Indiana Trans Student Pleads Guilty in Valentine’s Day School Plot

October 28, 2025

judge — Gavel (Zolnierek/Getty Images via Canva Pro)

A trans student in Indiana has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder after plotting a Valentine’s Day mass shooting at Mooresville High School. Trinity J. Shockley, 18, who identifies as a transgender male and goes by “Jamie” or “Dex,” entered the plea Monday in Morgan Superior Court. Under the deal, prosecutors dropped two intimidation charges. Sentencing for the trans student is scheduled for Nov. 24.

According to court documents, Shockley kept a “shrine” to mass shooters including Parkland gunman Nikolas Cruz, Charleston church killer Dylann Roof, and Oxford High School shooter Ethan Crumbley. The Morgan County Sheriff’s Department said the discovery included photos, buttons, and a journal filled with violent writings. “These thoughts never seem to stop,” Shockley wrote on Dec. 16, 2024. “I am just a loser… I hope whoever reads this takes acknowledgment and maybe use it for your massacre.”

Authorities said the FBI received a tip warning that Shockley had access to an AR-15 rifle, had ordered a bulletproof vest, and was planning a shooting “because that would present the most target-rich environment.” Investigators uncovered online messages where Shockley, using the handle “Crazy Nikolaz,” described the attack as “Parkland part two.”

Court documents revealed Shockley later told police the plan was “a joke,” claiming to seek mental-health help after suffering a brain injury in 2022. Prosecutors are requesting a prison sentence of up to 30 years for the trans student, while the defense has asked for no more than 12.5 years and probation.

America Onchain: Trump’s Trade Win Sets Stage for Crypto Rally

October 28, 2025

trump trade — (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

I've been in the crypto space for years—as a media personality, investor, and advisor—and I've seen the skeptics, the believers, and everything in between. . .

This content is only available for American Faith Premium Subscribers. For as low as $3.99/mo, you can access all our Premium content, learn more here.

If you are already a Premium subscriber, please log in to view this content.

ICE Leadership Shakeup Reveals Deep Divide Over Deportation Priorities

October 28, 2025

kristi noem — (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The Department of Homeland Security has initiated a major leadership shakeup at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, replacing top officials in at least eight field offices across the country. This restructuring signals growing internal conflict over deportation strategy—specifically whether to focus on criminal aliens or pursue broader enforcement against all individuals unlawfully present in the country.

ICE field offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Philadelphia, El Paso, and New Orleans are among those affected. According to reports, experienced ICE leaders are being replaced by officials from Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Border Patrol. The move has caused friction within DHS as competing enforcement philosophies clash behind the scenes.

One side of the debate reportedly favors a targeted approach, prioritizing the removal of individuals with criminal convictions or final deportation orders. This group includes ICE Director Todd Lyons and former ICE official Tom Homan. The opposing camp, reportedly aligned with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol leadership, advocates for broader removals of all who are in the country illegally, regardless of criminal history or length of stay.

An ICE official speaking anonymously described the shift as aggressive and unfocused, stating that the agency has “lost its focus” and is moving “too hard, too fast” without clear prioritization. Tensions between ICE and Border Patrol leadership appear to be escalating, as traditional ICE personnel express concern over blurred operational boundaries and diminished autonomy.

Prince Andrew’s ‘Two‐Home’ Demands Expose Royal Tug‐of‐War

October 28, 2025

Prince Andrew is reportedly seeking a dual-property arrangement as a condition to vacate Royal Lodge, his 30-room Windsor residence. The proposal involves taking over both Frogmore Cottage—formerly occupied by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle—and Adelaide Cottage, expected to be vacated by Prince William and Princess Kate. Andrew’s lease on Royal Lodge extends until 2078, complicating the royal household’s efforts to downsize his living arrangements.

According to reports, Andrew has resisted King Charles III’s push for him to relocate, citing both legal standing and personal preference. While he has expressed openness to negotiating an exit, his demand for two high-profile properties has drawn scrutiny from royal analysts, who say it reflects a disconnect between public expectations and royal privilege.

Observers suggest the dispute highlights broader institutional tensions. The monarchy continues to face calls for greater transparency and modernity, particularly in light of recent controversies involving royal finances, property use, and individual accountability. Andrew’s position—requesting two additional homes in exchange for leaving one—has amplified ongoing debates about entitlement, responsibility, and the balance between tradition and reform.

The final decision regarding Prince Andrew’s living arrangements may signal the monarchy’s broader direction. Whether the royal institution grants his requests or enforces a more austere solution will reflect how it navigates legacy, public perception, and the evolving standards of leadership in the 21st century.

Obama Backs Spanberger, Faces Criticism Over Earlier Remarks to Black Men

October 28, 2025

Former President Barack Obama announced he will headline a rally on Nov. 1 in Virginia for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger, who is challenging Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle‑Sears—the first Black woman nominated for governor in the state’s history.

The campaign stop comes nearly a year after Obama drew criticism for remarks directed at Black male voters—particularly his statement that their lack of support for Vice President Kamala Harris might stem from reluctance to back a woman as president. Meanwhile, Earle‑Sears, a Jamaican‑born U.S. Marine veteran and Richmond native, stands as the only Black candidate running for governor in either major party during the 2025 cycle.

Obama’s involvement in the Virginia governor’s race places renewed attention on the Democratic Party’s handling of race and gender in its political messaging. His past remarks urging Black men to support Kamala Harris based on identity politics now contrast sharply with his decision to campaign against a historic Black female Republican candidate. For voters concerned with consistency, merit-based leadership, and genuine representation, the optics of this endorsement may raise doubts about the sincerity of the party’s stated commitments to diversity. The rally and its reception could signal broader implications for how minority voters respond to partisan appeals heading into 2026.

Japan’s First Female PM, Sanae Takaichi, to Meet Trump Amid Global Spotlight

October 28, 2025

Japan flag — Japanese flag (Fumiaki Hayashi/Unsplash)

Sanae Takaichi has risen to become Japan’s first female prime minister, and her unconventional background is drawing global attention as she prepares to meet Donald Trump in Tokyo.

Takaichi, who won the leadership of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in October before being formally elected by parliament on October 21, approaches the premiership as a staunch conservative and self‑described admirer of Margaret Thatcher. Her political agenda includes bolstering Japan’s defense, tightening immigration controls, and reaffirming the U.S.‑Japan alliance.

What sets her apart from the typical political profile is a surprising past: during her university years, Takaichi played drums in a heavy‑metal band and remains a passionate fan of the genre. Her time as a musician contributes to her image as both disciplined and unconventional.

As she meets President Trump, the dialogue is expected to focus on trade, security in the Indo‑Pacific, and shared concerns about China’s rising influence. Analysts view the match‑up as strategically important for U.S. foreign‑policy goals in the region.

Stakes Sky‑High: Tesla, Inc. Board Warns Vote on Elon Musk’s $1 Trillion Pay Plan Is ‘Critical’

October 28, 2025

The board of Tesla, led by Chair Robyn Denholm, has delivered a stark message to shareholders: failure to approve a proposed compensation package worth up to $1 trillion for CEO Elon Musk may trigger his departure from the company.

The pay plan would award Musk as much as 12 % of Tesla’s equity—if the company meets ambitious milestones like reaching an $8.5 trillion market valuation and achieving major advances in autonomous driving and robotics. Denholm emphasized that Musk’s “time, talent and vision” are essential for Tesla’s future, and that approving the plan is fundamental to retaining his leadership.

But the proposal has alarmed some governance experts and proxy advisory firms, citing concerns over size, structure, and independence of the deal. The upcoming shareholder vote, scheduled for November 6, will test investor appetite for what would be the largest executive compensation arrangement in corporate history.

The shareholder vote, set for November 6, will determine whether Tesla proceeds with what would be the largest executive compensation package in corporate history. Supporters argue the plan reflects Musk’s unique role in driving Tesla’s innovation and growth. Critics point to corporate governance concerns and the scale of the potential payout. The outcome will have significant implications for Tesla’s leadership, future direction, and investor priorities.

City Journal Launches College Rankings Prioritizing Free Speech and Western Values

October 28, 2025

American Flags — American flag (David Everett Strickler/Unsplash)

City Journal has released a new college ranking system that evaluates 100 institutions based on 68 data-driven metrics. Unlike traditional rankings that prioritize reputation and research funding, this system emphasizes free speech, Western intellectual tradition, and institutional outcomes.

The ranking includes colleges selected for their national prominence or regional influence, using categories such as leadership quality, educational experience, student life, and post-graduation outcomes. Metrics evaluate whether schools promote open inquiry, resist ideological conformity, and maintain a curriculum grounded in classical education rather than political activism.

Key areas of focus include whether a university upholds freedom of expression, supports civil discourse, and fosters a sense of civic responsibility. Schools were assessed on how well they deliver value in tuition costs versus career readiness, and whether students are equipped for citizenship rooted in moral and intellectual development.

Unlike U.S. News or similar lists, this ranking system questions whether institutions are forming capable, free-thinking citizens or merely producing compliant workers. The methodology highlights whether schools provide a rigorous education in Western civilization, the U.S. Constitution, and foundational texts, rather than filtering content through identity politics or divisive ideologies.

Yale Diversity Hire Pushes Socialist, Anti-Imperialist Agenda in Classrooms

October 28, 2025

A Yale professor appointed under the university’s now-defunct diversity initiative continues teaching courses rooted in socialist, anti-imperialist, and radical feminist ideologies. The visiting scholar’s presence raises concerns about the use of taxpayer-supported academic institutions to promote far-left worldviews while excluding intellectual diversity.

Gail Lewis, a former “Presidential Visiting Fellow,” remains on the faculty at Yale’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies department even after the official end of Yale’s “Faculty Excellence and Diversity Initiative” in December 2024. Despite the program’s conclusion, Lewis continues to teach courses that reflect a deeply ideological framework, including “Black Feminist Theory” and “Subjectivity and its Discontents: Psychosocial Explorations in Black, Feminist, Queer.”

Course descriptions emphasize “epistemic transformations” and critique foundational concepts of personhood. The curriculum does not indicate any inclusion of traditional American values, classical liberal thought, or constitutional frameworks. Instead, it prioritizes themes of racial and sexual identity, systemic oppression, and anti-colonial narratives.

Lewis’s writings reinforce her political stance. In a 2019 article titled “Where Might We Go If We Dare,” she writes about moving beyond the “thick, suffocating fog of whiteness in feminism.” Another piece, “Birthing Racial Difference,” discusses race and psychic development in the context of British imperialism. Her work openly critiques Western civilization’s foundational institutions, aligning instead with Marxist and post-colonial theory.

UC Berkeley Course Promotes ‘Abolish ICE’ and Depicts Agency as ‘Racist Deportation Force’

October 28, 2025

A course at University of California, Berkeley reportedly advances the viewpoint that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a “racist deportation force” and aligns with the “abolish ICE” movement. The class assignments and readings emphasize immigrant‑advocacy positions and omit alternative perspectives on federal immigration enforcement.

The course in question is listed as Legal Studies 132AC: Immigration and Citizenship and is scheduled for upcoming semesters. Course syllabi for Spring 2024 and Spring 2025 (obtained by the reporting outlet) show required materials including articles titled “It’s Time to Abolish ICE” and “Trump Wants to Take Away Your Citizenship.”

Those readings characterize ICE as a “white‑supremacist surveillance state” and an agency devoted “almost solely to cruelly and wantonly breaking up families.” They also describe federal immigration law and border enforcement as rooted in “racial superiority.”

The course is taught by two professors who are experienced in deportation‑defense legal work and have ties to activist organizations supporting detained immigrants. One assignment requires students to reflect on how the reading may have changed their perspective.

Critics argue that offering a class at a taxpayer‑funded institution that presents one ideological viewpoint without required materials defending or explaining federal immigration enforcement raises concerns about intellectual balance and fairness. According to the report, the syllabi include “no required materials that defend the role of immigration law in protecting national security or discuss the constitutional basis for federal enforcement powers.”

Supporters of the course might argue that higher education serves to challenge mainstream assumptions and to explore historically marginalized perspectives. Detractors say a university should present competing viewpoints so students can reason for themselves, rather than being guided toward a predetermined conclusion.