Chicago

Matthew Stafford nursing finger sprain ahead of Rams vs. Bears

Matthew Stafford suffered a sprained right index finger in the Rams’ wild-card victory over the Carolina Panthers, but he will be ready for Sunday’s divisional-round game against the Bears in Chicago, coach Sean McVay said Monday.

“He’s as tough as it gets and will be good to go,” McVay said during a videoconference with reporters.

Stafford injured his finger Saturday when his hand hit the helmet of a Panthers player during the Rams’ 34-31 victory in Charlotte, N.C. He played through the issue and passed for 304 yards and three touchdowns, including a game-winner to tight end Colby Parkinson with 38 seconds left.

  • Share via

Gary Klein breaks down what went right for the Rams in their 34-31 wild-card playoff victory over the Carolina Panthers.

In his postgame news conference, Stafford said he did not know what happened until he saw video that showed his finger bent backward.

“It wasn’t pleasant. It wasn’t great. We’ll see what it is,” said Stafford, who was not wearing a brace or splint. “Once the ball’s snapped, the adrenaline’s pretty good so we’ll hopefully just keep going.”

Stafford and the Rams are traveling to a cold-weather region, but Stafford has plenty of experience in those conditions, having played 12 seasons in the NFC North.

Temperatures in Chicago could be in the teens or lower when the Rams play the Bears, who defeated the Green Bay Packers, 31-27, Saturday at Soldier Field.

“Seems like it’s going to be pretty damn cold,” McVay said.

McVay said he was optimistic that offensive lineman Kevin Dotson, who has been sidelined for three games because of an ankle injury, would play against the Bears.

“We’re going to really push that thing and see how he feels with the optimism that there’s a good chance he makes it,” McVay said.

Tight end Terrance Ferguson (hamstring) and defensive back Josh Wallace (ankle) also could return after sitting out the last two games, McVay said. Cornerback Ahkello Witherspoon reinjured his shoulder against the Panthers and will be placed on injured reserve.

While the Rams are preparing for Sunday’s game, defensive coordinator Chris Shula, offensive coordinator Mike LaFleur and passing game coordinator Nate Scheelhaase will interview virtually with NFL teams hiring head coaches.

According to reports, Shula will interview for the Tennessee Titans, Miami Dolphins, Arizona Cardinals, New York Giants and Las Vegas Raiders head coaching jobs.

LaFleur will interview with the Cardinals and Raiders.

Scheelhaase will interview with the Cleveland Browns, Raiders and Baltimore Ravens.

“I’m not at all concerned about it being a distraction,” McVay said.

Source link

Congress debates possible consequences for ICE, Noem after Renee Good’s killing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeland Security funding up for debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other ICE shootings have rattled lawmakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Caleb Williams rallies Bears to wild-card playoff win over Packers

Caleb Williams came through in his playoff debut, throwing a go-ahead, 25-yard touchdown pass to DJ Moore with 1:43 remaining, and the Chicago Bears rallied from an 18-point deficit to beat the rival Green Bay Packers 31-27 in a wild-card playoff game on Saturday night.

The NFC North champion Bears extended their resurgent first season under coach Ben Johnson with their seventh fourth-quarter comeback victory. They split two down-to-the-wire games with Green Bay in the regular season, and this one turned out to be a thriller when it looked like it would be a breeze for the Packers.

Chicago trailed 21-3 at halftime and 21-6 through three quarters, only to outscore Green Bay 25-6 in the fourth on the way to its first playoff win in 15 years.

Williams found a wide-open Moore along the left sideline to give Chicago a 31-27 lead with 1:43 remaining.

Jordan Love then led Green Bay into Chicago territory. But on third down at the 28, Jaquan Brisker broke up a pass in the end zone as time expired, setting off a wild celebration — and a curt handshake between Johnson and Packers coach Matt LaFleur.

The Bears will host a divisional-round game next weekend.

Source link

Trump announces National Guard withdrawals in Chicago, L.A., Portland

The National Guard will be withdrawn from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., amid legal challenges to their use and a Supreme Court ruling against the Chicago deployment, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 31 (UPI) — The National Guard will be leaving Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., but they likely will return, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday.

Trump announced the withdrawals after the Supreme Court ruled against a National Guard deployment in Chicago and amid legal challenges in California and Oregon.

The Supreme Court last week ruled the federal government cannot take control of respective state National Guard units to protect federal agents as they enforce immigration law, CNN reported.

We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, despite the fact that crime has been greatly reduced by having these great patriots in those cities, and only by that fact,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

Portland, Los Angeles and Chicago were gone if it weren’t for the federal government stepping in,” the president said.

He predicted the National Guard will return to those cities, though.

“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again,” Trump said, adding: “Only a question of time!”

Similar National Guard deployments in New Orleans and Memphis would not be affected because the respective governors in those states have okayed the deployments.

The National Guard has been deployed in Memphis to help reduce violent crime there, and National Guard units began arriving in New Orleans ahead of New Year’s Eve, the annual Sugar Bowl and Mardi Gras.

Local, state and federal law enforcement and the Louisiana National Guard seek to prevent a repeat of last year’s lone-wolf attack by an ISIS supporter, WWLTV reported.

Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42, was a U.S. citizen from Texas who drove to New Orleans and shot and killed 14 during the early morning hours on Jan. 1.

An ISIS flag was found in his truck, along with weapons and a potential improvised explosive device, but local police shot and killed him before he could cause more harm.

He had placed two IEDs on Bourbon Street, where he also opened fire with a rifle and killed 14 before being shot and killed to end the attack.

Federal investigators found bomb-making materials in a rental home that Jabbar briefly occupied and tried to set on fire to conceal his crimes.

Source link

Trump says ‘removing’ National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland | Donald Trump News

US president backs away from troop deployment to US cities amid legal setbacks, vows return when crime ‘begins to soar’.

United States President Donald Trump announced he is ceasing his efforts to deploy federal troops to several Democratic-led cities in a major policy pivot.

The announcement on Wednesday comes amid a series of legal setbacks to Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard members to Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Portland, Oregon.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he’s “removing” the National Guard from those cities, although their deployment was already mostly limited by lower courts.

“We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” he said.

Despite the claim, the National Guard has been barred from taking direct part in law enforcement, which remains illegal under US law. Trump had not invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows presidents to deploy troops domestically when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the federal government make it “impracticable to enforce” US law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”.

Because of that, troops deployed in or around Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago had been largely tasked with guarding federal buildings and offering support services to immigration enforcement.

About 300 National Guard members remained under federal control in both Los Angeles and Chicago at the time of Trump’s announcement, with 200 more in Portland.

Since first deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to respond to protests against mass immigration enforcement sweeps, Trump has repeatedly claimed major cities across the US have been plagued by overlapping crime and immigration crises.

Critics have accused Trump of taking part in dangerous political theatre to target opponents.

Trump’s announcement did not reference the ongoing National Guard deployment in Washington, DC, a federal territory, or in New Orleans, Louisiana, which had been specifically requested by the state’s Republican governor.

The president’s move comes amid a series of legal setbacks, topped last week by a Supreme Court order keeping in place a lower court’s ruling barring the president from deploying the National Guard to Chicago.

While members of the federal military, National Guard troops are typically deployed at the request of state governors. Presidents can unilaterally deploy the National Guard, but only in instances when other federal agents can no longer execute the law.

The majority of Supreme Court justices ruled Trump has not yet met that threshold, dealing a major blow to the administration’s justification for similar deployments across the country.

Earlier on Wednesday, Department of Justice lawyers in California withdrew a request to keep troops in the state under federal control as they appealed a lower court’s ruling. That ruling by US District Judge Charles Breyer said the troops must be returned to state control.

In a post on X, the office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and top Trump critic, said the “admission by Trump and his occult cabinet members means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end”.

Newsom and his staff “look forward” to a more lasting court ruling on the issue.

For his part, Trump, in his Truth Social post, said he would not hesitate to redeploy troops.

“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” he said.

Source link

Justices block troop deployment in Chicago; 3 conservatives object

The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

Source link