Category: Blaze Media
The imperial judiciary strikes back
So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.
While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it.
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.
Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.
Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.
To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.
Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.
Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”
Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.
There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.
RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.
Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images
Just a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:
In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.
Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.
Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.
In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.
An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
Two Texans allegedly plotted to kill men on island with homeless mercenary force and take women and children as sex slaves
Federal prosecutors revealed a shocking indictment of two men from Texas who are accused of planning to assault the inhabitants of an island near Haiti and enslave the women and children.
Gavin Rivers Weisenburg, 21, of Allen and Tanner Christopher Thomas, 20, of Argyle allegedly plotted a coup d’état on Gonâve Island, which is a part of the Republic of Haiti.
Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their ‘rape fantasies.’
The plan involved recruiting and training homeless people from the Washington, D.C., area to build a mercenary force to attack the island inhabitants, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Texas.
“Weisenburg and Thomas intended to murder all of the men on the island so that they could then turn all of the women and children into their sex slaves,” the press release reads.
The pair partially completed many parts of their plan, including learning the Haitian Creole language, recruiting others into the scheme, and making operational and logistical plans. They intended to purchase firearms, ammunition, and a sailboat.
Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their “rape fantasies.”
Weisenburg enrolled at the North Texas Fire Academy in Rockwall in order to gain skills for the endeavor, while Thomas enlisted in the U.S. Air Force for the same reason.
The two are also charged with coercing a minor to commit sex acts on camera in August.
The pair allegedly plotted the island invasion from Aug. 2024 until July 2025.
There are about 87,000 inhabitants living on Gonâve Island, which measures about 266 square miles.
Weisenburg and Thomas face life in prison if convicted of federal conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and they face between 15 and 30 years in prison for charges of production of child pornography.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Elon Musk to reveal flying car next year
Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.
Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.
As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.
Rogan reveal
On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”
Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”
He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”
Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”
That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.
The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.
Good timing
Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.
Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.
Hovering hype
So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.
There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.
The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.
Sky’s the limit
Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.
In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.
Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.
The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.
Got a permit for that?
Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.
Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.
RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car
Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson
Free parachute with purchase
Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.
NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.
In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.
Sticking the landing
So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.
But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.
Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.
John Doyle’s Trump year-one victory lap: Border sealed, millions self-deporting, DEI dead, J6 pardons, Gaza peace & beyond
Donald Trump hasn’t even reached the end of his first year back in office, and John Doyle, Blaze Media’s newest TV host, says that already his “most optimistic expectations have been exceeded.”
“I’m looking forward to seeing what the administration does with its subsequent three years. However, it’s also undeniable that the first year of Trump’s second term has more Ws in it than, like, literally any year in his first term,” he says.
On this episode of “The John Doyle Show,” Doyle recaps the MAGA king’s biggest accomplishments.
Immigration crackdown
“Immigration is the most important issue,” considering that “under Joe Biden’s administration, literally tens of millions of illegals just waltzed right into the country,” Doyle says.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump turned off the spigot by declaring a national emergency at the southern border, directing 10,000+ military personnel to stop the influx. On the same day, he signed multiple executive orders to secure borders, end “catch and release,” and block most asylum entries at the southern border.
In the months that followed, he reinstated and expanded Remain in Mexico, signed the Laken Riley Act mandating detention for migrant criminals, dramatically ramped up ICE arrests and deportations (hundreds of thousands removed, with over a million self-deporting), and achieved the lowest illegal border crossings in decades — plummeting over 90% from prior peaks and delivering the most secure border in modern history.
Because of these efforts, Doyle says, “border crossings do not even exist anymore; they are a fable.”
He acknowledges, however, that what’s needed next is the “mass deportations” we were promised. “They must remove themselves or be removed from the balance sheet peacefully, very legally … and there’s no way around that fact.”
Bye-bye DEI
President Trump has “racked up pretty substantial wins when it comes to anti-white racism,” Doyle says. Previous administrations “spent trillions of dollars” building a “civil rights regime” that ironically “wound up just being this entity to discriminate against specifically white people as a matter of policy.”
In just months, President Trump has dismantled the federal DEI machine built over decades by Democrats. He eliminated all DEI programs, offices, positions, and preferences across the federal government; revoked longstanding affirmative action requirements for federal contractors; and directed agencies to combat illegal DEI practices in the private sector to restore merit-based opportunity and enforce colorblind civil rights laws.
“And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. … He signed an executive order banning anti-white indoctrination in K-12 schools; he signed an executive order in April to crack down on disparate impact in the federal government,” Doyle says.
On top of that, “the Trump administration also launched a major investigation into the entire University of California system for race- and sex-based hiring quotas,” Doyle continues. “It opened investigations into 45 universities, including Ivy League schools, over illegal racial preferences in student fellowships, academic programs, admissions practices.”
“The list goes on and on,” he adds.
Honorable mentions
Doyle praises Trump for issuing “a sweeping pardon” of January 6 protesters, “[directing] multiple federal agencies to investigate Antifa,” and “[adding] a $100,000 fee to the H-1B visa.”
He also convinced Israel “to accept a much earlier peace deal in Gaza than it would have liked to do. … He managed to avoid freaking war with Iran, freaking World War III, like everybody thought was going to happen,” Doyle says.
“The progress this administration has made has been remarkable, and we still have three years left to go.”
Want more from John Doyle?
To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
GIVING ‘EM ZEL! EPA Admin Lee Zeldin Reacts to Jasmine Crockett’s Epstein Botch [WATCH]
![GIVING ‘EM ZEL! EPA Admin Lee Zeldin Reacts to Jasmine Crockett’s Epstein Botch [WATCH]](https://hannity.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Zeldin-300x166.png "Zeldin")
‘Crocket makes Kamala Harris sound like Shakespeare.
What Do Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Mohamed Atta, and Adolf Hitler Have in Common? They’re Democratic Donors.
Jasmine Crockett, the sassy and toxically self-absorbed Democratic congresswoman from Texas, attempted to shame Republican lawmakers who have taken money from people named Jeffrey Epstein. None of the donations she mentioned came from the jet-setting pedophile Jeffrey Epstein; they were individuals who shared his name. Guess what, fam? We’re CLAPPING BACK at Crockett with our own 20-minute Google sesh. We used the internet to uncover some DEVASTATING truths about Democrats and the evil scumbags who finance their radical anti-American agenda. We didn’t have time to check for accuracy, but we’re pretty sure it’s legit. We seek to inform, not to mislead. That’s why we brought RECEIPTS, bitch.
The post What Do Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Mohamed Atta, and Adolf Hitler Have in Common? They’re Democratic Donors. appeared first on .
Socialism Comes to Congress: 98 House Dems Vote Against Measure To Condemn Far-Left Ideology
Ninety-eight House Democrats on Friday voted against a resolution “denouncing the horrors of socialism” that came just hours before President Donald Trump is set to meet with socialist New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.
The post Socialism Comes to Congress: 98 House Dems Vote Against Measure To Condemn Far-Left Ideology appeared first on .
$500 million in SNAP funds is reportedly spent on fast food because of state program
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is getting renewed scrutiny after Democrats tried to use the program as a cudgel to beat down Republicans during the government shutdown.
Some Republicans are calling for new restrictions on SNAP to decrease program spending and cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
‘I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’
According to Republican U.S. Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, $524 million was spent “almost exclusively on fast food, in nine states” over two years. The figure comes from spending through the Restaurant Meals Program option that allows select SNAP beneficiaries to use their funds on participating restaurants, including fast food shops.
“The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition — not nuggets with a side of fries,” Ernst said in a statement accompanying the press release. “I wish I was McRibbing you, but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.”
The RMP option varies by state but is intended to help those who have problems preparing their own meals, including people with disabilities, the elderly, and homeless people.
While fast food eats up millions in benefits, according to a previous report on SNAP spending, about 23% of the funds are redeemed on sugary drinks like soda and other snacks.
In 2024, the federal government spent about $100 billion on SNAP, which means that about $23 billion was spent on sugary drinks and snacks. That includes about 10% on soda, which would represent about $10 billion worth of taxpayer funds.
Ernst’s McSCUSE ME Act would revise the RMP standards and impose additional restrictions to lessen spending on fast food restaurants.
RELATED: Woman goes viral after admitting to being on SNAP benefits for 3 decades
The Restaurant Meals Program was implemented in 1977.
Despite the effort to make SNAP more efficient, it is a drop in the bucket of total federal spending. Even if the entire program was ended and all food aid was canceled, it would only represent a 1.5% decrease in the budget.
About 41.7 million people in the U.S. receive SNAP benefits, which is about 1 in every 8 people in the country.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Elderly NYC man fatally shoots career criminal who allegedly lunged at him — and gets prison sentence for infuriating reason
An elderly New York City man has been sentenced to prison after he fatally shot a career criminal who allegedly lunged at him in 2023 — and for a reason many will find infuriating.
Charles Foehner, 67, pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of criminal weapons possession in a deal to end his case more than two years after he fatally shot would-be thief Cody Gonzalez, who charged at him near his Kew Gardens home in Queens, the New York Post reported.
‘If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today.’
More specifically, Foehner will spend four years in prison after admitting to carrying an unlicensed revolver, the paper said, adding that Foehner’s attorney blasted the city’s “draconian” gun laws.
The Post said the Queens District Attorney’s Office decided not to prosecute Foehner — a retired doorman — for Gonzalez’s killing after he told police that he defended himself from a mugger who lunged at him late at night holding what looked like a knife, except it was a pen.
More from the paper:
But prosecutors slapped Foehner with a slew of weapons raps for the unlicensed handgun and for an arsenal of illicit handguns, revolvers and rifles inside his home in the quiet neighborhood.
Foehner took the plea deal to avoid a trial, where he faced 25 years in prison on gun charges that are not hard to prove, said his attorney Thomas Kenniff after Thursday’s hearing in Queens Supreme Court.
Kenniff called Foehner a “hero” who was put in an “impossible position” by what he called “draconian” Big Apple gun laws that make it difficult for “law-abiding citizens” to obtain permits to carry firearms.
“If this was a state and a city that had its affairs in order, Mr. Foehner would be getting a plaque, not a prison sentence,” Kenniff told reporters on the courthouse steps, the Post said.
Foehner’s attorney added that lawmakers in New York City and the state capital have “repeatedly frustrated the rights of law-abiding Americans, New Yorkers, that possess firearms,” the paper reported.
The Post said attorney Kenniff is known for successfully defending Marine veteran Daniel Penny from charges of fatally choking a homeless man who threatened New York City subway passengers in May 2023.
“If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today,” Kenniff also said, according to the paper.
Following his arrest on the heels of the 2 a.m. fatal shooting in a driveway near his home at 82nd Avenue and Queens Boulevard, Foehner told police he had been carrying the gun in question to protect himself from crime in New York City, the Post noted.
More from the paper:
Security footage showed the alleged robber Gonzalez — who had at least 15 arrests dating back to 2004 and a record of mental illness — continuing to charge at Foehner even after the senior pulled his gun.
Foehner took the deal Thursday with the understanding that he’d be sentenced to four years in prison at his sentencing date Jan. 14, his lawyer said.
Until then, he’ll remain “at liberty” and will be able to celebrate Christmas with his wife, Judge Toni Cimino ruled — over objections from the Queens DA’s Office, which had pushed for him to spend the holidays at Rikers Island.
“While we very much respect DA Melinda Katz and the fine prosecutors she assigned to this case, we were disappointed that the DA’s Office sought to have Charlie remanded before sentencing,” Kenniff noted Thursday, according to the Post. “We are grateful that Judge Toni Cimino agreed to let Charlie rejoice with his wife in the light of this Christmas season before he begins his sentence.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Campbell’s Soup VP recorded ridiculing ‘poor people’ for eating ‘bioengineered meat’ in ‘s**t’ product: Lawsuit
A Campbell’s Soup executive was allegedly recorded mocking the company’s customers and making racial comments against its Indian employees, according to a lawsuit from a former employee.
Robert Garza of Monroe, Michigan, says that he was fired from the company after complaining about the comments made by the executive in an hour-long rant he recorded from a meeting at a restaurant.
‘I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it. … Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.’
The executive, Martin Bally, is now the vice president of the company.
“He has no filter,” Robert Garza said to WDIV-TV. “He thinks he’s a C-level executive at a Fortune 500 company and he can do whatever he wants because he’s an executive.”
Garza was hired as a remote security analyst in September 2024 for the company’s headquarters in Camden, New Jersey. He said he recorded the conversation with Bally because he felt there was something off about his former supervisor.
“We have s**t for f**king poor people. Who buys our s**t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it. … Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer,” said the man identified as Bally by Garza on the recording.
He also derided the workers from India at the company.
“F**king Indians don’t know a f**king thing,” the man said on the recording. “Like they couldn’t think for their f**king selves.”
Garza said he felt “pure disgust” after hearing the rant. He says that Bally admitted to being high on marijuana edibles on the job as well, which is included in the filing.
In Jan. 2025, Garza went to his supervisor to complain about the comments, but Garza says he was fired weeks later.
“He reached out to his supervisor and told the supervisor what Martin was saying, and then out of nowhere, my client was fired,” said Garza’s attorney, Zachary Runyan.
“He was really sticking up for other people,” Runyan continued. “He went to his boss and said, ‘Martin is saying this about Indian co-workers we have. He’s saying this about people who buy our food — who keep our company open, and I don’t think that should be allowed.’ And the response to Robert sticking up for other people is he gets fired, which is ridiculous.”
Garza said he was shocked at the decision because Bally had praised his performance during the meeting.
“He had never had any disciplinary action; they had never written him up for work performance,” Runyan added.
RELATED: FDA announces ban on red food dye over cancer concerns
The lawsuit accuses the company of maintaining a racially hostile work environment by firing Garza in retaliation. He says that he never received a follow-up from Human Resources or from the company, and it took him 10 months to find another job.
The company released a statement to WDIV about the lawsuit.
“If accurate, the comments in the recording are unacceptable,” the statement reads. “They do not reflect our values and the culture of our company. We are actively investigating this matter.”
The lawsuit names vice president and chief information security officer Martin Bally and supervisor J.D. Aupperle as defendants in addition to the Campbell Soup Company.
The Campbell Soup Company employs more than 144K employees and has more than $10.3 billion in net sales annually, according to its website.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
