21-year-old allegedly plotted mass casualty attack on police
The booking photo for Seth “Andrea” Gregori, Feb. 24, 2025. (Corpus Christi Police Department)
(HOUSTON, TEXAS) — Authorities in Texas said on Monday that they have thwarted a “mass casualty attack” after arresting a suspect who allegedly made terroristic threats against police officers.
Seth “Andrea” Gregori was arrested on a terroristic threats warrant Monday morning, the Corpus Christi Police Department said.
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation was notified of Gregori making terroristic threats against Corpus Christi Police Department Officers,” the police department said in a statement. “The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the threats and secured an arrest warrant for Gregori.”
The 21-year-old suspect allegedly planned an attack on police “similar to the 2016 Dallas ambush,” the FBI’s Houston office said.
In the 2016 incident referenced by the FBI, five Dallas police officers were killed and seven injured in an ambush-style shooting.
The shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, told a hostage negotiator that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers, and expressed anger for Black Lives Matter, police said. The ex-U.S. Army reservist was killed by police when they detonated a bomb delivered by a robot.
The 21-year-old suspect allegedly planned an attack on police “similar to the 2016 Dallas ambush,” the FBI’s Houston office said.
In the 2016 incident referenced by the FBI, five Dallas police officers were killed and seven injured in an ambush-style shooting.
The shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, told a hostage negotiator that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers, and expressed anger for Black Lives Matter, police said. The ex-U.S. Army reservist was killed by police when they detonated a bomb delivered by a robot.
Police did not release any additional details on the case involving Gregori.
No charges have been filed yet in the case, the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office told ABC Corpus Christi affiliate KIII.
It is unclear if Gregori has an attorney at this time.
(WASHINGTON) — As part of President-elect Donald Trump’s strategy to secure the border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will carry out post-inauguration raids as early as Tuesday, sources briefed on the plans told ABC News.
ICE will likely start in Chicago and could move on to other big cities, according to sources, who noted the plans could change.
Trump called the raids a “big priority” when asked by ABC News’ Rachel Scott whether his administration could carry out post-inauguration raids as early as Tuesday. He declined to discuss timing but vowed it “will happen.”
“It’s a priority that we get the criminals out of our country,” he said. “And it is for everybody else — it’s one of the reasons I won the election by such a big margin. And it is a priority.”
ICE has been ramping up its operations in anticipation of Trump’s plan to carry out deportations, and the agency put out a request for ICE agents to volunteer to help with at least some of the operations, according to a source.
The plans were first reported by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Agencies that fall under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella, such as Enforcement and Removal Operations, which handles deportations, and Homeland Security Investigations, have been put on “alert” by the incoming administration, officials with knowledge of the plan told ABC News.
Although field teams have not been given specific details about what next week will hold, federal agents assigned to the region were asked to prepare cases and operations that were “ready to go,” the officials said.
Tom Homan, the incoming border czar, has previewed these operations in past comments, especially targeting Chicago.
In December, Homan visited the city and promised enforcement operations would begin there.
“All that starts Jan. 21, and we’re going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois,” Homan said during the visit.
Homan has promised to go after violent offenders in the United States.
(WASHINGTON) — Among the first executive orders set to be signed by President Donald Trump will be an order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the newly named “Gulf of America.”
“A short time from now, we are going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America,” he said during his inaugural address at the Capitol Rotunda on Monday.
During his January press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump declared he would change the name, saying the gulf is currently run by cartels and that “it’s ours.”
“We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which has a beautiful ring that covers a lot of territory, the Gulf of America,” Trump said. “What a beautiful name. And it’s appropriate. It’s appropriate. And Mexico has to stop allowing millions of people to pour into our country.”
Presidents do have the authority to rename geographic regions and features, but it needs to be done via executive order.
The U.S. Board of Geographic Names typically has the jurisdiction for geographic names.
The Gulf of Mexico is one of the largest and most important bodies of water in North America. It’s the ninth-largest body of water in the world and covers some 600,000 square miles.
Half of the U.S. petroleum refining and natural gas processing capacity is located along the Gulf of Mexico, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and it supplies about 40% of the nation’s seafood, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
(SEATTLE) — A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request made by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship — long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s rebuke.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
Shumate implored Coughenour to hold off on blocking the order, saying that it does not take effect until Feb. 19.
“It’s enough to say there is no imminent harm that the states will incur as a result of this order,” Shumate said. “We urge the court not to grant any temporary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction.”
“Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case,” said Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump’s executive order attempts to change a part of the Constitution that is “off limits” after being settled across a century of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced, ending the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term injunction over the coming weeks.
Coughenour’s order temporarily enjoins Trump and any federal employee from enforcing or implementing the executive order.
“The Plaintiff States have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” Coughenour wrote, citing the costs of medical care, social services, and administrative work encountered by the four states who sued Trump.
“The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff States and the public interest strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief,” the order said.
Thursday’s ruling was the first legal test of Trump’s executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In an interview with ABC News after the hearing, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said he plans to continue fighting the executive order if the Trump administration appeals to a higher court.
“I don’t think it ends here,” Brown said. “First and foremost, there are other cases being brought across the country, and so those cases will continue to move forward, and this president and this administration certainly has a propensity to keep these fights going, and so I anticipate that will happen moving forward.”
Coughenour scheduled Thursday’s in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump’s policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.
“The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society,” the lawsuit says. “Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless.”
The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump’s executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to “full participation and opportunity in American society.”
“They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices,” the complaint says. “And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States.”
Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Intended to take effect next month, Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.
While most countries confer a child’s citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.”
Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court’s finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.
“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States,” the states’ lawsuit argued.
The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump’s executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.
