administration

US Department of Justice claims NAACP lawsuit threatens ‘national, economic, and energy security’.

The United States government has intervened on the side of Elon Musk’s xAI in a legal dispute over a $20bn data centre, claiming that efforts to block a related power project threaten national security.

In a court motion filed this week, the Department of Justice requested the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing xAI of illegally operating dozens of natural gas turbines erected to power the Colossus 2 data center in Memphis, Tennessee.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the largest civil rights group for African Americans, filed the lawsuit in April under the 1963 Clean Air Act, which allows citizens to seek injunctions and civil penalties against alleged polluters.

The NAACP alleges that xAI built the turbines, located in nearby Southaven, Mississippi, without obtaining the necessary permits, exposing hundreds of thousands of residents to harmful pollutants linked to “increases in asthma, respiratory diseases, heart problems, and certain cancers”.

The lawsuit notes that a “much larger share” of residents are Black compared with the US general population.

In its motion, filed in a US District Court on Monday, the Justice Department accused the NAACP of threatening “national, economic, and energy security by seeking to shut off the power supply for artificial intelligence innovation that supports the Department of War’s military operations”.

The motion also claims that the US Constitution vests the power to seek civil penalties “conclusively and preclusively” in the executive branch, including the “discretion to decide when such an enforcement action is unwarranted or inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities”.

Adam Gustafson, the top prosecutor at the Justice Department’s environment and natural resources division, said in a statement that the government would “not sit idly by while private organisations use environmental laws to undermine our national security”.

xAI, which is a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Earthjustice, an advocacy group representing the NAACP in the lawsuit, condemned the intervention as a “massive power grab” by President Donald Trump’s administration.

“Trump’s Justice Department wants to shield Elon Musk’s data center company, xAI, from being held accountable for its illegal pollution – and it’s attempting to grab power from impacted communities, the courts, and Congress to do so,” Laura Thoms, director of enforcement for Earthjustice, said in a statement.

“There is no moral or legal precedent for this.”

Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at  UCLA School of Law, described the Trump administration’s argument as a “brazen attempt” to limit enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

“It’s based on a radical notion that the executive branch can dismiss lawsuits brought by citizen groups that Congress has authorised based on no rationale at all,” Carlson told Al Jazeera, adding that the Justice Department’s position would let “polluters off the hook even for blatant violations of the law.”

“This motion is also just one of many ways in which the administration is undermining efforts to protect air quality,” Carlson said.

The Trump administration has cultivated close ties with Musk, the world’s richest man, tapping the tech titan as a temporary cost-cutting tsar and using xAI’s flagship model Grok in the Pentagon’s drive to become an “AI-enabled fighting force”.

In testimony in support of Monday’s motion, Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon’s top official for AI, said that Grok had been used to launch more than 2,000 munitions at 2,000 targets within the first 96 hours of the US-Israel war on Iran.

If Grok cannot be deployed and upgraded due to “limitations in energy supply or limited reserve compute capability”, numerous tools used by the Pentagon would be “severely impacted”, Stanley said in a declaration made under oath.

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday extended an order to indefinitely block President Donald Trump‘s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund because she does not trust the administration’s word that it will not attempt to enact it.

The fund was announced last month and meant to compensate people the Trump administration alleged were targeted by the Biden administration, including people who were convicted for their actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia in her ruling blocked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from taking “any action to create or operate” the fund and that they not proceed with the concept “in any manner, or under any name.”

Brinkema’s ruling builds atop one from Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon that they do not believe the administration will not attempt to distribute money in the scheme.

Both judges indicated that they do not believe that the Department of Justice will back off from the plan because no officials from the agency have said they would do so while sworn in and under penalty of perjury.

“When the President of the United States says” that he wants something, referring to Trump, Brinkema said “that’s a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen,” CNN reported.

Even with the fund having been on hold for the last week, at least one person already has attempted to file a claim, to which the federal court responded that it is “not accepting applications”

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore signs related to topics such as climate change, slavery and Indigenous and LGBTQ+ history that were removed under an executive order to purge language at national parks that allegedly cast America in a negative light.

The order has prompted the removal of mentions of President Washington’s slaves at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, signs regarding climate threats at Fort Sumter in South Carolina and a pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument in New York City, according to the lawsuit challenging the action.

In California, language related to the internment of Japanese Americans at the Manzanar National Historic Site, as well as the history of Indigenous people in Death Valley and Muir Woods came under scrutiny.

A preliminary injunction was issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston, who sided with a coalition of conservation and historical groups and ordered all language removed under the order to be reinstated before the Fourth of July. Earlier this year, another federal judge ordered the signage related to Washington’s slaves restored.

In Friday’s injunction, Kelley accused the Trump administration of seeking “to rewrite the Nation’s history with a white-out pen,” and said that national parks play an important role in telling the multifaceted history of America, including “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”

“Because Defendants deemed it important to strip the parks of these undeniable truths in anticipation of the 250th Anniversary of our great Nation,” she wrote, “it is equally important that our shared history be honestly told and fully restored by the 250th Anniversary to properly honor the remarkable achievements of the United States.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of the Interior dismissed the ruling as the work of a “liberal activist judge.”

“The Department will look at our appeal options while we celebrate UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn of the White House this weekend in honor of our nation’s 250th with the greatest president in the history of our country — President Donald J. Trump,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Trump initially signed the executive order in March 2025, arguing that a revisionist movement is seeking to undermine American history by replacing objective fact with a distorted, ideologically driven narrative.

“Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed,” the order stated.

Under the order, more than 430 sites under the purview of the National Park Service were told to review language on monuments, memorials, statues and markers to ensure they didn’t disparage Americans past or present, with a close eye on language added during former President Biden’s administration. QR codes were also added at sites encouraging visitors to report any signs they believed violated the order.

In February, a coalition including the National Parks Conservation Assn., American Assn. for State and Local History, Assn. of National Park Rangers and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston alleging that the order was erasing American history and science.

“National parks serve as living classrooms for our country, where science and history come to life for visitors,” Alan Spears, senior director of cultural resources at the parks conservation association, said in a February statement. “As Americans, we deserve national parks that tell stories of our country’s triumphs and heartbreaks alike. We can handle the truth.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that a “swift and lethal kinetic” U.S. strike has killed Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, whom he called “the infamous leader” of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Tren de Aragua has been labeled by the United States as a terrorist organization. Guerrero Flores was charged in a New York federal court with racketeering conspiracy and other crimes, including lending support to terrorists in crimes that stretched more than a decade, authorities announced in December.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X that the strike occurred earlier in the week on a Tren de Aragua compound in Venezuela.

U.S. Atty. Jay Clayton alleged at the time that the gang is responsible for countless acts of violence, extortion and drug trafficking in North America, South America and Europe. Trump nominated Clayton on Thursday to be director of national intelligence.

The U.S. State Department had offered rewards of up to $5 million for information leading to Guerrero Flores’ arrest.

In a post on his social media site, Trump wrote, “Tren de Aragua terrorists no longer have safe haven in Venezuela or anywhere else and, under my leadership, we will find these vicious murderers and drug lords anytime, anyplace, and send them to the depths of hell where they belong.” Trump’s post referred to Guerrero Flores by his alias, Niño Guerrero.

Hegseth said, “The operation underscores the shared U.S. and Venezuelan commitment to take the fight to narco-terrorists and deny them any safe haven in our hemisphere.”

Venezuela’s ministry of communications did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the operation.

Trump has taken a series of extraordinary actions against the gang, including a series of strikes on small boats his administration has accused of smuggling drugs to the U.S.. At least 207 people have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea since the Trump administration began the campaign in early September.

Independent investigations, by the Associated Press and others, have raised questions about the boat passengers’ alleged connection to drug trafficking. And, in any case, many legal experts say the boat attacks amount to extrajudicial killings in violation of international law.

Trump and administration officials have consistently blamed Tren de Aragua for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some U.S. cities. The president spent months repeating the claim — contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment — that Tren de Aragua had operated under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control. The U.S. invaded Venezuela and seized Maduro in January to face U.S. drug charges.

Tren de Aragua originated more than a decade ago at an infamously lawless prison in Venezuela’s central state of Aragua. The gang has expanded in recent years as millions of Venezuelans migrated to other Latin American countries or the U.S. in search of better living conditions.

Guerrero Flores returned to the prison in Aragua on murder and other convictions in 2013, when Venezuela’s crisis began and corruption, mismanagement and a drop in crude prices wrecked the oil-dependent economy. Guerrero Flores and a few other inmates saw a profitable opportunity as the government neglected prisons.

They assumed control and administration of the prison, establishing a system that controlled the entire inmate population through force and extortion. Over time, they transformed the lockup into a sort of city that included a zoo, baseball field, casino and restaurants. Guerrero Flores had his own lavish suite.

The size of the gang is unclear. Countries with large populations of Venezuelan migrants, including Peru and Colombia, have accused the group of being behind a spree of violence in the region. Still, unlike other criminal organizations from Colombia, Brazil and Central America, Tren de Aragua has no large-scale involvement in smuggling cocaine across international borders, according to InSight Crime, a think tank that tracks crime across Latin America.

In Venezuela, gang leaders have long been known to participate in various illegal activities, including illicit gold mining.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Regina Garcia Cano in Mexico City contributed to this report.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge agreed on Friday to extend a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s creation and operation of a $1.8 billion settlement fund for compensating people who claim to be victims of a weaponized government.

Earlier this month, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping its plans for the fund in the face of a fierce bipartisan backlash. Government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the fund are now moot, but plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t satisfied by Blanche’s assurances that the fund won’t move forward.

Neither was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will remain blocked until further notice from the court.

“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” the judge said.

President Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. He has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.

Brinkema gave the parties a week to negotiate an agreement for Blanche to submit a sworn declaration that the administration won’t revive the fund.

Brinkema previously agreed to temporarily block the administration from proceeding with the fund for at least two weeks. Her May 29 order was due to expire on Friday.

Trump’s Republican administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Plaintiffs who sued to block fund payouts argue that the government can’t legally divert taxpayer money into what they argue is a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies.

In a separate case on Wednesday, a different judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from forging ahead with the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he accepts Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.

Leon had asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind his May 18 order establishing the fund. Block said he didn’t know. He still didn’t have an answer to that question when Brinkema posed it two days later.

“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” the judge said.

In the Virginia case, attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward asked for an order to temporarily suspend the fund’s implementation and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.

The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

Even before the administration said it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission that would decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out nor claims accepted.

Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.

Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the Jan. 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.

Brinkema was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Ariana Grande was crystal clear in the White House’s comments section on TikTok.

The “We Can’t Be Friends” hitmaker didn’t mince words on Thursday when she commented on a White House TikTok: “Please do not ever use my music in relation to this barbaric, inhumane, heinous nonsense. F— ice,” she wrote in her comment.

The TikTok in question, posted by the White House on Tuesday, promoted the administration’s crackdown on immigration and featured Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers handcuffing various people to the tune of the Grammy-winner’s song “Bye.”

“Bye-bye 👋 President Trump has delivered the most secure border in history,” the caption on the video read. Grande’s comment has since been deleted or hidden from the video’s replies, and the sound on the TikTok has been disabled.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded to Grande’s comment in an emailed statement to The Times, writing, “We’ll say this one last time: what’s actually barbaric, inhumane, and heinous are the criminal illegal aliens who have injured and murdered innocent American citizens.”

Grande joins a slew of prominent musicians and artists who have told the Trump administration to cease using their tunes to promote his agenda.

On the 2024 presidential campaign trail, Beyoncé endorsed former Vice President Kamala Harris, who used Queen Bey’s song “Freedom” as a rally anthem. When a spokesman for Trump used the same song in a social media post, the mega star’s team responded swiftly with a cease-and-desist.

During a 2024 Montana rally, Trump’s team played a video clip using “My Heart Will Go On,” the theme song from the 1997 film “Titanic.” Celine Dion’s management team and record label responded with a statement shooting down the song’s use: “In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use. … And really, THAT song?”

And then, of course, when Trump used Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” on the 2016 campaign trail without the artist’s permission, the American rocker responded by endorsing Hillary Clinton and calling Trump a “moron.”

Add to the list Nancy Sinatra, who posted that Trump’s nod to Frank Sinatra’s song “My Way” was “sacrilege”; the Smiths’ former guitarist Johnny Marr, who said, “Consider this s— shut right down right now,” when the band’s song was used at a 2023 Trump rally; Sabrina Carpenter, who slammed the use of her song in a video, calling it “evil”; and many, many, many more.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has identified more than 15,000 cases of adults gaining custody of multiple immigrant children who enter the U.S. without a parent, officials said Thursday, signaling a potential push to prosecute prolific child sponsors.

The Justice Department highlighted cases against three Guatemalan nationals that they say underscore the dangers of improper vetting of sponsors in a program that seeks to unite kids with relatives or family friends after they enter the U.S. Officials said they are investigating numerous other so-called super-sponsors — those who gained custody of more than three unrelated children — to determine whether the sponsors took the kids in fraudulently.

“We will not accept half measures when it comes to securing the border, protecting American lives and saving children from exploitation,” Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters.

Taking custody of multiple unrelated migrant children is not a crime. The sponsors may be caring and well-intentioned, but senior administration officials calling them out suggests that authorities harbor suspicion about them and may subject them to deeper scrutiny.

Under former President Biden, officials tried to release children to eligible adult sponsors within 30 days, reuniting many families quickly. But the approach also yielded errors, with some children being released to adults who forced them to work illegally or to people who provided clearly false identification and addresses.

Under Trump, the administration tightened rules aimed at preventing traffickers from illegally bringing children into the country, and that has also led to a dramatic increase in federal custody times for kids. As of May, children are held in federal custody for an average of 206 days before they’re released, compared with an average of 37 days when Trump took office. At the same time, the number of total children in custody has steadily dropped.

Striking a balance between releasing children to vetted sponsors and shielding them from danger has proved a contentious partisan disagreement.

Democrats “want to claim that Republicans, because we’re enforcing the laws, it’s inhumane, somehow,” Blanche said after criticizing the vetting procedures under the Biden administration. “What’s inhumane about taking care of our kids?”

The cases announced Thursday include charges against a woman who, authorities say, was living in the U.S. illegally, schemed with others to smuggle kids across the border, then used fake identities to gain custody of them in exchange for money. In another case, a woman is accused of falsely claiming that she was siblings with a teen who had entered the U.S. illegally in her application to become the teen’s sponsor.

The Associated Press has sought comment from attorneys representing the accused in those cases.

Critics of the Trump administration have raised concerns over wellness checks carried out by immigration officers at elementary schools, immigration officers showing up and detaining sponsors at reunification meetings with children, and newly required documentation that’s created a “paperwork barrier” and led to a recent lawsuit.

Even sponsors willing to undergo the new vetting procedures have been forced to wait through unnecessary delays.

A Chicago father who is a U.S. citizen and had a valid birth certificate for his child was kept waiting for five months before the government could schedule a fingerprinting appointment. During the wait, his toddler daughter was sexually abused in federal custody, a lawsuit claimed.

Richer and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. Gonzalez reported from McAllen, Texas.

Caracas, June 11, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration continues to dictate conditions on Venezuela’s energy industry for the benefit of US and Western corporations.

At an event organized by Politico, National Energy Dominance Council Director Jarrod Agen stated that he is in contact with Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and her team “multiple times a day” to discuss the legal framework for foreign conglomerates.

“I raised issues [on oil contracts] when I went down [to Venezuela] and she said ‘we’ll work with you to get through it,’”the Trump official added. 

Agen stated that the administration is currently working to turn “memoranda of understanding (MoU) into binding contracts” and insisted that Venezuela has “made a lot of progress” in overhauling the country’s hydrocarbon and mining laws. 

The legislation approved by the National Assembly slashes royalties and fiscal responsibilities for private companies, while also granting them expanded control over operations and sales. After the laws were approved, authorities were tasked with drafting regulations for their implementation and new contract templates.

Agen went on to announce that a Trump administration delegation will travel to Caracas in the coming days to further discuss conditions for multinational firms in petroleum and gas projects.

Venezuelan oil authorities have reportedly begun circulating drafts of regulations and contract models with industry partners, though the texts have not been made public. The final versions are required to be published in the country’s National Gazette. 

According to Bloomberg, Caracas has revised the proposals under pressure from investors, including the removal of a clause that would have allowed the Venezuelan government to terminate contracts, with compensation, for reasons of “public interest.” Venezuelan leaders have openly acknowledged incorporating private sector input into the recent oil and mining reforms.

Since launching military strikes and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has seized control of the South American country’s energy and mineral exports.

While keeping wide-reaching sanctions in place, the US Treasury Department has issued multiple sanctions waivers allowing select Western corporations to undertake oil and gas operations in Venezuela while barring participation from Chinese, Russian, and Iranian competitors. The general licenses mandate that all Venezuela-owed payments, including royalties and taxes, be deposited in a Treasury-run account.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration updated multiple licenses concerning energy, petrochemical, and mining activities, stipulating that contract disputes can now also be settled in the United Kingdom, France, and Singapore, rather than just the US. However, the licenses still demand that contract terms be “construed and interpreted” in accordance with US laws and jurisdiction.

The revised waivers likewise establish that contracts may recognize that “certain aspects” of the activity are subject to Venezuelan laws and regulations.

For its part, the acting Rodríguez administration has aggressively courted foreign investment in the oil and gas sectors.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA signed a memorandum of understanding with SLB, formerly Schlumberger, one of the world’s largest oil services providers with a presence in the Caribbean nation since the 1920s. The Houston-based multinational stated that the agreement intends to “strengthen operational execution and promote sustainable development” of the Venezuelan energy sector.

During a televised ceremony, Rodríguez said she was “very pleased” with the deal and expressed confidence that SLB’s cutting-edge technology would have a “major impact on oil exploration and production.”

The acting leader has inked agreements with multiple Western energy giants in recent weeks, including Chevron, Shell, BP, and Repsol. Rodríguez has announced that more companies are set to arrive in the coming weeks. Business executives have made repeated trips to Venezuela to evaluate opportunities and meet with government officials.

Rodríguez recently visited India and touted oil project opportunities in meetings with Reliance Industries and Indian public sector energy firms.

Other government officials, including Economy Vice President Calixto Ortega and Oil Minister Paula Henao, have also held closed-door meetings with investors to promote recent reforms and incentives for foreign firms. At a Houston conference in May, Henao trumpeted the new oil law’s international arbitration clauses for offering more “legal certainty” to investors.

Venezuela’s oil output has continued its recent upward trend, with OPEC’s secondary sources registering a production of 1.072 million barrels per day (bpd) in May, up from 1.036 million in April.

For its part, PDVSA registered a 1.179 million bpd output last month, up from 1.136 million in April. Direct and secondary measurements have historically differed over disagreements on the inclusion of condensates and natural gas liquids.

According to Reuters, Venezuelan oil and byproduct exports rose for a third consecutive month, registering 1.25 million bpd, thanks to increased volumes shipped to the US and India.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County officials announced a new lawsuit against the Trump administration that aims to block a planned immigration facility near Gilroy.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. district court in San Jose, alleges that the leased land is zoned elusively for agricultural use and that the federal government violated laws requiring state and county notification, as well as procedural steps required before beginning construction.

The agency told the San José Spotlight that the project is an ICE office and denied that it would be a detention center. But state and local officials believe the facility will be used for short-term detention of up to 150 people at a time.

“The administration is trying to jam through a new facility on a community that does not want it, bulldozing over laws, shrouding their plans in secrecy and ignoring calls from the community to stop,” Bonta said during a news conference in San José, adding that it marks the 71st lawsuit filed by his office against the Trump administration.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit also argues that the property is in an area known to support several endangered and threatened species and that a facility there would strain the limited waste disposal and drinking water infrastructure.

Santa Clara County officials said they weren’t notified last year when the federal government, intending to build a facility for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leased nearly 25 acres of unincorporated land just outside of Gilroy. The parcel includes three buildings, greenhouses and a large agricultural field, according to the lawsuit.

Community members alerted the county about the forthcoming facility earlier this year and have protested the plans. Construction began early last month, according to the lawsuit.

The plot of land sits 3 miles southeast of the Gilroy Premium Outlets, at 7240 Holsclaw Road, federal procurement records show. The Department of Homeland Security secured a 20-year, $26.5-million lease from a subsidiary of the Beverly Hills-based Elmwood Capital Group, a real estate investment firm.

ICE also has a processing facility in nearby Morgan Hill.

According to the lawsuit, agricultural research companies that previously occupied the property generated hazardous waste that wasn’t properly disposed of.

“The federal government’s apparent failure to address — much less mitigate — these risks endanger the construction workers building the site, detainees and employees who will be located at the site, and the environment beneath and surrounding the site,” the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government’s only formal communication with the county regarding the project was a one-paragraph letter dated June 21, 2023, and forwarded by an Elmwood Capital representative. The letter said the federal government was planning “office and operations space” there and that it should be exempt from local zoning and planning review.

“Part of the problem here is that they are trying to move forward with this project with as little transparency as possible, and hoping that nobody notices, nobody catches on to the details,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “So, part of what our lawsuit will do is it will force that transparency to occur.”

ICE holding facilities have been the subject of multiple lawsuits since the start of the Trump administration over alleged overcrowding, poor conditions and confinement that went on for days and weeks.

Bonta and LoPresti said that the building of an ICE facility in Gilroy signals a desire by the federal government to increase enforcement in the area.

Advocates and local leaders have raised similar concerns in Dublin, another Bay Area city where federal officials are working to transfer ownership of a former prison. Congressional Democrats sent a letter earlier this month opposing the possibility that it could reopen as an immigrant detention facility.

A UFC fight card scheduled for Sunday on the White House South Lawn is facing legal challenges in federal court.

The watchdog group Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit last weekend on behalf of two Virginia residents aiming to shut down the Mixed Martial Arts event, which has been billed as part of a celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The event is scheduled to take place on President Trump‘s 80th birthday.

The lawsuit refers to the plan for UFC Freedom 250 as “illegal,” stating that proper authorization was not obtained to hold the event and to build structures on federal parklands, and “corrupt,” in that the president and others allegedly stand to benefit financially from the “private, for-profit sports event.”

“This is a profoundly corrupt scheme to enrich the President and his friends,” Public Integrity Project founder Brendan Ballou said in a statement on the group’s website. “If this fight is allowed to proceed, it will be only the beginning, and our national monuments will become little more than branding opportunities for the rich and well-connected. We plan to stop that.”

The group also filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the construction and prevent further planning for the event.

The National Park Service and Department of the Interior, as well as executives from each department, are named as defendants.

“This is an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory lawsuit brought simply to prevent President Trump from hosting what will undoubtedly go down as one of the most historic sporting events in our Nation’s history during our semiquincentennial celebration,” a Trump administration official said in a statement emailed to The Times.

“This iconic event is no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year.”

According to the lawsuit, UFC Freedom 250 violates NPS policy that prohibits sporting events on the South Lawn. In addition, it states that the plans for the event did not receive approval from Congress to construct a massive structure on the lawn and did not undergo a required environmental review before construction.

Construction started late last month on a massive octagon with an open overhead dome and around 5,000 arena seats.

Last year, the NPS established a temporary rule that allows “special events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Semiquincentennial Commission for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence” on Washington’s monumental grounds.

The lawsuit states, however, that the rule does not apply to Sunday’s MMA event.

“UFC Freedom 250 is a private, for-profit sporting event being ‘planned, organized, and executed’ by the UFC, its broadcast partners, and its advertisers, not by the federal government,” the filing states.

“And it is not in any material sense a ‘celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’ — it is, instead, a celebration of the UFC’s brand and the 80th anniversary of Donald Trump’s birth.”

UFC and parent company TKO are said to be footing the bill for the reported $60 million event. Still, it’s a massive platform for UFC, which longtime Trump friend and supporter Dana White runs. The president reportedly bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of TKO stock earlier this year.

No tickets are being sold to the general public. Most of the 5,000 seats next to the White House will be given to military members, while thousands of others will be able to watch on big screens in nearby parks. The event also will stream live exclusively on Paramount+, which is controlled by Trump allies Larry and David Ellison.

“This will be one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “Anyone who finds a problem with that clearly suffers from a severe and incurable disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the U.S.

In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The policies enacted after the National Guard shooting last year meant that immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum, work permit, green card and citizenship applications.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum-seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The policies apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. The agency, which is within the Homeland Security Department, often grants asylum, but only for those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those who are stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, and neither do the policies that sparked the lawsuit.

It is part of an ongoing effort by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, in what critics say unfairly prevents travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

In its motion to dismiss, which the court denied, the government argued that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy, including “the entry of aliens into the United States as well as discretion within the statutory scheme to confer as well as withdraw various discretionary benefits.”

“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non-arbitrary, and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.

Immigration groups celebrated the ruling.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” said Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte, his pick for acting director of national intelligence, would not be his “permanent” choice for the critical security post.

The Republican president’s disclosure that he was ruling out installing Pulte in the position full time came after bipartisan pushback on Capitol Hill in recent days over Pulte’s lack of national security experience. The position requires Senate confirmation, something that lawmakers indicated was unlikely if Pulte were the nominee.

“He’s not going to be permanent because, you know, I don’t think he’d want to be permanent,” Trump said while taking questions in the Oval Office after an event on coal. He called Pulte a “very smart guy” and said he may look at past elections that Trump claims, without credible evidence, were “rigged” against him.

Trump said other candidates were under consideration for nomination to the post. “We’re interviewing people right now,” he said.

Pulte, a grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, has been a source of controversy within the administration for his work as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and his oversight of the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pulte has used his position to pursue Trump’s perceived political rivals for alleged mortgage fraud and has verbally attacked Jerome H. Powell, whose term as the Federal Reserve chairman recently ended after months of Trump and Pulte attacking him for not slashing the central bank’s benchmark rates. The federal housing finance regulator has also pitched a 50-year mortgage, an idea that backfired as it meant that the process of building wealth through homeownership would be slowed.

Both Republican and Democratic senators expressed concerns about Pulte and his lack of national security credentials in occupying a role coordinating 18 federal agencies involved in domestic and foreign security issues. Trump’s initial director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, resigned last month, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said the national intelligence director job shouldn’t be “weaponized” and should be led by “professionals.”

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas, who are each leaving the chamber after this year’s elections, also expressed concerns about Pulte.

Democratic senators view Pulte as a risk even if he is serving only temporarily as the director of national intelligence while keeping his position at the FHFA.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent Trump a letter on Thursday calling on him to rescind Pulte’s national security appointment.

“Americans cannot trust him to protect our nation and refrain from misusing the sensitive information he will have access to,” Warren wrote, saying that giving Pulte the job on an acting basis was a risk because Trump’s own words suggested the federal agency could be used “to promote election denial theories.”

At a hearing on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed reports that he had threatened to fight Pulte in September, a sign of the friction that the federal housing finance director had generated inside the administration.

But as a frequent traveler on Air Force One, Pulte has a close relationship with Trump.

“He’s a person who’s got high integrity,” Trump said Thursday about Pulte.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Tuesday heard from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Trump’s executive order seeking to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. They also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on state election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution.

“This is going to be a sea change in the way that some states administer their ballots,” said Michael Cohen, who was part of a team representing California, adding that “it will be difficult to overstate the disruption that this will cause.”

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

His latest order is being challenged through multiple lawsuits, including two filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the League of Women Voters in one of the two Boston cases, has called the order “a dangerous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide.” The group said the order transforms “the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.”

“This case challenges an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power over the administration of federal elections,” the organization said in its complaint.

The hearing comes less than a week after another judge declined to halt the order. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, agreed with the Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. They also argued the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claim, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referred to were subjective, since much can change with the voting list before it is finalized. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the executive order.

Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi, speaking for the states supporting the list, argued it was too early to say how his state might use the list, but that it was “unlikely” any voter would be removed this year from the voter rolls because of it.

“We are not exactly sure how we would use it,” Capozzi said, adding that “we don’t want this process to be strangled in the crib, so to speak.”

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani took the requests for motions to halt the order, along with motions to dismiss the cases under advisement.

During oral arguments, Talwani expressed concerns about whether the federal system envisioned under the executive order could be ready for the upcoming midterm elections and about the risks posed to election workers who rely on a state list that differs from the federal one. She also raised doubts about the reliability of a federal list — noting, for example, women who changed their names after getting married or someone who has moved from state to state might be missed.

“Isn’t there a reasonable fear and concern on behalf of voters that they will be precluded?” Talwani asked.

Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the postal service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The postal service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday that the Trump administration was scrapping plans to create a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate allies of the Republican president after widespread political backlash and setbacks in the courts.

“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said in response to questions at a House hearing on the Justice Department budget.

““Not moving forward, ever?” asked Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.

The blunt declaration marked an extraordinary turnabout for a Trump Justice Department that just two weeks ago had pronounced the fund as essential to make up for what officials insist was weaponized law enforcement during President Biden’s Democratic administration. Since then, though, the idea has faced mounting pressure from Republicans who demanded reassurances that plans for the fund were off the table before they would move forward with legislation funding President Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies.

Blanche said the Justice Department was not abandoning an element of a settlement with the IRS that gave Trump and his family immunity from tax audits.

The hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee was scheduled for discussion of the Justice Department’s budget, but lawmakers quickly focused their questioning on the creation of a fund that has provoked outrage over the mere possibility that violent pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, could be eligible for payouts.

Signs for the retreat surfaced Monday when a person familiar with the matter said the Republican president was now reconsidering whether to move forward with the fund established to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The Justice Department also said Monday it would comply with a Virginia court temporarily blocking the administration’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” effectively agreeing to pause the plan for at least two weeks.

Another judge in Florida raised the prospect of reopening the IRS lawsuit because of “grievous allegations” of improper dealing made against the administration by settlement critics.

The Trump administration has defended the fund as an appropriate measure to make up for what officials insist was a weaponized Justice Department during President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, a claim the Biden administration strongly denied. Though some Trump supporters, including participants in the Capitol riot, have celebrated the announcement, the reaction among Republicans in Congress has been decidedly more hostile, forcing Blanche to try to assuage a GOP constituency that generally operates in close alignment with the administration.

The furor has especially complicated matters in the Senate, where Republicans defiantly left town 10 days ago without passing legislation to fund Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies. Republicans who returned to Washington on Monday said they won’t have the votes to pass the Homeland Security spending bill until the White House works with them to place parameters on the fund. Many have pushed the administration to impose limits or scrap the idea altogether.

At a Senate budget hearing last month, Blanche refused to rule out the possibility that those who carried out violence on Jan. 6 could be eligible for payouts and has repeatedly said in interviews that anyone who feels persecuted by the criminal justice system is free to apply. Payouts will be decided by a five-member commission appointed by Blanche.

But he has apparently struck a more conciliatory tone in private when confronted by Republican anger.

Blanche encountered a groundswell of opposition last month at a tense private meeting with GOP senators, with more than half raising concerns, including by shouting at the Justice Department’s top official, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a recent episode of his podcast.

“There were fireworks at an epic level — and I’ve got to say, it’s one of the roughest meetings I’ve seen in my entire time in the Senate,” Cruz said.

Behind closed doors, Blanche was “adamant” that no one who assaulted police at the Capitol would receive compensation, according to Cruz.

“He said not just ‘no,’ but ‘hell no,’” the senator recalled.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Weeks after Trump administration officials announced that management of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory would open to competitive bidding for the first time, questions remain as to why Caltech could lose control of the lab its researchers founded in 1936.

On one hand, observers note, high-profile delays and cost overruns on significant recent JPL projects earned sharp criticism from NASA even before the 2024 presidential election.

On the other, the second Trump administration’s record of squeezing scientific funding and attacking institutions in Democratic-led states make it difficult to consider any action as separate from the charged political atmosphere, analysts say.

“My first instinct is that this [competition] isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s not written in stone that Caltech must run JPL, and it wouldn’t be the worst thing to have some competition for running the place,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the nonprofit Planetary Society.

“That said, that requires this contract evaluation to be fair and unbiased, and this administration has no credibility in such things,” he added. “The responsibility is on NASA to earn the trust and ensure such an evaluation is open and free from political meddling. That’s almost impossible.”

JPL became part of NASA when the space agency was formed in 1958, and Caltech has been awarded the contract to run the institution outright ever since.

Its current 10-year contract with NASA, which is valued at up to $30 billion, runs through Sept. 30, 2028.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced the competition on May 22 as part of a slate of sweeping organizational changes at the space agency.

“When you step back, it is worth considering how many additional missions we could have undertaken with the resources lost to program cancellations and cost overruns over the years,” Isaacman wrote in a memo to staff. “That is the problem we must fix, so the American taxpayer and space-loving community can receive the highest scientific return on every dollar we spend at NASA.”

Allowing competition on the contract for JPL, the lone Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) in NASA’s portfolio, was an effort to address cost-efficiency concerns, Isaacman wrote.

“This process will take several years, and I do not anticipate it having any impact on the projects underway or the location of the facilities,” he wrote. “It does, however, provide an opportunity to evaluate management costs, overhead burdens, and ideally find ways to get after the science faster and more affordably.”

In a joint statement, Caltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and JPL Director Dave Gallagher said that the competition was “no surprise” and that a team was already in place “to ensure we are positioned for success.”

In July, NASA’s Office of Procurement held an informational event for companies and institutions interested in the upcoming FFRDC contract.

The dozens of registered attendees included universities such as USC, Texas A&M and Georgia Tech; aerospace companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin; and nonprofit corporations like MITRE, which manages several FFRDCs, and Universities Space Research Assn., a university consortium founded by the National Academy of Sciences in 1969. (SpaceX, which has been awarded more than $13 billion in NASA contracts in the last decade, was not on the list.)

“Lockheed Martin has more than 50 years of deep space exploration success with JPL, supporting landmark missions to Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Pluto, including nearly a dozen missions to Mars,” said Bob Behnken, vice president of exploration and technology strategy. “We look forward to building on that unmatched partnership in the years ahead. We are closely following NASA’s review and will continue to assess how we can best contribute to the agency’s mission.”

Other attendees contacted by The Times declined to discuss their involvement.

Isaacman indicated that JPL could come under scrutiny even before he took over NASA. The billionaire entrepreneur referenced high costs at the La Cañada Flintridge institution in a memo prepared in advance of his confirmation hearings on his priorities for the space agency.

“Contract structure: Very expensive,” Isaacman wrote of JPL in a table outlining organizational issues at each of NASA’s centers. “Must increase the output and ‘time-to-science’ KPI,” or key performance indicator.

The institution has recently suffered a number of high-profile management stumbles.

After the JPL-managed Psyche mission to a metal-rich asteroid failed to meet its 2022 launch date, NASA commissioned an independent review that said internal reorganizations and personnel changes created distracted and uninformed managers and burned-out, stretched-thin staffers.

After a 2023 independent review found there was “near zero probability” of the JPL-managed Mars Sample Return mission making its proposed 2028 launch date, and “no credible” way to bring rocks back from the Red Planet within the stated budget, Isaacman’s predecessor, Bill Nelson, put out a call for proposals to industry and all other NASA centers, forcing JPL to compete for its own project.

After Trump’s election, Nelson announced that the final decision would be in the next administration’s hands.

The White House pushed for massive cuts to NASA’s 2026 budget that Congress overturned, and has lobbied for similarly steep cuts again this year. JPL has instituted painful cost-cutting measures of its own, reducing staffing from roughly 6,500 employees in 2023 to 4,500 last year through layoffs and attrition.

Its struggles come at a point when NASA is enthusiastically embracing private industry. Last month the agency awarded several key contracts for its upcoming lunar missions to Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and other private companies.

Trump has also made no secret of his willingness to punish states that haven’t voted for him through job losses. In announcing his decision to move U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama, Trump acknowledged that his loss in Colorado in three presidential elections played a part in the move.

It’s impossible to consider any decision on JPL’s future as separate from the administration’s track record of politically motivated decisions, Dreier said.

“At the heart of this is why? Why now? If this is not just some rank political attack on California, what do they hope to gain from this?” he said. “That deserves explanation, because the administration otherwise has no credibility here.”

June 1 (UPI) — The Trump administration unveiled a new rule Monday adding work requirements to Medicaid eligibility, attracting concern from patient groups and condemnation from Democrats.

Republicans instituted the requirement as part of President Donald Trump‘s massive tax cut and spending bill signed into law in July.

The Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services said in a statement that the Interim Final Rule tying eligibility to an 80-hour-per-month work requirement promotes “economic stability, self-sufficiency and independence.”

“This rule helps Americans build skills and independence through work, education, job training or community service, creating new opportunities for themselves and their families,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said in a statement.

Medicaid is a joint federal-state program helping those with limited income and resources pay their medical bills. The new rule will is the implementation of a Medicaid work requirement provision that Congress put into President Donald Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill.

Democrats had vocally opposed the measure before the Republican-controlled Congress passed it into law, arguing it would create bureaucratic obstacles to hinder the ability of those who need the coverage.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said Monday that the rule is “the dark heart of Republican plan to kick millions of working Americans and their children off their health insurance by placing a mountain of paperwork in front of them.”

“When these requirements go into effect at the beginning of next year, it’s going to be a complete train wreck for America, and not just for the Americans caught in the bureaucratic maze Republicans have created: every community will be left with worse healthcare,” he said in a statement.

The provision requires most adults ages 19 through 64 to “demonstrate work requirement activities,” including employment, participating in certain work programs or community service.

Those exempt include people who are pregnant or have recently given birth, parents and caretakers of children or those with disabilities, the disabled or medically frail and American Indians and Alaska Natives, among others.

States generally have until Jan. 1 to implement the new rule, according to a CMS fact sheet.

While Republicans and the White House have described the move as installing safeguards against fraud, medical groups are voicing concern that it will cut patients, including those fighting cancer, from coverage.

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network President Lisa Lacasse said the requirements mean those with cancer or suffering from sides effects of the disease or treatment would have to prove that they can’t work, a task she said is likely too difficult and time-consuming for them.

The 80-hour requirement may also be too much even for those who are able to work, she said.

“Cancer patients who can still work — and many want to, for example, when they are well enough to work in between chemo rounds — will have to choose between losing their Medicaid coverage, working the required 80 hours per month or giving up working altogether to qualify for an exemption,” she said in a statement.

The social welfare advocacy group Protect Our Care lambasted Republicans for “weaponizing government bureaucracy against the American People” instead of using the government to lower medical costs or make care more accessible.

“They are betting that if they make the process confusing and exhausting enough, millions of people will fall through the cracks and lose the care they depend on to survive,” Protect Our Care President Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.

“Hospitals will suffer, providers will be pushed further to the brink and families across the country will pay the price while Republicans once again put wealthy donors and corporate greed ahead of the health and well-being of everyday Americans.”

MIAMI — The Trump administration has extended protections shielding about 11,000 Lebanese from deportation, allowing them to stay and work in the United States for another six months.

The decision, announced Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security, marked a rare reprieve for people protected by temporary measures that have been harshly criticized by Republicans. The extension comes amid ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters.

The decision was automatic, meaning that the administration missed the deadline by which it was supposed to decide on whether to extend the measure called Temporary Protected Status for Lebanese people living in the U.S. who are covered by the program. By statute, the status automatically extends for six months if the department misses the deadline.

It was an unusual outcome for an administration that has canceled the protections that had covered people from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua and Syria from deportation.

TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife, giving people authorization to work in increments of up to 18 months. More than 1 million immigrants from 17 countries were protected by TPS at the beginning of the Trump administration, after the Biden administration greatly expanded its use.

The program has been at the center of a controversy.

Republicans and critics of TPS argue that the program and its protections deviate from their original temporary intent, taking on a quasi-permanent character when extended. Its defenders assert that it is a fundamental humanitarian program that prevents vulnerable individuals from being forced to return to dangerous conditions.

The DHS notice said that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has led the department for the last two months, “were unable to make an informed determination on Lebanon’s TPS designation.”

The extension allows existing beneficiaries to keep their protections through Nov. 27, “if they still meet the eligibility requirements for TPS,” according to the notice. The work permits that were already issued for Lebanese TPS holders will be valid until the same day.

This is the second time the Trump administration has automatically extended a TPS designation. The first happened nearly a year ago with South Sudan, but the protections were terminated in November 2025, after the six-month extension period.

There are dozens of lawsuits challenging the termination of TPS at federal courts in different states. The Supreme Court is set to make a decision on TPS that protected Haitians and Syrians during the summer, and the result is expected to have an impact on all the other cases.

Advocates welcomed the extension.

“Extending Temporary Protected Status means Lebanese nationals in the United States will not be forced back into dangerous conditions but allowed to stay and continue supporting their families and contributing to their local communities,” said Kelly Razzouk, vice president of policy and advocacy at the International Rescue Committee.

José Palma, national coordinator of the National TPS Alliance — an advocacy group that has fought in federal courts against the cancellation of TPS for several countries—welcomed the extension of protections for the Lebanese.

“But we need to find a permanent solution for all TPS beneficiaries,” he warned.

Salomon writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Trump’s administration from paying any claims through a new $1.776 billion settlement fund for the Republican president’s allies who believe they were victims of a weaponized government.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., also barred the government from moving forward with the fund’s creation while litigation is pending to challenge it.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat, scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend the order blocking payouts from an “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The government created the fund to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

The White House declined to comment on the judge’s ruling and referred all questions to the Justice Department, which didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fund has generated a fierce backlash since it was announced last week, with even Republicans pressing acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche over the eligibility considerations and the possibility that even violent rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would be free to seek compensation.

The Justice Department hasn’t formed the five-member commission that will decide on payout criteria, so there has been no money paid out yet or claims accepted.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward are seeking a court order halting the fund’s implementation and preventing the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it. The federal suit claims there is no legal basis or accountability behind the fund.

The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

“The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,” the suit says.

At least two other lawsuits, both filed separately in Washington, also are challenging the fund’s creation. A lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington refers to the fund as “a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption.” Two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from a mob of Trump supporters sued last week.

During a congressional hearing, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 could be eligible for fund payouts.

Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump handed out mass pardons, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of every pending Jan. 6 criminal case last year.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville, Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

MIAMI — The Trump administration has quietly instructed federal prosecutors in Miami to avoid pursuing criminal investigations into Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez, a longtime target of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, according to current and former U.S. law enforcement officials, in the latest sign of warming relations between the White House and the oil-rich nation.

It’s unclear whether prosecutors had implicated Rodríguez in any crimes or whether investigators were moving toward an indictment. A Justice Department spokesperson said in an email “there was never an investigation into her to shut down.”

But DEA records obtained by the Associated Press earlier this year show she consistently surfaced on the radar of federal law enforcement dating to at least 2018, though she has never been criminally charged in the U.S. like several other senior Venezuelan officials.

The directive to pause scrutiny into Rodríguez was meant to avoid upsetting the administration’s efforts to stabilize Venezuela after the capture of her predecessor, Nicolás Maduro, among other reasons, a current official said. It was not clear whether the White House, which deferred comment to the Justice Department, was involved in the decision.

“Everybody has been told to stand down,” one of the former officials said.

The former officials, who had been briefed on the development, as well as the current official all spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal deliberations.

Rodríguez, a U.S. attorney representing her and the Venezuelan Communications Ministry didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The move eases pressure on Rodriguez

Removing the threat of potential indictment, even temporarily, eases pressure on Rodríguez as the Trump administration seeks to work with the acting leader to stabilize Venezuela after Maduro’s ouster and open the country to U.S. investment.

President Trump praised Rodríguez as a “terrific person” shortly after the U.S. military took Maduro and his wife to New York to face federal narcotics charges. Both have pleaded not guilty.

In recent months, the U.S. has lifted sanctions against Rodríguez and recognized her as Venezuela’s sole head of state, allowing her to re-establish ties with western banks and more freely work with U.S. investors seeking to tap into the world’s largest petroleum reserves. As ties between the two governments have deepened, some have held out the Venezuelan playbook — characterized by oil blockades, indictments of top leaders and threats of military intervention — as a model to drive regime change from within as the U.S. pressures other longtime adversaries in Iran and Cuba.

Rodríguez and her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, the head of the National Assembly, were hit with U.S. sanctions during Trump’s first term for their role in undermining Venezuelan democracy and cementing Maduro’s authoritarian rule.

Rodríguez “is doing a great job,” Trump wrote on social media in early March. “The Oil is beginning to flow, and the professionalism and dedication between both Countries is a very nice thing to see!”

In recent months, Rodríguez has hosted ceremonies with a steady stream of American oilmen, some of them partaking in high-profile delegations led by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

Election talk deferred amid Trump’s praise

Missing in all the mutual backslapping is any talk of elections, even as Rodríguez last month blew through a 90-day limit set by Venezuela’s high court to fill Maduro’s position on a temporary basis.

“I don’t know,” she responded in English when a visiting U.S. journalist earlier this month shouted out a question about her time frame for holding elections. “Some time.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has demanded the administration explain its favorable treatment of Rodríguez, calling her a “central figure in Nicolás Maduro’s repressive regime.”

“Sanctions have been lifted on Ms. Rodríguez without any indication that she has taken concrete and meaningful actions to restore democratic order,” Sheehan, joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent last week.

Rick de la Torre, a former CIA chief of station in Caracas, said that the decision to shield Rodríguez fits well with the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals in Venezuela.

“She’s a lifelong Marxist and was a senior leader of one of the world’s most corrupt regimes but the U.S. is providing her with breathing space and carrots to lay the foundation for democracy and U.S. investment,” said de la Torre, the CEO of Tower Strategy, which advises companies on Venezuela.

“There’s a shelf life to her utility, however. At some point she will face justice,” he added.

Rodríguez has been on DEA’s radar since 2018

The DEA had amassed a detailed intelligence file on Rodríguez dating to at least 2018, and has received allegations about her ranging from drug trafficking to gold smuggling, the AP reported earlier this year. One confidential informant told the DEA in early 2021 that Rodríguez was using hotels in the Caribbean resort of Isla Margarita “as a front to launder money,” the records show.

Her name has surfaced in nearly a dozen DEA investigations — several of which remained ongoing as recently as this year — involving field offices from Paraguay and Ecuador to Phoenix and New York. She had even been linked to Maduro’s alleged bag man, Alex Saab, whom U.S. authorities first arrested in 2020 on money-laundering charges, the records show.

Rodríguez deported Saab this month as part of a purge of insider businessmen who are accused of having enriched themselves through corrupt dealings with Maduro.

It’s unclear in which Miami investigations Rodríguez’s name surfaced. Two of the former officials said Rodríguez has also come up in meetings with investigators in Tampa, Fla., tasked last year by former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi with looking into financial crimes in Venezuela.

At the time, Rodríguez was serving as Maduro’s vice president. Justice Department policy requires the attorney general to personally approve the charging of any foreign head of state, who are normally immune from prosecution under international and U.S. law.

Halting high-profile criminal probes of foreign leaders

The pausing of the investigations into Rodríguez comes as the Trump administration has similarly tapped the brakes on ongoing federal investigations into another prominent Latin American leftist, Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

The DEA had also designated Petro a “priority target” over alleged ties to drug traffickers that had been probed for months by federal prosecutors. The New York Times reported in March that U.S. officials recently assured the Colombian government Petro does not face charges in those cases.

Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor who worked for the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, said it would be “deeply troubling” for law enforcement to be “told to stand down from a legitimate investigation for political or transactional reasons.”

“The White House cannot use criminal enforcement as a diplomatic light switch,” Levin told AP. “DOJ decisions are supposed to be based on law, evidence, policy and public safety — not on whether a foreign official is useful to the administration at a given moment.”

Goodman, Richer and Mustian write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington and Mustian from New York. AP Writer Regina Garcia Cano in Mexico City contributed to this report.

ATLANTA — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday that his department has prepared the design for a $250 bill featuring President Trump, anticipating the passage of stalled legislation in Congress to put the president on a new denomination of legal tender.

Bessent said at the White House that authorizing the currency will be up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but that “we’ve created the bill” because “we have to be prepared.”

The secretary downplayed the idea that the administration is pushing the matter, despite Trump’s penchant for infusing his name and likeness across the nation’s capital and into the observances of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Bessent also insisted there is nothing inappropriate about Trump’s visage being part of the seminal national celebration.

“The president doesn’t do it; the House and the Senate have to do it,” Bessent said at the White House, referring to legislation, introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), that would direct the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing to put Trump’s face on the new bill to mark the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding.

A Treasury Department spokeswoman said the agency carried out “appropriate planning and due diligence” to implement a potential congressional mandate “to produce a $250 commemorative note which will appropriately recognize the 250th Anniversary of our great nation.” The spokeswoman did not mention Trump.

If passed and signed into law by Trump, Wilson’s bill would mark an extraordinary recognition for a sitting U.S. leader and comes as Trump has sought to place himself at the center of Independence Day commemorations. The Department’s preparation for the languishing legislation suggests some enthusiasm for the idea on the part of the Trump administration.

Report: Trump ally has pushed to expedite new currency

The agency’s explanation follows a Washington Post report stating that U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach, a Trump appointee, has been pushing the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to expedite the process for a new currency note. The paper also reported that the former BEP chief, Patricia Solimene, was reassigned after pushing back.

The Treasury spokesperson declined to comment on Solimene’s status but confirmed that Michael Brown, a top Beach aide, became acting director of engraving and printing May 18.

Beach did not respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

Wilson’s legislation, which so far has languished in Congress, is intended to create an exception to existing law that bars any living person from appearing on U.S. currency; the bill would allow current and former presidents to be featured.

Bessent confirmed the measure is designed for one person.

“Donald J. Trump,” he said emphatically, repeating the full name that the president himself often uses in the third person.

According to the Post report, Beach last fall provided the Bureau of Engraving and Printing with the design for the new bill. It featured Trump’s portrait — the same one that adorns banners hanging on some federal buildings in Washington — and a 250th anniversary logo. Trump’s signature also was included, a design element that would differ from other paper money.

British artist Iain Alexander told the Post he designed the bill and said he’d discussed it with the president. Alexander did not respond to an AP request for comment.

The newspaper also reported that Solimene resisted pressure from Beach and Brown and stressed to them the lengthy legal and procedural process required to issue new currency. Solimene was reassigned against her will, the Post reported, paving the way for Brown to oversee the bureau.

Trump has aggressively spread his name and likeness

A new currency note would be the latest example of Trump expanding his personal brand in his official capacity since returning to the White House last year.

Beach and Bessent already streamlined approval of a commemorative 250th anniversary coin featuring Trump. The Treasury Department has asserted that those special coins fall outside the prohibition on living presidents appearing on money. In 1926, the nation’s 150th anniversary, then-President Calvin Coolidge appeared on a commemorative half-dollar coin that was official legal tender.

The Trump administration has had banners featuring his portrait hung on the Department of Justice and other federal buildings. And his slate of appointees to the Kennedy Center governing board added his name to the national performing arts facility that Congress originally designated as a memorial to assassinated President John F. Kennedy. That renaming is being challenged in court because of the federal law establishing the center as the official memorial to the 35th president.

Bessent noted that unless Wilson’s exception passes, current law sets just two conditions for him to consider on currency: that “In God We Trust” is printed somewhere on it, and that only deceased individuals be depicted, with their names described below their portraits.

“It’s all up to Capitol Hill,” Bessent said. “We will stick to the law.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Mexico’s consulate in Los Angeles helps thousands of citizens each week, assisting them with registering births, obtaining passports and, increasingly since President Trump’s second term began, accessing legal help for loved ones who have fallen afoul of his administration’s immigration policies.

Although it serves the country’s biggest Mexican community, all 53 Mexican consulates in the U.S. provide services that make Mexican people’s lives easier — just like the nine U.S. consulates in Mexico improve the lives of Americans south of the border.

The U.S. State Department has launched a review that might lead to the closure of an unknown number of Mexican consulates. Although it hasn’t said why, the review is happening against the backdrop of the immigration crackdown, some thorny bilateral issues and far-right theories that the consulates have been interfering in U.S. politics and encouraging Mexicans to migrate northward.

Azucena Aviles, a 33-year-old mother who drove more than an hour to the L.A. consulate this month to renew her Mexican passport and get one for her daughter, said consular services are invaluable — especially in California, which is home to nearly 13 million people of Mexican descent, including an estimated 1.7 million who are in the U.S. illegally.

“It wouldn’t be fair if they messed with the Mexican people, especially with our support systems, which come from the Mexican consulate and which, in some way, help or protect our fellow Mexicans,” she said.

Trump has been exerting growing pressure on Mexico, with questions looming over issues including human rights, national sovereignty and regional diplomacy.

His administration has given only the broadest of explanations for launching its review.

“Department of State is constantly reviewing all aspects of American foreign relations to ensure they are in line with the President’s America First foreign policy agenda and advance American interests,” Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary of State for global public affairs, wrote in an email.

Among the possible reasons for the review is that it could somehow fit into the Trump administration’s immigration efforts to deport people in the U.S. illegally. The largest contingent of such people — an estimated 4.3 million, according to the Pew Research Center — are Mexican.

Relations between the two countries could also play a role, with Trump increasing pressure on Mexico in the run-up to free trade negotiations important to both nations’ economies, taking a more aggressive approach toward the U.S.’ southern neighbor and even threatening to take military action against Mexican cartels.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has avoided head-on conflicts with Trump and instead relied on diplomacy, including sending top officials to Washington and seeking to maintain a strong relationship with the Trump administration by cracking down on Mexican cartels. Sheinbaum and her predecessor have also been key allies in slowing migration to the U.S. and speeding up the deportation of other Latin American migrants.

But Sheinbaum has taken a firmer stance in regards to the deaths of Mexicans in U.S. immigration detention centers, calling them unacceptable and saying the conditions in such lockups were “incompatible with human rights standards and the protection of life.” She instructed Mexican consulates to visit detention centers daily to help ensure detained citizens are being held in safe conditions.

Relations rapidly deteriorated in recent weeks after the U.S. indicted several Mexican officials on drug trafficking charges, and two CIA officers died following an anti-narcotics operation in northern Mexico — American involvement that Sheinbaum said her government had not authorized. That drug raid raised uncomfortable questions in Mexico about the extent of U.S. involvement in domestic security operations.

Years of tit-for-tat tariffs between the two countries have also added strain.

A review of foreign consulates is “usually a sign that a bilateral relationship is in a very, very rocky moment,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the U.S. In Mexico’s case, it comes at “the worst moment of the U.S.-Mexico relations” in decades, given all the current points of contention, he said.

Further straining relations is a theory being amplified by Peter Schweizer, a writer with a following among Trump loyalist who has claimed that Mexican consulates interfere in U.S. politics and encourage migration to the U.S. Experts say that although a few Mexican consulate officials may have sought to influence politics back home, there is no evidence of them interfering in U.S. elections.

In response to the State Department review, Sheinbaum said the idea that Mexican consulates are “playing politics in the United States is completely false.” She said the job of consulates anywhere is to “always protect” citizens.

Sarukhan too said that although consulates defend the rights of Mexican citizens, there is no evidence that they are interfering in U.S. elections.

Whatever the reasons for the consulate review, it has stoked worries.

During a weekly public forum at the L.A. consulate, a woman who didn’t give her name and whose husband had been in U.S. immigration detention asked for help finding him a lawyer, highlighting one crucial service consulates provide for their citizens.

An older man said he had heard about the review and asked about possible closures.

Carlos González Gutiérrez, Mexico’s top diplomat in Los Angeles, responded that, as Sheinbaum said, there would be “no reason whatsoever” for the U.S. to close a Mexican consulate.

Indeed, consulates would have significant, devastating effects for Mexican immigrants,” especially in isolated areas, said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute.

Every day, consular officials go to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding center in downtown Los Angeles to identify and interview as many detained Mexican nationals as they can.

González Gutiérrez, 62, begins every weekly public forum by noting how many detained Mexicans consular officials have interviewed since the immigration crackdown began in Los Angeles last June.

At that May 11 meeting, the figure stood at 1,940. Nearly half had deep roots in the U.S., he said. About 46% have been deported, 35% have children born in the U.S., 69% entered the country through a port of entry, 6% overstayed a visa and 2.5% requested asylum. Most were men, and many worked in construction, agriculture, gardening and the service industry.

He also disputed the claim that Mexican consulates are interfering in U.S. politics.

“We are guests of this country’s government, just as U.S. consuls are guests of the Mexican government. In that sense, we are neither activists nor spies,” said González Gutiérrez. “We carry out our work openly, within a pluralistic and democratic society.”

Pineda and Janetsky write for the Associated Press. Janetsky reported from Mexico City.

President Trump’s administration is suing four states over their refusal to issue undercover license plates to federal agents, the latest front in the wider struggle between the White House and Democratic-led states over the Republican president’s immigration crackdown.

The Department of Justice alleges in separate lawsuits announced Thursday that Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington state are imposing unconstitutional restrictions that it says impede law enforcement and threaten agents’ safety.

“By denying undercover license plates to DHS components, including ICE, while issuing them to their own state agencies, these governors are pursuing discriminatory and obstructionist policies against federal law enforcement,” said acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in a statement.

“These actions undermine federal immigration enforcement, allow dangerous criminals to escape justice, and terrorize American communities,” Blanche added.

The Justice Department filed the suits on Wednesday in U.S. district courts in the respective states. The four state governments are accused of trying “to obstruct the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, even though control over immigration and the nation’s borders is an exclusive federal power.”

Additionally, the Justice Department argues in the suits that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who oversees her state’s plate program and is also a Democratic candidate for governor, said she’s confident her decisions will hold up in court.

“What ICE did in Maine and continues to do was terrorize our friends and neighbors,” Bellows said in an interview Thursday. “There are no secret police in a democracy and we will always stand up for our Mainers safety and freedom.”

A spokesperson for Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Joy Campbell said the state’s lawyers are “reviewing the complaint and will defend the RMV policy to the greatest extent possible.”

Officials in Washington and Oregon did not respond to a request for comment on the federal action.

Feds say agents are endangered when easily identified

The administration asserts that federal agents “frequently investigate and apprehend violent criminals, including cartel members, gang members, sex offenders, human traffickers, and other violent offenders” and says making those authorities easily identifiable subjects them to increased harassment and potential physical harm.

The lawsuit comes after a back-and-forth between the DOJ and some state officials. The administration previously sent state officials letters demanding they justify their policies.

Maine Atty. Gen. Aaron Frey answered the Justice Department last week, defending his state’s policy and disputing the DOJ’s contention that it has hampered federal enforcement actions.

“Rather, the program reflects a legitimate and constitutional policy choice by the SOS not to allow its resources to be commandeered by the federal government for use in civil immigration enforcement activities that have, in Maine and elsewhere, resulted in multiple incidents of abusive and unconstitutional conduct by DHS officials,” Frey wrote.

Bellows, in her role as secretary of state, announced a pause on confidential license plates in January, after federal authorities ramped up their immigration enforcement activities in the state. Bellows said at the time that the state wanted to be “assured that Maine plates will not be used for lawless purposes.”

The federal suit against Maine argues that the state “has issued confidential license plates to law enforcement agencies for many years” and that “such plates are explicitly authorized under Maine law.” The state’s review this year, the suit argues, resulted in unlawful state regulation of the federal government by requiring federal applicants for state license plates to attest that federal vehicles that obtained confidential plates would not be used for civil immigration enforcement. The suit also states that Maine did not impose commensurate requirements on state or local agencies applying for the plates, making the program discriminatory against the federal government.

Bellows has previously defended her decision.

“When ICE asked for confidential license plates, I said no” because “covert civil immigration enforcement is not something Maine will facilitate,” she said last week.

Arguments are similar to debate over agents’ masks

The Trump administration’s arguments on the license plates are similar to its defense of federal agents wearing masks on their deployments to American cities. That became a flashpoint in an extended government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, as Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded key changes to how Trump’s mass deportation plans were carried out after masked federal agents killed two U.S. citizen protesters in Minnesota.

The White House and DHS have maintained the agency’s mask policy, and the administration already has won a federal court order blocking a California law that barred law enforcement officials from covering their faces in the state.

Additionally, the administration has been at odds with so-called sanctuary cities where local law enforcement does not assist federal authorities with immigration enforcement. And Blanche has instructed the Justice Department’s Civil Division to identify all state and local laws, policies, and practices that could impede what the administration describes as “lawful federal operations.”

Barrow and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.