Law and Crime

Sept. 4 (UPI) — Embattled influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate faced new charges in Romania related to trafficking and sexual acts with a minor, prosecutors said Friday.

Andrew, 39, was indicted for the alleged sexual exploitation of a 15-year-old girl that the brothers moved from Britain to Romania. Tristan, 38, was charged with complicity and attempted obstruction of justice.

Romania’s Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism said in a statement the charges also include money laundering and pornography involving a minor.

The brothers are accused of luring a 15-year-old girl from Britain and coercing her into producing pornographic content through physical violence and psychological manipulation.

Prosecutors said the brothers used emotional blackmail, threats, physical aggression and constant surveillance to control the victim and make her produce sexual video chats to sell online.

They earned more than $1.25 million by selling the child pornography content, prosecutors said.

A Romanian lawyer for the brothers, Eugen Constantin Vidineac, denied the allegations.

“We will examine every aspect of it with the same level of scrutiny and we will challenge any evidential, procedural or legal deficiencies through the appropriate judicial process,” the lawyer told Newsweek.

“Our clients continue to reject the allegations against them,” he added. “They have the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to properly examine the evidence relied upon against them and the right to mount an effective defense.”

The new charges come as the brothers sit in a U.S. jail while they fight extradition to Britain, where they were charged in July with rape, human trafficking and child pornography.

The Tate brothers, who hold dual British-American citizenship, have twice been charged with sex crimes in each Romania and Britain.

They are former kickboxers with millions of followers on social media.

A federal judge in Miami is yet to make a ruling on the Britain’s request for extradition after the brothers appeared in court on Aug. 27.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The Federal Communications Commission asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit from ABC claiming the commission was curbing its right to free speech.

The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiary ABC sued the FCC on Aug. 18 to block an early license renewal from the agency, claiming the Trump administration is attacking the company for content it doesn’t like.

The FCC argued in its motion that the lawsuit is premature because the agency hadn’t yet tried to remove the licenses from eight local stations that ABC owns. In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses, an unusual move. None of the licenses were up for renewal for several years.

The FCC claims it asked for the early review because of ABC’s response investigation into the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion hiring policies. But the review came right after President Donald Trump told ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel after a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

The eight stations with their licenses are in jeopardy cover New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and Fresno, Calif. They renew their licenses every eight years and are almost never revoked. The FCC hasn’t filed an early-renewal order in decades.

“This [lawsuit] would only hobble the Commission’s efforts to investigate and resolve serious allegations that Disney has engaged in unlawful discrimination, and from otherwise ensuring that Disney’s stations are serving the public interest,” the FCC wrote in its filing. “Plaintiffs, in return, would only free themselves from the burdens of proving their case in administrative proceedings.”

“They have shown (at most) minimal and self-inflicted effects on speech, and no harms that could justify” blocking the agency’s moves, the FCC’s document said.

ABC had filed for an emergency stay of the FCC’s activity, arguing it was using the regulatory process to suppress its right to free speech.

ABC in its filing said that President Donald Trump is sending a “message to every media company in the country — that they should “tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government.”

“In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free,” ABC wrote. “The FCC Chairman [Brendan Carr] has left little doubt that this is his goal.”

Judge Loren L. AliKhan scheduled a hearing for the week of Oct. 5.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — In a setback for Republicans, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the use of a GOP-favored congressional map in this year’s midterms, directing that a referendum on redistricting be put on November’s ballot.

The ruling came down Thursday, two months before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and after Missouri already using the use of the now blocked maps.

GOP-led Missouri was seeking to use a state legislature-approved redrawn map that was expected to increase the number of Republican-held districts from its 6-2 majority to 7-1, but the state’s high court on Thursday ruled that the opposition had the the right to have the issue put to a referendum.

The state’s General Assembly passed the redistricting bill in September 2025. In December, organizers who submitted a referendum petition collected more than 300,000 signatures in support of the effort.

But then last month, an hour before the statutory deadline, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins issued a “Certificate of Insufficiency of Petition,” stating that the state’s Constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly,” prompting Missouri voters to sue.

The state’s high court ruling on Thursday overturned a circuit court’s judgment, ordering Hoskins to issue a certificate of sufficiency as to the referendum petition to place it on the November general election ballot and enjoining him from implementing the General Assembly-approved map.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise. HB 1 did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters,” Judge Ginger Gooch wrote in the ruling. “The congressional redistricting the General Assembly established in 2022 remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said the state will appeal to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election. This unprecedented decision clearly violates federal law and has thrust our state into a full-fledged constitutional crisis,” she said in a statement.

“We are confident that the federal courts will not allow every Missouri voter to be disenfranchised — which is what today’s decision does.”

President Donald Trump also lambasted the decision on his Truth Social media platform.

“Not only was the ruling horrible, ridiculous and unConstitutional, but there won’t be enough time to change the map back with the Election coming up in a very short period of time,” he said in a statement.

“The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America! Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for ‘Justice’ in Missouri!”

The midterms have been a focus of Trump, who has warned Republicans that if they lose control of the House, Democrats will impeach him.

To improve their chances of holding on to the House, Trump has encouraged GOP-led states to conduct unorthodox mid-decade redistricting efforts, with Texas last summer being the first to redraw its maps to create additional GOP-favored districts. This kicked off a gerrymandering arms race, with Democratic-led states saying they would do likewise to counter the Republican efforts.

To date, 10 states — all but one being Republican-led — have changed their congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though several others have tried or are in the process of redistricting.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to permit enforcement of its mail-in voting restrictions, arguing it will suffer irreparable harm because two states will begin sending ballots to voters before the block is to expire next week.

Filed Thursday by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the request for an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order comes in protracted litigation over a Trump administration rule giving the U.S. Postal Service authority to screen outbound mail-in ballots for compliance with envelope standards and verify recipients have been entered on their state’s USPS Mail-In and Absentee Participation list.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts sided with the League of Women Voters in Massachusetts, which has been fighting the rule it says is unlawful and violates federalism principles of the Constitution, issuing a 14-day block against enforcing its key provisions while she considers the request to impose a longer, more restrictive preliminary injunction.

In his filing Thursday, Sauer argued that the federal government will be irreparably harmed if the restraining order is not lifted before North Carolina and Alabama send out their mail-in ballots next week, saying a court decision would come too late for those ballots.

“With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud,” he said.

Sauer continued that despite Talwani’s order allowing the Postal Service and states to take steps to ensure their envelopes meet the rule’s requirements, her block “risks sowing confusion and chaos because it makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.

“Thus, if the order is eventually stayed and the rule takes effect for this year’s elections — as should occur — there is a grave risk that states may not have taken the necessary steps to comply due to the false sense of latitude created by the court’s improper order, potentially depriving those states’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail,” he said.

Despite using the mail to vote himself, Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots, claiming them to be a source of voting fraud, though studies have found no evidence that mail voting produces higher overall rates of voter fraud.

The USPS rule is one of several actions Trump and his administration have taken ahead of November’s midterm elections, which the president has become increasingly focused on as he has warned Republicans that losing the House to Democrats could lead to his impeachment as well as investigations. While the moves generally have widespread Republican support, Democrats and critics say they are efforts to rig the midterms.

The new USPS rule being litigated comes in response to an executive order Trump signed in March to expand federal control over mail-in ballots, including authorizing the USPS not to send them to voters unless certain conditions are met.

Two weeks ago, the high court lifted an injunction blocking Trump’s mail-voting executive order, stating the challenge to the USPS provisions was premature as the agency had yet to issue a final rule. After the final rule was published Aug. 26, two dozen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued, resulting in the two-week block the Trump administration is now contesting.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Federal authorities on Thursday morning arrested a former Christian podcaster on allegations of issuing threats against President Donald Trump‘s life on social media.

FBI Director Kash Patel posted pictures online of Secret Service agents and other members of law enforcement arresting Benjamin Azariah Southworth, 40, of Los Angeles, Calif.

“Deadly threats like this are as vile as they are criminal — those responsible will be met by this FBI and law enforcement,” the FBI director said.

His arrest came a day after a federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Southworth with one count each of threats against the president, cyberstalking and harassing telephone calls in interstate communications.

“As threats against President Trump’s life escalate, the Department of Justice will respond with the full force of the law,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

“We will hold perpetrators of violent threats accountable, and anyone who makes these threats online will not be allowed to hide behind their screens.”

The indictment alleges that Southworth, a former host of the pro-LGBTQ rights Christian podcast Yass, Jesus!, issued the threats via social media from January to May.

Federal prosecutors accused Southworth of expressing “his hatred toward President Trump and the President’s supporters” on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, which he allegedly used to encourage the abuse and harassment of, and threaten violence against, the commander in chief.

The court document references one video he posted to Instagram on March 31, criticizing the Supreme Court ruling that talk-based conversion therapy is speech protected by the First Amendment by saying, “I want to practice my free speech as a survivor of conversion therapy of five years: Kill Donald Trump.”

In a second video posted to Instagram on April 8, Southworth is allegedly depicted teleporting into the White House Oval Office behind Trump and raising a knife to the president’s head before cutting to black, after which an advertisement for Southworth’s website appears.

He also allegedly posted a video to his YouTube account following the incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in late April when an armed man was arrested while trying to storm the event. In the video, Southworth allegedly states, “I’m outraged that Donald Trump isn’t dead,” according to the indictment.

The federal cyberstalking charge stems from allegations that he posted on TikTok the home address of a former personal lawyer to Trump along with the lawyer’s photo and a photo of the residence. He is also accused of leaving the son of Trump’s former personal lawyer harassing messages and voicemails as well as making what the Justice Department called harassing telephone calls to the lawyer’s wife.

If convicted, Southworth faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years in prison for each charge of threatening Trump’s life and cyberstalking as well as a statutory maximum sentence of two years in federal prison for telephonic harassment.

Southworth was to make his initial court appearance Thursday in Los Angeles.

BUENOS AIRES, Sept. 3 (UPI) — Argentina’s declining birth rate has drawn renewed attention after President Javier Milei linked the drop in births to the legalization of abortion during at least two public appearances over the past week.

Milei said Argentina’s population is no longer growing at a rate sufficient to ensure generational replacement because of what he called “that passion for murdering children in their mothers’ wombs.” He added that the trend is costing the country dearly in terms of economic growth and its pension system.

But demographic data and experts consulted by UPI challenge Milei’s assertion, noting that the decline began years before abortion was legalized and reflects broader economic and social factors.

Argentina’s birth rate began to fall in 2014, six years before the country legalized abortion in 2020.

According to official data released Wednesday by UNICEF Argentina, the number of births fell by nearly half over the past decade to 413,135 in 2024 from 777,012 in 2014. The fertility rate has reached its lowest level on record at 1.3 children per woman.

Argentina’s trend is part of a global phenomenon, though the decline has been more pronounced in the country. In 2024, Argentina recorded roughly the same number of births as in 1948, despite having three times as many women of reproductive age.

Sociologist and feminist historian Dora Barrancos said Milei’s argument is part of a broader narrative also found among far-right groups in other countries.

“There is a strong ideological focus on blaming feminists and their policies for the decline in the birth rate. From a historical perspective, that explanation has no basis,” she said.

Gala Díaz Langou, director of the International Panel on Social Progress, also rejected abortion as an explanation for the declining birth rate.

“That argument does not hold up. This is a global, multifaceted process,” she said.

Mariana Isasi, head of the United Nations Population Fund office in Argentina, said the declining birth rate reflects tensions between people’s personal aspirations, economic conditions and the way family life is organized.

A recent UNFPA survey on reproductive intentions in Argentina found that 57% of people between ages 18 and 45 would like to have more children.

“There is a gap between the number of children people have and the number they would like to have. This shows that the desire exists, but the conditions to do so are not always there,” Isasi said.

Isasi said conditions were not necessarily better in previous periods, but people today have more tools to make decisions about motherhood.

Uncertainty about the future is another factor influencing decisions about whether to have children. In addition, 20% of those surveyed said they had difficulty finding a suitable partner with whom to have children.

Isasi also noted that Argentina’s adolescent fertility rate has fallen by more than 50%.

“It is good news that teenage girls can continue their education without becoming mothers and can decide later whether they want to have children,” she said.

Another factor is the postponement of motherhood. The average age at which women in Argentina have their first child is 29.2.

“When motherhood is postponed, people may end up having fewer children over the course of their lives,” Isasi said.

Díaz Langou said some of the factors behind the falling birth rate represent positive changes, while others reflect economic and social difficulties.

Among the positive changes, she cited improvements in contraception that allow women’s reproductive decisions to better reflect their preferences and reduce unintended pregnancies.

Economic conditions and the cost of raising children, however, remain major concerns.

“Raising children is very expensive and is becoming increasingly costly because of the limited availability of public care services in Argentina. This is compounded by precarious employment conditions, which affect the real incomes of many people who have children,” Díaz Langou said.

The cost is also linked to the availability of care services. According to a recent analysis by La Cocina de los Cuidados, an intersectoral group focused on care policies, 48 of the 50 national care policies identified by the organization have been eliminated or defunded since December 2023.

The remaining policies have been repealed, cut back or dismantled under Milei’s administration.

Barrancos places the decline in births within a demographic process that began in the second half of the 19th century and reached Argentina by the end of that century.

She said women began to limit the number of children they had long before the expansion of feminism and the movement for women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies.

Barrancos rejected the idea that the decline in births can be attributed to feminism or the legalization of abortion and disputes that the trend represents a threat.

“There is nothing to fear. As the number of children women want to have declines, other forms of family are also growing, including same-sex families seeking to adopt. The alarmist rhetoric of the far right is incompatible with the historical evidence,” she said.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Former Apollo Global Management CEO Leon Black is refusing to appear before the House Oversight Committee to testify on Thursday, instead filing a lawsuit against the committee over its investigation into his connections with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Black filed the lawsuit on Thursday as he attempts to block two subpoenas for him to testify. Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the committee’s ranking Democrat, has called on the committee to hold Black in contempt.

The lawsuit argues the subpoenas “exceed [the Office of Government Relations’] delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to OGR’s legislative purpose.”

In a letter to the committee, Black’s attorneys said “Congress is not entitled to subpoena documents from a private citizen,” calling the subpoenas “invalid.”

Garcia said in a statement on Thursday that Black “funded Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of women.”

“Black gave Jeffrey Epstein over $180 million over six years,” Garcia’s statement reads. “His connections to Epstein and his unwillingness to cooperate are unacceptable. We must hold him in contempt immediately.”

Committee Chairman James Comer said in a statement that the deposition will move forward on Thursday and he will speak with committee members about “next steps.”

“It’s a shame Leon Black is hiding behind litigation rather than provide answers to the American people,” Comer said in a statement.

Black told members of Congress in a closed-door interview in June that he was not aware of the extent of Epstein’s criminal activity and denied being involved in abusing women or sexually abusing minors.

“We want to reiterate that Mr. Black had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019,” Black’s attorneys said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “Mr. Black never abused a woman. He never was with an underage woman. He never engaged in sex trafficking. He never paid Epstein for access to women. He was never blackmailed by Epstein.”

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A 19-year-old gunman forced his way into a Virginia elementary school on Wednesday morning where he wounded an employee before turning the weapon on himself, authorities said.

The suspect, identified as Anthony Ignatiadis-Isabelle of Waynesboro, Va., was found by police dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the library, the Waynesboro Police Department said in a statement.

Authorities said police were notified of a suspicious individual on the grounds of Westwood Hills Elementary School in Waynesboro at 9:12 a.m. EDT. Officers responded within minutes, entered the school and found Ignatiadis-Isabelle in the library where there were no students at the time of the incident.

One staff member, identified only as an adult, was shot by the suspect, suffered what police described as a non-life-threatening gunshot wound and was released from the hospital after receiving treatment.

Little information about the shooting has been made public. Waynesboro Police Chief David Shaw would not detail during a press conference exactly how the suspect was gained entry to the school, which requires one to be buzzed in, only that it was “forced.”

He said he was unsure of what position the wounded employee held at the school, what their possible relation was to the shooter or where they were shot. He also said he did not know if the alleged shooter was known to police. The suspect was not and had never been a student at Westwood Hills Elementary School, Superintendent Jeffrey Cassell said.

The school was immediately put into lockdown following the shooting, according to Cassell, who said the facility would be closed on Thursday.

“Today is the day every school system hopes they never have to deal with,” an emotional Cassell said. “Every student and staff member is safe and returned home to their families. Please hug your children and your families this evening.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=744PSJYLKhA

Shaw said that as a precautionary measure, additional law enforcement would be at the school for the remainder of the week.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said in a statement that its Washington field office responded to the shooting.

“My heart is with these young students, their parents and families, and the teachers and staff at the school,” Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger said in a statement that explained she was monitoring the emergency at Westwood Hills Elementary School.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A judge who vacated the conviction of former U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2023 lacked the jurisdiction to do so, a federal appeals court ruled.

The case of Bergdahl, who walked off an Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was captured by the Taliban, has stretched for years. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday reinstates Bergdahl’s dishonorable discharge from the military and other punishment.

“Obviously, we are disappointed by the outcome,” said Eugene R. Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, The New York Times reported. “This entire controversy has lasted a very long time. But it continues to be an important case, not only for Sergeant Bergdahl but for the integrity of the military justice system.”

Fidell said Bergdahl can request a rehearing before the same panel or seek a review by the entire appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the ruling Tuesday, the judges said the case “presents nuanced questions regarding jurisdiction and the evolving relationship between [federal district] courts and military courts.”

“Jurisdiction here turns on whether the remedy sought falls within a district court’s power to grant,” the ruling said. “Because Article III district courts lack jurisdiction on collateral review to vacate court-martial judgments, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Bergdahl’s claims. Therefore, we remand the case to the District Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

In July 2023, federal district court Judge Reggie Walton vacated all judgments against Bergdahl after Oct. 16, 2017.

That is the date Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for his actions in Afghanistan — and the date the military judge in that court martial, Jeffery Nance, applied to become an immigration judge during President Donald Trump‘s first term, Walton’s ruling said. The Justice Department later hired Nance.

During his first presidential campaign, Trump called Bergdahl “a dirty, rotten traitor” and called for him to be executed or returned to the Taliban.

Nance refused a defense request to dismiss the case against Bergdahl because of those remarks, saying he was “completely unaffected” by them and that Bergdahl would still have a fair sentencing hearing. That hearing took place at the end of October 2023.

Walton, in his 2023 ruling, said that based on Nance’s application as an immigration court judge, any reasonable person could conclude that Nance’s impartiality was jeopardized.

An Army investigation found in 2015 that Bergdahl intended to hike to another Army post and report issues in his unit when he left his base in Afghanistan in 2009. He was captured not long after leaving and held and tortured by the Taliban over five years. In 2014, President Barack Obama secured Bergdahl’s release in a prison exchange.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — Patagonia, an outdoor apparel company, announced Wednesday it sued the Trump administration for cuts dramatically shrinking the size of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.

This is the second time Patagonia has sued the administration, the company said. In 2017, during Trump’s first term, it became the first company to sue a sitting president over public land after the president issued orders shrinking Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, also in Utah, by nearly half.

The case was not decided by the time of the 2020 election, and President Joe Biden restored both monuments to their original size in 2021.

On July 13, Trump issued orders to shrink them again — Bears Ears by about 91% this time and Grand Staircase-Escalante by about 90%. This amounts to nearly 3 million acres of land that will lose monument-related protections, the company said in a press release.

“Slashing Bears Ears and dismantling the Bears Ears commission is a betrayal of Tribal sovereignty and needlessly throws away years of effort to create the first Tribal co-management structure of a national monument in U.S. history,” Ryan Gellert, Patagonia CEO, said in a statement. “Patagonia worked with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, scientists, conservation groups, outdoor industry advocates and more to establish the monument in 2016, and we are committed to defending it today and into the future.”

President Barack Obama designated the Bears Ears monument in late 2016, following a proposal by five Tribal entities: the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the Pueblo of Zuni. A coalition of these groups co-manages the monument with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Patagonia says the U.S. Antiquities Act gives presidents the power to designate national monuments but not to undo them. However, the Trump administration, as well as others including Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, say the monuments violate that act, which they say limits the designation to the smallest parcel of land necessary for the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

The Trump administration argued that term “objects of historic or scientific interest” in the Antiquities Act has been stretched to include landscapes and biodiversity — and should not.

When signing the new orders in July, Trump criticized the size of the monuments, claiming that the public cannot hunt, fish or “virtually not even walk” on the land. However, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management explicitly say people can hike, hunt and fish in both monuments, as well as take part in other forms of outdoor recreation.

The Center for Western Priorities said in July that Trump’s orders could open the land for sale or lease oil, gas, mining or logging companies within 60 days.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — The Trump administration sued a Kansas City school district on Tuesday, accusing it of violating federal law with guidelines concerning disclosure of a student’s gender identity to their parents.

The Justice Department described the lawsuit as the first it has filed against a school district alleging that gender-identity guidelines violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.

“Parental rights are paramount in operation of America’s public schools, and Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools does not know children better than their own parents,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

“The department will not tolerate school districts playing fast and loose with federal law in the service of radical gender ideology.”

Having campaigned on an anti-“woke” platform that included opposition to transgender rights, President Donald Trump has repeatedly targeted policies benefiting transgender Americans, particularly minors and students, seeking to ban transgender girls and women from competing in female sports and restrict minors’ access to gender-affirming healthcare.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges as unlawful KCKPS guidelines that allow students to request that their transgender or gender-nonconforming identity be withheld from their parents, with such requests considered on a case-by-case basis, as well as guidelines allowing school officials to consider using a student’s preferred name, gender, and pronouns. The Justice Department described such policies as “facilitating secret ‘gender transitions’ for children at school without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”

Federal prosecutors allege that the guidelines are unlawful because they require a meeting to be held to discuss the student’s request, creating records that the Justice Department argues FERPA requires school districts to provide to parents. FERPA also arms parents with the authority to challenge records, and the KCKPS guidelines deny them the opportunity to even see the gender plan for their child, let alone challenge, correct or delete it, the Justice Department argues.

Its PPRA claim is that the guidelines violate the law’s guarantee that minor students will not undergo a survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals certain information, including mental or psychological problems, sexual behavior or attitudes and religious beliefs, without parental consent.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser for the District of Kansas said the lawsuit should “not come as a surprise” given that public education only works when schools and parents work together.

“When schools withhold information from parents, they undermine trust and disrupt the essential balance between families and public educators,” he said in a statement.

KCKPS denies the allegations, stating it is in compliance with both FERPA and the PPRA and that it was “disappointed by the DOJ’s decision to file the lawsuit.”

The lawsuit comes more than a year after the Education Department initiated an investigation into the school district following receipt of a complaint against its guidelines from the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, which was founded by former Trump administration officials.

In July, KCKPS Superintendent Anna Stubblefield told local KSHB41 that what the Trump administration is targeting are guidelines, not policies.

“There’s nowhere in the guidance where we say ‘withhold information from parents.’ We have no reason or incentive to withhold information from parents about anything that they’re entitled to for their students,” she said.

“When they say we have a policy, we’ve never had a policy.”

Sept. 1 (UPI) — A 17-year-old from Maine is the first juvenile in the United States to be charged in federal court, convicted and sentenced in connection to their role in online nihilistic extremist groups connected to the 764 network, the FBI said Tuesday.

The FBI’s Boston office, which led the investigation, said the teenager “was found to have committed multiple acts of juvenile delinquency, including conspiring to sexually exploit a child, sexually exploiting and enticing a child, distributing child sexual abuse material, sending interstate threats, cyberstalking victims and identity theft.”

The Juvenile Delinquency Act prevents authorities from revealing the teen’s identity. The FBI said they will serve a term of “official detention to be followed by juvenile delinquent supervision.”

“This first-in-the-nation case should make it crystal clear that if you conspire to commit violent, extremist crimes, your age will not shield you from accountability,” Ted E. Docks, special agent in charge of the FBI Boston division, said in a statement. “What this juvenile did would shock most people to their very core, and it is our hope that by publicizing this case, others will be deterred from making the same devastating choices this teen did.”

The “764 network” refers to multiple online groups of various names in which members seek to coerce others, including “minors and other vulnerable individuals,” into “escalating sexual and violent behavior, including pushing victims to create graphic content and [child sexual abuse material], sexually exploit siblings, harm family pets, cut themselves with sharp objects or attempt suicide,” the FBI said.

The bureau says it’s investigating more than 500 people throughout the country with links to the 764 network. Members “work in concert with one another toward a common purpose of destroying civilized society through the corruption and exploitation of vulnerable populations,” the FBI said. “They want to sow chaos and create social unrest.”

In February, the Boston FBI office issued a public service announcement to parents and guardians, warning them about a rise in activity for 764 and nihilistic extremist groups.

Sept. 1 (UPI) — A North Carolina grand jury has indicted a 17-year-old girl as an adult on charges of murder stemming from allegations that she aided and abetted two other teens who killed three people in a hate-filled attack on a San Diego mosque before taking their own lives.

Caleb Vazquez, 18, and Cain Clark, 17, are alleged to have shot and killed three people, including a security guard, at the Islamic Center of San Diego in California on May 18. Their bodies were found dead from apparent self-inflicted gunshots in a car parked near the scene.

On Monday, Forsyth County District Attorney Jim O’Neil told reporters during a press conference that a 17-year-old girl was arrested last week in North Carolina and that a grand jury indicted her on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, on allegations that she livestreamed the attack, disseminated the recording afterward and released the manifesto the attackers authored to justify their crime.

Court documents identified the suspect as 17-year-old Sarah Lindsey Santiago.

“Today’s indictment sends a clear message: physical distance from an attack does not place someone beyond accountability for the role they allegedly played in making it happen,” Special Agent in Charge Mark Remily of the FBI San Diego Field Office said in a statement.

“In today’s threat environment, individuals may believe they can encourage or facilitate acts of violence from hundreds of miles away without facing consequences. This case demonstrates that law enforcement will aggressively investigate those connections and pursue accountability wherever the evidence leads, including when juveniles are involved.”

According to the indictment, she is also alleged to have purchased a “Sonnenrad” patch for Vazquez, which he wore during the attack. According to the advocacy organization Anti-Defamation League, the Sonnenrad, which translates to “Black Sun,” is a symbol associated with White supremacy and was adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s.

The court document states that the conspiracy charge stems from allegations that she, Clark and Vazquez planned to murder worshipers at the Islamic Center of San Diego but also worshipers at Kehilat Ariel Messianic Synagogue, which is also in San Diego, and Black students at an unnamed public high school.

O’Neil, in the press conference, said that aiding-and-abetting charges in North Carolina come with the same penalties as if the accused had perpetrated the crime.

“So, she didn’t have to be in California. She’s in our jurisdiction. And today, a grand jury indicted her and held her responsible for her actions,” he said.

According to police, the shooting occurred at about 11:42 a.m. on May 18.

Shortly before, at about 9:40 a.m. that morning, San Diego police received a call from Clark’s mother reporting her son was suicidal and that several of her weapons and her vehicle were missing. Her son was with a companion, both dressed in camouflage, she said.

San Diego police were working to locate the teens when the first calls of the shooting at the mosque came in.

The suspects parked in the Islamic Center’s parking lot, ran past security and opened fire, hitting 51-year-old Amin Abdullah, who exchanged gunfire, wounding Clark. Abdullah has been heralded as a hero who saved lives by initiating lockdown protocols before dying from his injuries. O’Neil said there were 140 children on the premises at the time of the shooting.

The two suspects entered the building, but then exited through the back door and into the parking lot, where they encountered Mansour Kazhia, 78, and Nadir Awad, 57, whom they shot and killed.

The suspects fled the scene in their vehicle, from which they shot at a gardener who was uninjured, before dying by suicide.

Searches of residences associated with the suspects uncovered more than 30 guns and a crossbow, including rifles, along with ammunition, tactical gear and electronics.

“There exists in our world an underground subculture. It’s an echo chamber of intense hate against different cultures and religions. Cain and Vasquez, by what is contained in their manifesto, seemed to hate everyone, regardless of skin color, politics, religion or ethnicity,” he said.

“And this underground subculture of hate, they listen to each other, they talk to each other in encoded platforms. It radicalizes one another to the point where they carry out these horrific crimes of violence and murder.”

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge in California on Friday ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments when it sought to deport international students critical of Israel.

Judge Noël Wise, of the Northern District of California, sided with student journalists at the Stanford Daily, which sued because some of its noncitizen writers had been afraid of deportation for expressing opinions critical of the administration’s policies.

“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote in a 90-page ruling. “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.”

Wise ruled that it was unconstitutional for State Secretary Marco Rubio to use immigration law to deport students for their opinions.

Last year, Rubio sought the deportations of several student activists in the pro-Palestininan movement, including Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University’s Rümeysa Öztürk.

Fearing similar repression, the Stanford Daily sued to stop the government from revoking the visas of other students with views critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Wise said the strength of the Constitution “is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

“In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech,” the judge continued. “In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk.

“In May 2026, it potentially included ‘weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated’ in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, whose Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the government on behalf of the students, said, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” the attorney added in a statement.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against a policy by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that greatly expanded detention for migrants living in the country for years.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has changed its policies to treat people with extensive ties to the United States as still “seeking admission.”

That policy shift allows the agency to subject people who have lived in the country for years to mandatory detention without bond.

On Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy, marking the eighth time ICE has been rejected over this same issue in federal appeals court.

In more than 13,000 cases challenging the policy, judges have ruled against ICE more than 90% of the time, Politico reported.

The federal panel said ICE’s policy is incongruent with the law, which is to be applied differently depending on how recently a specific person entered the country.

“Contrary to the Government’s view, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘IIRIRA’) retained two tracks for detention even though it overhauled the procedures for removing noncitizens from the United States,” the court wrote in its decision.

“Before IIRIRA, noncitizens arriving in the United States were subject to ‘exclusion’ and those already in the country were subject to ‘deportation’ — the former were held in mandatory detention while the latter were afforded bond.”

The appeals court also ruled that ICE’s policy violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

“The Supreme Court has recognized the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.'”

The court added: “Because Petitioners here have lived in the United States for decades, they have ‘established connections’ in the country and are entitled to due process rights beyond those provided to noncitizens at the border.”

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

A federal appeals court ruled in June that the military’s attempts to remove transgender Americans was “both arbitrary and based upon animus.”

On Friday, Solicitor General John D. Sauer appealed to the country’s top court to reverse the ruling.

“The court asserted that the policy likely denies equal protection because it reflects invidious discrimination against trans-identifying people,” Sauer wrote in his petition. “That gravely erroneous holding warrants this Court’s review.”

“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” he added. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review.”

President Donald Trump has targeted transgender service members since the first days of his second administration.

He signed an executive order saying transgender troops’ health needs are “inconsistent” with service in the military.

The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law sued in February, and the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs.

Judge Robert Wilkins said the ban on transgender service members “appears driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

“We are confident the Supreme Court will affirm that the Trump administration cannot base policies on hostility toward a group of people,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights, in a statement.

“As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards,” Levi added. “There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims.”

The Supreme Court is on summer recess and will return on Oct. 5.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — New York City police on Friday said they seized 580 pounds of cocaine worth $10 million, the largest cocaine seizure in the city in decades.

Nelson Salcedo, 35 of New Jersey, was arrested while moving several boxes hiding cocaine from a self-storage facility in Queens.

“This was a massive shipment of narcotics, tied to an interstate trafficking network with connections across the country, including in New York and New Jersey,” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch told the New York Post.

“And because of the work of the investigators standing with me today, those drugs will never make it into the streets of New York City.”

Police began following Salcedo on Aug. 12, when he was spotted dropping off packages believed to contain drugs near the north end of Central Park.

Then on Wednesday, officers spotted the suspect loading boxes into a van registered to an elevator repair company.

Police and Drug Enforcement Administration agents recovered 230 bricks containing 580 pounds of cocaine.

“This appears to be the largest single cache of cocaine my office has seized in 20 years,” Special Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget Brennan told the New York Daily News.

“Thanks to our investigators and our law enforcement partners in this case, these drugs will never make it onto the streets of New York City.”

Salcedo and two suspected accomplices were arrested.

He was arraigned on charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — Less than a month after taking office, Peruvian President Keiko Fujimori’s government was to formally ask Congress on Friday for authority to legislate by decree for 120 days, seeking broader powers to advance its security and economic agenda.

The Council of Ministers, led by Fujimori, approved a bill containing 66 legislative proposals Thursday night for congressional consideration and debate.

The initiatives focus on public safety, formal employment, economic development, the removal of bureaucratic barriers, structural reform of the state, taxes and customs, among other areas.

The core of the government’s request centers on the so-called “Shield Plan,” a punitive security strategy designed to address the country’s public safety crisis and the expansion of transnational organized crime.

The bill seeks to establish the legal framework needed to institutionalize and expand joint patrols by the Armed Forces and National Police in urban areas with the highest rates of violent crime.

The proposal also includes measures to address prison overcrowding and organized crime by giving the military administrative control of prisons as well as responsibility for border security.

The legislative package also proposes changes to the Penal Code to increase penalties for common crimes and redefine police powers during preliminary investigations conducted in coordination with the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

On the economic front, Fujimori’s proposal seeks to reshape labor market conditions to attract investment and boost economic activity.

The government contends that reducing nonwage labor costs for businesses is necessary to address an informal employment rate that affects almost 70% of the economically active population.

The government also proposes greater flexibility in traditional employee benefits through individual agreements or collective bargaining between workers and employers.

In Peru’s new bicameral Congress, the government needs a simple majority in the Chamber of Deputies to secure the legislative package approval, requiring at least 66 votes from the chamber’s 130 members.

Because the governing bloc does not have enough votes on its own, Fujimori’s government must negotiate with moderate opposition lawmakers and secure at least 10 additional votes.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing four more states over offering in-state tuition benefits to qualifying undocumented students, for a total of 21 lawsuits filed against so-called Dream Acts amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration push.

The lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington — all Democratic-led — were individually filed Thursday, alleging their laws providing undocumented students with in-state tuition and financial assistance unconstitutionally discriminate against out-of-state U.S. citizens to whom such benefits are not offered.

“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona are pushing citizens to the side and ignoring federal law. No more,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. said in a statement.

“Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to American citizens.”

The Trump administration is asking the courts to enjoin the states from enforcing their so-called Dream Acts that require colleges and universities to offer the in-state benefits to certain noncitizen students. The lawsuits argue the laws conflict with a 1996 federal statute that bars states from offering in-state tuition to people not lawfully present in the United States unless a citizen of the United States is eligible for the same benefit without regard to whether they are a resident of the school’s state.

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said he plans to fight the lawsuit.

“Washington State won’t be bullied into changing how we provide opportunities for young people in our state,” he said in a statement.

“We’ll see them in court, and we expect to win.”

The Justice Department has been targeting these laws following an April 2025 Trump-signed executive order that directed the attorney general to identify and stop enforcement of policies that favor “aliens over any groups of American citizens,” specifically highlighting Dream Act laws.

Proponents of these laws argue that they put postsecondary education within reach of those who otherwise would never have the opportunity to attend university, while reducing high school dropout rates as well as raising student incomes and tax contributions.

Of the 21 lawsuits, five states have been enjoined from enforcing their laws, while the other lawsuits continue to be litigated.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — Colombian authorities captured an alleged senior Tren de Aragua leader in Bogotá who was wanted by the United States for crimes that include international arms trafficking and drug trafficking, President Abelardo de la Espriella announced Thursday.

Luis Saúl Pérez Nieto, also known as “Páez” or “Nairobi,” was arrested in Fontibón, a district in western Bogotá. De la Espriella identified him as the gang’s top leader in Peru and a trusted associate of Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, known as “Niño Guerrero,” the leader of the Venezuelan criminal organization.

Tren de Aragua began as a prison gang in Tocorón and expanded across South America and into the United States. It has been involved in murder, extortion, drug trafficking, human trafficking, sex trafficking, kidnapping and other violent acts.

“Nairobi” allegedly coordinated extortion, international arms trafficking, targeted killings and drug trafficking along strategic routes in South and Central America, according to the president’s announcement.

De la Espriella said U.S. authorities wanted Pérez Nieto in connection with those crimes. Colombian and U.S. officials have not publicly disclosed the jurisdiction handling the case, the specific charges against him or whether Washington has submitted an extradition request.

“Colombia will not be a refuge or sanctuary for any criminal,” De la Espriella said. “We will pursue them, capture them and bring them to justice, no matter where they come from.”

The operation involved Colombia’s National Police and Attorney General’s Office, along with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, according to Colombian outlets.

Police sources told Semana that Pérez Nieto was allegedly involved in trafficking ketamine, cocaine and weapons from Bogotá. Authorities had been tracking his movements in the Colombian capital before carrying out the arrest.

Peruvian media also reported the detention, but authorities in Peru had not announced whether Pérez Nieto faces charges or an extradition request there.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — More than 100 bone fragments and about 30 teeth were found in El Arenal, a rural community in the Mexican resort city of Acapulco.

The remains were discovered Wednesday at a suspected clandestine extermination site during a search conducted by members of a group named after Vicente Suástegui Muñoz, an activist who disappeared five years ago.

The discovery coincided with the observance of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, which seeks to draw attention to people whose whereabouts remain unknown and demand action to resolve disappearance cases, Infobae reported.

The search occurred in an area considered a priority by families searching for missing relatives because of reports and testimony linked to disappearances in different parts of the region.

Samantha Colón Morales, president of the search collective and Suástegui’s wife, said an anonymous caller alerted her to the presence of bone fragments in the eastern part of Acapulco, local newspaper El Sur reported.

Colón said the site where the remains were found is accessible by dirt roads and is about 40 minutes from the federal highway. Lipsticks, belt buckles and rings were also among the items recovered at the site, she said.

Colón said she believes the property may have been used as an extermination site because of the number of remains and the conditions in which they were found, Quadratín Guerrero reported.

She said that for families of the missing, each piece of evidence recovered could help advance an investigation and eventually establish the identity of a missing person.

Colón explained authorities will analyze the remains to determine how many people they belong to and seek to establish their identities.

More than 115,000 people are listed as missing in Mexico, according to the country’s National Registry of Missing and Disappeared Persons.

Mexico’s disappearance crisis is closely linked to organized crime violence, institutional complicity or inaction and high levels of impunity, which have overwhelmed the country’s forensic services.

Amid limited government resources, hundreds of search collectives have emerged across Mexico. Made up primarily of mothers and other relatives of missing people, their members often risk their lives searching clandestine graves and suspected extermination sites in an effort to find their loved ones.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — At least two people were killed and 10 were injured, after a car was driven into a crowd near a train station in Normandy in northern France.

Seven of the injured were in a critical condition in the hospital after the vehicle allegedlly srruck the group of people in the city of Caen late Wednesday evening on purpose, following an altercation, local authoritiies said.

Calvados department prefect David Clavière said the car “deliberately drove into pedestrians in the street opposite the train station.”

A fight had broken out between two groups of men immediately prior to the incident, according to witnesses.

A major emergency response was mounted across the wider Normandy region, leading to the arrest of a 26-year-old Russian-born male suspect in Ouistreham, a port on the Normandy coast.

The deputy prosecutor and police said terrorism had, for now, been ruled out.

“For the moment, we are not dealing with a terrorist motive, but the investigation is only just beginning,” said the city’s deputy mayor with responsibility for security, Bruno Coutanceau.

The incident came a month after a car attack on a Pride parade in Berlin that killed at least one person and injured many more and nine months after 10 people were injured, two critically, when a man purposely drove into pedestrians and cyclists on the French holiday island of Oléron.