administration

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the United States. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would likely face legal challenges.

Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials. The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.

He declined to comment on the number of visas that might be revoked, saying “as the process will be ongoing, the number of revocations remains dynamic and will be done on a rolling basis.”

The revocations would not necessarily result in their immediate deportation, the officials said. Most of those with asylum cases currently pending would be recategorized but would lose their status as business or tourism travelers, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the revocations are not final yet.

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term last year, his administration has steadily ramped up restrictions on visa applicants — demanding more information about their social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds for the processing of visas, and outright banning the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries.

In a social media post on Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called out people who he said try to use tourist and business visas to get into the United States and then apply for asylum.

“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote on X. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.” Landau cited the case of a Colombian citizen who came to the U.S. in 2015 on a tourist visa and then applied for asylum.

B1 visas are generally issued for business trips and B2 visas are generally issued for tourism, family visits or medical care. It was not immediately clear from the documents or the officials how many of these visa holders are seeking or have sought asylum in the United States and would be affected by the revocations.

Current applicants for B1 and B2 visas are asked to affirm that they will not apply for asylum in the United States and prove that they intend to return to their home countries.

In the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked about 175,000 visas for people who have been convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drunken driving to rape and robbery, as well as for people who have spoken out publicly against U.S. policies, particularly in the Middle East.

The administration has also moved to crack down on so-called birth tourism, a practice the administration claims is used by foreign pregnant women to come to the United States to give birth so that their child will benefit from birthright citizenship. Trump has tried several times to end birthright citizenship, but those challenges have been rejected by courts, including the Supreme Court.

The State Department documents obtained by the AP suggest screening of current B1 and B2 visa holders began after the State Department received information about asylum requests from the Citizen and Immigration Service.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

BILLINGS, Mont. — The 250th anniversary of U.S. independence was just months away when National Park Service employees received a surprising directive from Washington: Maintenance projects approved for this year at sites across the nation were being relegated to a new “low priority” list.

Work wanted by the White House was taking precedence, including repairs to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press and three officials from the park service and Interior Department who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

The reflecting pool repairs and other projects tied to President Trump’s Freedom 250 initiative landed on a separate list for White House priorities, the documents show. Many of the administration-backed projects have advanced, though the Reflecting Pool repairs were botched.

Meanwhile, almost all of about 1,500 maintenance and other projects on the low priority list as of last month are expected to go undone, the officials said. That will worsen a repair backlog at national parks that doubled over the last decade to more than $24 billion even as visitor numbers surged.

The shelved projects, many already approved, span more than 200 sites and range from roof repairs at Golden Gate National Recreation Area to computer upgrades at Alaska’s Katmai National Park and bulk purchases of toilet paper and garbage bags at Yellowstone National Park.

Because of their low priority designation and with the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, it’s unknown when they will move forward unless park staff can find a workaround, two of the officials said.

Park service employees “were told to not expect anything on the low priority list to be contracted,” one of the officials said.

“The first priority was White House priorities,” the official said. “Anywhere that is 250th-related they would have been diverting resources, some it probably planned but a lot of it pushed by the administration.”

The Interior Department said many entries on the low priority list had been “mis-prioritized and were corrected.” It declined to say how many or which ones, or how much parks are spending on projects outside Washington. Agency officials declined to answer questions about the Reflecting Pool.

Congress has pushed to fix maintenance backlog

The park service has a third list for “high priority” projects that includes more than 2,000 items, many with contracts awarded or in process, the documents show.

“In any year, the National Park Service must prioritize projects most in need,” Interior spokesperson Katie Martin wrote in a statement. “The National Park Service has not only been focused on beautifying the district for the 250th celebrations in our nation’s capital but has also been working on many deferred maintenance projects throughout the country.”

The 1,500 low priority projects had a combined cost estimate of more than $400 million.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), the ranking member of the Senate’s National Parks Subcommittee, said the administration’s pursuits around Washington “are more aesthetic than strictly necessary,” even as they siphon resources from sites elsewhere in the U.S.

“I don’t object to setting priorities,” King said in an interview. “I object to the White House priority list being tacked onto the top of that pyramid.”

He added it could lead to “the deterioration of America’s gems” as things like sanitation upgrades and basic maintenance don’t happen.

Congress during both Democratic and Republican presidencies has pushed to address the backlog. The bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act in 2020 included $6.5 billion for maintenance and repairs through 2025. A legislative extension is pending.

Testing the park service’s mission

The priority designations came from park service headquarters in Washington, according to documents obtained by AP and one of the unnamed officials.

The park service appears to be moving forward on at least $80 million in White House priorities, including $52 million awarded, the documents indicate. Much of that work was championed by Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, such as the reflecting pool repairs and the rehabilitation of other parks in the capital with an eye toward the 250th celebrations.

Trump announced his plans to paint the Reflecting Pool blue in April, aiming to address longstanding problems at the site before July 4. But the $16-million initiative faced immediate problems, including peeling sealant and a fierce return of green algae.

Not all of the administration’s priorities advanced: A $70-million line item for “turf maintenance” over five years at parks in the Washington, D.C., area is among more than $80 million in work marked as “canceled” in the Interior Department data.

The park service’s mission has been tested under Trump as its employees navigate new realities. It lost at least one-quarter of its permanent workforce under Trump.

Remaining employees have been ordered to revise exhibits that Trump said advanced “improper ideology,” and demolish the East Wing of the White House, which is under park stewardship, for the creation of a ballroom. Trump also reduced Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah as Republicans reshape public lands management.

Contracting officers in short supply

Pressure to deliver on administration demands for Freedom 250 was compounded by staffing cuts that made it harder to execute contracts, the unnamed officials said.

Prior to Trump’s second term, the parks had 275 contracting officers. They’ve since been consolidated into the Interior Department, which nevertheless saw its contracting workforce drop more than 20%, public records show.

About $140 million has been obligated or spent by the park service in Washington, D.C., this year, according to public data. That includes the reflecting pool work and the rehabilitation of fountains across the district.

Interior spokesperson Martin said the Trump administration is eyeing different revenue sources for maintenance including endowments and park pass sales.

Those sales rose more than $2 million, to $16.7 million, in the first quarter of 2026 compared with a year earlier, she said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Nearing the six-month mark of the Iran war and facing diminishing stockpiles of key weapons, the Trump administration is touting a crushing financial campaign against Tehran, promising an “economic D-Day” against a country that has withstood nearly five decades of punishing American sanctions.

With sparse details, President Trump announced this week that the U.S. would be imposing an “unprecedented” level of economic warfare and isolation on Iran, aiming to force its leadership to cave to demands to end its nuclear program and fully reopen the crucial Strait of Hormuz to oil and natural gas tankers.

It reflects the dire reality Trump faces with an increasingly unpopular war he can’t seem to end just months before pivotal midterm elections that will decide whether his Republican Party keeps control of Congress. Whether out of desperation or strategy, the president is refocusing America’s might on bringing Iran to its knees through an accelerated sanctions campaign against one of the most economically penalized countries in the world.

In response to the threat, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted Friday on X the history of U.S. sanctions against Iran, saying, “We have seen this movie before. Same bull. Different bullies.”

The immediate reaction from Iran hawks has been praise and a call for patience as it plays out, while other analysts warn that Trump is refusing to learn the lessons of his predecessors.

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a small glimpse of what may be ahead, threatening secondary sanctions on nations and companies that conduct business with Iran.

He did not reveal who would be targeted as part of this next phase of the administration’s Operation Economic Fury, which earlier had focused on entities and people who buy oil from or bank with Iran. China and India, however, are major buyers of Iranian oil.

“If you insist on doing business with them, then the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government will put its full might and force against you,” Bessent said. “It’s time for our allies and the rest of the world to make a decision.”

Some experts see ‘uncharted waters’ that could force Iran’s hand

Despite decades of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the Trump administration is arguing that it’s only a matter of time and that striking the right economic target would get Tehran to its breaking point.

Richard Goldberg, who coordinated efforts to put diplomatic pressure on Iran in Trump’s first term, said the consequences of U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites last year, the war this year and the American naval blockade on Iranian ports have created the perfect storm for capitulation — one that didn’t previously exist.

“I think we’re watching a strategy, whether it takes a short time or a long time, that is very much about fundamentally changing the future of the world by seeing the end of this regime,” said Goldberg, who is now at the hawkish Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, or FDD.

“I caution everyone — including myself, who has worked on sanctions, who’s worked on financial warfare — to have the humility to admit that we are in uncharted waters,” he said.

He said the decision this week by the United Arab Emirates — once one of Tehran’s most important trading partners — to suspend trade with Iran over an alleged missile attack will only further isolate the government.

Beyond trade in domestically produced goods, the Emiratis had helped the country absorb some of the shocks caused by sanctions through its re-export hub.

Targeting allies and partners comes at a price

With nearly all of Iran’s energy, financial and transportation sectors already covered by U.S. sanctions, Trump’s aim appears to be to apply secondary sanctions on countries, including allies and partners, that have not cut all ties with Iran to starve the country of any remaining income it may still be receiving.

In many ways, it is a redux of Trump’s first-term maximum-pressure campaign, which he has ramped up during his second term to include military action.

But as Trump and his allies discovered during his first administration, it can be difficult to enforce secondary sanctions without harming U.S. interests and provoking reciprocal measures. There were numerous instances of the administration granting sanctions waivers to countries, particularly those that rely on Iranian oil for their energy needs.

“Trump’s strategy now rests on targeting Tehran directly by impeding its touch points and access to the formal financial system and international economy,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the FDD’s Iran program. “This will require making the Iran issue more important in U.S. bilateral relations with countries in Europe and Asia.”

Iran doesn’t see an ‘open door’ at the end of the sanctions campaign

Iranian officials and analysts have accused the Republican president of flip-flopping with his latest pivot to economic pressure against Tehran. Trump has long derided past leaders who used sanctions to limit Iran’s ability to pay for its military and nuclear development.

In a post last week on X, Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, wrote that Washington’s pattern of retreating to sanctions when it doesn’t want to pursue diplomacy has proven to be futile.

“Iran has demonstrated over decades that it will not be strangled by these exhausted refrains,” he said. “The real risk is that American politicians, clinging to this bad habit, will instead strangle their own remaining chances of a less humiliating exit from a crisis of their own making.”

Ali Vaez, Iran director at the International Crisis Group, said the Trump administration’s decision to take its own maximum-pressure policy to new heights with military action seems to ignore years of U.S. foreign-policy lessons that show Iran does not respond well to pressure.

If anything, he says, the latest economic campaign has only “hardened Iran’s position.”

“I think (Trump’s) blind spot is the fact that the only thing that the Iranian regime views as more dangerous than suffering from U.S. sanctions is surrendering to U.S. terms,” Vaez said.

Plus, the past year of start-stop diplomacy has only worsened the already fragile dynamic between the longtime adversaries, Vaez says, adding that Iranian officials’ lack of trust in Trump and his mediators has created an untenable foundation.

“They believe that even if they capitulate to U.S. terms under economic duress, Trump would move the goalposts and ask for more,” he said. “And this is really the fundamental problem: Pressure without an open door is an exercise in futility.”

Amiri writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matthew Lee and Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

US Agriculture Department says rescinding the 2001 rule will help reduce wildfire risk and return control to local managers.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has filed a proposal to rescind the entirety of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibits road construction and logging on nearly 45 million acres (18 million hectares) of national forest land.

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins submitted the proposal on Tuesday, saying it will mitigate wildfire risk by returning authority to local forest managers, who “know the land best”.

“For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities,” Rollins said in a statement. “It’s time to turn the page on the failed roadless rule and return our forests to health and productivity.”

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers say building roads in these areas would make it easier for firefighters to access the land if a wildfire breaks out.

“For 25 years, the heavy thumb of Washington, D.C., has hindered Montana’s ability to properly manage wildfire risk and road development on nearly 60 percent of Forest Service land across the Treasure State,” Republican Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana said in a statement.

While the areas are referred to as “roadless”, there are thousands of miles of existing roads within the lands with federal, state, and county ownership. About half of these lands are within 1 mile (1.6km) of a road, and 31 percent are within 0.5 miles (800 metres) of a road, according to the National Forest Service.

The USDA clarified that it is not forcing timber cutting or road construction.

But environmental groups say rescinding the conservation rule will open the door to developments that will increase the risk of wildfire. Fires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless forests, according to research from The Wilderness Society.

“Roadless forests are where wildlife live,” Taylor McKinnon, southwest director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “They’re home to jaguars, Mexican spotted owls, and ocelots, some of the most iconic animals on the continent. Plowing roads into their habitat will bring human-caused wildfires and disturbances that they don’t need and can’t afford.”

The US is experiencing one of its worst wildfire years in the last decade, with 7.3 million acres (3 million hectares) burned in about 49,000 fires through August 17, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

More than 95 percent of the affected areas would be in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

In early August, the state of Washington fought a highly destructive wildfire that burned more than 8,000 acres (3,200 hectares) and forced approximately 65,000 people to evacuate.

Last month, the Trump administration finalised rollbacks of two regulations affecting the Endangered Species Act. One change requires officials to weigh economic and national security considerations when determining whether an area should be designated as “critical habitat”.

The public will have until September 21 to comment on the proposed Roadless Rule.

ABC went to court Tuesday in an attempt to halt the Federal Communications Commission’s early review of its TV licenses, claiming the move is an attack on the broadcast outlet’s right to free speech.

The Disney-owned network asked a U.S. District Court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the FCC’s action. The agency says it is investigating ABC stations over whether the company’s diversity and inclusion policies are in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

But the suit alleges that the FCC is retaliating against ABC due to President Trump’s dissatisfaction with the network’s coverage of his administration. Trump has frequently threatened to have TV station licenses pulled when he believes he is treated unfairly on news and talk programs.

In late December, Trump posted on X that “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows are almost 100% negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say YES!”

The suit claims the FCC “has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming,” citing comments made last fall by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr about late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about the president.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways….to take action…on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC.”

Shortly after Carr made those remarks, two large TV station ownership groups had their ABC affiliates pull Kimmel off the air for a week after conservative blowback over the host’s comments regarding the shooting death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The licenses for eight ABC-owned TV stations, including KABC in Los Angeles, were originally scheduled for renewal between 2028 and 2031. The suit said the current review is “extraordinarily early” and “that timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.”

Trump recently called for ABC’s TV licenses to be revoked after the network did not carry his July 16 prime-time Oval Office address on election fraud. Carr said the network’s decision would be taken under consideration in the license review process.

Broadcast outlets have long had the option to determine whether to carry a presidential address. ABC presented Trump’s speech on its news streaming platform, as did NBC.

Carr has also questioned whether “The View” should be classified as a news program, which is exempt from the equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

ABC has asked the FCC to rule on the status of “The View,” which received an exemption from the rarely enforced equal time provision in 2002.

ABC has maintained that “The View” books politicians based on newsworthiness and not partisanship.

Wealth, perhaps second only to loyalty, has been a prized attribute for Donald Trump during his second presidency.

The number of people worth at least $100 million whom the Republican president has appointed to his administration is more than four times the combined total under the three previous presidents, according to a report from the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

It’s the numbers for the Trump administration, in the context of previous administrations, that stand out in Public Citizen’s report, published on Monday. In all, 57 Trump officials are worth at least $100 million, including 17 ambassadors and the remaining 40 in senior posts across the executive branch.

Look no further than Trump’s Cabinet. Eight of its 23 members fit the category, notably Treasury Secretary Howard Lutnick and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, both billionaires.

The president, himself a billionaire, has described his inclination toward appointing the ultrawealthy as deference to financial success. And yet, Trump, who owes his White House comeback to support from middle-income, working Americans drawn to his pledge to lower everyday costs, now faces a midterm election electorate decidedly less keen on his handling of the economy.

Presidents have long sought counsel from the nation’s wealthiest people and tapped some for high-profile administrative leadership roles. Likewise, presidents routinely reward wealthy and influential supporters with ambassadorships.

Among the most notable examples is Andrew Mellon, the aluminum, oil and banking tycoon who was among the handful of the nation’s wealthiest people in the 1920s and served as treasury secretary for three presidents.

The Trump officials worth at least $100 million include Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg and Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler, who are also billionaires, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and special envoy Steve Witkoff, both worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

By comparison, Republican George W. Bush’s administration and Democrat Joe Biden’s each included five members worth $100 million or more. Democrat Barack Obama’s included three, the report states.

A government populated by so many of the economic elite presents potential problems, the report’s authors said.

“When the people holding the reins of government are drawn overwhelmingly from the ranks of the ultra-rich, it leads to misplaced incentives and corruption, and begs the question, ‘Whose interests they are truly serving?” said Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen’s co-president.

The list does not include Trump, whose net worth Forbes estimates at more than $6 billion. Nor does it include space and social media giant Elon Musk, who advised Trump last year on an effort to reduce the federal government’s size, scope and workforce and is the world’s wealthiest person, with a net worth Forbes estimates at about $860 billion.

Trump’s views are well established: Financial success is evidence of executive mastery and negotiating strength.

“They have great competence, those people. Incredible competence. Some of the smartest business leaders,” Trump said last year in explaining why he put considerable weight on advice from business executives.

He has also pointed to investments by wealthy people as a signal of future economic growth. To encourage billionaires to deliver, Trump, in his first year back in the White House, pursued policies on artificial intelligence and financial regulation that could benefit wealthy people, along with tax cuts and reduced regulatory burdens for large-scale investments.

Still, last month, only 32% of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, down from 40% at the beginning of his second term and as his Republican Party faces headwinds in its attempt to hold both majorities in Congress in November.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Approaching six months of war with Iran after predicting a six-week campaign, President Trump has few options before him to bring the conflict to a close. But some experts believe a new strategy emerging from his administration could avert a more consequential defeat.

The president has repeatedly flirted with broadening the assault, hoping yet another round of bombardment might force Iran to yield. Yet he has ultimately resisted, once again stepping back this month from options to expand strikes across Iran’s critical infrastructure and leadership. And he has refrained since the beginning of the war from ordering a ground operation that would expose U.S. troops to direct attack, faced with dwindling U.S. munitions stockpiles and an entrenched Iranian government willing to retaliate.

The result has been a U.S. campaign that has failed to achieve any of Trump’s stated war aims — of regime change in Tehran, the elimination of Iran’s ballistic missile and naval capabilities, and the end of its nuclear program — but has also avoided the costs of uncontrolled escalation, experts said.

In remarks Friday, Trump said the United States was still in the process of “defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated.”

“We have the blockade. No ships get through,” he said. “They still have missiles, but not a lot. They still have drones, but just a fraction of what they had. But their manufacturing is largely gone.

“We’re winning big with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added. “Nobody has any idea how successful we are — they don’t want to write it. But they know. You know who knows how well we’re doing? Iran.”

In an interview published last week, Trump explained his decision not to proceed with expanded strikes, telling Axios, “we are low-keying it.”

“We are only semi-negotiating with them,” he said. “We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.”

It is a shift from an instinctual posture to one of restraint uncharacteristic of a president who launched the war in February after consulting a mere handful of people, including Israel’s prime minister and fewer than a dozen of his closest aides.

The current approach — an economic choke hold on Iran — is being led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was not involved in Trump’s prewar deliberations.

“The options are escalating militarily, conceding Iranian victory through a phony negotiation, or continuing the economic pressure we have in place. The president’s problem is that he can’t simply choose — the ayatollah gets a vote,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat who served under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, as well as under Trump in his first term.

“Trump has to choose now between sticking to the blockade and the risks it brings — including high oil prices and a loss in the midterm elections — or accepting defeat by Iran and the risks that brings,” he added, “to our friends and allies and to his own reputation.”

White House officials are betting the risks to Tehran, from soaring inflation and a shortage of goods, are greater than the political costs Trump will incur at the ballot box in November during the midterm elections, with oil prices holding stable under $100 a barrel since mid-July.

“We have the ability to accept costs because our resources are great. Iran does not, because theirs are few,” said Barry Posen, a political science professor at MIT.

And while restraint may not end the conflict on Trump’s preferred terms, it could prevent the kind of open-ended escalation that pulled the United States deeper into costly quagmires in Vietnam and Iraq, said Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the Brookings Institution’s foreign policy program.

“He has resisted that temptation so far,” O’Hanlon said. “In this regard, he is showing greater humanity and greater thoughtfulness than either of those two American presidents during the Vietnam War. And he has avoided the mistakes of George W. Bush in launching big ground wars without adequate planning or preparation.

“It’s troubling, and far from victory,” O’Hanlon added, “but also far from quagmire or defeat.”

Trump’s reluctance to escalate has so far averted a high U.S. casualty count in the war. According to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System, 18 U.S. service members have been killed and hundreds have been wounded since the start of operations against Iran.

But his reticence to deploy additional U.S. troops within striking distance of Tehran — and the need to protect those already stationed across the region — has forced the administration to rely on long-range weapons systems that cost tens of millions of dollars and require complex international supply chains to produce, leading to critical shortages of drones, missiles and defense systems as the conflict continues longer than planned.

“Even limited operations, such as the air wars over Kosovo and Libya, dragged on much longer than policymakers expected, and the U.S. ran short of critical precision guided weapons,” said Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security. “What really differentiates the current situation with Iran is that Tehran can hold U.S. forces in the region at risk with its long-range missiles and drones.”

Karoline Leavitt, the president’s outgoing White House press secretary, said the United States has “more than enough firepower” to carry out any operation the president wishes to order.

But Defense officials acknowledged to The Times that a protracted campaign, and the risk of an escalation that prompts Iran to expand its targeting of U.S. assets and allies in the region, could further stretch weapons systems to dangerously low levels.

A “low-key” campaign will mitigate the threat of dwindling supplies and high casualties, without necessarily providing Trump with a path to victory, said Stephen Biddle, a professor of international and public policy at Columbia University.

“The issue with Iran isn’t how long the war has lasted, though it’s already lasted longer than the Trump administration apparently expected,” Biddle said. “The issue is how we’ll get out of it with our interests intact. The administration has no viable plan for doing that, and none is immediately obvious.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has refused to block the Trump administration from taking steps to build 62 miles of international border wall along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation without its consent.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington denied the Tohono O’odham Nation’s request for a court-ordered halt to border wall construction on its 2.8-million-acre reservation. Leon ruled Friday that the tribe hasn’t established that a border wall will change its reservation boundaries without congressional authority.

The judge also rejected the tribe’s claim that the planned border wall would illegally trespass on its reservation.

“And in any event, I find that the Government’s interests in securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring public safety outweigh any surviving irreparable harms at this juncture,” Leon wrote.

The tribe released a statement late Friday strongly disagreeing with the decision.

“Too many critical issues were not adequately addressed, such as inevitable impacts construction will have on the Nation’s land and the permanent destruction of sacred sites,” Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon M. Jose said. “The Nation will consider all possible options for moving forward, as this issue is simply too important to the O’odham.”

The O’odham reservation in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona abuts 62 miles of the Mexico border. The tribe has more than 37,000 members, including thousands who live in Mexico.

Building the border wall would lead to “significant devastation” on the reservation, including the destruction of mountain peaks that are sacred to the O’odham, tribe attorneys said.

“It would fray the ties between O’odham communities and families on opposite sides of the border, interfere significantly with O’odham religious rituals and practices, and destroy plant and animal resources sacred to the O’odham,” the lawyers wrote.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a proclamation reserving a 60-foot strip of public land along the U.S.-Mexico border for a buffer zone dubbed the “Roosevelt Reservation,” which was formed a decade before the reservation’s establishment.

Tribe attorneys say it is “fanciful at best” to suggest that border wall construction can be confined to a 60-foot-wide corridor.

During a July 22 hearing, Leon appeared to be skeptical that U.S. laws tip in favor of the tribe’s bid for a preliminary injunction, calling it an “extraordinary” request. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said he couldn’t find a previous court ruling under comparable circumstances.

“This is a novel case with novel issues,” the judge said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has largely ended a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients who marry U.S. citizens.

President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to end DACA during his first term. This week’s action reflects his administration’s ongoing focus on the Obama-era program that shields from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often referred to as Dreamers, who were brought to the U.S. as children.

“It was inevitable that what Trump was going to do in office this time was to embark on a massive delegalization mission,” said Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center in Los Angeles. “That’s what this is.”

Tumlin was referring to a ruling by an administrative immigration court that was published Thursday.

The ruling concerns a travel provision afforded to recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program created in 2012. The provision allowed DACA recipients to travel in ways other people without legal status cannot.

DACA isn’t technically a form of legal status, though its recipients are granted work permits.

For immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, leaving the country or being deported triggers a penalty — many are banned from coming back into the U.S. for a decade.

Most people who qualify for legal residency, or a green card, have to serve that 10-year ban before they can apply for a green card, which can lead to citizenship.

But DACA recipients, under the travel provision called advance parole, could leave the U.S. for school, work or humanitarian reasons. When they returned through an airport or border, the stain of their original unlawful entry was erased.

With the penalty wiped away, a DACA recipient married to a U.S. citizen or who had another way to obtain legal residency could start that process for a green card without delay.

Thursday’s ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals does away with that benefit.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Zach Kahler said the decision confirms a “straightforward principle” that departing the U.S. has meaning.

“The immigration laws enacted by Congress impose consequences when someone who has accrued unlawful presence, leaves the country and later seeks admission, including when that departure occurs under advance parole,” he said. “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will ensure that immigration filings are decided based on the laws, regulations, and binding legal precedent that govern each case.”

Immigration attorneys and other advocates quickly convened Thursday to determine how the ruling will affect immigrants.

Tumlin said some DACA recipients can still safely travel with advance parole, while for others — particularly those with deportation orders — it would be too risky to leave. She said DACA recipients should consult with an immigration attorney before traveling.

“For over a decade, I could reassure my clients that traveling on Advance Parole was a safe option,” Shilpa Malik, an immigration lawyer in Florida wrote Thursday on X. “What was once a vital protection is now gone.”

Under the ruling, having the travel document may no longer protect certain DACA recipients when they return from their trips abroad, because leaving could expose them to the years-long ban.

The decision also makes obtaining green cards more difficult. Tumlin said some DACA recipients could qualify for waivers that allow them to avoid the years-long reentry ban, but the waivers are granted under limited circumstances.

The latest federal data show there are 455,000 DACA recipients in the U.S. as of March, with about 126,000 in California.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 45,447 DACA recipients were approved for advance parole as of Aug. 21, 2017.

About 76,000 DACA recipients had become legal residents as of July 31, 2019, most after marrying a U.S. citizen, according to the research service. It’s unclear how many DACA recipients have obtained advance parole or green cards since then.

Path2Papers, a project at Cornell Law School, analyzed 1,600 consults and estimated that around 60% of DACA recipients would be subject to the 10-year ban.

Republicans have viewed advance parole as an abuse of the immigration system.

The office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) blasted the provision, saying in 2017 that “the Obama administration allowed thousands of DACA recipients to exploit an immigration law loophole to obtain green cards.”

Last year, Grassley introduced a bill to guarantee that it would no longer be used by immigrants seeking to adjust their legal status. This week’s ruling essentially accomplishes that goal.

The immigration appeals board’s decision applies to future travel. People who previously traveled and returned to the U.S. won’t be affected and could still adjust their immigration status.

Tumlin said Thursday’s decision is yet another effort to change the goalposts for DACA recipients by an administration that has resorted to ending the program “through death by a thousand cuts.”

The Department of Homeland Security has arrested hundreds of immigrants with DACA, and in a February letter to U.S. senators, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency had deported 86 DACA recipients between Jan. 1 and Nov. 19, 2025.

One of those was Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a Sacramento mother who was deported a day after her green card interview. A federal judge later ordered the agency to bring her back to the U.S.

WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking to retake control of Congress are planning broad investigations into President Trump and his family’s business dealings as part of an agenda focused on alleged corruption and economic harm, while keeping impeachment an option rather than an immediate priority.

The strategy would use subpoenas, committee hearings, possible criminal referrals and the budget as leverage to examine whether Trump, his family and close associates have used the federal government and public contracts for personal or financial gain.

House Democrats in key leadership posts told The Times the groundwork is already being laid out for probes into the president’s reported $2.2 billion in gains last year, the business ventures of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the family’s crypto projects. There is also interest in scrutinizing Trump’s pardons and commutations to allies and the Department of Justice’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

With less than three months before the midterm elections, the prospect of sweeping investigations has hung over Trump as his approval ratings hit new lows and Democrats gain momentum. But the White House has dismissed Democrats’ plans as partisan and unfounded.

“President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re‑elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.”

Asked about the possibility of being impeached for a third time and being investigated, Trump told Punchbowl News last week that it would be “very unfair,” in part because “a lot of people are saying I am one of the greatest presidents ever.”

For Democrats, impeachment remains an option, but they are reluctant to make it a centerpiece of their agenda this time around. They argued the process could distract from oversight that would address alleged corruption and the ways it is hurting Americans economically.

“We shouldn’t take off the table that he can be impeached again,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “But I think right now we’ve got to stop the Trump harm and investigate those who are helping him.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which plays a key role in the impeachment process, has also paused at making impeachment a priority. The Maryland lawmaker argued that Trump is “very eager” for Democrats to impeach him so he can mobilize his political base.

“We’re not going to play into the game,” Raskin told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

In a statement to The Times, Raskin said the priority would be in expanding ongoing investigations into Trump’s pardons, what he called the “weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world,” “rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause,” and the “theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his Cabinet of corruption.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, said he is keeping his “mind open” on whether another impeachment would make sense for Democrats a third time. He argued the “power of the purse” — or using the budget to take aim at Trump’s agenda — would be a more effective tool.

“We’re going to need to do a lot of oversight of this administration, and I think it will be important in doing that oversight to always bring it back to why people should care about it and how the corruption of this regime is really raising their costs,” Schiff said.

Other Democrats are equally wary about using their renewed power to launch a third impeachment trial against Trump.

“We all know that this man has already been impeached twice. … I don’t know that we have to go to that well a third time,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) said.

Probes trickle down

Beyond the president’s business dealings, rank-and-file Democrats are coordinating other efforts to target Trump administration officials and senior aides over policy decisions they argue should force them out of their jobs.

Last week, Kamlager-Dove introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the White House budget director, arguing that he broke the law when the administration canceled federal funding to Democratic states including California for political reasons.

While she is cautious about impeaching Trump for a third time, she believes it would be effective to “remove Trump’s reapers who are willfully breaking the law.”

“I’m coordinating with leadership so that we have the best path forward for this,” she said. “It’s about being unified. It’s about working in a coordinated fashion, and it’s about understanding the end goal.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said there needs to be more scrutiny over the White House’s budget-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency. Democrats should inquire more, he said, into allegations that a former DOGE official copied the Social Security numbers, names and personal information of millions of Americans to a private cloud that lacked adequate security.

He said the public still does not know enough about the situation or whether the data is secure or if it was breached, and said lawmakers should examine whether any laws or policies were violated.

“If there was political motivation to access and put at risk the Social Security numbers and the personal information of every single American, that sounds pretty criminal to me,” Walkinshaw said.

In May, three Democrats — Reps. Mike Levin of California, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jason Crow of Colorado — launched the End Corruption Caucus, creating another vehicle for oversight ideas should Democrats take control of the House.

The push and pull

As Democrats prepare for investigations, there are already questions about the type of resistance that could come from Trump and administration officials, all of whom have shown a willingness to buck Congress.

In a sign of what could be a potential hurdle, the Department of Justice issued a memo Monday evening that says communications between Trump and advisors who do not work for his administration can be protected under executive privilege.

“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said.

The White House described the memo as a “narrow legal analysis, not an extension of executive privilege.”

But some Democrats see it as an example of how the Trump administration may be gearing up for Democratic-led investigations.

“This dubious expansion of executive privilege to cover Trump’s outside advisors is a clear attack on Congress’ oversight powers, and creates an environment ripe for corruption that protects only the president and his friends. We are ready to fight to uphold our power and authority,” Garcia said.

Walkinshaw added that he predicts the Trump administration is going to “flat-out refuse to engage with or respond to Democrats” if they take control.

If that happens, Democrats already expect to fight back.

“We have contempt tools, we have inherent contempt, we have criminal contempt,” he said. “We just have to be prepared to exercise the full extent of our constitutional tools, and I predict that will happen very early.”

Heidi Beirich, an expert on far-right groups, has been charged over the alleged misuse of donor funds to pay informants.

A leading expert on far-right groups in the United States has been charged by the administration of President Donald Trump for her alleged role in the use of donor money to secretly pay confidential informants.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department served an arrest warrant to Heidi Beirich, 59, the former director of intelligence for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights nonprofit based in Montgomery, Alabama.

It also issued a superseding indictment to include Beirich in its ongoing prosecution of the SPLC, which the Trump administration has accused of deceiving donors. An initial indictment was made against the group in April.

Beirich has been charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to submit false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“Heidi Beirich was at the center of our ongoing investigation into SPLC and their previously alleged criminal activity,” Patel wrote on the social media platform X.

“SPLC knowingly misled donors, who believed their money was being used to dismantle violent extremist organizations – when in fact, part of those donations were instead being used to pay senior leadership within those extremist groups.”

But critics have questioned the Trump administration’s motivations for pursuing criminal charges against the SPLC, which has historically worked with the FBI to track alleged far-right hate groups.

The SPLC has been a frequent target of conservative critics who claim the nonprofit is politically biased.

The group’s stated mission is to fight white supremacy and create a multiracial democracy, and it has issued publications critical of conservative groups like Turning Point USA, which it characterised as a “case study of the hard right”.

Beirich’s lawyer, Michael Proctor, said his client is innocent of the charges and described the case as politically motivated. He accused prosecutors of trying to punish his client for her “decades-long record of success dismantling hate groups”.

“A free and fair society does not use the justice system to silence its political opponent,” he said.

The superseding indictment accuses the SPLC and Beirich of directing more than $4m in donations to “individuals associated with various violent extremist groups” between 2007 and 2023.

The practice, according to the Justice Department, amounted to fraud.

Beirich was part of the SPLC’s effort “to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names and make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate”, according to Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The SPLC has acknowledged that it used confidential informants in the past to gather intelligence on hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party of America, but the group said it no longer does so.

The SPLC has also said that it shared information obtained from informants with local and federal law enforcement.

“Violent extremists have not stopped or intimidated Dr Beirich from her vital work during her time at the SPLC,” Proctor said. “Dr Beirich won’t be silenced or intimidated by the government’s false and politicized allegations now.”

US Department of Homeland Security is expected to buy up to $20m in gloves amid criticism of the president’s immigration crackdown.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is planning to spend tens of millions of dollars to equip federal immigration agents with gloves capable of delivering electric shocks.

According to a notice posted on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security has estimated it will invest between $10m and $20m in such gloves by the end of March 2027.

The devices are known as the CT-G5 G.L.O.V.E., an acronym that stands for “Generate Low Output Voltage Emitter”. They are currently used by some jails and police departments.

Their manufacturer, Compliant Technologies, says the gloves are used to “quickly distract with small uncomfortable electrical pulses” when applied to a person’s skin. The Department of Homeland Security indicated they would be used for “distraction and de-escalation”.

A user manual states the gloves can deliver a maximum of 380 volts, which “inhibits/distracts the subject from performing coordinated muscle movement”.

The planned purchase has already sparked a backlash among rights advocates, who fear the gloves will be used to harm protesters and immigrants in the department’s custody.

The Department of Homeland Security oversees an array of agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has led Trump’s campaign of mass deportation.

Monday’s announcement specified that ICE has a requirement to make the purchase and distribute the gloves to agents within Enforcement and Removal Operations, one of its subsidiaries, and Homeland Security Investigations.

But ICE has faced increasing criticism for its tactics, including accusations of racial profiling and excessive force.

At least four people have been shot dead during encounters with ICE agents since the start of this year. Dozens more have died in ICE custody.

On Wednesday, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) issued a statement criticising the anticipated glove purchase, calling it a path to further violence against vulnerable communities.

It also noted that, in June, the Republican-led Congress passed tens of billions of dollars in ICE spending as part of the Secure America Act.

“This is a rogue agency with an $80 billion slush fund that allows them to concoct and fund new ways to visit cruelty upon our communities,” NILC President Kica Mantos said in the statement. “Arming poorly trained agents with electric shock gloves to inflict pain on our neighbors is disgusting and barbaric.”

The Department of Homeland Security offered no immediate response to The Associated Press news agency, one of the first news outlets to report on the story.

The founder and CEO of Compliant, Jeff Niklaus, told the publication in an email, “Unfortunately, we are unable to speak on this subject.”

Compliant has argued in the past that its devices are “humane” and do not cause injury.

“The technology is safe as it does not penetrate the subject’s body, while also allowing other officers to grab the individual being stimulated with no fear of feedback into their bodies,” the manufacturer says on its website.

However, Compliant recommends avoiding use of the device on “higher risk” individuals, including the elderly, small children, pregnant people and those with severe disabilities. Officers must also complete a course to use the gloves and be recertified every two years, according to the company.

The notice, listed as a no-bid contract, could be published by Friday.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she is freezing her eggs as she decides her next political moves ahead of the 2028 presidential election campaign.

“This is a choice that I am making to feel more in control of my life,” Ocasio-Cortez, 36, said on Instagram about her decision regarding her reproductive options.

The New York congresswoman, a leading figure of Democrats’ progressive left flank, did not say explicitly whether she plans to have children. She said in her social media posts that she was taking a “political risk” in talking so personally about her potential family plans.

She said later on ABC “This Week” on Sunday that she has not ruled out running for president or for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrats’ floor leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, in 2028. She explained that she wants to normalize conversations about what women face in their professional and personal lives, while also highlighting the policies of President Donald Trump’s administration.

“In this political environment, where this administration is denying reproductive care to women across the country, from abortion rights to the ability to carry out a healthy pregnancy, I think it’s important for us as leaders to have these conversations,” she said.

Trump’s administration opposes abortion rights, and the Republican president’s first-term appointees to the Supreme Court provided the margins in the 2022 ruling that struck down the Roe v. Wade decision that had established a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Separately, however, Trump in 2025 signed an executive order designed to lower the costs of in vitro fertilization.

Ocasio-Cortez sponsored a Democratic bill in 2022, when the party controlled the House, to codify abortion rights into federal law after the Supreme Court’s abortion decision.

As part of her weekend announcement, Ocasio-Cortez noted that women — in politics and other fields — face different standards and scrutiny about their family status.

“Men run for office, or frankly they interview for jobs, and people don’t think in the back of their minds, ‘OK, this guy’s running for office, how old is he? Oh, well, is he going to want to start a family?’” she said.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general in a vote early Saturday, cementing the command of President Trump’s former personal lawyer at a Department of Justice that Trump has sought to bend to his will.

The Republican-led Senate voted 50 to 49 to make Blanche the second confirmed attorney general since Trump returned to the White House last year with a stated desire to use the law enforcement agency to investigate his political enemies. While Blanche has already been leading the department in an acting capacity, his confirmation could free him to pursue the administration’s agenda even more aggressively.

Blanche said on social media that he was “deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me,” adding that he was “grateful” to senators for working late to confirm him.

The vote followed a tumultuous confirmation fight that exposed deep concerns — from some Republicans as well as Democrats — about installing Trump’s close ally atop a Justice Department that historically prided itself on its independence from the White House.

In the end, Blanche was confirmed by the narrowest of margins, opposed by two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and by every Democrat.

The path to confirmation for Blanche was unusually rocky, due in large part to Republican concerns about a controversial settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.

Under pressure, Blanche publicly promised in writing that the department would abandon Trump’s proposed $1.8-billion compensation fund for the president’s allies, including those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and rein in another piece of the settlement designed to shield Trump and his family from IRS tax audits.

His appeals were enough to win over Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the decisive vote who threw his support behind Blanche on Friday morning. Cassidy said no other nominee may be able to run the department better under Trump and suggested Blanche’s role as Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at resisting the Republican president’s demands.

“This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances,” said Cassidy, who lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said confirming Blanche would be a “serious mistake.” He begged his colleagues not to be on the “wrong side” of history.

“If there is ever a moment in history when we need an attorney general above reproach, who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it’s right now,” Durbin said.

Loyalty to Trump

The vote capped off a bruising confirmation fight, with Blanche’s loyalty to Trump at the center of the stalemate.

Blanche was elevated to the top Justice Department post in an acting capacity after Trump fired Pam Bondi in April. Blanche moved swiftly to advance the president’s interests, accelerating investigations into Trump’s perceived foes and announcing the settlement that created the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate Trump allies who feel mistreated by the criminal justice system and provided the president and his family members with immunity from tax audits.

The controversial settlement threatened to torpedo Blanche’s nomination until he formally rescinded the fund in writing under pressure from Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The deal reached between the senators and the department unlocked a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which advanced Blanche’s nomination earlier this week.

Even after the deal, Blanche faced opposition from some Republican senators concerned with the settlement fund and the tax audit immunity.

Murkowski announced early Friday that she would join Collins in opposing Blanche’s nomination, saying the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration.”

Former prosecutor rises as Trump’s defender

A former federal prosecutor in New York, Blanche rose to public prominence as a lead attorney on Trump’s defense team, including during Trump’s hush money trial in New York in which he was found guilty of felony fraud.

He also defended Trump against criminal charges in the two federal cases brought by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, related to Trump’s attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election and his hoarding of classified documents at his home in Florida. Both cases were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024, and despite the seriousness of the charges, Blanche said that experience provided him a firsthand look at what he claims was the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Trump.

Blanche entered the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general under Bondi, overseeing the agency’s day-to-day operations and serving as the public face for high-profile and controversial matters, like the release of millions of investigative files related to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Democrats have accused Blanche of prioritizing his loyalty to Trump above all else through investigations against perceived Trump foes such as former FBI Director James Comey and a radical reshaping of the department. Under Bondi and Blanche’s leadership, the department has lost thousands of employees through firings, resignations or voluntary departures.

Blanche’s supporters say his experience as a federal prosecutor and the trust he earned from Trump in the courtroom make him better equipped than Bondi to explain to the White House the legal constraints of its demands. Republicans have also touted his efforts to bring down violent crime, tackle illegal immigration and combat violent cartels and drug trafficking.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gave a full-throated endorsement of Blanche ahead of voting, saying he’s led the Justice Department with distinction. “Mr. Blanche is the right choice,” said Grassley (R-Iowa).

It is unclear whether Blanche will fare any better in delivering on Trump’s desire for retribution than Bondi, whom Trump fired amid resistance from judges, grand jurors and the department’s own workforce as prosecutors sought to establish criminal conduct by one Trump foe after another.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict Comey on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.” Comey’s lawyers are pressing to have the case dismissed, accusing the department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts.

Blanche has also appointed Joseph DiGenova, a former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump. But it remains uncertain whether that inquiry will result in any criminal charges.

Durkin Richer and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate in an overnight vote Saturday approved a short-term measure to fund federal agencies into early December and avoid a potentially chaotic government shutdown during the middle of campaign season.

The late-summer action on a funding fix is unusual. Normally, Congress waits until the final days or hours of a funding deadline to pass short-term patches, but this time senators acted nearly two months before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

The 90-6 vote showed lawmakers are still smarting from the two historic shutdowns in the last year and want to avoid another before voters go to the polls.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wanted the funding dealt with before senators went home for the next five weeks to focus on their reelection campaigns and other matters. It got caught up with other issues that pushed votes into the night, but the bill had broad bipartisan support. The House will also have to approve the measure when members return from their August recess before it can go to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

The bill generally funds the federal government at current levels through Dec. 11, but includes a variety of exceptions that senators negotiated with the White House.

Democrats secured language to ensure no money could be transferred to the Border Patrol. They also rejected the White House’s request of $1 billion for early work on a new “Trump-class” battleship that the administration announced Dec. 22.

“The only person who wants these golden ships is Donald Trump so he can slap his name on them,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

Hemp provision

The bill also includes language delaying a national ban on most intoxicating hemp products. That one-month delay prompted outrage from some Senate Republicans who say that too many such products are falling into the hands of unsuspecting children. The packaging of the products often relies on bright colors and intentionally mimics popular snack brands to attract consumers.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said that since 2017 there has been nearly a tenfold increase in cannabis-related emergency room visits by minors in his home state.

“This is a public health crisis that deserves this Senate’s immediate attention,” Budd said. “Our children should never be the testing ground for an industry willing to exploit a loophole in federal law for profit.”

But the hemp industry said the delay buys time for Congress to craft legislation that protects hemp farmers and businesses while also putting in place safeguards to protect children.

Trump himself has called Budd to discuss the issue, though the president did not specifically ask the senator to drop his effort, Budd’s spokesman said.

“Sen. Budd had a friendly phone call with President Trump discussing the legislative efforts regarding THC,” said spokesman Christian McMullen. He said the senator outlined his concerns about “any delay to closing the hemp loophole.”

Budd tried to strip the hemp delay from the bill, but the Senate turned aside his effort.

Trump rule on grants delayed

Democratic lawmakers, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), also got language in the bill that would block, for the duration of the funding patch, new regulations on federal grants. The regulations would require a senior political appointee to review grants before they are awarded to ensure, among other things, that they advance the president’s policy priorities. Democrats say it’s an effort to kill grants destined for Democratic-leaning states. The Trump administration recently admitted in a court filing denying clean-energy grants to California and other blue states based only on politics.

“They are not interested in making our tax dollars work better — they just want them to work for Donald Trump,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The White House Office of Management and Budget says its effort is about improving accountability to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted or misused. The issue is sure to be a topic of future negotiations on a full-year spending measure.

But Collins said the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 people and groups weighing in on the rule are opposed to it.

“I don’t think in my time that I’ve been privileged to serve in the Senate that I have ever seen a proposed rule generate that many negative comments,” Collins said.

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

The United States and Japan last week staged a coordinated intervention to halt the slide of the yen after the Japanese currency fell to a 40-year low against the US dollar.

While it is unusual for authorities to intervene to help prop up another country’s currency, the yen has an important role in international finance as the world’s third-most-traded currency, meaning its depreciation has repercussions far beyond Japan.

Here is everything you need to know about the currency intervention:

What is a currency intervention and how did the US and Japan coordinate?

A currency intervention occurs when a government or central bank buys or sells large quantities of foreign currency to help stabilise the value of its own currency.

In this case, the US and Japan coordinated an intervention to lift the value of the yen after it slid to 163 against the dollar for the first time since 1986.

The intervention began on July 31 when the US Treasury began selling euros for yen, while Japanese authorities also bought yen.

In the days after the intervention, the yen began to rise and reached 157 to the dollar on Wednesday.

The US last staged a currency intervention with Japan in 2011 when the yen began appreciating rapidly following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami.

It also stepped in to support the Japanese currency during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998.

How did the yen get so weak?

The yen’s collapse is the result of longstanding economic challenges combined with new pressures from the US-Israel war on Iran.

Japan has struggled with economic stagnation since the early 1990s.

The Bank of Japan has for decades attempted to stimulate growth with ultra-low and even negative interest rates, a policy that has exerted downward pressure on the yen.

While Japan’s weak currency has helped draw record numbers of tourists and kept exports cheap, it has also placed a strain on households by raising the cost of imported goods.

Tokyo has spent tens of billions of dollars since 2022 trying to defend the yen, but the economic policies of successive Japanese leaders, including current Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, have partly offset these efforts.

“Takaichi wants it all: Growth, loose fiscal policy, loose monetary policy and a stable yen – but their policy mix is leading to a weak yen, which is causing an inflation problem,” Chris Turner, global head of markets at ING, told Al Jazeera.

Why does the US want a stronger yen?

While Japan is a close US ally, Washington stepped in for its own benefit as much as Tokyo’s, said Masahiko Loo, a senior fixed income strategist at State Street Investment Management in Tokyo.

“Washington isn’t trying to strengthen the yen for Japan’s sake. It’s trying to prevent a disorderly decline that could spill over into Treasury markets, global funding conditions, and broader financial stability,” Loo told Al Jazeera.

“A free-falling yen isn’t just Japan’s problem. At some point it becomes a global liquidity and financial stability issue, which is why Washington stepped in.”

The yen is the most traded currency after the US dollar and the euro, which means dramatic changes in its value can have ripple effects across the global financial system.

One of Washington’s biggest concerns is the prospect of Japan selling off its holdings of US Treasury securities, which were valued at $1.114 trillion in May.

If the yen continued to fall, Tokyo would be encouraged to sell large quantities of US Treasuries to raise cash it can use to defend the currency.

That would put upward pressure on interest rates in the US, raising the cost of servicing the country’s rapidly growing national debt, which already exceeds $39 trillion.

“The financial cost of intervention for the US is low and, given that President Donald Trump favours a weaker US dollar, the domestic political cost is minimal,” Shigeto Nagai, head of Japan economics at Oxford Economics, wrote in a research briefing on Monday.

“Coordinated intervention is a cost-effective method as it allows the US to do a significant favour for Japan, a precious loyal ally in Asia, and take some pressure off US interest rates.”

Will the intervention work?

While the joint intervention has provided short-term support for the yen, Japan will need to take more fundamental measures, such as raising interest rates, to raise the value of the currency in the long term, according to experts.

Japan’s benchmark interest rate currently stands at 1.0 percent, its highest since 1995 but far lower than other advanced economies, including the US.

The large gap between interest rates in the US and Japan is a primary driver of the yen’s persistent weakness.

Without a change in Japan’s low-interest-rate environment, the latest currency intervention is just “throwing good money after bad,” said Derek Tang, an economist and CEO of Monetary Policy Analytics, a US research advisory firm.

“Ultimately… the gravitational force of economic fundamentals will overwhelm intervention efforts,” Tang told Al Jazeera.

“Nevertheless, Japan seems very reluctant to tighten monetary policy to raise its own interest rates and allow the currency to appreciate in that manner,” Tang said.

“So this situation will persist for the time being.”

The states claim the new levies are a pretext to re-impose tariffs that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.

A group of 25 Democratic-led states has sued Donald Trump’s administration over its latest tariffs, claiming that the US president has exceeded his legal authority to implement the levies.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade on Monday, targets new double-digit tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners last month over allegations they were not doing enough to stop the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

These latest tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs that Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court struck down his flagship “liberation day” levies in a February ruling.

“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The states that sued over the new tariffs, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.

In response, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the levies were an appropriate and legal response to unfair trade practices in other nations.

“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens US commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” Desai said.

Revive US manufacturing

Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive US manufacturing, last year overturned decades of Washington policy that favoured lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.

Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying the US’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorise tariffs. The decision forced the administration to establish a refund process for importers who had paid the tariffs.

Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, but they expired at midnight on July 24.

The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect more than 99 percent of US imports.

The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labour around the world.

WASHINGTON — President Trump will travel to Los Angeles on Tuesday and Las Vegas on Wednesday as part of a two-day West Coast trip aimed at highlighting his administration’s economic record ahead of the midterm elections, a White House official confirmed.

In Los Angeles, Trump is scheduled to attend a Republican National Committee dinner at Trump National Golf Club. The visit comes as the administration seeks to draw attention to his economic policies as time runs out for his administration to ease economic pressures ahead of the November election.

“The president will draw a sharp contrast between his commonsense agenda and the radical policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom, who keep raising taxes, inviting rampant fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, and protecting illegal immigrant drug dealers, rapists, and murderers,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said in a statement Monday.

Trump is expected to “tout his wins for the people of the Golden State despite failed Democrat leadership,” Wales said, citing what she described as the “largest middle-class tax cut ever, the most secure border in American history, and a plummeting crime rate.”

Newsom has not yet publicly commented on Trump’s pit stop in California, but the Democratic governor in recent social media posts has criticized Trump’s handling of the economy.

In one post on X, Newsom pointed out that California is raising the minimum wage to $17.40 an hour next year as a way to attack Trump and the GOP for “defending a $7.25 minimum wage while workers scrape by.”

“Pitiful,” the governor wrote.

In a second post, Newsom amplified a post on X that shows how the prices of items like rice, cotton and wheat have increased since the start of the year.

“Great work, @realdonaldtrump,” he wrote.

Trump’s visit to Los Angeles will be his second since returning to office. He toured Pacific Palisades in January 2025 after the L.A. neighborhood and Altadena were ravaged by wildfires. During the visit, Trump signed an executive order intended to expedite rebuilding efforts.

Since Trump last visited the city, there has been a standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid.

In April, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and county Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with Trump in the Oval Office to talk about their request for funding to help with the wildfire recovery efforts, an ask that Trump signaled support for but has yet to formalize.

Following his visit in California, Trump will travel to Nevada, where he will deliver remarks on the economy at Red Rock Casino.

The Trump administration wants to make sure that the Mexican train crews who haul freight over the border can understand key safety information in English and that the common practice of using foreign crews to cross into America doesn’t threaten U.S. jobs.

Two major rail unions praised the proposed rule announced Friday that would also strengthen the standards for certifying that crews can safely operate a train.

The government had concerns after inspecting two Texas rail yards near the border last fall on the two railroads directly affected by these restrictions on Mexican crews — Union Pacific and Canadian Pacific Kansas City, or CPKC. Union Pacific didn’t immediately respond but CPKC and the Assn. of American Railroads trade group declined to comment while they study the rule.

The Federal Railroad Administration sent letters to both CPKC and Union Pacific in December after inspections found that train crews often had trouble understanding English during focused inspections. The government urged those railroads to reexamine their practices and make sure that Mexican crews can speak English and don’t operate a train more than 10 miles inside the United States.

Last fall, federal inspectors found numerous problems in Union Pacific’s Eagle Pass rail yard and CPKC’s facility in Laredo where train crews were having a hard time understanding English-language operating bulletins and U.S. regulations. Information about hazardous materials and emergency responses are required to be in English.

Both Union Pacific and CPKC have pledged to make sure they were following the existing rules, including that the Mexican crews do not travel more than 10 miles into the United States. But now the federal government wants to strengthen the rules “because railroad crews must be able to communicate fully and accurately when crossing into the United States, most notably with dispatchers and emergency responders during a crisis, as a safety-critical function.”

This rail safety effort aligns closely with the Transportation Department’s efforts to ensure that truck drivers can understand English, so they can read road signs and warnings and communicate with first responders after an accident or during an inspection. The government has tried to withhold millions of dollars in highway funding from New York and California because it isn’t satisfied with the steps those states have taken to make sure the commercial driver’s licenses they issue are valid.

Mark Wallace, the national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen union, has been raising concerns about this practice of using Mexican train crews for several years because of safety, security and job concerns.

The union has said that the handoffs used to happen right at the border, but now Union Pacific and CPKC routinely ask Mexican crews to bring trains several miles over the border to one of their rail yards where the crew switches can be done more safely. But the firm 10-mile restriction in this rule will prevent the railroads from expanding this practice to rail yards farther into the United States. The union said Union Pacific was considering this type of expansion in New Mexico.

Wallace said the language barrier would pose a hazard in the event of issues such as a derailment.

But the railroads have said that this practice of using Mexican train crews to bring the trains into rail yards in America was developed in 2018 with the approval of the first Trump administration to address smuggling concerns. When trains are stopped at the border, smugglers often try to conceal drugs or other contraband aboard them and immigrants might jump aboard to get into the United States.

It is also routine for Canadian crews to bring trains a few miles over the northern border with the United States before handing off to American crews.

The SMART-TD union that represents conductors and other rail workers also said the provisions of the rule that will prohibit train crews from using a system that’s similar to cruise control when they take their certification tests will help ensure they can operate a train safely.

“Railroad certifications should represent proven ability, not simply possession of a certificate,” said Jared Cassity, who is SMART-TD’s top safety expert. “When lives are on the line, the FRA must know that an engineer can safely operate a train, not just supervise a computer doing it.”

Funk writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is “dead” while also continuing to defend it, further complicating his administration’s negotiations with two Republican senators who are blocking his attorney general nominee in protest.

Trump told reporters at Camp David on Friday morning that administration officials had “agreed not to have a fund” that compensates his political allies, yet made clear that he disagrees with that decision.

The comments came hours after an early morning social media post in which Trump said people who had been prosecuted by the Justice Department — many of them for their involvement in the violent Jan. 6, 2001, attack on the Capitol — “are suffering still, many ruined, and I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them.”

Trump’s reluctant declaration that the fund won’t be created came as Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, say they won’t support Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general until they see that promise in writing. They have been working for weeks with the White House and Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general, to produce a document to that effect, but both senators have said they aren’t satisfied so far.

“The President made it clear today that the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund is still alive, which is exactly why we are attempting to formally end it,” Tillis said after Trump’s initial social media post.

Trump said in his post that Blanche should be immediately confirmed and is a “pawn in this whole thing.”

Cornyn, Tillis want promises in writing

Blanche said at a hearing two months ago that the anti-weaponization fund would not move forward after Republican senators revolted and held up an immigration funding bill.

But Tillis, who is retiring when his term ends in January, and Cornyn, who lost reelection this year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, said they want to ensure that the White House doesn’t reverse course, especially as Trump continues to argue that a fund is needed.

The Justice Department has provided the senators with language that says Blanche’s May 18 order establishing the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “rescinded and shall have no force or effect,” according to a document reviewed by The Associated Press.

Cornyn and Tillis have said they also want some clarifications on a separate piece of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits. Cornyn said this week that it was his understanding that the audits could extend to more than 100 different Trump organization subsidiaries into the future.

“Todd Blanche said it was limited to the parties to the litigation — and it was retrospective, not prospective,” Cornyn said. “And all we’re doing is asking them to put that in writing.”

Blanche nomination is delayed in the Senate

The Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on Blanche’s nomination that had been scheduled for Thursday morning after Tillis and Cornyn said they needed more from the administration before they could provide the necessary votes.

After the meeting was delayed, Trump said in a social media post that he might pull Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after Cornyn and Tillis leave office next year. But the two sides continued to negotiate through Thursday afternoon, when Blanche, Cornyn and Tillis met on Capitol Hill.

On Friday, a person familiar with the negotiations said talks had been positive, but the senators were still awaiting a new offer from the Justice Department. The person requested anonymity to discuss the private negotiations.

The two senators have repeatedly said the Justice Department seemed interested in reaching an agreement, but the White House wouldn’t budge even to aid the confirmation of Trump’s loyal former personal attorney, who has aggressively pursued the administration’s priorities as acting attorney general.

“I think as far as Blanche and the Department of Justice, we were pretty much on the same page,” Cornyn said Thursday. “But then when the president got wind of it, he wasn’t willing to go along with it.”

Tillis said Blanche “has been forthright, thoughtful and patient” but attributed the holdup to an “incompetent personal advisor” to the president, even as Trump himself continued to advocate for the fund.

Behind the scenes, Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn is being blamed as an obstacle to an agreement that would let Blanche move forward, according to three people who have direct knowledge of the discussions and requested anonymity to discuss them.

Saying the AP’s “sources are wrong,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said “anyone trying to assign blame to the President or his team has no earthly idea of what is going on and clearly is trying to deflect from the issue at hand — Todd Blanche will be an exceptional Attorney General and he should be confirmed immediately.”

Also on Friday, Trump’s attorneys notified a court it would appeal a judge’s scathing ruling that characterized the settlement of the president’s lawsuit against the IRS as an improper exercise in self-dealing. The judge in her order earlier this month referred one of Trump’s attorneys for potential disciplinary action and criticized Blanche’s involvement in the settlement, given his prior representation of Trump.

Blanche has said he disagrees “with the judge’s insinuations” about him.

Settlement fund could have benefited Jan. 6 rioters

Even as they are usually deferential to Trump, a number of Republican senators have expressed strong objections to the settlement.

“The criminals who assaulted police officers and defiled our nation’s Capitol are not ‘great American patriots’ who are ‘victims of government abuse,’” Tillis said, echoing Trump’s comments about the rioters who could potentially have received payouts. On his first day back in office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people who had been charged in the attack.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said Thursday that the majority of Senate Republicans aren’t comfortable with the settlement fund.

“Blanche said it’s dead, and he testified that it’s not coming back,” Kennedy said. “But for whatever reason, somebody didn’t want to put it in writing.”

Jalonick, Kim and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has moved to drop a criminal charge against former Olympic athlete David Hearn, in a remarkable about-face.

In a motion filed on Friday afternoon, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro acknowledged that the accusations levelled against Hearn — blaming him for vandalising the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool — did not appear to be substantiated.

“The damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism, as initially represented by [the Department of the Interior],” Pirro wrote.

Earlier this month, the prosecutor had accused Hearn, an Olympic canoeist, of “forcefully and violently” ripping the newly installed liner of the Reflecting Pool, part of a renovation project Trump had championed.

She described his actions as “an affront to the dignity of our shared history” and warned that Hearn could face up to 10 years in prison for the destruction of government property.

But in Friday’s court filings, a different narrative emerged.

Pirro repeatedly emphasised she did not receive the new information until after the criminal indictment against Hearn had been returned. She blamed, in part, the “barebones police reports” her office had received.

“It was not until after the return of the indictment, that the DOI provided additional documents to the [US Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC] indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” Pirro wrote.

She added that the pressure to finish the Reflecting Pool renovation project before the Independence Day holiday — marking the 250th anniversary of the US — contributed to the renovation’s failure. Trump had planned several events for the occasion.

“The rush to complete the project led to hasty and botched work that was not remediated before the project was finished and the fencing removed,” Pirro explained, citing delayed installation work, inclement weather and repeated testing failures.

Reshaping Washington, DC

The Reflecting Pool project is one of several changes to the landscape of Washington, DC, that Trump has pursued during his second term in office.

In seeking to leave his mark on the US capital, the Republican leader has torn down the East Wing of the White House, gilded statues with a fresh coat of gold leaf, and proposed to build a large triumphal arch on the road to the Arlington National Cemetery.

Just this week, he unveiled a $22.5bn project to revamp the Dulles international airport, the main air terminal for the capital region.

Several of his public works projects have been challenged in court, including an attempt to affix his name to the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The Reflecting Pool renovation was among Trump’s most controversial.

The 618-metre (2,028-foot) pool has served as the backdrop for many iconic moments in US history, including the 1963 March on Washington, when civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

It sits between the Washington Monument, a large obelisk, and the Lincoln Memorial, two popular tourist sites mere blocks from the White House. But the pool had long struggled with leaks along its granite edge and concrete bottom.

In April, Trump abruptly announced he would address the problem by resurfacing the Reflecting Pool’s bottom with swimming pool coating in a shade of “American Flag Blue”.

The project, he added, would be finished “long before July 4” and at relatively little cost to the government.

By early June, Trump had announced the project was complete. But within days, a thick layer of green algae appeared on the surface of the pool, and the blue coating appeared cracked, with sheets of paint flapping in the water.

The project also attracted criticism for how the government contract for the renovations was awarded.

The Trump administration granted a $13.1m contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a company he claimed to have worked with as a real estate developer, led by one of his donors. The deal was struck without taking competitive bids, as is standard, on the basis that the renovation was necessary immediately.

Within two days of the site’s final inspection, on June 11, a National Park Service engineer observed that the Reflecting Pool’s new lining had begun to peel, according to Pirro.

Citing the engineer’s report, Pirro wrote that the damage to the pool appeared to have been caused by “over spraying and delamination”.

Accusations of vandalism

But Trump had aggressively pushed accusations that the algae and tears in the Reflecting Pool’s new bottom had been the result of vandalism.

“We caught some people vandalising our beautiful Reflecting Pool,” Trump said at a news conference in June. “They took a cutter, a box cutter, or something very sharp. Can you imagine? Where do these people come up with this? And they threw a little fertiliser in the water.”

Separately, he suggested those responsible should face “years in jail” for their alleged crimes.

Hearn, a three-time Olympian representing the US, has said he was among the members of the public drawn to the hullabaloo surrounding the Reflecting Pool’s controversial renovation.

In media interviews, he admitted he bicycled past the pool, reached in and felt the peeling sealant, out of curiosity. He has adamantly denied, however, damaging any property.

Hearn was among at least seven people arrested or cited over alleged damage to the Reflecting Pool. His indictment was announced at a news conference held by Pirro on July 2.

Friday’s motion to dismiss arrived just four weeks later. In it, Pirro acknowledged the peeling was not caused by vandalism.

She wrote that the revelation came around July 17, when her office inspected the Reflecting Pool site, which had once again been drained for repairs.

“It was at that time that [the US Attorney’s Office] first became aware of the significant damage throughout the pool and accordingly requested all documents from [the Department of the Interior] concerning how the pool was lined,” Pirro said.

Her office received “695 megabytes of additional documents” in return, revealing “a rushed and flawed installation process”.

Since indicting Hearn, Pirro’s office has faced questions about whether it was pursuing justice — or simply doing Trump’s political bidding, as he seeks to save face after the botched renovation.

The withdrawn indictment also comes as courts have repeatedly pressed the Department of Justice about prosecutions that appear to be hastily submitted and lacking in evidence.

“ Did you ultimately decide to charge this so harshly at the president’s direction?” one reporter asked Pirro at the outset of Hearn’s case.

“I didn’t charge anything harshly. I charge according to the evidence,” she replied at the time.

In a statement, Hearn’s legal team called the case an “abuse of government power”. They added that the Trump administration owes their client an apology.