administration

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department moved Friday to dismiss a criminal case charging a former Olympian with deliberately damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Government lawyers said in a 20-page court filing that information provided since the indictment of David Hearn shows that the damage was the result of a “flawed installation by the contractor” as well as “the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration in the weeks surrounding Independence Day 2026.”

“Given all of this newly discovered information, it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt,” said the filing from U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro.

Hearn’s lawyers said in a statement that the case against him should never have been brought.

“Its dismissal today does not erase the abuse of government power in arresting and charging a patriotic American who did nothing wrong. The government’s approach was ready, fire, aim. The administration owes Mr. Hearn an apology,” the lawyers said.

Hearn pleaded not guilty earlier this month to one felony count of property destruction and has a trial scheduled to start Sept. 28 in D.C. Superior Court. The charge, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years upon conviction, accuses Hearn of causing at least $1,000 in damage to the pool.

Hearn told the Associated Press he was detained by National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police for five hours after stopping by the pool during a bike ride on June 19. He said he reached in to examine the pool’s newly peeled coating and briefly touched a chunk attached to the side of the pool, but said he obeyed a park worker who told him to let go of it.

Hearn, 67, of Bethesda, Md., competed in three Summer Olympics, earning his best finish, ninth, at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee says on its website.

He and his supporters have said the prosecution is a politically motivated attempt by the Trump administration to deflect blame and scapegoat others.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

July 30 (UPI) — The ABC network has accused the Federal Communications Commission of attempting to censor what it broadcasts by pressuring its local stations to apply for early renewal of their licenses.

In its regulatory filing, which is a response to the FCC’s request that ABC-owned broadcast stations reapply for their licenses, ABC alleged that FCC chair Brendan Carr’s criticism and actions at the agency have amounted to “attempted censorship,” Politico reported.

The network said in the filing that actions by the agency and Carr have been aimed at shaping news reports across the media in ways that violate U.S. Constitutional freedom of the press.

The FCC, in a statement on Thursday to The Hill, contended that it is operating in the public interest, based on what it said are “equal opportunity regulations” as it accused the network of operating “in the narrow or partisan interests of a political party.”

The Trump administration, and President Donald Trump, have long alleged that members of the media — print, online or television — who are critical or engage in satire of him during his two terms as president are violating federal law.

“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the network said in the filing.

“Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers,” ABC said. “The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely.”

WASHINGTON — The American Dream may not be dead for many Black Americans, but it is further away than at any point since the Civil Rights Movement, warns a report by the National Urban League.

Released on Thursday, the annual “State of Black America” report grimly describes Black Americans ‘ economic and political prospects as having worsened due to policy changes from President Trump’s administration, according to a copy obtained by the Associated Press.

The report contends that the challenges it highlights for Black communities are warning signs for the prosperity of all Americans.

“It may be the focus is us, but the impact is not just us,” said Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League. “While they have targeted and focused on Black Americans, these attacks are going to impact broadly working Americans, poor Americans, aspirational middle-class Americans, and this is what this report points to.”

Tracing the arc of American history, the Urban League describes Black Americans’ struggle for emancipation from slavery and equal economic and political rights as a gruesome but optimistic part of the American story.

Now, the report says, the Trump administration is at odds with the goals and achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, citing the overhaul of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the president’s focus on overhauling voting laws through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, as examples of rollbacks of long-sought civil rights policies.

The report’s authors offer policy and strategy recommendations for civil rights groups aiming to combat the Trump administration.

“The civil rights community must consolidate its legal resistance and turn courtroom wins into durable policy,” the report says. “The movement must build economic infrastructure that doesn’t depend on the goodwill of any one administration.”

The AP reached out to the White House for comment on the report.

Report contributors include a potential Democratic presidential contender

This year’s report includes contributions from members of Congress, and policy and legal experts, as well as some media personalities.

U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Raphael Warnock all contributed to the report, as well as Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey contributed a video message to the report.

Moore, who is widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential contender, submitted an essay focused on closing the racial wealth gap and Black Americans’ history of economic advancement in the face of adversity.

“With wisdom and grit, my mom was able to lift me and my family to a higher rung on the economic ladder. But too often wisdom and grit aren’t enough,” Moore wrote.

He later called closing the racial wealth gap “a matter of moral clarity” but cautioned that “government alone cannot close the racial wealth gap. It’s going to take all of us,” referencing the private sector and civil society.

Report blasts ‘economic assault’ on Black Americans

Whether corporate America and major nonprofits are still willing to participate is an open question. The report condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back diversity initiatives and economic advancement projects in the private sector, and expresses frustration with companies that cooperated with an “economic assault” on Americans, especially Black Americans.

“This has been a campaign of coercion and oppression directed at these institutions who have been out here working hard to, if you will, change America,” Morial said. “The important thing about companies is that every company has not bent the knee. Some may have done some cosmetic changes. Some have been in full and complete retreat.”

The DEI rollbacks are a jarring reversal for the Urban League, which held sway in the Biden White House on economic and social policies. The report lauds President Biden’s administration for signing a sweeping COVID-19 stimulus package, as well as laws supporting minority small businesses and a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

“Not every promise was kept, and the current administration is pushing to roll our wins back, but these wins serve as a blueprint for what is possible through sustained advocacy and a clear vision,” the authors write. The agenda, the Urban League declares, was “the most consequential federal investments in Black America since the Great Society.”

The organization and its civil rights allies now find themselves in a strikingly different political environment under the Trump administration.

“Looking at our current political landscape, the calls for racial healing and righting of this nation’s wrongs in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd feel like a fever dream,” the report reads.

But the study also acknowledges that Black Americans have overcome more dire and discriminatory moments.

Latest Black America report is the Urban League’s 50th edition

The Urban League’s inaugural 1976 report on the state of Black America was described by the New York Times at the time as “a profoundly depressing document” that laid out the persistent disparities between the economic outlooks of Black and white Americans, a decade after the Civil Rights Movement’s crowning achievements were signed into law.

The report was established as a response to that year’s State of the Union address by President Ford and the Democratic response, neither of which mentioned the economic outlooks for Black Americans. The report offered policy recommendations on crime, education, housing, social services and general economic policy.

“It is a document that does not attempt to cover up the seriousness of the situation black people find themselves in,” the authors wrote at the time. Several of its recommendations were later taken up by President Carter, who was elected to the White House months after the report’s release.

This year’s 50th anniversary document echoes the frustration found in the inaugural report. While Morial acknowledged that the Urban League’s assessments may lead to pessimism, he urged Americans concerned about civil rights and economic progress to respond at the ballot box and with their pocketbooks.

“We cannot be dejected. We cannot be cynical. We must act,” Morial said. “We have to fight to make sure that those that are really trying to kill the essence of the American dream don’t win.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

July 29 (UPI) — The United States announced a ban on imports of humanoid robots from China and other countries, citing “unacceptable risks” to national security and the safety of Americans.

The advanced robots ban, including humanoid, four-legged robots and bipeds, was part of a Federal Communications Commission update on Tuesday to a list of equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons” under the 2020 Secure Networks Act.

Power inverters that convert DC electricity to the AC electricity that flows across the country’s power grid were also banned.

The bans come after government agencies with “appropriate national security expertise” convened by President Donald Trump to look at the issue designated both technologies as national security threats.

“The networked capabilities of advanced robotic systems create extensive vulnerabilities and vectors for attacks that can manipulate the data and physical operation of the advanced robotic system. Relying on foreign-produced advanced robotic devices presents unacceptable supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” the group said in its National Security Determination.

“Advanced robotic devices collect data that could be leveraged by malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots,” it added.

China is the world’s largest producer of humanoid robots, with the United States its largest market.

Power-inverters, a critical kit which converts DC electricity from solar panels, batteries and other alternate energy sources into AC electricity enabling it to be fed into the U.S. energy grid, were also banned over fears overseas supplies could be manipulated or disrupted, compromising the United States’ electricity supply.

Any threat to electricity supply constituted a threat to the economy and national security, the FCC said, adding that in addition to supply chain vulnerabilities it was concerned increasingly networked inverters posed cybersecurity risks, including the possibility they could be switched off or used to harvest data as well as “facilitating remote access and surveillance by foreign government actors.”

Both bans only apply to new models and exempt overseas manufacturers with existing conditional waivers from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau or, in the case of robots, the Defense Department, with the FCC saying it encouraged suppliers to apply for “conditional approval.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said he welcomed the measures from the White House.

“I am pleased that the FCC has now added foreign produced advanced robotics and power inverters to the FCC’s Covered List. Following President Trump’s leadership, the FCC will continue to do our part to secure America’s critical supply chains and, with today’s action, the FCC is acting in lock step with our national security agencies to do just that,” said Carr.

China criticized the move, accusing the United States of overreach and erecting trade barriers.

“China firmly opposes the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security and going after Chinese companies. Protectionism does not make the U.S. more competitive and will only hurt the interests of U.S. companies and consumers,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told a news conference in Beijing on Wednesday.

“China will continue to do what is necessary to firmly defend the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies,” she added.

China’s Commerce Ministry called for the global community to combine forces to develop technologies “for the positive and for good,” saying Beijing resolutely stood against the “politicizing” of trade issues and the use of “groundless pretexts” to justify sanctions.

“China urges the United States to heed the objective and rational voices of the business communities in both countries, abandon its hegemonic mindset, and stop smearing Chinese companies and threatening them with sanctions,” a spokesperson for the ministry said.

The Trump administration on Tuesday announced a ban on new foreign-made humanoid robot imports to the US over “unacceptable risks” to the country’s national security.

The move applies to advanced robots – including humanoid and four-legged machines. Many of them are made in China, which is competing with the US to develop robotics and artificial intelligence (AI).

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also banned imports of power inverters – a device used in data centres and solar panels – which it said could also pose a risk to the US economy.

The Chinese embassy in Washington said China has long opposed the US’ “politicising” of trade issues and sanctions based on “groundless pretexts”.

FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the agency was doing its part “to secure America’s critical supply chains”.

The FCC has added the items to its Covered List – a register of goods and services that are deemed a risk to US national security.

The ban applies to new foreign-produced advanced robotic devices and power inverters and does not prevent the sale or import of any existing models that had been previously authorised by the FCC.

The FCC cited concerns that the use of foreign-made inverters could allow overseas firms to turn them off, steal data, facilitate remote access and surveillance by “foreign government actors, or be otherwise exploited through a cyberattack.”

It added that the use of robots made outside the US could allow “malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots.”

The Chinese embassy in Washington also said Beijing will “take all necessary measures” in response to any moves that harm its interests, urging all countries to work together to develop AI “for the positive and for good”.

It called on the US to “abandon its hegemonic mindset, and stop smearing Chinese companies and threatening them with sanctions.”

The BBC has contacted major Chinese robot manufacturers Unitree, UBTech and AgiBot for comment.

The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance after court documents revealed that the Trump administration targeted California and other blue states solely for political reasons when it slashed funding for the initiatives last year.

Large companies, startups, utilities, universities and other nonprofits were among those that lost out on $7.6 billion in clean energy funding terminated by the White House in October. They include the University of California, the California Energy Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and California’s nascent hydrogen hub, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES.

At the time, Trump administration officials said the grants were terminated because they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

But in court documents filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the cuts, the Department of Energy states the selection of grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

It also concedes that neither the inclusion of ARCHES, nor any other grants in the October tranche, was “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”

California and the 15 other states that lost funding did not vote for Trump in the 2024 election.

Legal experts said such an action is unheard of.

“The government has stipulated that grants were cut off to states that voted against Trump. As far as I know, this blatant politics in cutting off grants is unprecedented. It also is illegal,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and co-counsel in the lawsuit.

More projects were cut in California than any other state, about 79 out of nearly 300. They were all for clean energy, many to address climate change, and include investments in new battery plants, upgrades for the electrical grid and initiatives to take carbon out of the air. About $1.2 billion was slated for the hydrogen hub.

Money was also to go to West Biofuels in Woodland, CALSTART in Pasadena, Charge Bliss in Aliso Viejo, Rejoule in Signal Hill, Southern California Edison, the Imperial Irrigation District and Aera Federal LLC, among many others.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of faculty members and researchers at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco, who were among those to lose research grants. A separate lawsuit was filed by California and a coalition of 13 other states in February.

The acknowledgment of political motivation is “startling — and it is particularly so when the administration has had these larger narratives about how they’re canceling grants that are about waste, fraud and abuse,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley and initiating counsel in the university case. “If they want to favor oil, coal and nuclear, and disfavor clean energy innovation, that’s their prerogative as the executive. But here we have stipulations saying that none of those things were true for these staggeringly consequential DOE grants.”

The lawsuit alleges that the government’s actions violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which prevents arbitrary discrimination, as well as the 1st Amendment in that it is targeting researchers for how their state voted.

“None of it was about a change in priorities,” Polsky said, noting that similar grants in red states were not canceled. “None of it was about fiscal stringency. None of it was about anything except punishing people who didn’t vote for Trump.”

Judge Rita F. Lin could order the federal funding to be reinstated, and indeed has already done so through some temporary preliminary injunctions. But many of the grantees are now in “purgatory” as the case proceeds toward a final ruling, Polsky said.

Many of the projects are complex, multi-year efforts that involve a hodgepodge of agencies, experts and partnerships, such as ARCHES, the state’s billion-dollar hydrogen hub awarded under President Biden. Officials with ARCHES could not immediately be reached for comment.

News of the funding cuts first broke last fall in a post on X from Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” Vought wrote. “The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

At a House hearing in June, however, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said decisions were not made based on politics.

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Secretary Wright looked me in the eye, under oath, insisting the decision to cancel California’s clean energy projects was ‘not political,’” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “The Administration’s own court filings tell a different story. These decisions jeopardize good-paying jobs, undermine American energy innovation, and drive up costs.”

Padilla is among 30 California lawmakers, including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), who separately challenged the funding cuts as unlawful — writing in an October letter to the Energy Department’s independent Office of the Inspector General that the decision targeted blue states “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.” The office subsequently launched an investigation into the claims.

“Any Trump official who lied and told the nation these clean energy grant cancellations had nothing to do with politics should resign,” Schiff said in a post on X after the latest court filings were revealed. “As the administration has now been forced to concede — these cancellations had everything to do with politics. Of the worst kind.”

A final ruling is expected in early November.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

July 27 (UPI) — The U.S. Departments of Education and Justice said Monday that they’re taking “significant action” against school districts in Maryland and Michigan because of policies allowing school personal to protect students’ personal gender identity.

In a press release, the departments said Anne Arundel public schools in Maryland and Ann Arbor public schools in Michigan were “hiding sensitive information about children’s health well-being from their own parents.” They cited parental rights in the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

The Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office received complaints from Maryland parents who said that the school was helping their child “pretend to be male.” The principal declined to give the parents information about their student, and the assistant principal refused to turn over records, the release said. It said the SPPO and the Just Department’s Civil Rights Division will start applicable judicial proceedings and the district may face the loss of federal funding.

In Michigan, the release said, SPPO has found an Ann Arbor district policy requiring school employees to protect a student’s gender identity from their parents “likely violates FERPA.” The departments have given the district until Aug. 10 to “demonstrate why ED and DOJ should not move forward with enforcement.”

“This is not only an affront to basic moral principles, but also to parents’ rights under federal law,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Today, ED and DOJ are putting districts on notice that we will use every tool available to hold them to account for this egregious behavior.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” including California and 15 other states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

The statement, included in a court filing last week in a lawsuit over the canceled funding, contradicts repeated assertions by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials that the projects were canceled because they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or had other problems that made them a poor investment of taxpayer dollars.

The Department of Energy said in the filing Wednesday that “DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants … was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State. DOE will not contend that it looked beyond the prime grantee(s) to consider the political identity or geographic distribution of downstream beneficiaries of the grant funds.”

The agency also said that it “accepts that the differential treatment resulting in the October 2025 termination of Blue State grants and the non-termination of non-Blue State grants was not based on a rational connection between the recipient’s location and/or place of performance and DOE’s past or current agency priorities.”

Democrats and environmental groups seized on the court filing, saying the administration had “weaponized” the federal government to kill good jobs and punish working families because of their political views.

A ‘corrupt abuse of power’

“This administration has now admitted in court what has long been obvious: it terminated nearly 300 cost-cutting energy projects for no reason other than the fact that the states they were in did not vote for the president in the 2024 election,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state said in a joint statement. Both are high-ranking Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively.

“Weaponizing the federal government like this is outright un-American, and it’s hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power,” Kaptur and Murray said.

They called on congressional Republicans to join them in holding the Trump administration “accountable for the President’s failure to look out for all Americans.”

The Energy Department announced in October that 321 funding awards across 223 projects were terminated, saying that after review, they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable.”

The cuts, part of broader attacks from President Trump on climate programs and clean energy funding, slashed federal support for projects to build battery plants, develop hydrogen technology, upgrade the electric grid and capture carbon dioxide emissions.

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, highlighted the cutbacks in a social media post, saying that money “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.”

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Projects from many states were cut

Projects that were cut were located in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. All 16 targeted states supported Harris, but Wright said the cuts were “business decisions” based on whether the projects were a good use of taxpayer money or not.

The cuts were immediately challenged in court, and more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress, led by California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, wrote a letter to the Energy Department’s acting inspector general requesting a formal investigation. The department’s internal watchdog launched an investigation in December.

Government lawyers had previously confirmed in a court filing late last year that the selection of grants in fact “was influenced by whether a grantee’s address was located in a State that tends to elect … Democratic candidates in state and national elections (so-called ‘Blue States’).”

That filing came in a separate suit filed by clean-energy groups and the city of St. Paul, Minn., over the canceled funding. The most recent admission came in a case called Thakur vs. Trump that’s been ongoing since spring 2025. Federal lawyers acknowledged that they used keywords related to diversity, gender and COVID-19 to screen for projects that ran afoul of the Trump administration’s priorities.

Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, said the latest court filing shows “the Trump administration is brazenly admitting to a vindictive approach to cancelling much-needed energy infrastructure that ignores the job losses, air pollution and increasing bills that people are experiencing everywhere.”

Instead of “building the energy projects we desperately need,” billions of American taxpayer dollars are “going to line the pockets of a small handful of fossil fuel company CEOs,” Bender said, citing nearly $3 billion pledged by the Trump administration to cancel offshore wind projects in favor of fossil fuel projects such as natural gas and coal.

Daly writes for the Associated Press.

July 25 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration cannot implement tighter rules for mail-in voting in the mid-term elections this November.

The ruling, handed down by the First U.S. Circuit of Appeals on Saturday, will prevent his administration from creating a list of eligible voters and from requiring the U.S. Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots to people who are not on the list, The Hill and Bloomberg News reported.

The three-judge panel rejected the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings in late June and early July that an executive order issued in April to expand the federal government’s role in managing elections could not be put into effect.

The April 1 executive order was condemned by critics at the time as an attempt by President Donald Trump and the administration to interfere with the mid-term elections, and led to 23 states and the District of Columbia to file suit to stop it.

The appeals court said in its ruling that the federal government failed to make its case for lifting the federal government’s injunction, which was partially based on the lower court preventing the executive order from going into effect.

“To be sure, the injunction prevents the federal Defendants from enforcing the EO in the Plaintiff states’ upcoming primary and general federal elections in September and November,” the judges wrote.

Trump, who continues to falsely claim that he won the 2020 election, signed the order under the guise of election integrity based on his also false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The fraud allegations center on ineligible people casting mail-in ballots, of which Trump and his administration have not shown happened in significant numbers during the 2020 election.

The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to build a state citizenship list based on federal date, to send the lists to state elections officials to verify mail-in ballots go to eligible voters and for the USPS not to send out absentee or mail-in ballots to people who do not appear on the lists.

July 25 (UPI) — The Trump administration admitted that it canceled nearly $8 billion in grants slated for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely” on whether a state voted for Kamala Harris for president, it was reported Friday.

In a recent court filing, a lawyer for the Energy Department said none of the axed projects lost their funding “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor.”

The Trump administration attorney added, “The 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”

The government’s admission, first reported by The New York Times, came out as part of a July 15 court filing in a class action lawsuit over the slashed grants.

The Department of Energy selected 600 grants for cancellation and sent the list to the Office of Management and Budget, which terminated 284 of them in October.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” OMB Director Russell Vought wrote on X.

Despite also being recommended for cancellation from energy officials, the OMB left untouched hundreds of projects in places that voted for Trump, court documents show.

“The inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State,” Trump administration lawyers wrote.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, called the move “unprecedented Trumpism and something we should never become numb to.”

“Trump admits he’s ripping the rug out from under hardworking families so he can get revenge on the Americans who didn’t vote for him,” the New York democrat added. “It’s sick and deranged. His ego is so fragile, he’ll punish families already struggling to put food on the table for a little bit of vengeance.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said, “This mass partisan retribution is appalling, outrageous, dangerous, lawless, unconstitutional, unpatriotic and a massive offense against the Republic.”

“Every elected official must denounce this imbecilic deep betrayal of America,” Raskin added in a statement. “And the illegally impounded funds must be restored and released immediately to the blue states.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over imposing what they contend are “unlawful” conditions on federal grants intended to help states prepare and respond to disasters.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, argues that the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate what the attorneys general see as an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies, according to the complaint.

“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated. The legal action was filed by a coalition of 24 attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, both Democrats.

A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

At the crux of their legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers.

For the homeland security grant, the Trump administration has attached “radical” new terms based on Trump’s preferred policies, the states contend.

These terms include verifying the citizenship of all individuals in state voter databases, transitioning their voting systems to equipment that reads hand-marked paper ballots and conducting post-election audits “according to nonexistent guidelines to be set by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to the complaint.

And the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have threatened to make states “promise to devote their scarce resources to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement” in order to receive both the homeland security and the emergency management grants, according to the complaint.

At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes.

“These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes,” he said. “They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.”

The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.

“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”

After U.S. strikes on Iran’s largest nuclear facilities last year, both President Trump and the White House were adamant that the Middle East nation’s nuclear program had been destroyed.

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!” Trump wrote on social media.

“Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News,” the White House wrote in a press release.

A year later, the U.S. and Iran are five months into a war Trump said would be over in weeks. Iran has gained leverage by seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy corridor, and the U.S. has been forced to the negotiating table as global gas prices have spiked — including again this week after a ceasefire agreement collapsed.

And Trump — facing mounting criticism that he has pushed the U.S. into another “forever war” despite campaigning on doing exactly the opposite — is leaning back into the notion that Iran presents an unacceptable nuclear threat and strikes are needed, namely at another Iranian nuclear facility known as Pickaxe Mountain.

“Pickaxe is a possible target for a nice big fat shot right near the front door,” the president recently said on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” “We’re going to take out Pickaxe Mountain. Tell the Iranians to be ready.”

Pickaxe, a heavily fortified facility deep underground that would be difficult to penetrate even with powerful “bunker buster” bombs, was not targeted during last year’s 12 Day War between Iran and the U.S. and Israel, nor in the full-scale war of the last five months.

However, it is less than two miles from Natanz, one of Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment facilities, which was struck both last year and this year. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli intelligence believes Iran moved thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges into Pickaxe last fall — bolstering its ability to reconstitute a nuclear program that threatens the U.S. and regional allies.

Trump’s sudden focus on Pickaxe as a suspected hub of Iranian nuclear activity, which comes as his administration is trying to justify its continued entanglement in its unpopular war there, is an acknowledgment that two prior military campaigns and years of attempted diplomacy by his administration have failed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Few experts ever bought into the Trump administration’s claims that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely destroyed, and even Trump and his closest allies have walked some of those comments back — including in discussions about Iran’s ability to retrieve and repurpose enriched material buried at Natanz and other targeted sites.

Some experts have cited construction activity around Pickaxe as evidence Iran is continuing to develop the facility in violation of recent agreements with the U.S., but have said the exact nature of the work isn’t known. They’ve also wondered if the Trump administration intends to use the work there to lay the groundwork for a broader, boots-on-the-ground war effort that would be unpopular in the U.S. but necessary to truly accomplish Trump’s stated goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program for good.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank, said last week that it wasn’t clear “if Iran still plans on installing a large-scale assembly facility” at Pickaxe Mountain “given the destruction of Iran’s centrifuge program,” but “if Iran starts to rebuild its centrifuge manufacturing capability, it could plan to install a smaller centrifuge assembly facility in Pickaxe Mountain able to serve a nuclear weapons program.”

The space under the mountain, the institute said, may be “large enough to also hold a centrifuge enrichment plant capable of producing weapon-grade uranium” and is “likely large enough to also hold certain nuclear weaponization activities such as making weapon-grade uranium metal and shaping it into nuclear weapon components.”

Retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the former head of U.S. Central Command, told The Times that Iran has had a substantial amount of time to relocate equipment since the bombings of last year and has “demonstrated that they are savvy on these kinds of things,” and the U.S. “should be serious about it and try to confirm the intelligence.”

And “if there have been centrifuges that have been moved there and are underground and spinning and developing nuclear bomb grade materials,” he said, “we should be very, very concerned about that.”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said it is true that Iran is continuing its enrichment program in clandestine ways that present an ongoing threat and that “the war is not going the way the president wanted.” He also said Iran’s activity around Pickaxe helps Trump justify the war — and its possible expansion.

Radd said Iran has used the war to block independent inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and reconstituted some of its nuclear capabilities in the process, including as talks with the U.S. shifted from its nuclear program to the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump and the U.S., meanwhile, have “vacillated” between trying to “manage” the Iranian nuclear program by reining in enrichment, to trying to “neutralize” the program with targeted attacks on its nuclear infrastructure. Radd said that “even though his rhetoric is there,” Trump hasn’t had “the resolve or the ability or the mandate” to move to fully eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, because that would require “much more forceful intervention” than the American public is willing to accept, such as U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.

He said he wonders now if the president’s talk about Pickaxe is part of a shift in that direction — or at least threatening it — after Trump and his advisors realized that the current cycle of war, negotiations and then more war is giving Iran the time it needs to reconstitute its nuclear program.

“I’m wondering if that is just a threat, or if it’s a genuine option that the president is actually considering,” Radd said.

Under Senate questioning Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to say whether American bombs were capable of destroying whatever is under Pickaxe Mountain.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and his allies escalated attacks on U.S. elections on Friday, after the president’s prime-time effort to convince Americans that that the nation’s voting systems are fundamentally flawed, and threatened to punish California and other Democratic states that refuse the administration’s demands for voter data.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin threatened local election officials with fines and prison if they don’t turn over voter rolls to federal officials seeking to root out purported illegal voting by non-citizens.

“Try us,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X in response to Mullin’s threats. He added that “California has free, fair, and secure elections” and that the state “will fight for them.”

The administration’s threats — made less than four months before the November midterm elections — are a continuation of an aggressive Trump-led campaign to use the federal government to attempt to overhaul the nation’s voting systems and sow public mistrust in elections.

The administration has tried for months to compel Democrat-led states into handing over sensitive voter data to the federal government, but the efforts have run into resistance in courts, in part out of concern for privacy laws. The courts have also reaffirmed in many cases that the Constitution gives states — not the federal government — primary authority over elections.

On Friday, Mullin said his agency has found “as many as” 190,832 possible non-citizens registered to vote in California, along with more in three other Democratic-led states. He said Homeland Security arrived at those numbers by checking the four states’ public voter records.

He vowed to withhold federal election security grants from states until they agree to the administration’s demands, including having their voter registration lists “scrubbed” and their election security systems updated.

“If these states want a grant and they want to be reimbursed to run federal elections, they are going to have to implement security measures,” Mullin said at a news conference. “We need to make sure that individuals who are legally able to vote are voting.”

Newsom said the state had “no idea” where that claim came from. The administration has not made its methodology public, and the system Mullin’s department has used to check for non-citizens in the past has inaccurately flagged some citizens as non-citizens. Past election reviews have found non-citizen voting is rare.

“There is plenty of reason to be suspicious of the claims from the administration,” said Brendan Fisher, director of strategic investigations at the Campaign Legal Center, “and every reason for voters to have confidence in our elections.”

Mullin’s remarks came the day after Trump delivered a prime-time address about vulnerabilities in the election system, claims that largely were not backed up by the evidence he provided. The White House released a trove of declassified documents that fell short of showing that any American election had been affected by fraud or foreign interference.

The White House dug in on the strategy Friday morning, deploying agency heads to continue amplifying the idea of election vulnerabilities, even after fact-checks showed most of his claims were exaggerated and had been previously known, investigated or debunked.

“SAVE OUR ELECTIONS,” the White House said on X.

Trump also used his address to pressure Congress to pass legislation that would tighten voting restrictions and could make it harder for millions to register to vote and cast ballots. While hardline Republicans applauded him, others in the party have rebuffed his request.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Friday that he did not understand why Trump is focusing on a past election when Republicans should focus on what is ahead.

“I think historically the midterms for the party in power are really tough,” Cornyn said. “So, yeah, I am concerned about it. We ought to be talking about things looking forward that our constituents are most concerned about.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said the nation’s electoral systems are safe, and while he thinks election officials need to be “vigilant,” he said he is more concerned about economic issues ahead of the midterms..

Discussing the legislation ahead of the speech Thursday, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said it would be “impossible” to carry out changes to the nation’s voting laws in time for the midterms.

“The only thing that will occur is an undermining of the integrity of our elections right now,” Tillis said on the Senate floor.

David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, called Mullin’s threats “laughable.”

“There is no significant pool of federal grant money appropriated, so this threat has no teeth for any state. None of them are expecting any significant federal funds for elections,” Becker said.

Mullin told reporters Friday the federal government plans to use public records requests to try to obtain the voter roll information in order to investigate whether non-citizens have voted. Any member of the public can make a public records request; the move signals that the government has few remaining avenues to force the state to turn over voter data.

But Mullin appeared to acknowledge the limitations, saying: “I obviously can’t force the states.” He later threatened to levy fines, penalties or criminal charges against elections officials in states that don’t comply with the government’s demand.

If their behavior wasn’t criminal, Mullin said he would make sure state and county officials — who do not work for the federal government — would “never work for the federal government again.”

More than a dozen courts have ruled against the Justice Department’s highly unusual demand for state voter rolls. The federal government is not entitled to the data under federal law, Becker said.

He said previous government investigations into non-citizen voting have found that most people flagged against DHS’ database were either citizens or non-citizens who had never registered themselves to vote.

The Trump administration has used a database from an immigration verification system to flag possible non-citizen voters, but election officials have found that method misidentified some voters. Even with citizens mistakenly included in the count, the number of possible ineligible voters was extremely low — in Texas, 0.0001% of voters.

Data indicate that voting by non-citizens is rare. A study of the 2016 election by the Brennan Center for Justice found that officials referred about 30 cases of suspected non-citizen voting for investigation or prosecution. A 2024 review by the American Immigration Council of the right-wing Heritage Foundation‘s database turned up 68 cases of noncitizen voting since the 1980s.

While Trump’s speech prompted warnings from his critics that he could be laying the groundwork to take further steps to interfere with or tighten restrictions on elections, experts said he was running out of moves.

Becker predicted that Trump would not actually attempt to cancel elections or send officers to the polls and that courts would block the president if he declared a national emergency to exert control over elections.

“But I think there are people in the administration, including the president himself, who would like us all to think this is possible,” he said.

Fisher said Trump may be trying to lay the groundwork to dispute the midterm results if he doesn’t like the outcome, but said his powers to do so are limited.

“There’s safeguards and laws in place to protect the freedom to vote,” Fisher said, “and voters should tune out the noise and continue to participate in our democracy.”

When major disasters strike, Americans are routinely waiting weeks — or even months — to receive presidential approval for aid. And if they live in a state that didn’t support President Trump, chances are greater that aid will be denied.

Since taking office last year, Trump has approved about 65 requests for major disaster declarations and denied more than two dozen others from states, tribes or territories seeking federal financial assistance following hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods and fires.

Trump has taken longer on average to approve disaster requests than any other president, according to an Associated Press analysis of data dating back to 1989, when a federal law setting new parameters for disaster determinations was implemented. And no other president has such a disparity in denials between states that supported him politically and those that did not.

The delays and denials come as Trump’s administration contemplates a makeover of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers disaster aid. Major disaster declarations are intended for events that are beyond the resources of state and local governments.

Trump is saying yes to Republicans more than Democrats

During his second term, Trump has denied a greater percentage of disaster requests than any president dating to 1989. Those denials have not been evenly distributed among states.

Trump has approved 80% of the disaster requests from Republican governors but only about 60% from Democratic governors, according to the AP’s analysis of FEMA data.

The discrepancy is even more apparent when analyzing major disaster declarations based on presidential elections. Trump has approved more than three-fourths of the requests from states that voted for him in the 2024 election but less than half the requests from states that did not. Although there are federal criteria for disaster aid, decisions ultimately are at the president’s discretion.

A batch of denials earlier this month included four Democratic states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island — seeking federal aid for a February snowstorm.

“The President’s denial is part of a pattern of extreme partisanship as he tries to shift a heavier economic burden onto blue states. Disaster aid should be merit-based, not politicized,” Rhode Island’s Democratic U.S. Senate and House members said in a joint statement.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that “there is no politicization to the President’s decisions on disaster relief.”

During his first term, Trump actually approved a greater share of requests from states that had opposed him than those that supported him.

Yet no other president had such a wide partisan divide in disaster declarations as currently exists under Trump. Obama approved 87% of the disaster requests from Democratic governors during his second term and 79% from Republican governors, but Obama’s approval rate was identical for states that voted for and against him.

When requests are denied, individuals, insurers and local governments are left to shoulder the costs themselves.

Trump is waiting longer to declare disasters

Since Trump assumed office last year, it’s taken him an average of a month and a half to approve major disaster declarations after receiving a request from the governor or chief executive of a state, territory or tribe, the AP found. Because it can take several weeks after a disaster for officials to inspect the damage and submit a request, the total wait time often has exceeded two months.

By comparison, Trump approved major disaster requests in an average of about three weeks during his first term, a pace similar to President Joe Biden. Their predecessors — Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton and George H.W. Bush — all had average disaster approval times of less than two weeks.

All presidents have taken longer to approve some requests. But that’s become the norm in Trump’s second term. Of Trump’s approvals, 70% have taken at least a month — up from about one-quarter of requests during Trump’s first term and Biden’s administration, and fewer than 10% under their predecessors.

Jackson said that Trump conducts a more thorough review than any administration before him, “ensuring American tax dollars are used appropriately and efficiently by the states to supplement — not substitute — their obligation to respond to and recover from disasters.”

The longer the approval process takes, the longer people must wait to receive federal aid for daily living expenses, temporary lodging and home repairs. Delays in major disaster declarations also can hamper recovery efforts by local officials uncertain whether they will receive federal reimbursement for cleaning up debris and rebuilding infrastructure.

FEMA nominee is pledging faster decisions

FEMA has had four different temporary leaders since Trump took office in January 2025. One of those, Cameron Hamilton, is awaiting Senate confirmation as the agency’s permanent director.

During a Senate committee hearing last month, Hamilton said he would try to speed up disaster declaration decisions and reimbursements. He also pledged to ensure that FEMA is objective, fair and reasonable in reviewing disaster declaration requests and making recommendations to the president.

Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, had been fired as FEMA’s acting director in May 2025 after publicly disagreeing with Trump’s idea of dismantling the agency. His reemergence signals that Trump now may support changes to FEMA instead of an outright elimination of the agency.

Panel’s recommendations could lead to more denials

A council appointed by Trump has recommended a series of changes to FEMA that would shift greater responsibility to states, potentially reducing the number of major disaster declarations and the amount of federal money paid out.

The council suggested revised criteria to qualify for presidential declarations, including a prerequisite of annual minimum expenditures by states, territories and tribes.

Another recommendation, which would require congressional approval, would reduce the federal government’s share of the disaster aid from a minimum of 75% to 50% of the costs, leaving state and local governments more to cover. For governments approved for assistance, federal funding could get there quicker — within 30 days of a federal disaster declaration, instead of waiting months or years for reimbursements that are based on proof of expenditures.

For individuals, the council recommended consolidating several different types of aid into one payment targeted for those whose homes are uninhabitable.

Lieb and Wildeman write for the Associated Press.

MIAMI — The Trump administration is reviving a rule that could deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits that could include food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers and others.

The policy, known as “public charge,” appeared on Thursday in the Federal Register and will be formally published on Monday.

The policy was first implemented in February 2020 as one of President Trump’s moves to limit legal immigration during his first administration, but it was reversed after Democratic President Biden came to power.

Its return comes when the Republican administration is implementing a hard-line policy to curb both illegal and legal immigration, and when the cost of healthcare and food is rising.

The federal government “is reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance, protecting public resources and ending policies that encouraged dependency on the backs of hard-working American taxpayers,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a post published on its X account.

“Under President Trump, USCIS is restoring the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves,” the post said.

Under the policy, applicants for green cards have to show they wouldn’t be burdens to the country or “public charges.”

BIDDEFORD, Maine — Trump administration officials have told Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to suspend most vehicle stops after two deadly shootings in little over a week, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The order came a day after an ICE officer shot and killed a Colombian man in Maine, renewing criticism of the agency’s tactics during enforcement operations.

The suspension is not absolute and there’s room for exceptions when executing a criminal warrant or working with partner agencies, according to a person who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive law enforcement operations.

The Department of Homeland Security said an ICE officer, “fearing for public safety,” shot and killed the man Monday in the city of Biddeford while officers were watching the home of someone they believed was in the U.S. illegally and had a final order of removal from the country.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Whittle, Brook and Sisak write for Associated Press.

This July 14th appears to be one of the key days in the political process that Venezuela has been experiencing since January 3rd. Early in the morning, the 2015 National Assembly announced a joint work agenda starting August 1st “as a roadmap to promote stability, democracy, and national recovery.”

July 10 (Asia Today) — South Korean Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appointed Justice Roh Kyung-pil as the new head of the National Court Administration, filling a vacancy that had lasted about four months.

The Supreme Court announced Friday that Roh, 62, will begin his term Tuesday.

The head of the National Court Administration oversees personnel and budgets for courts nationwide. The chief justice appoints the official from among sitting Supreme Court justices, and the justice does not handle trials while serving in the post.

Roh, a native of Haenam, South Jeolla Province, began his judicial career as a judge at the Seoul District Court in 1997. He later served as a Supreme Court research judge, Seoul High Court judge, presiding judge at the Gwangju High Court, and presiding judge and senior presiding judge at the Suwon High Court. He was appointed to the Supreme Court on Aug. 2, 2024.

The Supreme Court said Roh is qualified for the post because of his “leadership of listening and inclusion,” saying he is suited to strengthen public trust in the judiciary by communicating with court members and broader society and working to build a swift and fair judicial system for the public.

The post had been vacant since Justice Park Young-jae tendered his resignation as head of the National Court Administration on Feb. 27. Ki Woo-jong, deputy head of the administration, had served as acting chief.

With the vacancy resolved, attention is turning to whether stalled Supreme Court justice nominations will gain momentum.

The Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee in January recommended four candidates to succeed former Justice Roh Tae-ak: Seoul High Court judges Kim Min-ki and Park Soon-young, Daegu District Court Presiding Judge Son Bong-gi and Seoul High Court Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik. No final recommendation has been made.

The selection process is also underway for a successor to Justice Lee Heung-gu, who is scheduled to retire in September.

The Supreme Court on July 3 completed its review of public comments on 28 recommended candidates who agreed to be screened by the recommendation committee. If the committee recommends at least three candidates this month, Cho will select a final nominee and recommend the candidate to President Lee Jae Myung for appointment. The nominee would then go through a National Assembly confirmation hearing before final appointment.

The National Court Administration is also tied to one of the ruling party’s major judicial reform agendas. After legislation on three judicial reform measures, including criminalizing distorted application of the law, allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings and expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, a separate bill has been introduced to revise the Court Organization Act and abolish the National Court Administration.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260710010003920

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has issued subpoenas against journalists from The New York Times, in what advocates say is an escalating attack on the free press.

Late on Friday, the Times reported that at least four of its reporters have received subpoenas, some delivered to their homes by federal agents.

Those subpoenas compel them to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” said David McCraw, the newspaper’s lawyer, in a statement quoted by the Times.

News of the subpoenas prompted outcry from leading news groups including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which demanded their withdrawal.

“The subpoenas are an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations, and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country,” said CPJ’s chief executive officer Jodie Ginsberg.

The subpoenas were authorised by a top official in Trump’s Department of Justice: Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Clayton is in line to succeed Bill Pulte as the director of national intelligence, a cabinet-level role Pulte holds on an interim basis. The Senate is set to begin hearings on Clayton’s confirmation next week.

Scrutiny on NATO travel coverage

At issue is The New York Times coverage of Trump’s return flight from the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye, this week.

While Trump flew to Europe on his new Air Force One, a jet gifted by Qatar and retrofitted by the US military, he left on the old Air Force One.

Trump claimed the switch was made to allow the new jet to visit RAF Mildenhall, an air force base in Suffolk, England, that supports US military operations.

He framed it as an opportunity to allow military members to tour the aircraft.

“It’s going to go to a couple of bases,” Trump said at the time, “so the soldiers can see it because it’s truly magnificent.”

But at the same July 8 news conference, Trump referenced concerns about his safety.

When asked about the airline switch by a reporter from The New York Post, Trump responded, “You know, the life of a president is very dangerous.” He proceeded to add that he’s “number one on the kill list for Iran”.

That same day, The New York Times reported swapped his new presidential jet for his old one because of security concerns, citing anonymous sources. The change reportedly came at the urging of the Secret Service.

Then, the next day, the Times expanded its coverage with a follow-up report, indicating that the new Air Force One lacked the security capabilities of the old jet.

The article anonymously cited two former Air Force officials as saying there would not have been enough time to make the necessary upgrades before the Ankara flight.

It is unclear what modifications have already been made, but experts have estimated that the updates could cost up to $1bn.

Friday’s subpoenas targeted four of the journalists involved in the Times’s reporting on the subject: Eric Schmitt, Tyler Pager, Eric Lipton and Julian E Barnes.

According to the Times, before the subpoenas were issued, the newspaper was contacted by a senior official from the FBI.

That person, who was unnamed, asked the newspaper to hold off on its reporting about Air Force One, citing national security. The FBI official also requested information on the Times’s anonymous sources.

The newspaper, however, declined to provide such information, in line with standard journalistic practice.

A testy relationship with journalists

The subpoenas mark the latest clash between the Trump administration and US media outlets that report on its activities.

Trump himself has a long-running feud with the Times. In September, he sued the newspaper for $15bn in damages, alleging it had defamed him and attempted to “sabotage” his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election, which he won.

After his initial complaint was thrown out as “improper”, Trump refiled it in October.

The Times, for its part, has sued the Department of Defence under Trump over its attempts to impose media restrictions on journalists.

Just this week, the Times also filed a countersuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, after it alleged the newspaper had discriminated against a white, male employee for failing to give him a promotion.

The Times has described the effort as an attempt to muffle the press, in violation of the free-speech protections enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Times is not the only newspaper to face legal backlash from the Trump administration. In December, Trump launched a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, arguing that a documentary it aired misrepresented his speech before the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump is also seeking $10bn from The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a birthday message he allegedly sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. After that suit was thrown out, Trump refiled it in May.

The Trump administration has also taken actions against individual journalists.

In January, for instance, the FBI executed a raid on the house of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who covered the Trump administration’s efforts to scale back the federal workforce.

The raid came as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of leaking information to the news media, but at least two judges have barred the Trump administration from using the information it seized from Natanson.

The Trump administration has denied seeking to erode the freedom of the press, instead citing national security needs.

But McCraw, the Times lawyer, argued that, with the latest subpoenas, the White House was trying to restrict “the American public’s right to know how their government is operating”.

“This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” he said.

Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also weighed in on the subpoenas, using them to slam Trump as corrupt.

“Donald Trump is one of the weakest, most thin-skinned individuals the world has ever seen,” Schumer wrote on social media.

“Reporters have the right and duty to report the truth. It’s not their fault his foreign-gifted plane is a national security threat. This subpoena is a gross overreach and a disgusting misuse of federal law enforcement resources that should alarm every American.”

July 10 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday rescinded a key provision of the Endangered Species Act that protected habitat crucial to imperiled wildlife.

For 50 years, the ESA definition of “harm” included not only specific species, but also their habitat from modification or degradation.

But on Friday, the administration said it was reversing the rule to focus on “actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife.”

“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.

“That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended,” Burgum said. “This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”

Enacted in 1973, the ESA has played a vital role in maintaining biodiversity.

Conservation experts say the act was key in saving many species from extinction, including the whooping crane, bald eagle and gray wolf.

Environmental advocates have vowed to sue over the rule change.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement.

“Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support,” Boyles added. “We will see the Trump administration in court.”