies.

The bureaucratic dysfunction and intelligence failures that Sund describes highlight systemic problems that likely extend beyond January 6 to affect ongoing security operations and federal law enforcement coordination. These institutional problems require serious attention and reform to prevent future failures.

As investigations continue and more information emerges about federal activities on January 6, the challenge will be distinguishing between legitimate security concerns and transparency requirements. The public’s right to understand how federal agencies operate in domestic contexts must be balanced against operational security needs, but the current level of secrecy appears to exceed any reasonable security justification.

The ultimate test of American democratic institutions may be their ability to honestly confront and learn from the failures of January 6, including the institutional dysfunctions and transparency failures that Steven Sund’s revelations have brought to light. Only through such honest reckoning can the necessary reforms be implemented to prevent future breakdowns in security coordination and public trust.

High-Profile Detention Sparks International Controversy as Federal Authorities Target Political Figure

A case that has sent shockwaves through both immigration law circles and international diplomatic channels is unfolding in a Miami detention facility, where federal authorities have taken unprecedented action against a prominent figure with deep ties to Caribbean politics. The detention, which occurred in July, represents a rare use of immigration enforcement powers that experts say could have far-reaching implications for how the United States addresses foreign political influence and national security concerns.

The Arrest That Made Headlines

On July 17, in what appeared to be a carefully coordinated operation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Pierre Reginald Boulos, a 72-year-old physician and businessman whose name has been synonymous with Haitian politics for decades. The arrest took place in Palm Beach County, Florida, a location that has become increasingly significant in discussions about Caribbean immigration and political asylum.

Boulos, who was born in New York but later renounced his U.S. citizenship to pursue political ambitions in Haiti, found himself in the unusual position of being detained as a lawful permanent resident facing serious federal allegations. His case represents a complex intersection of immigration law, foreign policy concerns, and national security considerations that legal experts say is virtually unprecedented in its scope and implications.

The businessman-turned-politician had been living quietly in South Florida, part of a large Haitian diaspora community that has established deep roots throughout the region. His sudden detention sent ripples of concern through this community, many of whom viewed the arrest as a potential harbinger of broader enforcement actions targeting political figures from the Caribbean nation.

A Life Spanning Two Nations

To understand the significance of Boulos’s detention, one must examine his remarkable journey from American-born physician to Haitian political aspirant. Born in New York to Haitian immigrant parents, Boulos spent his early years navigating between two cultures and two nations that would ultimately shape his destiny in ways he could never have anticipated.

After completing his medical training, Boulos made a decision that would prove fateful decades later: he renounced his U.S. citizenship to pursue business interests and political ambitions in Haiti. This move, while legally permissible, created a complex web of legal status issues that would eventually contribute to his current predicament.

In Haiti, Boulos built a business empire that spanned multiple industries, from healthcare to manufacturing. His success made him a household name among Haiti’s elite and positioned him as a potential candidate for the country’s highest office. Those who knew him described a man driven by a vision of transforming his ancestral homeland, though critics would later question the methods he employed to achieve these goals.

His political aspirations crystallized in the formation of MTVAyiti (Mouvement pour la Transformation et la Valorisation d’Haiti), a political movement that he founded with the stated goal of bringing about sweeping changes to Haiti’s political and economic landscape. The party’s platform, rooted in what Boulos called “Desalinian ideals,” referenced Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the revolutionary leader who helped Haiti gain independence in 1804.

The Charges That Changed Everything

The federal case against Boulos centers on allegations that paint a dramatically different picture of his political activities than the reformist image he cultivated publicly. According to ICE officials, Boulos stands accused of “contributing to the destabilization of Haiti” through alleged connections with armed gangs that have terrorized the Caribbean nation in recent years.

These are not minor accusations. Federal authorities allege that Boulos engaged in activities that supported violent organizations, specifically gangs connected to Viv Ansanm, which the U.S. has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The implications of such charges extend far beyond immigration violations, touching on national security concerns that the U.S. government takes extremely seriously.

“The Department of State has determined that certain individuals with U.S. lawful permanent resident status have supported and collaborated with Haitian gang leaders connected to Viv Ansanm,” ICE stated in its official release announcing the arrest. The language used by federal authorities suggests this case may be part of a broader investigation into foreign influence operations and terrorist financing.

The charges also include allegations of immigration fraud, stemming from what ICE characterizes as Boulos’s failure to disclose significant information about his political activities and business dealings. Specifically, authorities claim he failed to properly disclose his role in founding MTVAyiti and that he was referred by Haiti’s Unit for the Fight Against Corruption for allegedly misusing loans.

These omissions, according to federal prosecutors, constitute material misrepresentations that could justify not only his detention but potentially his removal from the United States. The fraud allegations add another layer of complexity to a case that already spans multiple areas of federal law.

Legal Battles and Family Concerns

The legal proceedings surrounding Boulos’s case have been as dramatic as the charges themselves. His recent appearance at the Krome North Service Processing Center revealed the high stakes involved and the family tensions created by his detention.

Judge Jorge Pereira presided over a hearing that legal observers described as unusual in both its security measures and its emotional intensity. Boulos appeared in court wearing the standard orange detention uniform, a stark contrast to the business suits he was accustomed to wearing during his years as a prominent businessman and political figure.

Family members gathered both in person and online to support him during the proceedings, though security concerns led to restrictions on public access. “After Eig expressed safety concerns, Judge Jorge Pereira closed the session to those watching online,” court records indicate, suggesting that the case involves threats or security issues that extend beyond typical immigration proceedings.

Boulos’s legal team, led by attorney Atara Eig of the firm Candela, Eig & Jurgens, faces the challenging task of defending against charges that cross multiple areas of federal law. Eig’s statement following the hearing revealed the complexity of the legal strategy they must employ: “The immigration judge found that Dr. Boulos was subject to mandatory detention at this point in the proceeding, pursuant to a rarely cited regulation.”

The reference to a “rarely cited regulation” suggests that federal authorities are employing unusual legal tools in this case, potentially setting precedents for future cases involving similar allegations. Eig announced plans to appeal the detention decision, indicating that the legal battle is far from over.

Broader Implications for Immigration and Foreign Policy

The Boulos case occurs against the backdrop of ongoing political turmoil in Haiti, where gang violence has reached unprecedented levels and the government struggles to maintain basic order. The Biden administration inherited a complex Haiti policy from the Trump administration, and this case represents one of the first major tests of how current officials will handle allegations of foreign political interference.

The timing of the arrest and prosecution is particularly significant given current debates about immigration enforcement priorities and the treatment of individuals with lawful permanent resident status. Legal experts note that mandatory detention for such individuals is relatively rare and typically reserved for the most serious cases.

“These new actions demonstrate the Trump administration’s firm commitment to protecting the American people, advancing our national security interests, and promoting regional security and stability,” ICE stated, though the case is now being prosecuted under the current administration. This continuity suggests bipartisan concern about the issues involved.

The case also raises questions about the extent to which the U.S. will pursue individuals who maintain dual loyalties or complex relationships with foreign governments. As globalization has created increasingly complex international relationships, cases like Boulos’s may become more common.

The Investigation Behind the Charges

The federal case against Boulos represents the culmination of an extensive investigation involving multiple agencies and international cooperation. The U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate both played crucial roles in building the case.

This multi-agency approach suggests that the allegations against Boulos were taken seriously at the highest levels of the federal government. The involvement of the State Department’s security service indicates that diplomatic and foreign policy concerns were central to the investigation from its early stages.

The international scope of the investigation likely required coordination with Haitian authorities, though the extent of such cooperation remains unclear. The reference to Haiti’s Unit for the Fight Against Corruption suggests that at least some aspects of the case involved collaboration with Haitian law enforcement.

What Lies Ahead

As Boulos remains detained at the Krome facility in Miami, his case continues to attract attention from legal experts, immigration advocates, and observers of Haitian politics. The upcoming hearing scheduled for August 26 will address procedural issues, but the substantive questions about his alleged activities may take months or years to resolve.

The case serves as a reminder of the complex legal and political challenges facing individuals who maintain ties to multiple countries, particularly when those countries face political instability or security concerns. As the legal proceedings continue, the Boulos case may well establish important precedents for how the United States addresses similar situations in the future.

For now, Pierre Reginald Boulos remains in federal custody, his political ambitions indefinitely postponed as he faces charges that could result in his permanent removal from the country where he once held citizenship and built a new life. The resolution of his case will be watched closely by observers seeking to understand the evolving intersection of immigration law, national security policy, and international relations in an increasingly complex global environment.

ARREST psss

ARREST

 

 

Kansas leaders charged Joe Ceballos, the mayor of a small city in rural Kansas, with a crime on Wednesday. They say he voted in several elections even though he is not a U.S. citizen.

Scott Schwab, the Secretary of State for Kansas, and Kris Kobach, the Attorney General for Kansas, both Republicans who were elected, said they had filed six charges against Ceballos, a legal permanent resident from Mexico, for voting in elections in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

Ceballos used to be a city councilman and is now the mayor of Coldwater, Fox News noted.

States are obligated by law to have ways to regularly clean up their voter registration lists, which are also called voter rolls. Kobach, a longstanding immigration hawk and ally of President Donald Trump, said that the procedure includes using outside databases to look for noncitizens, but that it is not foolproof.

 

 

“Noncitizen voting is a real problem. It is not something that happens once in a decade. It is something that happens fairly frequently,” Kobach said, echoing the broader sentiments of Republicans who say voter fraud is a pressing issue.

According to the lawsuit that Fox News Digital looked at, Ceballos’ allegations, which include lying under oath and voting when he wasn’t qualified, could get him more than five years in prison.

 

Kobach, who used to be the Secretary of State for Kansas, has a lengthy history of calling for stricter voter ID legislation and tougher immigration enforcement.

 

 

He lost a high-profile federal case in 2018 after trying to enforce a state rule that said voters had to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when they registered to vote.

A court said it went beyond what was needed to prove citizenship, which is against federal election laws.

The court concluded at the time that the state law could not “be justified by the scant evidence of noncitizen voter fraud before and after the law was passed.”

Kobach didn’t say how state officials found out that the mayor and former city councilman are supposedly not a citizens, but he did say that investigators have “unassailable evidence” against Ceballos.

Kobach argued that city officials, such as mayors, must also be U.S. citizens. The attorney general said this was “worth noting” but not a crime. On Election Day, Ceballos was on the ballot for re-election, but the official results have not yet been confirmed.

“In large part, our system right now is based on trust, trust that when the person signs the registration or signs the poll books saying that he is a qualified elector or that he is a United States citizen, that the person is telling the truth,” Kobach said. “In this case, we allege that Mr. Ceballos violated that trust.”

Kobach and Schwab claimed they have started using a federal government database that enables them to verify voter rolls against immigration information. They think this will help them find more voting irregularities.

Ceballos will be in court for the first time on December 3.

This comes amid the federal government shutdown, which is approaching almost 40 days.

The Democratic House and Senate leaders sent a letter to President Trump on Wednesday morning, a day after elections nationwide saw their party pick up gains in blue regions, demanding “bipartisan” talks to reopen the government.

The letter comes after most Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against a GOP-led spending bill to reopen the government.

Meanwhile, a new report suggests that key elements of a potential deal to end the federal government shutdown are beginning to take shape — though it remains uncertain when, or even if, all sides will reach an agreement.

According to Axios, the proposed “three-legged” plan includes three main components: a Senate vote on Affordable Care Act tax credits, a short-term continuing resolution to give negotiators more time to finalize a full-year budget for the fiscal year that began October 1, and a separate vote to fund military construction, the legislative branch, and agriculture programs.

Before Senate Democrats forced the government into a shutdown, the House had already passed a bill to keep it funded through November 21.

If the Senate now strikes a deal to reopen the government, the House will have to return to session and approve the measure, extending the funding deadline in the process.

Kansas Mayor Charged With Election Fraud For Allegedly Serving As Non-Citizen

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and Secretary of State Scott Schwab announced charges against Jose (Joe) Ceballos, the re-elected mayor of Coldwater, alleging he voted multiple times and served in office despite not being a U.S. citizen.

State Charges Filed

The Kansas Attorney General’s Office filed six felony counts in Comanche County—three counts of voting without being qualified and three counts of election perjury.
Each charge is a non-person felony; together they could carry a sentence of more than five years in prison.

“In Kansas, it is against the law to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen. We allege that Mr. Ceballos did it multiple times,” Kobach said. “Voting by noncitizens, including both legal and illegal aliens, is a very real problem. Every time a noncitizen votes, it effectively cancels out a U.S. citizen’s vote.”

Investigators said Ceballos, a legal permanent resident and citizen of Mexico, has been registered to vote since 1990 and sought citizenship earlier this year.

 

 

The attorney general’s office said Special Agent Nate Humble and Special Agent in Charge Matt Simpson are leading the investigation, with First Assistant Attorney General Stacy Edwards prosecuting.

Ceballos is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Federal Verification Cited

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program helped identify the voter-eligibility issue.

“This situation is absolutely unacceptable and, sadly, no surprise given the years of lax voting security in the United States,” said USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser. “From day one, the Trump administration made strengthening the SAVE program a top priority. SAVE is exposing bad actors and safeguarding the integrity of our elections like never before.”

USCIS said 26 states already use or are finalizing agreements with the SAVE system to verify immigration status and citizenship before voter registration.

Kansas Officials Praise New Tools

Secretary of State Scott Schwab credited cooperation with federal agencies for improving voter-roll accuracy.

“We now have tools, thanks to the current White House, that we haven’t had in over 10 years,” Schwab said. “We can check through the SAVE program to find out if folks end up on our voter rolls. They could be legal residents but not citizens. We want to make sure that gets clarified.”

City Response

Coldwater City Council President Britt Lenertz said Ceballos convened a special meeting following the announcement.

“Our focus remains on ensuring that city operations continue to run smoothly and that the needs of our community are met,” Lenertz said. “We will allow the proper legal process to take its course before making any further comments.”

City officials said Ceballos may finish his current two-month term but cannot remain mayor unless his citizenship is approved.

 

Kansas AG files charges against newly reelected mayor for voting as non-US citizen

The Kansas Attorney General’s office has filed criminal charges against a well-liked, newly re-elected small-town mayor who is alleged to have voted despite not having U.S. citizenship.

Attorney General Kris Kobach said Jose “Joe” Ceballos, 54, is a Mexican citizen with legal permanent residency in the United States but is not a citizen. Ceballos was re-elected as mayor this week by residents of Coldwater, a community of 687 people in southwestern Kansas.

Ceballos is being charged with three counts apiece of election perjury and voting without being qualified, Kobach said Wednesday at a press conference. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 68 months’ imprisonment and $200,000 in fines.

A hearing on the charges is set for Dec. 3.

 

View |17 Photos

Birthright Citizenship case drew demonstrators to Supreme Court

See demonstrations in May as Supreme Court considered case involving Trump's executive order limiting the right of birthright citizenship.

Skip Herd, Coldwater city attorney, told Wichita's KWCH-TV that Ceballos, who he said holds a green card, drew "red flags" by applying for permanent citizenship.

“He’s been a registered voter since 1990," Herd told the news station. "He applied for citizenship in February of this year, and through that, raised the issue of whether he was a legal citizen,” Herd said.

The state's charges are based on Ceballos’ votes in the general elections of 2022 and 2023 as well as the 2024 primary election, but Kobach said Ceballos was a registered voter prior to those elections. Ceballos did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Coldwater City Council president Britt Lenertz issued a statement saying the mayor had convened council members for a special meeting on Wednesday to discuss the situation.

“At this time, our focus remains on ensuring that city operations continue to run smoothly and that the needs of our community are met,” Lenertz said. “While the recent allegations involving the mayor are understandably concerning, we will allow the proper legal process to take its course before making any further comments.”

Lenertz told KWCH that Ceballos, who has also served as a city council member, has been informed he can complete the remaining two months of his ongoing mayoral term but that she will subsequently take over as mayor unless his citizenship is approved before then. The situation, she said, has been difficult for a community that has rallied around the longtime public official.

“As a mayor, he’s done a wonderful job,” she told the news outlet. “As a city councilmember, he’s done a wonderful job. He’s always put our community first in everything he does.”

Kobach said Kansas law requires city officers to be qualified electors, who in turn are required to be U.S. citizens.

“Noncitizen voting is a real problem,” Kobach said. “It’s not something that happens once in a decade.” Kansas is among several states, he said, now utilizing the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, or SAVE, to verify citizenship status among their registered voter rolls. Tennessee, Florida and Ohio are also using the system, he said.

“The only way you can discover that a noncitizen is on the voter rolls is if some sort of external information comes to light which indicates that person is not a U.S. citizen,” he said. “In large part, our system right now is based on trust – trust that when the person signs the registration saying he’s a qualified elector or U.S. citizen, that the person is telling the truth. In this case we allege that Mr. Ceballos violated that trust.”

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach speaks at a press conference on Nov. 5, 2025, where he announced that his office was filing charges against the … Show more   

Evert Nelson/The Capital-Journal, Evert Nelson/The Capital-Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab said the system now allows state officials to determine if registered voters, whether intentionally or by clerical error, are on the rolls.

“If they voted, then it’s a crime,” he said. “It’s important that we clean this up.”

Schwab said the effort is less about looking for criminal behavior than restoring voter trust.

“It’s about showing the people of Kansas that we are doing what we can to make sure you know our voter rolls are as clean as we can,” he said. “It’s not a witch hunt.”

He said it will be up to Coldwater city officials to determine whether or not Ceballos should be seated as mayor, “but the law says he should not be, because he’s not a lawful elector.”

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab speaks at a press conference in Topeka on Nov. 5, 2025, at which state attorney general Kris Kobach announced … Show more   

Evert Nelson/The Capital-Journal, Evert Nelson/The Capital-Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

President Donald Trump recently commended Schwab, a Republican campaigning for the state governor’s seat in 2026, for using the SAVE system to “protect the integrity of our elections.”

Kobach said he anticipates that the SAVE system will help the state expose “hundreds” of noncitizen voters. Every noncitizen vote, he said, effectively cancels out the vote of a U.S. citizen.

“We don’t know how large a number it’s going to be, but early indications are that it’s a very large number,” he said. “We will have to see and decide which to prosecute.”

Continue reading