federal

WASHINGTON — Cornell University has agreed to pay $60 million and accept the Trump administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws in order to restore federal funding and end investigations into the Ivy League school.

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff announced the agreement on Friday, saying it upholds the university’s academic freedom while restoring more than $250 million in research funding that the government withheld amid investigations into alleged civil rights violations.

The university agreed to pay $30 million directly to the U.S. government along with another $30 million toward research that will support U.S. farmers.

Kotlikoff said the agreement revives the campus’ partnership with the federal government “while affirming the university’s commitment to the principles of academic freedom, independence, and institutional autonomy that, from our founding, have been integral to our excellence.”

The six-page agreement is similar to one signed by the University of Virginia last month. It’s shorter and less prescriptive than others signed by Columbia University and Brown University.

It requires Cornell to comply with the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws on issues involving antisemitism, racial discrimination and transgender issues. A Justice Department memo that orders colleges to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender-friendly policies will be used as a training resource for faculty and staff at Cornell.

The campus must also provide a wealth of admissions data that the government has separately sought from campuses to ensure race is no longer being considered as a factor in admissions decisions. President Trump has suggested some campuses are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in admissions.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a “transformative commitment” that puts a focus on “merit, rigor, and truth-seeking.”

“These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” McMahon said on X.

Cornell’s president must personally certify compliance with the agreement each quarter. The deal is effective through the end of 2028.

It appears to split the difference on a contentious issue colleges have grappled with as they negotiate an exit from federal scrutiny: payments made directly to the government. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million directly to the government, while Brown University reached an agreement to pay $50 million to state workforce organizations. Virginia’s deal included no payment at all.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring federal authorities from using force against protesters, journalists and others in Chicago as the Trump administration conducts an immigration crackdown in the city.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued her ruling Thursday, in a case brought against the Trump administration in early October alleging that federal agents in Chicago have responded to protests and negative media coverage “with a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians.”

The ruling explicitly states that the federal agents are prohibited from using crowd control weapons such as batons, rubber or plastic bullets, flash-bang grenades and tear gas against civilians unless there is “a threat of imminent harm to a law enforcement officer.”

In a bench ruling, reported on by The New York Times, Ellis said government officials, including Gregory Bovino, a top Border Patrol official leading the operation in Chicago, lied repeatedly about the tactics they employed against protesters.

The ruling comes amid growing criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration authorities executing Operation Midway Blitz, which began on Sept. 9, targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Videos circulating online, however, show masked agents hauling a woman, later identified as U.S. citizen Dayanne Figueroa, from her vehicle, which they crashed into, and forcibly detaining a teacher from a daycare in front of school children. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said they detained the woman without a warrant, calling the actions of the immigration agents “domestic terrorism.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson earlier Thursday said during a press conference the daycare employee’s arrest “shocked the conscience of every single Chicagoan.”

In her bench ruling Thursday, Ellis, a President Barack Obama appointee, rejected the government’s description of Chicago as a violent- and riot-riddled city, saying, “That simply is untrue, and the government’s own evidence in this case belies that assertion.”

With pointed remarks at Bovino, she said the federal agent “admitted that he lied” about being hit in the head with a rock in October, which was his reasoning for deploying tear gas canisters.

“Video evidence ultimately disproved this,” she said, CNN reported.

Lawyers with Lovey & Lovey who brought the case before the court described it as protecting the right to protest.

Steve Art, a partner at the firm, called Ellis’ preliminary injunction in a press conference a “powerful ruling.”

“For weeks, the Trump administration has deployed Gregory Bovino and his gang of thugs to terrorize our community. They have tear gassed dozens of residential neighborhoods, they have abused the elderly, they have abused pregnant women, they have abused young children. On our streets, they have used weapons of war,” he said.

“We want to be clear every person who is associated with or who has enabled the Trump administration’s violence in Chicago should be ashamed of themselves.”

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has one day to fully distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell ordered the program funding after earlier requiring the Trump administration to access available money to at least partially fund SNAP benefits amid the federal government shutdown.

McConnell required the Trump administration to apprise the court on Wednesday of efforts to fund the program formerly known as “food stamps.”

“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said during an emergency hearing on Thursday, as reported by CNN.

“Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” he added.

He said the Trump administration has not done enough to access an estimated $4.65 billion in contingency funds to partially fund the SNAP benefits that cost about $9 billion per month to help 42 million recipients put food on their tables.

If SNAP is not funded fully, “people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said on Thursday, according to CNBC.

“That’s what irreparable harm here means,” he continued. “Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history.”

He called it a “problem that could have and should have been avoided.”

McConnell ordered the Trump administration to provide the full amount of November SNAP benefits to respective states by Friday, which would enable them to distribute benefits to their residents within a few days.

The federal judge also referenced a Truth Social post made by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

In that post, the president said SNAP benefits only would be funded “when the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The social media post served as evidence that the Trump administration would ignore McConnell’s prior order requiring it to access as much funding as possible to distribute SNAP benefits.

He criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to access contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits instead of allowing them to be suspended as of Saturday.

“Even when Nov. 1 came, [the] USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds,” McConnell said.

“USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to the beneficiary for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.”

McConnell is presiding over one of two federal cases filed by up to 25 states seeking to continue federal funding of SNAP benefits despite the record 37-day federal government shutdown that started on Oct. 1.

New York is party to both suits, and state Attorney General Letitia James welcomed McConnell’s ruling on Thursday.

“A judge in Rhode Island just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans,” James said in a prepared statement.

“I am relieved that people will get the food they need,” she added, “but it is outrageous that it took a lawsuit to make the federal government feed its own people.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

A federal grand jury subpoena has been served on the Los Angeles Fire Department for firefighters’ text messages and other communications about smoke or hot spots in the area of the Jan. 1 Lachman brushfire, which reignited six days later into the massive Palisades fire, according to an internal department memo.

The Times reported last week that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to pack up their hoses and leave the burn area the day after the Lachman fire, even though they complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks were hot to the touch. In the memo, the department notified its employees of the subpoena, which it said was issued by the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

“The subpoena seeks any and all communications, including text messages, related to reports of fire, smoke, or hotspots received between” 10 p.m. on New Year’s Eve and 10 a.m. on Jan. 7, said the memo, which was dated Tuesday.

A spokesperson with the U.S. attorney’s office declined to confirm that a subpoena was issued and otherwise did not comment. The memo did not include a copy of the subpoena.

The memo said the subpoena was issued in connection with an “ongoing criminal investigation” conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Last month, an ATF investigation led to the arrest of former Pacific Palisades resident Jonathan Rinderknecht, who was charged with deliberately setting the Jan. 1 fire shortly after midnight near a trailhead.

It is unclear from the memo whether the subpoena is directly related to the case against Rinderknecht, who has pleaded not guilty.

During the Rinderknecht investigation, ATF agents concluded that the fire smoldered and burned for days underground “within the root structure of dense vegetation,” until heavy winds caused it to spark the Palisades inferno, according to an affidavit attached to the criminal complaint against Rinderknecht.

The Palisades fire, the most destructive in the city’s history, killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes, businesses and other structures.

Last week, The Times cited text messages among firefighters in reporting that crews mopping up the Lachman fire had warned the battalion chief that remnants of the blaze were still smoldering.

The battalion chief listed as being on duty the day firefighters were ordered to leave the Lachman fire, Mario Garcia, has not responded to requests for comment.

In one text message, a firefighter who was at the scene on Jan. 2 wrote that the battalion chief had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of the visible signs of smoking terrain, which crews feared could start a new fire if left unprotected.

“And the rest is history,” the firefighter wrote in recent weeks.

A second firefighter was told that tree stumps were still hot at the location when the crew packed up and left, according to the texts. And a third firefighter said this month that crew members were upset when told to pack up and leave but that they could not ignore orders, according to the texts. The third firefighter also wrote that he and his colleagues knew immediately that the Palisades fire was a rekindle of the Jan. 1 blaze.

The Fire Department has not answered questions about the firefighter accounts in the text messages but has previously said that officials did everything they could to ensure that the Lachman fire was fully extinguished. The department has not provided dispatch records of all firefighting and mop-up activity before Jan. 7.

After The Times published the story, Mayor Karen Bass directed interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva to launch an investigation into the matter, while critics of her administration have asked for an independent inquiry.

Nov. 5 (UPI) — A federal judge was expected to rule Wednesday after he called the conditions at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in a Chicago suburb “disgusting” after hearing more than 6 hours of testimony.

U.S District Judge Robert W. Gettleman on Tuesday reviewed the conditions at the facility in Broadview, Ill., that ICE is using as part of Operation Midway Blitz. He’s ruling on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois last week over detainee access to lawyers and allegedly inhumane conditions there.

Gettleman told the court that what he heard qualifies for court intervention. He said he will issue a final ruling on Wednesday, and that it will not be “impossible to comply with.”

“I think everybody can admit that we don’t want to treat people the way that I heard people are being treated today,” Gettleman said after hearing testimony from five detainees being held at the facility, calling their descriptions of the facility “disgusting” and “unconstitutional.”

“It’s a disturbing record,” Gettleman said. “People sleeping shoulder to shoulder, next to overflowing toilets and human waste — that’s unacceptable.”

The Justice Department argued in a response to the ACLU’s lawsuit that people at the facility are “adequately provided with food, clothing, shelter and medical care before they are transferred to another detention facility.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Justice Department attorney Jana Brady suggested that the five detainees may not properly recall their experience at the facility, and questioned whether they understood what was going on there in the first place.

Brady also noted, however, that authorities were working to improve conditions at the facility, which was operating beyond its normal capacity. She said there was “a learning curve” as operations continue.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU alleged that agents at the Broadview facility have treated detainees “abhorrently, depriving them of sleep, privacy, menstrual products and the ability to shower,” as well as denied entry and communication with attorneys, members of Congress, and religious and faith leaders.

The MacArthur Justice Center and Roger Baldwin Foundation, of the ACLU, called Broadview a “black hole, and federal officials are acting with impunity inside its walls.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Gettleman heard from detainees who said they had to step over bodies at night while people slept on the floor; would wake people up when going to the bathroom because they were sleeping next to the toilet; received just a thin foil blanket or a sweater despite freezing temperatures overnight; and observed poor sanitation, clogged toilets, and blood, human fluids and insects in the sinks and the floor.

One detainee told the judge that female detainees at one point used garbage bags to unclog a toilet and that, when they asked for a broom to clean, guards refused.

The facility is a two-story building in an industrial area of the Village of Broadview, about 12 miles west of downtown Chicago, which has long been used by immigration authorities, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

In June, the Department of Homeland Security changed its policy to allow detainees to be held there for as long as 72 hours, up from the 12 hours that previously had been the limit.

After hearing from witnesses that detainees have been held there for as long as 12 days, and that the building does not have beds, blankets or pillows, Gettleman said the building has “become a prison” and may be “unconstitutional.”

The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday afternoon said in a post on X that Broadview is not a detention center, but rather a processing center, and that it is processing “the worst of the worst, including pedophiles, gang members and rapists.”

“All detainees are provided with three meals a day, water and have access to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” the department said in the post. “No one is denied access to proper medical care.”

“Any claims there are subprime conditions at the Broadview ICE facility are FALSE,” it added.

Noting that the facility is a key part of the department’s immigration enforcement effort in Chicago, Brady said that a temporary restraining order requiring the department to improve the facility, “as it is currently written, would effectively halt the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in Illinois.”

WASHINGTON — Hurling a sandwich at a federal agent was an act of protest for Washington, D.C., resident Sean Charles Dunn. A jury must decide if it was also a federal crime.

“No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people because you’re mad,” Assistant U.S. Atty. John Parron told jurors Tuesday at the start of Dunn’s trial on a misdemeanor assault charge.

Dunn doesn’t dispute that he threw his submarine-style sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. It was an “exclamation point” for Dunn as he expressed his opposition to President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital, defense attorney Julia Gatto said during the trial’s opening statements.

“It was a harmless gesture at the end of him exercising his right to speak out,” Gatto said. “He is overwhelmingly not guilty.”

A bystander’s cellphone video of the confrontation went viral on social media, turning Dunn into a symbol of resistance against Trump’s months-long federal takeover. Murals depicting him mid-throw popped up in the city virtually overnight.

“He did it. He threw the sandwich,” Gatto told jurors. “And now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has turned that moment — a thrown sandwich — into a criminal case, a federal criminal case charging a federal offense.”

A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count, part of a pattern of pushback against the Justice Department’s prosecution of surge-related criminal cases. After the rare rebuke from the grand jury, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office charged Dunn instead with a misdemeanor.

Customs and Border Protection Agent Gregory Lairmore, the government’s first witness, said the sandwich “exploded” when it struck his chest hard enough that he could feel it through his ballistic vest.

“You could smell the onions and the mustard,” he recalled.

Lairmore and other agents were standing in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night” when Dunn approached and shouted profanities at them, calling them “fascists” and “racists” and chanting “shame.”

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Lairmore testified that he and the other agents tried to de-escalate the situation.

“He was red-faced. Enraged. Calling me and my colleagues all kinds of names,” he said. “I didn’t respond. That’s his constitutional right to express his opinion.”

After throwing the sandwich, Dunn ran away but was apprehended about a block away.

Later, Lairmore’s colleagues jokingly gave him gifts making light of the incident, including a subway sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch that said “felony footlong.” Defense attorney Sabrina Schroff pointed to those as proof that the agents recognize this case is “overblown” and “worthy of a joke.”

Parron told jurors that everybody is entitled to their views about Trump’s federal surge. But “respectfully, that’s not what this case is about,” the prosecutor said. “You just can’t do what the defendant did here. He crossed a line.”

Dunn was a Justice Department employee who worked as an international affairs specialist in its criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Dunn was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said.

Dunn’s lawyers have argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House show Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech. They urged U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the case, calling it a vindictive and selective prosecution. Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, didn’t rule on that request before the trial started Monday.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Signs of a potential end to the government shutdown intensified Tuesday with behind-the-scenes talks, as the federal closure was on track to become the longest ever disrupting the lives of millions of Americans.

Senators from both parties, Republicans and Democrats, are quietly negotiating the contours of an emerging deal. With a nod from their leadership, the senators seek a way to reopen the government, put the normal federal funding process back on track and devise some sort of resolution to the crisis of expiring health insurance subsidies that are spiking premium costs from coast to coast.

“Enough is enough,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, as he opened the deadlocked chamber.

On day 35 of the federal government shutdown, the record for the longest will be broken after midnight. With SNAP benefits interrupted for millions of Americans depending on federal food aid, hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or working without pay and contracts being delayed, many on and off Capitol Hill say it’s time for it to end. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy predicted there could be chaos in the skies next week if the shutdown drags on and air traffic controllers miss another paycheck. Labor unions put pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.

Election Day is seen as a turning point

Tuesday’s elections provide an inflection point, with off-year governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, along with the mayor’s race in New York that will show voter attitudes, a moment of political assessment many hope will turn the tide. Another test vote Tuesday in the Senate failed, as Democrats rejected a temporary government funding bill.

“We’re not asking for anything radical,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Lowering people’s healthcare costs is the definition of common sense.”

Unlike the earlier shutdown during President Trump’s first term, when he fought Congress in 2018-19 for funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall, the president has been largely absent from this shutdown debate.

Trump threatens to halt SNAP food aid

But on Tuesday, Trump issued a fresh threat, warning he would halt SNAP food aid unless Democrats agree to reopen the government.

SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” Trump said on social media. That seemed to defy court orders to release the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program contingency funds.

His top spokeswoman, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said later that the administration continues to pay out SNAP funding in line with court orders.

With House Speaker Mike Johnson having sent lawmakers home in September, most attention is on the Senate. There, the leadership has outsourced negotiations to a loose group of centrist dealmakers from both parties have been quietly charting a way to end the standoff.

“We pray that today is that day,” said Johnson, R-La., holding his daily process on the empty side of the Capitol.

Contours of a potential deal

Central to any endgame will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House, and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington where Republicans have full control of the government.

First of all, senators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process can be put back on track.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, along with several Democrats, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Chris Coons of Delaware, are among those working behind the scenes.

“The pace of talks have increased,” said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has been involved in conversations.

Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills where there is already widespread bipartisan agreement to fund various aspects of governments, like agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

“I certainly think that that three-bill package is primed to do a lot of good things for the American people,” said Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala, who has also been in talks.

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

White House won’t engage on health care until government reopens

The White House says its position remains unchanged and that Democrats must vote to fund the government until talks over health care can begin. White House officials are in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats, according to a senior White House official. The official was granted anonymity to discuss administration strategy.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of Americans are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of federal subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Republicans, with control of the House and Senate, are reluctant to fund the health care program, also known as Obamacare. But Thune has promised Democrats a vote on their preferred proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government.

That’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

“Trump is a schoolyard bully,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, in an op-ed. “Anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates.”

Moreover, Democrats, and some Republicans, are also pushing for guardrails to prevent the Trump administration’s practice of unilaterally slashing funds for programs that Congress had already approved, by law, the way billionaire Elon Musk did earlier this year at the Department of Government Efficiency.

With the Senate, which is split 53-47, having tried and failed more than a dozen times to advance the House-passed bill over the filibuster, that measure is out of date. It would have funded government to Nov. 21.

Trump has demanded senators nuke the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires a 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation, which preserves minority rights in the chamber. GOP senators panned that demand.

Both Thune and Johnson have acknowledged they will need a new temporary measure. They are eyeing one that skips past the Christmas holiday season, avoiding what often has been a year-end crunch, and instead develop an agreement that would keep government running into the near year, likely January.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Seung Min Kim and Matt Brown contributed to this story.

United States Republican President Donald Trump says he will restrict federal funds for New York City if Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the city’s mayoral elections, to be held on Tuesday.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Monday that “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required”, if Mamdani wins the race.

Polls show Mamdani leading against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, who is the Republican nominee.

According to the latest RealClearPolitics polls on Monday, Mamdani led with 45.8 percent, maintaining a 14.7-point advantage over Cuomo’s 31.1 percent and a 28.5-point lead over Sliwa’s 17.3 percent.

On the final day of campaigning on Monday, the mayoral candidates raced across New York City’s five boroughs after months of back-and-forth barbs, social media hits and saucy debates.

As the closely-watched election day edged closer, Mamdani led a sunrise walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, flanked by hundreds of supporters, before kicking off the day with a speech at City Hall.

Cuomo, on his part, denounced socialism in the Bronx, visited seniors in Chinatown, and popped off an X post calling Mamdani a “poser”.

And Republican candidate Sliwa greeted supporters in the Coney Island neighbourhood of Brooklyn in his signature red hat, as he spoke at a subway station where a woman was killed on a train last year.

Mamdani and Cuomo’s duelling campaigns have reflected their positions in the New York race: the son of another former New York governor, steeped in the liberal Democratic political establishment, versus a young and little-known assemblyman who would be the city’s first Muslim, first person born in Africa and the first person of South Asian descent to lead New York City.

The mayoral race, which has captured outsized global attention, has seen a record 735,317 early votes cast over the past nine days, more than four times the total for the 2021 election, according to the New York City Board of Elections.

‘Our time is now’

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York state assemblyman, has galvanised New Yorkers with an optimistic, multilingual campaign that promised free buses, rent freezes and universal childcare, partially paid for by taxing the city’s wealthiest residents.

He reiterated that Trump had signalled his support for Cuomo in a 60 Minutes interview. In recent weeks, Cuomo has appealed to conservatives as a way to up his polling numbers.

“If [Cuomo is] elected as mayor, our city will descend deeper into the darkness that has forced too many of our neighbours to flee, and made it impossible for working people to live lives of dignity,” Mamdani said.

In his City Hall speech on Monday, Mamdani seemed to embrace the seismic shift that his campaign has represented for New York’s politics.

“There were few in this city who dared to imagine that we could win, and what it would mean for a city that has – for too long – served only the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of those who work through sunrises and sunsets,” Mamdani said.

Moments later, the crowd broke out in cheers of, “Our time is now!”

Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 after an independent state probe found he had engaged in a pattern of sexually harassing women, took aim at Mamdani’s democratic socialist promises in his final hours of campaigning, likening them to left-wing governments in Latin America.

“Socialism didn’t work in Venezuela. Socialism didn’t work in Cuba. Socialism is not going to work in New York City,” Cuomo said. Mamdani, however, is a self-described “democratic socialist”.

New York’s most prominent billionaires, including hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, have supported Cuomo’s campaign, with Ackman doling out a total of $750,000 through donation vehicles known as super PACs, CNBC reported last week.

WASHINGTON — Throwing a sandwich at a federal agent turned Sean Charles Dunn into a symbol of resistance against President Trump’s law-enforcement surge in the nation’s capital. This week, federal prosecutors are trying to persuade a jury of fellow Washington, D.C., residents that Dunn simply broke the law.

That could be a tough sell for the government in a city that has chafed against Trump’s federal takeover, which is entering its third month. A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count before U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office opted to charge him instead with a misdemeanor.

Securing a trial conviction could prove to be equally challenging for Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, where murals glorifying Dunn’s sandwich toss popped up virtually overnight.

Before jury selection started Monday, the judge presiding over Dunn’s trial seemed to acknowledge how unusual it is for a case like this to be heard in federal court. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, said he expects the trial to last no more than two days “because it’s the simplest case in the world.”

A video that went viral on social media captured Dunn hurling his subway-style sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. That same weekend, Trump announced his deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with police patrols in Washington.

When Dunn approached a group of CBP agents who were in front of the club, which was hosting a “Latin Night,” he called them “fascists” and “racists” and chanted “shame” toward them. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at an agent’s chest.

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Dunn ran away but was apprehended. He was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said. They noted that Dunn had offered to surrender to police before the raid.

Dunn worked as an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Before trial, Dunn’s lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the case for what they allege is a vindictive and selective prosecution. They argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House prove Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech.

Julia Gatto, one of Dunn’s lawyers, questioned why Trump’s Justice Department is prosecuting Dunn after the Republican president issued pardons and ordered the dismissal of assault cases stemming from a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“It’s an obvious answer,” Gatto said during a hearing last Thursday. “The answer is they have different politics. And that’s selective prosecution.”

Prosecutors countered that Dunn’s political expressions don’t make him immune from prosecution for assaulting the agent.

“The defendant is being prosecuted for the obvious reason that he was recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range,” they wrote.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Police in Evanston, Illinois, are investigating a violent arrest by a Customs and Border Protection agent who repeatedly punched a man’s head against the road. It happened after the agent’s vehicle was rear-ended, and a hostile crowd formed telling federal officers to leave, who responded with pepper spray and pointing their guns at protesters.

It’s unclear whether the man being punched was the driver behind the collision or part of a crowd that formed to pressure federal officers to leave. The incident sparked outrage from local leaders and renewed tensions over federal immigration enforcement in the Chicago area.

CLARKSTON, Ga. — After fleeing the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, Antoinette landed in the Atlanta area last November and began to find her footing with federal help.

Separated from her adult children and grieving her husband’s death in the war, she started a job packing boxes in a warehouse, making just enough to cover rent for her own apartment and bills.

Antoinette has been relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, for her weekly grocery trips.

But now, just as life is starting to stabilize, she will have to deal with a new setback.

President Donald Trump’s massive budget law, which Republicans call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashes $187 billion — or nearly 20% — from the federal budget for SNAP through 2034. And separate from any temporary SNAP stoppages due to the federal shutdown, the law cuts off access completely for refugees and other immigrant groups in the country lawfully. The change was slated to take effect immediately when the law was signed in July, but states are still awaiting federal guidance on when to stop or phase it out.

For Antoinette, 51, who did not want her last name used for fear of deportation and likely persecution in her native country, the loss of food aid is dire.

“I would not have the means to buy food,” she said in French through a translator. “How am I going to manage?”

Throughout its history, the U.S. has admitted into the country refugees like Antoinette, people who have been persecuted, or fear persecution, in their homelands due to race, religion, nationality, political opinions, or membership in a particular social group. These legal immigrants typically face an in-depth vetting process that can start years before they set foot on U.S. soil.

Once they arrive — often with little or no means — the federal government provides resources such as financial assistance, Medicaid, and SNAP, outreach that has typically garnered bipartisan support. Now the Trump administration has pulled back the country’s decades-long support for refugee communities.

The budget law, which funds several of the president’s priorities, including tax cuts to wealthy Americans and border security, revokes refugees’ access to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, starting in October 2026.

But one of the first provisions to take effect under the law removes SNAP eligibility for most refugees, asylum seekers, trafficking and domestic violence victims, and other legal immigrants. About 90,000 people will lose SNAP in an average month as a result of the new restrictions narrowing which noncitizens can access the program, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“It doesn’t get much more basic than food,” said Matthew Soerens, vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, a Christian humanitarian organization that supports U.S. refugees. “Our government invited these people to rebuild their lives in this country with minimum support,” Soerens said. “Taking food away from them is wrong.”

Not just a handout

The White House and officials at the United States Department of Agriculture did not respond to emails about support for the provision that ends SNAP for refugees in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

But Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reduced levels of immigration to the U.S., said cuts to SNAP eligibility are reasonable because foreign-born people and their young children disproportionately use public benefits.

Still, Camarota said, the refugee population is different from other immigrant groups. “I don’t know that this would be the population I would start with,” Camarota said. “It’s a relatively small population of people that we generally accept have a lot of need.”

Federal, state, and local spending on refugees and asylum seekers, including food, healthcare, education, and other expenses, totaled $457.2 billion from 2005 to 2019, according to a February 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services. During that time, 21% of refugees and asylum seekers received SNAP benefits, compared with 15% of all U.S. residents.

In addition to the budget law’s SNAP changes, financial assistance given to people entering the U.S. by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a part of HHS, has been cut from one year to four months.

The HHS report also found that despite the initial costs of caring for refugees and asylees, this community contributed $123.8 billion more to federal, state, and local governments through taxes than they received in public benefits over the 15 years.

It’s in the country’s best interest to continue to support them, said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit refugee resettlement agency.

“This is not what we should think about as a handout,” she said. “We know that when we support them initially, they go on to not just survive but thrive.”

Food is medicine

Clarkston, Georgia, an Atlanta suburb, is home to thousands of refugees.

(Renuka Rayasam/KFF Health News)

Food insecurity can have lifelong physical and mental health consequences for people who have already faced years of instability before coming to the U.S., said Andrew Kim, co-founder of Ethnē Health, a community health clinic in Clarkston, an Atlanta suburb that is home to thousands of refugees.

Noncitizens affected by the new law would have received, on average, $210 a month within the next decade, according to the CBO. Without SNAP funds, many refugees and their families might skip meals and switch to lower-quality, inexpensive options, leading to chronic health concerns such as obesity and insulin resistance, and potentially worsening already serious mental health conditions, he said.

After her husband was killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Antoinette said, she became separated from all seven of her children. The youngest is 19. She still isn’t sure where they are. She misses them but is determined to build a new life for herself. For her, resources like SNAP are critical.

From the conference room of New American Pathways, the nonprofit that helped her enroll in benefits, Antoinette stared straight ahead, stone-faced, when asked about how the cuts would affect her.

Will she shop less? Will she eat fewer fruits and vegetables, and less meat? Will she skip meals?

“Oui,” she replied to each question, using the French for “yes.”

Since arriving in the U.S. last year from Ethiopia with his wife and two teen daughters, Lukas, 61, has been addressing diabetes-related complications, such as blurry vision, headaches, and trouble sleeping. SNAP benefits allow him and his family to afford fresh vegetables like spinach and broccoli, according to Lilly Tenaw, the nurse practitioner who treats Lukas and helped translate his interview.

His blood sugar is now at a safer level, he said proudly after a class at Mosaic Health Center, a community clinic in Clarkston, where he learned to make lentil soup and balance his diet.

“The assistance gives us hope and encourages us to see life in a positive way,” he said in Amharic through a translator. Lukas wanted to use only his family name because he had been jailed and faced persecution in Ethiopia, and now worries about jeopardizing his ability to get permanent residency in the U.S.

Since arriving in the U.S. last year from Ethiopia, Lukas has been visiting the Mosaic Health Center in Clarkston, Ga., to address diabetes-related complications. Food stamps allow him and his family to afford fresh vegetables like spinach and broccoli.

(Renuka Rayasam/KFF Health News)

Hunger and poor nutrition can lower productivity and make it hard for people to find and keep jobs, said Valerie Lacarte, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.

“It could affect the labor market,” she said. “It’s bleak.”

More SNAP cuts to come

While the Trump administration ended SNAP for refugees effective immediately, the change has created uncertainty for those who provide assistance.

State officials in Texas and California, which receive the most refugees among states, and in Georgia told KFF Health News that the USDA, which runs the program, has yet to issue guidance on whether they should stop providing SNAP on a specific date or phase it out.

And it’s not just refugees who are affected.

Nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits, according to the USDA. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, within the next decade, more than 3 million people will lose monthly food dollars because of planned changes — such as an extension of work requirements to more people and a shift in costs from the federal government to the states.

In September, the administration ended a key report that regularly measured food insecurity among all U.S. households, making it harder to assess the toll of the SNAP cuts.

The USDA also posted on its website that no benefits would be issued for anyone starting Nov. 1 because of the federal shutdown, blaming Senate Democrats. The Trump administration has refused to release emergency funding — as past administrations have done during shutdowns — so that states can continue issuing benefits while congressional leaders work out a budget deal. A coalition of attorneys general and governors from 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Oct. 28 contesting the administration’s decision.

Cuts to SNAP will ripple through local grocery stores and farms, stretching the resources of charity organizations and local governments, said Ted Terry, a DeKalb County commissioner and former mayor of Clarkston.

“It’s just the whole ecosystem that has been in place for 40 years completely being disrupted,” he said.

Muzhda Oriakhil, senior community engagement manager at Friends of Refugees, an Atlanta-area nonprofit that helps refugees resettle, said her group and others are scrambling to provide temporary food assistance for refugee families. But charity organizations, food banks, and other nonprofit groups cannot make up for the loss of billions of federal dollars that help families pay for food.

“A lot of families, they may starve,” she said.

Rayasam writes for KFF.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — Those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program shoudl continue to do so in November and possibly beyond after two federal court rulings ordered program funding.

Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue providing SNAP benefits amid the ongoing federal government shutdown.

U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue providing SNAP benefits while the federal government shutdown continues on its 31st day, according to CNN.

Talwani cited a contingency fund containing $5.2 billion that Congress had appropriated to help fund SNAP benefits when needed, but acknowledged the program’s monthly cost is $9 billion.

“This court has now clarified that defendants are required to use those contingency funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” Talwani said in her 15-page ruling.

“While these contingency funds reportedly are insufficient to cover the entire cost of SNAP for November, defendants also may supplement the contingency funds by authorizing a transfer of additional funds,” she said.

Talwani on Thursday heard oral arguments from the Justice Department and attorneys representing 25 states that sued the Trump administration to continue SNAP benefits.

Shortly after Talwani submitted her ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island issued an oral ruling blocking the Trump administration from not funding SNAP benefits that provide food support for 42 million recipients across the United States, CNBC reported.

The benefits lack funding as Senate Democrats, during 13 votes, overwhelmingly have voted against a funding resolution that would keep the federal government funded and open, including the SNAP benefits, through Nov. 21.

Because there is no funding available for the SNAP program, Justice Department attorney Tyler Becker said the program does not exist.

“There is no SNAP program and, as a result, the government cannot just provide SNAP benefits,” Becker argued.

McConnell rejected the argument and, like Talwani, said the Trump administration must use congressionally appropriated contingency funds to continue providing at least some of the benefits that are due starting on Saturday.

While the Trump administration has been ordered to fund SNAP benefits via the U.S. Department of Agriculture, many will experience delays in getting them due as the USDA and respective states need time to access and distribute the benefits.

President Donald Trump on Friday told reporters the government could fund SNAP benefits past Saturday.

He said it would be easier if Senate Democrats voted in favor of the continuing resolution to fund the government while negotiating policy differences in the eventual 2026 fiscal year budget.

The fiscal year started Oct. 1, but so did the shutdown after the Senate failed to muster the 60 votes needed to approve it and keep the government open.

The shutdown will last at least through Monday after the Senate adjourned for the weekend Thursday.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has told Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents they are legally protected from prosecution and local officials cannot arrest them.

Fox News host Will Cain questioned Miller during an October 24 interview. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Cain said, “talked about interfering with, arresting, ICE agents in Illinois”.

Cain asked Miller under what federal authority the Trump administration could arrest Pritzker if the governor tried to arrest ICE agents.

“To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties,” Miller said. “And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.”

Miller said his answer applied to any local or state official “who conspires or engages in activity that unlawfully impedes federal law enforcement conducting their duties”.

The day before Miller’s comments, Pritzker signed an executive order establishing the Illinois Accountability Commission to document federal law enforcement actions and refer possible law violations to local and state agencies for investigation. Chicago is the latest target in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, and agents have arrested more than 3,000 people there.

Pritzker acknowledged in an October 16 interview that “federal agents typically have federal immunity, but they’re not immune from the federal government holding them accountable and responsible”.

His statement is less sweeping than Miller’s, and Pritzker noted that the federal government can prosecute federal agents.

Immigration agents, like other law enforcement officers, have broad protections when conducting official duties. That doesn’t mean they can’t be held legally accountable if they break state or federal law.

“Federal officials are not categorically immune from state criminal prosecution, even while on duty,” Bryna Godar, a lawyer at the University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative, wrote in a July 17 report.

When contacted for comment, the White House pointed PolitiFact to an October 23 letter that US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote to California officials.

“The Department of Justice views any arrests of federal agents and officers in the performance of their official duties as both illegal and futile,” Blanche wrote.

He cited several federal laws and provisions, including the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The clause limits when states can prosecute federal agents who break state law, but it does not act as blanket immunity, legal experts said.

Miller’s statement is “wrong on its face”, Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor, wrote in his October 27 newsletter.

The federal government can prosecute immigration agents who break the law

Federal immigration agents can’t break the law with impunity.

In 2024, a federal judge convicted and sentenced to federal prison a US Customs and Border Protection agent for using excessive force against two people at the southern border. Department of Homeland Security watchdog officers investigated the case.

The federal government has cited its power to hold agents accountable in court arguments. After a Border Patrol agent shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican boy at the southern border in 2010, the Justice Department said in a 2019 Supreme Court brief that the federal government investigates allegations of excessive force by agents “and may bring a federal criminal prosecution where appropriate”.

Non-government organisations can also sue the federal government for its agents’ actions. Several groups in Chicago, including journalism organisations, sued the Trump administration saying federal agents are using “a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians”.

In that case, federal District Judge Sara Ellis ordered immigration agents not to use tear gas and other riot control tactics unless people are posing an immediate threat. If the agents are going to use tear gas, they are required to give a verbal warning first.

After reports that agents weren’t following the court order, Ellis ordered Gregory Bovino, the senior Border Patrol official overseeing the federal immigration actions in Chicago, to meet with her every weeknight to report all confrontations officers have with the public. A federal appeals court has since temporarily paused Ellis’s order.

Vladeck wrote that even if the Trump administration does not investigate or prosecute immigration agents who might have broken the law, it doesn’t mean the federal government doesn’t have the power to do so.

Pritzker said his state’s commission seeks to document actions that could be prosecuted in the future.

State governments aren’t barred from prosecuting federal agents

State governments can also prosecute immigration agents if they break state law. However, there is a limitation known as supremacy clause immunity, which comes from the US Constitution’s clause that says federal law supersedes conflicting state laws.

Protections against state prosecution for federal agents date back to a 1890 Supreme Court decision. David Neagle, a US marshal assigned to protect a Supreme Court justice, shot and killed a man who assaulted the justice. California arrested Neagle and charged him with murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the state couldn’t prosecute Neagle because he was carrying out official duties.

Generally, federal agents are protected from state prosecution if their actions were authorised by federal law, and if the actions were “necessary and proper” for agents to fulfil their duties.

A federal court ruled in 1990 that a customs agent was immune from state charges for speeding while driving during a drug operation. The agent acted under US laws and was justified in concluding speeding was necessary to fulfil his duties, the court said.

But a US marine wasn’t given immunity in 1990 after he killed a person in a car accident while he was driving in a military convoy in North Carolina.

“In short, while Supremacy Clause immunity grants federal officials a partial shield from state prosecution, that immunity is not absolute,” Godar wrote.

Contrary to Miller’s statement, Vladeck wrote, it’s not a felony “for local or state authorities to arrest someone who they have probable cause to believe committed a state crime”.

If a state brought charges against federal immigration agents, the court would have to determine whether an officer reasonably would have thought the actions were necessary to carry out federal duties.

“That’s a generous standard, to be sure,” Vladeck wrote. “But it is by no means a get-out-of-prosecution-free card.”

Our ruling

Miller said: “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

Immigration agents, like other law enforcement officers, have broad protections when they’re conducting official duties. But they’re not immune from prosecution if they break state or federal law.

The federal government can and does prosecute federal officers who break the law.

States can’t prosecute agents for breaking state law if the agents were acting under the reasonable confines of their official duties. But those restrictions aren’t absolute.

The statement contains an element of truth; federal immigration agents have some immunity from state prosecution. But the protections aren’t as sweeping as Miller made them sound, giving a different impression. Federal agents can and have been prosecuted by states.

We rate Miller’s statement Mostly False.

The United States Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 3.75 – 4.00 percent, amid signs of a slowing labour market and continued pressure on consumer prices.

The cut, announced on Wednesday, marks the US central bank’s second rate cut this year.

“Job gains have slowed this year, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remained low through August; more recent indicators are consistent with these developments. Inflation has moved up since earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated,” the Fed said in a statement.

“Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated.”

The cuts were largely in line with expectations. Earlier on Wednesday, CME Fed Watch — which tracks the likelihood of rate cuts — said there was a 97.8 percent probability of rate cuts.

After the September cut, economists had largely been expecting two additional rate cuts for the rest of this year. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, HSBC, and Morgan Stanley, among others, forecast one more 25-basis-point reduction by year’s end following Wednesday’s cut. Bank of America Global Research is the only major firm that is not anticipating another 25-basis-point cut in 2025.

“The Fed has a challenging line to walk; lower interest rates to support labour markets and growth, or raise them to tamp down inflation. For now, they are taking a cautious approach tilted a bit towards the growth concerns,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts, told Al Jazeera.

Despite forecasts, Federal reserve chairman Jerome Powell isn’t necessarily inevitable.

“We haven’t made a decision about December,” Powell told reporters in a press conference.

“We remain well-positioned to respond in a timely way to potential economic developments.”

Government shutdown implications

The cuts come as economic data becomes increasingly scarce amid the ongoing government shutdown, now in its 29th day as of Wednesday, making it the second-longest in US history, behind the 35-day shutdown during the first presidency of Donald Trump in late 2018 and early 2019.

Because of the shutdown, the Department of Labor did not release the September jobs report, which was scheduled for October 3. The only major government economic data released this month was the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tracks the cost of goods and services and is a key measure of inflation. The CPI rose 0.3 percent in September on a month-over-month basis to an inflation rate of 3 percent.

That data was released because the Social Security Administration required it to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for 2026. As a result, Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 2.8 percent increase in payments compared to 2025.

The shutdown, however, could have a bigger impact on next month’s central bank decision as the Labor Department is currently unable to compile the data needed for its November reports.

However, amid the limited government data, private trackers are showing a slowdown.

“We are not going to be able to have the detailed feel of things, but I think if there were a significant or material change in the economy one way or another, I think we would pick that up,” Powell said.

Consumer confidence lags

Consumer confidence fell to a six-month low, according to The Conference Board’s report that was released on Tuesday.

The data showed that lower-income earners – those making less than $75,000 a year – are less confident about the economy as fears of job scarcity loom. This comes only days after several large corporations announced waves of layoffs.

On Wednesday, Paramount cut 2,000 people from its workforce. On Tuesday, Amazon cut 14,000 corporate jobs. Last week, big box retailer Target cut 1,800 jobs. This, as furloughs and layoffs weigh on government workers. The US government is the nation’s largest employer.

Those making more than $200,000 annually remain fairly confident and are leading consumer spending that is keeping the economy afloat, according to The Conference Board.

Pressures both on consumer spending and the labour market are largely driven by tariffs weighing on consumers and businesses.

US markets are ticking up on the rate cut. The Nasdaq is up 0.5, the S&P 500 is up 0.1, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up by 0.26 as of 2pm in New York (18:00 GMT).

A federal judge Tuesday ruled that Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli is not lawfully serving in that role, but declined to dismiss criminal indictments that were challenged by defense attorneys.

Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright from the District of Hawaii was brought in to oversee the case after federal judges in Los Angeles recused themselves. In his ruling, Seabright said Essayli “unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney” but can remain in charge under a different title.

Seabright said Essayli “remains the First Assistant United States Attorney” and can “perform the functions and duties of that office.”

Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April.

The top prosecutors in charge of U.S. Attorney’s offices are supposed to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges, but the Trump administration has circumvented the normal process in order to allow Essayli and others to remain on the job without facing a vote.

Essayli’s temporary appointment was set to expire in late July, but the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term for an additional nine months.

Challenges to Essayli’s appointment have been brought in at least three criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges brought under his watch are invalid. The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions in the district.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Seabright’s ruling comes amid similar challenges across the country to the Trump administration’s tactics for installing loyalists who wield the power to bring criminal charges and sue on the government’s behalf.

A federal judge in August determined Alina Habba has been illegally occupying the U.S. attorney post in New Jersey, although that order was put on hold pending appeal. Last month a federal judge disqualified Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, from several cases, concluding she “is not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.” Chattah’s disqualification also is paused while the Department of Justice appeals the decision.

James Comey, the former FBI director charged with lying to Congress, cited the Nevada and New Jersey cases in a recent filing and is now challenging the legality of Trump’s appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan was appointed after his predecessor, also a Trump appointee, refused to seek charges against Comey.

Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued President Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language at news conferences. Essayli’s tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of career DOJ prosecutors quitting.

The judge’s ruling Tuesday conceded arguments from the Justice Department that Essayli would continue leading the U.S. Attorney’s office in L.A. regardless of how the judged decided on the challenge to his status.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said that because Essayli also has been designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, he would retain his authority even if stripped of the “acting” title.

Bondi in July also appointed him as a “special attorney.” Robbins told the judge that “there’s no developed challenge to Mr. Essayli’s appointment as a special attorney or his designation as a first assistant.”

The prosecutor told the judge the government believes Essayli’s term will end Feb. 24 and that afterward the role of acting U.S. attorney will remain vacant.

Robbins argued in a court filing that the court shouldn’t order Essayli “to remove the prosecutorial and supervisory hats that many others in this Office wear, sowing chaos and confusion into the internal workings of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the largest district in the country.”

When asked by a Times reporter last month about the motion to disqualify him, Essayli said “the president won the election.”

“The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office, and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president,” he said during a news conference.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday indefinitely barred the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying that labor unions were likely to prevail on their claims that the cuts were arbitrary and politically motivated.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted a preliminary injunction that bars the firings while a lawsuit challenging them plays out. She previously issued a temporary restraining order against the job cuts that was set to expire Wednesday.

Illston, who was nominated by former President Clinton, has said she believes evidence will show the mass firings were illegal and in excess of authority.

Federal agencies are enjoined from issuing layoff notices or acting on notices issued since the government shut down Oct. 1. Illston said her order does not apply to notices sent before the shutdown.

The Republican administration has slashed jobs in education, health and other areas it says are favored by Democrats. The administration also said it will not tap roughly $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, flowing into November.

The American Federation of Government Employees and other labor unions sued to stop the “reductions in force” layoffs, saying the firings were an abuse of power designed to punish workers and pressure Congress.

“President Trump is using the government shutdown as a pretense to illegally fire thousands of federal workers — specifically those employees carrying out programs and policies that the administration finds objectionable,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement thanking the court.

The White House referred a request for comment to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond.

Lawyers for the government say the district court does not have the authority to hear personnel challenges and that President Trump has broad authority to reduce the federal workforce as he pledged to do during his campaign.

“The president was elected on this specific platform,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Velchik said. “The American people selected someone known above all else for his eloquence in communicating to employees that you’re fired; this is what they voted for.”

Trump starred on a long-running reality TV series called “The Apprentice” in which his signature catchphrase was telling candidates they were fired.

About 4,100 layoff notices have gone out since Oct. 10, some sent to work email addresses that furloughed employees are not allowed to check. Some personnel were called back to work, without pay, to issue layoff notices to others.

The lawsuit has expanded to include employees represented by additional labor unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. All Cabinet departments and two dozen independent agencies are included in the lawsuit.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding that any deal to reopen the government address expiring health care subsidies that have made health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill passed this summer.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to negotiate with Democrats until they agree to reopen the government.

This is now the second-longest shutdown in U.S. history. The longest occurred during Trump’s first term over his demands for funds to build the Mexico border wall. That one ended in 2019 after 35 days.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 28 (UPI) — With the impending loss of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program potentially causing low-income Americans and their families to go hungry, 25 states have filed suit to force the federal government to release funds for the program during the federal government shutdown.

Starting Saturday, SNAP benefits will not be distributed. The program gives food aid to 40 million Americans.

In past government shutdowns, the USDA used a contingency fund to pay out SNAP benefits. Last week, the President Donald Trump administration said it won’t be using contingency funds to pay for SNAP.

“We just can’t do it without the government being open,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Oct. 21. “By Nov. 1, we are very hopeful this government reopens and we can begin moving that money out. But right now, half the states are shut down on SNAP.”

The lawsuit said this has never happened before.

“Because of USDA’s actions, SNAP benefits will be delayed for the first time since the program’s inception. … Suspending SNAP benefits in these circumstances is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act,” the lawsuit said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James released a statement on the suit:

“Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide,” James said.

“SNAP is one of our nation’s most effective tools to fight hunger, and the USDA has the money to keep it running. There is no excuse for this administration to abandon families who rely on SNAP, or food stamps, as a lifeline. The federal government must do its job to protect families.”

On Fox News, Rollins was asked if the Agriculture well had truly run dry, CNBC reported.

“100% unequivocally, USDA does not have the $9.2 billion that it would require,” Rollins said.

“There’s not just pots of $9.2 billion sitting around. And what’s particularly rich about New York saying that, or California, or any of these other blue states that have filed the lawsuit to say, ‘Oh no, we’re going to go, you guys, USDA, go find the money,'” Rollins said.

The lawsuit alleges that the USDA has the money and won’t spend it. The plaintiffs are led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Arizona and Minnesota. The states and the District of Columbia asked a judge to reply quickly to force the USDA to use the contingency funds for November.

On Tuesday, another Senate vote to reopen the government failed.

NASHVILLE — A federal judge in Tennessee on Monday warned of possible sanctions against top Trump administration officials if they continue to make inflammatory statements about Kilmar Abrego Garcia that could prejudice his coming trial.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw filed an order late on Monday instructing local prosecutors in Nashville to provide a copy of his opinion to all Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security employees, including Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“Government employees have made extrajudicial statements that are troubling, especially where many of them are exaggerated if not simply inaccurate,” Crenshaw writes.

He lists a number of examples of prohibited statements as outlined in the local rules for the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee. They include any statements about the “character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party” and “any opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence.”

“DOJ and DHS employees who fail to comply with the requirement to refrain from making any statement that ‘will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing’ this criminal prosecution may be subject to sanctions,” his order reads.

Earlier this year, Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation to El Salvador, where he was held in a notoriously brutal prison despite having no criminal record, helped galvanize opposition to President Trump’s immigration crackdown. Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked Crenshaw to dismiss them.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang and even implicating him in a murder. Crenshaw’s opinion cites statements from several top officials, including Bondi and Noem, as potentially damaging to Abrego Garcia’s right to a fair trial. He also admonishes Abrego Garcia’s defense attorneys for publicly disclosing details of plea agreement negotiations.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador as a teenager. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, finding he had a well-founded fear of violence there from a gang that targeted his family.

Since his return to the U.S. in June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, most recently Liberia.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.