Chicago TV Station Producer Arrested for Throwing Objects at Border Patrol Vehicle
The legacy media points to a temporary restraining order that “prohibit[s] the use of force against journalists” in Chicago.
Judging from the rather unflattering photos below, social justice activist and WGN-TV video producer Debbie Brockman’s arrest for “assaulting a federal law enforcement officer” in Chicago’s Lincoln Square neighborhood on Friday wasn’t quite the moment of glory she’d hoped it would be. The morbidly obese woman, pants falling down exposing half of her ample bottom, resisted arrest forcing three agents to lift her into their vehicle as protesters hurled insults such as “fascists” and “Nazis” at them.
In the second video, a bystander asks her name. She replied, “Debbie Brockman. I work for WGN. Let them know.”
After loading Brockman into their vehicle, agents realized they’d been boxed in. The driver of the car refused to budge when told to move, so the officers simply pulled away — taking the car’s back bumper with them.
The agents alleged that Brockman had thrown objects at a Border Patrol vehicle. However, because the incident was not captured on video and no witnesses were willing to corroborate the officers’ account, she was ultimately released without charges.
Debbie Brockman “was placed under arrest for assault on a federal law enforcement officer.” A producer for WGN-TV, a Chicago television station, arrested after throwing objects at law enforcement. https://t.co/yrWlr9dhGV pic.twitter.com/IZASzymR5R
— Joni Job (@jj_talking) October 10, 2025
The legacy media is up in arms over Brockman’s arrest. They point to a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis on Thursday — the day prior to this arrest — that “prohibit[s] the use of force against journalists” in Chicago.
The TRO states that federal agents are prohibited from:
Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.
The relevant phrase would be “probable cause.”
According to Newsweek:
Agents may order journalists to move to a different location to avoid the disruption of law enforcement officers, but must give them “reasonable time to comply and an objectively reasonable opportunity to report and observe.”
The order came after “a lawsuit accused federal agents of using tear gas against reporters covering the anti-ICE protests in Chicago.”
One of the Left’s innumerable attempts to stop the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, this ruling may be difficult to enforce. Journalists, particularly when they are participating in these protests as it appears Brockman was, become indistinguishable from protesters. There is a degree of risk associated with covering these events, particularly when they escalate into violence.
Asked by Newsweek for a comment on the ruling, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughin wrote in a statement:
We remind members of the media to exercise caution as they cover these violent riots and remind journalists that covering unlawful activities in the field does come with risks—though our officers take every reasonable precaution to mitigate those dangers to those exercising protected First Amendment rights.
…
ICE officers are facing a nearly 1000% increase in assaults against them as they put their lives on the line to arrest murderers, rapists, and gang members.
Mark Joseph Stern, a legal analyst for Slate, took to Bluesky to say, “This arrest appears to be in direct violation of a temporary restraining order prohibiting DHS officers from arresting journalists. The officers here may well be subject to contempt of court.”
To give you an idea of Stern’s political leanings, his most recent Bluesky post tells followers he would be appearing shortly on MSNBC’s The Weekend “to talk about the Supreme Court’s ongoing reign of terror over our constitutional democracy.”
This arrest appears to be in direct violation of a temporary restraining order prohibiting DHS officers from arresting journalists. The officers here may well be subject to contempt of court. protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/u…
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-10-10T18:57:56.953Z
Following Brockman’s arrest, Newsweek reported, “At time of writing, Newsweek has found no video evidence, released by the DHS or other sources, showing Brockman assaulting federal agents.” The key word is “video.”
And once again, the magazine reached out to McLaughlin for a comment. She responded:
U.S. border patrol was conducting immigration enforcement operations and when several violent agitators used their vehicles to block in agents in an effort to impede and assault federal officers.
In fear of public safety and of law enforcement, officers used their service vehicle to strike a suspect’s vehicle and create an opening. As agents were driving, Deborah Brockman, a US citizen, threw objects at border patrol’s car, and she was placed under arrest for assault on a federal law enforcement officer.
This incident is not isolated and reflects a growing and dangerous trend of illegal aliens violently resisting arrest and agitators and criminals ramming cars into our law enforcement officers. These attacks highlight the dangers our law enforcement officers face daily—all while receiving no pay thanks to the Democrats’ government shutdown.
As Democrats and the legacy media intensify their opposition to the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, they might pause to consider that most Americans back tough action.
A recent poll found that 78% of Americans surveyed support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes. And 56% support deporting all immigrants who are here illegally.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m pretty sure that’s a picture of a pig
“resisted arrest forcing three agents to lift her into their vehicle as protesters hurled insults such as “fascists” and “Nazis”at them”
Nobody screamed “pitmasters?”
Inconceivable.
The “Katie Porter” look is in these days.
Now I need eye bleach…
I estimate at least 4 gallons of BBQ sauce required. That’s a big one. And you’d need one mighty big apple for the mouth.
I’d go with the Carolina-style vinegar-based sauces. They’d go far to mask the… never mind.
For a second, I thought that she was a plumber. She represents so many probable causes… pick one.
Pretty sure her lifestyle choices to over consume calories and under achieve a sufficient rate of caloric burn are the probable cause of her obesity and very likely diabetes, heart problems and orthopedic issues. Investment in a belt wouldn’t hurt either.
She probably cannot get anyone to take he pants down any other way.
I hate these people. I doubly hate pseudo journalists. Besides since when is a “producer” a journalist.
You cannot hate the media enough
“since when is a “producer” a journalist”
Why not? A “journalist” is someone who works in the production of news reports. Producers do that.
It’s not a special thing. It carries no legal privileges. There is nothing more honorable about being a “journalist” than there is about being a carpenter or a hairdresser.
I’m bothered by the existence of this TRO, that gives “journalists” special privileges that the law does not recognize. I understand that the plaintiffs in that case happen to be reporters, and therefore sued on behalf of all their fellow tradesmen (they are not professionals), but the order should have been worded more broadly to include all persons. After all, if ICE isn’t falsely arresting or beating non-reporters then their inclusion in the order does no harm. And if it is then they deserve the same protection.
” As agents were driving, Deborah Brockman, a US citizen, threw objects at border patrol’s car, and she was placed under arrest for assault on a federal law enforcement officer.”
It sounds as though she was there in a personal capacity; professionally, she should have only had video equipment.
The station admitted it was her day off. She was there to protest, not document.
She isn’t a journalist. She is a TV producer and so is the same as all the other protesters out there. Do we now have to treat the tv station janitor as a journalist?
She should have had a Canon, not a Yeet Cannon.
It doesn’t matter what capacity she was there in. The TRO, as well as the constitution, require probable cause of a crime to arrest any person, including a reporter. And they had it. So the TRO is irrelevant.
They need to crack down hard on the illegal interference
Crack…?
Did the feds arrest her cause she was let go and no charges yesterday
Yes, the feds arrested her. And let her go with no charges, because the only evidence they had of the offense was the agent’s testimony, and there was too much chance a jury wouldn’t believe it.
WGN = world’s greatest newspaper
So according to Leftism, journalist propagandist get Card Blanche to do whatever they want including stopping Federal forces anyway they can.
We already know that according to the news industry (not “leftism” per se), it is special and entitled to privileges not accorded to mere peasants like us. It has successfully convinced millions of people that it is singled out in the constitution for a protected right of its own, and it has crowned itself with the title “fourth estate”, even though not one reporter in ten could name the first three.
But this TRO, troublesome as it is, doesn’t actually say that. It says they can be arrested if there is probable cause to believe they committed a crime, which of course is the same standard it takes to arrest anyone. And in this case there was definitely probable cause, because the agent saw her doing it.
Say No to Crack.
Fat, ugly, obnoxious, white women are highly protective of black and brown illegals because they are the only men who will engage in sex with them.
Doing the jobs Americans won’t do… for that little money.
To paraphrase Dave Chappelle’s insult comedian, Reggie Warrington, in the remake of “The Nutty Professor” — this “woman” has more crack than Harlem.
It also seems absurd that, for charging purposes, the testimony of three or more federal agents wouldn’t suffice as evidentiary support. Multiple accounts makes it more than merely “he said/she said.”
How was anyone charged for crimes, pre-video camera? It’s absurd to let this criminal evade charges, just because there is no video footage of her criminality.
Put her through the process. The process is the punishment. They wrote the rules. Follow the rules.
ICE needs to put up surveillance cameras all over to document these events. They should also have drones with cameras monitoring every time that they have vehicles either enter or exit the building. Don’t leave it up to third parties to record these events.
It would have to be tried before a jury of the vicinage, and the US Attorney must have figured there was too much chance that the jurors would not believe the agents. The existence of video nowadays has raised people’s expectations for what evidence ought to be available.
That was probably the first time in her life that the fat, obnoxious, progressive c*nt ever felt any repercussions for her behavior. The ‘zero tolerance’ policy on playground ‘violence’ needs to be rescinded. Sows like this benefit greatly from a beatdown early in life. Otherwise they grow up like this one, delusional and believing that we give a fu*k what her fat, obnoxious, stupid @ss thinks or says.
Obviously, she has a future as a plumber.
Duluth Trading Company sell what it calls ‘long tail tees’ to cover up plumer’s butt.
Please don’t disparage plumbers.
From the photos, she’d be better at futon.
Why aren’t federal agents wearing bodycams?
Federal LEO don’t generally have them to use, it ain’t a ‘thing’ for them like it is with State/Local LEO. Personally I think they should use them b/c just as with State/Local LEO body cam use it will demonstrate how many times they are doing things correctly, far more often than not.
Bodycams have probably saved LEO many times from law suits. They can also provide endless entertainment on youtube. They’ve also strengthened my conviction of how bad democracy is when you allow anyone to vote.
Yep. I’d definitely be in favor of only allowing residential property owners to vote. It’s a neutral standard that serves as an effective proxy for responsibility, maturity, prudence and demonstrates a very high commitment to the local community. Can’t think of another that would do the same except perhaps military service though with that I’d limit it to an additional vote for an honorably discharged Vet with combat service IOW earn a Combat Infantry Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Badge for Army, CAR for USMC and equivalents for other services.
I would allow anyone who served in most capacities to vote. That includes military service, peace corps, etc…. If you’ve contributed you get to vote.
No one receiving any form of “welfare” gets to vote. I’m using welfare as a catch all term for a zillion different government programs. You are not a contributor.
Residential property owners get the vote.
No one convicted of a felony or in jail or on probation gets to vote.
Some renters should get the vote but I’m not sure how to qualify them. Perhaps tied to paying of income taxes in some fashion.
Also abolish all public employee unions. I’ll throw that in.
Probably need a constitutional amendment. If there were one I would add on age limits, mental competency, passing marks on a citizenship test, and raise the minimum voting age. I’d also like to strip the ability to vote from government workers. You don’t get to vote for who promises you more money.
ztakddot: I generally like that sort of proposal, but entitlements like Social Security muddy the waters enough that eventually everybody gets back in.
Theoretically SS would not be a disqualifier. After all it’s a system that most of us were forced to pay into.
You’re getting back far more than you put in. The rest is welfare, at the expense of the current generation, who will likely never get anything like their money back.
Here’s what doesn’t need a constitutional amendment: Bring back literacy tests. They were constitutional when they existed, provided they were administered fairly.
The problem was that too often they weren’t, but the remedy for that should have been better federal enforcement. Send enough inspectors to make the localities administer the tests fairly.
Unfortunately Congress took the other path and banned them altogether. Congress now could repeal that ban, and instead mandate the Civil Rights Division to rigorously police these tests. And lay down by statute some best practice standards for these tests, with a safe haven for any jurisdiction that adheres to those standards.
Or take Robert Heinlein’s suggestion, and make every voter solve a randomly generated quadratic equation before voting. Not everyone capable of voting intelligently knows how to do this, but everyone capable of voting intelligently can learn to do it. People can be taught to do it . Encourage civil rights groups to hold classes. Mandate cities and counties to hold subsidized classes. Let no one be able to say they didn’t know how to sign up. And if they successfully learn how to do it, they’ve proven that they’re smart enough to vote.
There should also be drones with cameras covering every entrance or exit of any vehicle into the building. Don’t leave it to chance that a third party will record and release video of what occurred.
I’m still dedicated to the concept that you shouldn’t NEED video footage to prove stuff, any more than we did pre-video.
A producer is not a journalist.
Most “journalists” aren’t journalists, they’re propagandists.
News actors.
There’s a difference?
her honor needs to be impeached and charged
1. She’s not a journalist any more than a paralegal is a lawyer.
2. There is video of a water bottle hitting the van and a plume of water shooting up but it doesn’t show her rearing back and throwing the bottle of water because the van is blocking her. She was the only one in the immediate vicinity so unless it as done by magic, she’s the only one who could have thrown it.
Pampered Pig
“I’m a Journalism”
Since when aren’t the sworn written statements of a federal officer good enough to for criminal charges to be filed? Since when does every crime committed need video proof????
Which photo is her face and which is her butt now?
Her butt is the one with only one crack.
chiraq claims to have record tourism and low crime
government stats vs whats really happening
The moment she picked up an object and deliberately threw it at the Gummit vehicle she ceased being a “journalist” and became an active combatant. Her immunity vapourisd then
She SHOULD be charged. But perhaps the pheds decided to let her walk, with the actual arrest and transport being a taste o what will surely come should she or others carry on like this moving ahead. .
Looks like simple fafo to me. And there isn’t a judge alive it’s going to tell you you’re not going to defend yourself and expect that order to be followed. Throw things at the cops, get arrested. It’s pretty damn simple
First it was the clown with the Subway sandwich, now this porker with the water. If somebody will starting throwing bags of chips at them at least they can get a free lunch out of the deal.
Producer = Not a Journalist.
And in the immortal words of Austin Powers; “That’s a man, baby!”
Surely all law enforcement officers are always prohibited from arresting or using physical force against any person unless they have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime. So the TRO, if at all valid, can only really apply to “dispersing”, or to “threatening” arrest or force. To have arrested her they needed probable cause that she’d committed a crime, TRO or no TRO. And they had it; the agent’s own observation is probable cause. Video or corroborating witnesses are not needed for probable cause. They’re not even needed for a conviction, provided the jury is willing to believe the agent who observed it.