department

The Trump administration is considering trading a parcel of Yosemite National Park to a private commercial developer, according to administration officials, members of Congress and documents reviewed by The Times.

The proposed deal would allow the developer to build a road connecting adjacent property it already owns in the Stanislaus National Forest to a service road within Yosemite, providing any future development on that property with unique access to the famed public wilderness, documents show.

According to a Friday report by the news outlet NOTUS, Trump administration officials have been quietly pressuring the National Park Service to approve the deal for the land despite such pressure being highly unusual and previous proposals for the land being repeatedly denied under the Bush and Obama administrations and in court.

The Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service, acknowledged in a statement to The Times on Friday that a land deal is under consideration, but denied any inappropriate influence from the White House.

It said negotiations for the land will comply with all federal rules for federal lands, and that “no final decisions have been made.”

An attorney for the private developer said the deal has nothing to do with politics and is in fact an “environmentally friendly” solution, in that it would dramatically cut down on the amount of driving the future upscale development’s residents would have to do to access the park.

President Trump speaks to astronauts aboard the International Space Station as he visits NASA’s Mission Control Center on Aug. in Houston, Texas.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Congressional Democrats — including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California — are trying to block the deal, after being informed of it earlier this year by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund was created by Congress in 1964 to safeguard natural areas and public lands, and often works to acquire lands to add to national parks.

A fact sheet on the project reviewed by The Times identified the parcel by a former name, the “Hazel Green Ranch,” and said the landowner is seeking to acquire an “interest” in land within the park in order to build a new road connecting “a planned commercial development” to Big Oak Flat Road, an existing federally owned road that “provides access to the park and is a major route to Yosemite Valley.”

The fact sheet said the National Park Service does not have the authority to grant that interest, but has been working with the landowner to facilitate an “exchange” of the land for some other, unidentified parcel of land that is beneficial to the U.S., as allowed under law for federal land swaps.

The project has been identified to lawmakers, without explanation, as a “priority.” Both Padilla and Schiff have objected to it, and Padilla’s office said it is working with Senate Appropriations Committee staff to block the deal.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land and interests in land in order to safeguard natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage — and to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans,” Padilla said in a statement to The Times. “Projects should be chosen on merit, not on an applicant’s connections to high-ranking Trump administration officials.”

Schiff, in his own statement, said Yosemite is “one of California’s natural wonders, and must be protected from further development.”

He said the Trump administration “appears hellbent on moving forward in the face of opposition from the public, Congress and the courts,” and that “the only thing the administration cares about is whether there is money involved.”

The company behind the private development is Nevada-based real estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital. According to Federal Election Commission records, Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump, the Republican National Committee and other Republican groups.

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, represents Kingsbarn, and said the notion the project is moving forward due to Trump administration pressure and Pori’s political contributions despite being environmentally detrimental is false.

He said Kingsbarn wants to build “upscale, single-family houses” on its property, but hasn’t so far because residents would have to drive 28 miles using current roads to reach the park.

To cut that distance down and make the development more feasible, it asked the National Park Service to purchase an 11-mile strip of land within Yosemite to build a shorter, more direct access road, Davis said.

The Park Service responded by saying the company could not purchase park land directly, but could purchase other nearby land of equal or greater value, and then swap it for the park land, Davis said.

It is now working with the Interior Department to identify such land, and is “very close” to doing so, Davis said — calling it a “pro environmental solution” that follows federal law and has “nothing to do” with Pori’s politics.

The White House referred questions about the proposed deal to the Interior Department.

In its statement to The Times, the Interior Department said the NOTUS story “relies on anonymous allegations to manufacture a political narrative that simply is not true. There has been no political pressure to reach a predetermined outcome, and claims suggesting the Department is secretly working to hand over National Park Service land to a private developer are false.”

If a proposal does advance, the statement said, the department will follow established procedures with “transparency and public involvement consistent with federal law. Anonymous speculation does not change those facts.”

The department did not respond to a request for more details as to the proposal.

The land in question represents a tiny portion of the sprawling Yosemite National Park, which is nearly 750,000 acres in total — or roughly the size of Rhode Island. Still, slicing off any piece of the California wilderness — considered a crown jewel in the national park system — runs counter to promises from Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

“My Administration is committed to protecting every acre of our lands and preserving the cleanest air and water in the world,” Trump said in a presidential message on Monday.

Ceding federal lands is also anathema to land preservation groups, which expressed dismay at the idea that any piece of Yosemite might be lost, no matter how small.

Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said that the NOTUS reporting was “consistent” with what his organization has been hearing “for several months” — and would be inconsistent with public desires for national park lands.

“The American people have consistently said that our public lands, especially our national parks, are not for sale,” he said. “If Secretary Burgum spent more time listening to Americans instead of indulging President Trump’s whims on the National Mall, he’d understand what a terrible idea this is.”

Jayson O’Neill, a spokesman for the group Save Our Parks, said the proposed deal as described by NOTUS represented the latest attempt by the Trump administration and Burgum to gut the Park Service and “then quietly cede treasured park land to private developers, thinking nobody’s watching.”

“National parks belong to the American people, not monied developers who are part of Trump’s donor class,” O’Neill said.

Mark Rose, senior Sierra Nevada program manager for the National Parks Conservation Assn., slammed the proposed land swap as a “secretive, backroom deal” and “an attack on the American people that own this national park.”

He said Yosemite is already facing overcrowding due to “run-away lodging” development outside its borders and the Trump administration’s decision to do away with the park’s reservation system, and a new development would “exacerbate the chaos.”

“The National Park Service needs to get back to prioritizing conservation, not helping bulldoze land, cut down towering trees and construct a luxury development that will harm Yosemite’s wildlife and increase wildfire risks,” Rose said.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s fidelity to President Trump nearly cost him his confirmation. Now comes Blanche’s real test.

Trump’s former personal attorney has stepped into the commanding role facing a challenge that other leaders of the Republican president’s Department of Justice could not overcome: threading the needle between Trump’s boundary-busting demands and a prosecutor’s duty to uphold the rule of law. At the same time, Blanche must try to stabilize a workforce shaken by an exodus of experienced lawyers and an erosion of trust in the judicial branch.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press during a trip to Puerto Rico this week, Blanche promised to lead the department with integrity, dismissing concerns from critics who say his actions so far — including an indictment against longtime Trump foe and former FBI Director James Comey — call into question whether Blanche is still functioning as Trump’s personal lawyer.

A slew of ongoing politically charged investigations under Blanche’s watch could force him to choose between his long-standing loyalty to the president and the foundational principles of the Cabinet agency he leads. At stake is the fate of a department already reeling under a president who has made clear his desire for retribution over the criminal scrutiny he faced.

“My integrity, my commitment to the rule of law is the same today that it was the day I graduated,” Blanche told the AP when asked where he would draw the line on requests from the White House. “I would never do anything unethical or improper or violate my oath, no matter the circumstances.”

Critics disagree.

As acting attorney general, Blanche came under fire from lawmakers, including many Republicans, for signing off on a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate Trump’s allies who believed they were politically prosecuted. He also greenlit a deal that granted Trump, the Trump Organization, and two of his sons immunity from tax audits. Those moves, unusual steps aimed at granting the president and his allies far-reaching benefits, put Blanche’s confirmation at risk, prompting key senators to express concern.

Blanche, like Trump’s other attorneys general, walks a tightrope

In the AP interview, Blanche addressed criticism of the department under his leadership, his priorities as attorney general and losses the administration has had in high-profile cases. He also depicted the Justice Department as an institution whose independence had eroded long ago — a characterization at odds with decades of fierce autonomy that challenged the highest echelons of power in Washington and beyond.

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor in New York, is walking the same tightrope as Trump’s three other Senate-confirmed attorneys general. They found their pledges to uphold the rule of law and the department’s ethical norms at odds with the president’s demands to bend the institution to his will.

During Trump’s first term, one attorney general infuriated Trump over his withdrawal from an investigation into Trump’s winning White House campaign and was forced out. Another submitted his resignation weeks after breaking with Trump over Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Blanche’s immediate predecessor, Pam Bondi, was ousted in April after failing to deliver successful prosecutions against the president’s political enemies.

Blanche’s narrow confirmation this month over opposition from two Republican senators underscored growing concerns about the dismantling of the Justice Department’s long-standing tradition of independence from the White House, which is meant to protect the impartiality of politically sensitive investigations and prosecutions.

Concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized

Blanche bristles at the suggestion that the Justice Department should be independent of the president and he has made clear his view that the executive has both the power and the right to shape and control the law enforcement agency.

He has staunchly defended the integrity of cases the administration has brought against the president’s perceived political opponents, often pointing to his own experience representing Trump in criminal cases brought by Democratic President Joe Biden’s Justice Department. Blanche and the president have characterized those cases as politically motivated.

“I think attorneys general and others have said, ‘Oh, we’re independent.’ I don’t think that’s actually true,” Blanche told the AP.

Blanche claimed the Justice Department was not truly independent when he was a federal prosecutor or during the Biden administration. But that characterization ignores the fact that under Biden, the Justice Department investigated Biden himself over his handling of classified documents and secured felony charges in two separate cases against his son Hunter before Biden pardoned him.

The two criminal cases filed by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump were based on allegations, supported by long-running investigations, that Trump had classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and obstructed government efforts to get them back, and conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges

Blanche has sought to highlight the administration’s focus on tackling illegal immigration, violent crime and drug-trafficking cartels, spotlighting cases such as the takedown of a Puerto Rican gang that he announced during his visit to the U.S. island territory.

But Blanche’s policy priorities are often overshadowed by a growing number of investigations that have drawn criticism that the department is being used as a weapon in the president’s campaign of retribution.

Blanche’s supporters have argued that the close relationship he developed with Trump while serving as his criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at pushing back on or explaining the legal constraints of the president’s demands. Others wonder whether he will fare any better than Bondi up against the same skeptical court system, and factual and legal hurdles, that impeded efforts to deliver the sought-after results.

Blanche is also confronting growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges, who in multiple cases have accused government lawyers of withholding information or misleading courts. Courts in some cases have quashed subpoenas or ordered the review of grand jury transcripts, and the criminal cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who brought them was illegally appointed.

But Blanche played down concerns that the erosion of judicial trust could impede his efforts to advance his agenda.

“The isolated incidents that make the news are not reflective of the way the bench feels in my view, or the way prosecutors are doing their job around the country,” Blanche said.

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

After an outcry from immigrant and civil rights advocates over plans to equip immigration officers with gloves capable of delivering electric shocks, California lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a bill that would ban the use of shock gloves by any law enforcement agent in the state.

The gloves deliver can an electrical shock strong enough to drop a strong man to his knees in an instant, and proponents say the gloves provide a fast and non-lethal way to subdue a person.

Two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland security planned to use $10 million to $20 million to procure the gloves from Compliant Technologies of Lexington, Ky., for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The department defended its decision, saying it was “made with careful consideration” and that other law enforcement agencies in the country already use the technology.

Civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union accused the department of attempting to intimidate the public by arming agents with another use-of-force option. They noted that ICE already is contending with criticism for multiple deaths in custody and during arrests.

Assembly Bill 2760, authored by state Assemblymember LaShea Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), would prohibit local, state and federal agencies from possessing, using or procuring electric taser gloves in the state or with state funds.

“We cannot spend state money or tax dollars on technology that is not to better our state,” Sharp-Collins said during a news conference with other lawmakers in Sacramento. “It cannot be used on our children, it cannot be used on our teachers, our business owners, it cannot be used on anyone.”

The CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E — standing for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — resembles a thick work glove and can be activated to emit a 380-volt shock upon contact with a body. Compliant Technologies has maintained that the gloves are weaker than traditional tasers, but critics say they can be life-threatening in the hands of ICE.

“Many people try to say weapons like this are about de-escalation, but I don’t know how many people have put hands on someone and said that’s de-escalation,” state Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-Alameda) said. “There’s already a spectrum of non-lethal, less-than-violent weapons out there that exists… ICE and law enforcement don’t need another tool.”

The gloves have been adopted in detention centers, law enforcement agencies and jails across the country, though apparently none in California. Last week, AP reported that Omaha police agreed to stop using the shock gloves after parents realized they’d been adopted by departments that monitored schools.

Sharp-Collins said she prepared the legislation in consultation with the state attorney general’s office and legislative council to ensure it would withstand a challenge from the Trump administration if it became law.

The Senate voted 30-9 on Monday to approve a rule change that would allow for the bill to pass quickly before the end of the legislative session on Aug. 31.

Mérida, August 24, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) –The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued two general licenses granting specific permissions for telecommunications operations with Venezuela.

Under General License 61 (GL61), published on Friday, OFAC authorized US companies to provide “technology, software, or services for the installation, maintenance, refurbishment, repair, upgrade, operation, or support of telecommunications” to Venezuela’s state-owned telecommunications company CANTV and National Telecommunications Commission CONATEL.

According to official OFAC definitions, telecommunications services encompass fixed and mobile telephony, data transmission, internet connectivity, radio and television broadcasting, news agency feeds, satellite communications, and submarine cables.

GL61 permits specific operational activities, including payment processing, logistics, air freight, insurance, data storage, server maintenance, roaming agreements, and infrastructure leasing. However, the license specifies that Venezuelan state entities must procure new acquisitions directly from US companies or US citizens.

In addition, the Trump administration published General License 62 (GL62), authorizing negotiations for contracts in Venezuela’s telecommunications sector, though specific agreements remain contingent on a separate specific license,

Both sanctions waivers impose that any contracts be governed by the laws of a state or federal jurisdiction within the United States. Furthermore, the licenses demand that “dispute resolution proceedings relating to the contract occur in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or Singapore.”

The Treasury licenses maintain bans on debt swaps, physical gold, or digital currencies and tokens issued by or on behalf of the Venezuelan government.

Furthermore, GL61 and GL62 maintain restrictions prohibiting “any transaction involving a person located in the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, or any entity that is owned or controlled by or in a joint venture with such persons”.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Washington has upheld its wide-reaching coercive economic sanctions in areas such as energy and mining,  while issuing licenses to favor US and Western corporations.

US sanctions and restrictions on Chinese technology firms present a challenge to CANTV’s recent operational landscape. For the past two decades, the Venezuelan government has forged bilateral agreements with Chinese telecom firms, including ZTE and Huawei, establishing joint projects to manufacture and deploy telecommunications equipment domestically. 

Over the last decade, CANTV has worked with Huawei and ZTE to modernize networks, expand fiber-optic infrastructure, and sustain broadband services nationwide. Venezuelan authorities have not commented on the latest US licenses and potential impact on existing agreements.

In addition, CANTV has been identified by analysts as a potential candidate for privatization. The company has recently been mired in controversy after reportedly slashing retired workers’ incomes. Retirees have staged protests in several states in recent days after a US $200 monthly bonus was arbitrarily slashed, while also demanding the restoration of basic medical insurance and health coverage guaranteed by collective bargaining agreements.

In parallel, CONATEL has launched technical and legal working sessions with representatives of SpaceX’s Starlink service to examine radio spectrum allocation, equipment homologation, and regulatory compliance under Venezuela’s Organic Telecommunications Law.

Despite Maduro previously criticizing SpaceX owner Elon Musk for destabilizing politics in Venezuela and Latin America, the acting Delcy Rodríguez government thanked the tech mogul for activating free Starlink services in the wake of the June 24 double earthquake in the Caribbean nation.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The San Diego Padres minor league catching coordinator is in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and will remain so “pending removal proceedings,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday in a statement.

Oswaldo Pirela, a former Texas Rangers minor league player, was detained Sunday morning at El Paso International Airport.

Pirela, 34, was flying to Phoenix, where he lives with his wife and two daughters. The Padres’ triple-A affiliate is the El Paso Chihuahuas, and Pirela was with the team during its home game Saturday night against the Salt Lake City Bees, an Angels affiliate.

The Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Pirela came to the United States from his native Venezuela in September 2014 and that his permission to remain expired Feb. 10, 2018.

Homeland Security said Pirela was not carrying his work permit at the time he was detained. Pirela’s brother Juan Pirela presented Phoenix multimedia news organization Arizona’s Family with Oswaldo’s work permit, which indicated it was issued in 2024 and is valid until 2029.

“It’s very hard. He’s authorized to work in the United States,” Juan Pirela said. “So, the same department, Homeland Security, issues a work permit but then somehow it’s not enough.”

The Homeland Security statement addressed the issue: “To be clear, work authorization or a pending application do NOT confer legal status in the United States.”

“In violation of our nation’s laws, [Pirela] overstayed his welcome. When approached by law enforcement officers, he was not in possession of legal documentation granting him status in the country. He will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings and will receive due process.

As a roving catching instructor, Pirela is based out of the Padres’ spring-training complex in Peoria, Ariz., and travels to the organization’s minor league affiliates in San Antonio, Fort Wayne, Ind., and Lake Elsinore in addition to El Paso. He spent the 2024 season as bench coach for the Class-A Lake Elsinore Storm and became the organization’s catching coordinator in 2025.

“We recently became aware of the detainment of minor league catching coordinator Oswaldo Pirela in El Paso, Texas,” the Padres club said in a statement. “We are working to gather additional information and will not have any further comment at this time.”

Pirela was signed by the Rangers at age 17 out of Barquisimeto, Venezuela, and played catcher, first base and the outfield from 2009 to 2011 for the team’s Dominican Republic Summer League affiliate.

NASHVILLE — The Justice Department is pushing to revive criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, telling a federal appeals court late Monday that a judge erred in his scathing ruling that called the case against the man mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison an “abuse of prosecuting power.”

The government is appealing the May ruling by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw that threw out charges of human smuggling against the Salvadoran national. The ruling amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a Justice Department that under President Trump has repeatedly been accused of targeting defendants for political purposes.

Crenshaw found that Abrego Garcia would never have faced criminal charges had he not successfully sued the government over his 2025 deportation. The ruling was an embarrassment for the Trump administration, which only brought him back after securing a criminal indictment against him.

Crenshaw stopped short of finding the government acted with “actual vindictiveness,” a rarely-met standard that usually requires evidence such as a prosecutor admitting that charges were filed in retaliation against someone. But the judge did find there was enough evidence of “presumptive vindictiveness.”

That included the timing of the indictment. Homeland Security had been aware of the 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee that was the basis for the human smuggling charges for more than two years before Abrego Garcia was deported. The agency only reopened the case and began investigating in earnest after Abrego Garcia was ordered returned to the U.S.

Crenshaw also found that statements by U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who was a deputy at the time, suggested the Justice Department was targeting Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.

In a brief filed Monday night with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, federal prosecutors argued that Crenshaw got it wrong. Blanche’s statements, they argue, demonstrated a legitimate motive for prosecuting him. His rationale reflected a “normal assessment of the societal interest in punishment,” not an “improper penalty,” they said. The statements “explained that the government was seeking to protect the public and confirm its prior assertions about Abrego’s criminal activity,” the brief states.

But even if Blanche’s statements reflected an animus against Abrego Garcia, they are irrelevant because the person who actually brought the charges was then-Acting U.S. Atty. for the Middle District of Tennessee Rob McGuire, the brief states — rehashing an argument thoroughly rejected by Crenshaw that McGuire’s motives were the only motives that mattered in the case.

Crenshaw’s ruling noted the sustained oversight of the case by top Justice Department officials, including regular communications between McGuire and Associate Deputy Atty. Gen. Aakash Singh, in finding that the criminal case was thoroughly tainted. Crenshaw also noted that prosecutors never called as a witness the investigator who actually reopened the case, to explain why.

Abrego Garcia, 31, is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years, although he immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. A 2019 order by an immigration judge prohibited his deportation to El Salvador, finding he had a “well founded fear” of a gang that had targeted his family there. The judge allowed him to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, but he was not given residency status.

Blocked from re-deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, the Trump administration has vowed to deport him to a third county, threatening to send him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia. Abrego Garcia has said he would agree to be deported to Costa Rica, which has said it will accept him, but the government has so far declined to send him there.

He is fighting deportation to Liberia in a separate federal court case in Maryland.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department finalized a rule Monday that will pave the way for people who have been barred from owning firearms because of criminal convictions to apply to have their gun rights reinstated.

The process launched by newly confirmed Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche is a victory for 2nd Amendment advocates who have long pushed for nonviolent people with felony convictions to be given a pathway to regain their legal right to own firearms.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” Blanche said in a statement. The attorney general said the new process will protect “public safety while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”

It’s the latest move by President Trump’s administration to ease firearms restrictions. The Justice Department moved earlier this year to roll back and modify a slate of gun regulations. Separately, the department recently decided against challenging a court ruling that struck down regulations on firearm suppressors and certain guns.

Federal law has long allowed people who have had their gun rights stripped because of felony convictions to petition the government for the ability to own firearms again, but Congress since 1992 has effectively barred the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from processing applications.

The Trump administration’s rule aims to circumvent that by establishing a new application system using an online portal.

The Justice Department says restoration will be granted on a case-by-case basis, weighing a person’s record and reputation to determine whether they pose a likely threat to public safety. Officials say people who have been convicted of violent crimes, registered sex offenders, people living in the country illegally and others whom officials believe pose a danger to society will be denied “absent extraordinary circumstances.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have agreed to settle a lawsuit over what federal prosecutors alleged last year was a pattern of delaying applications for permits to carry concealed firearms for “unreasonable” lengths of time.

The Sheriff’s Department will “bring its procedures in line with the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision,” the DOJ said in a statement Thursday, referring to a 2022 high court decision affirming a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Excessively delaying applications for concealed carry permits, the DOJ had alleged, effectively violated the applicants’ constitutional rights.

In response to its lawsuit, the DOJ’s statement said, the Sheriff’s Department “drastically cut those waiting times and is now in compliance with statutory deadlines.” The development is “a huge win for the residents of Los Angeles County and for the Second Amendment,” the federal agency added.

“The Justice Department supports our law enforcement partners.” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in the statement. “The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically.”

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment on the settlement.

In its complaint filed in federal district court in L.A. in September, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department had “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint stated that between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the Sheriff’s Department received almost 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses, but issued only two. Two others were denied and the rest were either withdrawn or were still pending, according to the DOJ.

The DOJ complaint also cited Sheriff’s Department data that showed that over those 15 months, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the department to advance the more than 8,000 new permit applications and renewals it received.

The Sheriff’s Department said in September that Sheriff Robert Luna, who was also listed by name as a defendant in the original federal complaint, “inherited a dysfunctional system” when he took office in 2022, and that he had only 13 people to manage the avalanche of applications for concealed carry permits filed each year in L.A. County.

The department also said in September that since December 2022, it had reduced “the backlog” of applications for concealed carry licenses from about 10,000 to about 3,200, and that more than 19,000 such applications had been “successfully approved” since 2020.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — Gun control groups are concerned that the Trump administration has yet to appeal a federal court ruling last week that struck down parts of the National Firearms Act that limited deregulated short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and silencers

U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas ruled Aug. 5 that federal restrictions on gun control could not stand after last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated a $200 fee to transfer or produce certain firearms.

Hendrix gave a one-week deadline to request a stay of his ruling, which expired early Thursday.

“Today, our government is failing us,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement on Thursday. “At midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century. The Department of Justice had the opportunity to act to protect our safety, but it failed to do so.”

A Department of Justice official reportedly told news outlets the Justice Department “is currently assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”

“The Department of Justice’s decision is a failure to defend public safety,” Emma Brown, executive director of gun-control group Giffords, said in a statement.

“For nearly 100 years, Congress has required background checks before someone could buy a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun,” she continued. “These commonsense safeguards keep these dangerous devices out of the wrong hands. Silencers make it harder for law enforcement to detect and locate active shooters. And short-barreled rifles and shotguns are easily concealable and extremely dangerous.

The lawsuit in Texas consolidated two separate cases. The first one was brought by B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, 15 Republican-controlled states and several individuals.

The second lawsuit was filed by the Texas State Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several others.

Hendrix’s ruling only applies to the parties in the two cases.

“For nearly a century, Americans have been forced to beg the federal government for permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Erich Practt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “That changes tonight.”

Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop announced two of its members “lawfully acquired suppressors without complying with the currently enjoined registration requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.”

WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking to retake control of Congress are planning broad investigations into President Trump and his family’s business dealings as part of an agenda focused on alleged corruption and economic harm, while keeping impeachment an option rather than an immediate priority.

The strategy would use subpoenas, committee hearings, possible criminal referrals and the budget as leverage to examine whether Trump, his family and close associates have used the federal government and public contracts for personal or financial gain.

House Democrats in key leadership posts told The Times the groundwork is already being laid out for probes into the president’s reported $2.2 billion in gains last year, the business ventures of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the family’s crypto projects. There is also interest in scrutinizing Trump’s pardons and commutations to allies and the Department of Justice’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

With less than three months before the midterm elections, the prospect of sweeping investigations has hung over Trump as his approval ratings hit new lows and Democrats gain momentum. But the White House has dismissed Democrats’ plans as partisan and unfounded.

“President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re‑elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.”

Asked about the possibility of being impeached for a third time and being investigated, Trump told Punchbowl News last week that it would be “very unfair,” in part because “a lot of people are saying I am one of the greatest presidents ever.”

For Democrats, impeachment remains an option, but they are reluctant to make it a centerpiece of their agenda this time around. They argued the process could distract from oversight that would address alleged corruption and the ways it is hurting Americans economically.

“We shouldn’t take off the table that he can be impeached again,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “But I think right now we’ve got to stop the Trump harm and investigate those who are helping him.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which plays a key role in the impeachment process, has also paused at making impeachment a priority. The Maryland lawmaker argued that Trump is “very eager” for Democrats to impeach him so he can mobilize his political base.

“We’re not going to play into the game,” Raskin told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

In a statement to The Times, Raskin said the priority would be in expanding ongoing investigations into Trump’s pardons, what he called the “weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world,” “rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause,” and the “theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his Cabinet of corruption.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, said he is keeping his “mind open” on whether another impeachment would make sense for Democrats a third time. He argued the “power of the purse” — or using the budget to take aim at Trump’s agenda — would be a more effective tool.

“We’re going to need to do a lot of oversight of this administration, and I think it will be important in doing that oversight to always bring it back to why people should care about it and how the corruption of this regime is really raising their costs,” Schiff said.

Other Democrats are equally wary about using their renewed power to launch a third impeachment trial against Trump.

“We all know that this man has already been impeached twice. … I don’t know that we have to go to that well a third time,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) said.

Probes trickle down

Beyond the president’s business dealings, rank-and-file Democrats are coordinating other efforts to target Trump administration officials and senior aides over policy decisions they argue should force them out of their jobs.

Last week, Kamlager-Dove introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the White House budget director, arguing that he broke the law when the administration canceled federal funding to Democratic states including California for political reasons.

While she is cautious about impeaching Trump for a third time, she believes it would be effective to “remove Trump’s reapers who are willfully breaking the law.”

“I’m coordinating with leadership so that we have the best path forward for this,” she said. “It’s about being unified. It’s about working in a coordinated fashion, and it’s about understanding the end goal.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said there needs to be more scrutiny over the White House’s budget-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency. Democrats should inquire more, he said, into allegations that a former DOGE official copied the Social Security numbers, names and personal information of millions of Americans to a private cloud that lacked adequate security.

He said the public still does not know enough about the situation or whether the data is secure or if it was breached, and said lawmakers should examine whether any laws or policies were violated.

“If there was political motivation to access and put at risk the Social Security numbers and the personal information of every single American, that sounds pretty criminal to me,” Walkinshaw said.

In May, three Democrats — Reps. Mike Levin of California, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jason Crow of Colorado — launched the End Corruption Caucus, creating another vehicle for oversight ideas should Democrats take control of the House.

The push and pull

As Democrats prepare for investigations, there are already questions about the type of resistance that could come from Trump and administration officials, all of whom have shown a willingness to buck Congress.

In a sign of what could be a potential hurdle, the Department of Justice issued a memo Monday evening that says communications between Trump and advisors who do not work for his administration can be protected under executive privilege.

“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said.

The White House described the memo as a “narrow legal analysis, not an extension of executive privilege.”

But some Democrats see it as an example of how the Trump administration may be gearing up for Democratic-led investigations.

“This dubious expansion of executive privilege to cover Trump’s outside advisors is a clear attack on Congress’ oversight powers, and creates an environment ripe for corruption that protects only the president and his friends. We are ready to fight to uphold our power and authority,” Garcia said.

Walkinshaw added that he predicts the Trump administration is going to “flat-out refuse to engage with or respond to Democrats” if they take control.

If that happens, Democrats already expect to fight back.

“We have contempt tools, we have inherent contempt, we have criminal contempt,” he said. “We just have to be prepared to exercise the full extent of our constitutional tools, and I predict that will happen very early.”

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Trump administration has filed fraud-related charges against a former Southern Poverty Law Center official who testified during the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation, as its crack down on the anti-hate group and President Donald Trump‘s perceived opponents.

The Justice Department originally charged SPLC in an 11-count indictment in April, alleging that the frequent target of right-wing criticism had defrauded donors by using their money to pay informants within hate groups they were monitoring. The Trump administration has framed the payments as paying the hate groups it was supposed to monitor, such as the KKK. SPLC vehemently denies the allegations.

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors unveiled a superseding indictment against Heidi Beirich, 59, a political extremism expert and former SPLC chief financial officer, and the SPLC, charing them with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to submit false statements to a federally insured bank.

Beirich, of Palm Springs, Calif., was arrested Wednesday morning, FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement.

“The indictment unsealed today reflects the continued work of federal investigators and prosecutors in examining this alleged scheme,” U.S. Attorney Thomas Govan said in a statement.

“We look forward to presenting the evidence in court and allowing the judicial process to determine the facts and the defendants’ responsibility for the alleged crimes.”

The SPLC has long faced criticism from some Republicans and conservatives, who say the prominent anti-hate group has drifted from its mission of fighting extremism and White supremacy by labeling several right-wing organizations as hate groups.

Pressure from the White House has mounted on the group since Trump returned to the helm of the government. The Trump administration has brought a number of federal and civil prosecutions against the president’s perceived opponents, attracting criticism from judicial and civil rights advocates as well as Democrats who accuse it of weaponizing the Justice Department.

As an expert in far-right extremist political violence, Beirich, in her role as co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, testified before the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt by Trump supporters, stating that there was substantial political and personal overlap between the Proud Boys and Trump’s movement.

In October, FBI Director Kash Patel severed ties with the SPLC, saying it had “long abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine.”

The April indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, SPLC paid some $3 million in donated funds to members of violent extremist groups. In the superseding indictment unveiled Wednesday, the Justice Department no contends that it paid more than $4 million between 2007 and 2023.

During an unrelated press conference on Wednesday, newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer of the president, said Beirich is believed to have been part of an effort “to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names to make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate as described.”

Michael Proctor, Beirich’s attorney, accused the Trump administration of using the justice system to silence its political opponents.

“Heidi Beirich has dedicated her life to fighting hate groups and extremist movements like the KKK, neo-Nazis and other White supremacists,” Proctor said in a statement, NBC News reported.

“She has combatted these hateful, ugly and un-American extremists and their repeated uses of violence and intimidation in order to promote a fairer, safer and more just America. Her decades-long record of success dismantling hate groups — and the resulting threats to her life — speak volumes. For this, she has been indicted.”

Aug. 12 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department announced Wednesday that 11 people have been charged with in connection in a marriage fraud scheme that allegedly lasted more than a decade.

The department said in a release that those charged conspired to orchestrate more than 1,000 fraudulent marriages. These marriages allegedly were intended to obtain immigration status for foreign nationals, mostly citizens of China.

“The individuals who were arrested today allegedly orchestrated elaborate schemes to illegally obtain citizenship for foreign nationals through sham marriages,” U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said. “Schemes like this are a deliberate affront to the United States and our laws and will not be tolerated under the Trump administration.”

The indictment was filed in the Southern District of New York. Some people paid up to $100,000 for a sham marriage to help them obtain a green card, with the U.S. citizens involved receiving as much as $30,000 from that fee, the Justice Department said.

At a press conference, Blanche said this marks one of the biggest marriage fraud prosecutions in U.S. history.

“This scheme was not a quick, fly-by-night operation, but rather a years-long, multimillion-dollar cottage industry to criminally assist people who would not, or legally could not, otherwise become citizens of the United States,” he said.

Those allegedly running the scheme include defendants Amy Cheng, Xiao Mei Chan, Gang Zheng and Xiao Yan Chan. Others charged include “recruiters” who allegedly found U.S. citizens to take part and “officiators” who presided over the marriage ceremonies.

The Justice Department said organizers allegedly paired foreign nationals with U.S. citizens, arranging fake marriage ceremonies and staging photographs meant to make the wedding look authentic. Scheme participants also allegedly manufactured further evidence, including joint financial accounts and insurance policies.

Jamie McDonald, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said at the press conference that the scheme generated “tens of millions of dollars.”

Aug. 12 (UPI) — The U.S. Treasury Department has officially repealed a rule that required U.S. companies and individuals to report “beneficial ownership information” to the department.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network bureau of the Treasury Department — which is meant to safeguard the U.S. financial system from illegal activity, work against money laundering and terrorism financing and help with national security — issued a final rule Tuesday that permanently removes the requirement. The reporting rule existed in connection with the Corporate Transparency Act.

The network, called FinCEN, also announced that it would delete all previously reported information from its databases.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called it “a victory for common sense” and said that it eliminates a “burdensome reporting requirement.” An interim final rule has been in place since March 2025.

This final rule also exempts U.S. citizens with FinCEN identification from having to update or correct their information and eliminates a requirement for foreign businesses to report U.S. citizens who helped them register to do business in the United States.

As defined by FinCEN, a beneficial owner is one who directly or indirectly owns at least 25% of a company or exercises substantial interest over the company.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., issued a statement Tuesday saying the repeal guts the Corporate Transparency Act and is a “gift to cartels, criminals and U.S. adversaries that exploit shell companies to move millions through our financial system.”

“The Trump administration has dismissed law enforcement warnings, ignored the role that shell companies play in crimes ranging from drug trafficking to fraud to sanctions evasion and gutted a statue that Secretary Rubio once championed as ‘the most significant anti-corruption and money-laundering law in decades,” Warren said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted that statement about the act on social media in December 2020.

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act in 2021. The reporting requirement went into effect in 2024.

A new LAPD report released Tuesday blamed poor planning and coordination for issues with the department’s response to protests that erupted on city streets last summer in opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

But apart from identifying those problems, the report concluded that police officers performed well in the face of “unprecedented” unrest that sometimes devolved into violence and vandalism.

Missing from the 62-page report — at least in the view of some longtime department observers — was any reflection about officers’ use of less-lethal weapons that left hundreds of people injured and drew strong condemnations from human rights groups.

The report largely blamed protesters for instigating violence and injuring officers, saying “agitators” intent on taking advantage of the disorder made it impossible to avoid using force.

The report said the LAPD was not prepared to deal with the protective equipment and “improvised weaponry” employed by some protesters, including people with oven mitts who picked up and lobbed tear gas canisters back in the direction of officers and others who used leaf blowers to redirect the gas.

During the department’s presentation of the report, one police commissioner, Jeff Skobin, pointed out that demonstrators and journalists who spoke at the meeting felt as though their perspectives weren’t reflected in the report whatsoever. He suggested that LAPD officials consider reaching out to journalists or press organizations as the department reevaluates its media policy.

Commission President Rasha Gerges Shields said the department could have examined whether reforms that were called for in 2020 had been implemented — and areas where the department still needed to improve.

“I just want to make sure that this isn’t just the end-all, be-all of this conversation,” she said.

In response, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said the report had considered past lessons learned, but the “unprecedented” nature of the protests justified the department’s actions.

“The level of violence — I have been doing this for 45 years, I have not seen that here or anywhere else in the country,” he said, noting that nearly 50 officers were injured.

The report said officers were targeted with rocks, bottles, commercial-grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails. Timely communication was a concern at times, the report said, with the department lacking a necessary number of radio wave frequencies.

When less-lethal weapons proved ineffective, the department deployed tear gas on two occasions, June 8 and 14, to disperse “violent groups” and restore order. It was the first time the department had used the measure since at least the 1970s. The decision to use gas “reflected the extreme conditions faced at the height of the unrest,” the report said. The report doesn’t specify who authorized the deployment of the gas.

But the gas also created tactical challenges, since many patrol and Metropolitan Division officers lacked protective masks, increasing their risk of exposure. The report said the chemical agents were “the only viable option to reestablish control.”

In just two weeks of protests, the report said, the department spent $17.47 million in personnel costs, including $12.14 million for overtime. Ultimately, the report concluded, the department “contained the unrest” without any loss of life or “major breaches of critical infrastructure.”

Some critics said the report failed to answer basic questions, such as how many less-lethal rounds were fired or how many officers were disciplined for misconduct.

Like past after-action reports, the review was hyper-focused on the threats faced by officers, critics said. But, they noted, it had little to say about how officers’ use of less-lethal weapons — sometimes in clear violation of the department’s own policies — that were widely documented documented on social media and in news accounts.

“If the department can’t even recognize the possibility that they might have a problem with how they police protests, after last summer, how can anyone expect them to do anything differently next time?” said Peter Bibring, a civil rights attorney who previously served as director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

According to the city attorney’s office, more than 120 claims for damages have been filed against the city in connection to police actions during pro-immigration protests as of April. The city is still facing lawsuits stemming from the 2020 protests over the police killing of George Floyd. The latest spate of civil actions could tie the city up in costly litigation for years to come.

At Tuesday’s commission meeting, the 45-minute public comment period was extended to accommodate dozens of speakers, many of whom criticized the report for whitewashing what they described as the department’s heavy-handed response to the protests.

Despite years of costly lawsuits, oversight measures and promises by leaders to rein in indiscriminate use of force during protests, officers were shown on video last year trampling demonstrators on horseback and aiming so-called less-lethal launchers at people’s heads in a violation of department policy, speakers said. None of that, observers said, was mentioned in the report.

Others argued that the report seems to cast members of the media as nuisances to be dealt with, while ignoring instances in which journalists were targeted by law enforcement.

“It’s an insult,” said Nick Stern, a British news photographer who is suing the Los Angeles County after being struck by sheriff’s deputies while covering a protest in Paramount. “Journalists only show up as logistical problems.”

Another speaker noted the inflammatory language used in the report seemed to justify the aggressive tactics by describing protesters as operating in “cells,” likening them to Al-Qaeda.

Lt. Joseph Fransen, the study’s chief author, told the Commission that he took inspiration from the federal government’s 9/11 after-action report, which dissected mistakes leading up to the terrorist attack.

“These aren’t necessarily points of failure, these are just lessons to be learned in the future,” Fransen said of his report.

Officials have promised thorough investigations of all uses of force. The department limited its use of the launchers after a federal judge issued an injunction in January, but has deployed other types of crowd control weapons in subsequent protests. The judge ruled that officers have repeatedly violated previous court orders that allow the weapon to be used only to subdue protesters who pose a threat of violence.

The report found that, on several nights, the LAPD didn’t have enough personnel to process and transport all the people who were arrested. Between June 7-16, 2025, the department made 435 protest-related arrests, including 182 on June 10 alone. Three out of every four arrest was for unlawful assembly, while 16 arrests were made for violent crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer or attempted murder of a police officer. Most people were released on citation. Four-fifths of those arrested came from the county, while others traveled from surrounding counties or outside the state.

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.