Justice

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The Department of Justice sued Harvard University on Friday for failing to hand over documents for an investigation into whether its admissions process discriminates against white people.

The Justice Department said its investigation is to determine if the Ivy League school is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions. The investigation was launched in April and was to determine if the school’s admissions process for its undergraduate, law and medical schools follows the decision.

Harvard has said it follows the Supreme Court ruling.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, this Department of Justice is demanding better from our nation’s educational institutions,” The Hill reported Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “Harvard has failed to disclose the data we need to ensure that its admissions are free of discrimination — we will continue fighting to put merit over DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] across America.”

The university responded that it is responding to the government according to the law.

“Harvard has been responding to the government’s inquiries in good faith and continues to be willing to engage with the government according to the process required by law,” a Harvard spokesperson said. “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”

The Trump administration had been working with Harvard to arrange a deal after the administration was seeking $500 million and reforms from the school, to end the pressure campaign, which included a freeze on more than $2 billion in funding, a civil rights investigation and regulatory changes.

On Feb. 2, The New York Times published a story that said Trump had agreed to drop a demand for $200 million to finalize the deal. That night, Trump made a series of posts on Truth Social saying he wanted a criminal investigation of the university and increased the demand to $1 billion.

On Feb. 7, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard, calling it a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

CHICAGO — President Bush said Tuesday that he welcomed a Justice Department investigation into whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a CIA agent in an effort to discredit or punish her husband, an administration critic.

Bush also dismissed calls by Democrats for the appointment of a special counsel to look into the matter. Administration critics argued that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is too partisan to preside over an impartial investigation.

On a campaign fund-raising trip through the Midwest, Bush said he is “absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job.”

“I want to know the truth,” Bush said. “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

The remarks were the president’s first on the burgeoning scandal, which burst into view over the weekend when it was disclosed that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate whether senior administration officials deliberately unmasked a CIA agent married to former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of Bush’s handling of intelligence before the war in Iraq.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that it was conducting a formal investigation into who leaked the agent’s identity to conservative columnist Robert Novak, an apparent violation of a 1982 law designed to protect intelligence operatives.

The allegations are serious; exposing the identity of a CIA operative is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And the charges have handed Democrats a juicy political opportunity, enabling them to accuse the hawkish Bush administration of playing fast and loose with national security.

In the Senate, a resolution sponsored by about two dozen Democrats was introduced Tuesday calling for a “fair, thorough and independent investigation into a national security breach.”

Democrats took to the Senate floor to liken the leak to President Richard Nixon’s enemies list and to “kneecapping” the CIA agent in retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration’s policies.

“This is not just a leak; this is a crime, plain and simple,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

The politically charged nature of the case was underscored Tuesday when Wilson, who has portrayed himself as defending the CIA career of his wife, Valerie Plame, confirmed on CNBC that he has been in contact with a number of Democratic campaigns, in particular that of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Wilson said he had donated money to Kerry’s presidential campaign and is considering endorsing him, although he said he also had contributed to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000.

Wilson has agreed to meet today with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Justice officials said they weren’t ruling out the possibility of acceding to the demands for a special counsel. Some former prosecutors said they believed the facts of the case were so murky that appointing a special counsel seemed premature.

For now, the politically delicate task falls to a low-profile group of Justice professionals. The team is headed up by John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section of the department’s criminal section, a 20-year spy catcher who has won department awards during Republican and Democratic administrations for his work investigating turncoats and security breaches.

“John is a very aggressive prosecutor who will call it as he sees it,” said Eric Dubelier, a Washington lawyer and former federal prosecutor who worked with Dion several years ago. “He will make a decision based on the facts and the law. Then, the question will be, ‘Who is the final arbiter?’ ”

But some members of Congress said there was already evidence that the investigation was going off-track.

They cite a heads-up the Justice Department gave the White House on Monday night that it had decided to launch a formal investigation, and that it would be sending out a letter Tuesday morning explaining which documents it wanted preserved.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House counsel’s office asked whether staff should be notified immediately; the Justice officials said it could wait until the next morning.

McClellan rebuffed a question asking whether the evening phone call could be seen as advance warning, calling it a “silly suggestion.”

Schumer said the notice created an opportunity for mischief, essentially giving White House staff an opportunity overnight to destroy evidence.

“If there were a special counsel, it is extremely doubtful that the White House would have been allowed to delay the request to preserve documents and other evidence,” Schumer said. “After all, every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence.”

Legal experts said the White House probably was already obliged under the law to preserve documents, given the widespread publicity the case had generated over the weekend. Others said they thought the White House should have acted more aggressively in ensuring that the documents be preserved.

“I think a conscientious lawyer would have done it immediately. We are not dealing with a rural D.A.’s office,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics specialist at New York University law school. Gillers said he thought that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ own preservation order was “incredibly vague” and might have confused some employees.

Later Tuesday, Gonzalez expanded his notification to White House staff members by specifying that they preserve records of any contacts with members of the news media, including columnist Novak and Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce.

Phelps and Royce were apparently named because a story they wrote about Novak’s column in July disclosed that Plame was an undercover operative, which Novak’s column didn’t say.

Their story also quoted Novak as saying that an administration official had sought him out with the information about Plame. Novak now tells it differently, saying that the information emerged in an interview that he requested with the administration official. The Newsday account suggests a more aggressive role by the unidentified leaker.

Under Justice Department regulations, Ashcroft has full discretion in whether to appoint a special counsel, unlike the post-Watergate independent counsel statute, which ascribed that authority to a panel of judges. Congress allowed the counsel statute to expire in 1999 amid recriminations over the expense and scope of the Whitewater investigations.

In its place, then-Atty. Gen. Janet Reno enacted guidelines for when the department should veer from its normal rules in cases where officials have conflicts of interest. Those rules remain in effect.

“The attorney general is absolutely free to structure any special investigative appointment within the Department of Justice that he wishes. That has been done repeatedly as needed throughout history,” said John Barrett, a law professor at St. John’s University law school in New York, and a former member of the independent counsel team that investigated the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration.

Ashcroft himself has exercised the prerogative, setting up a special task force to scrutinize Enron after recusing himself from the investigation because he had once taken campaign contributions from the fallen energy trader.

Barrett said even if the independent counsel law were still in effect, the investigation would be going through a sorting-out process, trying to zero in on suspects, before deciding whether a conflict existed warranting an outside prosecutor.

“Even in the independent counsel model, the preliminary work was to be done by the Department of Justice. Someone has to do the initial spade work,” he said.

On Capitol Hill, such legal distinctions were buried under political rhetoric from both sides.

“If we need an independent counsel to investigate a private real estate deal,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), referring to the independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton’s and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Whitewater land venture, “certainly a breach of national security deserves the same level of scrutiny.”

California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, were among those supporting calls for an outside counsel. Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement: “Clearly, a well-respected special counsel from the outside — Democrat or Republican — is the only option to ensure a fair and thorough investigation that will have the confidence of the American people.”

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said of the Democrats’ call for a special counsel: “Surprise, surprise.”

DeLay said the appointment of a special counsel “makes no sense.”

“You have special counsels if you think the administration is trying to cover up or obstruct justice,” he said. “The White House is very upset about this … They’re trying to get to the bottom of this.”

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) ridiculed Democrats’ call for an outside counsel, noting they were among critics of the independent counsel statute in the past.

“We killed the independent counsel because it was used for politics by both sides of the aisle,” Santorum said.

Times staff writer Richard Simon in Washington contributed to this report. Reynolds reported from Chicago and Schmitt from Washington.

President Trump’s aura of invincibility is starting to vanish. Three new polls — including the usually Trump-hospitable Rasmussen — suggest that Joe Biden did a better job as president.

Worse still (for Trump), he’s underwater on immigration, foreign policy and the economy — the very trifecta that powered his return. An incumbent taking on water like that is no longer steering the ship of state, he’s bobbing in the deep end, reaching for a Mar-a-Lago pool noodle.

To be fair, Democrats have a proud tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But suppose — purely hypothetically — that this sticks. Suppose Democrats win the midterms. And suppose a Democrat captures the White House in 2028.

Then what?

Trumpism isn’t a political movement so much as a recurring event. You don’t defeat it; you board up the windows and wait.

Even if Trump does not attempt a third term (a gambit the Constitution frowns upon), he will remain the dominant gravitational force in Republican politics for as long as he is sentient and within Wi-Fi range.

Which means any Democratic administration that follows would be well-advised to consider it is governing on borrowed time. In American politics, you are always one scandal, one recession or one deepfake video away from packing your belongings into a cardboard box.

Trump’s MAGA successor (whoever he or she might be) will inherit millions of ardent believers, now seasoned by experience, backed by tech billionaires and steeped in an authoritarian worldview.

So how exactly does the country “move on” when a sizable slice of its elite class appears to regard liberal democracy as more of an anachronism than a governing philosophy?

This is not an entirely new dilemma. After the Civil War, Americans had to decide whether to reconcile with the rebels or punish them or some mix of the two — and the path chosen by federal leaders shaped the next century through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the long struggle for civil rights.

At Nuremberg, the Allies opted for trials instead of firing squads. Later, South Africa’s post-apartheid government attempted to achieve reconciliation via truth.

Each moment wrestled with the same problem: How do you impose consequences without becoming the very thing you were fighting in the first place — possibly sparking a never-ending cycle of revenge?

Which brings us to even more specific questions, such as where does Trumpism fit into this historical context — and should there be any accountability after MAGA?

Start with Trump himself. Even if he is legally immune regarding official acts, what about allegations of corruption? Trump and his family have amassed billions since returning to office.

It is difficult to picture a future Democratic administration hauling him into court, especially if Trump grants himself broad pardons and preemptive clemency on his way out of office.

So if accountability comes, it would probably target figures in his orbit — lieutenants, enablers, assorted capos not covered by pardons. But is even this level of accountability wise?

On one hand, it is about incentives and deterrence. If bad actors get to keep the money and their freedom, despite committing crimes, they (and imitators) will absolutely return for an encore.

On the other hand, a Democratic president might reasonably decide that voters would prefer lower grocery bills to more drama.

Trump himself offers a cautionary tale. He devoted enormous energy to retribution, grievance and settling scores. It is at least conceivable that he might have been in stronger political shape had he devoted comparable attention to, say, affordability.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that the past Trump indictments strengthened him politically. Nothing energizes a base like the words “They’re coming for me,” especially when followed by the words “and you’ll be next,” next to a fundraising link. Do Democrats want to create new martyrs and make rank-and-file Americans feel like “deplorables” who are being persecuted for their political beliefs?

So perhaps the answer is surgical. Focus on ringleaders. Spare the small fry. Proceed in sober legal tones. Make it about the law, not the spectacle.

Even this compromise would invite a backlash. Democrats, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The good news is that smart people are actively debating this topic — far better than trying to improvise a solution on Inauguration Day — just as similar questions were asked after Trump lost in 2020. A few weeks ago, for example, David Brooks and David Frum discussed this topic on Frum’s podcast.

Unfortunately, there is no tidy answer. Too much punishment risks looking like vengeance. Too little risks sparking another sequel.

It may sound melodramatic to say this might be the most important question of our time. But while this republic has endured a lot, it might not survive the extremes of amnesia or revenge.

Choosing the narrow path in between will require something rarer than a landslide victory: justice with restraint.

But do we have what it takes?

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Las Vegas is famed for its glamour and luxury, but there are remarkably affordable experiences and bucket-list encounters that don’t break the bank once you step into Sin City

I lay down on the table, bashed my chosen intensity and music choice into a tablet, and two extendable metallic arms started to twitch. And then they swivelled and swooped down on me. Within minutes, my worries had melted away.

I was not involved in some strange AI torture chamber. I was, in fact, in Las Vegas. Putting a futuristic massage robot through its paces. Aescape Robotic Massage Experience at Qua Spa in Caesars Palace is the Strip’s first AI robotic massage ($44 for 15 minutes) and delivers impressively good back and shoulder massages.

Still, I watched beadily as my robot masseuse worked each touchpoint, not quite sure whether to fully trust the machine. Certainly, it was different from a typical massage and one I won’t forget in a hurry. But I wasn’t just in Sin City to be pummelled by an android in Caesars Palace. I was there to discover if it really was possible for the Entertainment Capital of the World to offer serious bang for your buck.

READ MORE: Canary Islands’ ‘hidden gem’ has unspoiled beaches, £2 beer and 21C March weatherREAD MORE: Beautiful UK market town has £160k homes, cosy pubs and Harry Potter links

Las Vegas is notoriously expensive, with its iconic Strip serving as the backdrop, towering mega resorts lining the vibrant streets and the catalogue of luxury casinos that buzz with excitement. Not to mention all the extras of America’s playground, thanks to its around-the-clock nightlife, remarkable entertainment venues, famed attractions and celebrity restaurants.

Yet, among its dazzling scenes, there’s a lot more to Las Vegas than first meets the eye, with bucket-list encounters and remarkable experiences that don’t break the bank, and where you’d only ever appreciate in the Nevadan. My initial encounter with Las Vegas’ sheer magnitude came as I checked into the five-star Vdara Hotel & Spa, situated in the heart of the city and boasting 1,400 suites. My room ($131 per night + tax) was just as impressive as its towering scale, with a kitchenette, a generous living area, two TVs, and a stylish bathroom complete with a freestanding bath and a cosy cloud-like bed that helped keep jet lag at bay. Its panoramic windows, stretching across the width of the suite, were a highlight, allowing me to admire the iconic Strip, day or night, against its mountainous desert backdrop.

For two nights, I stayed at the luxurious Resorts World Las Vegas, comprising over 3,500 rooms across three of Hilton’s brands, Hilton, Crockfords, and Conrad. I checked into a sprawling room at the latter ($184 per night) with a sleek bathroom that had an enormous rainfall shower and carefully curated furnishings, including a king-sized bed, that felt like a home away from home. While it’s farther from the Strip, I was still able to marvel at the dazzling city skyline and enjoy a quieter night’s rest. It’s easy to spend time wandering the vibrant streets of the Vegas Strip, soaking up the lively ambience and themed establishments that transported me to Paris, New York, and Disneyland. But beyond the glitz, I explored the desert surrounding the city on a guided hiking tour through the Valley of Fire with Love Hikes ($129 per person).

I was instantly awestruck by the dramatic orange rock formations, miles of golden floor and towering valleys that made up this striking landscape. It felt as if I was walking through a Hollywood film set in the state park, a far cry from the casinos, but just a few hours’ drive away.

In Las Vegas, it’s not all casinos and Adele residencies. In the Arts District, you’ll find colourful graffiti adorning the streets, which are lined with antique shops, art galleries, coffee joints, and eateries, including the mouthwatering Good Pie, where I devoured a Detroit-style pepperoni pizza. For a reality-altering experience, head to Meow Wolf’s Omega Mart at Area15, a fun immersive gallery filled with quirky art installations, including a surreal supermarket. The store is stocked with unusual products, from butter-freshening spray and tattooed toy chickens to egg carton sliders. Open the right hidden fridge door and you’ll find yoursef led to otherworldly realms… Vegas is also brimming with history. At the Mob Museum (from $34.95pp), the rich stories of organised crime and law enforcement in the area are explored, while at The Neon Museum (from $25pp), you’ll have to squint to take in the splendour of old casino and business signs.

As expected, the nightlife was extraordinary. Music seeped from buzzing bars, including at Ole Red, where I listened to a live country band before admiring the Strip from their rooftop terrace.

On another night, I attended THE PARTY at Superfrico in The Cosmopolitan ($150), where I watched an intimate, immersive cabaret-style show featuring skilled circus performers from Spiegelworld and hosted by Laurie Hagen. It was a fun-packed evening like no other, where I was also treated to a three-course Italian-American meal and a welcome drink, all included in the price. It’s easy to find somewhere to grab an affordable cocktail, including during happy hour at House of Blues at Mandalay Bay, but Fremont Street in Downtown Las Vegas was by far my favourite spot. The pedestrian-only area blew me away as I gazed at the 1,500-foot LED ceiling screen, which displayed their renowned Viva Vision Light Show, and wandered around listening to free live music from three different stages.

It’s known as ‘Old Vegas’ for its high-energy party atmosphere and affordable drinks, which is loved by Brits and Aussies – and it’s easy to see why. Another highlight was taking a ride on the iconic High Roller at The LINQ during their happy half hour ($60), which offered breathtaking views across Vegas and its never-ending array of dazzling lights, along with unlimited drinks. But its nightlife doesn’t just revolve around partying into the early hours. One evening, I took to the sky during a Maverick Helicopter ride ($139pp), gliding over the glistening Vegas Strip with incredible views of the notable Sphere, Caesars Palace and The STRAT. It was unbelievable and definitely a bucket-list experience.

Another moment that left me speechless was witnessing the world-renowned Fountains of Bellagio. I was mesmerised by the free fountain show, set to music, that soared up to 460 feet and across the 8.5-acre lake in front of the Bellagio resort.

Inside the five-star Bellagio, which sits centre stage along the Strip, is the famous Conservatory & Botanical Gardens. This is a free attraction open to everyone, beautifully designed and decorated with a different theme five times a year.

I visited during its Lunar New Year, with hundreds of fresh flowers, trickling water features, various sculptures suspended in the air and colourful lanterns. The Bellagio resort is also home to one of the world’s biggest chocolate fountains. The food scene in Vegas was nothing short of perfection, as I was treated to an array of flavours from Japan and Mexico. One of the highlights was eating at celebrity chef Roy Choi’s Best Friend bar and restaurant. It was a shop-style bar with a main restaurant where I sampled sharing-style dishes of tacos, BBQ, shrimp, and Korean wings.

I also dined with locals at Tacos El Gordo, where I had pork, beef, and chicken folded tortillas (from $4 each) before devouring a mouthwatering tasting menu of Italian dishes at LAGO by Julian Serrano. Elsewhere, I sampled a selection of innovative Japanese dishes at Kusa Nori, from sushi, seafood, sashimi, nigiri and robata meats – it was nothing short of showstopping, with smoking plates and melting slices of tuna. On the last night, I sat down for a sensational meal at High Steaks, with oysters, crab, a melt-in-the-mouth filet mignon, and their signature Tomahawk.

After a thrilling five days and experiences I’ll never forget, I can only describe Las Vegas as wild! It blew me away with its atmosphere that captivates you the moment you touch down in the Nevada city.

I found that you can absolutely make it affordable, pop $20 in the slot machines without a win, and still have the most unbelievable time in Sin City. Take advantage of the happy hours, wander around the city of lights, watch a show with dinner, and explore the desert – there’s no need to miss out on experiences or its vibrant nightlife this city has to offer. The party really is wherever you want it to go.

Book it

Resorts World hotels has three hotels in Las Vegas:

• Hilton – Starting from $154 per night
• Conrad – Starting from $184 per night
• Crockfords – Starting from $324 per night

A standard Studio King room in Vrada costs $131/night + tax. Return flights from London Heathrow to Las Vegas cost from £423 with Virgin Atlantic. Visit the Las Vegas website for more information.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Conversations about Culver City — the vibrant enclave on Los Angeles’ Westside often called “the Heart of Screenland” — usually include phrases such as “walkable” and “green spaces” and “Erewhon.”

So when U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi insinuated the city of 39,000 residents is a crime haven during a heated exchange with Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) Wednesday, local officials and personalities responded with statistics, memes and wry mockery.

Bondi slipped in the jab near the end of an arduous House hearing largely focused on the Department of Justice’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Kamlager-Dove, whose district includes Culver City, hammered Bondi over deleted Department of Justice data linking far-right ideology with political killings, asserting that “there are violent, dangerous people out there with real threats.”

“There are — in your district,” Bondi responded. “Her district includes Culver City, and she’s not talking about any crime in her district. Nothing about helping crime in her district. She’s not even worth getting into the details.”

Hometown names stepped up to defend the burg by posting photos of clean streets, manicured parks and humming community events.

Political commentator and Angeleno Brian Taylor Cohen called the city “one of the most non-controversially safe” places in L.A., while Culver City-based comedian Heather Gardner said: “The worst crime of the century is that this woman had made a mockery of our justice system. Release the un-redacted files. Prosecute the REAL crimes.”

Kamlager-Dove shrugged off Bondi’s comment, saying Culver City was known for “breakfast burritos — not crime.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for Bondi to clarify her statements.

Crime in Culver City declined 9.7% in 2024 and was down an additional 6.1% in the third quarter of 2025 compared with the same period of 2024, according to the Culver City Police Department. Violent crime declined 3.9% in 2024 — the last full year of available data.

Over that period, murders dropped to zero while aggravated assault, kidnapping and robbery also fell. There were 26 cases of sexual assault in the city in 2024, compared with 25 in 2023. The only violent crime that saw a significant increase were simple assaults, which rose 8.1%.

The California Department of Justice and the FBI reported in 2024 that crime in the state had fallen to “among the lowest levels ever recorded.”

Mayor Freddy Puza, in an interview Thursday, described Culver City as a “strong and vibrant community” of people with no shortage of job opportunities at small businesses and corporations alike, including TikTok, Pinterest and entertainment giants Apple, Amazon and Sony.

He said the local government has been able to lower crime rates through community-based policing and by providing housing and social services to its unsheltered population. The mayor characterized Bondi’s retort as a “knee-jerk reaction” from an attorney general faced with damaging public trust concerns at her department.

“My read of it is that she’s trying to deflect,” he said. “I think she could really spend her time prosecuting the people in the Epstein files and making sure that information from the federal government is transparent.”

The city had seen no ideological violence, he said, adding, “but the potential for it is right around the corner. There’s no doubt that it is on the rise and the president is stoking it. People are becoming further and further polarized.”

At the hearing, Bondi faced sharp criticism over the Justice Department’s Epstein investigation — specifically over redaction errors in the release millions of case files last month. In one instance, the attorney general refused to apologize to Epstein victims in the room, saying she would not “get into the gutter” with partisan requests from Democrats.

Her performance has already prompted a volley of bipartisan demands for her resignation, including from conservative pundits including Megyn Kelly, Nick Fuentes and Kyle Rittenhouse.

Culver City was not Bondi’s only target Wednesday. She called Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) a “washed-up loser lawyer,” accused Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome,” and branded former CNN anchor Don Lemon a “blogger.”

Since the hearing, however, she has stayed silent as locals continue to question her intel and chuckle over images of the pylon-protected war zone of Culver City.

“The worst crime in Culver City,” Gardener joked again on TikTok, “is that they charge $24 for a smoothie at Erewhon.”

The advertisement featuring multiple survivors urges US Attorney General Pam Bondi to disclose all remaining files related to the late sex offender.

Survivors of the convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse have renewed calls for the full release of government records tied to the disgraced financier’s sex-trafficking network, putting up an advertisement during the Super Bowl.

The advertisement, released by multiple survivors working with the group World Without Exploitationduring the National Football League’s (NFL) Super Bowl on Sunday, demanded that US authorities disclose all remaining files related to Epstein and his associates.

“After years of being kept apart, we’re standing together,” one female survivor said in the advertisement. “Because she deserves the truth,” says another, holding a photograph from her childhood.

The scene cut to a graphic reading “three million files still have not been released”, shown with black redactions. “Tell Attorney [General] Pam Bondi it’s time to tell the truth,” it added.

The advertisement was reshared by a number of US politicians and public figures, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

The appeal from survivors comes after the US Department of Justice released three million pages last month related to Epstein, casting a spotlight on some of the world’s most prominent people and their relations with him.

The largest tranche yet of legal documents relating to the prosecution of Epstein for sex offences includes documents, as well as 2,000 videos and 180,000 photographs, and was released a week ago.

They have implicated many famous people, from princes to industry leaders, believed to have been part of Epstein’s vast network, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, billionaire Elon Musk, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and British politician Peter Mandelson.

Despite this latest disclosure, a group of survivors said some of their alleged abusers “remain hidden and protected”.

The documents were published under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law in November following pressure to make the files public.

Epstein died from apparent suicide in a New York jail cell in August 2019, a month after he was indicted on federal sex-trafficking charges.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is refusing to voluntarily comply with a Justice Department investigation into a video she organized urging U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders” — escalating a dispute that President Trump has publicly pushed.

In letters first obtained by the Associated Press, Slotkin’s lawyer informed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that the senator would not agree to a voluntary interview about the video. Slotkin’s legal team also requested that Pirro preserve all documents related to the matter for “anticipated litigation.”

Slotkin’s lawyer separately wrote to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, declining to sit for an FBI interview about the video and urging her to immediately terminate any inquiry.

The refusal marks a potential turning point in the standoff, shifting the burden onto the Justice Department to decide whether it will escalate an investigation into sitting members of Congress or retreat from an inquiry now being openly challenged.

“I did this to go on offense,” Slotkin said in an interview Wednesday. “And to put them in a position where they’re tap dancing. To put them in a position where they have to own their choices of using a U.S. attorney’s office to come after a senator.”

‘It’s not gonna stop unless I fight back’

Last November, Slotkin joined five other Democratic lawmakers — all of whom previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies — in posting a 90-second video urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.

The lawmakers said Trump’s Republican administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” and called on troops to “stand up for our laws.”

The video sparked a firestorm in Republican circles and soon drew the attention of Trump, who accused the lawmakers of sedition and said their actions were “punishable by death.”

The Pentagon later announced it had opened an investigation into Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy pilot who appeared in the video. The FBI then contacted the lawmakers seeking interviews, signaling a broader Justice Department inquiry.

Slotkin said multiple legal advisers initially urged caution.

“Maybe if you keep quiet, this will all go away over Christmas,” Slotkin said she was told.

But in January, the matter flared again, with the lawmakers saying they were contacted by the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, security threats mounted. Slotkin said her farm in Michigan received a bomb threat, her brother was assigned a police detail due to threats and her parents were swatted in the middle of the night.

Her father, who died in January after a long battle with cancer, “could barely walk and he’s dealing with the cops in his home,” she said.

Slotkin said a “switch went off” in her and she became angry: “And I said, ‘It’s not gonna stop unless I fight back.’”

Democratic senators draw a line

The requests from the FBI and the Justice Department have been voluntary. Slotkin said that her legal team had communicated with prosecutors but that officials “keep asking for a personal interview.”

Slotkin’s lawyer, Preet Bharara, in the letter to Pirro declined the interview request and asked that she “immediately terminate any open investigation and cease any further inquiry concerning the video.” In the other letter, Bharara urged Bondi to use her authority to direct Pirro to close the inquiry.

Bharara wrote that Slotkin’s constitutional rights had been infringed and said litigation is being considered.

“All options are most definitely on the table,” Slotkin said. Asked whether she would comply with a subpoena, she paused before responding: “I’d take a hard look at it.”

Bharara, who’s representing Slotkin in the case, is a former U.S. attorney in New York who was fired by Trump in 2017 during his first administration. He’s also representing Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California in a separate case involving the Justice Department.

Kelly has similarly pushed back, suing the Pentagon last month over attempts to punish him for the video. On Tuesday, a federal judge said that he knows of no U.S. Supreme Court precedent to justify the Pentagon’s censuring of Kelly as he weighed whether to intervene.

Slotkin said she’s in contact with the other lawmakers who appeared in the video, but she wouldn’t say what their plans were in the investigations.

A rising profile

Trump has frequently and consistently targeted his political opponents. In some cases, those attacks have had the unintended consequence of elevating their national standing.

In Kelly’s case, he raised more than $12.5 million in the final months of 2025 following the “illegal orders” video controversy, according to campaign finance filings.

Slotkin, like Kelly, has been mentioned among Democrats who could emerge as presidential contenders in 2028.

She previously represented one of the nation’s most competitive House districts before winning a Senate seat in Michigan in 2024, even as Trump carried the state.

Slotkin delivered the Democratic response to Trump’s address to Congress last year and has since urged her party to confront him more aggressively, saying Democrats had lost their “alpha energy” and calling on them to “go nuclear” against Trump’s redistricting push.

“If I’m encouraging other people to take risk, how can I not then accept risk myself?” Slotkin said. “I think you’ve got to show people that we’re not going to lay down and take it.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

A top Los Angeles politician said Tuesday that LA 2028 Olympics committee chair Casey Wasserman should resign following revelations about racy emails he exchanged with convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell.

“I think Casey Wasserman needs to step down,” said L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who along with other L.A. politicians is working with the LA28 Olympics organizing committee on planning of the Games.

“Having him represent us on the world stage distracts focus from our athletes and the enormous effort needed to prepare for 2028,” said Hahn, who represents an area of south Los Angeles County that includes coastal neighborhoods.

A representative for Wasserman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wasserman and other top officials with LA 2028, which is in charge of paying for and planning the Games, are in Italy for meetings ahead of the Winter Olympics.

Hahn’s comments follow the release of investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein released last week by the Justice Department that include personal emails exchanged more than 20 years ago between Wasserman and Maxwell, Epstein’s former romantic partner.

In emails sent in March and April 2003, Wasserman — who was married at the time — writes to Maxwell about wanting to book a massage and wanting to see her in a tight leather outfit.

She offers to give him a massage that can “drive a man wild,” and the pair discuss how much they miss each other, according to files released and posted online by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In a statement released Saturday, Wasserman said he regretted his correspondence with Maxwell, which he said occurred “long before her horrific crimes came to light.”

“I never had a personal or business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As is well documented, I went on a humanitarian trip as part of a delegation with the Clinton Foundation in 2002 on the Epstein plane. I am terribly sorry for having any association with either of them,” he said in the statement.

The Daily Mail in 2024 published an extensive story on Wasserman’s alleged affairs during his marriage with Laura Ziffren, whom he divorced. He denied the accusations.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Lord Mandelson is set to be summoned to US Congress to give evidence about his links to Epstein. Sources close to the House Oversight Committee, which the paper says has “spearheaded” the release of the Epstein files, say they are “poised to issue” Lord Mandelson with a demand to testify in Washington DC. The committee cannot compel testimony from foreigners, as the paper notes.

Leading Democrats have rolled out a new and unvarnished message — that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot be trusted.

“Let’s be really clear: We can’t trust anything the DOJ does. The DOJ is corrupt. They’re corrupt on every major issue in front of this country,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said Friday at a news conference in his district.

“We cannot trust the Department of Justice. They are an illegitimate organization right now under the leadership of [Atty. Gen.] Pam Bondi and the direction of Donald Trump,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said during his own news conference in Washington, D.C.

The remarks — which hold profound implications in a two-party democracy meant to be protected and served by a nonpartisan justice system, and which a White House spokesperson called “shameful” — followed a week of equally stunning actions by the Justice Department, where President Trump has installed staunch loyalists, including Bondi, to high-ranking positions.

In recent days, the Justice Department has resisted launching civil rights investigations into two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents. It has since reversed course and launched such an investigation into the second of those incidents, in which 37-year-old Alex Pretti was shot while surrounded by agents, on the ground and disarmed, but has held firm in its decision not to investigate the earlier shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, who was shot while trying to drive away from a tense exchange with agents.

On Wednesday, the FBI raided and seized voter ballots and other information from the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga., long a target of Trump’s baseless and disproven claims that widespread voter fraud helped Democrats steal the 2020 election. Bondi was an early backer of those baseless claims, as were other Justice Department appointees.

On Friday, federal agents arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon and other journalists after their coverage of a protest at a conservative church in Minneapolis. Justice Department officials rejected the defense that Lemon and the other journalists were exercising their 1st Amendment rights as journalists, and accused them of violating the rights of churchgoers.

Also Friday, Justice Department officials released more documents from the Epstein files — a trove of records related to the sexual abuse of minors by the late, disgraced billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats argued that the release was still not complete, in violation of a law passed by Congress mandating that they be made public.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly dismissed Jeffries’ and Garcia’s remarks as “shameful comments by Democrats who cheered on Joe Biden’s weaponization of the Department of Justice against his political enemies, including President Trump,” and said Trump, Bondi and other administration officials “have quickly Made America Safe Again by taking violent criminals off the streets, cracking down on fraud, holding bad actors accountable, and more.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment, but officials there have broadly defended the department’s actions as not only justified but necessary for ensuring the rule of law and holding alleged criminals to account.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said both the actions of the Justice Department and the latest statements from Democrats ratcheted up the stakes in the nation’s already tense political standoff — as institutions such as the Justice Department “need to be trusted in the long term” for American democracy to be successful.

“Trust goes up and down in the people in institutions over history, but there’s been a baseline level of support for our Constitution, the way our government is built, and the seal on the building — even if people didn’t trust who was in that building,” Kousser said. “What we may be risking as a country is losing the trust in the building itself, if people think that the might of the federal government is being used to pursue a narrow agenda of one party or one leader.”

Jeffries’ assertion that the Justice Department can’t be trusted came as he denounced Lemon’s arrest. Jeffries said there was “zero basis to arrest” Lemon, and that the arrest was an attempt by the Trump administration to weaponize government against people they disagree with.

Jeffries added that distrust in the federal agency is one of the reasons why House Democrats are pushing for legislative action to require independent investigations by local and state law enforcement in cases when federal agents engage in violent incidents and are accused of wrongdoing — such as the shootings in Minneapolis.

Other leading Democrats have also slammed the Justice Department over the journalists’ arrests.

“The American people deserve answers as to why Trump’s lawless Justice Department is arresting journalists for simply doing their jobs,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

“The arrest of journalists for covering a protest is a grave attack on the 1st Amendment and freedom of the press,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “And proof the Trump administration is not de-escalating.”

Garcia’s comments came in a wide-ranging news conference at which he also discussed taking on a leading role in impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who has been overseeing the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts, including through the deployment of Immigration and Custom Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis, Los Angeles and other major cities.

Garcia denounced the Trump administration’s handling of the Good and Pretti shootings, arguing that independent investigations were needed — as he said were conducted after police shootings in Long Beach when he was mayor there.

“They should bring in either a special counsel [or] some type of special master to oversee an independent investigation,” he said.

He said that was especially necessary given the fact that Noem and other administration officials immediately bad-mouthed Good and Pretti as violent actors threatening agents before any of the facts were gathered — and in direct contradiction to video evidence from the scenes.

“What happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretti was murder by our own government, and our committee is working right now on a major report on both of those incidents so that those that are responsible are held accountable,” Garcia said.

He also called Lemon’s arrest “horrifying,” saying Lemon was “out there reporting” and is now being “essentially attacked” by the Justice Department. “The arrest of Don Lemon might be the single largest attack on the free press and the 1st Amendment in the modern era.”

Garcia noted that the Justice Department had first shopped Lemon’s arrest around to multiple judges, who denied issuing a warrant for his arrest. Administration officials said a federal grand jury handed down an indictment for the journalist, but Garcia suggested the indictment was fraudulently obtained based on the government putting forward information “we cannot trust.”

Decisions around the two Minneapolis shootings and the arrest of the journalists would have passed through the office of Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Dhillon did not respond to a request for comment Friday. However, she has broadly defended her office’s actions online. For days before Lemon’s arrest, she had slammed his actions, writing on X that she and Bondi “will not tolerate harassment of Americans at worship — especially from agitators posing as ‘journalists.’”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche — a former personal attorney to Trump — has broadly defended the department’s actions in Minneapolis, where he said a civil rights investigation into Good’s shooting was unwarranted, and on the Epstein files, which he said have been released in accordance with the law and Trump’s own demands for transparency.

The latter was also something Garcia took issue with Friday, slamming the Justice Department for continuing to withhold some of the files.

“Donald Trump and the Department of Justice just made it clear right now that they intend to withhold approximately 50% or half of the Epstein files while claiming to have fully complied with the law. This is outrageous and incredibly concerning,” Garcia said.

He said his committee subpoenaed all of the files over the summer, and Bondi has yet to comply with that subpoena in violation of the law.

Previously released Epstein records included allegations that Trump was involved in Epstein’s schemes to abuse young women and girls, which Trump — once a friend of Epstein’s — has strenuously denied.

The Justice Department has also taken the unusual step of defending the president in the matter directly, including by releasing a statement last month that the released documents “contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump.”

“To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already,” the department’s statement said.

Kousser, the politics professor, noted that this is not the first time that concerns about partisanship within the Justice Department have been voiced. He said similar concerns were raised by many Republicans when the Justice Department was prosecuting Trump during the Biden administration.

Such arguments raise serious alarms, he said, regardless of which way they are directed politically.

“If people feel like the Justice Department is only doing the bidding of whoever won the last election, that moves it from a law enforcement body to a political operation in the eyes of average Americans,” he said. “And that would be a huge loss for our democracy.”

The United States Justice Department has released a massive new tranche of investigative files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

At a news conference on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department was releasing more than 3 million pages of documents, as well as more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

He said the release means the department has met a legal requirement passed by Congress last year.

“Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act,” Blanche said.

But the administration of President Donald Trump has faced scrutiny over the pacing of the files’ release and redactions within the published documents.

Trump himself has been confronted with questions about his past relationship with Epstein, who cultivated a roster of influential contacts.

On Friday, Blanche dismissed rumours that the Justice Department had sought to protect powerful individuals, including Trump.

While Trump has acknowledged a years-long friendship with with the financier, he has denied any knowledge of the underage sex-trafficking ring that prosecutors say Epstein led.

“There’s this built-in assumption that somehow there’s this hidden tranche of information ‌of men that we know about, that we’re covering up, or that we’re not we’re choosing not to prosecute,” Blanche said. “That is not the case.”

The Justice Department had initially missed a December 19 deadline set by Congress to release all the files.

The publication is the result of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was published in November with bipartisan support to force the release of all federal documents pertaining to Epstein.

In response to the law, the Justice Department said it had tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needs to be blacked out to protect the identities of sexual abuse victims.

Blanche said the department withheld any materials that could jeopardise ongoing investigations or expose potential victims.

All women in the Epstein files other than Ghislaine Maxwell — an ex-girlfriend who was also convicted of child sex trafficking — have been obscured from the videos and images being released on Friday, according to Blanche.

In the past, some of Epstein’s victims have slammed the department’s redactions and withholdings as excessive, with critics pointing out that previously published documents were among the files blacked out.

In December, the Justice Department released an initial batch of Epstein-related documents, though it fell short of the full publication mandated by November’s law.

That release, however, included previously unreleased flight logs showing that Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet in the 1990s. Those trips appeared to happen before Trump has said the pair had a falling out.

The recent releases also contain images showing prominent individuals like tech billionaire Bill Gates, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, director Woody Allen and former US President Bill Clinton socialising with Epstein, sometimes on his private island.

To date, none of the individuals depicted in the releases have been charged with any crimes, outside of Maxwell.

Following her conviction in 2021, she is serving a 20-year prison sentence, though she has continued to deny any wrongdoing.

Epstein died from of apparent suicide in a New York jail cell in August 2019, a month after he was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges.

He had previously been convicted of state sex-offender charges in Florida in 2008 as part of a plea deal that was widely slammed for its leniency. He spent a total of 13 months in custody.

One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, also filed lawsuits against him, accusing him of arranging sexual encounters with politicians, business titans, academics and other influential figures while she was underage.

All of the men identified by Giuffre, who died in April 2025 in Australia, have denied the allegations.

Among the people she accused was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, who denied the clams but settled a lawsuit filed by Giuffre for an undisclosed sum.

In October, his brother, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his royal titles as a result of the controversy.

NEW YORK — The Justice Department on Friday released many more records from its investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein, resuming disclosures under a law intended to reveal what the government knew about the millionaire financier’s sexual abuse of young girls and his interactions with the rich and powerful.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department was releasing more than 3 million pages of documents in the latest Epstein disclosure, as well as more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. The files, posted to the department’s website, include some of the several million pages of records that officials said were withheld from an initial release of documents in December.

They were disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted after months of public and political pressure that requires the government to open its files on the late financier and his accomplice, confidant and longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

“Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act,” Blanche said at a news conference announcing the disclosure.

After missing a Dec. 19 deadline set by Congress to release all of the files, the Justice Department said it tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needs to be redacted, or blacked out, to protect the identities of victims of sexual abuse.

Among the materials being withheld is information that could jeopardize any ongoing investigation or expose the identities of personal details about potential victims. All women other than Maxwell have been redacted from videos and images being released Friday, Blanche said.

The number of documents subject to review has ballooned to roughly six million, including duplicates, the department said.

The Justice Department released tens of thousands of pages of documents just before Christmas, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs and court records. Many of them were either already public or heavily blacked out.

Those records included previously released flight logs showing that President Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet in the 1990s, before they had a falling out, and several photographs of former President Clinton. Neither Trump, a Republican, nor Clinton, a Democrat, has been publicly accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and both have said they had no knowledge he was abusing underage girls.

Also released last month were transcripts of grand jury testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who said they were paid to perform sex acts for Epstein.

Epstein killed himself in a New York jail cell in August 2019, a month after he was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges.

In 2008 and 2009, Epstein served jail time in Florida after pleading guilty to soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18. At the time, investigators had gathered evidence that Epstein had sexually abused underage girls at his home in Palm Beach, but the U.S. attorney’s office agreed not to prosecute him in exchange for his guilty plea to lesser state charges.

In 2021, a federal jury in New York convicted Maxwell, a British socialite, of sex trafficking for helping recruit some of his underage victims. She is serving a 20-year prison sentence at a prison camp in Texas, after being moved there from a higher-security federal prison in Florida. She denies any wrongdoing.

U.S. prosecutors never charged anyone else in connection with Epstein’s abuse of girls, but one of his victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, accused him in lawsuits of having arranged for her to have sexual encounters at age 17 and 18 with numerous politicians, business titans, noted academics and others, all of whom denied her allegations.

Among the people she accused was Britain’s Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after the scandal led to him being stripped of his royal titles. Andrew denied having sex with Giuffre but settled her lawsuit for an undisclosed sum.

Giuffre died by suicide at her farm in Western Australia last year at age 41.

Tucker, Sisak and Richer write for the Associated Press. Tucker and Richer reported from Washington.