department

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general in a vote early Saturday, cementing the command of President Trump’s former personal lawyer at a Department of Justice that Trump has sought to bend to his will.

The Republican-led Senate voted 50 to 49 to make Blanche the second confirmed attorney general since Trump returned to the White House last year with a stated desire to use the law enforcement agency to investigate his political enemies. While Blanche has already been leading the department in an acting capacity, his confirmation could free him to pursue the administration’s agenda even more aggressively.

Blanche said on social media that he was “deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me,” adding that he was “grateful” to senators for working late to confirm him.

The vote followed a tumultuous confirmation fight that exposed deep concerns — from some Republicans as well as Democrats — about installing Trump’s close ally atop a Justice Department that historically prided itself on its independence from the White House.

In the end, Blanche was confirmed by the narrowest of margins, opposed by two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and by every Democrat.

The path to confirmation for Blanche was unusually rocky, due in large part to Republican concerns about a controversial settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.

Under pressure, Blanche publicly promised in writing that the department would abandon Trump’s proposed $1.8-billion compensation fund for the president’s allies, including those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and rein in another piece of the settlement designed to shield Trump and his family from IRS tax audits.

His appeals were enough to win over Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the decisive vote who threw his support behind Blanche on Friday morning. Cassidy said no other nominee may be able to run the department better under Trump and suggested Blanche’s role as Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at resisting the Republican president’s demands.

“This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances,” said Cassidy, who lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said confirming Blanche would be a “serious mistake.” He begged his colleagues not to be on the “wrong side” of history.

“If there is ever a moment in history when we need an attorney general above reproach, who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it’s right now,” Durbin said.

Loyalty to Trump

The vote capped off a bruising confirmation fight, with Blanche’s loyalty to Trump at the center of the stalemate.

Blanche was elevated to the top Justice Department post in an acting capacity after Trump fired Pam Bondi in April. Blanche moved swiftly to advance the president’s interests, accelerating investigations into Trump’s perceived foes and announcing the settlement that created the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate Trump allies who feel mistreated by the criminal justice system and provided the president and his family members with immunity from tax audits.

The controversial settlement threatened to torpedo Blanche’s nomination until he formally rescinded the fund in writing under pressure from Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The deal reached between the senators and the department unlocked a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which advanced Blanche’s nomination earlier this week.

Even after the deal, Blanche faced opposition from some Republican senators concerned with the settlement fund and the tax audit immunity.

Murkowski announced early Friday that she would join Collins in opposing Blanche’s nomination, saying the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration.”

Former prosecutor rises as Trump’s defender

A former federal prosecutor in New York, Blanche rose to public prominence as a lead attorney on Trump’s defense team, including during Trump’s hush money trial in New York in which he was found guilty of felony fraud.

He also defended Trump against criminal charges in the two federal cases brought by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, related to Trump’s attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election and his hoarding of classified documents at his home in Florida. Both cases were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024, and despite the seriousness of the charges, Blanche said that experience provided him a firsthand look at what he claims was the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Trump.

Blanche entered the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general under Bondi, overseeing the agency’s day-to-day operations and serving as the public face for high-profile and controversial matters, like the release of millions of investigative files related to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Democrats have accused Blanche of prioritizing his loyalty to Trump above all else through investigations against perceived Trump foes such as former FBI Director James Comey and a radical reshaping of the department. Under Bondi and Blanche’s leadership, the department has lost thousands of employees through firings, resignations or voluntary departures.

Blanche’s supporters say his experience as a federal prosecutor and the trust he earned from Trump in the courtroom make him better equipped than Bondi to explain to the White House the legal constraints of its demands. Republicans have also touted his efforts to bring down violent crime, tackle illegal immigration and combat violent cartels and drug trafficking.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gave a full-throated endorsement of Blanche ahead of voting, saying he’s led the Justice Department with distinction. “Mr. Blanche is the right choice,” said Grassley (R-Iowa).

It is unclear whether Blanche will fare any better in delivering on Trump’s desire for retribution than Bondi, whom Trump fired amid resistance from judges, grand jurors and the department’s own workforce as prosecutors sought to establish criminal conduct by one Trump foe after another.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict Comey on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.” Comey’s lawyers are pressing to have the case dismissed, accusing the department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts.

Blanche has also appointed Joseph DiGenova, a former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump. But it remains uncertain whether that inquiry will result in any criminal charges.

Durkin Richer and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

Memphis Grizzlies forward Brandon Clarke died in May from “the effects of heroin and cocaine,” the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner announced Friday.

The manner of death was determined to be accidental, the department said.

Clarke died May 11 in a San Fernando Valley home, multiple media outlets reported at the time, and drug paraphernalia was found at the scene. The department said Clarke was found unresponsive around 5 p.m. that day and was pronounced dead by paramedics 15 minutes later. He was 29.

“On May 12, a deputy medical examiner conducted an examination of Mr. Clarke at the DME’s Forensic Science Center,” the department said in a statement. “The cause and manner of death were certified Aug. 7.”

Clarke was born in Vancouver, B.C., and played basketball at Desert Vista High in Phoenix, San Jose State and Gonzaga. Selected at No. 21 overall by the Oklahoma City Thunder in the 2021 NBA draft, Clarke was traded weeks later to Memphis, where he played his entire career.

He played in 309 games but only two last season because of injuries. Clarke averaged 10.2 points and 5.5 rebounds during his career.

“Everyone loved BC because he was always there as the most supportive friend you could ever imagine,” his agency, Priority Sports, said in a statement after his death. “He was so unique in the joy he brought to all of those in his life. It’s just impossible to put into words how much he’ll be missed. We love you, BC.”

Justice Department Watchdogs Face Sharp Decline

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing growing scrutiny after internal watchdog offices responsible for investigating attorney misconduct and departmental wrongdoing experienced significant staffing losses during President Donald Trump’s second term, even as complaints against the department reached record levels.

According to a Reuters review of government records and interviews with former Justice Department officials, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have seen substantial reductions in personnel, raising concerns about their ability to independently oversee the country’s top law enforcement agency.

Federal judges have increasingly criticized DOJ attorneys for alleged misconduct, including accusations of making false statements, ignoring court orders and using legal processes against political opponents.

Misconduct Complaints Rise as Investigations Fall

The Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates misconduct by Justice Department lawyers, has seen its workforce fall from 29 employees to just 16 since Trump returned to office.

At the same time, misconduct complaints have climbed to their highest level in two decades.

Despite receiving 1,666 complaints during the 2025 fiscal year, the office opened only seven formal investigations, the lowest number recorded in the past twenty years. Over the previous decade, the office averaged more than 18 new investigations annually.

Former Justice Department officials told Reuters that staff departures, combined with concerns about political retaliation, have significantly slowed oversight activities.

Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels rejected those concerns, saying OPR remains committed to investigating attorney misconduct and ensuring accountability.

Inspector General Office Also Loses Staff

The Department’s Office of Inspector General, responsible for investigating fraud, waste and abuse across the DOJ, has also experienced notable staff reductions.

Government employment records show the office lost 99 employees since the end of former President Joe Biden’s administration, reducing its workforce to 477.

Former officials interviewed by Reuters said the office has become increasingly reluctant to pursue politically sensitive investigations, although Inspector General spokesperson John Lavinsky denied that claim, insisting the office continues to conduct independent oversight regardless of political sensitivity.

Jack Smith Investigation Remains Unresolved

Among the most prominent internal cases is the ethics investigation involving former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led federal prosecutions related to Trump’s handling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The investigation examined allegations by Republican lawmakers that Smith’s team improperly influenced the 2024 election and pressured witnesses.

Reuters reported that Smith had already been interviewed by investigators and the inquiry was expected to conclude last year. However, the investigation remains unresolved after reportedly being paused by political appointees.

Separately, the Justice Department has since launched a criminal investigation into Smith, who has denied wrongdoing.

Federal Judges Increase Criticism of DOJ Conduct

The weakening of internal oversight coincides with an increasing number of judicial rebukes directed at the Justice Department.

Federal judges have criticized government attorneys in several high profile cases involving evidence handling, courtroom conduct and legal strategy.

Among the most notable rulings was a decision by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who accused senior Justice Department officials, including Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, of failing to properly defend the government in litigation involving former President Trump and instead negotiating what she described as an inappropriate settlement.

DOJ officials have disputed those judicial findings, arguing that several courts have demonstrated political hostility toward the administration.

Concerns Over External Oversight

The Trump administration has also moved to limit outside scrutiny of Justice Department attorneys by challenging state level ethics investigations and seeking expanded authority to restrict oversight by legal licensing bodies.

Administration officials argue that many state investigations are politically motivated and designed to discourage government lawyers from implementing the president’s policies.

Legal ethics experts, however, warn that diminishing both internal and external oversight risks undermining public confidence in the department’s accountability mechanisms.

Analysis

The reported weakening of the Justice Department’s internal watchdog offices comes at a time when judicial scrutiny of government conduct has intensified, placing institutional accountability under renewed focus. While the administration argues that oversight mechanisms remain fully operational and that many judicial criticisms are politically motivated, the decline in staffing and investigations raises broader questions about the effectiveness and perceived independence of internal accountability structures. As politically sensitive cases continue to move through U.S. courts, the credibility of the DOJ’s oversight institutions is likely to remain central to debates over the balance between executive authority, legal ethics and public trust in federal law enforcement.

With information from Reuters.

Mayor Karen Bass said Thursday that the LAPD should stop working with Flock Safety, warning that the company, which operates AI-enabled license plate readers that allow authorities to monitor vehicles around the city, had lost public trust.

In her most forceful comments to date on the topic, Bass said while she supports license plate reading technology generally as a tool for law enforcement, Flock had “lost the trust of Angelenos and residents across the country, especially in immigrant communities targeted by the federal administration.”

“There are many companies that provide this technology to cities nationwide,” Bass said in a statement. “The LAPD needs to identify another company that doesn’t share data.”

LAPD officials have said Flock’s technology enables investigators to solve crimes, helping to find vehicles that have been reported stolen or linked to suspects. Last month, the department announced it was pausing its relationship with Flock, but police officials later said they were in the process of negotiating a new deal with the company that would include more data sharing and collection safeguards.

Dozens of mostly smaller cities have deactivated their Flock cameras or ended their contracts with the company over concerns that it provides data to the Trump administration that can be used to track down immigrants for deportation.

Bass joined the chorus of activists and local officials calling for the LAPD to end its relationship with the company outright.

Her opponent in the November mayoral election, Nithya Raman, said last week on the social media platform X that the city should “cut ties with Flock Safety.”

“Cities across the country are canceling their Flock contracts over the risks its license plate readers pose to privacy, civil liberties, and immigrant communities,” Raman’s post read.

Last month, Bass signed an ordinance that prohibits city personnel from providing anyone outside local government access to data that can be used to determine someone’s immigration status.

A recent Washington Post report uncovered at least 50 instances nationwide in which law enforcement officials were accused of misusing their access to the cameras, largely to stalk former romantic partners or citizens.

A report issued last month by the LAPD inspector general’s office found numerous “limitations” in the department’s existing agreements with its three plate reader vendors — Flock, Axon and Motorola — including a lack of clear language about how long the data are retained and how they are shared with third parties or other law enforcement agencies.

The inspector general recommended that the department update its current license plate reader contracts to address data security and privacy concerns, conduct regular audits and develop standardized rules for traffic stops based on plate reader hits.

Flock has said its customers decide who can access data from their cameras. The company said it doesn’t have contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, adding that has taken other steps to assuage public concern, such as barring federal agencies from its lookup tools and restricting immigration-related searches to ensure compliance with laws in California, Washington and other states.

In an interview with ABC7 last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company had to “tighten up the police and make sure everyone’s aligned and then turn it back on. He said the company retains the data from its plate readers for only 30 days and denied that its cameras employ facial recognition software as some of its critics have suggested.

During a virtual listening session hosted last week by the inspector general’s office, dozens of people sounded off on the department’s use of Flock cameras.

Some speakers, mostly from the fire-ravaged community of Pacific Palisades, supported the use of cameras to deter burglars who have repeatedly hit homes and construction sites in the area.

Jennifer Wolfe, who identified herself as a teacher in Altadena, another community devastated by the 2025 wildfires, urged Flock’s supporters to consider how “surveillance systems can grow far beyond their intended purpose.”

Locating stolen cars is important, she said, but people should be more concerned by this newfound and unchecked ability for the government to collect “vastly more information, with far less effort.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s choice for attorney general is facing a tight vote for confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate nearly halfway through his second term, reflecting mounting doubts about his leadership of the Justice Department as bipartisan concerns over the weaponization of justice intensify.

The confirmation of Todd Blanche hangs on the support of two Republicans who have repeatedly criticized Trump’s stewardship of the department, where Blanche has served as deputy and acting attorney general, roles he assumed after working as the president’s personal lawyer for nearly two years.

Republican senators resisted Trump’s approach to the Justice Department from the start of the presidential transition, rejecting his first choice to lead it, Matt Gaetz, amid concerns he would use the department to pursue political retribution. But after Gaetz withdrew, Trump’s replacement, Pam Bondi, won bipartisan confirmation with the support of the entire Republican caucus.

Blanche is already guaranteed a narrower margin, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announcing she will vote to reject his confirmation, and with Sen. Mitch McConnell absent for health reasons. Democrats are expected to be united in opposition against him.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a figure the president has referred to as a “terrible,” “Trump-deranged” “loser” who “should never be elected,” has refused to comment on her plans.

Her staff has said she is reviewing a commitment Blanche made in writing to formally rescind a controversial, $1.8-billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” announced in May to compensate Trump’s political allies, including those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Blanche also said he would limit immunity offered to Trump and his family for future tax audits, although his wording left the door open to negotiating a future deal along similar terms.

“I think certainly the fact that he has signed this order, basically disbanding [the Anti-Weaponization Fund] — that’s a pretty good step,” Murkowski said , adding that she would “like to find out a little bit more about the negotiations.”

Blanche has taken steps to curry Murkowski’s favor in recent months, visiting Alaska and announcing a $400-million settlement benefiting Alaska natives’ healthcare in July.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the other uncommitted lawmaker in the chamber, said he had concerns that Blanche was still effectively working as Trump’s personal attorney under the guise of public service.

“I am very concerned about so-called lawfare — people being prosecuted not for a valid reason beyond somebody in high office being angry at them,” Cassidy said.

“So, I’ve not made a decision regarding Mr. Blanche,” he added. “I’ve got to be convinced that he is an attorney general who just happens to have once been President Trump’s personal attorney, as opposed to President Trump’s personal attorney who is now the attorney general. I think there’s a big difference between the two.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said that he was still working to secure the votes needed for Blanche’s confirmation.

“I’m hoping we’ll get there eventually,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

Blanche became the acting attorney general in April after Bondi was fired. Blanche had previously served as deputy attorney general and has been linked to some of the most controversial policies of the Trump administration.

His connection to the settlement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service took center stage during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Blanche said during the hearing that the controversial fund created as part of the IRS settlement was dead.

But Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina refused to vote for Blanche until he issued a more explicit order that killed the fund, which was designed to provide payouts to allies of Trump.

Cornyn and Tillis also demanded that the Justice Department provide constraints to tax audit immunity that was granted to Trump, two of his sons and their business as part of the lawsuit settlement.

The federal judge who presided over the IRS case blasted the proceedings and the agreement as “improper” saying that the two sides — Trump and the IRS — were not truly independent of each other.

The written assurances provided by Blanche were enough to win support from Cornyn and Tillis, though Democrats pointed out that they did not foreclose the possibility that a similar fund could be resurrected in the future.

“The president himself has largely telegraphed that’s his plan,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the committee, said Tuesday before the vote.

Blanche has been the face of the administration’s release of files related to deceased sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Bondi told the House Oversight Committee in May that Blanche had overseen the process, which included delays in the release of files and major redaction issues.

Blanche also faced criticism for a July 2025 prison interview he conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of facilitating Epstein’s abuse.

Shortly after the interview, she was moved from her Florida prison to a low-security prison in Texas where she has reportedly gotten favorable treatment.

United States President Donald Trump has criticised his own Department of Justice after it decided to drop criminal charges against a former Olympic athlete for the alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC.

Trump voiced his opposition to the decision on Saturday, a day after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced she was dismissing the charges against 67-year-old competitive canoeist David Hearn.

Pirro said the damage was the result of “a botched installation and not vandalism”, contradicting both her own previous statements and claims made following Hearn’s June 19 arrest.

On Saturday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social page that he disagreed “100 percent” with Pirro, although he did not directly reference Hearn. Instead, he maintained that vandalism had been committed at the Reflecting Pool.

“To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM,” Trump wrote. “There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!”

He followed his statement by posting a video showing an individual, though not Hearn, sticking a hand into the Reflecting Pool.

He also shared a photo of the numbers “86 47” etched into the lawn of the nearby National Mall, which has been interpreted as a call to “86” — or “nix” — the 47th president by removing him from his office.

There is no evidence that the numbers on the lawn are related to the Reflecting Pool, which has become a major political flashpoint for Trump.

Through a series of controversial renovation projects, Trump has sought to physically transform Washington, DC, including by resurfacing the pool.

He initially used the pool’s condition and previous renovation projects to criticise past presidents.

But his own attempt to fix the Reflecting Pool instantly attracted scrutiny, particularly after Trump hand-picked a company he had previously used in a private capacity.

It had never before received a government contract, and the multimillion-dollar deal was awarded without a competitive bidding process, as is standard.

Upon the renovation’s completion, problems soon emerged. The Reflecting Pool’s new lining quickly appeared to peel, and algae blooms sprouted in early June.

Trump repeatedly blamed the situation on “vandals”. The announcement of at least seven arrests connected to the pool sparked accusations of political scapegoating.

Hearn, who represented the US three times at the Olympics, emerged as the most high-profile case.

The athlete said he was bicycling past the Reflecting Pool when he stopped, reached in and felt the peeling sealant. He has denied committing any vandalism, with his lawyers calling his arrest an attempt to distract from the shoddy renovation work.

Pirro, a former Fox News host and Trump loyalist, had initially accused Hearn of “forcefully and violently” ripping the pool’s liner, decrying his actions as “an affront to the dignity of our shared history”.

In their court filings, federal prosecutors alleged that the damage Hearn caused exceeded $1,000, justifying federal charges.

They further claimed that all of the damage done to the Reflecting Pool had been caused by vandals.

Pirro struck a far different tone in her filing on Friday. She claimed she had received new information, leading her to dramatically pivot.

“It was not until after the return of the indictment, that the [Department of Interior] provided additional documents to the [US Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC] indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” Pirro wrote.

The Department of the Interior’s documents, she continued, showed “that the damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism”.

Pirro further blamed the damage on pressure to finish the project by July 4, a date that coincides with US Independence Day and the country’s 250th anniversary.

“The rush to complete the project led to hasty and botched work that was not remediated before the project was finished and the fencing removed,” Pirro wrote.

McALLEN, Texas — A Texas mother deported to Mexico despite having legal permission to stay in the U.S. has filed a lawsuit against the federal government after it notified her it would be terminating her permission because of “unauthorized travel” stemming from her deportation.

Jessica Treviño, 34, filed a lawsuit through her attorney this week asking a federal judge to intervene.

Treviño and her husband were arrested in December after federal agents followed them and two of their daughters into a Home Depot parking lot in South Texas. Both were deported and are living in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of Brownsville, Texas. Their three children, all U.S. citizens, are living with family on the U.S. side near the border.

After being brought to the country as a child at the age of 7, Treviño subsequently received legal permission at 20 to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Introduced in 2012, DACA does not confer legal status but has allowed hundreds of thousands of people who had come to the U.S. as children to temporarily remain and obtain work permits.

As a DACA recipient, she must maintain a clean criminal record and is not allowed to travel outside the United States.

Her attorney, David Rozas, filed the lawsuit. He noted her status and work permit were most recently authorized until April 2027.

Notice to terminate DACA cites ‘unauthorized travel’

Last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent her a notice of intent to terminate her status for “unauthorized travel outside of the United States on or about March 25, 2026,” the same day she was deported from the country by the Department of Homeland Security.

In a statement, DHS said Treviño’s husband was in the country without permission and driving at the time of the arrest. After a collision between the couple’s vehicle and an unmarked Homeland Security Investigations vehicle, the couple was arrested. DHS claimed she “knowingly accepted voluntary departure and waived appeal. She left the U.S. on March 25, 2026, and will NOT return.”

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Treviño said she did not sign any forms at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility and did not want to be deported.

Lawsuit seeks restitution of status

Rozas filed a petition asking a federal judge in Brownsville to declare the woman’s expulsion was unlawful, order the government to facilitate Treviño’s return to the U.S. and allow her DACA status to remain valid.

“The government had no lawful basis to remove her, and we filed this petition to demand she be brought back home,” her attorney added.

An immigration judge under the Justice Department had issued a voluntary departure order for Treviño in February while she was in ICE custody, but a valid DACA status prevents the Department of Homeland Security from deporting her.

“I would be so blessed to be able to go back home, because that’s what I long for most right now. I’m really desperate. It’s been seven months since I’ve been home,” Treviño said Thursday. Her three children are set to start school next month and Treviño said she would like to be there.

The current Trump administration has deported 86 DACA recipients and arrested 241 others, according to a DHS letter sent in February to Democratic Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.

Advocates for DACA recipients say Treviño’s deportation is part of a pattern.

“This is what a deliberate, systematic effort to destroy DACA looks like in practice: target recipients one by one, manufacture justifications after the fact and leave their children to grow up without them,” said Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, a policy organization defending immigration rights.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

July 31 (UPI) — The U.S. State Department has apologized for using an incorrectly labeled map of Africa during a presentation at the global AIDS conference in Brazil.

The presentation that took place on Sunday had a map that included six incorrectly identified countries and misshapen borders.

The map detailed about $500 billion in potential U.S. funding to Africa.

The State Department said in a statement that it takes “full responsibility for the confusion and misrepresentation it caused for attendees, including our African partners.”

The map included an AI watermark.

Nigeria, Mozambique and Ivory Coast are placed in the completely incorrect locations on the map. Malawi and Uganda are in the generally correct region but the borders are unrecognizable. Cameroon is named on the map but it does not have a line marking its location like the other countries and is in the wrong location..

Mozambique was marked in the eastern horn of Africa, rather than its correct position in the southern part of the continent.

Ivory Coast, or Côte d’Ivoire, a coastal nation as its name suggests, was landlocked in eastern Africa rather than its rightful place on the opposite side of the continent.

Cameroon was roughly where Ivory Coast belonged and just over half of its actual size.

Nigeria was in another incorrectly landlocked location, just north of its accurate placement on the western coast bordering Cameroon.

Uganda was the closest to its correct position, needing to be moved a few hundred miles to the west, but the border was completely wrong.

Malawi’s borders were also drawn incorrectly and it was too far to the south.

“What an embarrassment,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., wrote on social media. “This is what happens when [the State Department] fires career experts and tries to have AI conduct diplomacy.”

WASHINGTON — In its latest move to restrict the legal immigration system, the Trump administration announced a sweeping change Monday that could lead to the deportations of thousands of asylum seekers.

The change from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services allows asylum officers to bypass the need to interview certain applicants and instead refer them directly to immigration judges for removal proceedings.

The agency estimates that up to a third, or 444,000 of the more than 1.4 million asylum cases in its backlog, could be affected by the rule.

The administration framed the move as an effort to streamline the process and reduce the backlog of cases. The interim final rule takes effect Tuesday and is subject to a 60-day public comment period.

“For far too long the asylum system has been exploited for purposes of delay and work authorization, not legitimate claims of protection,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a news release.

“America’s asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and this rule will help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole,” Edlow added.

But advocates for immigrants said the change leaves asylum seekers who tried to follow the law vulnerable to deportation.

Migrants can apply for asylum two ways: affirmatively or defensively.

Those who entered the country legally, such as on a visa, and still have lawful status apply with USCIS and have their cases decided by an asylum officer. Those who crossed the border illegally or who are undocumented can apply after being placed into removal proceedings, where they make their case to an immigration judge.

Immigration courts are not an independent system — they are housed under the Department of Justice and judges are federal employees.

That shift is significant because the Trump administration has fired more than 100 immigration judges and replaced them with military lawyers and former prosecutors for the Department of Homeland Security. Many of the fired judges were appointed during the Biden administration or previously worked as lawyers representing immigrants.

In recent months, immigration courts have approved a dwindling percentage of asylum claims as judges face pressure to approve more deportations. After immigration agents began arresting people in courthouses, many immigrants grew wary of showing up for court proceedings, which has aided the increase in removal orders.

USCIS refers thousands of cases to immigration courts each year, federal data shows. During the first half of this fiscal year, the agency transferred 31,454 cases to immigration courts — a number that was already on track to be higher than the 2025 yearly total of 40,932. The highest yearly total was 61,729 cases in 2019, during Trump’s first presidency.

USCIS said the current policy, which requires an asylum officer to first interview an applicant before deciding whether to send the case to an immigration judge, “essentially allows an alien to get a second chance at asylum.”

Todd Schulte, president of the immigrant advocacy organization FWD.us, noted that the rule change comes just after the Trump administration terminated temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and others, many of whom entered the U.S. legally and applied for asylum the “affirmative” way. On X, Schulte called the move “a terrible harbinger.”

For more than a quarter-century, a lawsuit settlement from a case brought in Los Angeles federal court has dictated conditions for children held in immigration detention.

But now, the long-standing settlement — which set minimum standards for housing, education and medical care for migrant kids in federal custody, while strictly limiting how long they can remain there — hangs in the balance in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a challenge by the Trump administration.

At the same time, the federal judge in L.A. who presides over the agreement appears poised to appoint a powerful new enforcer to uphold it.

President Trump has long sought to scrap the Flores settlement, which dates back to the Clinton era. In recent months, the Trump administration has waged a legal battle to cancel the agreement, while also pleading with the district court not to order an independent monitor to boost its compliance.

“[Flores] is the only thing standing between them and indefinite detention of families,” said Leecia Welch, chief legal director at Children’s Rights, a plaintiff in the case.

Last month, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate pressed the 9th Circuit court to give the administration “the thumbs-up or thumbs-down” on its bid to tear up the settlement and end what he called “judicial micromanagement” of federal immigration policy.

“The Flores consent decree is an agreement which goes well above the constitutional floor,” Shumate told the court during oral arguments in June. “We’re asking that [the Department of Homeland Security’s] compliance with the law be assessed based on the law, not a 30-year-old settlement agreement.”

The three-judge panel sharply questioned the Justice Department’s legal claims, saying little had changed since the government last petitioned the court to have the agreement dissolved in 2020 — a request that was rejected.

The judges also pressed Trump administration lawyers to respond to evidence from scores of declarations filed in district court since last summer, in which detainees describe struggling to sleep in freezing, brightly lit rooms, vomiting from eating spoiled food, and begging for diapers, baby formula and asthma inhalers.

“You’ve said a lot of the reason you’re doing this is to discourage families from coming in the first place, so you’re basically punishing children because their parents brought them here,” Judge Marsha S. Berzon said.

Berzon, a Clinton appointee who issued a fiery dissent last year in a case that challenged the administration’s use of armed troops in immigration enforcement operations, asked: “You’re saying there’s no constitutional problem there?”

“I understand the detention of children at the border is a controversial policy issue, but that’s a policy decision,” Shumate said.

Just a day earlier, Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee scolded a pair of government attorneys from her bench in Los Angeles, signaling she would probably appoint a new special master to force compliance with the settlement agreement.

“We’re talking about 11 years of this,” Gee said during the June 1 status conference. “None of these issues are new to me. These are all issues on which I have issued orders. I am very displeased about the fact that my orders are being disregarded and are not being complied with, not in good faith.”

“Both sides seem to be operating in different planes of reality,” Gee said.

The disputed settlement emerged from a 1985 lawsuit over the fate of 15-year-old Jenny Flores, a Salvadoran refugee who was picked up by federal immigration enforcement and left to languish in detention in Pasadena. At the time, there was little awareness that children were among the tens of thousands of migrants fleeing civil war and state collapse in Central America — with virtually no U.S. government infrastructure to protect them.

“It was a surprise,” said Benjamin Roth, a professor at the University of South Carolina College of Social Work and an expert on the agreement. “There was no thought then that there were kids in this mix.”

The current court fight centers on an immigration detention center in Dilley, Texas, run by the private prison company CoreCivic, where the vast majority of children and families in immigration custody are held.

In court filings earlier this month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it has “maintained core Flores-related services” at Dilley and argued its length-of-stay numbers were skewed by a small number of families it was forced to keep because they are considered “national security risks.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection likewise boasted its July 1 report “shows our highest level of compliance to date.”

Immigrant rights advocates called those claims “a fiction.”

“We see the same sorts of problems and concerns and misery that we’ve been seeing for the last 15 months,” said Welch, the Children’s Rights attorney.

In dozens of declarations collected as part of the court record, detainees recounted broccoli full of worms, diapers doled out one at a time, and staff tearing up children’s drawings.

One mother said medical staff laughed off her 8-year-old’s broken arm. Another said she was denied treatment for hepatitis B, even after doctors told her she could develop liver cancer and pass the infection on to her unborn daughter.

Still others described unexplained rashes, outbreaks of diarrhea and infestations of lice, among a host of other maladies for which many said they were offered only Tylenol or allergy medication. Even Christmas brought misery in the form of an ICE agent dressed up as Santa, who shoved away children trying to hug him, according to the detainee declarations submitted to the court.

“What happened on Christmas Day can only be described as an atrocity,” one mother recalled. Children “dropped everything, ran up to him, begged for candy and wanted to take pictures. Some children even cried and begged him for their freedom. Santa himself acted very indifferent.”

The Department of Justice argued that immigrant kids could still sue over poor conditions if the Flores settlement is unwound. But experts say existing protections would collapse without the legal architecture of the consent decree to support them.

“[Under the settlement], the federal government has built out a very efficient system to provide temporary care for kids,” Roth said. “If Flores is dissolved, it’s not going to be easy to stand up this same set of programs.”

If the Trump administration loses before the 9th Circuit, the fight over Flores could soon escalate to the Supreme Court.

“I’d be shocked if the 9th Circuit rules for the government, and I’d be shocked if the Trump administration doesn’t appeal,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the high court.

But consent decrees are legally and politically complicated, and the treatment of migrant children further tangles the situation. Given the legal and political complexity, the Supreme Court could rule to keep the settlement in place, or decline to take the case at all, experts said.

“It’s more likely than not the court would stay away from this,” Segall said.

For now, both the district judge and the 9th Circuit panel appear fed up.

“I think my patience has come to an end,” Gee said during the recent hearing in her Los Angeles courtroom.

Over the past decade, the LAPD has received thousands of complaints accusing officers of targeting people solely because of their race, ethnicity or other form of outward appearance.

Only one has been fired for it.

The now-former officer, Edgar Garcia Cancino, was part of a San Fernando Valley anti-gang unit whose members were alleged to have improperly pulled over and searched hundreds of motorists. Cancino has appealed his termination, arguing that other officers in his unit carried out more of the problematic stops. He claimed the department sought to make an example of him because he refused to implicate his superiors in wrongdoing.

Accusations of racial profiling have long plagued the department, alienating generations of Black and brown Angelenos. Known within the LAPD as “biased policing,” such complaints have persisted despite repeated attempts to enact reform. But the question of how commonly profiling occurs in the LAPD remains a topic of pointed debate.

Years of studies by researchers and reporting by The Times and other news outlets have found Blacks and Latinos in L.A. are subjected to stops, frisks, searches and arrests at significantly higher rates than whites, regardless of whether they live in high-crime neighborhoods. Past LAPD chiefs have acknowledged isolated cases of profiling may occur. At the same time, they have denied that there is a widespread, systemic problem.

An internal LAPD investigation of Cancino’s Mission Division gang squad uncovered an “overwhelming pattern of intentional policy violations,” according to a summary of the case file reviewed by The Times.

Police investigators said in the case file that they identified hundreds of stops that were not properly documented, along with failures by the officers to active their body and dashboard cameras.

The allegations against Cancino largely hinged on two stops, according to his attorney. In May 2023, Cancino and his partner pulled over a man for allegedly speeding and having tinted windows, said his attorney, Nicole Castronovo. The vehicle’s registration turned out to be expired, Castronovo said, but the driver was allowed to leave without a citation after the officers searched his vehicle and found nothing incriminating.

When interviewed about the incident later, according to Castronovo, the motorist told police investigators that Cancino had stopped him because ”I looked like a G,” or gangster.

A few months later, the attorney said, Cancino was involved in another questionable stop, this time of a pedestrian who also later lodged a complaint alleging he was profiled.

Castronovo denied that Cancino had unfairly targeted anyone while on the job, saying he is a proud Latino who joined the force out of a desire to give back to the city where he grew up. She argued that the department’s investigators cherry-picked cases involving Cancino while ignoring similar behavior by other Mission cops.

“They have set up a system where it’s virtually impossible to sustain a biased policing complaint against an officer,” she said. “And then they turn around and weaponized” it against Cancino.

The probe’s findings were presented to LAPD leadership, who recommended that Cancino be fired and sent to a disciplinary hearing.

Castronovo argued in an appeal that her client and another fired Mission officer, Kim Lobos, had been denied a fair disciplinary hearing because both were initially represented by a lawyer appointed by the police union who had a conflict of interest. According to Castronovo, the union attorney also represented other Mission officers who agreed to testify against Cancino and Lobos. A Los Angeles County judge ultimately rejected their appeal.

Only one other LAPD officer prior to Cancino was fired for alleged racial profiling, a case that occurred in 2011.

According to the California Department of Justice, 4,878 allegations of bias were brought against LAPD officers from 2016 to 2025. Of those, only three were sustained.

The department’s rates mirror those of most other law enforcement agencies across the state. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, which received roughly 10% fewer complaints over than span, has sustained six racial bias allegations against deputies.

Defenders of the Police Department note that any member of the public is allowed to submit a complaint regardless of whether there is supporting evidence, which leads to a high number of allegations that cannot be proven. Others note that the presence of body-worn cameras has helped disprove frivolous claims filed by criminal suspects or others who have an ax to grind with the department.

A report released last year by the advocacy group Catalyst California found that in 2025, Black motorists accounted for nearly a third of all stops for minor traffic violations, even though they make up roughly 8% of the city’s population. The same report found that Latinos, who are about 47% of L.A.’s population, were pulled over in 58% of all traffic stops.

Latino people are up to four times more likely to be subjected to “consent” searches, and Black people up to three times as likely, according to the Catalyst study. Fewer than 1 in 10 of those stops resulted in seizures of guns or drugs, the report said.

LAPD officials have pushed back on the findings, saying there is no established methodology for analyzing racial profiling data. Many factors affect the racial and ethnic patterns of traffic stops — from the predominant race of the neighborhood in which the stop was made or whether the stop resulted in an arrest and conviction — all of which must be considered when interpreting raw data, officials say.

In May, the Los Angeles City Council voted in favor of limiting the use of “pretextual” stops, in which police use a broken taillight or another minor equipment violation as justification to pull someone over in order to investigate whether a more serious crime has occurred. Activists and some council members said they wanted to ban a controversial tactic that enabled racial discrimination. The measure urges the Police Commission, which is responsible for LAPD policy changes, to take up the issue this year.

The LAPD’s unwillingness to acknowledge officer biases and hand down punishment when warranted serves only to drive a wedge between the community and the department, said Peter Bibring, a civil rights and police practices attorney.

“The department, year after year after year, is saying, ‘Nope this never happens, this never happens,’” Bibring said. “Then the community doesn’t feel like the department is recognizing these legitimate problems and responding to their concerns.”

During a deposition for a racial profiling lawsuit filed over a 2019 traffic stop, an LAPD official was asked what evidence it would take to get someone fired.

The attorney for the plaintiff, a Black man who sued claiming he was pulled over by three gang officers who handcuffed him and allegedly searched his vehicle without probable cause, asked: “If you found out that a given officer had pulled over 2,000 people in the last year, and all 2,000 of them were Black, would you have enough information, sitting here today, to determine whether or not that data alone indicated that the officer was engaged in biased policing?”

The LAPD official’s response, according to the deposition transcript: “No.”

Jim Willis, a former LAPD detective who later worked for the L.A. Police Commission’s inspector general’s office, pointed to past audits that found serious shortcomings in the department’s investigations of racial bias complaints. Furthermore, he said, many people who are affected never file claims because they don’t understand laws around consent searches — or they are just relieved when officers let them go.

Even when someone bothers to file a complaint, Willis said, it’s difficult to gather enough evidence from a brief interaction to prove an officer made a traffic stop solely because of race. If there was a minor traffic infraction or other probable cause to make a stop, proving their motive requires them to confess to acting with intent to discriminate, Willis said.

That’s why most claims are dismissed by LAPD investigators, he said, “unless, you caught somebody on their body-worn video saying, ‘Hey tonight we’re going out and we’re (pulling over) brothers.’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday passed a defense policy bill that incorporates President Trump’s request for a historic $1.15 trillion in spending for national security and would designate the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

It also would provide for a pay raise next year ranging from 5% to 7% for service members, depending upon their rank.

The National Defense Authorization Act is generally one of the more bipartisan bills that Congress takes up on an annual basis. That’s not the case this year. The vote was 216-212.

Democrats took issue with steep spending increases for the Pentagon as Republicans attempted to cut numerous non-defense programs through other bills. They also opposed some of the conservative social policy riders that were included.

For example, the bill includes a prohibition on gender-related medical care under the military health program known as TRICARE. It also eases hurdles for service members to carry a privately owned firearm on base, following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s lead on the issue.

Republican leaders’ decision to attach Trump’s elections overhaul bill to the defense bill upon its passing also amplified the partisan divide. Speaker Mike Johnson is working to accommodate Republican lawmakers who are angry that the Senate won’t pass the SAVE America Act and are insisting that it be included in must-pass bills until the Senate relents.

House bill tests a normally bipartisan process

Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he knows there were areas of disagreement, but emphasized that Wednesday’s vote was a step in a long process. He promised to work in a bipartisan manner on a final product that can pass both chambers and be signed into law.

Rogers said the United States needs to reverse decades of underinvestment and neglect in the nation’s armed forces and defense industrial base.

“This bill will do that and much more,” he said. “It will build the ready, capable and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and other adversaries.”

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democratic lawmaker on the Armed Services Committee, said the defense spending the administration has asked for this year is approaching $1.6 trillion including separate efforts to pay for the war in Iran and boost weapons stockpiles.

“The American people are struggling to pay their bills and we’re going to put $1.6 trillion into the defense budget. It’s not a reasonable thing to ask,” Smith said.

Smith also expressed concern about the war with Iran and that in supporting the defense bill, lawmakers are “de facto supporting this war with no end in sight.”

“We are in an incredibly, incredibly dangerous time,” Smith said. “I want to maintain the bipartisan nature of this bill. I do. And I know that the chairman does. But if we’re going to do this, we’re going to need some Republicans to stand up to the president of the United States and say, ‘No. No, we’re not going to get you $1.6 trillion. No, we’re not just going to give you a blank check for a war that is totally out of control.‘”

White House backs parts of the legislation

The spending increases authorized in the bill would not take effect until Congress follows up with a separate defense appropriations bill. The Senate has not yet approved its version of the defense measure. It’s possible a final product won’t be ready until after the midterm elections.

The White House applauded the spending levels authorized in the House bill and the Department of War designation that it says recognizes the “willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our nation.”

The president issued an executive order last year renaming the Defense Department, but it’s up to Congress to make the change official. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the renaming could cost taxpayers as much as $125 million.

The White House’s statement also said that the administration has a number of concerns with certain provisions in the bill and would work with Congress before a final bill is presented to the president. Among those concerns was a section of the bill it said would limit or undermine the president’s ability to name military installations and property.

In 2023, during a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases’ names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Last year, those bases reverted to their original names, but with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames. The Army found other service members with the same last names to honor.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport “alien terrorists” from the United States.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website.

The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held Thursday during which the court had “questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions.”

“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota.

She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday.

The court’s authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected “alien terrorist.” If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government has the burden to prove that the individual satisfies that definition. Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general.

Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an “alien terrorist” by, among other factors, having “engaged in a terrorist activity,” endorsing or espousing terrorist activities and by belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity.

The court has been dormant since its creation, having received — until last week — no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. It comprises five judges selected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants who officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum to consider a request for deportation on national security grounds.

“In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. “So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings … you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?”

The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When Markwayne Mullin took over as Homeland Security secretary from fired Kristi Noem, he pledged to get the department responsible for carrying out the Trump administration’s mass deportations policy out of the headlines.

But just months into Mullin’s time in office, the department is squarely in the center of controversy again after three people were killed in encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the span of less than a week.

The events are the first major test for Mullin, who promised a steady hand for a department roiled by his predecessor’s conduct and the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

As he navigates the uptick in violence, he is being forced into a balancing act that has him juggling pressures from a White House eager to carry out mass deportations and his former colleagues in Congress seeking answers — all while attempting to ease tensions in American cities over the deaths.

“When he took his position, Secretary Mullin said that his goal was to get the department off the front page of the news,” Democratic Rep. Seth Magaziner said on the House floor Tuesday. Then, waving a newspaper, he said: “Well, you’re back on the goddamn front page now.”

Mullin’s approach is a marked change from his predecessor, Kristi Noem

Mullin, a former senator from Oklahoma, was a surprise pick to run the sprawling department after Noem was fired in the wake of two deadly shootings of American protesters at the hands of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis earlier this year.

As the secretary in charge of carrying out the administration’s mass deportations vision, Noem pushed an aggressive style of immigration enforcement where she was front and center, including most famously, a visit to a Salvadoran detention center. She was quick to speak publicly on controversial events, weighing in on both Minneapolis shootings with statements accusing the killed protesters of being agitators.

President Trump, who made mass deportations a central promise of his second administration, ultimately soured on Noem over a $200 million ad campaign and her handling of the Minneapolis operation.

Mullin promised a different approach, while still pledging to deliver on the president’s priorities. His first trip as secretary was not to promote immigration enforcement but to observe hurricane recovery efforts in North Carolina. Noem frequently went out on immigration raids with her officers — Mullin has not.

Since he became secretary and in the aftermath of the Minneapolis violence, the administration has also moved away from high-profile and unpopular immigration operations in American cities to a quieter approach to enforcement that has largely shifted media attention away from the crackdown. Under Mullin, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also retreating from a plan to use warehouses to detain migrants.

But immigration arrests continue under Mullin and often with little fanfare: ICE arrested 10,000 people over a five-day period in late June, averaging out to about to 2,000 arrests per day. And legal pathways to immigration have also faced new restrictions.

Trump, during Mullin’s tenure, has hailed the secretary as “so incredible,” and “amazing,” lauding him for giving up his Senate seat to run DHS.

For months, it appeared as though Mullin’s change in approach was taking hold. While advocates and civil rights activists accused the department of mistreating immigrants under his leadership, Mullin’s less confrontational approach seemed to keep the department out of the spotlight.

But the events of the past week have posed a new challenge for Mullin as he walks a tightrope between his softer approach and the president’s demands.

“Trying to deal with competing policy objectives is a challenge for any Cabinet secretary, but Mullin has this worse than most,” said Tom Warrick, a former counterterrorism official at Homeland Security who’s now at the Atlantic Council.

“In the case of Homeland Security, the White House wants both to meet their immigration quotas at the same time that they keep public trust, and how you do that — even with the funding that Mullin has — is a really difficult challenge.”

ICE officers in Houston and Maine shot and killed individuals in their cars during immigration operations. In Florida, a man fleeing ICE officers was killed in a car crash.

Mullin has not spoken publicly about the deaths while the department’s public affairs office has released only brief statements following each.

Behind the scenes, Mullin, who frequently talks about how he shares his cellphone number with members of Congress and encourages them to call him directly, has talked with lawmakers and shared information, including talking with both senators from Maine.

And after the second shooting death in Maine, as criticism surged from both protesters and Mullin’s former colleagues in Congress, ICE was ordered to suspend most vehicle stops.

Trump heaps pressure on Mullin over vehicle stop order

That decision infuriated Trump’s supporters.

Conservative influencer Nick Sorter called it a “TOTAL CAPITULATION to the left,” in a post on X. Conservative activist Mike Davis accused Mullin of heeding the advice of Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who said she’d suggested the vehicle stop pause to the secretary.

A day later, Trump appeared to contradict the guidance to ICE, saying in a social media post “we must be strong, tough and smart and we CANNOT give up one of ICE’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!”

Mullin then reposted Trump’s words, adding that people in the country would be “arrested and deported wherever they are.” He later said on X that he and the president are “on the same page.”

It was not immediately clear whether vehicle stops were back on.

But it showed the friction between Mullin’s attempts to maintain calm and the president’s demands that illegal immigrants, which the administration has in many instances portrayed as criminals, be arrested in large numbers.

Democrats have slammed the new secretary, saying that they see little change at the department.

“Secretary Mullin, if he wants to, and if he has the backing of the White House, he has the ability to get ICE under control and make them follow the law,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas. “So either he has no interest in doing that, or the White House is not backing him up, or the agents are simply out of control.”

Republican lawmakers have come to Mullin’s defense.

“I think the Secretary has lived up to what he’s wanted to do to try to change the atmosphere over there,” said Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, who as chair of the congressional Homeland Security Committee has requested a bipartisan briefing on ICE’s use of force policies from DHS.

“I don’t think anybody is celebrating that ICE is back in the headlines,” Garbarino said.

Santana writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

New Mexico says the withheld records are critical to its criminal investigation into alleged abuse at Epstein’s ranch.

The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) has said it cannot provide the state of New Mexico with unredacted files pertaining to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In a social media post on Wednesday, it argued that doing so would violate existing law.

“Federal law, court orders, and privacy protections for victims and witnesses do not allow us to release millions of unredacted documents,” the department wrote.

The post came in response to pressure from New Mexico’s Department of Justice, led by state Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat.

In a letter released to the public last week, Torrez accused the administration of President Donald Trump of obstructing his state’s investigation by refusing to release critical documents.

But the US Justice Department (USDOJ) pushed back in Wednesday’s post, claiming Torrez’s request fell outside its authority.

“We will continue to follow federal law and the court orders that are in place,” the Justice Department said. “To capitulate to their demands would be to break federal law. Is that what the [New Mexico attorney general] is suggesting?”

The Epstein scandal has been a pressure point for the Trump administration since the Republican leader began his second term in 2025.

Critics say the administration has fallen short of its commitment to transparency, with some speculating that officials may be shielding powerful figures featured in the Epstein files.

Trump himself was part of Epstein’s social circle. He has denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Epstein is accused of directing a sex-trafficking ring whose victims number in the hundreds.

In 2019, during Trump’s first administration, federal prosecutors called on New Mexico to suspend its investigation into Epstein’s activities in the state to allow their own case to proceed.

Epstein, however, died that year while in jail. His death was deemed a suicide.

New Mexico reopened its investigation in February after the second Trump administration released millions of records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

In his letter this month, Torrez explained that his office has spent more than five months seeking the unredacted federal records it needs to proceed with its probe.

But the office has yet to receive all the files it requested, Torrez said. He called the Justice Department’s actions a “deliberate choice not to cooperate”.

“Every day the USDOJ withholds these records, the case that could be brought on behalf of New Mexico survivors becomes more difficult to make,” Torrez wrote.

“Witnesses relocate and become unreachable, memories already strained by years of trauma and silence continue to fade, physical and documentary evidence degrades or is lost.”

New Mexico is examining allegations that women and girls were trafficked to Epstein’s Zorro Ranch, a sprawling property he owned south of Santa Fe from 1993 until his death.

Documents released by the US Justice Department in January include an unverified tip about videos of sexual abuse and the alleged burial of two foreign girls on the property.

Survivors like the late Virginia Giuffre have also made allegations about sexual assault and other crimes taking place on the ranch. State officials say those allegations were never fully investigated.

The dispute comes amid growing scrutiny of the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

The administration continues to face questions about whether it fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed in November.

It required the Justice Department to publish its Epstein-related records within 30 days, with limited redactions to protect victims.

Millions of files were eventually released, many with heavy redactions, while the identities of some victims were exposed.

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

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

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

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

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Whittle, Brook and Sisak write for Associated Press.

BIDDEFORD, Maine — A federal immigration agent fatally shot a motorist in Maine on Monday, the second time in a week that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have used deadly force.

Sen. Angus King, I-Me., said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told him the agent opened fire in Biddeford after the man tried to use his vehicle as a weapon against agents who were pursuing him for deportation.

“He was in a vehicle — pulled out in the vehicle, and the term the secretary used was “weaponized” the vehicle and was shot by an ICE agent,” King said.

Bystander video taken after the shooting showed agents trying to slow a white sedan that was going in circles in an intersection in Biddeford, a coastal city of about 23,000 people roughly 15 miles southwest of Portland. Images from the scene showed bullet holes in the vehicle’s windshield.

The agents involved in the shooting didn’t have body-worn cameras, King said, relaying information shared by Mullin. The FBI is leading the investigation, he said.

“The question is, what did he do with his vehicle,” King told reporters in Portland before boarding a flight to Washington. “Were officers threatened? Were the threats rising to the level that justified deadly force?

“That’s what this investigation is all about and I certainly intend to stay after it to do everything I can to be sure the investigation is as transparent and thorough as possible.”

In a statement, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., said the shooting “requires a full and impartial investigation of what happened.”

Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, a Democrat, said in social media post: “This morning a shooting occurred in Biddeford. A person was killed. ICE was involved,” Fecteau wrote. “State Police and the Department of Public Safety are now on scene to gather details and would expect the FBI to investigate as well.”

The man shot was a 26-year-old from Colombia, advocates say

The man who was shot was a 26-year-old Colombian man who was authorized to work in the U.S. and had a Social Security number, according to a joint statement from advocacy groups Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and Presente!

After the shooting, the man’s family contacted the Immigrants’ Rights Coalition through a hotline, according to Mufalo Chitam, the organization’s executive director.

“It’s a young family and he was leaving to go to work,” Chitam told The Associated Press.

The family is not ready to identify the man or speak publicly about the shooting, Chitam added.

“We are grieving, we are furious, and we will not allow his death to be treated as routine or inevitable,” Chitam said. “How much more harm must our communities endure before those with the power to act acknowledge that this has gone too far?”

Protesters gather near the scene

ICE and the Maine Department of Public Safety didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Kristen Setera, an FBI spokesperson, said the FBI “responded to assist on-scene immediately following this morning’s shooting incident in Biddeford, Maine,” but she declined to comment further.

Dozens of anti-ICE demonstrators had gathered in Biddeford by Monday afternoon.

Amy Goodman, who is from nearby Wells, arrived with a sign that said “Stop Killing Us” and directed it toward police working at the scene.

“Sadly, it’s something we’re seeing a whole lot more often lately, and I’m mad about it,” said Goodman, who was wearing a shirt that said “ICE is best when crushed.”

Project Relief, an immigrant rights group, wrote in a social media post that one of its community members was killed “during an encounter with ICE in Biddeford” and that it was in contact with the person’s family. The group described the person as “young,” but didn’t provide an age or other identifying details.

“This was a young person whose life was cut short,” the group said, calling for justice and support for the family and community.

Biddeford Saco for Racial Justice planned a noon protest against ICE in Mechanics Park, which sits along the Saco River in downtown Biddeford.

Police blocked access to the shooting scene, which is in a neighborhood of mostly multifamily homes, churches and businesses near downtown. Several protesters stood nearby, with some holding signs condemning ICE’s presence in the community and state.

Gov. Janet Mills issued a statement saying she had been briefed on the fatal shooting “involving Federal law enforcement” and that the State Police are at the scene and working with the state attorney general’s office, chief medical examiner’s office and federal officials to determine what happened.

“I know that situations like these are alarming and frightening,” said Mills, a Democrat.

A recent uptick in Trump’s immigration crackdown

The fatal shooting in Maine was at least the ninth death from an encounter with federal immigration officials since the start of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and the second in a week, following the killing of a Houston man.

The reported shooting comes amid a newly intensified push by the Trump administration to carry out its mass deportations agenda. During the five-day period at the end of June, ICE arrested more than 10,000 people. The figures indicate that while the administration is no longer cracking down on individual cities, the arrests continue and are surging.

Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree, of Maine, said in a video posted on social media that she was driving to Portland to catch a flight to Washington when she learned of the reported shooting. She said she was seeking answers about the circumstances surrounding the shooting, including whether officers were wearing body cameras, adding, “More than anything else, I want to know, ‘Why are you in Maine?’”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat who is running for Senate, said on X that she would not speculate about the circumstances of the shooting but called for ICE to be removed from communities, writing, “It’s time to get ICE off our streets.”

Not Maine’s first brush with ICE

ICE had a significant presence in Maine earlier this year, which resulted in several large demonstrations against the agency.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, named the operation “Catch of the Day,” an apparent play on Maine’s seafood industry, just as it has done for other enforcement surges, like “Patriot” in Massachusetts, “Metro Surge” in Minnesota and “Midway Blitz” in Chicago.

Immigration officials said in late January that they had ceased “enhanced operations” in Maine after making hundreds of arrests. A Homeland Security spokesperson said at the time that some Maine arrests were of people “convicted of horrific crimes including aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and endangering the welfare of a child.” But court records painted a slightly different story: While some had felony convictions, others were detainees with unresolved immigration proceedings or who were arrested but never convicted of a crime.

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns received widespread condemnation last winter after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minnesota. Last week, an ICE officer fatally shot 52-year-old Salgado Araujo, of Houston, after he was pursued by federal agents driving unmarked vehicles while he was taking his construction crew to their latest job site.

Whittle and Willingham write for the Associated Press. Willingham reported from Boston. AP reporter Jack Brook contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the remnants of the government’s landmark case against far-right Proud Boys members who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House after he lost his reelection bid more than five years ago.

The case’s dismissal late Friday became a foregone conclusion when Trump last year used his pardon powers to erase every case that the government prosecuted after a mob of his supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge who presided over the Proud Boys leaders’ trial saw no basis to preserve the convictions after Trump’s sweeping act of clemency last year.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated during his first term, said there is “little mystery” about why the second Trump administration decided to abandon this case and every other Jan. 6 riot case.

“President Trump’s views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 — whether those views are based on fact or fiction — are well known, as is his intention to extend clemency to them,” Kelly wrote.

The judge stressed that his order should not be mistaken as an endorsement of the Department of Justice’s decision to abandon the case. He referred to the Capitol riot as “a perilous event” and an assault on the constitutional imperative for a peaceful transfer of power between presidents.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

Juries in the nation’s capital separately convicted leaders of the Proud Boys and another extremist group, the antigovernment Oath Keepers, of orchestrating violent plots to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

A different judge has not ruled yet on the Justice Department’s related request to throw out Oath Keepers’ seditious conspiracy convictions.

Friday’s ruling applied to four of five Proud Boys members who were convicted after a jury trial: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. Trump commuted their prison sentences, but they were not covered by the president’s mass pardons.

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio was convicted at the same trial but received a pardon from Trump. Kelly had sentenced Tarrio to 22 years, the longest prison term in any Capitol riot case.

Kunzelman and Durkin Richer write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.

The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally on which the administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service this month. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.

The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the New York Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes.

They were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The journalists subpoenaed included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.

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

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump’s “war on the press is looking for another victim.”

He said in a statement that the subpoenas “break from long-standing Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”

The department said that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

Its statement said that “we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”

While recognizing “there may always be natural tension there,” the department said, “we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s OK to leak classified information impacting national security.”

Pattern of anti-press actions

Issuing subpoenas represents a further ramping up of Trump’s effort to threaten independent new organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas.

In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.

Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Friday’s subpoenas and the prospect of “hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike: Watch what you say, or expect a knock on the door.”

“These tactics are becoming more common,” Steinbaugh said in a statement. “That doesn’t make them normal.”

During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an “enemy” of the American people. Since returning to the White House, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.

Trump’s attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him has included filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatening to revoke TV broadcast licenses and seeking to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.

The Justice Department over the years has developed and revised internal policies governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

Though the department across presidential administrations has periodically seized the phone records of individual journalists in hopes of identifying sources for national security stories, it is extremely rare for the government to attempt to compel reporters to reveal their sources before a grand jury.

In April 2025, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

Doing so again gave prosecutors the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

A memo Bondi issued said members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo stated.

Security issues with new Air Force One

The president flew the new Air Force One to Turkey during this week’s visit. But he departed Wednesday on one of the older-model Air Force One jets for Mildenhall, a Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, England.

The newer plane also flew to Mildenhall. Trump then switched to that plane for the flight home to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

The abrupt swap came as a shaky ceasefire with Iran had collapsed, with the U.S. launching airstrikes on Iran and Tehran attacking three gulf Arab states. Iran and Turkey share a border, sparking speculation that the new jet lacked certain sophisticated security and countermeasure systems.

The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service, and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities.

Trump denied any security concerns, posting on social media that the stop in Mildenhall was so that service members there could view the new jet. During the flight, Trump denied to the reporters accompanying him that security concerns involving Iran were a factor in flying two planes home.

Still, asked if he was aware of any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran, Trump responded, “I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list.”

The White House did not answer messages seeking comment about the subpoenas of the Times journalists.

Weissert and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Michelle L. Price and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

President Trump’s administration is threatening to withhold some federal funding from states that don’t make changes to voting practices and is warning state election officials that they face arrest if they don’t remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

Letters to states and grant application details are the latest in a line of actions by Trump’s administration to shape details of running elections that have long been the job of states.

Courts have largely rejected the administration’s previous efforts, which reflect untrue claims about widespread voting fraud and come less than four months ahead of crucial midterm elections where Democrats seek to take control of one or both chambers of Congress and check Trump’s power.

“The overall point is that Trump is trying to use whatever levers of power and persuasive power that he might have to try to interfere with how states and localities are going to conduct the 2026 election,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “Some of this is aimed at changing how the rules are conducted. Some of it appears to be aimed at undermining voter confidence in the integrity of the election process.”

Justice Department warns election officials of prosecution

In letters sent Tuesday, to election officials for all 50 states and the District of Columbia — often secretaries of state — the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said they and other election administrators could face criminal charges if they knowingly allow nonvoters to vote or remain on voting rolls.

It also called on the states to tell the federal government within five days how they intend to comply with the law.

Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, said it’s not clear the 50-state letter means anything except to restate some parts of the law, with a request to follow up, “which I’m sure many states will ignore.”

The letter also warns that anyone who knowingly and willfully gives false information in registering to vote or voting would face criminal prosecution.

Antiterrorism grants include election requirements

A Federal Emergency Management Agency antiterrorism grant announcement in June includes a list of election-related requirements, saying that 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until they comply.

The program includes more than $1 billion for states and local and tribal governments for a variety of programs aimed at preventing terror at crowded places, online, with border security — and around elections. FEMA expects to award 56 grants.

“Recipients can ensure that their efforts contribute to a secure, transparent, and resilient electoral process, thereby reinforcing public trust and the integrity of democratic institutions,” the grant announcement says, noting that securing election infrastructure is a national security priority.

The list of items for states includes verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers.

Places that use electronic voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes would have to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots. Every jurisdiction would have to show it audits results.

UCLA’s Hasen said it could be difficult even for states that want to comply. It’s too close to the midterm election to make some of the changes, he said, and some would require state legislatures to pass new laws.

The White House on Wednesday referred questions to FEMA, which did not immediately respond to an interview request.

Response from states appears to be partisan

Some states are pushing back, while others are defending the latest actions.

They seem to be breaking along party lines.

Oregon’s secretary of state, Democrat Tobias Read, accused the Justice Department of “knocking on our door again with more threats and no evidence to back up their fever dreams about non-existent voter fraud.”

Oregon elections are secure, accurate, and fair, he said, adding that he isn’t “intimidated by political threats or manufactured controversy.”

The Michigan secretary of state’s office, headed by Democrat Jocelyn Benson, said it has discussed its work repeatedly with the Justice Department and in public statements, congressional hearings and court testimony — information that it said “is either in the DOJ’s possession or easy reach.”

“We will be happy to provide it again to help address any confusion,” the office said in a statement.

In a statement, Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose defended the Justice Department’s missive to states, saying it’s reminding them of their legal obligation regarding election integrity. A lot of states aren’t taking it seriously, he said without giving examples or citing evidence. He said Ohio has worked with the federal government to ensure that its voter rolls are accurate and that only U.S. citizens vote.

Georgia’s secretary of state’s office says the state has already taken many of the actions required in the FEMA grant, including a citizenship audit of voter rolls.

Several of Trump’s election actions have faced resistance

Trump has repeatedly and wrongly asserted that fraud cost him reelection in 2020, and his administration has put forth a series of policies and actions aimed at how elections are run.

In recent days, courts have rejected the Justice Department’s effort to collect the names and contact information for every election worker in Georgia in the 2020 election and others trying to force New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to turn over detailed information about registered voters. With those rulings, the federal government has lost similar cases more than 10 times around its requests for details from 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Last week, a group of Democratic governors asked the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw its proposed rule seeking to implement an order from Trump to create a list of eligible voters — and potentially limit who can receive a ballot in the mail. A court previously put the order on hold, saying it was unconstitutional.

Also last week, the Supreme Court rebuked Trump and ruled that states can count mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Mulvihill and Levy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Bill Barrow, Kate Brumback and Josh Kelety contributed to this report.