administration

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Central bank chair condemns ‘intimidation’ following grand jury subpoenas.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration has opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, in a development set to heighten concerns about the independence of US monetary policy.

Powell said on Sunday that the central bank had been served with grand jury subpoenas related to his testimony about renovations to the Fed’s headquarters in Washington, DC.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said in a rare video message.

“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions – or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”

More to follow…

A few months into President Trump’s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — a conservative appointee of President Reagan — issued a scathing opinion denouncing what he found to be the Trump administration’s unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador, despite a previous court order barring it.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” Wilkinson wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Two months later, U.S. District Judge William G. Young, also a Reagan appointee, ripped into the Trump administration from the bench for its unprecedented decision to terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants based on their perceived nexus to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Young ruled the cuts were “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore illegal. But he also said there was a “darker aspect” to the case that he had an “unflinching obligation” to call out — that the administration’s actions amounted to “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”

“I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young said, explaining a decision the Supreme Court later reversed. “Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

In the year since an aggrieved and combative Trump returned to the White House, his administration has strained the American legal system by testing and rejecting laws and other long-standing policies and defending those actions by arguing the president has a broad scope of authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Administration officials and Justice Department attorneys have argued that the executive branch is essentially the president’s to bend to his will. They have argued its employees are his to fire, its funds his to spend and its enforcement powers — to retaliate against his enemies, blast alleged drug-runners out of international waters or detain anyone agents believe looks, sounds and labors like a foreigner — all but unrestrained.

The approach has repeatedly been met by frustrated federal judges issuing repudiations of the administration’s actions, but also grave warnings about a broader threat they see to American jurisprudence and democracy.

When questioning administration attorneys in court, in stern written rulings at the district and appellate levels and in blistering dissents at the Supreme Court — which has often backed the administration, particularly with temporary orders on its emergency docket — federal judges have used remarkably strong language to call out what they see as a startling disregard for the rule of law.

Legal critics, including more than a hundred former federal and state judges, have decried Trump’s attacks on individual judges and law firms, “deeply inappropriate” nominations to the bench, “unlawful” appointments of unconfirmed and inexperienced U.S. attorneys and targeting of his political opponents for prosecution based on weak allegations of years-old mortgage fraud.

In response, Trump and his supporters have articulated their own concerns with the legal system, accusing judges of siding with progressive groups to cement a liberal federal agenda despite the nation voting Trump back into office. Trump has labeled judges “lunatics” and called for at least one’s impeachment, which drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

After District Judge Brian E. Murphy temporarily blocked the administration from deporting eight men to South Sudan — a nation to which they had no connection, and which has a record of human rights abuses — Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, called the order “a lawless act of defiance” that ignored a recent Supreme Court ruling.

After District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison despite Boasberg having previously ordered the planes turned back to the U.S., government attorneys said it portended a “circus” that threatened the separation of powers.

While more measured than the nation’s coarse political rhetoric, the legal exchanges have nonetheless been stunning by judicial standards — a sign of boiling anger among judges, rising indignation among administration officials and a wide gulf between them as to the limits of their respective legal powers.

“These judges, these Democrat activist judges, are the ones who are 100% at fault,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Republican lawyer and Trump ally who advocates for sweeping executive authority. “They are taking the country to the cliff.”

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison.

(Valerie Plesch / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The judges “see — and have articulated — an unprecedented threat to democracy,” said UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “They really are sounding the alarm.”

“What the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism from radical left-wing judges,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “If this trend continues it threatens to undermine the rule-of-law for all future presidencies.”

“Regardless of which side you’re on on these issues, the lasting impact is that people mistrust the courts and, quite frankly, do not understand the role that a strong, independent judiciary plays in the rule of law, in our democracy and in our economy,” said John A. Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. “That is very, very troubling to anybody who looks at this with a shred of objectivity.”

California in the fight

Last month, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office’s 50th lawsuit against the Trump administration — an average of about one lawsuit per week since Trump’s inauguration.

The litigation has challenged a range of Trump administration policies, including his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of many immigrants; his unilateral imposition of stiff tariffs around the world; the administration’s attempt to slash trillions of dollars in federal funding from states, and its deployment of National Guard troops to American cities.

The battles have produced some of the year’s most eye-popping legal exchanges.

In June, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, after days of protest over immigration enforcement.

An attorney for the administration had argued that federal law gave Trump such authority in instances of domestic “rebellion” or when the president is unable to execute the nation’s laws with regular forces, and said the court had no authority to question Trump’s decisions.

But Breyer wasn’t buying it, ruling Trump’s authority was “of course limited.”

“I mean, that’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said from the bench. “This country was founded in response to a monarchy. And the Constitution is a document of limitations — frequent limitations — and enunciation of rights.”

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops to Los Angeles.

(Santiago Mejia / San Francisco Chronicle)

Francesca Gessner, Bonta’s acting chief deputy, said she took Breyer’s remarks as his way of telling Trump and his administration that “we don’t have kings in America” — which she said was “really remarkable to watch” in an American courtroom.

“I remember just sitting there thinking, wow, he’s right,” Gessner said.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently paused Breyer’s order, allowing the troops to remain in Trump’s control.

In early October, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, finding that the conditions on the ground didn’t warrant such militarization. The next day, both Oregon and California asked her to expand that ruling to include California National Guard troops, after the Trump administration sent them to Portland in lieu of Oregon’s troops.

Before issuing a second restraining order barring deployments of any National Guard troops in Oregon, a frustrated Immergut laid into the Justice Department attorney defending the administration. “You’re an officer of the court,” she said. “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland?”

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration in a similar case out of Chicago, finding the administration lacked any legal justification for Guard deployments there. Trump subsequently announced he was pulling troops out of Chicago, Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities, with California and other states that had resisted claiming a major victory.

Bonta said he’s been pleased to see judges pushing back against the president’s power grabs, including by using sharp language that makes their alarm clear.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut, shown at her 2018 confirmation hearing, barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

“Generally, courts and judges are tempered and restrained,” Bonta said. “The statements that you’re seeing from them are carefully chosen to be commensurate with the extreme nature of the moment — the actions of the Trump administration that are so unlawful.”

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, and other Trump administration officials defended their actions to The Times, including by citing wins before the Supreme Court.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Justice Department “has spent the past year righting the wrongs of the previous administration” and “working tirelessly to successfully advance President Trump’s agenda and keep Americans safe.”

Sauer said it has won rulings “on key priorities of this administration, including stopping nationwide injunctions from lower courts, defending ICE’s ability to carry out law enforcement duties, and removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country,” and that those decisions “respect the role” of the courts, Trump’s “constitutional authority” and the “rule of law.”

‘Imperial executive’ or ‘imperial judiciary’?

Just after taking office, Trump said he was ending birthright citizenship. California and others sued, and several lower court judges blocked the order with nationwide or “universal” injunctions — with one calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court challenging the ability of district court judges to issue such sweeping injunctions. In June, the high court largely sided with the administration, ruling 6 to 3 that many such injunctions likely exceed the lower courts’ authority.

Trump’s policy remains on hold based on other litigation. But the case laid bare a stark divide on the high court.

In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that universal injunctions were not used in early English and U.S. history, and that while the president has a “duty to follow the law,” the judiciary “does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the president.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

In a dissent joined by fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that enforcement of Trump’s order against even a single U.S.-born child would be an “assault on our constitutional order,” and that Barrett’s opinion was “not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.”

Jackson, in her own dissent, wrote that the majority opinion created “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

As a result, the president’s allies will fare well, the “wealthy and the well connected” will be able to hire lawyers and go to court to defend their rights, and the poor will have no such relief, Jackson wrote — creating a tiered system of justice “eerily echoing history’s horrors.”

In a footnote, she cited “The Dual State” by Jewish lawyer and writer Ernst Fraenkel, about Adolf Hitler creating a similar system in Germany.

Barrett accused Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the executive. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson questioned why the majority saw a “power grab” by the courts instead of by “a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.”

What’s ahead?

Legal observers across the political spectrum said they see danger in the tumult.

“I never have been so afraid, or imagined being so afraid, for the future of democracy as I am right now,” Chemerinsky said.

He said Trump is “continually violating the Constitution and laws” in unprecedented ways to increase his own power and diminish the power of the other branches of government, and neither Republicans in Congress nor Trump’s cabinet are doing anything to stop him.

While the Supreme Court has also showed great deference to Trump, Chemerinsky said he is hoping it will begin reaffirming legal boundaries for him.

“Is the court just going to be a rubber stamp for Trump, or, at least in some areas, is it going to be a check?” he said.

Davis said Trump has faced “unprecedented, unrelenting lawfare from his Democrat opponents” for years, but now has “a broad electoral mandate to lead” and must be allowed to exercise his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

“These Democrat activist judges need to get the hell out of his way, because if they don’t, the federal judiciary is gonna lose its legitimacy,” Davis said. “And once it loses its legitimacy, it loses everything.”

Bonta said the Constitution is being “stress tested,” but he thinks it’s been “a good year for the rule of law” overall, thanks to lower court judges standing up to the administration’s excesses. “They have courage. They are doing their job.”

Day, of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump “believes he is putting the country on the right path” and wants judges to get out of his way, while many Democrats feel “we’re going entirely in the wrong direction and that the Supreme Court is against them and bowing to the wishes of the executive.”

His advice to both, he said, is to keep faith in the nation’s legal system — which “is not very efficient, but was designed to work in the long run.”

WASHINGTON — The killing of a Minnesota woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer is reverberating across Capitol Hill where Democrats, and certain Republicans, are vowing an assertive response as President Trump’s aggressive deportation operations spark protests nationwide.

Lawmakers are demanding a range of actions, including a full investigation into Renee Nicole Good’s shooting death, policy changes over law enforcement raids, the defunding of ICE operations and the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in what is fast becoming an inflection point.

“The situation that took place in Minnesota is a complete and total disgrace,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said as details emerged. “And in the next few days, we will be having conversations about a strong and forceful and appropriate response by House Democrats.”

Yet there is almost no consensus among the political parties in the aftermath of the death of Good, who was behind the wheel of an SUV after dropping off her 6-year-old at school when she was shot and killed by an ICE officer.

The killing immediately drew dueling narratives. Trump and Noem said the ICE officer acted in self-defense, while Democratic officials said the Trump administration was lying and they urged the public to view the viral videos of the shooting for themselves. The videos appear to contradict at least some aspects of the Trump administration’s assertions.

Vice President JD Vance blamed Good, calling it “a tragedy of her own making,” and said the ICE officer may have been “sensitive” from having been injured during an unrelated altercation last year.

But Good’s killing, at least the fifth known death since the administration launched its mass deportation campaign, could change the political dynamic.

“The videos I’ve seen from Minneapolis yesterday are deeply disturbing,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a statement last week.

“As we mourn this loss of life, we need a thorough and objective investigation into how and why this happened,” she said. As part of the investigation, Murkowski said she is calling for policy changes, saying the situation “was devastating, and cannot happen again.”

Homeland Security funding up for debate

The push in Congress for more oversight and accountability of the administration’s immigration operations comes as lawmakers are in the midst of the annual appropriations process to fund agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to prevent another federal government shutdown when money expires at the end of January.

As anti-ICE demonstrations erupt in the aftermath of Good’s death, as seen in many U.S. cities this weekend, Democrats have pledged to use any available legislative lever to apply pressure on the administration to change the conduct of ICE officers.

“We’ve been warning about this for an entire year,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.).

The ICE officer “needs to be held accountable,” Frost said, “but not just them, but ICE as a whole, the president and this entire administration.”

Congressional Democrats saw Good’s killing as a sign of the need for aggressive action to restrain the administration’s tactics.

Several Democrats joined calls to impeach Noem, who has been under fire from both parties for her lack of transparency at the department, though that step is highly unlikely with Republicans in control of Congress.

Other Democrats want to restrict the funding for her department, whose budget was vastly increased as part of Republicans’ sweeping tax and spending bill passed last summer.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that handles Homeland Security funding, plans to introduce legislation to rein in the agency with constraints on federal agents’ authority, including a requirement that the Border Patrol stick to the border and that Homeland Security enforcement officers be unmasked.

“More Democrats are saying today the thing that a number of us have been saying since April and May: Kristi Noem is dangerous. She should not be in office, and she should be impeached,” said Democratic Rep. Delia C. Ramirez, who represents parts of Chicago where ICE launched an enhanced immigration enforcement action last year that resulted in two deaths.

Immigration debates have long divided Congress and the parties. Democrats splinter between more liberal and stricter attitudes toward newcomers to the United States. Republicans have embraced Trump’s hard-line approach in trying to portray Democrats as radicals.

The Republican administration had launched the enforcement operation in Minnesota in response to an investigation of the nonprofit Feeding Our Future. Prosecutors said the organization was at the center of the country’s largest COVID-19-related fraud scams, when defendants exploited a state-run, federally funded program intended to provide food for children.

Heading into the November midterm election, which Democrats believe will hinge on issues such as affordability and healthcare, national outcry over ICE’s conduct has pressured lawmakers to speak out.

“I’m not completely against deportations, but the way they’re handling it is a real disgrace,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Right now, you’re seeing humans treated like animals,” he said.

Other ICE shootings have rattled lawmakers

In September, a federal immigration enforcement agent in Chicago fatally shot Silverio Villegas Gonzalez during a brief altercation after Gonzalez had dropped off his children at school.

In October, a Customs and Border Protection agent also in Chicago shot Marimar Martinez, a teacher and U.S. citizen, five times during a dispute with officers. The charges the administration had brought against Martinez were dismissed by a federal judge.

To Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), Good’s death “brought back heart-wrenching memories of those two shootings in my district.”

“It looks like the fact that a U.S. citizen, who is a white woman, may be opening the eyes of the American public, certainly of members of Congress, that what’s going on is out of control,” he said, “that this isn’t about apprehending or pursuing the most dangerous immigrants.”

Republicans expressed some concern at the shooting but most stood by the administration’s policy, defended the officer’s actions and largely blamed Good for the altercation.

“Nobody wants to see people get shot,” said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.).

“Let’s do the right thing and just be reasonable. And the reasonable thing is not to obstruct ICE officers and then accelerate while they’re standing in front of your car,” he said. “She made a mistake. I’m sure she didn’t mean for that to happen, nor did he mean for that to happen.”

Brown and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — After President Trump ordered strikes that led to the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, celebrations erupted in Venezuelan communities across the U.S.

But for many of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants facing possible deportation, their relief and joy were cut by the fear about what comes next from an administration that has zeroed in on Venezuelans as a target.

“Many of us asked ourselves, ‘What’s going to happen with us now?’” said A.G., a 39-year-old in Tennessee who asked to be identified by her initials because she lacks legal status. Even so, Maduro’s ouster gave her a lot of hope for her mother country.

Venezuelans began fleeing in droves in 2014 as economic collapse led to widespread food and medicine shortages, as well as political repression. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans are now living outside the country — including 1.2 million in the U.S.

Venezuelans migrants walk toward Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 2019.

(Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)

A.G. and her now-18-year-old son arrived at the southern border in 2019. Since then, she said, they have built a good life — they own a transport company with delivery trucks, pay taxes and follow the law.

Maduro’s fall left her with mixed feelings.

“He’s obviously a dictator, many people have died because of him and he refused to give up power, but the reason that they entered Venezuela, for me what President Trump did was illegal,” she said. “Innocent people died because of the bombs. I’m asking God that it all be for good reason.”

Dozens of Venezuelans and others were killed in the U.S. invasion — more than 100, a government official said — including civilians.

The Trump administration is framing its Venezuela operation as an opportunity for Venezuelans like A.G. “Now, they can return to the country they love and rebuild its future,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

Katie Blankenship, a Miami-based attorney with Sanctuary of the South who has represented many Venezuelans facing deportation, sees a less promising future.

“We’re going to see increased targeting of Venezuelans to force them to leave the U.S. into a political and socioeconomic environment that’s likely only more destabilized and subject to more abuse,” she said.

The Venezuelan community in the U.S. swelled, in part, because the Biden administration expanded pathways for them to enter the country.

Volunteer help a Venezuelan immigrant at the storage units from a volunteer-run program that distributes donations to recently arrived Venezuelan immigrants in need, in Miami, Fla., in 2023.

(Eva Marie Uzcategui / Los Angeles Times)

One of those programs allowed more than 117,000 Venezuelans to purchase flights directly to the U.S. and stay for two years if they had a U.S.-based financial sponsor and passed a background check. Other Venezuelans entered legally at land ports of entry after scheduling interviews with border officers.

By the end of the Biden administration, more than 600,000 Venezuelans had protection from deportation under Temporary Protected Status, a program used by both Republican and Democratic administrations for immigrants who cannot return home because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly referred to Venezuelan immigrants as criminals, singling them out more than any other nationality — in 64% of speeches, an Axios analysis showed. He has said repeatedly, without evidence that Venezuela emptied its prisons and mental institutions to flood the U.S. with immigrants.

One of Trump’s first acts as president was to designate the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Within two months, he invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport 252 Venezuelan men accused of being Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned and tortured despite many having no criminal histories in the U.S. or Latin America.

Later, the Trump administration stripped away protections for Venezuelans with financial sponsors and TPS, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling the latter “contrary to the national interest.”

In a September Federal Register Notice, Noem said that TPS for Venezuelans undercut the administration’s foreign policy objectives because one result of allowing Venezuelans in the U.S. was “relieving pressure on Maduro’s regime to enact domestic reforms and facilitate safe return conditions.” In other words, if Venezuelans returned home, that would pressure the government to enact reforms.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, along with U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, left, and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, right, participates in a news conference near Camp 57 at Angola prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary and America’s largest maximum-security prison farm, to announce the opening of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that will house immigrants convicted of crimes in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, on Sept. 3, 2025.

(Matthew Hilton / AFP via Getty Images)

The administration has offered contrasting assessments of conditions in Venezuela. Noem wrote that although certain adverse conditions continue, “there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime.”

Throughout the year, though, the State Department continued to reissue an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately.

Conditions for Venezuelans in the U.S. grew more complicated after a man from Afghanistan was accused of shooting two National Guard members in November; in response, the administration froze the immigration cases of people from 39 countries, including Venezuela, that the administration considers “high-risk.” That means anyone who applied for asylum, a visa, a green card or any other benefit remains in limbo indefinitely.

After a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in September, the Justice Department appealed. In a support brief filed in December, the Justice Department cited escalating tensions with Venezuela.

David Smilde, a Tulane University sociologist and expert on Venezuelan politics, said that invading Venezuela could justify renewed use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The law says the president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act not only in times of “declared war,” but also when a foreign government threatens or carries out an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against the U.S.

“Now it will be difficult, I think, for the court to say, ‘No, you can’t use this,’” Smilde said.

With U.S. officials promising improved conditions in Venezuela and encouraging citizens to return, Smilde said, they could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport undocumented immigrants who don’t leave willingly.

“There’s several layers to this,” he said, “and none of it looks very good for Venezuelan immigrants.”

This couple from Venezuela shared their story of why they left their three children back in their home country and spoke of the the experiences of their travel to the United States at the Parkside Community Church in Sacramento on June 16, 2023.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Jose, a 28-year-old Venezuelan living east of Los Angeles, fled Venezuela in 2015 after being imprisoned and beaten for criticizing the government. He lived in Colombia and Peru before illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2022, and now has a pending asylum application. Jose asked to be identified by his middle name out of fear of retaliation by the U.S. government.

The news this week that an ICE agent had shot and killed a woman in Minnesota heightened his anxiety.

“You come here because supposedly this is a country with freedom of expression, and there is more safety, but with this government, now you’re afraid you’ll get killed,” he said. “And that was a U.S. citizen. Imagine what they could do to me?”

People visit a memorial for Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Jose qualifies for a work permit based on his pending asylum, but his application for one is frozen because of the executive order following the National Guard shooting.

The news of Maduro’s arrest was bittersweet, Jose said, because his mother and grandmother didn’t live to witness that day. He said his mother died last year of kidney failure due to lack of medical care, leaving him as the primary breadwinner for his two young sisters who remain in Venezuela with their father, who is disabled.

Still, he said he’s happy with what Trump has done in Venezuela.

“People are saying he’s stealing our petroleum,” he said, “but for 25 years, Cuba, China and Iran have been stealing the petroleum and it didn’t improve our lives.”

Many Venezuelans were encouraged by news that Venezuela would release a “significant number” of political prisoners as a peace gesture.

For Jose, that’s not enough. Venezuela’s government ordered police to search for anyone involved in promoting or supporting the attack by U.S. forces, leading to detentions of journalists and civilians.

“Venezuela remains the same,” he said. “The same disgrace, the same poverty and the same government repression.”

A.G. said she was heartened to hear Noem say Sunday on Fox News that every Venezeulan who had TPS “has the opportunity to apply for refugee status and that evaluation will go forward.” But the administration quickly backtracked and said that was not the case.

Instead, Noem and other administration officials have doubled down on the notion that Venezuelans without permanent lawful status should leave. Noem told Fox News that there are no plans to pause deportation flights despite the political uncertainty in Venezuela.

Tragesser, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, said the agency’s posture hasn’t changed.

“USCIS encourages all Venezuelans unlawfully in the U.S. to use the CBP Home app for help with a safe and orderly return to their country,” he said.

Opposition groups say release triggered by ‘political chess moves’ following US abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

Nicaragua’s left-wing government has announced the release of dozens of prisoners following pressure from United States President Donald Trump’s administration.

The government of President Daniel Ortega said in a statement on Saturday that “tens of people who were in the national penitentiary system have gone home to their families”.

The statement did not specify the exact number of people freed, or whether they had been detained for political reasons.

While the government described the move as a gesture to commemorate 19 years of Ortega’s government, Nicaragua is under considerable pressure from the US over its human rights record and a years-long crackdown on opposition leaders and activists.

Saturday’s prisoner release also reflects the growing pressure that left-wing governments in Latin America face to appease demands from the Trump administration, which has moved to exert greater dominance across the Americas region.

Tensions have soared since the US military attacked Venezuela on January 3 and abducted the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, who is facing US charges of narcoterrorism and drug trafficking, which he denies.

On Friday, the US Embassy in Nicaragua praised the release of opposition figures in Venezuela following Maduro’s removal from power, calling on Ortega’s government to follow suit.

“In Nicaragua, more than 60 people remain unjustly detained or missing, including pastors, religious workers, the sick, and the elderly. Peace is only possible with freedom!” the Embassy posted on social media.

A human rights NGO that tracks political prisoners in Nicaragua identified 19 people released on Saturday, the Reuters news agency reported.

Opposition leader and former prisoner Ana Margarita Vijil told Reuters that she did not know the exact number of people released, but said the group included a former mayor, Oscar Gadea, and an evangelical pastor, Rudy Palacios.

Palacios was detained in July after criticising the Nicaraguan government for human rights violations. He had also supported demonstrators who took to the streets to demand Ortega’s removal in 2018.

Ortega responded to those protests with a crackdown that left at least 350 people dead and hundreds detained.

Liberales Nicaragua, a coalition of opposition groups, praised the prisoners’ release on Saturday.

They said in a statement that there was “no doubt” that it resulted from “political pressure exerted by the US government on the dictatorship” and “political chess moves triggered by events in Venezuela”.

NEW YORK — Reviving a campaign pledge, President Trump wants a one-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a move that could save Americans tens of billions of dollars but drew immediate opposition from an industry that has been in his corner.

Trump was not clear in his social media post Friday night whether a cap might take effect through executive action or legislation, though one Republican senator said he had spoken with the president and would work on a bill with his “full support.” Trump said he hoped it would be in place by Jan. 20, marking one year since his return to the White House.

Strong opposition is certain from Wall Street and the credit card companies, which donated heavily to his 2024 campaign and to support his second-term agenda.

“We will no longer let the American Public be ripped off by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Researchers who studied Trump’s campaign pledge after it was first announced found that Americans would save roughly $100 billion in interest a year if credit card rates were capped at 10%. The same researchers found that while the credit card industry would take a major hit, it would still be profitable, although credit card rewards and other perks might be scaled back.

Americans are paying, on average, between 19.65% and 21.5% in interest on credit cards, according to the Federal Reserve and other industry tracking sources. That has come down in the last year as the central bank lowered benchmark rates, but is near the highs since federal regulators started tracking credit card rates in the mid-1990s.

Trump’s administration, however, has proved particularly friendly until now to the credit card industry.

Capital One got little resistance from the White House when it finalized its purchase and merger with Discover Financial in early 2025, a deal that created the nation’s largest credit card company. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is largely tasked with going after credit card companies for alleged wrongdoing, has been largely nonfunctional since Trump took office. His administration killed a Biden-era regulation that would have capped credit card late fees.

In a joint statement, the banking industry opposed Trump’s proposal.

“If enacted, this cap would only drive consumers toward less regulated, more costly alternatives,” the American Bankers Assn. and allied groups said.

The White House did not respond to questions about how the president seeks to cap the rate or whether he has spoken with credit card companies about the idea.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who said he talked with Trump on Friday night, said the effort is meant to “lower costs for American families and to [rein] in greedy credit card companies who have been ripping off hardworking Americans for too long.”

Legislation in both the House and the Senate would do what Trump is seeking.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) released a plan last February that would immediately cap interest rates at 10% for five years, hoping to use Trump’s campaign promise to build momentum for their measure.

Hours before Trump’s post, Sanders noted that the president, rather than working to cap interest rates, had taken steps to deregulate big banks that allowed them to charge much higher credit card fees.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) have proposed similar legislation. Ocasio-Cortez is a frequent political target of Trump, while Luna is a close ally of the president.

Sweet and Kim write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and West Palm Beach, Fla., respectively.

BOSTON — A federal judge said Friday that she expects to temporarily block efforts by the Trump administration to end a program that offered temporary legal protections for more than 10,000 family members of citizens and green card holders.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said at a hearing that she planned to issue a temporary restraining order but did not say when it would be issued. This case is part of a broader effort by the administration to end temporary legal protection for numerous groups and comes just over a week since another judge ruled that hundreds of people from South Sudan may live and work in the United States legally.

“The government, having invited people to apply, is now laying traps between those people and getting the green card,” said Justin Cox, an attorney who works with Justice Action Center and argued the case for the plaintiffs. “That is incredibly inequitable.”

This case involved a program called Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, and affects people from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. Most of them are set to lose their legal protections, which were put in place during the Biden administration, by Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security terminated protections late last year.

The case involves five plaintiffs, but lawyers are seeking to have any ruling cover everyone that is part of the program.

“Although in a temporary status, these parolees did not come temporarily; they came to get a jump-start on their new lives in the United States, typically bringing immediate family members with them,” plaintiffs wrote in their motion. “Since they arrived, FRP parolees have gotten employment authorization documents, jobs, and enrolled their kids in school.”

The government, in its brief and in court, argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has the authority to terminate any parole program and gave adequate notice by publishing the termination in the federal registry. It also argued that the program’s termination was necessary on national security grounds because the people had not been property vetted. It also said resources to maintain this program would be better used in other immigration programs.

“Parole can be terminated at any time,” Katie Rose Talley, a lawyer for the government told the court. “That is what is being done. There is nothing unlawful about that.”

Talwani conceded that the government can end the program but she took issue with the way it was done.

The government argued that just announcing in the federal registry it was ending the program was sufficient. But Talwani demanded the government show how it has alerted people through a written notice — a letter or email — that the program was ending.

“I understand why plaintiffs feel like they came here and made all these plans and were going to be here for a very long time,” Talwani said. “I have a group of people who are trying to follow the law. I am saying to you that, we as Americans, the United States needs to.”

Lower courts have largely supported keeping temporary protections for many groups. But in May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.

The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision came after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.

The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota leaders urged protesters to remain peaceful Saturday as people gathered nationwide to decry the fatal shooting of a woman by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis and the shooting of two protesters in Portland, Ore.

On Friday night, a protest outside a Minneapolis hotel that attracted about 1,000 people escalated as demonstrators threw ice, snow and rocks at officers, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said during a news conference Saturday. One officer suffered minor injuries after being struck with a piece of ice, O’Hara said. Twenty-nine people were cited and released, he said.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stressed that while most protests have been peaceful, those who cause damage to property or put others in danger will be arrested. He faulted “agitators that are trying to rile up large crowds.”

“This is what Donald Trump wants,” Frey said. “He wants us to take the bait.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz echoed the call for peaceful demonstrations.

“Trump sent thousands of armed federal officers into our state, and it took just one day for them to kill someone,” Walz posted on social media. “Now he wants nothing more than to see chaos distract from that horrific action. Don’t give him what he wants.”

The demonstrations in cities and towns across the country come as the Department of Homeland Security pushes forward in the Twin Cities with what it calls its largest immigration enforcement operation yet. Trump’s administration has said both shootings were acts of self-defense against drivers who “weaponized” their vehicles to attack officers. Video of the Minneapolis shooting appeared to contradict the administration’s assertions.

Steven Eubanks, 51, said he felt compelled to get out of his comfort zone and attend a protest in Durham, N.C., on Saturday because of what he called the “horrifying” killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis.

“We can’t allow it,” Eubanks said. “We have to stand up.”

Indivisible, a social movement organization that formed to resist the Trump administration, said hundreds of protests were scheduled in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida and other states. Many were dubbed “ICE Out for Good,” using the acronym for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Indivisible and its local chapters organized protests in all 50 states last year.

In Minneapolis, a coalition of migrant rights groups called for a demonstration at Powderhorn Park, a large green space about half a mile from the residential neighborhood where the 37-year-old Good was shot Wednesday. They said the rally and march would celebrate her life and call for an “end to deadly terror on our streets.”

Protests held in the neighborhood have been largely peaceful, in contrast to the violence that hit Minneapolis in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020. Near the airport, some confrontations erupted Thursday and Friday between smaller groups of protesters and officers guarding the federal building used as a base for the Twin Cities crackdown.

O’Hara said city police officers have responded to calls about cars abandoned because their drivers have been apprehended by immigration enforcement. In one case, a dog was left in the vehicle.

He said that immigration enforcement activities are happening “all over the city” and that 911 callers have been alerting authorities to ICE activity, arrests and abandoned vehicles.

Three congresswomen from Minnesota who attempted to tour the ICE facility in the Minneapolis federal building on Saturday morning were initially allowed to enter but then told they had to leave about 10 minutes later.

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Angie Craig accused ICE agents of obstructing members of Congress from fulfilling their duty to oversee operations there.

“They do not care that they are violating federal law,” Craig said after being turned away.

A federal judge last month temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing policies that limit congressional visits to immigration facilities. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by 12 members of Congress who sued in Washington, D.C., to challenge ICE’s amended visitor policies after they were denied entry to detention facilities.

The Trump administration has deployed thousands of federal officers to Minnesota under a sweeping new crackdown tied in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. More than 2,000 officers were taking part.

Some officers moved in after abruptly pulling out of Louisiana, where they were part of an operation in and around New Orleans that started last month and was expected to last until February.

Santana writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Allen Breed in Durham, N.C., and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

Caracas, January 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US President Donald Trump hosted executives from major Western energy corporations at the White House on Friday after touting a US $100 billion investment plan in Venezuela’s oil industry.

The Trump administration has moved to claim control over the Caribbean nation’s most important economic sector in the wake of the January 3 bombings and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

“We’re going to discuss how these great American companies can help rapidly rebuild Venezuela’s dilapidated oil industry and bring millions of barrels of oil production to benefit the United States, the people of Venezuela and the entire world,” the US president told reporters.

The meeting featured representatives from Chevron (USA), Shell (UK), Eni (Italy), Repsol (Spain) and 13 other energy and trading firms. Chevron has been the only major US company to maintain operations in Venezuela amidst US sanctions.

Trump added that the corporations would be “dealing” with the US directly and not with Venezuelan authorities. Multiple US officials in recent days have claimed that proceeds from crude sales will be deposited in accounts run by administration before being rerouted to Venezuela. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA has confirmed “negotiations” to resume oil shipments to the US but has not commented on the rumored terms.

In his press conference, Trump said the White House would “devise a formula” to ensure that Caracas receives funds and corporations recover their investments while the US government would get any “leftover funds.” He added that Washington would offer the corporations “security guarantees” to operate in Venezuela.

Despite the Trump administration’s incentives, oil conglomerates have expressed reservations on committing to major investments in Venezuela.

Friday’s meeting at the White House also included executives from ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, two companies that refused to accept the new conditions from the former Chávez government’s oil reforms in the 2000s.

Both companies pursued international arbitration. ExxonMobil was compensated to the tune of $1.6 billion, significantly below its demands, while ConocoPhillips is looking to enforce awards totaling $12 billion. The Houston-headquartered enterprise will collect part of the debt via the forced auction of Venezuela’s US-based refiner CITGO.

ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods stated that the company would need “significant changes” to Venezuela’s legal infrastructure before considering a return to the country.

In parallel to the White House gathering, India’s Reliance Industries, the country’s largest conglomerate, is reportedly seeking a US greenlight to resume purchases of Venezuelan crude. Reliance was a significant PDVSA customer before being driven away by US sanctions threats.

Venezuela’s oil sector, the country’s most important revenue source, remains heavily targeted by US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions, an export embargo, and secondary sanctions.

Washington has maintained pressure on Caracas to impose oil conditions by enforcing a naval blockade and seizing tankers attempting to sail away with Venezuelan crude. On Friday, the US Navy seized the fifth tanker since early December, the Timor Leste-flagged Olina which had sailed from Venezuelan shores days ago as part of a flotilla attempting to break the US blockade.

Trump claimed that Venezuelan authorities assisted in the capture of the Olina tanker. According to the New York Times, US naval forces are chasing multiple tankers into the Atlantic, while others that left are reportedly heading back toward Venezuela.

Washington’s interest in controlling the Venezuelan oil industry has already seen the US Treasury Department issue sanctions waivers to global traders Vitol and Trafigura. The two companies were represented in the January 9 White House meeting.

Asked about Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, Trump said that the Venezuelan leader “seems to be an ally.” A US State Department delegation landed in Caracas on Friday to evaluate conditions for the reopening of the US embassy in the Venezuelan capital.

Amidst US official statements and diplomatic pressure, Venezuelan authorities have likewise sought meetings with some of its main allies, including Russia and China.

Rodríguez met with Chinese Ambassador Lan Hu Thursday, thanking Beijing for its condemnation of the US attacks and Maduro abduction. While US officials have pledged to reduce Chinese economic ties with Venezuela, Rodríguez stated in a recent broadcast that Caracas would maintain “diversity” in its economic and geopolitical relations.

Also on Thursday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil hosted Russian Ambassador Sergey Melik-Bagdasarov. Gil acknowledged Moscow’s support in the wake of the US January 3 attacks and expressed the two nations’ joint commitment to dialogue and sovereignty.

In explaining the U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump accused Maduro and his wife of conducting a “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States and its citizens,” and Maduro of being “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

“Hundreds of thousands — over the years — of Americans died because of him,” Trump said hours after U.S. special forces dragged Maduro from his bedroom during a raid that killed more than 50 Venezuelan and Cuban military and security forces.

Experts in regional narcotics trafficking said Trump was clearly trying to justify the U.S. deposing a sitting head of state by arguing that Maduro was not just a corrupt foreign leader harming his own country but also a major player in the sweeping epidemic of overdoses that has devastated American communities.

They also said they are highly suspicious of those claims, which were offered up with little evidence and run counter to years of independent research into regional drug trafficking patterns. Countries such as Mexico and Colombia play much larger roles, and fentanyl — not the cocaine Maduro is charged with trafficking — causes the vast majority of American deaths, the research shows.

Maduro’s indictment spells out some overt criminal acts allegedly committed by him, including selling diplomatic passwords to known drug traffickers so they could avoid military and law enforcement scrutiny in Venezuela.

Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives at the U.S. Capitol on Monday to brief top lawmakers after President Trump directed U.S. forces to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

It alleges other crimes in broad strokes, such as Maduro and his wife allegedly ordering “kidnappings, beatings, and murders” against people who “undermined their drug trafficking operation.”

However, Trump’s claims about the scope and impact of Maduro’s alleged actions go far beyond what the indictment details, experts said.

“It’s very hard to respond to the level of bulls— that is being promoted by this administration, because there’s no evidence given whatsoever, and it goes against what we think we know as specialists,” said Paul Gootenberg, a professor emeritus of history and sociology at Stony Brook University who has long studied the cocaine trade. “All of it goes against what we think we know.”

“President Trump’s claim that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died due to drug trafficking linked to Maduro is inaccurate,” said Philip Berry, a former United Kingdom counter-narcotics official and a visiting senior lecturer at the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London.

“[F]entanyl, not cocaine, has been responsible for most drug-related deaths in the U.S. over the past decade,” he said.

Jorja Leap, a social welfare professor and executive director of the UCLA Social Justice Research Partnership who has spent years interviewing gang members and drug dealers in the L.A. region, said Trump’s hyper-focus on Maduro, Venezuela and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as driving forces within the U.S. drug trade not only belies reality but also belittles the work of researchers who know better.

“Aside from making it a political issue, this is disrespecting the work of researchers, social activists, community organizers and law enforcement who have worked on this problem on the ground and understand every aspect of it,” Leap said. “This is political theater.”

Venezuela’s role

The U.S. State Department’s 2024 International Narcotics Strategy Report called Venezuela “a major transit country for cocaine shipments via aerial, terrestrial, and maritime routes,” with most of the drugs originating in Colombia and passing through other Central American countries or Caribbean islands on their way to the U.S.

Federal officers stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center.

(Leonardo Munoz / AFP via Getty Images)

However, the same report said recent estimates put the volume of cocaine trafficked through Venezuela at about 200 to 250 metric tons per year, or “roughly 10 to 13 percent of estimated global production.” According to the United Nations 2025 World Drug Report, most cocaine from Colombia is instead trafficked “along the Pacific Coast northward,” including through Ecuador.

The same report and others make clear Venezuela does not play a substantial role in fentanyl production or trafficking.

The State Department’s 2024 report said Mexico was “the sole significant source of illicit fentanyl … significantly affecting” the U.S., and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment said Mexican organizations “dominate fentanyl transportation into and through the United States.”

The Trump administration suggested Venezuela has played a larger role in cocaine production and transport in recent years under Maduro, who they allege has partnered with major trafficking organizations in Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico.

Maduro pleaded not guilty at an arraignment in Manhattan federal court this week, saying he was “kidnapped” by the U.S.

While many experts and other political observers acknowledge Maduro’s corruption and believe he has profited from drug trafficking, they question the Trump administration’s characterization of his actions as a “narco-terrorist” assault on the U.S.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the Trump ally turned foe who this week stepped down from her House seat, condemned the raid as more about controlling Venezuela’s oil than dismantling the drug trade, in part by noting that far greater volumes of much deadlier drugs arrive to the U.S. from Mexico.

“If it was about drugs killing Americans, they would be bombing Mexican cartels,” Greene posted.

The Trump administration pushed back against such arguments, even as Trump has threatened other nations in the region.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administrator Terry Cole said on Fox News that “at a low estimate,” 100 tons of cocaine have been produced and shipped to the U.S. by groups working with Maduro.

Expert input

Gootenberg said there’s no doubt that some Colombian cocaine crosses the border into Venezuela, but that much of it goes onward to Europe and growing markets in Brazil and Asia, and there’s no evidence large amounts reach the U.S.

“The whole thing is a fiction, and I do believe they know that,” he said of the Trump administration.

Berry said Venezuela is “a transit country for cocaine” but “a relatively minor player in the international drug trade” overall, with only a “small portion” of the cocaine that passes through it reaching the U.S.

Both also questioned the Trump administration labeling Maduro’s government a “narco-terrorism” regime. Gootenberg said the term arose decades ago to describe governments whose national revenues were substantially connected to drug proceeds, such as Bolivia in the 1980s, but it was always a “propagandistic idea” and had gone “defunct” as modern governments, including Venezuela’s, diversified their economies.

The Trump administration’s move to revive the term comes as no surprise given “the way they pick up atavistic labels that they think will be useful, like ‘Make America Great Again,’” Gootenberg said. But “there’s no there there.”

Berry said use of the term “narco-terrorism” has oversimplified the “diverse and context-specific connections” between the drug industry and global terrorism, and as a result “led to the conflation of counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism efforts, frequently resulting in hyper-militarised and ineffective policy responses.”

Gootenberg said Maduro was a corrupt authoritarian who stole an election and certainly had knowledge of drug trafficking through his country, but the notion he’d somehow become a “mastermind” with leverage over transnational drug organizations is far-fetched.

Several experts said they doubted his capture would have a sizable effect on the U.S. drug trade.

“Negligible. Marginal. Whatever word you want to use to indicate the most minor of impacts,” said Leap, of UCLA.

The Sinaloa Cartel — one of Maduro’s alleged partners, according to his indictment — is a major player in Southern California’s drug trade, with the Mexican Mafia serving as middleman between the cartel and local drug gangs, Leap said. But “if anyone tries to connect this to what is happening now in Venezuela, they do not understand the nature of drug distribution, street gangs, the Mexican Mafia, everything that goes on in Southern California. There is no connection.”

Berry said in the wake of Maduro’s capture, “numerous state and nonstate actors involved in the illegal narcotics trade remain unaffected.”

WASHINGTON — When a 37-year-old mother of three was fatally shot by an immigration agent Wednesday morning, driving in her Minneapolis neighborhood after dropping her son off at school, the Trump administration’s response was swift. The victim was to blame for her own death — acting as a “professional agitator,” a “domestic terrorist,” possibly trained to use her car against law enforcement, officials said.

It was an uncompromising response without any pretense the administration would rely on independent investigations of the event, video of which quickly circulated online, gripping the nation.

“You can accept that this woman’s death is a tragedy,” Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media, defending the shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent within hours of her death, “while acknowledging it’s a tragedy of her own making.”

The shooting of Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen, put the administration on defense over one of President Trump’s signature policy initiatives, exponentially expanding the ranks of ICE to outnumber most armies, and deploying its agents across unassuming communities throughout the United States.

ICE had just announced the deployment of “the largest immigration operation ever” in the Minnesota city, allegedly targeting Somali residents involved in fraud schemes. But Good’s death could prove a turning point. The shooting has highlighted souring public opinion on Trump’s immigration enforcement, with a majority of Americans now disapproving of the administration’s tactics, according to Pew Research.

Despite the outcry, Trump’s team doubled down on Thursday, vowing to send even more agents to the Midwestern state.

It was not immediately clear whether Good had positioned her car intentionally to thwart law enforcement agents, or in protest of their activities in her neighborhood.

Eyewitnesses to the shooting said that ICE agents were telling her to move her vehicle. Initial footage that emerged of the incident showed that, as she was doing so, Good briefly drove her car in reverse before turning her front wheels away to leave the scene.

She was shot three times by an officer who stood by her front left headlight, who the Department of Homeland Security said was hit by Good and fired in self-defense.

Only Tom Homan, the president’s border czar, urged caution from lawmakers and the public in responding to the incident, telling people to “take a deep breath” and “hold their judgment” for additional footage and evidence.

He distanced himself from the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Kristi Noem, who took mere hours to accuse the deceased of domestic terrorism. “The investigation’s just started,” Homan told CBS in an interview.

“I’m not going to make a judgment call on one video,” he said. “It would be unprofessional to comment.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Renee Nicole Good was engaged in “domestic terrorism” when she was fatally shot by a federal immigration agent.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Yet, asked why DHS had felt compelled to comment, Homan replied, “that’s a question for Homeland Security.”

It was not just the department. Trump, too, wrote on X that the victim was “obviously, a professional agitator.”

“The woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer,” Trump wrote, “who seems to have shot her in self defense.”

Noem was unequivocal in her assessment of the incident during engagements with the media on Wednesday and Thursday.

“It was an act of domestic terrorism,” Noem said. “A woman attacked them, and those surrounding them, and attempted to run them over.”

But local officials and law enforcement expressed concern over the incident, warning federal officials that the deployment had unnecessarily increased tensions within the community, and expressing support for the rights of residents to peacefully protest.

“What I think everybody knows that’s been happening here over the last several weeks is that there have been groups of people exercising their 1st Amendment rights,” Minneapolis Chief of Police Brian O’Hara said in an interview with MS NOW. “They have the right to observe, to livestream and record police activity, and they have the right to protest and object to it.”

“The line is, people must be able to exercise those 1st Amendment rights lawfully,” O’Hara said, adding, “and to do it safely.”

On Thursday, Trump administration officials told local law enforcement that the investigation of the matter would be within federal hands.

Vance told reporters at the White House on Thursday that the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security would both investigate the case, and said without evidence that Good had “aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator.”

“I can believe that her death is a tragedy while also recognizing that it’s a tragedy of her own making and a tragedy of the far left who has marshaled an entire movement, a lunatic fringe, against our law enforcement officers,” Vance said.

Jan. 7 (UPI) — The Trump administration announced Wednesday it created new dietary guidelines and created a new food pyramid.

“Under President Trump’s leadership common sense, scientific integrity and accountability have been restored to federal food and health policy,” a fact sheet from the Department of Health and Human Services announced. “For decades, the Dietary Guidelines favored corporate interests over common sense, science-driven advice to improve the health of Americans. That ends today.”

The new guidelines focus on high-quality protein, healthy fats, fruits, vegetables and whole grains, the fact sheet said. It calls for people to avoid highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates.

“The Dietary Guidelines are the foundation to dozens of federal feeding programs, and today marks the first step in making sure school meals, military and veteran meals, and other child and adult nutrition programs promote affordable, whole, healthy, nutrient-dense foods,” the fact sheet said.

The government also released a new website, Realfood.gov.

The American Heart Association said it welcomed the new guidelines on fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

The AHA “commends the inclusion of several important science-based recommendations, notably the emphasis on increasing intake of vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting consumption of added sugars, refined grains, highly processed foods, saturated fats and sugary drinks,” the AHA said in a statement.

But it took issue with some of the recommendations.

“We are concerned that recommendations regarding salt seasoning and red meat consumption could inadvertently lead consumers to exceed recommended limits for sodium and saturated fats, which are primary drivers of cardiovascular disease. While the guidelines highlight whole-fat dairy, the Heart Association encourages consumption of low-fat and fat-free dairy products, which can be beneficial to heart health,” the statement said.

The new guidance pushes protein at every meal and says to eat as much as twice the recommended daily allowance of 0.08 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. It says to eat 1.2 to 1.6 grams. Proteins can be flavored with “salt, spices, and herbs,” it said.

The guidelines also recommend full-fat dairy, which is different from past recommendations of low-fat or fat-free dairy. Full-fat dairy has saturated fats. The fact sheet calls this “ending the war on healthy fats.”

“Paired with a reduction in highly processed foods laden with refined carbohydrates, added sugars, excess sodium, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives, this approach can change the health trajectory of America,” the fact sheet said.

“When [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion] impacts nutrition science, it enables special interests to argue the status quo is acceptable because it would violate ‘health equity’ principles to encourage Americans to eat healthier food,” the fact sheet added.

The Trump administration announced a major overhaul of American nutrition guidelines Wednesday, replacing the old, carbohydrate-heavy food pyramid with one that prioritizes protein, healthy fats and whole grains.

“Our government declares war on added sugar,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a White House news conference announcing the changes. “We are ending the war on saturated fats.”

“If a foreign adversary sought to destroy the health of our children, to cripple our economy, to weaken our national security, there would be no better strategy than to addict us to ultra-processed foods,” Kennedy said.

Improving U.S. eating habits and the availability of nutritious foods is an issue with broad bipartisan support, and has been a long-standing goal of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement.

During the news conference, he acknowledged both the American Medical Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics for partnering on the new guidelines — two organizations that earlier this week condemned the administration’s decision to slash the number of diseases that U.S. children are vaccinated against.

“The American Medical Association applauds the administration’s new Dietary Guidelines for spotlighting the highly processed foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, and excess sodium that fuel heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic illnesses,” AMA President Bobby Mukkamala said in a statement.

Jan. 7 (UPI) — The White House said military force was among a range of options it was looking at in an effort to “acquire” Greenland for the United States.

Doubling down on comments by the administration officials in the past few days that the United States has a stronger claim to the Arctic Island than Denmark, in a statement Tuesday carried by The Hill, ABC News and the BBC, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said using the military was “always an option.”

“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief’s disposal.”

The statement came hours after European leaders pushed back hard on the renewed claims emanating from the administration since the U.S. military action in Venezuela at the weekend that the United States needs Greenland for its security, and by extension NATO’s, and that Denmark was not up to the job of defending Greenland.

In a joint statement of solidarity with Denmark, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain said Greenland belonged to its people and that “it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

They insisted that security in the Arctic was a priority and that they were taking steps to boost their military “presence, investments and activities,” but stressed that security could only be achieved collectively and “sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders,” had to be upheld.

“These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them,” read the statement.

In a closed-briefing on Capitol Hill on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested to lawmakers that Trump’s talk of taking Greenland by force was just rhetoric to pressure Copenhagen to come to the table, and his actual goal was to buy Greenland from Denmark.

However, later Monday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller reignited fears, telling CNN, military force was a non-question because America’s overwhelming military superiority meant “nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over Greenland.”

He also questioned the basis of Denmark’s territorial claim.

Greenland has been closely tied to Denmark since the 18th century, initially as a colony and then as an incorporated, semi-autonomous region with representation in the Danish Parliament.

Danish control of Greenland was recognized by the United States in 1916, as part of a deal for the purchase of what is now the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark.

The government in Nuuk said Tuesday it had asked for a meeting with Rubio.

WASHINGTON — A highly confidential CIA assessment produced at the request of the White House warned President Trump of a wider conflict in Venezuela if he were to support the country’s democratic opposition once its president, Nicolás Maduro, was deposed, a person familiar with the matter told The Times.

The assessment was a tightly held CIA product commissioned at the request of senior policymakers before Trump decided whether to authorize Operation Absolute Resolve, the stunning U.S. mission that seized Maduro and his wife from their bedroom in Caracas over the weekend.

Announcing the results of the operation on Sunday, Trump surprised an anxious Venezuelan public when he was quick to dismiss the leadership of the democratic opposition — led by María Corina Machado, last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was ultimately stolen by Maduro.

Instead, Trump said his administration was working with Maduro’s handpicked vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who has since been named the country’s interim president. The rest of Maduro’s government remains in place.

Endorsing the opposition would probably have required U.S. military backing, with the Venezuelan armed forces still under the control of loyalists to Maduro unwilling to relinquish power.

A second official said that the administration sought to avoid one of the cardinal mistakes of the invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration ordered party loyalists of the deposed Saddam Hussein to be excluded from the country’s interim government. That decision, known as de-Baathification, led those in charge of Iraq’s stockpiles of weapons to establish armed resistance to the U.S. campaign.

The CIA product was not an assessment that was shared across the 18 government agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, whose head, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, was largely absent from deliberations — and who has yet to comment on the operation, despite CIA operatives being deployed in harm’s way before and throughout the weekend mission.

The core team that worked on Absolute Resolve included Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who met routinely over several months, sometimes daily, the source added.

The existence of the CIA assessment was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Signs have emerged that Trump’s team was in communication with Rodríguez ahead of the operation, although the president has denied that his administration gave Rodríguez advance notice of Maduro’s ouster.

“There are a number of unanswered questions,” said Evan Ellis, who served in Trump’s first term planning State Department policy on Latin America, the Caribbean and international narcotics. “There may have a been a cynical calculation that one can work with them.”

Rodríguez served as a point of contact with the Biden administration, experts note, and also was in touch with Richard Grenell, a top Trump aide who heads the Kennedy Center, early on in Trump’s second term, when he was testing engagement with Caracas.

While the federal indictment unsealed against Maduro after his seizure named several other senior officials in his government, Rodríguez’s name was notably absent.

Rodríguez was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president Monday in a ceremony attended by diplomats from Russia, China and Iran. Publicly, the leader has offered mixed messages, at once vowing to prevent Venezuela from becoming a colonial outpost of an American empire, while also offering to forge a newly collaborative relationship with Washington.

“Of course, for political reasons, Delcy Rodríguez can’t say, ‘I’ve cut a deal with Trump, and we’re going to stop the revolution now and start working with the U.S.,” Ellis said.

“It’s not about the democracy,” he said. “It’s about him not wanting to work with Maduro.”

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Machado said she had yet to speak with Trump since the U.S. operation over the weekend, but hoped to do so soon, offering to share her Nobel Peace Prize with him as a gesture of gratitude. Trump has repeatedly touted himself as a worthy recipient of the award.

“What he has done is historic,” Machado said, vowing to return to the country from hiding abroad since accepting the prize in Oslo last month.

“It’s a huge step,” she added, “towards a democratic transition.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is planning to meet with executives from US oil companies later this week to discuss boosting Venezuelan oil production after US forces abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, the Reuters news agency has reported, citing unnamed sources.

The meetings are crucial to the administration’s hopes of getting top US oil companies back into the South American nation after its government, nearly two decades ago, took control of US-led energy operations there, the Reuters news agency report said on Monday.

The three biggest US oil companies – Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron – have not yet had any conversations with the Trump administration about Maduro’s ouster, according to four oil industry executives familiar with the matter, contradicting Trump’s statements over the weekend that he had already held meetings with “all” the US oil companies, both before and since Maduro was abducted.

“Nobody in those three companies has had conversations with the White House about operating in Venezuela, pre-removal or post-removal, to this point,” one of the sources said on Monday.

The upcoming meetings will be crucial to the administration’s hopes to boost crude oil production and exports from Venezuela, a former OPEC nation that sits atop the world’s largest reserves, and whose crude oil can be refined by specially designed US refineries. Achieving that goal will require years of work and billions of dollars of investment, analysts say.

It is unclear what executives will be attending the upcoming meetings, and whether oil companies will be attending individually or collectively.

The White House did not comment on the meetings, but said it believed the US oil industry was ready to flood into Venezuela.

“All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers.

Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters.

One oil industry executive told Reuters the companies would be reluctant to talk about potential Venezuela operations in group settings with the White House, citing antitrust concerns that limit collective discussions among competitors about investment plans, timing and production levels.

Political risks, low oil prices

US forces on Saturday conducted a raid on Venezuela’s capital, arresting Maduro in the dead of night and sending him back to the US to face narcoterrorism charges.

Hours after Maduro’s abduction, Trump said he expects the biggest US oil companies to spend billions of dollars boosting Venezuela’s oil production, after it dropped to about a third of its peak over the past two decades due to underinvestment and sanctions.

But those plans will be hindered by a lack of infrastructure, along with deep uncertainty over the country’s political future, legal framework and long-term US policy, according to industry analysts.

“While the Trump administration has suggested large US oil companies will go into Venezuela and spend billions to fix infrastructure, we believe political and other risks, along with current relatively low oil prices, could prevent this from happening anytime soon,” wrote Neal Dingmann of William Blair in a note.

Material change to Venezuelan production will take a lot of time and millions of dollars of infrastructure improvement, he said.

And any investment in Venezuelan infrastructure right now would take place in a weakened global energy market. Crude prices in the US are down by 20 percent compared with last year. The price for a barrel of benchmark US crude has not been above $70 since June, and has not touched $80 per barrel since June of 2024.

A barrel of oil cost more than $130 in the leadup to the US housing crisis in 2008.

Chevron is the only US major currently operating in Venezuela’s oil fields.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, had storied histories in the country before their projects were nationalised nearly two decades ago by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Conoco has been seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the takeover of three oil projects in Venezuela under Chavez. Exxon was involved in lengthy arbitration cases against Venezuela after it exited the country in 2007.

Chevron, which exports about 150,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, meanwhile, has had to carefully manoeuvre with the Trump administration in an effort to maintain its presence in the country in recent years.

A US embargo on Venezuelan oil remained in full effect, Trump has said.

The S&P 500 energy index rose to its highest since March 2025, with heavyweights Exxon Mobil rising by 2.2 percent and Chevron jumping by 5.1 percent.

High street retailers Claire’s and The Original Factory Shop are being put into administration, risking 2,500 jobs.

It comes amid a turbulent time for Claire’s, popular with tweens for its brightly coloured accessories, which was seeking a buyer after its US owner filed for bankruptcy last year.

Modella Capital, which owns both chains, said the retailers would enter insolvency proceedings across the UK and Ireland. The administration will give them breathing space to find a new buyer.

Modella said tough trading conditions and “alarming” low Christmas trading left both in a “vulnerable” position.

Claire’s has 154 stores and 1,355 staff, while The Original Factory shop has 140 stores and 1,220 staff.

Modella purchased Claire’s in September, six weeks after its previous collapse into administration, in a deal which saw around 1,000 job losses at the retailer, while 145 stores closed.

The investment firm has owned The Original Factory Shop since early last year.

“This has been a very tough decision,” said Modella. “We have worked intensively in an effort to save both businesses, having made last-ditch attempts to rescue them, but neither has a realistic possibility of trading profitably again.”

Modella said that the chains were “highly vulnerable” even before it bought them. It also blamed challenges including the climate on the high street, which it said “remains extremely challenging”, and government policy.

The two shops are the latest casualties of a tough trading environment which has seen high street sales fall as shoppers move online, ditching old favourites facing the high cost of maintaining brick-and-mortar stores.

“A combination of very weak consumer confidence, highly adverse government fiscal policies and continued cost inflation is causing many established and much-loved businesses to suffer badly,” Modella said.

The investment firm has become increasingly prominent on Britain’s high streets, having bought WH Smith’s high street chain last year and taken over arts and crafts retailer Hobbycraft a year earlier.

Modella is the latest business to criticise measures by Chancellor Rachel Reeves which have seen operating costs rise, making trading even more difficult as high inflation – the price at which prices rise – squeezes household budgets.

Her last Budget hiked taxes, while her previous Budget increased the minimum wage and raised employer National Insurance contributions.

One London pub owner warned he may have to close after tax rises announced in the last Budget.

James Fitzgerald, landlord of the Thatched House in Hammersmith, said his costs have risen by £22,000 over the past year – with the increase in National Insurance a major factor.

The Treasury was asked to comment.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has ended the lease agreement for three public golf courses in Washington, a move that offers President Trump an additional opportunity to put his stamp on another piece of the nation’s capital.

The National Links Trust, the nonprofit that has operated Washington’s three public courses on federal land for the last five years, said Wednesday that the Department of the Interior had terminated its 50-year lease agreement. The Interior Department said it was terminating the lease because the nonprofit had not implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

While it was unclear what the Trump administration’s plans are for the golf courses, the move gives Trump, whose private company has developed numerous golf courses in the U.S. and abroad, the chance to remake links overlooking the Potomac River and in Rock Creek Park and a site that is part of Black golf history.

Officials for the National Links Trust said in a statement that they were “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended their management of the courses. They said $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in their tenure managing the courses. The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

“While this termination is a major setback, we remain stubbornly hopeful that a path forward can be found that preserves affordable and accessible public golf in the nation’s capital for generations to come,” the officials added.

The Department of the Interior’s decision comes as Trump rebrands civic spaces in Washington and deploys National Guard members to the streets for public safety. The Kennedy Center added Trump’s name this month after the center’s board of trustees — made up of Trump appointees — voted to change the name of the performing arts space designated by Congress as a memorial to John F. Kennedy. Trump is also in the midst of a construction project to build a ballroom on the White House’s East Wing, and he has put his name on the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Jan. 2 (UPI) — Danish renewable energy giant Orsted filed suit Thursday against the Department of Interior because it paused its lease on a $5 billion off-shore wind farm in Rhode Island.

Orsted’s Revolution Wind project is 87% complete, and “is expected to be ready to deliver reliable, affordable power to American homes in 2026,” a press release said.

Orsted shares jumped more than 4% on the lawsuit news, CNBC reported.

The administration put a halt to the project last month. The Interior Department announced it would pause the leases of five offshore wind farms being built on the East Coast.

Besides Revolution Wind, the projects are Vineyard Wind 1, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind. The projects are in New England, Virginia and New York. Revolution Wind is a joint venture between Orsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables. It’s about 15 miles off the coast of Rhode Island.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced on X in December: “Due to national security concerns identified by @DeptofWar, @Interior is PAUSING leases for 5 expensive, unreliable, heavily subsidized offshore wind farms! ONE natural gas pipeline supplies as much energy as these 5 projects COMBINED.”

The department explained in a press release that “unclassified reports from the U.S. government have long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference called ‘clutter.’ The clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects,” it said.

But Orsted argues that, “Revolution Wind has spent and committed billions of dollars in reliance upon, and has met the requests of, a thorough review process. Additional federal reviews and approvals included the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and many other agencies.”

Revolution Wind faces “substantial harm” from the lease suspension order, Orsted said. “As a result, litigation is a necessary step to protect the rights of the project.”

Orsted’s other project, Sunrise Wind, which also had its lease suspended, “continues to evaluate all options to resolve the matter, including engagement with relevant agencies and stakeholders and considering legal proceedings,” Orsted said. Sunrise Wind is about 30 miles off the coast of New York.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that he dislikes wind energy, calling the turbines “ugly” and saying the noise they make causes cancer.

On Aug. 22, the administration ordered Orsted to stop construction on Revolution Wind to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interest of the United States.”

On Aug. 29, the Department of Transportation announced it was cutting about $679 million in funding to 12 wind farms, calling the projects “wasteful.”

Orsted then filed suit in September to reverse the stop-work order. In that filing, it said the project had already spent $5 billion.

Jan. 1 (UPI) — The Italian government said Thursday that the United States has pulled back on tariffs the Trump administration had placed on several pasta brands based in Italy.

The U.S. Department of Commerce reduced tariffs on 13 Italian pasta brands, rolling back levies that had been announced as the administration alleged that the companies had been trying to undercut U.S. manufacturers, CBS News and The Financial Times reported.

The tariffs, which were originally announced as 92% on brands that include Barilla, La Molisana and Pastificio Lucio Garofalo, would have nearly doubled their cost.

With the rollbacks, the brands will only carry a 2% to 14% tariff: La Molisana will see a 2.26% tariff, Garofalo will see a 13.98% tariff and the other 11 companies will face a 9.09% tariff.

After a preliminary review of the companies’ operations revealed that they had not been trying to undercut the price of U.S. manufactured pasta.

“The recalculation of the duties is a sign that U.S. authorities recognize our companies’ constructive willingness to cooperate,” the Italian foreign ministry said of the shift.

According to a business association in Italy, the tariffs would have affected about half of the pasta that is typically shipped to the United States.

In 2024, roughly $788 million of pasta was imported from Italy to the United States.

Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration introduced high tariffs on a wide range of products — from food and clothes to furniture and kitchen cabinets — but many have been rolled back or canceled as officials have negotiated with other countries’ officials or, such as in the case of Italian pasta, consumers were primed to see significantly increased costs.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has expanded its review of documents related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to 5.2 million as it also increases the number of attorneys trying to comply with a law mandating release of the files, according to a person briefed on a letter sent to U.S. attorneys.

The figure is the latest estimate in the expanding review of case files on Epstein and his longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell that has run more than a week past a deadline set in law by Congress.

The Justice Department has more than 400 attorneys working on the review, but does not expect to release more documents until Jan. 20 or 21, according to the person briefed on the letter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

The White House did not dispute the figures laid out in the email, and pointed to a statement from Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who said the administration’s review was an “all-hands-on-deck approach.”

Blanche said Wednesday that lawyers from the Justice Department in Washington, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York are working “around the clock” to review the files. The additional documents and lawyers related to the case were first reported by the New York Times.

“We’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain,” Blanche said. “Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released.”

Still, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is facing pressure from Congress after the Justice Department’s rollout of information has lagged behind the Dec. 19 deadline to release the information.

“Should Attorney General Pam Bondi be impeached?” Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who helped lead the effort to pass the law mandating the document release, asked on social media this week.

Democrats also are reviewing their legal options as they continue to seize on an issue that has caused cracks in the Republican Party and at times flummoxed President Trump’s administration.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on social media that the latest figures from the Department of Justice “shows Bondi, Blanche, and others at the DOJ have been lying to the American people about the Epstein files since day one” and pointed out that the documents released so far represent a fraction of the total.

Groves and Kim write for the Associated Press.