federal

Oct. 28, 2026 9:44 AM PT

MINNEAPOLIS — The parents of intensive care nurse Alex Pretti said the federal government is shielding the immigration enforcement officers involved in their son’s killing, and no one from the government has reached out with any substantive information for nine months.

Michael and Susan Pretti on Tuesday called for the Department of Justice to hold accountable those who shot their 37-year-old son during President Trump’s ramp up in deportations targeting Minnesota. Federal prosecutors disclosed in recent court filings they had stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the January killings of Pretti and Renee Good by federal officers.

“The federal government went on TV and lied about Alex,” said Susan Pretti, his mother. “They tried to slander his memory to cover up their crime. Not only was it wrong, it was shameful.”

Within moments of his Jan. 24 death, Trump administration officials sought to portray Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse at a veterans hospital, as an armed disruptor intent on doing harm to federal agents when he brought his own gun to a Minneapolis street where officers clashed with protesters. Kristi Noem, the then-Homeland Security secretary, painted the Veterans Administration hospital nurse as a domestic terrorist who violently resisted federal agents. Court records show he had no criminal record.

Video shot by bystanders that day showed Pretti only had a mobile phone in his hand. No footage has since emerged showing him brandishing a weapon or attacking federal agents in the moments before he was killed.

The Prettis spoke Tuesday at a news conference organized by an attorney representing the family, calling their treatment by the Trump administration “cruelty.” They said they decided to speak out after being “stonewalled” by U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota, U.S. Atty. Dan Rosen.

“At every turn, they have ignored us, misled us, and shielded Alex’s killers,” said Michael Pretti, his father. “We are a family who love this country. We trust in the institutions of this country. We believe in the rule of law — and that people should be held accountable through that law.”

After months of reaching out to Rosen’s office, the federal prosecutor agreed to meet with them in July. But the family and their attorney, Steve Schleicher, said that meeting raised more questions than answers, with Rosen refusing to provide even basic information about the status of the federal investigation into Pretti’s death.

A spokesman for Rosen’s office had no comment when reached by the Associated Press on Tuesday. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Pretti family’s remarks.

Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings of Pretti and Good. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.

The state is still seeking the cellphones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.

Pretti’s parents recounted how they first learned of his death when they were called by a reporter for the Associated Press.

“We learned about his death from the media as we saw him being shot repeatedly in the back after helping a woman from his community, a fellow Minnesotan, who had been shoved to the ground viciously,” Michael Pretti said. “No one from the federal government called us on that horrible day, but they did go on TV to tell lies about Alex. No one from the federal government has called us since.”

He said the videos of his son’s killing haunt his family every day.

“I think it haunts many Americans to see a U.S. citizen who was peaceful and in his community shot multiple times on the back, in the back, while on the ground,” the father said, calling his family heartbroken.

“We wish we didn’t have to be here,” he said. “We wish Alex was alive. We wish we were simply in Minneapolis to visit with Alex. For he and I to chat about cars, hiking, biking or anything that came to our mind. This administration has taken that away from us forever.”

Biesecker and Vancleave write for the Associated Press. Biesecker reported from Pittsburgh.

JACKSON, Miss. — Portions of a Mississippi ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools can go into effect after the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s ruling that blocked sections of the law from being enforced.

The parts of the law in question prevent public schools from requiring diversity training and maintaining DEI-related programs, courses and offices. It also bans public schools from discussing a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and national origin. Public schools that violate the law could lose state funding.

The ban passed in April 2025 and is being challenged by a group of educators, students, parents and activists who say the law violates their 1st and 14th Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs have several weeks to file a petition for rehearing with the 5th Circuit. The law would take effect seven days after the petition deadline passes or if a petition is denied, according to McKenna Raney, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The 5th Circuit also ordered that the case be reassigned to a different district court judge after U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate issued a “botch job” temporary restraining order that contained artificial intelligence hallucinations, according to the Thursday ruling. The TRO predates Wingate’s August 2025 preliminary injunction, which the 5th Circuit overturned.

Additionally, the ruling provides clarity on the scope of the law, which opponents have criticized as overly vague.

The law does not apply to scholarly activities, student activities and groups or creative engagements, according to the 5th Circuit. The court also said concerns raised by the plaintiffs that the law would ban discussions of civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Ku Klux Klan, the 14th Amendment, Juneteenth and “Of Mice and Men” are incorrect.

“It is heartening to know that at the very least these specific iterations of classroom discussions that have been happening for years in Mississippi are exempted and they can continue unimpeded,” said Raney, an LGBTQ Justice Project staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi. However, Raney said the types of discussions allowed under the law are still “murky.”

Bates writes for the Associated Press.

In February, after getting served with subpoenas in a federal criminal investigation, the billionaire sports mogul Mark Walter’s insurance companies abruptly stopped lending to him.

But within weeks, new loans started rolling in from a different source: a financial firm whose owners include his business protege, basketball legend Earvin “Magic” Johnson.

Amistad Financial Group, a holding company that counts Johnson as a board member and minority shareholder, loaned about $1.26 billion to Walter’s companies between March and June of this year, according to a Bloomberg News review of business records and a person with knowledge of the activity who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters. Another $1.06 billion went to intermediaries that routinely serve as conduits for loans to Walter.

The combined $2.31 billion of lending, which hasn’t been reported previously, highlights the way Walter relies on debt to fund his business empire, and Amistad’s role. Even before this year, the firm’s insurance units had provided billions of dollars of loans to Walter affiliates, filings show. It also acted as an intermediary to help him tap loans from his own insurers, Bloomberg reported previously – transactions that are now part of the federal investigation.

Walter himself owns a single-digit voting stake in Amistad but doesn’t control it, participate in its management or sit on its board, according to a person familiar with its operations.

Representatives for Walter’s TWG Global holding company and for Johnson did not respond to messages seeking comment.

A former point guard who led the Los Angeles Lakers to five National Basketball Association championships, Johnson has described Walter as a business mentor. They have done deals with each other for more than a decade, including Johnson’s participation in the Walter-led purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team. Johnson doesn’t serve on Amistad’s three-person executive committee, and it’s unclear whether he was involved in or aware of the lending decisions. Some of Amistad’s insurance units are led by Eric Holoman, Johnson’s former business manager.

The federal investigation, being pursued in parallel by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, focuses on Walter’s insurance companies’ failure to disclose that more than $20 billion of loans on their books went to his other businesses.

The recent lending came from two Amistad subsidiaries, Equitrust Life Insurance Co. and Heritage Life Insurance Co. It’s unclear whether Amistad executives were aware of the investigation when the loans were made. Walter’s insurers disclosed the subpoena in a regulatory filing on June 26, but the filing did not get much attention until Bloomberg News reported on it in July. Information about lending activity after June 30 won’t be disclosed until next month.

Walter is now scrambling to reduce debts to his own insurance companies, Delaware Life Insurance Co. and Clear Spring Life and Annuity Co., in part to assuage concerns from ratings agencies about the scale of affiliated lending. He has agreed to sell the Lakers at a $12.5 billion valuation to free up cash and proposed a $6.5 billion debt swap with Delaware Life. This week, the insurer said it had regulatory approval to proceed with part of that, swapping $3.8 billion.

Because he doesn’t legally control Amistad, Walter is under no such pressure to reduce his reliance on its money.

His ties to Amistad are deep. Its official corporate address is the Chicago office suite that houses Walter’s family office. Walter’s financial firm, Guggenheim Partners, serves as an investment manager for both Equitrust and Heritage Life.

Walter’s brother-in-law serves as president of Heritage Life. Walter used to control Equitrust when it was owned by Guggenheim. He sold it to Johnson in 2015, and Johnson sold it to Amistad last year.

Recipients of the new Amistad loans include a company through which Walter holds his stake in used-car seller Carvana Co., and another containing his interest in the Billie Jean King Cup, the women’s tennis competition that he has backed since 2023. The destination for most of the money wasn’t clear from regulatory filings.

New LLCs

The federal investigations revolve around how Walter’s insurers came to lend so much money to his other businesses without disclosing the arrangement to their regulator, the Delaware Department of Insurance, as required. As of the end of last year, the amount of money they had invested in affiliates was $24 billion, or about 45% of the companies’ total invested assets.

Much of the money was routed to loans for newly created limited liability companies with no public profile. These LLCs were created by Amistad and other intermediaries, which in turn sent the money back to Walter.

In January and early February of this year, that lending arrangement continued, with Delaware Life loaning $730 million to newly formed LLCs that then sent the money to Walter’s other businesses, regulatory filings show. That stopped after the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan sent the grand jury subpoenas.

But in March, Amistad’s Equitrust sent $500 million to 10 LLCs. These borrowers had been formed days earlier by Federico Hermida, a Miami-based executive at ABS Capital Co., a longtime business partner of Walter’s that has often served as an intermediary in deals between Walter and his insurers. In June, Amistad’s Heritage Life sent $303 million to a subset of the Hermida borrowers. A representative of ABS declined to comment.

Heritage Life also sent about $253 million to LLCs set up by two other intermediaries that Walter has used for loans in the past: the real estate firm Bradford Allen and Hudson Trading, both based in Chicago. Representatives of Bradford Allen didn’t respond to requests for comment, and Hudson Trading declined to comment.

The remaining $1.3 billion of loans were made to companies that are known to be part of Walter’s business empire, or that were formed by a Walter employee, or were confirmed by the person with knowledge of the matter.

Most of the loans carried interest rates of 8 percent or more, and were due to mature in September or earlier. The insurers won’t have to disclose whether those loans were repaid, extended or replaced with new debt until they file their next quarterly financial reports next month.

Despite the borrowing from Amistad, Walter had not significantly reduced his debt to his own insurance companies by June 30, the date of the most recent regulatory filings. After climbing from $24 billion to $25 billion through March, the amount of affiliated investments dropped to about $24 billion as of June.

Mider and Li write for Bloomberg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Democrats in Congress have joined a California immigrant and the Nevada State Democratic Party in suing the Trump administration over its unprecedented voter fraud probes in both states and broader efforts to meddle in state-run elections nationwide — alleging they are a “pretext to seize control over elections.”

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., late Tuesday, accuses President Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and the agencies they lead of using “shoddily compiled lists of supposed noncitizens” and “coercive threats of legal retaliation against state officials” to assert federal control over the Nov. 3 midterms.

In addition to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and several national Democratic groups, the plaintiffs include Erick Jose Jimenez, an “active California voter” and naturalized U.S. citizen since 2006 who now “fears that he will be unlawfully targeted for voting and disenfranchised (or worse)” given the Trump administration’s track record of misidentifying naturalized citizens as noncitizens.

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that while “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud, the Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections,” including by “prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

“Anyone who illegally votes in our elections will be held accountable,” Bis said.

A Justice Department spokesperson said “election integrity is a top priority” and that the department’s actions are “grounded in the law and being litigated in open court.” A Homeland Security spokesperson said it is “laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote and preventing the dilution of the votes of U.S. citizens.”

Officials from both agencies have asserted that California and other states have ineffective policies for ensuring noncitizens do not vote — relying in part on voters attesting to being citizens — and staunchly defended their own processes for identifying noncitizens on state rolls.

Democrats and leading elections experts say isolated voter fraud does occur and should be taken seriously, but that there is no evidence of widespread fraud.

Tuesday’s lawsuit cites Trump administration claims of thousands of potential noncitizens on Nevada voter rolls crumbling amid state scrutiny. It also cites an administration list of 20,000 “likely noncitizens” allegedly on California rolls being “proven remarkably slapdash” and inaccurate in recent litigation between the administration and California.

The lawsuit alleges a coordinated effort between Trump and other administration officials — in violation of the 10th Amendment and other federal law — to intimidate state and local elections officials nationwide into removing voters from rolls, denying ballots to legally registered voters and segregating the ballots of others “based on spurious and unreliable claims that they are not citizens.”

It says the president is pushing the above efforts not “in a vacuum,” but in the face of repeated steps by Congress and the courts to block his election agenda.

The lawsuit, backed by prominent Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, follows another filed in the same court last month by attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo.

That ongoing lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege registered California voters are not citizens, which it says risks misidentifying eligible voters and has left naturalized citizens frightened — the same argument made by Jimenez.

Jimenez, who could not be reached for comment, has “eagerly and consistently exercised his right to vote” since becoming a citizen two decades ago, and plans to vote in the Nov. 3 election but fears being misidentified as a noncitizen and targeted, Tuesday’s lawsuit says.

Administration officials have defended the accuracy of their lists, including in the lawsuit the Justice Department filed against California last week. In that case, the Trump administration has asked the court to force California to set aside the ballots of the 20,000 “likely noncitizens” it flagged until their citizenship is confirmed.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A., has said that list was compiled using public California voter registration records and third-party and law enforcement data, and that federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” that those voters are ineligible.

On Monday, federal authorities filed fraudulent registration and other election-related charges against 28 lawful permanent residents in California, which Essayli said “prove our list is accurate and that noncitizens are actually voting.”

However, other administration officials have acknowledged the lists may not be entirely accurate. Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter said Monday that “there may be some names on there who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens.” A Homeland Security official said in a court filing Monday that “discrepancies” have been found in about 189 of the records.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office — both named defendants in the California case — have accused the Trump administration of illegally interfering in state elections and trying to purge voters in the immediate lead up to an election in violation of federal law using inaccurate data.

Logan’s office said Tuesday that a preliminary analysis of a subset of the administration’s list found many were born in the U.S., weren’t registered or had never voted.

Federal authorities have charged 28 people from across California with illegally registering to vote or casting ballots in federal elections despite not being U.S. citizens — again escalating an election battle between the state and the Trump administration just weeks before the Nov. 3 midterms.

Authorities said 11 of the 28 were arrested as of Monday morning and that the 17 others “will be in custody in the near future.” Some of the 28, all of whom are lawful permanent residents of the U.S., are charged with lying about registering or voting on their naturalization paperwork, officials said; 21 of them are suspected of casting votes, some in multiple elections. None are undocumented immigrants, a favorite target of President Trump and a group he has accused of infiltrating U.S. elections in the past.

Those charged represent a tiny fraction of the 20,000 “likely noncitizens” that the Justice Department alleged are on California rolls just last week, and an even tinier fraction of the more than 190,000 noncitizens the Trump administration alleged were on state rolls as recently as July.

State officials have previously warned, along with independent elections experts, that the Trump administration has badly overstated voter fraud claims in other states. In Nevada, for example, officials recently found that all 185 people the Justice Department flagged as potential noncitizens were in fact citizens. The administration has repeatedly revised downward its estimate for how many “likely noncitizens” are on California’s rolls.

Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter cast the arrests during a Monday news conference as proof that California voter rolls are corrupted and need to be purged to prevent noncitizens from negating the legitimate votes of U.S. citizens, and that California officials who have rebuffed recent Trump administration efforts to purge the state’s rolls are willfully obstructing justice.

“This Department of Justice will not look the other way while non-citizens vote in federal elections,” McCotter said. “Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for California and L.A. County.”

State and local officials — some of whom are being sued by the Justice Department over their handling of the broader claims — said voter fraud should be taken seriously, but that isolated cases are not evidence of widespread problems and that any voting allegations from the Trump administration must be viewed with skepticism.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn referred to Monday’s arrests as “voter intimidation and a blatant attempt to undermine trust in our midterm elections.”

“These arrests are being used to paint a picture of widespread voter fraud when we know that is not the case,” Hahn said. “California has laws in place to protect the integrity of our elections, and L.A. County is fully abiding by them.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said the 28 individuals charged Monday “represent a tiny fraction” of California’s 23 million registered voters, and that the Trump administration has not shown “evidence of widespread voter fraud, even if the allegations are true.”

Shifting claims

For months, federal prosecutors have been issuing grand jury subpoenas for voter records in California — suggesting a sweeping criminal investigation was underway.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin asserted in a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber that California may have more than 190,000 noncitizen voters on its rolls. Last week, McCotter wrote letters to Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots of about 20,000 voters the Justice Department said were “likely noncitizens.”

When Weber and Logan balked at the demand — arguing the Justice Department had provided no proof the voters were ineligible, had presented similar and inaccurate claims in other states and had made the request too close to the upcoming election — the Justice Department sued Thursday, asking a court to immediately intervene and force the state and L.A. County to comply with McCotter’s demands.

In a filing in that case Monday, federal authorities cited the latest charges as more reason for the court to intervene, and before the election, to segregate out the flagged ballots until those voters’ citizenship can be verified — again raising uncertainty as to their citizenship status despite alleging during their news conference Monday that all were permanent residents.

“This Court should order California to set aside vote-by-mail ballots from likely noncitizens in the federal election — including any ballots cast by the individuals charged with [federal election] crimes this morning — until the voter’s citizenship status can be determined,” federal attorneys wrote.

The Trump administration’s apparent uncertainty about the citizenship of the voters it has flagged — and even those it’s charged — has been a focus of state and local officials. Bonta and others have questioned the drop from 190,000 to 20,000 and repeatedly pointed to what occurred in Nevada, where federal officials initially flagged more than 15,000 potential noncitizen voters. Independent election experts have also highlighted those discrepancies.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote online Monday that the data the federal government relies on to find purported noncitizens are “unreliable.” He wrote that the Justice Department’s demands on California risk “disenfranchising thousands of voters, and from DOJ’s track record, the lion’s share will be eligible voters.”

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the 28 alleged noncitizens charged represent “.0001% of California voters,” and that the Trump administration charging 28 people days after flagging 20,000 “raises serious questions as to whether DOJ has any evidence at all supporting their claims on the other 19,972 on their list.”

McCotter said the original 190,000 figure was “the ceiling,” while “20,000 is the floor” — with the larger figure representing individuals the administration had low, medium or high levels of confidence were noncitizens, and the smaller figure representing only those it has high confidence are noncitizens.

“So there’s not inconsistency between those numbers. They’re just looking at different levels of confidence,” he said.

McCotter also said the notion that a federal list of more than 15,000 alleged noncitizens in Nevada had resulted in zero noncitizens being found was a “false storyline,” in part because the larger group was never vetted by the state. However, he also acknowledged that the 185 that were vetted — and found to be citizens — were those the federal government had held “high confidence” in being noncitizens.

How the Justice Department further zeroed in on the 28 charged individuals also was not entirely clear.

U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian, the top federal prosecutor in Northern California, said prosecutors compared information from Homeland Security with voter information they subpoenaed from Weber’s office and various county election offices. Some of the criminal complaints said Homeland Security Investigations received investigative referrals from its Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit, which provided “relevant information regarding alleged voter fraud or related identity-based fraud indicators.”

Kevin Murphy, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Diego, said the underlying investigations were not “based on assumptions or a single piece of information,” but required “thorough investigative work, coordination, and a commitment to ensuring that enforcement action is supported by the facts.”

Those charged include 13 people from the Central District of California, who live in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Anaheim, West Covina and other cities. They hail from a mix of nations, including Belize, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India and Mexico. Five others were charged in the Northern District of California, with one from San Francisco and others from the wider Bay Area; four in the Southern District and six in the Eastern District.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in L.A., dismissed the idea that such fraud is rare or that Trump officials are overstating the threat. “This is not a conspiracy theory,” Essayli said. “This is not made-up stuff.”

Essayli specifically highlighted the case of a 72-year-old Omar Munoz from Belize, who was arrested in a pre-dawn raid Monday at his home in Commerce. Federal authorities allege that he fraudulently registered to vote in 2019, voted in 2020, twice in 2022 and again in 2024. He is also accused of lying on his naturalization application.

In federal court downtown late Monday, Munoz’s daughter Lliani Orantes, a nurse born in the U.S., said the family was trying to figure out what happened, after federal officials swarmed their block and took her father, who is recovering from a recent surgery.

She said her brother, a registered voter, shares her father’s name, as does a nephew, and the family is wondering if it is all a mix-up. “Did the names get misconstrued,” she wondered.

McCotter said in the last seven weeks, the Trump administration has charged 113 people across 20 states with voting-related crimes. More than 154 million people voted nationally in the 2024 presidential election.

What’s ahead

Federal officials said their work — dubbed “Operation Protect the Vote” — would continue through the election and beyond.

Essayli said California’s own process for verifying voters’ citizenship, including requiring that they attest to being a citizen when they register, is insufficient. He said California election officials have “no idea who is a citizen,” but also know “they have noncitizens who are getting ballots as we speak” and several years ago admitted in an audit that noncitizens were being registered at the DMV.

“When we submit a list of 20,000 noncitizens to California that we are pretty sure are not citizens, it is outrageous that the response from the state is, ‘We don’t believe you and we’re not even going to look at it,’” he said. “That is not good faith actors. They are being complicit.”

McCotter said there “may be some names” on the list of 20,000 flagged voters “who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens.” He said federal authorities are “not perfect,” which is why they’ve asked California officials to work with them. “We could knock through most of these names pretty quickly, probably in a day or two, if California would work with us.”

He said the timeline — amid an ongoing election — was due to state officials refusing to cooperate sooner. “It’s an emergency of their own creation.”

Oct. 14, 2026 10:49 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook’s lawyers say that a committee set up by the White House last week to investigate an accusation against her is “demonstrably biased,” though they did not close the door on the possibility that she would appear before the panel.

Lawyer Abbe Lowell also said in a letter Tuesday that Cook would not be able to participate in a hearing Nov. 5 because she “will be executing her official duties as Governor at financial and monetary policy meetings in Europe.”

The earliest that Cook could appear before a “committee of inquiry” that the White House set up last Friday would be after the Fed’s policy meeting Dec. 8-9, the letter said. The letter was sent to William Scharf, a counsel to President Trump.

Lowell’s comments are the latest turn in the Trump administration’s extended efforts to fire Cook from her position as one of seven members of the Fed’s board of governors. Trump has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud in 2021, before she joined the board, a claim she has denied. No criminal charges have been filed.

No president has fired a Fed governor before, a reflection of the Fed’s traditional independence from politics. Yet Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the central bank lower its key interest rate, has taken numerous steps that economists say have threatened that independence. The Justice Department earlier this year sought to investigate then-Chair Jerome Powell over brief testimony he had given about an extensive building renovation, though a judge threw out subpoenas in the case and it was later dropped.

Cook was appointed by former President Biden and is the first Black woman on the Fed’s board.

Trump first tried to fire Cook in August 2025, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year she could remain in her position while litigation continued. The court also suggested, in a footnote to the ruling, that Trump could try again to fire her if the administration provided her adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. The committee of inquiry announced by the White House last Friday is an effort to meet those conditions.

Under the law governing the Fed, the president can only fire a Fed governor “for cause,” but the Supreme Court didn’t address whether Cook’s actions met that standard. The committee of inquiry will ultimately recommend whether there is cause to fire Cook, a White House memo last week said.

Lowell also said in the Tuesday letter that “we have significant concerns regarding the objectivity and fitness of the committee for its assigned purpose.”

One of its three members, Kevin Hassett, a top economic adviser to Trump, has already said the president has “cause” to fire Cook, the letter noted. The other two members — Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Andrea Rich — are also Trump appointees.

“A hearing with demonstrably biased members, unspecified additional allegations, and an unclear schedule for the disclosure of any additional evidence – with no explanation for why it was not previously produced – is not a process that respects the appearance or history of independence,” Lowell’s letter said.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

BOULDER CITY, Nev. — Janelle Sorenson loves the clear night skies in Boulder City, less than an hour’s drive from the bright lights of the Las Vegas Strip. It’s a small, quiet town, and she thinks an artificial intelligence data center would ruin the community and scar the desert landscape.

So over the summer, she joined with other residents to successfully oppose plans for one of the giant computing warehouses that have popped up around the country.

But their victory was short-lived. The developers withdrew their application and instead sought adjacent land owned by the federal government — and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management signed off.

“Not only did we not get to decide anything or have a say,” Sorenson said, “we were just really kept in the dark.”

The Townsite data center was the first in the country to be approved on federal public land, though construction is stalled after a judge ruled that the government couldn’t use an old environmental review from when the project was intended to be a solar farm.

Tech companies are eager for vast tracts to build data centers that can be as large as 70 football fields, and Townsite could set a precedent for similar projects on federal property with more than a dozen others in the planning stages. President Trump has been a steadfast supporter of the AI industry, which he views as a source of economic growth and part of a global competition with China.

However, data centers have been unpopular in many communities as voters worry about higher electricity bills, declining water supplies and other effects. In Nevada, where 80% of the land is owned by the federal government, Townsite and other projects have become a dominant issue in the battleground state’s closely watched governor’s race.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, one of his party’s most vulnerable incumbents, doesn’t outright oppose building data centers on public lands, as long as they have community support. He recently signed an agreement with Trump’s Republican administration to streamline infrastructure projects, which could include data centers on federal lands.

Democratic nominee Aaron Ford, the state attorney general, has pledged to oppose data centers on public lands, saying affordable housing should be the priority.

Both say the projects, whether on public or private land, must follow state rules, such as requiring data centers to cover their own energy costs and protecting water supplies, or they would lose eligibility for state tax abatements.

Voters across the political spectrum unite against data centers

Sorenson, the Boulder City resident, considers herself a liberal, but she said her conservative neighbors are on the same page as she is.

“We’re all aligned on this,” she said.

Autumn McGrath-Shook, who lives in the same town, said she recently left the GOP and registered with the Green Party over data centers, though she still identifies as conservative. Worried about the environmental impact on wildlife, she joined forces with “these crazy libs” to oppose the project.

Data centers have quickly become a “catalyzing issue” in the midterms, catching many politicians flat-footed, said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Some state leaders who were previously supportive of data centers have rushed to respond. For example, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott paused data center approvals until audits are completed, and Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro signed an executive order removing data center proposals from a fast-track permitting process and requiring them to receive local approval before seeking state approval.

In August, Ford announced his plan to pause new tax abatements for data centers while an audit is conducted to see whether the projects have fulfilled promises about producing tax revenue and economic benefits.

In September, Lombardo, who has said data centers provide enormous economic opportunity for Nevada, signed an executive order placing more guardrails on them and requiring them to pay more taxes to support schools.

The two have successfully “muddied the waters” on their data center positions, Damore said.

Lombardo criticized Ford for co-sponsoring 2015 legislation that created the state’s tax abatement program for the facilities, a measure that received bipartisan support. Ford criticized Lombardo for giving more than $200 million in tax breaks to data centers, which is connected to the legislation that Ford co-sponsored.

Ford told the Associated Press that he would use “every tool” at his disposal to prevent data centers from skirting state guardrails, including withholding tax abatements and pursuing litigation.

Lombardo, whose campaign declined to make him available for an interview, has a similar pitch. His office said he would not hesitate to confront the federal government to advocate for Nevadans.

But that’s not good enough for McGrath-Shook, who is on the fence in the governor’s race. She thinks Ford is soft on crime, but she views Lombardo as more pro-data centers.

“I would much rather vote for Lombardo than Aaron Ford in a normal world,” she said. “But with the looming data centers, it really changes the landscape — and literally.”

Data centers on public lands are the latest effort in AI race

Last year, Trump signed an executive order to accelerate permitting for AI data centers, and his administration has rolled back the National Environmental Policy Act, saying the bedrock law needlessly delays federal approval for energy and infrastructure projects.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry wants to be a part of the conversation about responsible development on federal lands.

“The good-faith actors in this space are going to be approaching that development responsibly,” he said, “ensuring that it’s going to do no harm on important federal lands.”

But environmentalists are concerned about data centers developing on federal lands to skirt environmental protections and laws and circumvent permitting processes. They’re generally opposed to using public lands for the projects in the first place.

“We believe that public lands are reserved for public good and should be protected and kept in trust for future generations,” said Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe Chapter. “And the idea of using public lands for data center construction totally flies in the face of that set of values.”

She said Congress should pass legislation with new standards for environmental reviews and public engagement that could slow development.

“Short of some type of legislation to that effect,” Tanager said, “we’re staring down the barrel of having many data centers move forward on public lands over the next few years.”

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on Monday ordered a 24-hour halt to tree-cutting at the East Potomac Golf Course, a historic D.C. golf course that has been part of President Donald Trump’s plans to remake the city.

Reyes issued the order following a tense three-hour hearing in which she blistered the government for having deceived her with its actions over the holiday weekend.

Reyes said the 24-hour temporary order could be extended to 14 days if necessary. It was limited to one day while the government tries to find a key Trump administration official to discuss why a massive tree-cutting at the park needed to occur over the holiday weekend, with little notification to plaintiffs in a lawsuit trying to halt renovation plans or the judge.

It’s the latest example of the erosion of trust between the government and the independent judiciary, as the Trump administration tries to steamroll scrutiny of its actions, from the White House ballroom to immigration enforcement.

The hearing started with a blistering 15-minute statement from Reyes, who has declined repeated motions from the plaintiffs to halt work by the administration out of concern that its strategy has seemed to be move ahead on projects despite court actions.

“I am thoroughly unamused right now,” Reyes said. “I do not know how I could have made it any plainer that I did not want what was to happen, to happen.” The judge added: “I have given the government every single benefit of the doubt that it would not do precisely what it has done.”

She told the government’s lawyers sharply: “I wanted you all to be better than you have been.”

The emergency hearing on a holiday expanded as the judge ordered the government to get various participants in the decision-making process into the hearing remotely.

Reyes plans to hold another hearing Tuesday and wants to hear from Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff at the Interior Department. Wischer pushed for the work to be done urgently, according to testimony from Frank Lands, deputy director of operations for the National Park Service.

Fields writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

Oct. 9, 2026 8:06 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump opened another chapter in his effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook Friday by establishing a “committee of inquiry” to investigate allegations that she made false statements in mortgage applications.

The inquiry will include a hearing at the White House Nov. 5, Trump said in a written memo, that Cook “shall” attend to answer questions from the committee. The hearing wouldn’t be public but a transcript would be published, the memo said.

Trump’s extraordinary demand that Cook testify before the committee will likely renew concerns about threats to the Federal Reserve’s independence as the president demands the central bank cut its key interest rate. Just last month, the Fed raised its key rate instead, led by Chairman Kevin Warsh, whom Trump appointed earlier this year.

“As President, it is my job to ensure the laws are faithfully executed, including by firing subordinates who cannot be trusted to tell the truth and follow the law,” Trump wrote in the memorandum.

Trump and some of his economic advisers have blamed the Fed’s broader rate-setting committee, which includes 12 voting members and 19 officials in total, for the rate hike. Cook is one of the 12 participants on the committee that votes on interest-rate decisions. The vote to lift rates Sept. 16 was unanimous.

The move follows a Supreme Court ruling in June that Cook could keep her job after Trump sought to fire her last year. That ruling included a footnote that said nothing prevented Trump from “trying again” as long as she was given proper notice and an opportunity to respond to the charges.

Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 3, 2026 3:03 AM PT

Menopause has been having a moment lately, and Washington is taking notice. On Sept. 16, the Senate held its first hearing on the dismal state of federally funded menopause research and vast gaps in treatment and care. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health and Human Services also convened pharmaceutical manufacturers and physicians to troubleshoot the alarming lack of availability of estradiol patches, an essential menopause hormone treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration held a full day of expert panels on female-dosed testosterone, which is currently only FDA-approved for men.

One week later, Health and Human Services joined the American Urological Assn. for a discussion about a silent killer of postmenopausal women: urosepsis from recurrent urinary tract infections. There is a simple solution — localized vaginal estrogen — and yet because of outdated guidelines and lack of clinician training, the medication is too often ignored or denied. Nor is the prescription routinely covered by Medicare, despite its well-established health and longevity benefits for women over age 65.

These are among the attempts to now, finally, address decades of policy failures — a refreshing change, quite frankly, given neither political party has ever prioritized menopause. That 2026 marks the year when menopause has entered the policy arena comes as little surprise to me. I’ve been beating this drum for years. Every aspect of daily life that menopause touches — the soaring cost of medical care, inadequate access to health insurance, extreme underinvestment in scientific research focused on women’s health, even the myriad ways midlife women are stretched to the limit caring for kids and aging parents — is smack in the middle of the political zeitgeist. These are the kitchen table issues on the minds of voters this election.

Menopause moment, meet the midterms.

Another issue rightly revealed by menopause is the chasm of public trust in government. As one of the four expert witnesses who testified at the Senate, I was heartened that it was a true bipartisan endeavor. But that’s a rarity these days in Congress, an institution rife with dysfunction. Our federal health agencies have become so shamelessly politicized they are on a collision course with science — from HHS’ overt moves to undermine childhood vaccines, to the decimation of leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is struggling to respond to the crisis of measles outbreaks across the country.

My goal as a policy advocate is to help turn the tide on this country’s long record of neglect when it comes to menopause. Like many other women’s and reproductive health advocates, after the 2024 election l turned my attention to state legislatures — not just as a consolation prize but as a way to test what range of reforms were feasible and to get as many good laws as possible passed. It was the right move. Over the last two years, more than 60 bills have been introduced in 28 states — to do things like require private insurance and Medicaid to cover menopause care and treatment, improve clinician training and public education, and bolster antidiscrimination protection in the workplace. Ten of those states now have 21 laws on the books.

California is one and can claim real leadership. Among the bills passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 2270 from 2023-24 incentivizes continuing medical education on menopause for clinicians, the majority of whom receive little to zero training while in medical school and residency. The California Department of Corrections is now collaborating with medical experts to help bring menopause resources to incarcerated women in state prisons.

Newsom also just vetoed AB 1940, which would have codified menopause as a protected category in the state’s workplace antidiscrimination laws.

The Legislature has been especially deft at easing access to FDA-approved hormonal treatments, including testosterone, often used off-label by menopausal women: AB 82 ends the requirement to report prescriptions to the state’s tracking database; AB 1778 proactively declassifies testosterone as a controlled substance under state law, should there be action in Washington to do the same under federal law.

Although Newsom twice vetoed bills to mandate insurance coverage for menopause treatment — and deserved all the flak he received — the 2026-27 state budget includes a minor course correct: a $3.4-million “trailer bill” to invest in public education and make menopause treatments more affordable; Medi-Cal patients are not fully covered by the addendum, though, making it a toothless reform for those who need support the most.

Why should California’s menopause agenda, or that of the other 27 states that have introduced reforms, matter to the rest of the country? They offer useful models of what to do — or in the case of Medicaid exclusion, what not to do — in crafting meaningful policies. Perhaps more important, they offer a rationale that can help persuade the public; those who might balk at a congressional bill or federal policy, in part because of skepticism of the federal government or the current administration, can listen to and learn from other stakeholders, including governors and state lawmakers and activists.

Take for example the FDA decision in November 2025 to remove the long-critiqued “black box” warning on estrogen products for menopause. This was the culmination of a decade-long campaign by physicians, researchers and scientists — who had been waging the fight for accurate labeling well before the acronym MAHA ever existed and regardless of which party held power. Yet the very image of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using his moment at the podium to credit the Trump administration’s deep commitment to women’s health posed a serious credibility challenge. Aligned and contemporaneous state reforms offered much-needed reassurance and clarity to many.

Trust in government is understandably at a low point, but this happens to be when menopause finally has caught the attention of policymakers at all levels of power. Some are taking long-overdue steps for women’s health, however implausibly. Let’s take the wins.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is the author of “When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide.” She is executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center.

WASHINGTON — A federal court in Texas on Friday issued a ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration from building a border wall and other infrastructure across the state’s Big Bend region.

The news marks a major win for landowners, businesses and environmentalists in the region who have united to oppose the planned infrastructure projects, which are part of a $46-billion effort by the Trump administration to line the southern border with a mix of 30-foot steel walls, vehicle barriers, roads and surveillance technology.

Judge Kathleen Cardone said in her ruling that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor.”

Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Opponents of the border wall project have argued that the Big Bend region is so remote and the landscape so rugged that it serves as its own deterrent to illegal immigration, and that the administration violated the law when it issued a swath of waivers allowing it to bypass numerous regulations in order to speed up border wall infrastructure projects.

Laiken Jordahl, with the Center of Biological Diversity that brought the suit, called Cardone’s ruling a “total victory.”

“The bulldozers are going to be sent packing until she rules on the merits,” Jordahl said. “This is such a historic day for Big Bend and for Texas and the Constitution.”

The court’s decision comes just weeks after the administration erected the first border wall panels in the Big Bend sector in the middle of September.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.