case

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A Hong Kong court has rejected the appeals of 12 pro-democracy lawmakers and activists seeking to overturn their convictions in connection with a 2020 unofficial election primary that Beijing-aligned officials said was intended to undermine the city’s existing political system.

The dozen people are members of the so-called Hong Kong 47, who were sentenced in November 2024 to between 51 and 120 months in what is still the largest case so far brought under the city’s draconian National Security Law.

Eleven of the activists were convicted during the trial, while one pleaded guilty.

The court on Monday rejected their appeals. For some, they have already served their sentences and been released from prison.

Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, a barrister and democracy activist, had been acquitted in the case, but the government had appealed the decision. The court on Monday upheld that decision.

The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under the National Security Law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in connection with their unofficial primary.

Held in July 2020 amid the fraying of democratic norms in Hong Kong, the activists used the primary to coordinate candidates and win a pro-democracy majority in the city’s legislature, which prosecutors said they planned to use to veto budget bills to force the resignation of Hong Kong’s chief executive.

The primary was held following protests that erupted in Hong Kong in 2019 against extradition that grew into a broader pro-democracy movement following allegations of excessive force used by police against the protesters.

In response to the protests, China imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong in July 2020, and police arrested dozens of pro-democracy figures on Jan. 6, 2021, with 47 charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in late February of that year.

The government accused them of seeking to use the legislature, under the guise of democracy, to threaten Hong Kong’s political system.

Their convictions were widely condemned by democratic nations, including Britain, Canada and the United States. Washington vowed to impose visa restrictions on officials responsible for their sentencing.

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase acknowledged for the first time that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and several of his businesses in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the latest development in a legal saga between the president and the nation’s biggest bank over the issue known as “debanking.”

The acknowledgment came in a court filing submitted this week in Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its leader, Jamie Dimon. The president sued for $5 billion, alleging that his accounts were closed for political reasons, disrupting his business operations.

“In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed,” JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer Dan Wilkening wrote in the court filing. The “PB” and “CB” stands for JPMorgan’s private bank and commercial bank.

Until now, JPMorgan has never admitted it closed the president’s accounts in writing after Jan. 6. The bank would only speak hypothetically about when the bank closes accounts and its reasons for closing accounts, citing bank privacy laws.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment beyond what the bank said in its legal filings.

Trump originally sued JPMorgan in Florida state court, where the president’s primary residence is now located. The filings this week are part of an effort by JPMorgan Chase to have the case moved from state to federal court and to have the jurisdiction of the case moved to New York, which is where the bank accounts were located and where Trump kept much of his business operations until recently.

Trump originally accused the bank of trade libel and violating state and federal unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In the original lawsuit, Trump said he tried to raise the issue personally with Dimon after the bank sent him notices that JPMorgan would close his accounts, and that Dimon assured Trump he would figure out what was happening. The lawsuit alleges Dimon failed to follow up with Trump.

Further, Trump’s lawyers allege that JPMorgan placed the president and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” that both JPMorgan and other banks use to keep clients from opening accounts with them in the future. The blacklist has yet to be defined by the president’s lawyers.

“If and when Plaintiffs explain what they mean by this ‘blacklist,’ JPMorgan will respond accordingly,” the bank’s lawyers said in a filing.

JPMorgan has previously said that although it regrets that Trump felt the need to sue the bank, the lawsuit has no merit.

The issue of debanking is at the center of the case. Debanking occurs when a bank closes the accounts of a customer or refuses to do business with a customer in the form of loans or other services. Once a relatively obscure issue in finance, debanking has become a politically charged issue in recent years, with conservative politicians arguing that banks have discriminated against them and their affiliated interests.

“In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the president’s lawyers said in a statement. “President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

Debanking first became a national issue when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop extending services to gun stores and payday lenders under “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks cut them off from their accounts under the umbrella term of “reputational risk” after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, though not convicted in the Senate; and he was criminally indicted for his role in the riot and his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but that case was dismissed after he won the 2024 election.

Since Trump came back into office, the president’s banking regulators have moved to stop any banks from using “reputational risk” as a reason for denying service to customers.

This is not the first lawsuit Trump has filed against a big bank alleging that he was debanked. The Trump Organization sued credit card giant Capital One in March 2025 for similar reasons and allegations. The case is ongoing.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

NEW ORLEANS — A U.S. appeals court has cleared the way for a Louisiana law requiring poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms to take effect.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 12 to 6 to lift a block that a lower court first placed on the law in 2024. In the opinion released Friday, the court said it was too early to make a judgment call on the constitutionality of the law.

That’s partly because it’s not yet clear how prominently schools may display the religious text, whether teachers will refer to the Ten Commandments during classes or if other texts like the Mayflower Compact or the Declaration of Independence will also be displayed, the majority opinion said.

Without those sorts of details, the panel decided that it did not have enough information to weigh any 1st Amendment issues that might arise from the law. In other words, there aren’t enough facts available to “permit judicial judgment rather than speculation,” the majority wrote in the opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge James Ho, an appointee of President Trump, wrote that the law “is not just constitutional — it affirms our nation’s highest and most noble traditions.”

The six judges who voted against the decision wrote a series of dissents, with some arguing that the law exposes children to government-endorsed religion in a place they are required to be, presenting a clear constitutional burden.

Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that the law “is precisely the kind of establishment the Framers anticipated and sought to prevent.”

The ruling is the result of the court’s choice to rehear the case with all judges present after three of them ruled in June that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The reversal comes from one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, and one that’s known for propelling Republican policies to a similarly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling Friday, declaring, “Common sense is making a comeback!”

The ACLU of Louisiana, one of several groups representing plaintiffs, pledged to explore all legal pathways to continue fighting the law.

Arkansas has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. And a Texas law took effect on Sept. 1, marking the widest reaching attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Some Texas school districts were barred from posting them after federal judges issued injunctions in two cases challenging the law, but they have already gone up in many classrooms across the state as districts paid to have the posters printed themselves or accepted donations.

The laws are among pushes by Republicans, including Trump, to incorporate religion into public school classrooms. Critics say doing so violates the separation of church and state, while backers say the Ten Commandments are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.

Joseph Davis, an attorney representing Louisiana in the case, applauded the court for upholding the nation’s “time-honored tradition of recognizing faith in the public square.”

Families from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, have challenged the laws, as have clergy members and nonreligious families.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, another group involved in the challenge, called the ruling “extremely disappointing” and said the law will force families “into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole” where they will have to separately challenge each school district’s displays.

Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill said after the ruling that she had sent schools several correct examples of the required poster.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.

And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.

Schoenbaum and Boone write for the Associated Press.

At a luncheon this week for L.A. County politicos, Supervisor Kathryn Barger pitched what she framed as a commonsense reform.

Legislators in Sacramento, she argued, need to change a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for sex abuse lawsuits, opening the floodgates for decades-old claims that have cost the county nearly $5 billion and counting in payouts.

“I want them in Sacramento to fix it,” she said. “I have to believe that we are the tip of the iceberg.”

The controversial law, Assembly Bill 218, has led to thousands of claims over abuse that took place in schools, juvenile halls and foster homes. Supporters say it continues to give survivors a chance at justice, while Barger and other officials warn the cost of the litigation is driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy.

Rolling back AB 218, critics argue, is the single most obvious thing state lawmakers can do this legislative session.

The push has gained momentum amid concerns of fraud in the first of two payouts approved last year by L.A. County officials. At $4 billion, it was the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, with the money set aside for more than 11,000 victims.

The Times reported last fall on allegations of fabricated claims filed by plaintiffs within the settlement, which prompted L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman to open an investigation. Hochman told the supervisors this week that his office is reviewing “thousands of claims” for fraudulent submissions and predicted savings in the “hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.”

Speaking at the event Wednesday, Barger suggested capping attorneys fees — acknowledging that some high-powered attorneys in the room were involved in the county’s litigation.

Out of the $4-billion payout, she said, “about $1.5 billion will go to attorney fees — present company included.”

Barger referenced a former state Assembly speaker known for bare-knuckle tactics, which she said were needed now in the Capitol.

“If Willie Brown were up there, I’m sure he’d lock everyone in a room and slap some sense into them at this point,” she said.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has asked California legislators to consider changes to AB 218. Critics say sexual abuse lawsuits are driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy, while supporters say it is one of the few ways for victims of abuse to get justice. Rivas spoke in Ventura County on Nov. 18, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

This session, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has assigned a group of legislators to look at what changes might be made to the law.

A spokesman for Rivas, Nick Miller, said the goal is to provide “meaningful access to justice for all survivors” without forcing service cuts in schools and governments.

“There is a group of members discussing possible solutions that strike the right balance on this critical issue,” Miller said.

It’s a tightrope walk that no legislator has mastered.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who tried last year to increase the burden of proof for these cases, was branded a protector of predators.

Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) got further with a pared-down bill only to watch it blow up last session over concerns he was trampling on victims’ rights.

“I worked hard to strike the middle ground,” Laird said. “It just was too hard.”

Organized labor, a powerful voice in Sacramento, could sway the equation. County unions said they were told repeatedly at the bargaining table last year that they couldn’t get raises because of the massive sex abuse settlements, potentially setting them on a collision course with victim advocates.

Lorena Gonzalez, who wrote AB 218 in 2019 before leaving the Legislature to head up the California Federation of Labor Unions, said lobbying firms had been urging unions recently to take the lead on convincing the Assembly to change the law. The union leaders have yet to take a stance, she said.

“Although there’s some desire to especially fix what happened in L.A., there wasn’t an overwhelming desire to roll it back,” she said.

While serving in the state Legislature, Lorena Gonzalez authored AB 218, a state law that extended the statute of limitations for lawsuits over sexual abuse in government facilities. Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, spoke at Balletto Vineyards in Santa Rosa, Calif., on April 26, 2024.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

A Times investigation last fall found nine clients of Downtown L.A. Law Group, a law firm that represents thousands of plaintiffs in the county’s largest settlement, who claimed that recruiters had paid them to sue. Some clients said they were told to make up stories of abuse that became the crux of their lawsuit.

The firm, also known as DTLA, has denied paying any client to sue. Andrew Morrow, the main attorney on the cases for DTLA, argued in a Feb. 13 court filing that the recent subpoena by the State Bar seeking their court records as part of an investigation into the firm amounted to an “ill-advised fishing expedition.” The firm argued that allowing the State Bar to review its filings violates clients’ privacy.

“No one disputes that these allegations are troubling and, if true, serious,” Morrow wrote. “However, untested allegations printed in a local newspaper — no matter how compelling — do not override the privacy rights” of victims.

Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), a longtime advocate for sex abuse survivors who vehemently opposed the last attempt at changing AB 218, said that “there’s all kinds of discussions about potential solutions” for fraud underway in the Legislature.

But limiting victims’ ability to sue, as some have called on lawmakers to do, is a clear no-go, she said.

“Silencing victims is not the way to get out fraud,” she said.

Like many legislators, she pinned some of the blame for the alleged fraud on poor vetting by lawyers for L.A. County. The county has said the cost of taking depositions for more than 11,000 cases would be “astronomical,” and that no records exist for many of the older cases, leaving them defenseless.

In a statement to The Times, a spokesperson for the L.A. County counsel’s office said the Legislature created AB 218 “without a single safeguard against fraud.”

“That is their failure to own,” the statement said. “This is the system the Legislature built, and they need to fix it.”

The county maintains it is not trying to squash victims’ rights, but rather keep vital services — pools, parks, health clinics — open.

“I am tired of whenever a government official stands up and says, ‘Hey, there needs to be some reform here,’ that we’re accused of victim blaming, pedophile protecting,” says Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s acting chief executive.

After agreeing to the $4-billion payout in April, county officials opted into a second $828-million settlement in October covering an additional 400 cases. Since then, more than 5,000 cases have been filed that are not part of either settlement and still need to be resolved.

“Let me tell you what will not work for L.A. County,” Nicchitta said. “The nibbles around the edges — ‘Make the procedure a little tighter, we’ll require a couple more documents.’”

He said he believes the Legislature needs to weigh the need to pay survivors against the obligation to keep the social safety net intact. One solution, Nicchitta said, could involve a victims compensation fund that would eliminate the need for someone to hire an attorney in order to submit a claim and receive money.

“Acknowledge the harm, provide real competition, [and] do it fast,” he said. “You don’t need a lawyer.”

John Manly, a lawyer who has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years, sits at his law office in Irvine on Dec. 29, 2023.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

After getting flooded with sex abuse claims related to juvenile facilities following a similar change in the statute of limitations, Maryland capped sex abuse cases against government entities last year at $400,000 and limited attorneys’ fees to 25% for cases resolved in court.

For many California trial attorneys, ideas such as these are nonstarters.

“The reason they’re proposing a victims’ fund is they continue to know that those people don’t have any political power,” said John Manly, a veteran sex abuse attorney who is part of the second L.A. County settlement. “The only power they have is to hire a lawyer and get justice.

“We’re going to fight,” he said.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.

“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”

Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.

A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.

The state did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.

With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.

The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.

Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.

Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.

Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, comprising two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.

A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.

Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.

Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.

Warner Bros. Discovery is cracking open the door to allow spurned bidder, Paramount Skydance, to make its case — but Warner’s board still maintains its preference for Netflix’s competing proposal.

Warner’s move to reopen talks comes after weeks of pressure from Paramount, which submitted an enhanced offer to buy Warner last week. Paramount’s willingness to increase its offer late in the auction attracted the attention of some Warner investors.

On Tuesday, Warner Bros. Discovery responded with a letter to Paramount Chairman David Ellison and others on Paramount’s board, giving the group seven days to “clarify your proposal.”

“We seek your best and final proposal,” Warner board members wrote. Warner set a Feb. 23 deadline for Paramount to comply.

The closely watched sale of the century-old Warner Bros., known for “Batman,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “Casablanca,” and HBO, the home of “Game of Thrones” and “Succession,” is expected to reshape Hollywood.

The flurry of activity comes as Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix are seeking to enter the home stretch of the auction. Warner separately issued its proxy and set a special March 20 meeting of its shareholders to decide the company’s fate.

Warner Bros. Discovery is recommending that its stockholders approve the $82.7-billion Netflix deal.

“We continue to believe the Netflix merger is in the best interests of WBD shareholders due to the tremendous value it provides, our clear path to achieve regulatory approval and the transaction’s protections for shareholders against downside risk,” Warner Chairman Samuel A. Di Piazza, Jr., said in a Tuesday statement.

Still, the maneuver essentially reopens the talks.

Warner Bros. is creating an opportunity for Paramount to sway Warner board members, which could perhaps prompt Netflix to raise its $27.75 a share offer for Warner’s Burbank-based studios, vast library of programming, HBO and streaming service HBO Max.

Netflix is not interested in buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s basic cable channels, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Animal Planet, which are set to be spun off to a stand-alone company later this year.

In contrast, Paramount wants to buy the entire company and has offered more than $30 a share.

Last week, Paramount sweetened its bid for Warner, adding a $2.8-billion “break fee” that Warner would have to pay Netflix if the company pulled the plug on that deal. Paramount also said it would pay Warner investors a “ticking fee” of 25 cents a share for every quarter after Jan. 1 that the deal does not close.

“While we have tried to be as constructive as possible in formulating these solutions, several of these items would benefit from collaborative discussion to finalize,” Paramount said last week as it angled for a chance to make its case. “We will work with you to refine these solutions to ensure they address any and all of your concerns.”

Netflix agreed to give Warner Bros. Discovery a temporary waiver from its merger agreement to allow Warner Bros. Discovery to reengage with Paramount, which lost the bidding war on Dec. 4.

“We granted WBD a narrow seven-day waiver of certain obligations under our merger agreement to allow them to engage with PSKY to fully and finally resolve this matter,” Netflix said Tuesday in a statement. “This does not change the fact that we have the only signed, board-recommended
agreement with WBD, and ours is the only certain path to delivering value to WBD’s stockholders.”

Netflix has matching rights for any improved Paramount offer. The company renewed its confidence in its deal and its prospect to win regulatory approval.

“PSKY has repeatedly mischaracterized the regulatory review process by suggesting its proposal will sail through, misleading WBD stockholders about the real risk of their regulatory challenges around the world,” Netflix said in its statement. “WBD stockholders should not be misled into thinking that PSKY has an easier or faster path to regulatory approval – it does not.”

Warner Bros. Discovery acknowledged that Paramount’s recent modification “addresses some of the concerns that WBD had identified several months ago,” according to the letter to Paramount.

But Warner Bros. Discovery added Paramount’s offer “still contains many of the unfavorable terms and conditions that were in the draft agreements … and twice unanimously rejected by our Board,” Warner Bros. Discovery said.

Warner’s board told Paramount it will “welcome the opportunity to engage” during the seven-day negotiation period.

Paramount has been pursuing the prized assets since last September.

“Every step of the way, we have provided PSKY with clear direction on the deficiencies in their offers and opportunities to address them,” Warner Chief Executive David Zaslav said in a statement. “We are engaging with PSKY now to determine whether they can deliver an actionable, binding proposal that provides superior value and certainty for WBD shareholders.”

OAKLAND — A federal judge Thursday said she is likely to allow a lawsuit alleging that solitary confinement conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison amount to psychological torture, to be expanded from the cases of 10 prisoners to include about 1,100 inmates now held in indefinite isolation.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken expressed concern at a hearing, however, that changes the state has made in how it identifies inmates for isolation means those prisoners won’t be included in the pending class-action lawsuit.

What’s more, lawyers for the state say they are in the process of moving some existing prisoners out of confinement in Pelican Bay’s super-maximum security isolation cells.

“I’m wondering how I would manage a class that has people moving in and out,” Wilken said. Nevertheless, she used Thursday’s hearing in Oakland to set Nov. 3, 2014, for the trial. Her ruling over whether that trial will be a class action, or remain confined to the few inmates who filed the case, is yet to be decided.

Inmates in Pelican Bay’s segregation units spend 22.5 hours a day confined to their cells and, though some have cellmates, are otherwise allowed limited human contact and few activities to occupy their time. They are allowed fewer possessions than other inmates, cannot earn good-time credits toward early release like other inmates and are generally refused parole.

The lawsuit alleges that the sensory deprivation of that confinement, especially for 500 men held in isolation more than a decade, causes irreparable psychological harm. The claims were also at the heart of three statewide prison hunger strikes, including a 60-day protest that ended last month when lawmakers pledged public hearings on the practice.

Only one hearing at the moment is planned, Oct. 9, in Sacramento, said staff for Assembly Public Safety Chairman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco).

Meanwhile, hunger strike leaders who had been moved during the protest have been returned to their old cells at Pelican Bay, said Anne Weills, one of the lawyers representing those prisoners. She met with them two weeks ago, and said several reported health problems related to their fasting, including cardiac trouble.

ALSO:

Analysts see compromise possible for prison crowding

State officials say federal courts want to release prisoners

Campaign watchdog Ann Ravel confirmed to Federal Election Commission

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Former Philippine justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II also among eight current, past officials named in complaint.

Two sitting Philippine senators have been identified as “co-perpetrators” in former president Rodrigo Duterte‘s crimes against humanity trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), documents released by prosecutors show.

Senators Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa and Christopher “Bong” Go are among eight current and former officials named in a document dated February 13 and posted to the court’s website late on Friday.

Duterte was arrested in the Philippines’ capital, Manila, in March 2025, and was swiftly flown to the Netherlands, where he has been held in ICC custody at The Hague. The 80-year-old insists his arrest was unlawful.

ICC prosecutors have charged him with three counts of crimes against humanity, alleging his involvement in at least 76 murders as part of his “war on drugs”.

“Duterte and his co-perpetrators shared a common plan or agreement to ‘neutralise’ alleged criminals in the Philippines [including those perceived or alleged to be associated with drug use, sale or production] through violent crimes including murder,” the prosecution document reads.

Dela Rosa, the former national police chief and enforcer of Duterte’s drug war, has previously said he believed he faced potential arrest and has been in hiding for months.

Go, re-elected in May in a landslide victory, was a key lieutenant of Duterte during both the latter’s terms as mayor of southern Davao City and as president from 2016 to 2022.

A representative of Dela Rosa said they had not yet seen the document. Go has yet to comment on the latest development.

It was not immediately clear if any of the men named in the prosecution document would face charges in court.

In a statement posted on Facebook, Kristina Conti, lawyer of several of the deceased victims’ families, noted that it’s the first time “significant details” were disclosed by the ICC to the public.

She said the inclusion of several high-ranking officials under Duterte showed that the deadly drug war under his presidency “was crafted not only to ensure implementation, but to ensure impunity”.

“The involvement of those in the investigating units, which should have acted as the killings happen, is material to the plan. This also emphasizes that the ‘war on drugs’ began in Davao,” Conti said.

Duterte is facing a four-day “confirmation of charges” hearing from February 23, in which judges will decide whether the prosecution’s allegations are strong enough to proceed to trial.

Judges have rejected arguments that the 80-year-old, who was arrested in March last year and transferred to the Netherlands the same day, was unfit to stand trial.

Go and Dela Rosa have been named as co-perpetrators in acts that took place during Duterte’s tenures as Davao mayor and president.

Former Philippine justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II, who served as a lawyer for Duterte in cases involving the so-called “Davao Death Squad”, is also among the eight men named.

Ross Tugade, an ICC-accredited lawyer from the Philippines, said in a post on Facebook that the inclusion of the names of former Duterte officials indicates “that the ICC has evidence” to show a “criminal structure” in the commission of the alleged crimes.

The first of three counts against Duterte concerns his alleged involvement as a co-perpetrator in 19 murders carried out between 2013 and 2016 while he was mayor of Davao City.

The second relates to 14 murders of so-called “High Value Targets” in 2016 and 2017 when Duterte was president.

The third charge covers 43 murders committed during “clearance” operations of lower-level alleged drug users or pushers.

These took place across the Philippines between 2016 and 2018, the prosecution alleged.

The ICC also on Friday allowed the addition of 500 more complainants against Duterte in the trial.

A probation officer who was caught on video bending a teen in half.

A Torrance police officer who shot a man in the back as he walked away from a crime scene.

Seven California Highway Patrol officers who piled atop a man screaming “I can’t breathe” as he died following a drunk driving stop.

All three cases had similar outcomes: charges dropped or reduced to no time behind bars after a plea deal.

After a year in office, a pattern has emerged for L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who found himself saddled with a number of misconduct and abuse cases against police officers filed by his predecessor, George Gascón.

During his 2024 campaign, Hochman often chastised Gascón for filing cases he claimed wouldn’t hold up before a jury — while also promising to continue bringing prosecutions against police when warranted.

In recent months, Hochman has downgraded or outright dismissed charges in many high-profile cases that Gascón filed. In the two misconduct cases Hochman’s prosecutors have brought to trial, the district attorney’s office failed to win a conviction.

Those outcomes have infuriated the loved ones of victims of police violence, local activists and even former prosecutors, who say Hochman’s backslide on the issue was predictable after he received millions in campaign contributions from police unions.

Greg Apt, a former public defender who served under Gascón as second-in-command of the unit that prosecutes police cases, said he quit last year out of frustration with the new leadership.

“I had concerns that the cases were not going to be treated the same way under Hochman that they were under Gascón, that alleged police wrongdoing would not be given the same level of oversight,” he said.

Hochman has scoffed at the idea that he’s too cozy with cops to hold their feet to the fire, saying his campaign’s war chest reflected bipartisan support that included Democrats who have been critical of police.

The district attorney said he’s made decisions based on what he can actually prove in court, and argued case reviews within the Justice Systems Integrity Division have become even more rigorous under his leadership.

“I’m going to look at the facts and the law of any case. I don’t believe in the spaghetti against the wall approach where you throw the spaghetti against the wall, and see if anything sticks, and let the jury figure it out,” he said. “That would be me abdicating my responsibility.”

Hochman’s supporters argue he has restored balance to an office that was often filing cases against police that were either legally dubious or flat out unwinnable.

Tom Yu, a defense attorney who often represents cops accused of wrongdoing, said Hochman is handling things in a more fair and objective manner.

Former Torrance Police Officers Cody Weldin, center, and Christopher Tomsic, right, pleaded guilty last year in a conspiracy and vandalism case in which they allegedly spray painted a swastika on a car. Attorney Tom Yu, defense for Weldin, is seen listening to the proceedings.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“By and large, he’s not going after the cops. But he didn’t dismiss all the cases either. I’m OK with that,” Yu said. “On a personal level, I think he’s doing a very difficult job in the police cases, because someone is always going to be unhappy with the decisions he made.”

It is difficult to win a guilty verdict for an on-duty shooting, with no such convictions in Los Angeles County since 2000. Laws governing use-of-force give officers great latitude, often protecting them even when they shoot someone who is later found to be unarmed or in situations where video evidence shows no apparent threat.

Hochman questioned why he is being criticized when the California attorney general’s office has reviewed dozens of fatal shootings of unarmed persons throughout the state since 2020 and filed no criminal cases.

“If you bring weak cases and you lose, it undercuts your credibility of being any good at your job,” Hochman said. “It undercuts your credibility in saying that we believe in the facts and the law and bringing righteous cases.”

Hochman brought 15 cases against police officers in 2025, according to documents provided to The Times in response to a public records request, compared with 17 filed by Gascón in his final year in office.

But while Gascón had a strong focus on the kinds of excessive force cases the public was clamoring to see charged when he was elected in 2020, Hochman has more often filed charges for offenses such as fraud and evidence tampering.

Hochman’s recent dismissal of charges against most of the officers involved in the death of Edward Bronstein has drawn outcry from his family and at least one former prosecutor.

Bronstein died after screaming in agony as six California Highway Patrol officers piled on top of him in Altadena in 2020. The officers were trying to get a court-ordered blood draw after Bronstein was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.

Video from the scene shows Bronstein arguing with the officers while handcuffed and on his knees.

The officers warn Bronstein they’re going to force him down to get a sample. Right before they do, Bronstein mumbles that he’ll “do it willingly,” but they shove him face down while a seventh officer, Sgt. Michael Little, films the encounter. A minute passes. Then Bronstein’s body goes limp.

Officers can be seen trying to revive Bronstein, calling his name and slapping the side of his head, according to the video. But several minutes elapse before officers attempt to deliver oxygen or CPR. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón announces he will ask a judge to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez for the killing of their parents in 1989, a decision that could free the brothers.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In 2023, Gascón filed manslaughter charges against the seven officers, as well as the nurse who carried out the blood draw. But late last year, Hochman dismissed charges against all except Little, whose case was reduced to a misdemeanor, for which he received 12 months of probation. Little is no longer a CHP officer, according to an agency spokesman.

Prosecutors are still pursuing manslaughter charges against the nurse at the scene, Arbi Baghalian. His defense attorney, Joe Weimortz, said Baghalian had no control over the officers’ actions or the decision to pursue the blood draw. Weimortz also said he believed the officers were innocent.

Bronstein’s daughter, Brianna Ortega, 26, said in a recent interview that Hochman’s decision to drop the charges felt like a betrayal.

“It just seems like because they’re cops … they must get away with it,” Ortega said. “How are you going to put the blame on one person when all of you are grown men who know better? You have common sense. You have human decency. He is literally telling you he can’t breathe.”

The Los Angeles County coroner’s office could not conclusively determine Bronstein’s cause of death but attributed it to “acute methamphetamine intoxication during restraint by law enforcement.” Bronstein’s family was paid $24 million to settle a wrongful death suit in the case.

Hochman said his office reviewed depositions from the civil case — which he said Gascón did not do before filing a case — and did not believe he could win a manslaughter case because it was impossible to say any officer specifically caused Bronstein’s death. Hochman said the officers had no intent to harm the man and were following orders of a superior officer.

“We looked at each officer, what they knew, what their state of mind was at the time. Understanding that there was both a sergeant there and a nurse, who was in charge of not only taking the blood draw but obviously doing it in a safe manner, and then deciding whether or not we could meet the legal standard of involuntary manslaughter for each officer,” he said.

Edward Tapia, the father of Edward Bronstein, speaks at a news conference about his son, a 38-year-old Burbank man who died while being restrained by California Highway Patrol officers in 2020 after refusing to have his blood drawn after a traffic stop. The family received a $24-million civil rights settlement in 2023 after filing a lawsuit against the state.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Bronstein’s killing was one of three cases in which Hochman assigned new prosecutors in the months before a trial started or a plea deal was reached. Aside from the Bronstein case, the others ended in an acquittal or a hung jury. All three prosecutors who were removed from the unit that handles police misconduct cases had either been appointed by Gascón or had a political connection to the former district attorney.

“When somebody’s lived that case for years, and then you take them off, it suggests that you’re less than serious about winning that case,” said Apt, the former prosecutor on the Bronstein case.

Hochman said he was simply bringing in staff with more trial experience on each case, insisting politics had nothing to do with the transfers. One of the cases, which involved allegations of perjury against L.A. County sheriff’s deputies Jonathan Miramontes and Woodrow Kim, ended with a lightning fast acquittal. Records show jurors deliberated less than an hour before coming back with a not guilty verdict.

In the other case, Hochman’s staff came closer to convicting a cop for an on-duty shooting than anyone else has in L.A. County in a quarter-century.

Former Whittier police officers Salvador Murillo, left, and Cynthia Lopez during their arraignment at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles. Murillo was charged in a 2020 shooting that left an unarmed man paralyzed. Murillo’s trial ended with a deadlocked jury in November 2025.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Former Whittier Det. Salvador Murillo stood trial in November for shooting an unarmed man in the back as he fled down an alley in 2023. Nicholas Carrillo ran away on foot from a vehicle stop and was leaping over a fence — unarmed — when Murillo squeezed off four rounds. Two severed Carillo’s spine, paralyzing him.

The jury came back deadlocked, although a majority of the panel was leaning toward a conviction. Hochman said it is likely he will ask prosecutors to take Murillo to trial a second time, though a final decision has not been made.

This year, Hochman will have to weigh in on a pair of politically charged police killings.

Keith Porter Jr., a 43-year-old father of two, was shot to death by an off-duty U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on New Year’s Eve, a case that has gained national attention following outcry over on-duty shootings by ICE officers in Minnesota and elsewhere.

The Department of Homeland Security said the off-duty ICE agent was responding to an “active shooter.” Porter’s family has said he was firing a rifle into the air as a celebration to ring in the new year.

Melina Abdullah, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter L.A., was part of a group that met with Hochman about Porter’s killing and other cases last month in South L.A.

She described the encounter as confrontational — and a disaster.

“I don’t know how we can expect any safety and accountability with this man in office,” Abdullah said.

Hochman must also decide how to proceed with the case of Clifford Proctor, a former LAPD officer charged for shooting an unarmed homeless man in the back in 2015.

Proctor left the LAPD in 2017 and was not indicted on murder charges until 2024. Gascón reopened the case in 2021, after prosecutors previously declined to file charges.

On Monday, The Times revealed Proctor was able to fly overseas and live at home for a year without the district attorney’s office making any attempt to arrest him on an active murder warrant in 2025.

Hochman has not said if he intends to take Proctor to trial.

Hochman said that while he knows cases of police violence drive emotional reactions, he has to constrain himself to a cold analysis of the facts in front of him.

Reflecting on his confrontational meeting with Black Lives Matter activists, which centered on his recent move to dismiss charges in the 2018 killing of Christopher Deandre Mitchell by Torrance police officers, Hochman said he can’t pursue cases just because people are upset.

“They couldn’t point out anything in that analysis that they disagreed with,” he said. “Other than the result.”

Feb. 10 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s military-police joint investigation task force has conducted search-and-seizure operations at the National Intelligence Service and the Army Intelligence Command as part of a widening probe into allegations that drones were sent into North Korea with possible involvement by intelligence officials.

The task force said it executed warrants at 18 locations, including intelligence agencies, as well as the homes and offices of civilian suspects. Investigators are examining whether intelligence personnel contacted the alleged main perpetrator and provided cash payments related to the drone activities.

The NIS has denied any institutional involvement, saying there was no government-level direction. However, critics argue that the scale and nature of the alleged operation make it difficult to believe it occurred without awareness within the intelligence community.

According to the task force, three active-duty officers – a major and a captain from the Army Intelligence Command and a captain from a separate military unit – have been booked on suspicion of violating the Aviation Safety Act and other charges. Three civilians accused of launching drones toward North Korea from border areas have also been additionally charged under the Criminal Act with general offenses against the state.

Earlier, investigators booked three civilians, including the head of a drone manufacturing company, a company executive responsible for North Korea-related operations and a graduate student who claimed to have flown drones into the North. During the investigation, authorities identified evidence suggesting that one NIS employee and three active-duty military personnel contacted the graduate student and provided several million won in cash described as activity expenses.

The Army Intelligence Command said the civilian was recruited as a collaborator to assist intelligence-gathering activities, not to carry out drone operations. The NIS said the employee involved had never held a position allowing access to agency funds and had not used intelligence budgets.

Investigators and analysts, however, question whether a civilian could independently carry out drone infiltration activities targeting North Korea. Given the suspect’s repeated contact with intelligence officers, some observers say it is likely the incident was at least known within intelligence circles.

A source familiar with intelligence operations said it was premature to draw firm conclusions but noted that, given the nature of the alleged activity, it is difficult to rule out prior awareness or information sharing within the intelligence system. The NIS holds authority over budget oversight and operational audits of domestic intelligence bodies, raising further questions about internal controls.

The case has also reignited criticism of South Korea’s intelligence agencies as highly closed organizations, with tightly compartmentalized budgets and operations. Some analysts argue that such structures could allow activities inconsistent with the government’s stated North Korea policy to be carried out without effective civilian oversight.

“Operations of this scale are structurally difficult for a single agency to carry out alone,” another source said. “Given the command and budgetary framework, it is hard to understand how this could have proceeded without passing through the NIS.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260210010003810

Ghislaine Maxwell avoids answering questions on alleged co-conspirators in case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The associate and former girlfriend of convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has declined to answer questions during a deposition before the United States Congress.

Lawmakers expressed frustration after Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in helping Epstein abuse teenage girls, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions,” Representative James Comer, Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters. “This is obviously very disappointing.”

“We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed as well as questions about potential co-conspirators,” he added.

Maxwell was subpoenaed to appear before the committee to discuss her relations with Epstein, but her lawyers stated that she would only testify if US President Donald Trump granted her clemency. Lawmakers had declined a previous request to grant Maxwell legal immunity before testifying.

“She [Maxwell] pleaded the Fifth, which under the US Constitution gives you the right not to answer questions on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher.

“People were waiting to hear answers to important questions, but we got nothing from Ghislaine Maxwell,” he added. “What she did say, very briefly, was that she never saw any evidence of Donald Trump or [former US President] Bill Clinton involved in anything that was illegal. Many people suggest that was a deliberate ploy on her part to say, ‘Look, you buy my silence, but I want clemency.’ She’s appealing to both parties here to say, ‘I will clear the people that you care most about.’”

In a letter released on Sunday by Representative Ro Khanna expressing frustration with Maxwell’s refusal to testify, Khanna noted that Maxwell had spoken with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously worked as Trump’s personal lawyer, without invoking the Fifth Amendment.

“This position appears inconsistent with Ms Maxwell’s prior conduct, as she did not invoke the Fifth Amendment when she previously met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss substantially similar subject matter,” he said.

Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas after meeting twice with Blanche last year.

Lawmakers such as Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse have called the decision “highly unusual” and questioned whether Maxwell had “been given special treatment in exchange for political favours” as President Trump’s own relationship with Epstein comes under growing scrutiny. Trump has strongly denied any wrongdoing and called the Epstein scandal a “hoax”.

Blanche has said that Maxwell was moved due to “numerous threats against her life”, without providing details. Maxwell has asked Trump to commute her sentence, which she was given in 2022 after being convicted on charges of sex trafficking minors.

She is the only person convicted of crimes related to Epstein, whose connections to a wide array of individuals at the height of political and economic power in the US and around the world have been revealed in the Epstein files.

Feb. 7 (UPI) — Investigators towed a vehicle and searched Nancy Guthrie’s Tucson, Ariz., home and property and are seeking a vehicle of interest seven days after she went missing.

Investigators searched her home and property on Friday and towed a car that was parked near it, but they still have no suspects.

Instead, they have a vehicle of interest and obtained video footage of the vehicle and possibly one or more occupants that was recorded by a surveillance camera at an Arizona Circle K.

Digital billboards in Texas, New Mexico and California are assisting with the hunt for information that might lead to Guthrie’s recovery or identify her potential kidnappers.

The digital billboards mostly are placed along the I-10 corridor, from Houston to San Diego, and in Albuquerque, Los Angeles and Dallas.

Guthrie, 84, is the mother of NBC Today show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie and likely was abducted from her home during the early morning hours on Sunday.

Investigators have no persons of interest so far, despite receiving several ransom notes, including one on Friday that might be genuine.

They said she likely was abducted from her Tucson home early Sunday morning and are treating a prior ransom note that was sent to multiple news outlets as authentic due to the detailed information that matches what was found at her home.

A local television station received another ransom note on Friday morning, which authorities are trying to authenticate.

Investigators also confirmed that blood drops near her home’s entrance are Guthrie’s.

They have not received any proof of life regarding her condition, but they are working on the assumption that she is alive until proven otherwise, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos told reporters on Thursday.

The FBI has issued a $50,000 reward for information leading to Guthrie’s recovery.

Before her disappearance, investigators said Nancy Guthrie visited with family members at 5:32 p.m. on Saturday and returned to her home at 9:48 p.m.

She obtained rides from the Uber ride-hailing service, and investigators spoke with the driver who took her home.

Investigators said a doorbell camera on her home was disabled at 1:47 a.m. on Sunday, but its software detected movement at 2:12 a.m.

Her pacemaker disconnected from her personal device at 2:28 a.m., and her family arrived at the home to check on her several hours later at 11:56 a.m.

They placed a 911 call minutes later at 12:03 p.m., and Pima County Sheriff’s deputies arrived about 10 minutes later.

Authorities say that steps are being taken to contain the virus and that risk of a global spread of the virus remains low.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has said that a patient in Bangladesh died after contracting the Nipah virus, adding that it believes the risk of the disease spreading internationally still remains low.

The WHO said on Friday that a patient died after being admitted to hospital on January 28, where a team collected throat swabs and blood samples. Infection with the virus was laboratory-confirmed the following day.

“On 3 February 2026, the International Health Regulations National Focal Point (IHR NFP) for Bangladesh notified WHO of one confirmed case of Nipah virus (NiV) infection in Rajshahi Division,” the international health organisation said in a statement.

The announcement comes about a week after two cases were confirmed in West Bengal state in eastern India, as authorities work to contain the deadly virus that they say remains largely under control.

An outbreak of the Nipah virus in India’s West Bengal has heightened concerns in China and several Southeast Asian nations, prompting tighter health screening operations at airports, though the WHO said it does not recommend any travel or trade restrictions based on current information.

“WHO assesses the overall public health risk posed by NiV to be low at the national, the regional and global level,” an assessment reads.

“The risk of international disease spread is considered low,” it said.

The WHO said that the patient in Bangladesh, described as a female between the ages of 40 and 50 residing in the Naogaon district, first began experiencing fever and neurological symptoms on January 21. The patient reported no travel history but had recently consumed raw date palm sap.

An additional 35 contact persons have been tested for the virus, with no further cases yet detected.

About 348 Nipah virus cases have been reported in Bangladesh since 2001, about half of which occurred among people with a confirmed history of drinking raw palm sap.

Outbreaks tend to occur on a seasonal basis from the months of December through April, which the WHO says corresponds with the harvest and consumption of date palm sap.

There are currently no licensed medicines or vaccines specific for the infection, and the fatality rate is reported to be high, between 40 percent and 75 percent, among people infected with the virus, according to reports.

In a statement last week, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called Nipah a “rare but serious disease” that authorities are working to counter.

“Authorities have increased disease surveillance and testing, implemented prevention and control measures in health care settings, and are keeping the public informed about how to protect themselves,” Ghebreyesus said.

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minneapolis man was arrested Thursday on suspicion of cyberstalking and threatening to kill or assault Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers involved in the crackdown in Minnesota.

Federal prosecutors said in a statement that Kyle Wagner, 37, of Minneapolis, was charged by complaint, and that a decision to seek an indictment, which is necessary to take the case to trial, would be made soon.

Court records in Detroit, where the case was filed, did not list an attorney who could speak on Wagner’s behalf. The complaint was filed Tuesday and unsealed Thursday.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi alleged in a statement that Wagner doxed and threatened law enforcement officers, claimed an affiliation with antifa and “encouraged bloodshed in the streets.”

And at the White House on Thursday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt held up Weber’s photo at the daily briefing and said such conduct by “left-wing agitators” won’t go unpunished.

“And if people are illegally obstructing our federal law enforcement operations, if they are targeting, doxing, harassing and vilifying ICE agents, they are going to be held accountable like this individual here who, again, is a self-proclaimed member of antifa. He is a domestic terrorist, and he will be held accountable in the United States,” Leavitt told reporters.

President Trump announced in September that he would designate antifa a “major terrorist organization.” Antifa, short for “anti-fascists,” is an umbrella term for far-left-leaning militant groups and is not a singular entity. It consists of groups that resist fascists and neo-Nazis, especially at demonstrations.

When Trump administration border policy advisor Tom Homan announced Wednesday that about 700 federal officers deployed to Minnesota would be withdrawn immediately, he said a larger pullout would occur only after there’s more cooperation and protesters stop interfering with federal personnel.

According to prosecutors, Wagner repeatedly posted on Facebook and Instagram encouraging his followers to “forcibly confront, assault, impede, oppose, and resist federal officers” whom he referred to as the “gestapo” and “murderers.”

The complaint alleges Wagner posted a video last month that directly threatened ICE officers with an obscenity-laden rant. “I’ve already bled for this city, I’ve already fought for this city, this is nothing new, we’re ready this time,” he said, concluding that he was “coming for” ICE.

The complaint further alleges that Wagner advocated for physical confrontation in another post, stating: “Anywhere we have an opportunity to get our hands on them, we need to put our hands on them.”

It also details how Wagner used his Instagram account to dox a person identified only as a “pro-ICE individual” by publishing a phone number, birth month and year, and address in the Detroit suburb of Oak Park. The complaint says Wagner later admitted that he doxed the victim’s parents’ house.

Federal prosecutors didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on why the case was filed in Michigan instead of Minnesota. The alleged doxing was the only Michigan connection listed in the complaint.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota has been hit by the resignations of several prosecutors in recent weeks amid frustrations with the surge and its handling of the shooting deaths of two people by government officers. One lawyer, who told a judge that her job “sucks,” was removed from her post.

Trump’s chief federal prosecutor for Minnesota, Dan Rosen, told a federal appeals court in a recent filing that his office is facing a “flood of new litigation” and is struggling to keep up just with immigration cases, while his division that handles civil cases is down 50%.

Rosen wrote that his office has canceled other civil enforcement work “and is operating in a reactive mode.” He also said his attorneys are “appearing daily for hearings on contempt motions. The Court is setting deadlines within hours, including weekends and holidays. Paralegals are continuously working overtime. Lawyers are continuously working overtime.”

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Eric Tucker and Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

Nancy Guthrie appeared to have been abducted just minutes after a security camera at her home was disabled, according to a new timeline officials shared in the case Thursday.

The new facts — including that blood found at her home belonged to the 84-year-old — were shared the day after her children made a desperate plea to a possible abductor or abductors to communicate with them.

Officials also announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to the recovery of the mother of “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie or to an arrest and conviction in the case.

“Right now we believe Nancy is still out there. We want her home,” Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said at a Thursday news conference. He said a massive team of local and federal partners are still “working round the clock.”

In a tearful video posted to Instagram Wednesday night, Savannah Guthrie and her two siblings begged for the return their mother and seemed open to communicating with her captors about a possible ransom.

“We live in a world where voices and images are easily manipulated. We need to know, without a doubt, that she is alive and that you have her,” Savannah Guthrie said. “We want to hear from you, and we are ready to listen. Please reach out to us.”

The heartbreaking video was the latest twist in a case that has captured the nation’s attention — with alleged ransom notes sent to media outlets and the president offering to deploy resources to help — as true crime crime fanatics and pundits speculate about the whodunit in real time.

Nancy Guthrie was first reported missing Sunday morning from her Tucson-area home after she didn’t show up for church. Almost immediately, family and officials noted suspicious circumstances, with the 84-year-old nowhere to be found, but her essentials — her cellphone, wallet, car and medications — still at home. Her family had last seen her around 9:30 p.m. Saturday night, officials have said.

Although she is of sound mind, Guthrie has physical ailments that keep her from walking very far and needs to take a daily medication that she appears to be without.

There was also evidence that someone had forced their way inside her home, according to law enforcement sources not authorized to discuss the case publicly. Images reviewed by The Times showed a trail of blood droplets near the front door of the home.

Officials have said they believe she was “taken from her home against her will.”

Several news outlets have also reported receiving possible ransom notes requesting money in exchange for Nancy Guthrie’s release. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department said it was aware of those notes but did not verify their authenticity.

As Guthrie described her mom in the video plea, she appealed to the humanity of her mother’s captors.

“She loves fun and adventure. She is a devoted friend. She is full of kindness and knowledge. Talk to her, and you’ll see,” Guthrie said through tears.

She also reiterated that her mom is without her medication that she needs “to survive and and she needs it not to suffer.”

Experts have called this case increasingly extraordinary, due to its circumstances but also because of decisions made by investigators.

Retired LAPD Lt. Adam Bercovici, who supervised the agency’s Special Investigation Section of Robbery Homicide Division which included kidnappings, said the usual playbook for handling such a case is already out the window because law enforcement typically tries to not share its involvement or pursuit of any suspects.

Bercovici said he was surprised that local officials initially called Guthrie “missing,” despite several pieces of early evidence pointed to an abduction. He was also surprised to see detectives returning to the crime scene after they initially cleared the home, appearing to do additional evidence gathering after family might have returned and reporters were all over the property.

“This is like something from 1940s with a very public kidnapping playing out in the media,” Bercovici said. It was also surprising, he said, that alleged kidnappers have sent ransom notes to the media and not directly to the family or someone who could pay.

While unusual, Horace Frank, the former assistant chief of the Los Angeles Police Department who oversaw kidnapping investigations, said he was glad the entire note wasn’t disclosed publicly.

Given the circumstances, he understands why the family came out with the video plea.

“They are appealing to the humane side of whoever the abductors [is] or someone who has some kind knowledge,” Frank said. “You are trying to make it difficult for the those behind this.”

The Guthrie siblings, in the video, also appealed directly to their mom.

“Mama, if you’re listening, we need you to come home,” Annie Guthrie said. “We miss you.”

“We will not rest, your children will not rest, until we are together again,” Savannah Guthrie said.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is refusing to voluntarily comply with a Justice Department investigation into a video she organized urging U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders” — escalating a dispute that President Trump has publicly pushed.

In letters first obtained by the Associated Press, Slotkin’s lawyer informed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that the senator would not agree to a voluntary interview about the video. Slotkin’s legal team also requested that Pirro preserve all documents related to the matter for “anticipated litigation.”

Slotkin’s lawyer separately wrote to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, declining to sit for an FBI interview about the video and urging her to immediately terminate any inquiry.

The refusal marks a potential turning point in the standoff, shifting the burden onto the Justice Department to decide whether it will escalate an investigation into sitting members of Congress or retreat from an inquiry now being openly challenged.

“I did this to go on offense,” Slotkin said in an interview Wednesday. “And to put them in a position where they’re tap dancing. To put them in a position where they have to own their choices of using a U.S. attorney’s office to come after a senator.”

‘It’s not gonna stop unless I fight back’

Last November, Slotkin joined five other Democratic lawmakers — all of whom previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies — in posting a 90-second video urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.

The lawmakers said Trump’s Republican administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” and called on troops to “stand up for our laws.”

The video sparked a firestorm in Republican circles and soon drew the attention of Trump, who accused the lawmakers of sedition and said their actions were “punishable by death.”

The Pentagon later announced it had opened an investigation into Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy pilot who appeared in the video. The FBI then contacted the lawmakers seeking interviews, signaling a broader Justice Department inquiry.

Slotkin said multiple legal advisers initially urged caution.

“Maybe if you keep quiet, this will all go away over Christmas,” Slotkin said she was told.

But in January, the matter flared again, with the lawmakers saying they were contacted by the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, security threats mounted. Slotkin said her farm in Michigan received a bomb threat, her brother was assigned a police detail due to threats and her parents were swatted in the middle of the night.

Her father, who died in January after a long battle with cancer, “could barely walk and he’s dealing with the cops in his home,” she said.

Slotkin said a “switch went off” in her and she became angry: “And I said, ‘It’s not gonna stop unless I fight back.’”

Democratic senators draw a line

The requests from the FBI and the Justice Department have been voluntary. Slotkin said that her legal team had communicated with prosecutors but that officials “keep asking for a personal interview.”

Slotkin’s lawyer, Preet Bharara, in the letter to Pirro declined the interview request and asked that she “immediately terminate any open investigation and cease any further inquiry concerning the video.” In the other letter, Bharara urged Bondi to use her authority to direct Pirro to close the inquiry.

Bharara wrote that Slotkin’s constitutional rights had been infringed and said litigation is being considered.

“All options are most definitely on the table,” Slotkin said. Asked whether she would comply with a subpoena, she paused before responding: “I’d take a hard look at it.”

Bharara, who’s representing Slotkin in the case, is a former U.S. attorney in New York who was fired by Trump in 2017 during his first administration. He’s also representing Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California in a separate case involving the Justice Department.

Kelly has similarly pushed back, suing the Pentagon last month over attempts to punish him for the video. On Tuesday, a federal judge said that he knows of no U.S. Supreme Court precedent to justify the Pentagon’s censuring of Kelly as he weighed whether to intervene.

Slotkin said she’s in contact with the other lawmakers who appeared in the video, but she wouldn’t say what their plans were in the investigations.

A rising profile

Trump has frequently and consistently targeted his political opponents. In some cases, those attacks have had the unintended consequence of elevating their national standing.

In Kelly’s case, he raised more than $12.5 million in the final months of 2025 following the “illegal orders” video controversy, according to campaign finance filings.

Slotkin, like Kelly, has been mentioned among Democrats who could emerge as presidential contenders in 2028.

She previously represented one of the nation’s most competitive House districts before winning a Senate seat in Michigan in 2024, even as Trump carried the state.

Slotkin delivered the Democratic response to Trump’s address to Congress last year and has since urged her party to confront him more aggressively, saying Democrats had lost their “alpha energy” and calling on them to “go nuclear” against Trump’s redistricting push.

“If I’m encouraging other people to take risk, how can I not then accept risk myself?” Slotkin said. “I think you’ve got to show people that we’re not going to lay down and take it.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

PROVO, Utah — Graphic videos showing the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while he spoke to a crowd on a Utah college campus quickly went viral, drawing millions of views.

Now, attorneys for the man charged in Kirk’s killing want a state judge to block such videos from being shown. A hearing was held Tuesday. Defense attorneys also want to oust TV and still cameras from the courtroom, arguing that “highly biased” news outlets risk tainting the case.

Prosecutors, attorneys for news organizations, and Kirk’s widow urged state District Court Judge Tony Graf to keep the proceedings open.

“In the absence of transparency, speculation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories are likely to proliferate, eroding public confidence in the judicial process,” Erika Kirk’s attorney wrote in a Monday court filing. “Such an outcome serves neither the interests of justice nor those of Ms. Kirk.”

But legal experts say the defense team’s worries are real: Media coverage in high-profile cases such as Tyler Robinson’s can have a direct “biasing effect” on potential jurors, said Cornell Law School Professor Valerie Hans.

“There were videos about the killing, and pictures and analysis [and] the entire saga of how this particular defendant came to turn himself in,” said Hans, a leading expert on the jury system. “When jurors come to a trial with this kind of background information from the media, it shapes how they see the evidence that is presented in the courtroom.”

Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty for Robinson, 22, who is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of Kirk on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem. An estimated 3,000 people attended the outdoor rally to hear Kirk, a co-founder of Turning Point USA, who helped mobilize young people to vote for Donald Trump.

To secure a death sentence in Utah, prosecutors must demonstrate aggravating circumstances, such as that the crime was especially heinous or atrocious. That’s where the graphic videos could come into play.

Watching those videos might make people think, “‘Yeah, this was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,’” Hans said.

Further complicating efforts to ensure a fair trial is the political rhetoric swirling around Kirk, stemming from the role his organization played in Trump’s 2024 election. Even before Robinson’s arrest, people had jumped to conclusions about who the shooter could be and what kind of politics he espoused, said University of Utah law professor Teneille Brown.

“People are just projecting a lot of their own sense of what they think was going on, and that really creates concerns about whether they can be open to hearing the actual evidence that’s presented,” she said.

Robinson’s attorneys have ramped up claims of bias as the case has advanced, even accusing news outlets of using lip readers to deduce what the defendant is whispering to his attorneys during court hearings.

Fueling those concerns was a television camera operator who zoomed in on Robinson’s face as he talked to his attorneys during a Jan. 16 hearing. That violated courtroom orders, prompting the judge to stop filming of Robinson for the remainder of the hearing.

“Rather than being a beacon for truth and openness, the News Media have simply become a financial investor in this case,” defense attorneys wrote in a request for the court to seal some of their accusations of media bias. Unsealing those records, they added, “will simply generate even more views of the offending coverage, and more revenue for the News Media.”

Prosecutors acknowledged the intense public interest surrounding the case but said that does not permit the court to compromise on openness. They said the need for transparency transcends Robinson’s case.

“This case arose, and will remain, in the public eye. That reality favors greater transparency of case proceedings, not less,” Utah County prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

Defense attorneys are seeking to disqualify local prosecutors because the daughter of a deputy county attorney involved in the case attended the rally where Kirk was shot. The defense alleges that the relationship represents a conflict of interest.

In response, prosecutors said in a court filing that they could present videos at Tuesday’s hearing to demonstrate that the daughter was not a necessary witness since numerous other people recorded the shooting.

Among the videos, prosecutors wrote, is one that shows the bullet hitting Kirk, blood coming from his neck and Kirk falling from his chair.

Brown and Schoenbaum write for the Associated Press.

“Today” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie will not head to Milan for NBC’s 2026 Winter Olympics coverage as she deals with the ongoing police investigation into the suspected abduction of her mother.

“Savannah will not be joining us at the Olympics as she focuses on being with her family during this difficult time,” an NBC News representative said Tuesday in a statement. “Our hearts are with her and the entire Guthrie family as the search continues for their mother.”

Guthrie was scheduled to co-host NBC’s telecast of the Friday opening ceremonies for the Milan Cortina Games alongside Terry Gannon of NBC Sports. The network representative said alternative plans will be announced shortly.

June 2023 photo of Savannah Guthrie and mother Nancy Guthrie. (Photo by: Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty Images)

(Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty Images)

Law enforcement officials believe Nancy Guthrie, 84, was last seen at her home outside of Tuscon, Ariz. on Saturday night. Police were called after relatives were told she missed the Sunday church service she regularly attends and did not find her at home.

Police found Nancy Guthrie’s cell phone, wallet, car and medication were left behind, indicating she did not leave voluntarily. She has no cognitive issues, but has limited physical mobility and could not walk far on her own, family members have told police.

On Tuesday, Lima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said at press briefing that authorities believe Nancy Guthrie was taken against her will. He also said the department is aware of “reports circulating about possible ransom note(s)” in the case. TMZ reported on the existence of an alleged ransom note Tuesday, but Nanos did not verify the account,

According to law enforcement sources not authorized to speak about the case publicly, there was blood at the scene and someone appeared to have forced their way inside.

Guthrie, a “Today” co-host since 2012, has been off the program since Monday. She was scheduled to head to Milan early this week.

Guthrie’s mother, who lived on her own, has been an occasional on-air guest at “Today.” Her appearances made her a favorite of Guthrie’s co-workers and staff at the program.

Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s son has pleaded not guilty to four rape charges as his trial opens in Oslo. Marius Borg Hoiby faces 38 counts, including assault and domestic violence, in a case that has shaken Norway’s royal family.

What’s the difference between Brett Ratner and Leni Riefenstahl? Riefenstahl, for all her many sins, was technically innovative; Ratner (unless you count an almost fetishistic fascination with first lady footwear), not so much.

But in the end, they are both political propagandists, collaborators if you will, with heads of state determined to create a narrative that is, at best, at odds with reality and, at worst, a targeted attempt to distort it.

Am I saying that “Melania” is as horrifically significant as “Triumph of the Will”? No, I am not. But it is motivated by the same base forces, and as fun as it might be to watch Jeff Bezos lose most of the $75 million Amazon paid for the purchase and then marketing of the film, it is important to remember that.

As Melania Trump said herself at the film’s premiere: “Some have called this a documentary. It is not. It is a creative experience that offers perspectives, insights and moments.”

A “creative experience” for which the first lady, who serves as narrator and executive producer, reportedly received about $28 million.

Money she very much does not earn.

Anyone who goes into “Melania” hoping to see even a glimpse of what it is like to be first lady, or indeed Melania Trump, will find instead a super-long version of “we followed [fill in the blank] as they got ready for the Oscars.”

Only in this case, it’s Donald Trump’s second inauguration, which Ratner (given his first big job since being accused by six women of sexual misconduct) frames as the Second Coming, from the lingering shots of the sleek lines of the motorcade to the use of “His truth is marching on” from “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as the first couple takes the stage at one of the inaugural balls.

(And in case you think that’s not obsequious enough, at the end of the inaugural festivities, Ratner, off camera, says, “sweet dreams, Mr. President,” which honestly could have been the title of this film.)

Most of the “action” involves the first lady making entrances: off private jets, out of big black cars and into well-appointed rooms. There, Trump and her designers wax rhapsodic over a gown designed to disguise any seams, admire an inaugural dinner menu that begins with caviar in a big golden egg and discuss the furnishings that will be moved in as soon as the Bidens move out.

These mind-numbing glories are interrupted just long enough for Tham Kannalikham, an interior designer in charge of the White House transition, to talk about how her family immigrated to America from Laos when she was 2 — the opportunity to work in the White House is, for her, the ultimate American dream. Beside her, Trump, also an immigrant, remains silent.

Other things happen. Trump has a video conference with French First Lady Brigitte Macron to discuss initiatives to end cyberbullying, meets with Queen Rania of Jordan to discuss helping foster children and comforts former Hamas hostage Aviva Siegel. Siegel, whose husband, at the time of filming, is still a hostage, provides the film’s one real emotional moment, despite having been clearly included as an opportunity for Trump to reveal a bit of personal kindness (and some political messaging).

We follow Trump as she and her husband attend Jimmy Carter’s funeral, during which her narration describes the pain of her mother’s death the year before, and as she “sneaks” the cameras into a room where her husband is rehearsing his inaugural speech.

There she suggests, with a completely straight face, that he add the word “unifier” to “peacemaker” in his description of what he hopes to be his legacy, a term he then uses in his speech the next day.

Throughout it all, the first lady remains relentlessly poised and personally inaccessible, lending new and literal meaning to the term “statuesque.”

Given the nature of the film’s subject, and the fact that she is the one literally calling the shots, no one with half a brain could expect to see any interesting or authentic “behind-the-scenes” moments (Melania wearing sweats or counting her breakfast almonds or, I don’t know, sneezing). A brief scene in which the remarkably tone-deaf Ratner attempts to get her to sing along to her favorite song, Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean,” elicits (finally!) a genuine laugh from her, and while his decision to repeatedly zoom in on her admittedly well-shod feet becomes increasingly creepy, it at least offers drinking-game potential.

Even so, “Melania” is as cynical a piece of filmmaking as exists since the art form began.

Listening to her describe the seriousness with which she takes her duties; her love, as an immigrant, for this great nation; and her dedication to making life better for all Americans — especially children and families — I was reminded of the climactic scene in “A Wrinkle in Time,” when young Charles Wallace has been ensnared by the soothing rhetoric of the evil brain-washing IT.

The superficial blandness of “Melania” isn’t boring; it’s calculated, infuriating and horrifying.

The first lady is describing an alternative universe of peace, love and unity while her husband has unleashed armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to terrorize and detain children and adults (many of whom are citizens or here in this country legally) and, in at least two cases, kill American citizens who protest their actions. She wants to help children and families while her husband slashes federal assistance programs and holds school funding hostage. She would have us believe she is battling cyberbullies while her husband, the president of these United States, regularly engages in lies, direct threats and character assassination on social media.

President Trump is many things but he is not a unifier — he believes, as he has assured us time and again, in winning, and, as he has also said and shown, he will choose retribution over reconciliation every time.

Melania Trump is, of course, not her husband. But this film is little more than a 90-minute campaign ad. Which, given the fact that Trump cannot legally run for president again, should be cause for much concern.

Many criticized the decision to release “Melania” mere days after federal agents killed Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, and excoriated those notables, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, who chose to attend an early celebratory screening that included “let them eat” cookies with “Melania” scrawled in the icing.

For the kind of person who makes, and buys and distributes, a film that purports to be a “documentary” and is really just old-fashioned, through-the-looking-glass propaganda, however, it’s actually the perfect time.

Why worry about the federal government killing its own citizens when we can all ooh and aah over the fact that the first lady’s inaugural gown is constructed so that none of the seams show? Especially if it makes her husband happy.

Just a few hours after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement that said, without evidence, that the 37-year-old registered nurse “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would later imply Pretti had been “asked to show up and to continue to resist” by Minnesota’s governor.

Multiple videos from the scene immediately undercut those claims, and there has been no indication in the days since that Pretti threatened or planned to hurt law enforcement.

Several high-profile use-of-force incidents and arrests involving federal immigration agents have involved a similar cycle: Strident statements by Trump administration officials, soon contradicted by video footage or other evidence. Some law enforcement experts believe the repeated falsehoods are harming federal authorities both in the public eye and in the courtroom.

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has taken five defendants to trial on charges of assaulting officers — and his office has lost each case. Court records and a Times investigation show grand juries in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles have repeatedly rejected criminal filings from prosecutors in similar cases.

Despite the repeated judicial rebukes, administration officials have continued to push for criminal charges against people at protest scenes, including the controversial arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon on Friday.

“When top federal law enforcement leaders in the country push false narratives like this, it leads the public to question everything the government says going forward,” said Peter Carr, a former Justice Department spokesman in Washington who served in Democratic and Republican administrations. “You see that in how judges are reacting. You’re seeing that in how grand juries are reacting. You’re seeing that in how juries are reacting. That trust that has been built up over generations is gone.”

The credibility concerns played out in a downtown L.A. courtroom in September, when Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino served as the key witness in the assault trial of Brayan Ramos-Brito, who was accused of striking a Border Patrol agent during protests against immigration raids last summer. Video from the scene did not clearly capture the alleged attack, and Bovino was the only Border Patrol official who testified as an eyewitness.

Under questioning from federal public defender Cuauhtémoc Ortega, Bovino initially denied he had been disciplined by Border Patrol for calling undocumented immigrants “scum, filth and trash,” but later admitted he had received a reprimand. The jury came back with an acquittal after deliberating for about an hour. A juror who spoke to The Times outside court said Bovino’s testimony detailing his account of the alleged assault had “no impact” on their decision.

Last year, a Chicago judge ruled Bovino had “lied” in a deposition in a lawsuit over the way agents used force against protesters and journalists.

Spokespersons for Essayli and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

Essayli’s prosecutors have seen four additional cases involving allegations of assault on a federal officer end in acquittals, a nearly unheard of losing streak. A Pew study found fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted throughout the U.S. in 2022.

“The credibility of the prosecutor’s office and the credibility of the law enforcement officers testifying is key,” said Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg. “That is especially true when the only witness to an event is a law enforcement officer.”

Jon Fleischman, a veteran Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, said federal law enforcement officials have a responsibility to be the “mature, responsible player in the room” and remain as apolitical as possible. While he is a firm supporter of President Trump’s immigration agenda and said the Biden administration shares some blame for politicizing federal law enforcement, Noem’s handling of Pretti’s killing was problematic.

“What she said really doesn’t bear out in terms of what the facts that are available tell us,” Fleischman said. “I think it undermines the credibility of the justice system.”

Fleischman added that he feared some of the government’s recent missteps could dull approval of the platform that twice carried Trump to the White House.

“One of the main reasons I’ve been so enthusiastic about this president has been his stance on immigration issues,” he said. “When you see unforced errors by the home team that reduce public support for the president’s immigration agenda, it’s demoralizing.”

Another top Trump aide, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, also spoke out after the Minnesota shooting, calling Pretti an “assassin.”

Responding to a Times reporter on X, Miller said recent legal defeats in Los Angeles were the result of “mass judge and jury nullification, deep in blue territory, of slam-dunk assault cases.”

Accounts from inside L.A. courtrooms paint a different picture.

Carol Williams, a jury foreperson in the most recent assault trial which federal prosecutors lost in L.A., said the people she served with steered clear of conversations about the news or ICE raids.

“We didn’t talk about the protests in L.A. and we didn’t talk about the protests that were in Minnesota or anything,” Williams said. “People, I’m sure, probably keep up with the news, but in terms of bringing that into the jury room, we did not.”

Last year, Essayli and Tricia McLaughlin, the chief Homeland Security spokesperson, accused Carlitos Ricardo Parias of ramming immigration agents with his vehicle in South L.A., causing an agent to open fire. Video made public after the assault charges were dismissed last year, however, do not show the vehicle moving when the ICE agent opens fire, injuring Parias and a deputy U.S. marshal.

After being presented with the body-camera footage, McLaughlin reiterated the claim that Parias weaponized his vehicle and said officers “followed their training and fired defensive shots.”

McLaughlin also labeled Keith Porter Jr. — a Los Angeles man shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent in Northridge on New Year’s Eve — an “active shooter” in initial media comments about the case, using a term that typically refers to a gunman attempting to kill multiple people.

Los Angeles police said nobody else was injured at the scene and have not used the “active shooter” wording in statements about the case.

Porter’s family and advocates have argued that force was not warranted. They said Porter was firing a gun in the air to celebrate the new year, behavior that is illegal and discouraged as dangerous by public officials.

A lawyer for the agent, Brian Palacios, has said there is evidence Porter shot at the agent.

Carr, the former Justice Department spokesman, said the Trump administration has broken with years of cautious norms around press statements that were designed to protect the credibility of federal law enforcement.

“That trust is eroded when they rush to push narratives before any real investigations take place,” he said.

In one case, the refusal of Homeland Security officials to back down may cause video footage that further undercuts their narrative to become public.

Last October, Marimar Martinez was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago who alleged she was following him in a car and interfering with an operation. In a statement, McLaughlin accused Martinez of ramming a law enforcement vehicle while armed with a “semiautomatic weapon.”

Federal prosecutors in Chicago dropped the charges, but McLaughlin and others continued to describe Martinez as a “domestic terrorist.” As a result, Martinez filed a motion to revoke a protective order that has kept hidden video of the incident and other evidence.

“While the United States voluntarily dismissed its formal prosecution of her with prejudice … government officials continue to prosecute Ms. Martinez’s character in the court of public opinion,” the motion read.