BREAKING: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Under Federal Investigation After SHOCK Discovery
Feds Probe AOC
Tom Homan, the Border Czar, said that he has started a federal investigation into Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) because she is accused of hiring an undocumented immigrant to work for her and helping other illegal aliens avoid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
The Trump government is looking into Ocasio-Cortez for two possible crimes: hiring an unauthorized immigrant who then helped someone else avoid ICE. Homan told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that he has told the agency to take her to court.
“It’s being looked into (AOC hiring an illegal alien), but I can’t say anything else. “I know about it,” Homan said. “We’ve asked ICE to look into that case more closely.” “She’s not really teaching people how to avoid ICE arrests; she’s teaching them how to avoid prosecution.” It’s against the law to willfully stop your removal because there are laws against it.
Johnson asked how an undocumented immigrant could have gotten a job in Congress and perhaps gotten access to classified material.
“It is not possible,” Homan stressed, emphasizing that the congresswoman will be held accountable if such claims are accurate.
TownHall.com said that Diego de la Vega departed the U.S. on his own in March because he was worried about his safety. This was during the Trump administration’s increased efforts to deport people. He got involved in politics in 2010 when he backed the DREAM Act, which aimed to give undocumented immigrants who arrived to the US as kids a means to become legal.
The bill only lost in the Senate by five votes, although de la Vega worked as a “special assistant” to former Harlem Assemblymember Robert J. Rodriguez and interned for Representative Carolyn Maloney (D), even though he was undocumented.
Ocasio-Cortez named de la Vega Deputy Communications Director in 2022. AOC told Migrant Insider that Diego is “amazing” in an interview.
Homan emailed the deputy attorney general in February to ask for a probe against Ocasio-Cortez. That happened not long after news broke that the New York Democrat was holding seminars to teach undocumented immigrants how to avoid ICE enforcement.
After Homan sent an email to the DOJ, AOC said that the Trump administration still hadn’t answered her questions about whether she is being investigated by the federal government.
Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News at the beginning of last month, “I’ve asked them, but they haven’t answered me.” “But you know, I was once again completely using the First Amendment to let people know about their rights under the Constitution. They say a lot of stuff, but I sent them an official letter and they haven’t answered.
When asked about what might happen next, she didn’t hold back. She stated that holding an elected official without any real reason would be a “huge sea change and escalation in what this administration is willing to do to bend laws, norms, and so on, and how a normal functioning democracy works.”
“I sure hope that for all the saber-rattling that this administration is doing, that they really think about the global consequences of what it means for the United States,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Earlier this year, the congresswoman held a “Know Your Rights” webinar where lawyers told illegal immigrants how to deal with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
The online forum, which was in both English and Spanish, gave legal advice and handed out papers. One of these papers said that immigrants “do not have to open the door” for ICE authorities unless they received a warrant issued by a court.
Ocasio-Cortez’s office also gave information on how to get free legal help and told people who were in the country illegally to sign privacy release forms. This would let her office get involved in deportation cases.
Ocasio-Cortez has strongly refuted any claims that her actions were wrong, calling the idea of a federal investigation “politically motivated.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
