Law and Crime

July 10 (UPI) — Brazilian labor authorities rescued a 62-year-old woman from conditions they described as analogous to slavery after she spent more than five decades working as an unpaid domestic worker for the same family in the northeastern state of Ceará.

The rescue was carried out by Brazil’s Labor Inspection Office, part of the Ministry of Labor and Employment, after an anonymous complaint came through the government’s hotline for reporting labor abuses.

Labor officials told local media the woman, whose identity was not disclosed, performed household duties and cared for the family’s children. Her daily routine began around 4:30 a.m. as she prepared breakfast and got the children ready for school. She worked for 55 years without receiving a salary.

According to O Globo, the Labor Inspection Office found that the woman began working for the family at age 7 and remained employed continuously across three generations.

Throughout that period, she received no regular wages, had no financial independence and was denied the educational and economic opportunities available to members of the employing family.

Labor inspectors estimated the labor rights owed to the woman exceed 1.5 million Brazilian reais, or about $290,000. The calculation includes unpaid wages, vacation pay, annual bonuses, contributions to Brazil’s severance indemnity fund, overtime and other employment benefits, according to O Dia.

The employers signed a conduct adjustment agreement with the Labor Prosecutor’s Office in an effort to partially compensate the victim. Under the agreement, they committed to paying 50,000 reais, or about $10,000, in severance benefits, purchasing a home worth at least 150,000 reais, or about $29,000, for the worker and covering her social security contributions until retirement., according to Folha de S.Paulo.

The agreement does not fully settle the woman’s labor claims, and she may still seek additional compensation through the courts.

Under a joint decision by oversight agencies and a Brazilian human rights assistance center, the woman will temporarily remain at the family’s home but will no longer perform any work.

Authorities said an immediate separation could cause severe emotional distress because of her long-standing dependency and the abrupt loss of her only source of companionship after more than five decades.

The arrangement is temporary while social workers help her through a gradual process of gaining independence, learning to read and write, rebuilding ties with her biological family and preparing for an autonomous life.

The employers’ legal team challenged the findings authorities issued.

In a statement, the family’s attorneys said there had been no “rescue” and denied any criminal wrongdoing. They argued the decades-long relationship with the woman was based on shared living arrangements, care and mutual affection.

Although forced labor in Brazil has historically been concentrated in rural areas, cases of domestic servitude in urban households highlight what labor authorities describe as a serious structural problem. Labor inspectors reported a 400% increase in inspections involving domestic work in 2025.

The Labor Prosecutor’s Office has found that such cases predominantly involve Black women with limited education who are subjected from childhood to conditions of servitude disguised as “family affection.”

July 10 (UPI) — A bipartisan housing bill that swept the House and Senate is set to become law at midnight Friday if President Donald Trump doesn’t veto it, and he said Friday morning on social media that he won’t sign it.

The 21st Century Road to Housing Act was passed on June 29 by a wide margin of Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress, but the president canceled a signing ceremony at the last minute and said he wouldn’t sign it until Congress passed Trump’s pet project, the SAVE America Act, which they don’t have the support to do.

On Friday, he posted on Truth Social that he refuses to sign it.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he wrote.

He didn’t mention a veto, but it’s still a possibility.

“The Act states, quite simply, that to Vote a person must show PHOTO VOTER I.D., PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CROOKED, CORRUPT, & DESTABILIZING MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPTIONS for Military, Disabled, Illness, and Travel!). THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it! If the Dumocrats, or any RINO (or worse!) working with them, do not allow a positive Vote on SAVE AMERICA, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, and pass this, and every other Bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of (In addition to the upcoming Budget BOMB and the 1929 catastrophic style DEBT CEILING BILL!). The Dumocrats will TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, if and when they ever get the chance to do so, in their very first hour – And I will no longer be able to call them Dumocrats again! The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he wrote.

If the president vetoes the bill, Congress will likely have the votes to override it. It would need a two-thirds majority to pass the override in the House and Senate.

“This is the exact kind of bill they want to point to and say Republicans are working on issues that their voters care about, and Democrats would want the same,” Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, told The Washington Post. “That’s not the signal that the administration is sending.”

Since the bill passed and Trump refused to sign it, he has called it “a yawn.”

“To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, everything is a big yawn,” he said.

The SAVE Act is an election bill that would require voters to prove they are citizens when registering to vote. Critics argue that it would disenfranchise too many voters because of the types of proof it would require.

The housing bill includes measures that modernize building standards, encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing with funding and grant programs, local governments to reform restrictive zoning policies around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes. Critics of the bill say it doesn’t go far enough, but they acknowledge it’s a good first step.

It’s the first bipartisan measure that’s passed this Congress.

Some Democrats have been publicly pushing the president to sign the bill.

“It’s been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough. Sign the bill,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., posted on X.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said on X, “Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a bill to build more housing and stop hedge funds from buying up single-family homes, but Trump is holding it hostage. He needs to stop playing games and sign the bill so more Americans can finally afford homes.”

July 10 (UPI) — An eighth suspect has been arrested and charged in an alleged plot to attack last month’s Ultimate Fighting Championship event held at the White House, federal prosecutors said.

The suspect was identified as 21-year-old Chandler Scaggs of Chapmanville, W.Va.

The Justice Department said in a statement that he and the other seven suspects were charged in an indictment returned Thursday in Columbus, Ohio, with two conspiracy counts: providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to murder government officials on government grounds. Jail records indicate that Scaggs was arrested Tuesday, with federal prosecutors saying he was taken into custody by the FBI in West Virginia.

Federal prosecutors allege that the eight suspects, who range in age from 19 to 32, were among nearly two dozen people conspiring to attack the White House’s Freedom 250 UFC event on June 14, staged in celebration of the United States’ 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump‘s 80th birthday.

According to the indictment, the co-conspirators allegedly planned to attack the north side of the event with explosive-laden drones, which would force fight spectators to evacuate to the south, where stationed snipers would open fire on the fleeing crowd.

Prosecutors alleged that Scaggs was to be one of the snipers.

The indictment states that the eight defendants began plotting the alleged attack in May, with the conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists stemming from allegations that they worked together to procure money, firearms, ammunition, body armor, drones and other resources to further the plot. The charge is punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment.

They are alleged to have developed plans and encouraged one another in online chat groups and forums on encrypted applications, such as Signal, and on social media platforms, including TikTok and Instagram.

The indictment states that the second charge of conspiracy to murder government officials stems from allegations that the suspects planned to murder Trump, Vice President JD Vance and “other high-value targets” as well as Elon Musk and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose attendance at the event was not immediately confirmed. If convicted, the charge carries a potential penalty of up to life in prison.

The first five suspects arrested and charged in the scheme were taken into police custody last month after the parents of one of the suspects, 19-year-old Tycen Proper, alerted police to their son’s purchase of weapons and online activities.

Court documents state the group’s alleged grievances appear to be purported government corruption and U.S. lawmakers’ involvement with Israel.

As part of the scheme, Proper was allegedly supposed to pick up Scaggs and drive to Washington, D.C., for the event.

Prosecutors said that after Proper’s arrest, Scaggs allegedly indicated to the rest of his co-conspirators that he was still willing to carry out the attack and made arrangements with a second co-conspirator, who was not named, to pick him up.

The Thursday indictment follows earlier criminal complaints filed against the original seven defendants.

July 10 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Maryland on Thursday challenging the state’s laws that limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration agents, the latest legal salvo in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Federal lawyers with the Justice Department’s Civil Division have filed about 20 lawsuits against so-called sanctuary policies that the Trump administration argues violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, under which federal law supersedes state policies.

“Federal immigration officers merely enforce the laws that our nation’s elected representatives in Congress passed, reflecting the will of ‘We the People,'” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

“When sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws to shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement, it is not merely federal law that is violated, but the voices of everyday American voters silenced.”

The Community Trust Act, passed by Maryland’s General Assembly, took effect immediately on May 31, 2026, limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities amid the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown.

Opponents criticize the law as permitting the harboring of undocumented migrants, while advocates argue such policies are needed to create safe communities by reducing barriers that hinder immigrants from communicating with law enforcement.

In the lawsuit, the Justice Department argues that by enforcing the Community Trust Act, Maryland was unlawfully interfering with the federal government’s enforcement of federal law, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

“Maryland has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement. The state’s prohibitions on cooperation with federal immigration agencies have endangered public safety, resulting in criminals being released into Maryland rather than turned over to immigration authorities for removal from the United States, as required by Congress,” the federal lawyers said in the complaint.

“The challenged laws are not a mere passive effort to avoid providing state or local resources to federal officials but rather are an active and deliberate effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.”

The Maryland Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican state delegates, celebrated the lawsuit’s announcement in a Thursday statement, saying it is challenging “Maryland’s dangerous penchant for favoring noncitizens over lawful Marylanders.”

From targeting sanctuary laws to seeking to end humanitarian protections for migrants from crisis-hit countries, the Trump administration has sought to remove obstacles to its mass deportation campaign, drawing staunch opposition from civil and human rights advocates.

Under a Trump executive order, the Justice Department has identified dozens of states, counties and cities, mostly Democratic-led, that have sanctuary laws.

July 9 (UPI) — An Argentine court convicted former Navy Capt. Claudio Villamide and sentenced him to three years of suspended prison time for his role in the 2017 sinking of the submarine ARA San Juan, the country’s deadliest peacetime naval disaster.

The sinking killed all 44 crew members. The submarine was located in late 2018 at a depth of roughly 3,000 feet in the South Atlantic. It has not been recovered.

According to Argentine media reports, the court in Río Gallegos found Villamide guilty Wednesday of aggravated negligence and failing to fulfill the duties of a public official. In addition to the suspended sentence, he was barred from holding public office for six years.

Prosecutors argued that Villamide, who commanded the Argentine Navy’s Submarine Force at the time of the disaster, authorized the patrol mission despite knowing the vessel had serious maintenance deficiencies. The submarine had pending post-repair tests and was subject to a technical diving restriction that was ignored, prosecutors said.

Villamide maintained his innocence throughout the trial, arguing the submarine met operational requirements, and that investigators had not conclusively determined the physical cause of the disaster.

Because the sentence was suspended, Villamide will not serve time in prison.

In a unanimous decision, the court acquitted three other former naval officers charged in the case: former Rear Adm. Luis Enrique López Mazzeo, former Capt. Héctor Aníbal Alonso and former Capt. Hugo Miguel Correa.

Relatives of the victims expressed outrage over the ruling and what they described as the leniency of the only conviction.

According to Argentine newspaper Página/12, many family members believe the verdict fell short of delivering justice because it did not hold the Navy’s top commanders or senior government officials from the time accountable.

Lawyers representing the victims’ families said they will appeal the ruling before Argentina’s Federal Court of Cassation beginning Aug. 21, seeking to overturn the acquittals and increase Villamide’s sentence. At the same time, they described the decision as an unprecedented institutional milestone, according to La Nación.

For the first time, an Argentine court ruled that the loss of a military vessel during peacetime was not solely the result of weather conditions, but also of serious human failures and omissions.

Villamide’s defense also rejected the verdict.

His attorneys called the conviction “unusual and unjust,” arguing the trial established there was no direct causal link between the orders issued by naval command and the submarine’s final collapse in the South Atlantic, according to La Opinión Austral.

The defense said it also plans to appeal in an effort to obtain a full acquittal.

The ARA San Juan reported flooding and an electrical fire caused by seawater entering its battery compartment on Nov. 15, 2017. After contact with the submarine was lost, its wreckage, crushed by an implosion, was found about a year later nearly 3,000 feet below the surface of the South Atlantic.

July 9 (UPI) — Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office formally accused former U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar of violating his diplomatic duties by allegedly misleading Mexican authorities about the 2024 capture of alleged Sinaloa cartel co-founder Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada.

The accusation alleges that Salazar knowingly made false statements when he said U.S. agencies had not participated in the operation that led to Zambada’s capture and transfer in July 2024.

The complaint followed reports by Mexican media outlets Milenio and Azteca Noticias that the FBI recently displayed the aircraft used in the operation at the War Eagles Air Museum in Santa Teresa, N.M., describing it as an FBI success.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum backed the Attorney General’s Office on Thursday, saying the former ambassador misled the Mexican government by insisting that U.S. agencies had no role in the operation.

Sheinbaum said Mexico’s consulate in New Mexico directly verified that the aircraft was on display at the museum.

“On Aug. 9, 2024, then-U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar said his government did not participate in this operation, that it was not a U.S. aircraft, nor its pilot, nor its agents or personnel in Mexico, but rather an operation between cartels,” Attorney General Ernestina Godoy said.

The Attorney General’s Office also said it had identified the pilot who flew the aircraft that transported Zambada. Although authorities did not identify the person, Mexican media reported the pilot may be Mauro Núñez, also known as “El Jando,” who is described as a trusted pilot for Los Chapitos, the faction of the Sinaloa cartel led by the sons of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.

Mexican media reported that “El Jando” is facing proceedings in federal court in Washington.

The Attorney General’s Office also pointed to what it described as a causal link based on the close timing between judicial benefits granted in the United States to Ovidio Guzmán López, one of Guzmán’s sons, and Zambada’s alleged kidnapping on Mexican territory.

Mexican authorities contended the events were not coincidental, but rather part of a coordinated strategy and an unlawful agreement between Los Chapitos and U.S. agencies, primarily the FBI.

The formal accusations further strain relations between Mexico and the United States by directly accusing a U.S. federal law enforcement agency of violating Mexico’s sovereignty and alleging that Salazar misled the Mexican government.

However, officials from the Attorney General’s Office said that while they could establish Salazar’s responsibility for withholding information, he would not face criminal consequences because he is protected by diplomatic immunity.

Salazar rejected the allegations in a statement posted on social media, reiterating the position he maintained while serving as ambassador.

“It was not our plane, not our pilot and not our operation,” Salazar wrote.

The dispute comes as excerpts from Salazar’s forthcoming memoir, The Borders: My Fight for an Inclusive United States, have begun circulating, prompting additional friction with the Mexican government.

July 8 (UPI) — New York Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered that writer E. Jean Carrol be paid $5 million plus interest in damages owed to her after President Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

But Trump’s attorneys have already filed an appeal of Kaplan’s order with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes. President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again,” a spokesperson from the legal team told CNBC.

Trump and his attorneys filed a motion Tuesday to pause the payout, arguing there was still a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. They were arguing against Carrol’s motion to disburse the money from escrow filed on June 30.

Trump’s attorneys had argued that a “timely petition for rehearing remains pending before the Supreme Court.”

“Collection cannot begin while proceedings remain pending before the Supreme Court, which is currently the case,” lawyers Josh Halpern and Michael Madaio wrote in their response to Carroll’s petition.

In his order, Kaplan mentioned an agreement between Carroll and Trump that called for the money to be given to her if the Supreme Court denied his appeal.

The Court declined to hear Trump’s case on June 29. That means the verdict finding him liable stands.

Kaplan didn’t agree with lawyers’ arguments about the Supreme Court because Trump’s petition for reconsideration isn’t likely to succeed. The Court rarely grants those requests, CNBC reported.

Carroll was awarded the damages by a jury in 2023 after finding him liable for sexual abuse in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and for defaming her in 2019 after she came forward with the allegations. Trump denies the allegations.

In the defamation case, Carroll was awarded $83.3 million in damages.

“Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” Trump wrote on Truth Social in late June. “I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.”

Trump’s lawyers claim that a petition for rehearing is “pending” before the Supreme Court, but records show it wasn’t accepted for filing this week, The Hill reported.

In the petition, the lawyers argue that Trump would have “unrecoverable loss” if the money were disbursed then overturned on appeal because Carroll has said she would donate all the money from the defamation suit.

“Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that she intends to give away all funds that she collects from him, and once those funds are distributed to third parties, they likely cannot be recovered,” lawyers Josh Halpern and Michael Madaio wrote in the filing.

Carroll’s attorneys argued that Trump is trying to unjustly delay the payment.

“This is the end of the line,” they wrote in a June 30 filing. “After four years of litigation across every level of the federal court system, it is time for this case to end.”

July 8 (UPI) — Britain has summoned Iran’s charge d’affairs after a judge last week sentenced two Romanian men to prison for stabbing an Iranian journalist in London in 2024, an attack the court found was carried out on behalf of the iranian state.

“We take threats posed by Iran and those who do its bidding extremely seriously,” a spokesperson for Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said in a statement.

“Iran’s actions attempt to undermine UK sovereignty and security, and are completely unacceptable — it must cease in these activities immediately.”

Ali Nasimfar, charge d’affairs of the Iranian Embassy in London, was summoned by Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer on Tuesday, after a British judge sentenced Nandito Badea, 21, and George Stana, 25, to prison over the March 29, 2024, attack.

According to prosecutors, the two men attacked Pouria Zeraati, a reporter with the Britain-based Persian-language broadcaster Iran International, as he was leaving his Wimbledon home.

One of the men asked Zeraati for money before the other grabbed him. Zeraati suffered multiple stab wounds to his leg before both men fled on foot and entered a blue Mazda car that was waiting nearby and driven by a third accomplice.

Prosecutors accused Badea of having been involved in the attack, while Stana drove the getaway car, which had been bought through Facebook. The third suspect has been identified as David Andrei.

The three suspects were arrested by Romanian police in December 2024. Badea and Stana were extradited to Britain that same month, while Andrei remains in Romania, where he is subject to domestic criminal proceedings.

During the trial, the judge agreed with the prosecution that the crime was a state-sponsored attack, as evidence “overwhelmingly” supported the finding that it was carried out on behalf of Iran.

Stana was sentenced to 12 years in prison, as the judge ruled that the Foreign Power Condition under the National Security Act was met in his case. The judge said the extensive planning and involvement in the plot indicated that he knew — or at the very least ought to have known — of the connection to Iran.

Badea was sentenced to eight years behind bars.

“Protecting national security, upholding media freedom and freedom of expression, remain our top priorities,” Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said.

“This government will take all measures necessary to protect the British people, and those living and working in the UK.”

British officials and allies have accused Iran of a longstanding pattern of targeting critics, journalists and dissidents abroad with assassination plots.

In the United States, authorities have several times thwarted Iran-backed attempts to assassinate and kidnap Masih Alinejad.

In 2024, the United States and Britain issued coordinated sanctions targeting those they accused of being behind threats to assassinate Iranian dissidents abroad.

July 7 (UPI) — A federal panel of appeals court judges ruled Tuesday that the Stop WOKE Act championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis violates the free speech of professors and is a “breathtaking assertion of power.”

The Florida law restricted how professors can teach, especially when speaking about gender and race, in colleges and universities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled 2-1 to support a 2022 decision that called the law “positively dystopian,” Politico reported.

The court Tuesday went further, saying the act is a “breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the state’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry — classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth.”

“If the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it,” the ruling said.

Judge Britt C. Grant wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Charles R. Wilson. Judge Barbara Lagoa, however, wrote a dissent saying the First Amendment “does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement.”

The Florida Legislature approved the act, also called the Individual Freedom Act, in 2022. The state has been fighting it in court ever since.

The lawsuits that led to the ruling Tuesday were brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a student free-speech group, and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida and Legal Defense Fund.

FIRE senior attorney Greg Greubel said the decision “means that college remains a place where professors and students are allowed to debate controversial topics — even if politicians disagree with them.”

DeSantis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday, Politico said. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised Lagoa on social media, saying she “may be the best jurist in our country” and should be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

July 7 (UPI) — Maryland officials said Tuesday that they have declined to charge police officers who fatally shot an autistic man who had called them for help.

Police shot Alex LaMorie, 25, early in the morning of March 1 in Columbia, Md., after he called them to report that he was being harassed and blackmailed.

“After completing its investigation and evaluating all the available evidence, the Office of the Attorney General has determined that the subject officers did not commit a crime under Maryland law,” said the announcement by state Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. “Accordingly, the attorney general has declined to prosecute the subject officers in this case.”

The attorney general’s Independent Investigations division, which is in charge of investigating and prosecuting police-involved incidents, issued the finding. Officials said they would be unable to secure a conviction of the officers for use of force or homicide offenses and that they would not be able to disprove self-defense on the officers’ part.

In their report, investigators said LaMorie refused police orders to drop a knife and moved toward them before they shot him. State police collected 12 cartridge casings from the scene, The Washington Post reported.

Police said LaMorie made suicidal statements on the phone before they arrived. Officers’ body-camera footage showed he did not lift the knife in their direction, The Post reported.

Jill Harrington, LaMorie’s mother, said in a statement to the Post that the officers should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter and that they “treated Alex’s life-threatening behavioral-medical crisis like a crime.”

“It represents a step backward, and risks undermining the state’s committed progress toward a more humane and effective crisis response system,” Harrington said.

LaMorie lived at Patuxent Commons, an inclusive housing community for those with and without disabilities. He’d moved there days before the shooting.

July 7 (UPI) — A group of more than 1,200 former Justice Department employees signed a letter asking senators to reject the nomination of Todd Blanche as attorney general.

Justice Connection, a nonprofit organization that advocates for Justice Department civil servants, sent the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. Signees argue that Blanche’s only goal as attorney general is to show loyalty to President Donald Trump, displaying political bias in an apolitical department.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to consider Blanche’s nomination is scheduled for July 15 and 16.

“Since his confirmation as Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche has shown time and again that his guiding star is fealty to the president, not the Constitution,” Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection, said in a statement.

“That fealty led to the purge of thousands of experienced career employees, a loss that will have a generational impact on the Justice Department’s ability to carry out its mission and maintain credibility with the courts and the American people.”

The letter highlights Blanche’s management of the department, his role in mishandling the congressionally ordered release of the investigation files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and support for Trump’s plan to pay Jan. 6 rioters and other allies.

Under Blanche, more than 16,000 employees have left the Justice Department, Justice Connection says, including more than one quarter of its attorneys. Signatories include civil servants who worked under Republican and Democratic administrations.

Blanche was nominated by Trump to succeed former Attorney General Pam Bondi last month.

“The consequences of Blanche’s attacks on DOJ’s apolitical workforce radiate beyond the halls of Main Justice, affecting the entire country,” the letter reads. “They’ve meant that much of the department’s vital work isn’t being done, or isn’t being done well — leaving communities less safe, Americans’ rights less protected, and our national security more vulnerable.”

July 6 (UPI) — Prosecutors in the Philippines called for accountability Monday on the first day of an impeachment trial for Vice President Sara Duterte, whose lawyers said the case was politically motivated.

Sara Duterte, who is the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, faces allegations of misusing public funds. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to impeach her in May, with 257 of 290 lawmakers voting in favor.

The allegations center on the wealth she gained after becoming mayor of Davao in 2019 along with her use of funds as vice president.

In opening arguments, Gerville Luistro, a House representative from Batangas, questioned, “does accountability still matter in our country?”

“If a small village treasurer can’t explain missing funds, he is investigated. If a school principal squanders public funds, even just 5,000 pesos, she is punished. If ordinary people are held to account, why not the most powerful government official,” Luistro questioned, as reported by the BBC.

Sara Duterte’s lawyer, meanwhile, said lawmakers are targeting her politically because she received more votes in the 2022 presidential election — 32.2 million — than President Bongbong Marcos did in his race — 31.6 million.

“It is clear that the objective is to oust her,” lawyer Sheila Sison said.

“Whatever one’s political persuasion is, the reality is that the prosecution now comes for this court to remove a vice president chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate,” she added, as reported by the Philippine Star reported.

After opening statements, Sen. Chiz Escudero, the presiding officer in the trial, ordered the return of Sara Duterte’s tax records to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Sara Duterte was not present in the courtroom as the trial got underway.

She issued a statement saying her decision not to attend the proceedings and not to testify are a “legal strategy.” She also criticized Marcos for speaking against that decision.

“The burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case,” Sara Duterte wrote in her statement on Facebook. “Choosing to appear through counsel rather than testify personally does not diminish accountability or imply a lack of transparency. The integrity of an impeachment trial depends on adherence to the rule of law — not on whether the respondent personally takes the stand.”

Marcos, who was on a trip to Canada, told reporters in Vancouver that he would appear in person in court if he were facing an impeachment trial.

While this is Sara Duterte’s first impeachment trial, it’s her second impeachment as vice president. In 2024, she claimed to have arranged for Marcus to be killed if she were killed. The House of Representatives voted to impeach her for the comments, but the country’s Supreme Court blocked the effort.

July 5 (UPI) — Eight people were shot in Coney Island, N.Y., during a Fourth of July fireworks display Saturday as four children were among the wounded.

Four boys, ages 14, 12, 7 and 6, were shot, as were a 37-year-old man, 33-year-old man, 25-year-old woman and 21-year-old woman. The identities of the victims have not been made public.

“All victims were transported by EMS to local area hospitals where seven people were listed in stable condition, the NYPD said in a statement. “The 21-year-old woman is listed in critical condition.”

The 6-year-old victim was shot in the abdomen and the 7-year-old was shot in both of his legs. Both are expected to recover.

Police responded to the call of a shooting near the Coney Island boardwalk at 10:37 p.m. EDT. They have not named a suspect and have made no arrests as of Sunday morning. The motivation behind the shooting remains unknown.

July 4 (UPI) — President Donald Trump pardoned 11 people, including nine Clean Air Act violators, claiming they were just “fixing their car.”

The pardons were mostly for men who were prosecuted under the President Joe Biden administration for using, installing or selling “defeat devices,” software used to bypass emissions controls.

“It is my Great Honor to have just signed Pardons for six people who were persecuted by the Biden Administration, and were in, or being sent to, prison, for ‘fixing their car.’ While I know this sounds ridiculous, it is nevertheless a fact, and part of the Weaponization and Stupidity that our Country had to endure during four long years of Sleepy Joe Biden. I AM SETTING THEM ALL FREE, RIGHT NOW! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president posted on Truth Social Friday afternoon.

Lawyer Stewart Cables and lobbyist Jeff Daugherty, who represent five of the defendants, identified them to CBS News. They said Ryan and Wade Lalone, Matt Geouge, Tim Clancy and Mac Spurlock received pardons.

A White House official later confirmed the pardons to CBS News and said that five others had also been pardoned, three for similar pollution violations. Along with those already mentioned, the official identified the others as Joshua Davis, Barry Pierce, Aaron Rudolf, Adam Kidan, Jack Harvard and Jonathan Achtemeier.

“Thanks to God for putting it on Trump’s heart to approve these pardons, and thank God for Donald Trump,” Daugherty told CBS. He said Trump “is the only president who would have taken an interest in these parties, and the reason is he’s the only president to face such ferocious weaponization himself.”

A press release from the Justice Department in February 2025 announced the conviction of Achtemeier, saying “From the comfort of his home, this defendant caused environmental damage across the country, tampering with pollution controls on diesel trucks so that they spewed 30 to 1,200 times the pollutants of a legally configured truck,” Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller said. Miller now works in private practice.

Trump last fall granted clemency to Troy Lake, a Wyoming mechanic who served seven months in prison for violating federal emissions laws for disabling air pollution-control equipment on diesel engines.

In January, the Department of Justice ordered prosecutors to drop all cases and investigations related to the defeat devices.

Two of those pardoned Friday were convicted of crimes not related to pollution.

Jack Harvard was convicted of bank fraud charges in Texas in the 1980s and now runs the Texas Safari Ranch in Clifton, Texas, and Adam Kidan was sentenced to 70 months in prison in 2006. Kidan pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges related to his attempt, along with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, to purchase a casino for $147.5 million with a counterfeit wire transfer document. Kidan is a donor to Republican campaigns.

July 3 (UPI) — The Louisiana Supreme Court granted a stay on state Attorney General Liz Murrill’s indictment, less than 24 hours after a grand jury approved charges.

The New Orleans grand jury charged Murrill, a Republican, with 16 felony counts of malfeasance in office and public intimidation related to alleged threats contained in a letter she sent to Orleans Parish leaders in May.

The letter allegedly threatened recipients, including Democratic Mayor Helena Moreno and District Attorney Jason Williams, that they could lose their positions if they opposed a new law to combine New Orleans’ criminal and district clerks of court. The eliminates the position of newly-elected Clerk of Court Calvin Duncan, a Democrat.

The Louisiana Supreme Court halted the criminal proceedings Friday morning, citing potential conflicts of interest tied to special prosecutor Laurie White’s past actions representing Duncan.

The court’s ruling also questioned reports of incidents during the grand jury proceedings, including allegations that journalists were forcibly removed from the proceedings in handcuffs.

“While the record before this Court is undeveloped, there is considerable support for the view that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits of a motion to quash this indictment on either a legal basis or due to apparent procedural irregularities,” The Hill quoted the ruling as stating.

“The Attorney General makes a compelling argument concerning the disturbing defects in the grand jury proceedings and in the trial court’s handlings of those proceedings. This indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties.”

Murrill praised the development in a statement posted to social media.

“I’m grateful to the Louisiana Supreme Court for swiftly issuing a stay in this matter. The constitution and laws of Louisiana impose a wide swath of duties on the Attorney General. I will continue to carry out those duties to the best of my ability,” she wrote. “This matter is not over. I will still need to file the necessary motions to seek a dismissal, which will be forthcoming.”

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, R, had earlier pledged to pardon Murrill.

“I would like to inform the great citizens of Louisiana who care about the rule of law, that our fabulous Office of the Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill will not have to worry about having her reputation tarnished by this kangaroo grand jury or the Orleans Kangaroo court as I will pardon her as fast as the law allows. The criminal justice system is a circus at its finest in Orleans and we will not have any of that,” he wrote on social media.

July 3 (UPI) — A California man has pleaded guilty to sending phony ransom requests to the family of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Today host Savannah Guthrie, who has been missing for five months, federal prosecutors said.

Authorities have been investigating the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie as a kidnapping and ransom scheme since she was reported missing from her Arizona home on Feb. 1.

In his plea deal, announced Thursday, 42-year-old Derrick Callella of Hawthorne, Calif., admitted to calling and texting a demand for a bitcoin transfer to a member of Nancy Guthrie’s family on Feb. 4, while acknowledging that he knew there had been an earlier ransom demand.

He also admitted that he meant to harass the family by seeking information about the 84-year-old woman and the investigation into her disappearance.

Authorities have said that Callella is not connected to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie.

After Nancy Guthrie went missing, her adult children, including Savannah Guthrie, posted a video to social media urging the kidnappers to contact them.

According to the complaint, not long after the video was published, two people identified in the document as A.C. and A.C.’s husband, T.C., who are believed to be Annie Guthrie, one of Nancy Guthrie’s daughters, and Tommaso Cioni, separately received text messages, stating: “Did you get the bitcoin were [sic] waiting on our end for the transaction.”

Authorities said the messages were sent with the use of voice-over-Internet-protocol and a smartphone application that allows users to obtain a separate phone number for the device other than the one they were assigned.

Despite the efforts to obfuscate the origin of the text messages, authorities were able to trace the messages back to Callella in California, the complaint states.

The FBI arrested Callella a day after the text messages were sent.

When sentenced, Callella faces up to a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for each of the two counts of harassment using a telecommunications devices he pleaded guilty to.

Callella pleaded guilty amid renewed interest into the case following reports stating authorities believe notes from the purported kidnappers claiming Nancy Guthrie had died were legitimate.

On Wednesday, the FBI’s Phoenix field office appeared to be undercutting those reports, issuing a statement stating that some of the ransom notes they have received over the course of their investigation have not been legitimate.

July 2 (UPI) — The couple who climbed to the top of the Empire State Building’s spire to hang a flag and get engaged was arraigned and released Thursday morning.

Angelina Nikolau and Ivan Kuznetsov were charged with burglary, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief and criminal tampering for trespassing in a nonpublic area of the building and scaling the spire, ABC News and the New York Daily News reported.

The couple has made a name for themselves with a series of dangerous climbs around the world, but making it to the top of the Empire State Building gained national attention — and they were arrested when they climbed down.

“These activities continually create a risk to their own lives, as well as the lives of New Yorkers and first responders,” Assistant District Attorney Anthony Giliberti told reporters.

Prosecutors told the court that they believe the duo observed a security door to the building’s 104th floor with a broken lock, accessed it and climbed to the top of the spire.

Although Kuznetsov’s father said that they had already been officially married — and that the proposal at the top of the building was just a stunt — after hanging a flag at the top of the spire, Ivan got down on one knee and asked Nikolau to marry him.

Nikolau and Kuznetsov have been released on supervised bail ahead of their trial.

July 2 (UPI) — The pilot of a small plane that crashed into Beijing’s tallest building was a 66-year-old man who was suffering from “chronic insomnia and anxiety” and wrote about “ending his life” in his diary, authorities said Thursday.

The man died in the June 26 crash and wounded 13 others in the 109-story Citic Tower.

The pilot was identified as Liu and was a divorced freelancer who lived alone in Beijing, the Chaoyang district government said in a statement.

“The comprehensive investigation concluded that this was a case of endangering public safety caused by personal reasons,” the statement said.

One of the injured people has been discharged from the hospital, officials said.

Liu had taken off from an airport in the Pinggu district. That day he had flown accompanied and solo flights, the Chaoyang government’s statement said.

“During his solo flight, he deviated from the designated area and lost contact with the airport, subsequently colliding with the high-rise building and dying at the scene,” the statement said.

Liu obtained his sport pilot’s license in 2021 and private pilot’s license in 2024.

The plane was a two-seat, single-engine Aurora SA60L manufactured by Chinese company Sunward Aircraft, according to Flightradar24. It’s designed for touring, aerial photography and recreational aviation.

All references to the crash, video and images were scrubbed from social media in China. The state media, whose headquarters is across the street from the tower, didn’t report anything about the crash until the following day.

Chinese authorities often attribute random acts of violence to people seeking “revenge on society,” offering little information on the exact motive.

If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, help is available 24/7. Call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline for free, confidential support. Globally, the International Association for Suicide Prevention has contact information for crisis centers around the world.

July 2 (UPI) — A Ukrainian national has been charged in Germany in connection with the 2022 bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines bringing natural gas 760 miles via the Baltic Sea from northwestern Russia to Lubmin in northeastern Germany.

Authorities allege the suspect, named only as Serhii K, led and coordinated an operation with seven others to sabotage the $17 billion gas projects on Sept. 26, 2022, according to reports in German media Wednesday. He is also charged with attacking and destroying civilian energy infrastructure and causing an explosion.

Prosecutors said he is the same individual who was detained by Italian authorities in August and extradited to Germany in November.

He denies all wrongdoing.

German prosecutors further allege he was a serving Ukrainian officer and that he and the others, who were also members of the Ukraine military, were “acting on behalf of state bodies in Ukraine” to deprive Moscow of energy revenues from the pipelines to fund its war against Ukraine.

The finger has variously been pointed at Ukraine, along with Britain and the United States, and even Russian itself, but the Federal Public Prosecutor General’s claim the attack was ordered by Kyiv was highly significant because Germany is one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, providing military aid and political support.

Kyiv , which has always denied involvement, did not immediately respond to the accusation.

Three of the four pipelines were ruptured east of the Danish island of Bornholm in the attack. Nord Stream 1 was shut down at the time due to technical problems.

Nord Stream 2, a subsidiary of the Russian state-run energy giant Gazprom, was completed in September 2021 after being plagued problems including legal wrangles and U.S. sanctions targeting companies party to the project.

However, it never opened because Germany cancelled its certification process shortly before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 as it moved to wean itself from its reliance on Russian gas.

The project, which would have doubled Nord Stream’s gas capacity to 110 billion cubic meters annually — said by the company to be sufficient to supply to 26 million homes in Europe and critical to efforts to guarantee the European Union’s “security of supply of natural gas.”

July 2 (UPI) — Federal authorities said that some of the ransom notes they have received over the course of their investigation into the kidnapping of Today host Savannah Guthrie‘s mother were not legitimate.

The FBI has received several purported ransom notes during its five-month investigation into the disappearance of 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie, who was reported missing from her Arizona home on Feb. 1.

In a statement Wednesday, the FBI’s Phoenix field office revealed that some of those notes “have been deemed to be extortion attempts without legitimacy” while others “may potentially be legitimate and are still being investigated as such.”

The statement seemed to be in response to recent reporting stating authorities believe notes from the purported kidnappers in February that claimed Nancy Guthrie had died and that they didn’t mean to kill her were authentic.

The reports referenced a note sent to local media on Feb. 2 demanding millions in ransom, and a second note from Feb. 6 that stated Nancy Guthrie had died.

On Feb. 7, Savannah Guthrie, appearing alongside her siblings in a video posted to Instagram, said to the kidnappers that “We received your message, and we understand.”

The FBI did not mention any specific notes.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department, the lead investigating agency in the case, also issued a statement Wednesday, confirming that it has also received information regarding potential ransom notes without commenting further.

“Every tip and lead is taken seriously and is forwarded directly to our detectives, who continue to work in coordination with the FBI,” it said, directing further questions about ransom notes to the federal law enforcement agency.

The FBI said the investigation is ongoing.

“This case continues to be investigated as a kidnapping for ransom case,” it said.

July 1 (UPI) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Defense Department from enforcing its escort policy, at least for reporters with The New York Times, dealing another blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict media access at the Pentagon.

It was not entirely clear whether the order applied to all credentialed reporters or just those associated with The New York Times.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in D.C. issued his preliminary injunction Tuesday, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the escort policy was retaliatory and infringed on their First Amendment rights.

“This Court has spoken at several points about the critical importance of protecting the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, and that evergreen principle bears repeating: ‘Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by government suppression of political speech,'” Friedman said in his Tuesday opinion, quoting from one of his previous opinions in the case.

“‘That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years.'”

The ruling comes in a protracted case that began when the Defense Department announced a new policy in October permitting the revocation of Pentagon credentials for collecting and reporting information it deemed unauthorized.

After Friedman ruled in March that the policy was unconstitutional, the Department of Defense came back with a new policy that, among other restrictions, mandated reporters be escorted by Defense Department personnel at all times within the Pentagon.

The Trump administration has argued that the new requirements are for national security purposes. By limiting access and requiring escorts, the Department of Defense said it could prevent the gathering and public disclosure of what it calls classified national security information and controlled unclassified information.

The Times then challenged the revised policy, with the court again siding against the Defense Department, which appealed, seeking only a limited stay pending appeal to allow the implementation of only the escort requirement.

In late April, a divided three-judge appeals panel granted the Trump administration’s emergency request, finding that it was likely to succeed in showing that the escort requirement was not within the scope of the lower court’s original order, without weighing the merits of the case. The Times then filed a new, second lawsuit challenging the Pentagon’s escort policy.

The Pentagon on Wednesday said it “strongly disagrees” with the court and will appeal the decision.

In a statement, Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, argued that the removal of the escort policy will make it easier for “sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries.”

“Unescorted access to the Pentagon allowed journalists to observe activity patterns and develop relationships that contributed to repeated unauthorized disclosures of operational plans and intelligence,” Parnell said.

“The court’s order effectively restores that risky environment at a time when protecting our military’s secrets is more critical than ever.”

The Times argued that the policy was not only a restriction on its reporters’ First Amendment rights, but also retaliatory, an argument that Friedman said would likely succeed in court, pointing to numerous instances of Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, insulting the newspaper and other news organizations.

UPI has contacted The Times for comment.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation celebrated the ruling online, while calling for punishment if the Trump administration tries to find another workaround to enforce its media-restriction policies.

“The DoD can’t be allowed to punish journalism or evade court orders without consequences,” it said in an online statement.

“If the Pentagon keeps trying to avoid this ruling, the court should respond with sanctions or contempt.”

July 1 (UPI) — Three people died of asphyxiation in Mexico City as about a million people flooded the streets to celebrate Mexico’s 2-0 World Cup win over Ecuador in the first knockout round.

A 19-year-old woman, a 48-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man were found unresponsive in the crowd Tuesday night. They were each given emergency resuscitation and taken to a hospital where they died.

The celebrations mostly happened around the Angel of Independence monument in downtown Mexico City. The game ended in the first knockout round win for Mexico since 1986.

Mexico City’s health department confirmed that emergency responders treated the three people at different locations around Paseo de la Reforma before taking them to the hospital.

“After performing first aid and CPR techniques on the patients, they were transferred to a hospital for specialized medical care,” the city’s health authority said.

The hospital confirmed they all had died of suffocation.

Mexico City Mayor Clara Brugada offered her “most sincere condolences” to the victims’ families.

In a post on X, Brugada said: “With my heart in my hand, I send a hug and my most sincere condolences to their loved ones. We reiterate the call to always celebrate with responsibility, care, and empathy.”

Mexico City’s metropolitan area is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. More than 20 million people live there.