illegally

Oct. 9 (UPI) — After 46 years of searching, 64-year-old María Soto was reunited with her twin daughters, María Laura and Valeska, who were given up for adoption without her consent in 1979 when they were 8 months old.

Because of their low weight, the girls had been admitted to a state institution. But when Soto went to retrieve them, she was told her daughters had been adopted by an Italian couple.

The case became public a few weeks ago, highlighting the work of the Hijos y Madres del Silencio Foundation (Children and Mothers of Silence), which searches for Chilean children who were illegally taken. The twins are numbers 319 and 320 of children the Foundation has successfully reunited with their families.

They were able to reunite thanks to the efforts of one of Soto’s Italian grandsons, who knew his mother had been born in Chile. He sought help from Hijos y Madres del Silencio, which then contacted Soto.

Marisol Rodríguez, founder and president of the Children and Mothers of Silence Foundation, told UPI that between the 1950s and 1990s, an estimated 45,000-plus Chilean children were illegally adopted abroad.

The foundation has worked for more than 11 years to reunite families. Its team cross-checks information in databases, reviews court records and requests DNA tests from those searching for relatives.

The idea grew out of her Rodriguez’s experience. In 1972, her mother was told that her newborn daughter had died, but she was never given the body and there was no record of her pregnancy. It turned out the baby had been adopted in Germany, and the mother and daughter did not reunite until 2014.

“We thought there were just a few other cases. We never realized the scale of what had happened,” Rodríguez said. She explained that over time, more cases began to surface of children searching for their mothers and mothers searching for their children.

Initial information suggested that about 20,000 children had been taken, but Alejandro Aguilar, the judge handling irregular adoption cases in Chile’s courts, said that in 1983 alone, 23,000 children were sent abroad, according to Rodríguez.

“There could have been more than 40,000 children who were sent abroad, plus others who were adopted illegally within the country and remained in Chile,” she said.

Today, more than 306 people are searching for their biological origins, and 504 families are looking for children with the help of the foundation.

According to collected records, the child-trafficking network that operated in Chile charged as much as $30,000 for each child placed in an illegal adoption. Most of the children were sent to Europe — to countries that included Italy, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and France — but cases have also been identified in the United States.

“It is estimated there are about 8,000 cases in that country, but now many people are afraid of being deported and don’t want to file a report. That’s why the number of people searching for their families is much smaller. Others don’t want to file a legal complaint because they don’t want to admit it was an illegal adoption,” Rodríguez said.

Although there are reports of illegal adoptions as early as the 1950s, the peak occurred during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

“In Chile, there was a state policy, but it was not directly tied to political repression as it was in Argentina, where women had their children taken while they were detained,” she said.

She added that documents show many children were sent to public childcare centers because their mothers were poor. But as those institutions struggled financially, the children were sold to families abroad.

Rodriguez said state agents “took part in these crimes and acted systematically in crimes against humanity.”

“We are talking about the forced disappearance of children. The state must apologize to the mothers and the children — and it must do so quickly, because the mothers are dying,” she said. “I have mothers who are 88 years old, and some have already passed away. They did not give away or sell their children.”

Chilean courts are investigating possible crimes of irregular adoption, child abduction and other offenses in more than 1,500 complaints.

“In just five months, Judge Aguilar has already detained 15 people and is seeking the extradition of one individual in Israel,” she said.

According to Chile’s judiciary, the investigation has so far concluded that in the 1980s, in the city of San Fernando, a network of lawyers, Catholic priests, members of social organizations, health officials and a judge arranged the adoption of children “whose mothers were poor to foreign couples in exchange for payments that could reach up to $50,000.”

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

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, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, a ruling that largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the 7-4 court did not strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The president vowed to do just that. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his social medial platform.

The ruling complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.

Prosecutors say two men ‘knowingly and willfully’ used California-based company to evade export controls on AI chips.

Authorities in the United States have charged two Chinese citizens with shipping tens of millions of dollars’ worth of advanced Nvidia chips to China in breach of export controls.

Chuan Geng and Shiwei Yang are alleged to have “knowingly and willfully” exported the graphic processing units (GPUs) used to power artificial intelligence without authorisation from October 2022 to July 2025, the US Department of Justice said on Tuesday.

Export records indicate that Geng and Yang, both 28, organised at least 21 shipments through their El Monte, California-based company ALX Solutions Inc to companies in Singapore and Malaysia, the Justice Department said.

The exports included a December 2024 shipment of Nvidia H100 GPUs – described as the most powerful chip on the market – that was “falsely labelled” and had not obtained the necessary licence from the US Department of Commerce, the Justice Department said.

According to prosecutors, ALX Solutions received payments from firms in Hong Kong and China, including a $1m sum from a China-based company in January 2024, rather than the companies that accepted the shipments.

Prosecutors said a search of ALX Solutions’s office and Geng and Yang’s phones last week revealed “incriminating communications”, including communications about shipping chips to China through Malaysia to evade US export restrictions.

Geng and Yang face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison if convicted under the Export Control Reform Act.

Al Jazeera could not immediately locate the accused’s lawyers for comment.

Santa Clara, California-based Nvidia said the case showed that “smuggling is a nonstarter”.

“We primarily sell our products to well-known partners, including OEMs [original equipment manufacturers], who help us ensure that all sales comply with US export control rules,” a company spokesperson said.

“Even relatively small exporters and shipments are subject to thorough review and scrutiny, and any diverted products would have no service, support, or updates.”

The US government has banned the export of the most advanced chips to China amid a heated battle for technological supremacy between Washington and Beijing.

US officials have claimed that restrictions, many of which were introduced under former US President Joe Biden, are needed to safeguard national security.

China, which has hit back with its own export controls against the US, has accused Washington of undermining global trade and abusing its dominance in tech.

Last month, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang announced that Washington had agreed to reverse its ban on the sale of its H20 GPU to China following discussions with US President Donald Trump.

Huang said the lifting of the export ban on the H20, which was specifically designed for the Chinese market and is less powerful than the H100, would encourage “nations worldwide to choose  America” for their AI models.

DENVER — Colorado’s Democratic attorney general on Tuesday sued a sheriff’s deputy for allegedly helping federal immigration agents find and arrest a college student who had an expired visa.

Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser also disclosed that his office is investigating whether other law enforcement officers on a regional drug task force the deputy worked on have been sharing information to help federal agents make immigration arrests in violation of state law limiting cooperation in immigration enforcement. The federal government has sued Colorado over such laws.

On June 5, Mesa County Deputy Alexander Zwinck allegedly shared the driver’s license, vehicle registration and insurance information of the 19-year-old nursing student in a Signal chat used by task force members, according to the lawsuit. The task force includes officers who work for federal Homeland Security Investigations, which can enforce immigration laws, the lawsuit said.

After federal immigration officers told him in the chat that the student did not have a criminal history but had an expired visa, Zwinck allegedly provided them with their location and told her to wait with him in his patrol car for about five minutes, asking about her accent and where she was born. He let her go with a warning and gave federal agents a description of her vehicle and told which direction she was headed so they could arrest her, the lawsuit said.

When Zwinck was told of the arrest, the lawsuit said he congratulated the federal agents, saying “rgr, nice work.” The following day, one federal immigration agent praised Zwinck’s work in the chat, saying he should be named ”interdictor of the year” for the removal division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Zwinck is also accused of violating the law again on June 10 by providing immigration officers with the photo of the license of another driver who had overstayed his visa, information about the person’s vehicle and directions to help them arrest the driver. After being told that immigration officers “would want him,” Zwinck replied that “We better get some bitchin (sic) Christmas baskets from you guys,” the lawsuit said.

The Mesa County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment on the lawsuit. Spokesperson Molly Casey said the office is about a week away from finishing its internal investigation into the student’s traffic stop and plans to issue a statement after it is finished.

A working telephone number could not be found for Zwinck, who was placed on paid leave during the sheriff’s office’s investigation. Casey declined to provide the name of an attorney who might be able to speak on his behalf.

The sheriff’s office previously announced that all its employees have been removed from the Signal group chat.

Weiser said he was acting under a new state law that bars employees of local governments from sharing identifying information about people with federal immigration officials, a recent expansion of state laws limiting cooperation in immigration cases. Previously, the ban on sharing personal identifying information only applied to state agencies, but state lawmakers voted to expand that to local government agencies earlier this year.

“One of our goals in enforcing this law is to make clear that this law is not optional. This is a requirement and it’s one that we take seriously,” he said.

The law allows violators to be fined but Weiser’s lawsuit only seeks a judge’s order declaring that Zwinck’s actions violated the law and barring him from such actions in the future.

Slevin writes for the Associated Press.

July 19 (UPI) — YouTube influencer Jon Prosser allegedly violated Apple’s intellectual property rights by illegally accessing and releasing trade secrets regarding the tech firm’s iOS 26 operating system before its launch.

Prosser and co-defendant Michael Ramacciotti allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Apple says in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for Northern California.

Apple revealed its iOS 26 operating system on June 9 during its Worldwide Developers Conference but says Prosser released important details two months earlier.

Prosser’s YouTube channel, “Front Page Tech,” commonly predicts tech launches of consumer goods, including popular Apple products.

Apple says he and Ramacciotti schemed to “break into an Apple development iPhone, steal Apple’s trade secrets and profit from the theft,” Wired reported on Friday.

“Prosser, working with defendant Michael Ramacciotti, improperly accessed and disclosed Apple’s highly confidential, unreleased software designs, including details regarding the unreleased iOS 19 operating system, which is now known as iOS 26, for Apple mobile devices,” Apple says in the lawsuit.

Apple accuses the pair of conspiring to break into Apple employee Ethan Lipnik’s development iPhone to obtain Apple’s trade secrets. Lipnik worked for Apple from 2023 to 2025, when he was terminated by Apple over the leak, Business Insider reported.

The tech firm says it received an anonymous tip on April 4 that accuses either Prosser or Ramacciotti, who shared housing with Lipnik, of engaging the Apple employee in a FaceTime call that discussed the pending iOS 26 release.

The unreleased operating system at the time was known as iOS 19 among Apple employees.

The anonymous tip says Prosser obtained details on the unreleased operating system’s lock screen, home screen, app animations and app interfaces.

It also says Prosser had video from the FaceTime call that shows the operating system’s unique interface.

Apple claims Prosser learned Ramacciotti needed money and roomed with Lipnik, who worked on the unreleased operating system.

Prosser and Ramacciotti “jointly planned to access Apple’s confidential and trade secret information through Mr. Lipnik’s Apple-owned development iPhone,” Apple says.

The tech firm also says Lipnik provided it with an audio message from Ramacciotti that alleges he used location tracking to learn when Lipnik would be gone for an extended period.

Apple says the message indicates Ramacciotti acquired Lipnik’s passcode and “broke into his development iPhone,” which Lipnik did not properly secure in accordance with company policy.

“As he detailed in the audio message, Mr. Ramacciotti made a video call to Mr. Prosser and ‘showed [the] iOS’ on the development iPhone,” Apple claims.

“He demonstrated several features and applications, disclosing details of the unreleased iOS 19 operating system,” Apple says.

Prosser denies Apple’s claims against him.

“This is not how the situation played out on my end,” Prosser said in an X post on Thursday.

“I did not ‘plot’ to access anyone’s phone,” Prosser continued. “I did not have any passwords. I was unaware of how the information was obtained.”

Prosser said he is “looking forward to speaking with Apple on this.”

Apple says it suffered financial losses exceeding $5,000 over a one-year period and seeks monetary and punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial, plus interest.

It also seeks injunctive relief to cease Prosser and Ramacciotti’s alleged release of Apple’s trade secrets to third parties without written consent and to return or help Apple to locate and destroy any trade secrets that might remain under their control.

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador became a political flashpoint in the Trump administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement, was being returned to the United States to face criminal charges related to what the Trump administration said was a massive human smuggling operation that brought immigrants into the country illegally.

He is expected to be prosecuted in the U.S. and, if convicted, will be returned to his home country in El Salvador at the conclusion of the case, officials said Friday.

“This is what American justice looks like,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Friday in announcing the return of Abrego Garcia and the criminal charges.

The charges stem from a 2022 vehicle stop in which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. A report released by the Department of Homeland Security in April states that none of the people in the vehicle had luggage, while they listed the same address as Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime, and the officers allowed him to drive on with only a warning about an expired driver’s license, according to the Homeland Security report. The report said he was traveling from Texas to Maryland, via Missouri, to bring in people to perform construction work.

In response to the report’s release in April, Abrego Garcia’s wife said in a statement that he sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, “so it’s entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing.”

The Trump administration has been publicizing Abrego Garcia’s interactions with police over the years, despite a lack of corresponding criminal charges, while it faces a federal court order and calls from some in Congress to return him to the U.S.

Authorities in Tennessee released video of a 2022 traffic stop last month. The body-camera footage shows a calm and friendly exchange with Tennessee Highway Patrol officers.

Officers then discussed among themselves their suspicions of human trafficking because nine people were traveling without luggage. One of the officers said, “He’s hauling these people for money.” Another said he had $1,400 in an envelope.

An attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said in a statement after the footage’s release in May that he saw no evidence of a crime in the released footage.

“But the point is not the traffic stop — it’s that Mr. Abrego Garcia deserves his day in court,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

The move comes days after the Trump administration complied with a court order to return a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico despite his fears of being harmed there. The man, identified in court papers as O.C.G, was the first person known to have been returned to U.S. custody after deportation since the start of President Trump’s second term.