Law and Crime

Aug. 21 (UPI) — A man wielding a sword entered a Swedish high school and injured three people Friday before being shot and arrested by police.

Police were called at 2 p.m. local time at Brinelskolan School in Fagersta, Sweden. The students had just returned from summer break this week.

Two of the three people were seriously injured. Local media reported that the attacker was shot in the leg by police, the BBC reported.

Eight other area schools were put on lockdown, but that has since been lifted. A state of high alert was declared for the Vastmanland region. Fagersta, a town of about 12,000 residents, is about 105 miles northwest of Stockholm.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson posted on X that a “serious incident” happened in Fagersta.

“There are reports of injured people. We do not yet know what lies behind the act, but we know that the police are working very intensively. I want to ask everyone to let the police and emergency services work undisturbed. Our thoughts are with all those affected,” the post said.

School attacks have happened in Sweden several times in recent years.

In February 2025, 11 people, including the gunman, were killed in an attack on an adult education center in Orebro. It was Sweden’s worst-ever mass shooting. After the attack, the government tightened gun laws because the suspect had legally owned four rifles. He had brought three of them to the attack.

Two teachers were killed with a knife at a high school in Malmo in 2022, and an 18-year-old later confessed to the killings.

In 2015, three people were killed in a sword attack in Trollhattan, Sweden.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — Defense lawyers representing Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy, on trial for the murders of her three children, rested their case Friday after testimony from a doctor who claimed she is innocent due to mental illness.

Attorney Kevin Reddington told the presiding judge in Plymouth, Mass., Superior Court that the defense had concluded its case following the testimony of Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist with expertise in postpartum disorders.

He told jurors Clancy was “frankly psychotic” on Jan. 24, 2023, when she killed her children.

A series of defense witnesses this week sought to show Clancy, 36, is not guilty of murdering her children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — at their Duxbury, Mass., home.

Clancy cut herself and jumped from a second-story window in a failed suicide attempt following the slayings, after which she became paralyzed from the waist down.

While not denying she killed the children by strangulation, they contend she is not criminally responsible because she was suffering from bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis.

She faces a possible sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without the chance of parole.

When questioned by Reddington, Resnick stated in his video testimony that based on his diagnosis Clancy suffered from a “postpartum psychosis” following the birth of Callum, noting that she heard voices commanding her kill her children and herself.

This, he said, triggered a “delusion of influence” in which a victim feels their body is overtaken by an “external force,” and thus Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for her actions, the Boston Globe reported.

“She felt that she had to obey the instructions,” he said. “It was a matter where she was just following the command, rather than being able to make any decision to do this or not.”

After the defense rested, prosecutors called several rebuttal witnesses including Dr. Avram Mack, a psychiatrist, who agreed with prosecutors that Clancy was able to understand that her actions were wrong when she killed her children, thus making her guilty of murder under state law.

He testified that Clancy had interacted normally with other people in the hours before the killings.

“There was the ability to act normally,” he said, adding that Clancy had said “Go to God” while committing the slayings, which he took to mean she knew her children were innocent as they died.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — Two Hong Kong activists who organized vigils to commemorate those killed in a crackdown by the Chinese military on the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests were facing up to 10 years in prison after being convicted Friday of inciting subversion.

Chow Hang-tung, 41, and Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, who had been in custody since 2021, “incited other persons to organize, plan, commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting state power.”

The two leaders of the now-dissolved Hong Kong Alliance organized the vigils, which had been held annually on June 4 since 1990, after they were banned in 2020 after a tough new National Security Law was imposed from Beijing, following huge street protests that rocked the territory the previous year.

Former Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho, 74, who was charged alongside Chow and Lee, pleaded guilty at the start of the trial in January.

Amnesty International expressed dismay at the verdicts saying it demonstrated how the national security law was being used to go after people for peacefully marking the anniversary of one of the most sinister events in the history of China, in the only place in the country where it was permitted.

It said the decision marked another “grim milestone in the government’s deliberate campaign to erase that legacy and silence those who seek truth, justice and accountability.”

Deputy Regional Director Sarah Brooks said Chow and Lee’s “crime” was not one that would be recognized anywhere else.

“The Hong Kong authorities should quash these convictions and end the ongoing persecution of people seeking to keep the memory of Tiananmen alive. Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan are prisoners of conscience who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. They must be released immediately and unconditionally.”

The Foreign Office in London issued a statement criticizing the case saying it was not in line with the “one-country-two systems” treaty Britain signed with Beijing for the return of its former colony which guarantees the rights and way of life of Hong Kong people for 50 years after the handover in 1997.

“This verdict is a further demonstration that even peaceful acts of remembrance in Hong Kong are now treated by the authorities as threats to national security. The extensive use of Beijing’s national security law to punish and restrict peaceful expression undermines the commitments China made to Hong Kong under the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration,” said Indo-Pacific minister Rosie Winterton.

“We reiterate our call for the national security law to be repealed, and for rights and freedoms to be respected in the Hong Kong special administrative region,” she added.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A Missouri judge ruled Wednesday against voters seeking to put a Republican redistricting effort in the state to a referendum, stating that the new GOP-favored maps can be used in November’s midterm elections.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that referendum provisions in the state’s constitution do not apply to congressional redistricting.

“The Missouri Constitution does not supply any statement — let alone a clear one — reallocating authority over congressional redistricting away from the General Assembly to a referendum process,” Green wrote in his ruling.

The People Not Politicians coalition that filed the lawsuit told UPI in an emailed statement that what was important was that a ruling had been made, while accusing the Republicans of stalling the litigation process and stating that the case can now move forward toward the Missouri Supreme Court.

“The most important thing that happened today is that there was a ruling,” PNP Executive Director Richard von Glahn said.

“The state has tried to slow down the judicial process for months and now that we are out of Cole County, the real decision will be made. Our case now moves forward.”

Missouri Republicans spearheaded efforts to redraw the state’s congressional map last summer as part of President Donald Trump‘s push for GOP-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections.

The map, signed into law in September, redraws a Democrat-held district in Kansas City to be more rural, positioning it to lean more favorably toward Republicans. Of the state’s eight House seats, two are currently held by Democrats. The redraw is expected to reduce that to one.

Voters have challenged the redistricting effort. In December, PNP submitted more than 300,000 signatures to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, to trigger a statewide referendum on the issue. While PNP contended that delivering the signatures would pause use of the new map, Hoskins disagreed.

In May, the state Supreme Court upheld the new map, while rejecting an argument that submitting referendum petitions automatically suspended the map.

On the day of the Aug. 4 primary, Hoskins issued a certificate finding PNP’s referendum petition was insufficient, stating the state’s Constitution does not permit referenda on congressional maps, prompting PNP to file a lawsuit that evening.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, celebrated Wednesday’s decision in a social media statement, calling Green’s decision a “quick, common-sense ruling.”

“Missourians voted for candidates using this map in August, and they deserve the ability to elect those candidates in November,” he said.

The Republican Party also cheered it as a “resounding victory for Missouri voters and election integrity.”

“The court rejected Democrats’ latest scheme to overturn lawful congressional maps and create chaos ahead of the election. Missouri’s maps were fairly enacted by the legislature, upheld in court and used in this year’s primary. Today’s ruling makes clear those maps will stand,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement.

The nationwide GOP effort to redraw maps comes as Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House in November. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while strengthening the Republicans’ ability to advance Trump’s agenda.

Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.

Since summer 2025, 17 statesMike Kehoe have moved to redistrict, with 10 states having changed their maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those 10 states, eight adopted GOP-favored maps while two adopted maps expected to benefit Democrats.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — David Morens, a former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases employee, pleaded guilty to taking part in a scheme to hide federal records during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Morens made his guilty plea on Tuesday in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses and defraud the United States. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a scheme to evade Freedom of Information Act requests and the Federal Records Act by hiding federal records.

Morens is one of three people alleged to be part of the scheme. He faces up to five years in prison.

The person referred to as “co-conspirator 1” by the Justice Department was a CEO of a New York-based nonprofit that received the “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” grant in 2014. That grant is a key part of the indictment as its termination precipitated the alleged scheme.

Co-conspirator 1 created a subaward with the grant and awarded it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan China, which has been the subject of theories that the COVID-19 virus leaked from the lab, sparking the pandemic.

The Justice Department said that Morens and two co-conspirators carried out the scheme after one of the co-conspirators’ National Institute of Health grant was terminated. The three people involved planned the scheme to restore the terminated grant.

In his guilty plea, Morens admitted that he hid emails that related to the pandemic in a personal account to avoid them being publicly released, circumventing public records laws. He had previously explained that he did this to stop the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci from receiving threats.

Fauci has not been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to the case.

Morens served as a senior adviser at NIAID’s Office of the Director between 2006 and 2022. The Justice Department indicted him in April on five counts related to the plan to hide federal records from the public.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — Federal prosecutors have charged a man from the Bronx with hate crime offenses alleging he assaulted a security guard and a congregant in a racially motivated attack at a Manhattan synagogue last week.

Larry Montes was arrested following the alleged attack at Central Synagogue on Friday and was charged by New York State.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department charged him with two counts of committing hate crimes, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, and one count of damage to religious property resulting in bodily injury, which carries a maximum 20 years’ imprisonment.

“These charges serve as notice that the Department of Justice will intervene to protect the public in the face of antisemitic and racially motivated attacks,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

According to the complaint, Montes was allegedly among some 375 people who attended Shabbat service Friday night at the synagogue. During the service, he is alleged to have stood up and begun shouting and then struck two ceremonial silver candlesticks, which were damaged.

As a security guard attempted to remove Montes from the building, Montes allegedly uttered profanities about those in attendance and allegedly punched a woman.

After being handcuffed, he allegedly looked at a Black security guard cursed and called him a racial slur, before spitting on and head-butting the security guard.

During an interview with law enforcement, Montes allegedly issued antisemitic statements.

As of the end of July, there were 360 hate crime incidents committed in New York City, 205 of which were motivated by anti-Jewish bias, according to the city statistics.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — The United States on Tuesday sanctioned two senior officials of the International Criminal Court, as the Trump administration cracks down on the global tribunal it calls a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the rest of the Trump administration has aggressively targeted the court over arrest warrants it issued in November 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on allegations of war crimes committed during the war in Gaza.

Though not a member of the court, the United States has rejected the warrants, even under the former Biden administration, and has been critical of its jurisdiction over U.S. citizens and potential for politicization. Under the administration of President Donald Trump, Washington has used its powers to target the court with punitive measures.

On Tuesday, Rubio unveiled sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane and ICC Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye on accusations that they were “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction.”

“The ICC has repeatedly attempted to assert authority over nationals of the United States and other countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction or ratified the Rome Statute,” he said in a statement, referring to the international treaty that established the court in 2002 to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

“This sets a dangerous precedent.”

UPI has contacted the Hague-based court for comment.

The sanctions, which freeze all property of those designated, come under an authority given to the secretary of state by an executive order Trump signed in the presence of Netanyahu at the White House in February 2025, during his third week back in office.

Last month, Rubio announced the launch of a whole-of-government campaign to dismantle the threat the Trump administration alleges it poises to the United States. Along with increased sanctions and visa revocations of ICC personnel, the campaign includes encouraging other countries to exit the court and increased scrutiny of countries that receive U.S. assistance but do not criticize the ICC, as well as nations under the so-called U.S. security umbrella are also being urged to reject the ICC’s authority to prosecute U.S. officials and service members.

“The ICC has become a kangaroo court that cloaks its abuse of power in language of international law while undermining the very principles of justice,” said Netanyahu, whom the ICC has accused of using starvation as a weapon of war and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution.

“I commend Secretary of State Marco Rubio for leading the Trump administration’s determined efforts against the ICC’s illegitimate overreach, and for making clear that the corrupt officials who lead the ICC will face consequences,” he added in the statement.

The court described Trump’s executive order in February as an unprecedented attack that undermines its ability to administer justice and a threat to international law that protects millions of victims.

Following the announcement Tuesday, the Netherlands came to the court’s defense while international human rights organizations chastised the United States.

“International courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates,” Foreign Affairs Minister Tom Berendsen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said in a statement, saying he has invited Akane to discuss the country’s support.

“We fully support the court and its staff,” he said.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said she was “alarmed” by the sanctions being imposed on judicial operators for doing their jobs.

“Sanctioning independent judges and lawyers for their work to end impunity and ensure justice for the most grave crimes is a shocking betrayal of the Nuremberg promise and a violation of the human rights guarantee of fair trial and access to justice,” she said in a statement.

Erika Guevara Rosas, senior director for research, advocacy, policy and campaigns at Amnesty International, rebuked the punitive action as a “reprehensible assault” on the international justice system that was part of an intimidation campaign meant to obstruct its work.

“These sanctions are not about sovereignty. They are about shielding powerful actors from accountability and punishing those tasked with investigating and prosecuting the gravest crimes under international law,” she said.

Kenneth Roth, senior fellow at Yale University and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that Trump was sanctioning the court “so that American and Israeli officials can commit war crimes (and worse) with impunity.”

“No one should accept this utter lawlessness,” he said.

Last week, HRW and three other human rights groups sued the Trump administration over sanctioning judges and prosecutors of the ICC.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — Medical experts and a family member testified in a Massachusetts courtroom Tuesday that Lindsay Clancy’s mental health was so precarious that she cannot be held responsible for the strangulation deaths of her three children.

A trio of doctors and Clancy’s former mother-in-law, Susan Clancy, each testified in her defense as her attorneys sought to show the 36-year-old defendant is not guilty of murdering her children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — at their Duxbury, Mass., home on Jan. 24, 2023 due to mental illness.

While not denying she killed the children, they contend she is not criminally responsible because she was suffering from bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis.

The Plymouth County, Mass., District Attorney’s Office, however, argues that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis when she strangled the children and jumped from a window, suffering permanent paralysis from the waist down.

After the prosecution rested its case last week, the defense continued with its own case.

Among the medical experts taking the stand Tuesday was Dr. Paul Zeizel, a clinical and forensic psychologist who testified about meeting with Clancy at the hospital after the killings.

After testifying that Clancy told him she had “fuzzy” memories of the killings, he said she told him she heard a man’s demanding she kill the children and then herself.

Zeizel forcefully suggestions of having “planted” that story with Clancy.

Also testifying for the defense was another medical expert, former medical examiner Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, who spoke about the injuries Clancy suffered in her suicide attempt in an apparent effort to counter prosecutors’ suggestions that she had not jumped out a window.

Another medical witness, Dr. Donald Condie, testified that Clancy exhibited symptoms consistent with postpartum depression, such as brain fog and anxiety.

The day’s testimony also included emotional words from Susan Clancy, the mother of Patrick Clancy, who said the couple had a “very good relationship,” WBTS-TV reported.

“She was very nurturing, very loving, she was a wonderful mother. Wonderful,” she said of Lindsay. “She loved her children, all of them, very, very much.”

A former nurse, Susan Clancy she said she noticed a change in Lindsay’s personality after the birth of Callan, the youngest child.

“She reached out to me in November and told me that she felt unwell,” she said. “Mostly, she had insomnia, she was losing her appetite, she was very anxious and sad.”

Aug. 18 (UPI) — A group of university organizations and labor unions filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new government rule that limits the time international students can spend in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the final rule last month, ending the previous “duration of status” policy for international students.

Under that rule, the United States admitted students with F-1 and J-1 visas for the duration of their status: That is, they entered to pursue a course of study and remained until they earned their chosen degree or degrees.

Students needed to maintain a required course load and comply with the general conditions of their immigration status. There are about 1.5 million students with F-1 and J-1 visas in the United States.

Under the changed policy, international students are capped at four-year stays unless they undergo a federal review to be considered for an extension. Such reviews are to include submitting biometric information and undergoing security, identity and fraud screening.

In announcing the final rule, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the duration of status policy “undermined national security” and that the new rule restores the U.S. ability to “properly screen and manage those who remain in our country.”

The group filing the lawsuit Tuesday asked for a preliminary injunction stopping the new rule before it is implemented. The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration (one of the parties to the lawsuit) said the Department of Homeland Security did not adequately justify or assess the rule, address public comments on it or consider better alternatives.

“These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students and exchange visitors and the institutions that support them,” the Alliance said in a statement. “They will also interfere with academic decision-making, disrupt students’ educational and professional plans and undermine the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract and retain global talent.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, also a party to the lawsuit, said the new rule shows that the United States is “once again breaking the law for its own political purposes and, in doing so, is hurting Americans and American enterprise.”

“And it’s using international students — who we’ve welcomed here to help us — as its pawns,” Weingarten said. “American is a leader in cutting-edge research because generations of scientists from every corner of the globe have been free to pursue difficult questions, challenge conventional wisdom, collaborate openly and publish their findings — without political interference.”

The new rule also requires journalists with I visas to renew their status every 240 days. Jon Schleuss — the president of the NewsGuild-CWA, also a party to the lawsuit — said those visas support the important work of international journalists in the United States.

“Our First Amendment makes it clear that the United States is supposed to be a champion of a free press, not an opponent,” Schleuss said. “These rule changes are just another attempt by this administration to chill reporting done by talented journalists.”

Aug. 18 (UPI) — Two counties and two cities are suing the Trump administration over conditioning national security funding on local governments adopting sweeping election procedures, calling the requirement illegal federal overreach.

The Brennan Center for Justice filed the lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., Harris and El Paso counties, Texas, and Columbus, asking it to declare the decision to impose election administration conditions on grants unlawful and enjoin its enforcement.

“This is the kind of federal overreach we’ve come to expect from the Trump administration,” Harris County Attorney Abbie Kamin said in a statement emailed to UPI. “To threaten law enforcement and public safety funding our agencies rely on, to withhold dollars that protect our communities for a partisan power grab is not only improper, it’s dangerous.”

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has taken a series of actions he says are to improve election integrity and security but that Democrats and civil rights advocates have described as efforts to interfere with and undermine U.S. elections.

In June, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the Department of Homeland Security, updated compliance requirements for Homeland Security Grant Program funds, which are to help local governments prevent terrorism. Conditions added include creating a plan for transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, conducting a 5% post-election manual audit and citizenship verification for all poll workers and registered voters, among others.

FEMA said it will withhold 20% of the recipient’s total HSGP funding until receipt of proof of compliance with the new requirements.

The jurisdictions suing the administration described the withholding of funds as FEMA holding their money “hostage” and its new election-related conditions “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Never before has FEMA purported to regulate how states and counties run elections,” they said in the lawsuit, stating that such a change would require congressional authorization, which FEMA does not have.

“The power to administer elections belongs to the states, subject only to conditions imposed by Congress — not the president, not the secretary of Homeland Security and not FEMA.”

The plaintiffs state that FEMA has not provided a “reasoned explanation” for the change in funding administration while ignoring the legal, financial and logistical “chaos” the new conditions will cause with midterm elections less than two months away and the potential harm withholding anti-terrorism funds could cause.

“Holding cities hostage by threatening anti-terrorism funding if they don’t go along with the president’s absurd election manipulation is as dangerous as it is illegal,” Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said in a statement.

“We’re fighting back to protect public safety and election integrity. We will not be bullied by this president and his administration.”

Aug. 17 (UPI) — A group of Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a version of the Ten Commandments in a visible spot in every classroom.

The more-than-two-dozen families of various religious faiths and none are appealing a lower court’s decision in April to uphold Senate Bill 10. The families are from 22 school districts throughout the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

“Texas politicians shouldn’t have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education,” said plaintiffs Rebekah and Ted Lowe of Austin, who are raising their children in Christian and Jewish religious traditions. “This law puts one version of religious beliefs above all other in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.”

“I’m not only worried about my own kids, but I’m deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation,” said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler of Houston. “These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.”

In April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause — which prevents the government from establishing a religion — or free exercise clause — which forbids government from prohibiting “free exercise” of religion.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” said Ken Paxton, Texas’s Republican attorney general, after the ruling. “The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

However, in its release on the request Monday, the ACLU noted that a Supreme Court case in 1980 — Stone vs. Graham — already dealt with the matter of the Ten Commandments in public schools. In that case, the high court found that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom was unconstitutional and violated the establishment clause.

In the filing Monday, the lawyers for the families involved said the court should again reject the idea of government-imposed religion.

“If the permanent, unavoidable imposition of biblical scripture in public-school classrooms does not interfere with, or threaten to undermine, parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious education and ot instill particular religious beliefs and practices, it is difficult to imagine what would,” the filing said.

Aug. 17 (UPI) — Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service accused the intelligence services of a Western country of preparing, together with Ukraine, an operation aimed at portraying Moscow as an illegal supplier of weapons to drug cartels and organized crime groups in Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela.

The Russian agency said in a statement that Russian-made weapons captured by Ukrainian forces during the war are being transported to the three Latin American countries to be used as part of the operation.

According to the Foreign Intelligence Service, those responsible are also preparing photographs and videos intended to show Russia supplying weapons to Latin American criminal organizations through intermediaries.

The agency said the materials would be accompanied by forged documents seeking to link representatives of the Russian Armed Forces to the weapons transfers.

“The authors of this provocation naively hope in this way to undermine Russia’s constructive relations with the countries of this region and induce Latin American governments to support the anti-Russian policy pursued by the West,” the intelligence service said.

The statement did not identify the Western country it accused of orchestrating the operation or provide public evidence to support the allegations.

Russian intelligence said the objective would be to damage Moscow’s relations with Latin American countries and bring their governments closer to Western policies toward Russia.

As of Monday, the governments of Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela had not publicly responded to the allegations. Ukraine had also not issued an official response to the new statement.

The accusation comes after Russia previously linked Ukraine to Mexican criminal organizations. In late June, Russian officials accused Kyiv of maintaining ties with Mexican cartels, allegations that the Ukrainian Embassy in Mexico publicly rejected.

The Ukrainian diplomatic mission at the time described the claims as part of a Russian disinformation campaign and denied that Ukraine had ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

In the final part of its Monday statement, the Foreign Intelligence Service framed the accusation within what it described as an information war waged by “Euro-Atlantic elites” against Russia since the start of the conflict in Ukraine.

The Russian agency cited as precedents the April 2022 Bucha massacre, which it described as a “bloody staging,” and the 1939 Gleiwitz incident, a false-flag operation carried out by Nazi Germany before the invasion of Poland.

Aug. 15 (UPI) — A man in New York was arrested on hate crime charges after disrupting a Shabbat service and allegedly injuring a congregant in a Manhattan synagogue on Friday, police said.

Larry Montes, 46 of the Bronx, was arrested at Central Synagogue in the Upper East Side and charged with two counts of assault as a hate crime and one count of criminal mischief as a hate crime.

“As synagogue security was escorting him out, he struck a member of the congregation, damaged synagogue property, and then spit at and headbutted a member of the security team,” Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said in a statement on X.

Amid the confusion, there were shouts of panic as people in the synagogue scrambled, CNN reported.

One congregant, a 63-year-old woman, suffered a cut to her lip and injuries to her right forearm, according to the news outlet.

“Every New Yorker must be able to observe their religion without fear of violence,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a statement on X. “This despicable act has no place in our city, and our administration will do everything in our power to keep Jewish New Yorkers safe.”

As of August, 360 hate crimes were reported in the city this year, including 205 targeting Jewish people, The New York Times reported.

Sources told CNN that Montes has a history of mental health issues.

Aug. 15 (UPI) — Five people were injured by multiple shooters at Virginia State University in Ettrick, Va., early Saturday morning.

Police responded to the area outside of residence halls around 1:30 a.m. and found five people with gunshot wounds. They were taken to the hospital, and one is in critical-condition. The others had injuries that weren’t life-threatening.

The campus, which had not started fall-semester classes yet, was put on lockdown until about 8:30 Saturday morning. But police have not said if anyone has been arrested. Residence halls opened a week ago, and classes are set to begin Monday.

The Chesterfield County Police Department is investigating the incident with the help of VSU police, the Hanover County Sheriff’s Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Virginia State is a historically Black university about 24 miles south of Richmond. It has about 5,100 students enrolled in undergraduate programs.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — A Kentucky woman was arrested for allegedly vandalizing the National Mall’s World War II Memorial, officials said Friday.

Melissa L. Farris, 41 of Elizabethtown, is charged with depredation against federal property and destruction of veterans’ memorials, both of which are felonies. She faces 10 years in prison on each charge.

“Vandalizing our World War II Memorial is a despicable attack on a sacred monument honoring the Americans who fought and died for our freedom,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement on X.

Farris was arrested about 2 p.m. on Thursday when U.S. Park Police responded to reports of a disorderly person, according to the criminal complaint.

Law enforcement found spray paint and colored foam covering several portions of the Atlantic Theatre Pavilion of the memorial.

The words “Clean Hands Dirty $” were sprayed onto the walls in orange paint. There were also splatters of green and pink paint.

Officials said Farris had been arrested four days earlier for allegedly camping on federal property, the criminal complaint said.

She is also alleged to have posted videos on social media admitting to the vandalism.

In the postings, Farris said she is “cognitively aware” and “doing so to push my whistleblower case into the courtroom,” according to the criminal complaint.

“Our beautiful World War II Memorial was just hit by Spray Painting Vandals,” President Donald Trump said in a statement on Truth Social. “THERE CAN BE NO GREATER INSULT TO THOSE AMERICAN HEROES WHO DIED IN WORLD WAR II.”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — A Massachusetts mayor was arrested Friday on charges of fraudulently obtaining more than $1.5 million in COVID loans for small businesses, federal prosecutors said.

Lawrence Mayor Brian DePena, 61, was charged with wire fraud and money laundering for allegedly using the loans to fund his campaign, pay personal taxes and pay off other loans.

DePena applied for pandemic relief loans in 2020 and 2021 to support Tenares Tire Services, an auto shop he owned in Lawrence.

Prosecutors say he used nearly $900,000 of the loans to pay off mortgages, $85,000 for personal tax debts and at least $130,000 to fund his campaign.

“This was emergency financial assistance meant to be a safety net for struggling businesses, not Mr. Depena’s own personal ATM,” said Ted Docks, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, in a statement.

DePena was first elected mayor of Lawrence in 2021 and was reelected last November.

If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison for each charge.

“Mayor DePena was elected to be a leader for the City of Lawrence,” U.S. Attorney Leah Foley said in a statement. “He was looked up to and trusted by his constituents, but he betrayed that trust through his alleged corruption and lies,”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — An Atlanta executive was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Friday for running what authorities described as “likely the largest Ponzi scheme in Georgia history.”

Todd Burkhalter, the founder and CEO of Drive Planning, ran a years-long scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of nearly $400 million, prosecutors said.

He used the funds for lavish purchases, including a $2 million yacht, a $2.1 million luxury condo in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, and $800,000 in vehicles.

“Todd Burkhalter lured investors to send millions of dollars to Drive Planning for investments that he knew didn’t actually exist,” Georgia U.S. Attorney Theodore Hertzberg said in a statement.

“He promised investors that they were guaranteed substantial returns on their investments, and he ruthlessly encouraged them to deplete their kids’ college funds, take early distributions from retirement accounts, and borrow significant sums at high interest rates,” he added. “The sentences in this case should discourage other financial advisors from choosing insatiable greed and lies over honest investment strategies.”

FBI Special Agent in Charge Marlo Graham said Burkhalter brazenly continued his scheme even while under federal investigation.

“Todd Burkhalter organized what is likely the largest Ponzi scheme in Georgia history to fund an extravagant lifestyle,” Graham said in a statement.

Prosecutors said Burkhalter defrauded more than 2,000 investors from September 2020 to June 2024.

He has also been sentenced to pay more than $230 million in restitution.

Earlier this week, two other people were sentenced in the scheme.

The company’s chief operating officer, David Bradford, was sentenced to four years in prison and $4.2 million restitution.

Julie Edwards, Drive Planning’s chief administrative officer, was sentenced to to years prison and ordered to pay $630,000 in restitution.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — Violent crime, including the estimated rate for murders and certain manslaughters, showed record year-to-year decreases in the United States during 2025, the FBI reported Friday.

Figures from its Uniform Crime Reporting Program showed murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses decreased an estimated 18.1% with the murder rate falling to 4.1 per 100,000 inhabitants — tied with 1955 and 1956 for the lowest murder rate ever recorded, the agency found.

The numbers from 2024 to 2025 “marked the largest year-to-year decline in violent crime rates since FBI estimations began in 1936,” the FBI said.

Meanwhile, while rape offenses decreased an estimated 7.6%, aggravated assault figures went down an estimated 7.2% and robbery offenses fell an estimated 18.5%.

Both the violent crime and murder rates have decreased annually since spiking in 2022, NBC News reported.

Friday’s release of the detailed numbers came after a May announcement in which FBI Director Kash Patel touted the lower crime numbers.

“The 2025 crime data in this report shows the single largest decrease in violent crime and murder since 1937 — as well as huge decreases across the board in terms of aggravated assault, rape, and robbery,” he said.

“Over the last 14 months, we made major transformations at the FBI, and these results show those changes are working. This FBI will continue to stack these wins for the American people under President [Donald] Trump and always Back the Blue every step of the way.”

Trump himself praised the FBI’s findings Friday during a rally-style appearance in front of law enforcement officers in Garden City, N.Y.

“I’d like to thank all the people in this room and say I am thrilled to announce that the FBI have released the new uniform crime report that in 2025 we achieved the single largest reduction in violent crime in American history,” he said.

Trump tied the lower crime numbers to his administration’s crackdown on immigration enforcement.

“Last year there were over 3,000 murderers and we allowed them through this stupid open borders policy… 25 million people to come into our country many of them, the people, that I just said, drug dealers, prisoners, from all over the world, they came in from the Congo, South America,” he claimed.

“Despite that, we have the best crime record in recorded history.”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — Long-sought artworks by Henri Mattise, Paul Cezanne and Pierre-August Renoir worth millions of dollars and stolen in two separate cases have been recovered in Italy and Brazil, police said.

In the Italian city of Parma, authorities announced Friday that searches authorized by the local prosecutor’s office had turned up the three paintings stolen in March.

These include Still Life with Cherries, a pencil-and-watercolor on white paper by the post-impressionist artist Paul Cezanne with an estimated value of $6.9 million, Les Poisson (The Fish), an oil-on-canvas by the impressionist artist Renoir valued at $3.5 million, and Odalisque on the Terrace, a color aquatint on paper by the modernist Matisse with worth an estimated $23,000.

No arrests were reported in connection with the recoveries but the investigations were ongoing, the Carabinieri of Parma province said.

The works were stolen on March 23 from the Fondazione Magnani Rocca museum in Traversetolo, Italy.

Meanwhile, police in Sao Paulo announced Friday that they recovered eight Matisse artworks taken from the Mário de Andrade Library in Sao Bernardo do Campo, which were stolen in December.

Authorities told reporters the engravings were found in a home in the city, where they were being kept by a 44-year-old suspect who was allegedly guarding the pieces for the perpetrator of the crime.

Five other artworks by Candido Portinari, stolen in the same robbery, have not been located and are now thought to have been sold, police said.

The stolen Matisse engravings were part of a joint exhibition with São Paulo Museum of Modern Art titled “From Book to Museum.”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — Department of Homeland Security investigators took part in a wide-ranging probe of progressive groups and labor unions as part of a crackdown on dissent during Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, according to court filings.

Documents filed in Minneapolis on Thursday by lawyers defending 15 Minnesotans against federal conspiracy charges showed DHS agents secretly obtained financial records from labor unions and recorded meetings of social justice groups at private buildings, public parks and churches as they organized against the large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency crackdown in the Twin Cities earlier this year.

The documents also showed that DHS agents collected the license plate numbers of people attending an anti-ICE meeting at a suburban church in order to obtain the names of those inside, then produced dossiers on the attendees including their names, photos, addresses, vehicle registrations, family and employment information.

The filings were made as part of the conspiracy case against the “Minnesota 15,” in which federal prosecutors in June charged 15 anti-ICE protesters identified as members of a loosely organized coalition called Direct Action MN with being “antifa” domestic terrorists who illegally sought to impede ICE during Operation Metro Surge.

The Trump administration’s ICE surge in Minnesota drew widespread protests and pushback, including volunteer “rapid response” and “ICE watch” patrols. ICE agents killed two protestors, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, during the surge.

Kevin Riach, a defense attorney for defendant Isaac Sant, obtained the documents from DHS as part of the discovery process for the case and filed them Thursday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.

In the filing he argued that the federal government used administrative subpoenas, rather than court orders, to illegally obtain private information, including financial information from unions such as the Service Employees International Union and Communications Workers of America, as well as private groups.

“This broad collection of financial records of labor and social justice advocacy organizations, done in secret and with no articulable criminal predicate, violates both the First Amendment and these organizations’ right to financial privacy,” Riach wrote.

One DHS document included in the filing showed the surveillance efforts, dubbed “Operation Puppet Master” and “Operation Whipple Shield,” operated under a diagram purporting to show criminal connections between Direct Action MN and the AFL-CIO, the Minneapolis Federation of Educators, Democratic Socialists of America and Minnesota Association of Professional Employees — the union representing Minnesota state workers.

The documents drew outrage from a broad coalition of labor and civil society groups on Thursday, who said they have issued “a call to unity in the face of reports that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice may have investigated without reason and engaged in surveillance of community and labor groups who helped organize tens of thousands of Minnesotans to peacefully defend their neighbors and constitutional rights during the lawless, chaotic ICE and CBP operation that terrorized countless Minnesotans.”

“We know the truth, and we will not be intimidated,” they wrote in a statement. “When self-serving politicians are losing, they lie and attempt political repression, trying to silence the voices of those who bravely stand up to them.

“Minnesotans will not be intimidated or divided by sham accusations or investigations of some of the countless groups and community members who organized, acted, and stood up together to protect their neighbors during Operation Metro Surge.”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — A federal trade court threw out a legal challenge to President Trump’s executive order scrapping the so-called “de minimis” exemption loophole under which goods worth less than $800 could enter the United States duty free.

Three judges sitting in the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that Trump had the legal authority to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to eliminate de minimis, in contrast to his April 2025 “liberation day” global tariffs which it ruled were unlawful, a decision the Supreme Court subsequently upheld.

“In reaching this conclusion, we find that the President’s power to ‘nullify [or] void . . . exercising any . . . privilege’ does not run afoul of separation of powers principles,” they wrote in their judgment.

The judges found the removal of the exemption did not constitute “an exercise of the power of the purse” and “is not an exercise of the power to legislate.”

In the global tariffs case, the Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion, ruling that Trump could not act without approval from Congress.

Trump hailed Thursday’s ruling as a “big win” for his resolve to get rid of what he said was a “ridiculous giveaway… one of the most DESPICABLE loopholes in American Trade Policy” that he said was costing the U.S. Treasury more than $10 billion in revenue from tariffs that it would otherwise receive.

“For years, Foreign Shippers could send packages worth up to $800 into our Country, DUTY FREE, NO TARIFF, far less scrutiny. It became a giant loophole for TARIFF Cheats — and a Pipeline exploited by Fentanyl Traffickers, Counterfeiters, and other Criminals shipping dangerous and illegal products into America. The numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, de minimis cost America an estimated 10.8 BILLION DOLLARS in foregone TARIFF Revenue, and an astonishing share of narcotics and counterfeit seizures came through the de minimis channel,” said Trump.

Detroit Axle, a Michigan-based auto-parts distributor, brought the de minimis case last year on grounds Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. The firm’s legal counsel did not immediately comment on the ruling.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection netted more than a billion dollars in 2025 from the ending of de minimis and the court ruling clears the way for it to continue until it is permanently eliminated when Trump’s One Big Beautiful tax cut and spending bill kicks in next July.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — Gun control groups are concerned that the Trump administration has yet to appeal a federal court ruling last week that struck down parts of the National Firearms Act that limited deregulated short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and silencers

U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas ruled Aug. 5 that federal restrictions on gun control could not stand after last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated a $200 fee to transfer or produce certain firearms.

Hendrix gave a one-week deadline to request a stay of his ruling, which expired early Thursday.

“Today, our government is failing us,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement on Thursday. “At midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century. The Department of Justice had the opportunity to act to protect our safety, but it failed to do so.”

A Department of Justice official reportedly told news outlets the Justice Department “is currently assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”

“The Department of Justice’s decision is a failure to defend public safety,” Emma Brown, executive director of gun-control group Giffords, said in a statement.

“For nearly 100 years, Congress has required background checks before someone could buy a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun,” she continued. “These commonsense safeguards keep these dangerous devices out of the wrong hands. Silencers make it harder for law enforcement to detect and locate active shooters. And short-barreled rifles and shotguns are easily concealable and extremely dangerous.

The lawsuit in Texas consolidated two separate cases. The first one was brought by B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, 15 Republican-controlled states and several individuals.

The second lawsuit was filed by the Texas State Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several others.

Hendrix’s ruling only applies to the parties in the two cases.

“For nearly a century, Americans have been forced to beg the federal government for permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Erich Practt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “That changes tonight.”

Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop announced two of its members “lawfully acquired suppressors without complying with the currently enjoined registration requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.”