Courts

The District of Columbia (DC) and the state of Virginia have filed a joint lawsuit to halt the construction of a large triumphal arch sought by United States President Donald Trump.

Filed on Saturday, the lawsuit denounces the project as “flagrantly unlawful” and “legally indefensible”.

It calls on the federal court system to bar construction before it starts.

Otherwise, the lawsuit warns, Trump could claim that pausing construction already under way would pose a national security risk, as he has done with other controversial projects in the past.

“This is not the first time that Defendants have rushed to dramatically remake the District too quickly for courts to intervene,” the lawsuit reads. “This Court should not allow this effort to escape judicial scrutiny.”

Saturday’s complaint brings the total number of lawsuits against the arch to three.

Trump has championed the prospect of building a triumphal arch, similar to the Arc de Triomphe built in Paris during Napoleonic times.

Trump’s arch, however, is designed to stand 30 metres (100 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. It would tower from the Memorial Circle in Washington, DC, at 76 metres (250ft).

That colossal scale has prompted outrage, particularly from veterans’ groups who fear the arch would block views of Arlington National Cemetery, a hallowed military grave site.

White House officials maintain that ground could be broken as early as next week, on or around November 5.

On Friday, the administration unveiled a 106-page proposal for the arch to be a 12-storey megastructure, featuring a winged bronze statue of Lady Liberty lifting an eternal flame.

The arch would include two mezzanines and an observation deck with panoramic east-west views, as well as programme spaces, offices and a “fire command centre”.

Trump has previously said the arch would double as a military hub with snipers and drone capabilities.

Construction on the arch would also result in significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic to nearby roads.

In Saturday’s lawsuit, Attorneys General Brian Schwalb of Washington, DC, and Jay Jones of Virginia pointed to the project’s disruptive footprint as a major concern.

“As soon as defendants break ground on this project, they will inflict irreparable harm on both the District and Virginia,” the lawsuit said.

It warns that the anticipated three-year construction project will stymie commuter traffic, slow down emergency vehicles and generate significant pollution, including “stormwater runoff into the Potomac”.

The lawsuit calls on the court to force the Trump administration to get congressional authorisation before any construction can begin.

The new legal challenge comes on the heels of an October 8 filing by Arlington County, which was the first governmental body to mount a legal action against Trump’s planned monument.

In that lawsuit, the county’s governing board argued that the project would cause “significant harm” to its residents and likely require changes to nearby flight paths.

The first complaint came in February, when a group of Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian launched an effort to stop the arch.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing that case, and she is weighing whether to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily freeze any construction plans while the court hears arguments.

At a hearing on Friday, Chutkan deferred an immediate ruling but signalled that she would be issuing a decision expeditiously.

She previously ordered the administration to give the court 48 hours’ notice before undertaking any activities related to the construction of the arch.

The monument has already received early approval from the US Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all tapped by Trump.

For the second time in less than a week, a United States appeals court has rejected a petition from the administration of President Donald Trump to set aside 20,000 ballots in California over concerns about non-citizen voting.

The decision came down on Friday, with less than four days until the November 3 midterm elections.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s request would violate the US Constitution and risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

“The consequence of the United States’s request is not merely ballot segregation, but ultimately both the cancellation of the ballot and the removal of voters from the voting rolls,” the majority wrote in its ruling.

Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez – appointed by Trump and his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, respectively – formed the majority.

A third judge, Trump appointee Patrick Bumatay, issued a dissent, saying the administration’s petition was a “reasonable request”.

The Trump administration has claimed that nearly 20,000 “likely non-citizens” received mail-in ballots to vote in California’s midterm elections on November 3. It sued the state on October 15 to prevent those ballots from being counted.

But the accuracy of the Trump administration’s list has been called into doubt, as have its claims of widespread non-citizen voting.

Election fraud in the US is extremely rare. So is non-citizen voting, despite Trump’s assertion earlier this year that as many as 278,000 foreign nationals across the country were registered to vote.

Like California, states such as Nevada and Washington have also received lists of alleged non-citizen voters, but officials there have found the documents largely inaccurate.

In Nevada, for instance, state authorities issued a statement in September saying the Trump administration had erroneously identified citizens as non-citizens on its list. Not a single name was correct, according to the statement.

California, a Democratic stronghold, will elect 52 members of the House of Representatives, one of Congress’s two chambers, on November 3.

The state has long been Trump’s target for criticism, with the president accusing its Democratic leadership of “cheating” in elections.

But California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have countered that the Trump administration is seeking to meddle in the state’s elections to sow voter distrust and undermine the results.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters,” Newsom said in a news release after the October 15 lawsuit.

Non-citizen voting in federal elections is against the law in all 50 US states, including California.

The Constitution’s Elections Clause also grants states exclusive authority to administer elections, though it does allow for Congress to pass regulations concerning voting procedures.

The Trump administration initially sent California its list of 20,000 “likely non-citizens” on October 12, barely three weeks before the midterm election.

California officials refused the administration’s demand to set aside the 20,000 ballots, requesting proof that the names on the list were indeed foreign nationals. According to the California government, no such evidence has been provided.

The Trump administration last week charged 28 foreign nationals in California with election-related infractions, but some of the accused told the Los Angeles Times they had never registered to vote.

The newspaper’s reporting suggested some of the non-citizen defendants shared the same name as eligible voters.

As the October 15 lawsuit navigated the court system earlier this month, the Trump administration sought an emergency ruling from the 9th Circuit Court to suspend the 20,000 ballots.

But the appeals court rejected the petition on Monday, saying the Trump administration had not given lower courts adequate time to weigh the matter.

A lower court ultimately ruled against the Trump administration on Wednesday, and the administration again appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.

In its majority decision, the appeals court framed the Trump administration’s lawsuit as an attempt to violate the Constitution’s Elections Clause.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” the majority wrote.

The majority also wrote that it had “major concerns” that granting the Trump administration’s request would “harm the public interest by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy”.

Alieu Kosiah killed civilians and unarmed soldiers, and ordered lootings and other crimes against humanity.

Switzerland’s supreme court upheld a 20-year jail sentence for former Liberian rebel commander Alieu Kosiah on Friday, but overturned a conviction for crimes against humanity.

In 2021, Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court found Kosiah, now 51, guilty of multiple atrocities committed during the first of Liberia’s back-to-back civil wars, in which about 250,000 people died between 1989 and 2003.

In 2023, the court’s appeals chamber upheld his 20-year sentence for war crimes and, for the first time in Swiss history, also made a new ruling that Kosiah was guilty of crimes against humanity.

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland was asked to review the case, and its verdict, dated September 28, was published on Friday.

The court “rejected the appeal filed by a high-ranking Liberian military official challenging his conviction for violations of the laws of war committed between 1993 and 1995 during the first Liberian civil war”, it said in a statement.

“However, the court has acquitted the individual of the charge of crimes against humanity, based on a strict application of the principle of non-retroactivity.”

Switzerland recognises the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows it to prosecute individuals suspected of international crimes, regardless of where those crimes were committed.

The court said the offence of crimes against humanity – introduced into Swiss law in 2011 – could not be applied to acts committed before then.

Kosiah’s conviction for violating the law of war was upheld, as was the maximum 20-year custodial sentence imposed.

“The decision makes final the first war crimes conviction ever handed down by a Swiss civilian court, and the first conviction anywhere of a Liberian for war crimes committed during the country’s civil wars,” said the Swiss organisation Civitas Maxima, which works to bring perpetrators of international crimes to justice.

Kosiah settled in Switzerland in the late 1990s and was arrested in 2014.

“Today the survivors of Alieu Kosiah’s crimes have final justice,” said Civitas Maxima director Alain Werner, who represents victims in the case.

“We are, however, deeply disappointed by the acquittal on crimes against humanity. What happened in Lofa between 1993 and 1995 is the very definition of a crime against humanity.”

Like war crimes, crimes against humanity refer to atrocities, including murder, torture and rape. However, instead of isolated or sporadic events, the charge is used for incidents carried out in a widespread or systematic way.

In the 2021 verdict, Kosiah was found guilty of a slew of war crimes committed as commander of the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy rebel group.

He ordered or participated in the killing of 17 civilians and two unarmed soldiers, as well as rape and the deployment of a child soldier, the court ruled.

He had also ordered looting and repeatedly ordered, or had himself inflicted, cruel and humiliating treatment of civilians and mishandled corpses, according to the verdict.

The officer faces charges after allegedly striking a fleeing construction worker with an SUV during an immigration raid.

A grand jury in Texas has indicted a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer accused of deliberately running over a Mexican construction worker during an operation in Houston this month.

ICE officer Mario Alberto Morales faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for the October 10 incident, Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare announced on Friday.

Criminal charges against federal immigration officers have been rare during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, although several encounters involving officers have prompted investigations.

Morales is accused of striking 48-year-old Miguel Parra-Hernandez, an immigrant who has lived in Harris County for more than 30 years. Teare said that Parra-Hernandez had no criminal record.

Parra-Hernandez was running away from federal agents when an unmarked black Jeep Cherokee struck him in a car park near Clay Road and Highway 6, according to investigators. He suffered multiple fractures to his right leg and an ankle injury which required surgery.

The indictment follows a dispute between local prosecutors and federal authorities over what happened. ICE has maintained that Parra-Hernandez ran in front of the vehicle, dismissing the allegations that the officer intentionally struck him as “reckless and false.”

But Teare has said surveillance video contradicts the agency’s account.

It shows the SUV crossing a median and pursuing Parra-Hernandez as he runs away. Although another vehicle obscures the moment of impact, the video shows the man on the ground moments later.

Authorities also released body-camera footage on Friday. In the recording, Morales can be heard acknowledging that he struck Parra-Hernandez with his vehicle.

Teare also accused federal authorities of failing to cooperate with the investigation, including by removing the Jeep before local investigators could examine it for potential evidence.

A search warrant obtained by local media shows investigators had not been granted access to the vehicle as of October 23.

The case has also raised questions about the operation’s intended target. ICE said agents were searching for a man identified as Jose Mendoza-Cervantes, whom they believed to be travelling with Parra-Hernandez.

But Mendoza-Cervantes’s daughter told The New York Times that her father died in 2017. Parra-Hernandez’s family has disputed that the two men knew each other.

The Morales indictment comes as the Harris County District Attorney’s Office continues investigating the fatal shooting of another Mexican, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, on July 7.

An ICE officer, Gregory Feathers, has been accused of firing at the vehicle Salgado Araujo was driving on his way to work in Houston.

Federal authorities said the officer acted in self-defence, a claim the surviving passengers in the vehicle dispute.

US District Judge Richard Stearns sided with 25 states and the District of Columbia which sued the administration.

A federal judge has ruled against enforcing a new rule by the administration of US President Donald Trump that would require chronically ill people on Medicaid, a public health insurance programme for low-income individuals, to prove themselves “medically frail” to qualify for work exemptions.

US District Judge Richard Stearns blocked the rule on Thursday, siding with 25 states and the District of Columbia, which had sued the Trump administration in June over the change, arguing that it unlawfully limits exemptions for people with serious medical conditions.

The law says the definition of medically frail must include people who are blind or disabled, have substance use disorders or disabling mental disorders, have certain disabilities that significantly impair daily activities, or have serious or complex medical conditions.

‘Significantly impair’ abilities

But the administration’s rule went further, requiring people in those categories to show that their conditions also “significantly impair” their ability to comply with the law’s work requirements.

The plaintiffs argued that the stricter rule would prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need, and that it oversteps the law’s text.

“The states have met their burden of showing irreparable harm for which monetary damages would provide inadequate compensation – they face the burden of costly and intensive alterations to their eligibility verification systems,” Stearns said in his 16-page ruling.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency that adopted the rule, declined to comment.

Medicaid is a public health insurance programme for low-income people, funded by state and federal governments.

Two restrictions upheld

Starting January 1, 2027, Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19 to 64 must show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programmes, among others.

Notably, while the ruling will make it easier for some Medicaid recipients with qualifying medical conditions to obtain an exemption from the new work requirements, Stearns’s decision does not strike down the work requirements as unlawful.

Stearns serves in the District of Massachusetts and was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

His ruling upheld two other federal restrictions on how states can verify medical frailty that the states and the District of Columbia had also contested.

Soon after a federal judge in Los Angeles sharply rejected a Trump administration effort to block 20,000 California ballots from voters it alleged may be noncitizens, the U.S. Justice Department announced it will appeal — leaving attorneys on both sides preparing Thursday for yet another court battle.

That was despite the lower court judge calling the request an unlawful threat to eligible voters in Tuesday’s midterm election and to free and fair American elections moving forward, and the same appellate court having already rejected the same plan days prior.

“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” wrote First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead prosecutor in L.A.

Early Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom swiped back at the Trump administration, writing, “A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.”

With just days to go until polls close, the heated election war between California and the Trump administration is showing no signs of slowing down, despite multiple court orders rejecting the administration’s central effort to interfere in the midterms by accusing state and county officials of willfully turning a blind eye to voter fraud.

That’s in part because lawyers within the U.S. Justice Department have been unrelenting in their pursuit of such control, both through court orders and threats to state and county officials. It’s also because those same officials have refused to yield, denouncing the threats in recent letters back to the Justice Department as unconvincing and illegal.

“Be aware that we consider DOJ’s efforts to threaten California election officials with criminal sanctions for following federal and state law to be an effort to unlawfully intimidate both election officials and California voters, which can undermine voters’ faith in the election process,” Susan K. Blitch, counsel for Monterey County, wrote in one.

Several elections experts warned the administration is trying to sow confusion and suspicion around an election in which the Republican Party is poised to lose ground, in part so they can reject the outcome. But they also said the courts have consistently rebuffed the Trump administration, and will continue to do so through Nov. 3 and after — with the recent rulings in the case over the 20,000 flagged ballots a perfect example.

“The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” said Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

Appeal, rebuke, appeal

Last week, Trump administration attorneys decided that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was not ruling quickly enough on their emergency request for a temporary restraining order to block California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from counting the 20,000 ballots it asserted were from “likely noncitizens” — so they appealed straight to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, a three-judge panel there — including two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because Carter hadn’t been given a chance to weigh in. However, two of the judges — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — also wrote separately to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits, too, for being likely unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

On Wednesday, Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, issued his own ruling, in which he wrote that the administration’s allegations about noncitizen voters were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

Carter wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

The ruling — forceful, unequivocal and based on several of the same arguments made by Bennett and Sanchez — was cheered by state officials and voting rights groups. Elections experts said it squared directly with their understanding of the law, and was appropriate in the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented, legally baseless effort to intervene in an ongoing state-run election.

Trump administration officials did not see it that way, and weren’t taking no for an answer. Justice Department lawyers promptly filed notice of appeal back to the 9th Circuit — where the case is likely, though not guaranteed, to land before the same three-judge panel that previously rejected the administration’s demands.

War of words

On Wednesday night, Newsom appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and predicted Trump will take sweeping steps to “literally suppress the vote, to set the conditions where he will then express doubt in the electoral outcome, and suggest that it was rigged.” But he also said California is fighting back and prepared.

“Right now, I am focused on getting over 1,000 poll workers, folks out there to monitor the DOJ monitors that Trump’s gonna send to try to steal this election,” Newsom said. “We have been running tabletop exercises. We have 1,000 volunteers. We have 134 election law attorneys that we’re sending out.”

On Thursday, Essayli replied to the latter deployment, writing, “You’re going to protect every legal or illegal vote? What about California citizens whose votes are being diluted by ineligible voters. Do their constitutional rights matter.”

Trump, meanwhile, asserted with no evidence that “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.” He said California has “very corrupt elections,” and that if it had honest ones, he “would have won it by a lot.”

The remarks were just the latest in a swirling and highly public war of words between state and federal officials.

In Carter’s courtroom Tuesday, Essayli claimed the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since it first demanded the state set aside ballots, and said he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials had been. But Essayli and other Justice Department officials have been engaged for weeks in an aggressive back and forth with California officials online — which is highly unusual for prosecutors actively litigating related cases.

When Newsom’s office recently wrote that “Trump’s DOJ is so desperate to invent ‘widespread voter fraud,’ it sent California counties lists of people who NEVER voted — and voters from the WRONG COUNTY. Absolute clown show!,” Essayli shot back, “Hey Fraud King,” with a crown emoji. “We’re not waiting for them to vote.”

Also unusual have been the threats Justice Department attorneys have been sending to county elections officials in California, including in a series of Oct. 23 letters in which they asserted varying numbers of “likely aliens” per county, set a 48-hour deadline for the counties to cooperate with federal authorities to prove those voters are citizens.

In one letter to Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian flagged 407 potential noncitizens in the county, and said he was writing “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications” of processing any ballots from those voters.

On Wednesday, Thomas L. Geiger, Contra Costa County counsel, responded with his own letter, questioning the accuracy of the noncitizen claims and saying it would be “legally unsound” for Connelly to “disregard both California and federal law” in order to comply with Missakian’s demands.

Other county attorneys hit a sharper tone in their own responses. Tony Lopresti, an attorney for Santa Clara County, wrote that his county “reserves its rights to pursue all legal remedies against DOJ for its unlawful intimidation of election officials and California voters.”

Trump administration issues more than 100 subpoenas across 13 states as search for alleged noncitizen voters ramps up.

A United States judge has rejected a Department of Justice request to temporarily halt California from counting mail ballots from a list of 20,000 alleged noncitizens just six days before the country’s midterm elections.

US District Judge David Carter’s ruling on Wednesday came as US President Donald Trump expands efforts to search for alleged noncitizen voters, with subpoenas issued in at least 13 states.

“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote on Wednesday.

The judge, a 1998 appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the Justice Department’s last-minute request to exclude more than 20,000 ballots ran afoul of “longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections”.

The Justice Department swiftly appealed the decision to the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals and did not immediately respond to requests for comment by the Reuters news agency.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit on October 15, a rare intervention in the voting process weeks before Tuesday’s election, when voters will choose which party controls Congress as well as their state and local representatives.

Escalating efforts from Trump

The decision marks the latest setback in Trump’s effort to expand the federal government’s role in elections ahead of the legislative midterms, as his Republican Party fights to retain control of both houses of Congress.

The Trump administration issued more than 100 subpoenas demanding records on tens of thousands of voters in at least 13 states, both Republican- and Democratic-leaning.

Most of the subpoenas Reuters documented were issued to state and local election officials in the past three months, though some date to the start of the year. Many were previously unreported, revealing a federal effort to identify potential noncitizen voters that is broader than publicly known.

It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in US federal elections. Legal experts say the records could be used to contest close midterm results, despite scant evidence that noncitizen voting is widespread.

‘Deeply flawed process’

Also on Wednesday, Democracy Docket, a US media platform that tracks election litigation, reported that the Department of Justice list of alleged noncitizen voters “appears to have been created using a deeply flawed process” that could disenfranchise US citizen voters beyond California.

In a court filing, a government whistleblower revealed that voters were being scrutinised nationwide, not just in California, as part of the federal government’s “Unlawful Voter Initiative” investigation, the group reported. The whistleblower warned that “the current process is knowingly sweeping known US citizens in as potentially ‘unlawful voters’”.

California has said the state’s safeguards against noncitizen voting are robust. It said the Justice Department’s assertions relied on “suspect data” and that complying with its demands would risk disenfranchising eligible voters. Democracy Docket reported that in Los Angeles County, one in four voters on the “noncitizen” list were born in the US.

Government says Salim Said ‘hit the jackpot’ in a scheme claiming to feed needy children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A 37-year-old man who played a key role in defrauding a United States food programme in the state of Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic has been sentenced to 30 years in prison, in a case that has drawn intense national scrutiny and political pressure from President Donald Trump.

The widespread scheme in Minnesota, which resulted in dozens of convictions, has repeatedly drawn attacks from Trump, who ridiculed the Democratic governor for failing to stop the scheme and cited it as grounds for an immigration crackdown in the state’s largest cities.

Salim Said, who operated Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, was accused of vastly overstating the number of meals when seeking payment for providing food to needy children. The government said he was responsible for $44 million in fraud, some of which was committed by others he recruited.

“You took more than taxpayers’ dollars to enrich yourself. You took the reputation of our state down with you,” US District Judge Nancy Brasel said.

Said was claiming a “ridiculous daily distribution of 6,000 meals” while FBI cameras showed 40 people a day collecting food, prosecutors said in a court filing.

“The defendant and his sites did not serve thousands of children; he served a calculated, lucrative lie,” prosecutors said.

Said, who was born in Somalia, denied the allegations while testifying at his 2025 trial, saying many meals were delivered off site. But he changed course and expressed remorse at his sentencing on Wednesday.

Defence lawyer Barry Zone, who had asked for a 12-year prison sentence, disputed the government’s claim that Said was the “architect”.

COVID-19 brought changes to a federal programme that typically fed children through schools. Restaurants could participate, and food distribution was extended to places outside schools.

“For 21 consecutive months, Said made thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims,” prosecutors said. “Each submission represented meals purportedly provided to underprivileged children, yet the listed children themselves were entirely fictitious.”

The government said Said hit the jackpot, using the stolen funds to buy a $1.2 million home, commercial real estate and an $87,000 pickup truck.

Said was convicted in 2025 alongside Aimee Bock, leader of the Minnesota nonprofit Feeding Our Future, who is serving a 42-year prison sentence for devising the scheme and was ordered to repay $242 million.

State auditors found that Minnesota’s education department received numerous complaints about Feeding Our Future but often told the group to police itself. Following relentless criticism from Trump over theft in federally funded programmes, Governor Tim Walz announced in January that he would not run for re-election.

RUSSELL Brand had an “insane sexual appetite” and treated women poorly, his former PA told his rape trial yesterday.

Helen Berger described him as a “peacock” who would allegedly find random women online to satisfy his lust.

Ms Berger, who worked with the comedian from June 2006 to February 2007, said: “Though I’ve worked with a lot of celebrities before and seen a lot of people normalising bad behaviour, this was on another level.”

In a statement read to Southwark crown court, she said Brand, now 51, was having sex day and night and described him getting “antsy” on deadlines.

She said he would joke: “May I go and have sex now?”

But she said sexual activity would also make him depressed.

Read more on Russell Brand

BRAND TRIAL

Russell Brand in ‘f*****g sheets’ rant after alleged rape, court hears

‘RAPE’ TRIAL

Brand jury shown pics of home where he ‘raped woman & told her clean up mess’

Ms Berger, who worked for Brand through his agent John Noel, told the court she would often be called to go to the comedian’s flat in Camden, North London, where she found he was always in his underwear.

She described seeing him use MySpace to find women and invite them over for sex.

She also recalled being instructed to get phone numbers for Brand from female fans when she first started working for him but said she felt uncomfortable and told him she would not do it anymore.

Ms Berger said she quit working for Brand within months because she became sick of him.

She wrote: “I worked a lot and was exhausted, emotional, and it was a lot to deal with.

“I always had to manage my emotions around him. He had an insane sexual appetite and was sleeping with people day and night.

“He was very open about what his needs were. We didn’t have a specific conversation about it.”

Brand, supported in court by wife Laura Gallacher, denies three rapes, three sexual assaults and indecent assault on six women between 1999 and 2009.

Mr Justice Bennathan told jurors the defence case would begin today.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Comey, who was fired during Trump’s first term, has been accused of unlawfully divulging national security information

James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is facing a third set of criminal charges under the administration of United States President Donald Trump.

On Monday, sealed documents came to light showing that the Trump administration accused Comey of two counts related to the unlawful dissemination of “information related to national defence”.

Comey, a high-profile Trump critic, has not been indicted in the case. He has denied any wrongdoing.

But it is the third time the Trump administration has sought to level a criminal case against the former FBI director since the president returned to office in January 2025.

In a video on the online platform Substack, Comey once again denounced the Trump administration’s attempts to prosecute him as a campaign of political retribution.

“Well, now they’re back again. it would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to,” Comey said.

“Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent, and I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”

He also noted that Trump is only midway through his second term, and he hinted that he expects more criminal charges to come.

“The next couple years are going to be hard for all of us,” Comey added. “It’s really important that we stand straight and keep the faith in America.”

More details to come.

President Javier Milei’s role in cryptocurrency launch does not translate into a fraudulent scheme, judge says.

An Argentinian federal judge has dropped a criminal investigation into President Javier Milei and his sister Karina Milei over the collapse of a cryptocurrency he promoted online.

Judge Marcelo Martinez de Giorgi issued the decision on Friday, according to court records, ending an inquiry into Milei’s role in the launch of the $Libra token, which crashed after a brief rally.

“The reported events do not constitute a criminal offence,” the judge said in a ruling. He also wrote that investor losses and the rise and fall in the currency’s price were insufficient to establish fraud.

In his ruling, Martinez de Giorgi said that Milei’s institutional standing could have given the launch “greater impact” when he posted about it, but that does not translate into a fraudulent scheme.

Javier Milei recommended the little-known meme coin in a post on X in February 2025. He later deleted the post and denied any link to the cryptocurrency, whose value soon plunged.

The judge also dismissed an investigation into US businessman Hayden Davis, who described himself as a “launch adviser” for the token. Davis has acknowledged that he held close to $100m after the crash and denies any wrongdoing.

“For the first time in history, a President of the Nation was investigated with complete freedom, resulting in absolute proof of his innocence,” read a post shared on X by the official presidential office.

“The question that remains is this: Who will take responsibility for having wasted Argentine taxpayers’ money and the President of the Nation’s time in a failed attempt at an institutional coup?”

Milei’s friendship with Trump

Milei is one of US President Donald Trump’s closest allies. Trump firmly backed him a year ago and has called him his “favourite president”.

Trump made clear the support hinged on a victory for Milei’s party.

“I’m with this man because his philosophy is correct,” he said ahead of a White House lunch with the Argentinian leader last year. “If he wins, we’re staying with him. And if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”

Earlier this month, Milei urged Trump to emerge stronger from the US midterm elections, saying the vote mattered for the West as a whole.

Austerity at home

Since taking office in 2023, Milei has laid off thousands of state employees, shut ministries, cut subsidies and reduced government-funded programmes. The measures were meant to fight high inflation, which has fallen to about 2 percent a month.

Milei says his plan is working, claiming that Argentina has grown for 27 consecutive months and is expanding at four times its historical rate.

When the coin crashed, Milei said he had acted “in good faith” and accused his political rivals of trying to exploit the situation.

Homeland Security targets nine states in a push to identify voting fraud, a move critics denounce as tantamount to voter intimidation.

A United States federal judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt operations aimed at finding non-citizen voters in nine states ahead of the midterm elections.

The ruling by US District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said the investigations likely violate a provision of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits voter intimidation. She further said the DHS may have relied on flawed data in its investigations.

That leads to “an objectively reasonable fear of law enforcement entanglements that intimidates citizens from urging or aiding others in exercising their right to vote”, she wrote.

The order applies to federal efforts targeting California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

The DHS has publicised what it has described as a push to identify individuals who have committed voter fraud, with some local offices posting photos of agents knocking on the doors of suspects.

The operations come as the administration of US President Donald Trump has sought to highlight instances of voter fraud ahead of the November 3 midterm vote.

While there are recorded instances of fraud in every election cycle, such isolated cases remain exceedingly rare.

There has been no evidence to indicate that non-citizen voters have influenced the outcome of any election at any level in the country.

In a statement following Thursday’s ruling, the DHS maintained that its investigations were aimed at “removing aliens who vote and dilute the votes of US citizens”.

“We have no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be US citizens,” it said.

In their lawsuit challenging the DHS’s efforts, the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, along with the Voto Latino Foundation, San Francisco and Santa Clara County, said that some US citizens felt they were wrongly identified and questioned as part of the investigations.

A lawyer representing the groups said it was “clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people’s homes weeks before an election”.

Benjamin Farley, the supervisory counsel for democracy defense at the National Immigration Law Center, said the ruling sent a strong message about voter intimidation ahead of the midterm vote.

“Yesterday’s decision is a clear rebuke of the government’s efforts to scare voters away from the polls this November and a reminder that all US citizens – regardless of color, place of birth, or the nationality of their family members – have the right to participate in American elections free of intimidation,” he said.

“No armed federal agent is going to stop us from casting our vote.”

Class action could be first in Australia to blame social media for harming its users.

Meta and its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are facing a class action lawsuit in Australia over allegations that addictive design features are harming children and teenagers.

The lawsuit, filed by MinterEllison in the Australian Federal Court, seeks to recover compensation for current and former users of Facebook and Instagram who claim they were exposed to harmful content or developed an addiction to social media as a result of using those platforms, the law firm said in a statement released on Thursday.

“This proceeding raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia. Those questions will now be considered through the Federal Court process,” MinterEllison Partner William Nolan said in the statement.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by Meta while they were below the age of 18.

In a suppression order on Monday, the court prohibited the reporting of any information that could reveal their identities and the statement of claim.

“We are aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Litigation Lending Services said it was funding the class action for Australian families who “would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant”.

The lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Australia and Big Tech after a world-first ban on social media for children below 16 in 2025, and newly proposed rules that could let users switch off algorithm-driven content on their feeds.

Meta agreed in August to pay $18bn to settle with nearly all US states to resolve claims that it designed social media to addict children.

US federal judge blocked wall’s construction on Texas-Mexico border amid an ongoing legal battle.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to resume plans to build a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas, as part of its anti-immigration policy to strengthen security on the border with Mexico.

The Justice Department filed an emergency request on Wednesday asking the court to lift a federal judge’s injunction in a lower court that has halted construction while a lawsuit against the project, brought by an environmental group and other challengers, plays out.

The Department of Homeland Security plans include vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting and detection technology in and around Big Bend National Park.

Big Bend has about 805km (500 miles) of border, and, according to opponents of the project who have sued the administration, accounts for about 1 percent of migrant arrests.

Landscape, historic church

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs including the Center for Biological Diversity and a Big Bend-area river guide, seeks to preserve the landscape, protect a historic church, and challenge the federal government’s waivers of environmental and historical laws to fast-track the $1.7bn project.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who issued the waivers between February and July, found the region to be an “area of high illegal entry”, requiring additional barriers to control the border.

US District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an injunction in El Paso on October 2 halting work “until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws,” she wrote in her order.

In a later opinion, the judge found that the waivers exceeded the authority of Noem and Mullin.

The Justice Department in its request urged the Supreme Court to pause or overturn Cardone’s injunction.

The Supreme Court has not yet responded to this appeal.

“Even assuming that the secretary’s waiver authority implicates a question of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ Congress did clearly authorize the secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements in order to facilitate their expeditious construction,” the Justice Department wrote.

In August, the administration paused construction in Big Bend after the project drew bipartisan criticism over its potential impact on the park’s landscape and wildlife.

Both candidates for the Brazilian presidency have called for the disqualification of their rivals over allegations of social media interference, ramping up political drama ahead of the close-fought October 25 runoff election.

Brazil’s right-wing presidential candidate Flavio Bolsonaro has requested the annulment of the candidacy of his rival, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, over what he called unlawful propaganda.

Lawyers for Bolsonaro filed a request with the Superior Electoral Court on Tuesday, alleging Lula’s “abuse of power” in the mass dissemination of government postings during the campaign period via WhatsApp.

Bolsonaro’s camp claimed the Brazilian government sent mass messages to millions of Brazilians via the messaging service, promoting social programmes, benefits and government initiatives in the midst of the presidential race, Brazilian media reported.

The request to the electoral court seeks to declare Lula and Social Communications Minister Sidonio Palmeira ineligible to hold public office for a period of eight years.

‘Algorithmic manipulation’

In the other camp, Lula’s campaign said on Tuesday that it would request the disqualification of Bolsonaro on Wednesday over alleged election interference by WhatsApp parent company, the tech giant Meta.

Lula’s petition, which has yet to be officially filed, alleges “algorithmic manipulation” by Meta aimed at harming Lula’s chances of winning, a campaign source told AFP.

The electoral court had given Meta 24 hours on Monday to prove it was complying with an order to treat both campaigns equally, threatening a daily fine of around $200,000 if it didn’t.

The order came after Lula’s campaign alleged that Meta, which owns Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, was suppressing his online content to boost Bolsonaro.

“We have completed the implementation of the measures to comply with the Superior Electoral Court’s decision,” the company said on Tuesday.

Lula and Bolsonaro are locked in a heated presidential race after the right-wing candidate, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, won the initial round of voting earlier this month with 47 percent of the vote to the incumbent’s 45 percent.

Polls show a very close race ahead of Sunday’s runoff round.

The lawsuit argues Trump bypassed Congress and misused a century-old law to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports.

A US food importer is suing US President Donald Trump over his 50 percent tariffs on Canadian goods, arguing he lacks the legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval.

Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey-based company that imports Canadian cheese, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the US Court of International Trade in New York.

The company says the tariffs are driving up its costs and disrupting its relationships with suppliers on both sides of the border. Between September 16 and October 11, Gellert had paid more than $520,000 in duties, according to the complaint.

“Gellert Global Group has spent generations building trusted relationships with suppliers, customers and partners across the food industry,” said Thomas Gellert, the company’s co-chief executive officer, in a press release. “These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain.”

The lawsuit challenges Trump’s decision to use a Depression-era law to impose tariffs on a wide range of Canadian products, including dairy products, furniture, clothing and wine.

Trump first imposed the 50 percent tariffs over the summer, accusing Canada of discriminating against American-made cars, alcohol and dairy products. He expanded the measures in September, adding more products in response to Canadian retaliatory tariffs.

The lawsuit argues that the law doesn’t apply to the Canadian policies the Trump administration says are discriminatory, since two of them “arose in response to the president’s own tariffs, while the third involves Canadian dairy policy governed by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)”.

It also questions why Canadian cheese is being taxed over disputes involving alcohol and cars.

“No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required,” said Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal organisation that filed the suit on Gellert’s behalf.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to the Reuters news agency.

At the centre of the case is Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries found to discriminate against American businesses.

The provision had never been used until Trump invoked it this year.

The lawsuit argues that newer laws passed by Congress since then, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, require investigations, public comment and other safeguards that Gellert says the Trump administration has bypassed, and that these override Section 338.

“The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff,” said Jeffrey Schwab, the Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel and director of litigation.

In addition, the lawsuit says that even if Trump is allowed to use the older law, he hasn’t met its requirements, including waiting 30 days before tariffs can be collected on new products added to the list.

The administration only waited seven days to start collecting tariffs on cheese in September, according to the lawsuit.

Gellert is asking the court to declare the tariffs illegal, stop them from being collected, and order refunds with interest for importers who have been impacted.

The lawsuit marks the fourth major legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs.

In February, the US Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs he imposed in 2025, and a trade court later ruled against a temporary 10 percent global tariff. A separate challenge to tariffs imposed over alleged forced labour in international trade is still pending.

“LAUGHING” Russell Brand sexually assaulted a radio worker in a “violent, sloppy and frenzied” attack as his entourage stood by and watched, a court heard.

The comedian, 51, is accused of forcing six women into sexual acts and kissing and groping them in an “obsessive” campaign to sleep with 5,000 women.

On the fifth day of his trial, jurors heard from a woman who was in her 20s working at a radio station in the mid-2000s when Brand allegedly sexually assaulted her.

She told Southwark Crown Court Brand was a “perfect stranger” to her at the time and said his alleged assault was “violent”, “sloppy” and “frenzied”.

Describing the alleged attack, she added: “It was hard, I would say it was sloppy, he kissed my mouth, he just was kissing me and it was hard, it was very hard.

“He was kissing me all down my neck, his hands at the same time were all over me.”

PRICE SLICE

Shamed MasterChef star Gregg Wallace forced to slash £100k from house price

DEATH CRASH

Moment driver ‘overtakes before hitting headmaster & dragging him to his death’

Asked about where his hands were, she said: “He touched my bum, he touched my breast, he had his hand on my waist and his other hand was just pinning me against the wall, and his body was just pressed up against me.”

The woman added: “It was rough, it was very, very rough. It was hard, I would say that his whole body was pressed against me, the kisses were hard and sloppy, going down my neck

“The reason I used the word frenzied is because it was just, it was violent.”

She said four members of Brand’s entourage including a woman were in the room at the time but “did nothing”.

The woman wept as she told jurors: “I wonder why those people didn’t do anything to stop him.”

She also told the court she had locked eyes” with the other woman and was “pleading with her” to stop what was allegedly happening.

The woman said she was “stunned” and “in a haze” but managed to push Brand away and told him to “f*** off”.

She added: “I remember he made like a sound, that was like funny – ha ha – like that.”

Jurors heard Brand allegedly preyed on the complainants between 1999 and 2009 in a bid to satisfy his “voracious” sexual appetite.

One of the women was allegedly raped in a hotel room in Bournemouth in 1999 after a Labour conference.

The woman said Brand had suddenly “changed” from being “camp, friendly, and effeminate” to “monster-like”.

Jurors were also shown pictures that Brand allegedly made one of the women take moments before he raped her.

The images – released by police – show the comedian topless in a pair of white trousers blowing a kiss to the camera.

She told police she remembers feeling “frightened” after Brand forced her to take the pictures of him on her camera.

She added: “I took pictures of him on my camera – he made me take them.

“I was frightened. I remember feeling ‘what on earth have I got myself into’ – and then he did rape me.

“He pushed me onto the bed. He did take my trousers off.”

She previously claimed he emerged topless from the toilet and “was prancing around the room, a bit like an ostrich, doing silly walks like Basil Fawlty”.

The woman later added: “I found his body quite snake-like and disgusting. It made me feel sick, if I’m being honest.”

Another alleged victim who claimed she was targeted by Brand while working at MTV in 2001 also gave evidence.

At the time he was the flagship presenter at the video music channel, jurors heard.

The woman said Brand was “pleading” for her to join him in the toilet before he “grabbed me by the arm and started to pull me in, saying ‘come on, come in with me’.”

She described Brand as a “wild-eyed maniac” during the alleged assault and said she was left “bewildered” and “confused”.

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC dubbed the comedian a “sexual predator” who was “ruthless, calculated and manipulative”.

She also said women have told police he was “childlike in his expectation that his every desire should be met”.

The court heard the alleged offences took place when Brand’s “public profile was taking off”.

He allegedly prayed on women in a number of locations – including workplaces, a toilet cubicle in a bar and at his home address.

The fifth alleged victim met Brand after seeing his show at the Hammersmith Apollo in London with a friend in 2009.

He allegedly told her his age range was from “16 to death” before she was invited to a backstage bar where they kissed and had a threesome.

The woman claims she went to his home the next day where Brand told her: “Your hair smells funny”.

He then made her take a shower and wash her hair while he watched through a glass shower cubicle, it was said.

Ms Karmy-Jones said once in the bedroom, they had consensual sex but afterwards Brand “flipped” the woman on to her front and on all fours and allegedly penetrated her anally.

Afterwards, jurors heard the comedian told her to “clean up the mess you have made”.

The sixth woman worked for Channel 4 when she met Brand while he was filming a project.

She said she was informed Brand was “unhappy” and the situation would not improve unless she gave him a massage, jurors were told.

The woman claimed he walked up to a chair she was sitting on and placed his head directly into her groin area.

Brand has denied three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault against six women.

The trial continues.

A group of parents claims local admission policy boosts Black and Latino students while constraining Asian applicants.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the role of race in admissions to selective Maryland middle schools after a group of parents claimed policies discriminated against Asian students in favour of Black and Latino students.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the parents’ plea on four academically rigorous “magnet” schools in Montgomery County, a suburb on the outskirts of Washington, DC, in the neighbouring state of Maryland.

The high court said it would weigh whether the parent group has enough evidence of discrimination for the case to move forward.

Lower courts previously dismissed the case because Asian-American students were not underrepresented at the specialised-curriculum schools compared with the pool of students that applied.

If the Supreme Court rules for the parent group, the Association for Education Fairness, it could revive the lawsuit.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months and rule by June.

‘The Pandemic Plan’

The Montgomery County school district’s selection process was introduced in the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It screens all students for academic potential, and then implements a lottery to randomly assign students from that pool to receive enriched instruction at either a magnet school or a local school.

The suit alleged that the screening process makes it harder for Asian-American students, who the challengers said are clustered in “high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools”, to enter the lottery pool.

Part of the process ranks a student’s performance by comparing the student’s test scores against those of other students whose family incomes are at a similar level.

“Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent,” so long as it has not explicitly called out race in its process, they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Previously thrown out

The case was thrown out in 2022 by US District Judge Paula Xinis. She noted that the percentage of admitted Asian-American students exceeded the percentage of Asian Americans among all applicants to the magnet schools.

Xinis also found no evidence that the lottery policy was implemented with discriminatory intent.

The school system has consistently argued the new admissions policy, called the “Pandemic Plan” due to the timing of its release, is race-neutral.

“The Pandemic Plan is a colorblind lottery,” lawyers wrote in a brief asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case. “Nothing about the Pandemic Plan, its history, or its purpose is offensive to the Constitution.”

Supreme Court justices will now consider whether a group claiming to be targeted by a race-neutral policy must show it was disproportionately harmed to prove intentional discrimination.

Tehran summons envoy in tit-for-tat move after Berlin summoned ambassador to Iran.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned Germany’s ambassador after a court in Hamburg found two men guilty of plotting to kill two leaders of Jewish organisations at Tehran’s behest, accusing Berlin of leveling “baseless political allegations”.

The decision to summon envoy Axel Dittmann came after Germany summoned the Iranian ambassador, Majid Nili Ahmadabadi, on Monday over allegations that Tehran was behind the plot to assassinate the two pro-Israel public figures.

“Levelling security-related accusations against Iran has long been a tactic employed by the Zionist regime and certain Western nations,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement broadcast by official news agency IRNA.

“Attempting to provide a judicial face to baseless political claims not only fails to lend any credibility to such allegations but also undermines the standing of the German judiciary itself,” the statement added.

Hamburg conviction

Berlin’s allegations stem from a court case involving two men, a Danish national and an Afghan national, who were convicted in a Hamburg court on Thursday for planning to target the president of Germany’s main group representing the Jewish community and the head of the German-Israeli society.

The German Foreign Ministry said on X that the Iranian ambassador had been summoned, adding Tehran would not be allowed to “threaten our free society”.

“The malicious assassination attempts against Josef Schuster and Volker Beck will have legal consequences,” it added.

“We do not tolerate attacks on Jewish life and on those who defend it anywhere, and certainly not in Germany.”

The Dane, partially identified as Ali Hassan S, was jailed for eight-and-a-half years. The Afghan, who was recruited as his accomplice, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years.

Iran’s intelligence service steered the two men, the court said. The pair were arrested in Denmark last year and extradited.

In sentencing the men, the judge said they were guilty of “terrorist activities orchestrated by Iran”.

At the time they were charged, the Iranian embassy in Berlin released a statement rejecting what it called “unfounded allegations made at the behest of Iran’s enemies”.

US federal prosecutors allege the defendant was in frequent contact with unnamed member of royal family.

An ex-OpenAI engineer accused of planting a recording device in an executive conference room at the AI company appears to have received considerable support from the Saudi government, United States prosecutors have said in a court filing.

Federal prosecutors allege that the defendant, Abdulrahman Alfozan, 35, was in frequent communication with an unnamed member of the Saudi royal family and that a Saudi military official paid for a one-way plane ticket for Alfozan’s wife and young son to return to Saudi Arabia after his arrest, according to the court document, made public late on Sunday.

Prosecutors made those allegations as they asked a federal judge to keep Alfozan in US custody to await trial, arguing he is a flight risk. Alfozan, a Saudi national and lawful permanent resident in the US, is scheduled to appear in federal court in San Francisco later on Monday.

The case has highlighted security challenges around sensitive AI research as companies and governments compete fiercely for an edge in the transformational technology.

“The defendant went to significant lengths to create customized, encrypted recording devices to secretly record highly sensitive meetings involving senior OpenAI personnel and executives, high-level business counterparts, and government officials, all while communicating with individuals of significance in Saudi Arabia and pursuing opportunities in — and making plans to travel to — Saudi Arabia,” prosecutors wrote in a detention memo.

The Saudi government media office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Alfozan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawyer, William Pernik, previously asked for Alfozan to be released from custody, subject to conditions including location monitoring and surrendering his passport, and said Alfozan had spent the last 15 years in the US and had applied to become a citizen.

The lawyer said a planned trip by Alfozan to Saudi Arabia this month was booked before he was under investigation and was for “family and immigration reasons”, according to a court filing.

Investigation remains active

US prosecutors charged Alfozan last week with using an electronic device to intercept oral communications. Alfozan plugged a recording device into the back of a television in an executive conference room at one of OpenAI’s San Francisco buildings, according to a criminal complaint.

Meetings involving government officials took place in the conference room around the time the device was installed, according to the prosecutors’ detention memo.

Prosecutors said the investigation remains active and additional charges could be brought against Alfozan.

A member of the Saudi royal family sought to recruit Alfozan for an AI-focused role in Saudi Arabia, writing in one message, “Saudi needs you more then [sic] the US!” Alfozan replied, “100,” according to messages cited by prosecutors.

Before his arrest, Alfozan was scheduled to fly to Riyadh during a planned two-month parental leave. His wife told investigators that she and their son planned to move permanently to Saudi Arabia and that Alfozan eventually intended to join them, according to prosecutors.

In an Arabic-language interview on the Identity Capital podcast last month, Alfozan said that he visits Saudi Arabia three or four times a year, follows developments there and advises or mentors Saudi startups.

He said meeting Prince Mohammed bin Salman, then deputy crown prince, during a 2016 gathering with young Saudi tech workers in Silicon Valley persuaded him to learn at a top tech company before bringing those skills back home.

While Alfozan was working at Facebook, he and other Saudis in Silicon Valley formed a consulting initiative that linked Saudi public- and private-sector organisations with expertise in big data, the internet of things and machine learning.

OpenAI previously said it discovered the device on September 30 and referred the matter to the FBI.

Al Jazeera has reached out to the Saudi embassy for comment.

‘A major failure’

A round-faced man with dark-rimmed glasses, a moustache and short-trimmed hair, Ismael came to the US when he was only five years old.

Southern California became his home, and as an adult, he qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, which offered temporary protection against deportation.

He lost his DACA status, however, in 2015 after a conviction for driving under the influence.

His family remembers him as a caring son and uncle, always willing to buy his niece and nephew new clothes or school supplies.

“Ismael was always looking after his siblings. He just had a big heart,” said his brother, Jose Miguel Ayala. “He was very protective of not just us, but my mum and dad too.”

He was 39 years old when he was brought to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.

Two weeks after his arrival, Ismael told his family that he developed a high fever and a painful sore on his backside.

On September 18, 2025, workers at Adelanto initiated a Code Blue alert for Ismael, signalling a life-threatening medical emergency. Medical staff rushed him from his dorm to the infirmary in a wheelchair.

ICE documents show that Ismael was given pain medication, an ointment and a fibre supplement.

But according to Physicians for Human Rights’ Cuneo, who reviewed the case, Ismael should have received a physical examination and antibiotics.

“That is a major failure,” Cuneo said.

That weekend, hours after Lucia’s visit, Ismael’s condition worsened. Just after midnight on Sunday, ICE records say he was vomiting, shaking and sweating.

According to ICE documents, he was later sent to an intensive care unit, where he went into cardiac arrest within minutes of his arrival and subsequently died.

“I believe Ismael’s death could have fully been prevented by timely care,” Cuneo said. “It was a simple abscess that was not treated in a timely manner.”

Fault Lines obtained a coroner’s investigation that reveals Ismael was critically ill when he first arrived at the hospital, a fact that was left out of ICE’s public report on his death.

The coroner’s report also contradicts ICE’s timeline for Ismael’s death. It indicates Ismael went into cardiac arrest early on September 21, nearly a full day before he passed away. Medical staff, however, managed to restore his heartbeat after intubating him.

That conflicts with ICE’s report, which only notes his pulse stopping once: shortly before his death was announced on the morning of September 22. ICE described his condition on September 21 as “calm and cooperative”, but it signalled no heart problems.

“If they had given him the medical care and what he needed, maybe he would be here with us,” Lucia said.

In a statement about Ismael’s death, ICE said detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” throughout their time in custody.

But California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta told Fault Lines that his office found “the exact opposite” during its inspections of the state’s detention centres.

“We’ve gone to these facilities. We’ve gone into Adelanto. We have done our own physical inspections,” Bonta explained.

“If what the ICE spokesperson said was true, Mr Ayala-Uribe would be with us today.”

An internal mortality review committee also found that the care provided to Ismael at Adelanto “deviated beyond safe limits of practice”, according to a document obtained by US media earlier this year.

It also suggests that medical staff delayed responding to calls about Ismael’s declining health in the days leading up to his death.

Victims’ groups, however, have denounced the ruling as ‘selective’ justice that exonerates a former government head.

A Mexican judge has closed the case against Francisco Garduno, former head of the country’s immigration agency, for crimes related to the 2023 fire at a Ciudad Juarez detention centre that killed 40 migrants and injured 30 others.

The incident was the deadliest event ever to occur at a Mexican immigration centre, and critics said it exposed the shortcomings and irregularities in the country’s detention system.

Garduno faced trial for the crimes of abuse of public office and dereliction of duty after footage from the fire showed guards had failed to respond to cries for help.

On Tuesday, Judge Victor Manlio Hernandez Calderon ruled that Garduno had fulfilled the court-mandated measures required to address the damage. But victims rejected that decision and announced they would appeal.

“Yesterday, corruption and the impunity of politicians protected by power won again,” the Foundation for Justice, one of the NGOs representing some of the victims, wrote on social media on Wednesday.

The victims have also compared the judge’s decision to close the criminal case to a de facto exoneration for Garduno.

In their view, the ruling “confirms that justice in Mexico is selective” and denies the victims “full reparations” and concrete guarantees that such an event will not be repeated.

Miguel Zenteno, one of the foundation’s lawyers, noted that the ruling is not yet final because it will be appealed and because another injunction is pending against the court-mandated reparations, which critics say failed to meet the standards for serious events.

On March 27, 2023, some 70 men were crammed into a locked dormitory with no ventilation and barely any water at the Ciudad Juarez immigration detention centre, on the border with El Paso, Texas.

As night fell, a small group set fire to some mattresses in protest, and within seconds, smoke engulfed the entire area.

Security cameras recorded the guards leaving the area despite cries for help. They made no attempt to open the gates of the dormitory. Only the women, held in another cell, were released. Most of the victims were Central Americans and Venezuelans.

Garduno, a former prison guard and current official at the Ministry of Education, led the National Migration Institute (INM) starting in 2019 and continued in the role until 2025 despite the fire.

The judge had previously ordered Garduno to compensate the families, provide them with free specialised medical care, issue a public apology, provide human rights training to migration personnel and guarantee that the events would not be repeated.

Zenteno acknowledged that the measures were implemented only partially because Garduno did not pay the damages as stipulated by the legal process.

Instead, Zenteno pointed out that the funds came from the INM, and the payments did not fully compensate the families. Furthermore, he added, the victims were not even informed how to access free medical services, and the apology “was a mere formality, not substantive”.

In addition to Garduno, prosecutors accused another former director of the institute of the same crimes.

Six immigration agents – including a military officer and a private security guard – and the two migrants accused of starting the fire are charged with homicide and assault. Most of the officials remain free pending trial.