legal

THE real reason Brooklyn Beckham blocked his parents David and Victoria has been revealed after he issued a bombshell legal letter to them.

The letter was sent to his mum and dad last Summer and warned them they can only contact him via lawyers and also not to “tag” him on social media.

Brooklyn wanted any attempts to reconcile to be carried out privately rather than in front of the world on social media.

A perceived breach of the legal letter was the reason why Brooklyn blocked his parents online after mum Victoria “liked” a roast chicken video he shared.

Now a source has told the Mirror that he allegedly sent the legal notice in order to protect his mental health.

The insider told the publication: “It had been leading to issues with his mental health….it was to protect himself.”

READ MORE ON THE BECKHAMS

BECKHAM’S BOND

David and Victoria Beckham’s hope for Brooklyn reunion as he ‘defies Nicola’

HAPPY WIFE

Brooklyn Beckham shares birthday message to wife amid legal row with parents

They alleged that Brooklyn believes his parents still see him as a child and not as an adult.

The source continued: “Even the Xmas post by his dad was of Brooklyn as a child.”

The inspiring chef is reportedly also hurt by claims that his wife Nicola Peltz is the reason behind the estrangement.

“This narrative is so sexist and misogynistic, and he does not stand for his wife being vilified in this way.

“It’s a story as old as time: blame the woman for the man’s actions. It’s just deeply insulting.”

The Sun has contacted Brooklyn’s representatives for a comment.

Despite cutting contact with his immediate family, the 26-year-old still has a relationship with his grandparents and wider family.

We revealed that Brooklyn has contacted both sets of his grandparents over the past six months.

He has chatted with Tony and Jackie, and Ted and Sandra. He also called them during the festive period.

A source told us: “Brooklyn absolutely adores them, and knows how much pain this is causing everyone.

“So he has reached out in his own time, but tried to keep it low-key so as not to drag them into it.

“Brooklyn is navigating this soul-crushing family feud as best he can but it isn’t easy on anyone. Nicola remains his absolute rock.”

Last month, Brooklyn took to Instagram to demonstrate his chicken-in-beer recipe, prompting a “like” from Victoria.

Within 48 hours, he had blocked his immediate family on social media.

It was initially thought that the Beckham family had unfollowed Brooklyn, but Cruz soon put things straight.

He shared a post that read: “Not true. My mum and dad would never unfollow their son.

“Let’s get the facts right. They woke up blocked  . . .  as did I.”

Nicola has also blocked her in-laws on social media and has deleted all traces of them from her page.

The actress has taken down a picture of herself with the former Spice Girl which she posted on Posh’s 50th birthday in 2024.

Nicola wore a white corset top and matching trousers designed by Posh Spice in the now deleted picture.

She posed with her arm around Victoria following the premiere of Nicola’s film Lola, saying: “Happy birthday to my beautiful mil [mother-in-law] Victoria Beckham.

“I love you so much and love being your dance ­partner forever.”

A few months into President Trump’s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — a conservative appointee of President Reagan — issued a scathing opinion denouncing what he found to be the Trump administration’s unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador, despite a previous court order barring it.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” Wilkinson wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Two months later, U.S. District Judge William G. Young, also a Reagan appointee, ripped into the Trump administration from the bench for its unprecedented decision to terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants based on their perceived nexus to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Young ruled the cuts were “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore illegal. But he also said there was a “darker aspect” to the case that he had an “unflinching obligation” to call out — that the administration’s actions amounted to “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”

“I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young said, explaining a decision the Supreme Court later reversed. “Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

In the year since an aggrieved and combative Trump returned to the White House, his administration has strained the American legal system by testing and rejecting laws and other long-standing policies and defending those actions by arguing the president has a broad scope of authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Administration officials and Justice Department attorneys have argued that the executive branch is essentially the president’s to bend to his will. They have argued its employees are his to fire, its funds his to spend and its enforcement powers — to retaliate against his enemies, blast alleged drug-runners out of international waters or detain anyone agents believe looks, sounds and labors like a foreigner — all but unrestrained.

The approach has repeatedly been met by frustrated federal judges issuing repudiations of the administration’s actions, but also grave warnings about a broader threat they see to American jurisprudence and democracy.

When questioning administration attorneys in court, in stern written rulings at the district and appellate levels and in blistering dissents at the Supreme Court — which has often backed the administration, particularly with temporary orders on its emergency docket — federal judges have used remarkably strong language to call out what they see as a startling disregard for the rule of law.

Legal critics, including more than a hundred former federal and state judges, have decried Trump’s attacks on individual judges and law firms, “deeply inappropriate” nominations to the bench, “unlawful” appointments of unconfirmed and inexperienced U.S. attorneys and targeting of his political opponents for prosecution based on weak allegations of years-old mortgage fraud.

In response, Trump and his supporters have articulated their own concerns with the legal system, accusing judges of siding with progressive groups to cement a liberal federal agenda despite the nation voting Trump back into office. Trump has labeled judges “lunatics” and called for at least one’s impeachment, which drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

After District Judge Brian E. Murphy temporarily blocked the administration from deporting eight men to South Sudan — a nation to which they had no connection, and which has a record of human rights abuses — Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, called the order “a lawless act of defiance” that ignored a recent Supreme Court ruling.

After District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison despite Boasberg having previously ordered the planes turned back to the U.S., government attorneys said it portended a “circus” that threatened the separation of powers.

While more measured than the nation’s coarse political rhetoric, the legal exchanges have nonetheless been stunning by judicial standards — a sign of boiling anger among judges, rising indignation among administration officials and a wide gulf between them as to the limits of their respective legal powers.

“These judges, these Democrat activist judges, are the ones who are 100% at fault,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Republican lawyer and Trump ally who advocates for sweeping executive authority. “They are taking the country to the cliff.”

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison.

(Valerie Plesch / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The judges “see — and have articulated — an unprecedented threat to democracy,” said UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “They really are sounding the alarm.”

“What the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism from radical left-wing judges,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “If this trend continues it threatens to undermine the rule-of-law for all future presidencies.”

“Regardless of which side you’re on on these issues, the lasting impact is that people mistrust the courts and, quite frankly, do not understand the role that a strong, independent judiciary plays in the rule of law, in our democracy and in our economy,” said John A. Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. “That is very, very troubling to anybody who looks at this with a shred of objectivity.”

California in the fight

Last month, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office’s 50th lawsuit against the Trump administration — an average of about one lawsuit per week since Trump’s inauguration.

The litigation has challenged a range of Trump administration policies, including his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of many immigrants; his unilateral imposition of stiff tariffs around the world; the administration’s attempt to slash trillions of dollars in federal funding from states, and its deployment of National Guard troops to American cities.

The battles have produced some of the year’s most eye-popping legal exchanges.

In June, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, after days of protest over immigration enforcement.

An attorney for the administration had argued that federal law gave Trump such authority in instances of domestic “rebellion” or when the president is unable to execute the nation’s laws with regular forces, and said the court had no authority to question Trump’s decisions.

But Breyer wasn’t buying it, ruling Trump’s authority was “of course limited.”

“I mean, that’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said from the bench. “This country was founded in response to a monarchy. And the Constitution is a document of limitations — frequent limitations — and enunciation of rights.”

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops to Los Angeles.

(Santiago Mejia / San Francisco Chronicle)

Francesca Gessner, Bonta’s acting chief deputy, said she took Breyer’s remarks as his way of telling Trump and his administration that “we don’t have kings in America” — which she said was “really remarkable to watch” in an American courtroom.

“I remember just sitting there thinking, wow, he’s right,” Gessner said.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently paused Breyer’s order, allowing the troops to remain in Trump’s control.

In early October, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, finding that the conditions on the ground didn’t warrant such militarization. The next day, both Oregon and California asked her to expand that ruling to include California National Guard troops, after the Trump administration sent them to Portland in lieu of Oregon’s troops.

Before issuing a second restraining order barring deployments of any National Guard troops in Oregon, a frustrated Immergut laid into the Justice Department attorney defending the administration. “You’re an officer of the court,” she said. “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland?”

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration in a similar case out of Chicago, finding the administration lacked any legal justification for Guard deployments there. Trump subsequently announced he was pulling troops out of Chicago, Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities, with California and other states that had resisted claiming a major victory.

Bonta said he’s been pleased to see judges pushing back against the president’s power grabs, including by using sharp language that makes their alarm clear.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut, shown at her 2018 confirmation hearing, barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

“Generally, courts and judges are tempered and restrained,” Bonta said. “The statements that you’re seeing from them are carefully chosen to be commensurate with the extreme nature of the moment — the actions of the Trump administration that are so unlawful.”

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, and other Trump administration officials defended their actions to The Times, including by citing wins before the Supreme Court.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Justice Department “has spent the past year righting the wrongs of the previous administration” and “working tirelessly to successfully advance President Trump’s agenda and keep Americans safe.”

Sauer said it has won rulings “on key priorities of this administration, including stopping nationwide injunctions from lower courts, defending ICE’s ability to carry out law enforcement duties, and removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country,” and that those decisions “respect the role” of the courts, Trump’s “constitutional authority” and the “rule of law.”

‘Imperial executive’ or ‘imperial judiciary’?

Just after taking office, Trump said he was ending birthright citizenship. California and others sued, and several lower court judges blocked the order with nationwide or “universal” injunctions — with one calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court challenging the ability of district court judges to issue such sweeping injunctions. In June, the high court largely sided with the administration, ruling 6 to 3 that many such injunctions likely exceed the lower courts’ authority.

Trump’s policy remains on hold based on other litigation. But the case laid bare a stark divide on the high court.

In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that universal injunctions were not used in early English and U.S. history, and that while the president has a “duty to follow the law,” the judiciary “does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the president.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

In a dissent joined by fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that enforcement of Trump’s order against even a single U.S.-born child would be an “assault on our constitutional order,” and that Barrett’s opinion was “not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.”

Jackson, in her own dissent, wrote that the majority opinion created “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

As a result, the president’s allies will fare well, the “wealthy and the well connected” will be able to hire lawyers and go to court to defend their rights, and the poor will have no such relief, Jackson wrote — creating a tiered system of justice “eerily echoing history’s horrors.”

In a footnote, she cited “The Dual State” by Jewish lawyer and writer Ernst Fraenkel, about Adolf Hitler creating a similar system in Germany.

Barrett accused Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the executive. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson questioned why the majority saw a “power grab” by the courts instead of by “a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.”

What’s ahead?

Legal observers across the political spectrum said they see danger in the tumult.

“I never have been so afraid, or imagined being so afraid, for the future of democracy as I am right now,” Chemerinsky said.

He said Trump is “continually violating the Constitution and laws” in unprecedented ways to increase his own power and diminish the power of the other branches of government, and neither Republicans in Congress nor Trump’s cabinet are doing anything to stop him.

While the Supreme Court has also showed great deference to Trump, Chemerinsky said he is hoping it will begin reaffirming legal boundaries for him.

“Is the court just going to be a rubber stamp for Trump, or, at least in some areas, is it going to be a check?” he said.

Davis said Trump has faced “unprecedented, unrelenting lawfare from his Democrat opponents” for years, but now has “a broad electoral mandate to lead” and must be allowed to exercise his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

“These Democrat activist judges need to get the hell out of his way, because if they don’t, the federal judiciary is gonna lose its legitimacy,” Davis said. “And once it loses its legitimacy, it loses everything.”

Bonta said the Constitution is being “stress tested,” but he thinks it’s been “a good year for the rule of law” overall, thanks to lower court judges standing up to the administration’s excesses. “They have courage. They are doing their job.”

Day, of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump “believes he is putting the country on the right path” and wants judges to get out of his way, while many Democrats feel “we’re going entirely in the wrong direction and that the Supreme Court is against them and bowing to the wishes of the executive.”

His advice to both, he said, is to keep faith in the nation’s legal system — which “is not very efficient, but was designed to work in the long run.”

BROOKLYN Beckham shared an emotional birthday message to his wife Nicola Peltz amid the legal row with his parents.

The Sun revealed yesterday that the aspiring chef sent parents David and Victoria a legal notice warning they can now contact him only via lawyers.

The extraordinary “desist” letter also instructs them not to “tag” him on social media.

Despite the ongoing feud, Brooklyn took some time out of his day to post a gushing tribute message to his wife.

To celebrate her 31st birthday, Brooklyn shared a black and white photo from their vow renewal, which took place last August at Nicola’s family estate in Westchester, NY.

The photo showed them sweetly embracing with Nicola wearing her mum Claudia’s repurposed dress that she wore to her wedding in 1985.

READ MORE ON BROOKLYN BECKHAM

FAMILY REUNION?

Brooklyn Beckham reconciles with grandparents & chats to them regularly

FEUD BOMBSHELL

Brooklyn Beckham sends David and Victoria extraordinary legal notice

Brooklyn wrote: “My dear Nicola x happy birthday beautiful girl.

“I love you with all my heart and I am the luckiest man to call you my wife.

“You are the funniest and most hard working person I know.

“Can’t wait to stay young with you baby girl xx”

Although Brooklyn has switched off the comments on the post, it has been liked by over 30,000 people.

Just yesterday, it was revealed that Brooklyn is only in contact with his parents via the lawyers.

A breach of the legal letter was the reason why Brooklyn Beckham blocked his parents online after mum Victoria “liked” a roast chicken video he shared.

Posh’s positive response to his poultry recipe on Instagram then led to a fall-out last month, with youngest son Cruz, 20, posting: “They (my parents) woke up blocked . . . so did I.”

However, we revealed the blocking followed weeks of frustration from Brooklyn and his wife, Nicola, who believe their requests for private reconciliation were ignored.

‘Heart-breaking tale’

Transformers star Nicola has also now blocked the Beckhams.

Brooklyn’s grandparents and wider family, though, have not been blocked and regularly comment on his posts, which he is happy with.

A source said: “Truly, people do not know the full facts of this heart-breaking tale, and think Brooklyn was just being truculent when he blocked his parents.

“The reality is that he issued them with a letter at the end of last summer, asking for any correspondence to go via lawyers only, and wanted to try and make amends privately not publicly.

“He felt his parents continued to ignore his wishes and kept mentioning him online instead of reaching out privately.

“For their part, David and Victoria have simply tried to let their beloved eldest son know the door is always open, and that they still care.

“After this letter, they had no other physical means of reaching out to him so what were they to do?

“They of course feel utterly bemused and devastated by this latest turn of events. There is no malice from their part, only concern.

“But it is clear, if there is going to be any reconciliation, it will be away from prying eyes and must be done privately.

“That’s all anyone wants but, alas, seems a long, long way off given they are only now communicating through lawyers.”

Last month, Brooklyn took to Instagram to demonstrate his chicken-in-beer recipe, prompting a “like” from Victoria.

Within 48 hours, he had blocked his immediate family.

However, last year, Romeo, 23, and Cruz blocked their older brother on Instagram, before unblocking him some time after.

This, Brooklyn’s friends feel, was therefore the “first social media act of war”.

The Beckhams’ feud with Brooklyn and Nicola dates back almost four years, and has reached rock bottom.

Pals of the US-based pair claim it started after his brother, former ­Burberry model Romeo, began dating Brooklyn’s ex Kim Turnbull.

But the Beckhams lay the fault squarely at the feet of Nicola, accusing her of being “difficult”, and deny a romantic relationship between Kim and Brooklyn.

This criticism has understandably hurt the actress, whose tycoon dad, Nelson, is worth more than £3billion.

She believes the relationship with her future in-laws became untenable in the months leading up to her 2022 wedding.

She gave an interview to Variety magazine confirming Posh had reneged on an offer to design her gown, meaning she wore a bespoke Valentino dress instead.

Victoria was also devastated to have been accused of hijacking the wedding day itself after singer Marc Anthony — whom the Beckhams had booked — described the mum of four, not bride Nicola, as the “most beautiful woman in the room”.

Both Brooklyn and Nicola are said to have cried on their wedding day, and relations between the two families have not been the same since.

Despite a brief detente — Nicola supported the designer’s fashion show in Paris while Posh attended the red-carpet premiere of her movie Lola — things have since deteriorated.

They have not spoken in 13 months, with the most recent public fall-out occurring ahead of the ex-England captain’s star-studded 50th birthday celebrations last May.

Neither Brooklyn nor Nicola attended any of his week of events.

London, United Kingdom – Lawyers of imprisoned hunger-striking activists linked to the protest group Palestine Action have put the British government on notice as the justice secretary refuses to meet them.

Imran Khan & Partners, which represents the collective, wrote a pre-claim letter to the government on Monday, warning that they would seek a High Court case should officials fail to respond by Tuesday afternoon.

Eight activists, aged between 20 and 31, have participated in a rolling strike that began on November 2. There are rising fears that one or more of them could soon die in jail.

In recent days, their relatives and loved ones have told Al Jazeera of their deteriorating health and repeated hospital admissions.

Their lawyers have long called for a meeting with Justice Secretary David Lammy to discuss welfare and prison conditions, believing such an intervention could be life-saving.

But the government has so far refused, saying hunger strikes are not an unusual phenomenon in prisons and that policies to provide adequate medical care to anyone refusing food are being followed.

“Our clients’ food refusal constitutes the largest co-ordinated hunger strike in British history since 1981,” the lawyers wrote, referring to the Irish Republican inmates led by Bobby Sands. Sands and nine others died of starvation, one on day 46 of the protest.

“As of today’s date, [the current] strike has lasted up to 51 days, nearly two months, and poses a significant risk to their life with each passing day,” the lawyers wrote.

The detainees are being held in five prisons over their alleged involvement in break-ins at the United Kingdom’s subsidiary of the Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems in Bristol and a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire. They deny the charges against them, such as burglary and violent disorder.

Amu Gib, Heba Muraisi, Teuta Hoxha and Kamran Ahmed are on day 52, 51, 45 and 44 of their protests, respectively. Lewie Chiaramello, who is diabetic and refuses food every other day, began his protest 30 days ago.

Qesser Zuhrah, Jon Cink and Umer Khalid have ended their strike.

All eight will have spent more than a year in prison before their trials take place, well beyond the UK’s usual six-month pre-trial detention limit.

The hunger strikers’ five demands include immediate bail, the right to a fair trial and the de-proscription of Palestine Action, which accuses the UK government of complicity in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. The UK government banned Palestine Action in July, branding it a “terror” group, a label that applies to groups such as ISIL (ISIS). The protesters have called for an end to alleged censorship in prison, accusing authorities of withholding mail, calls and books. They are also urging that all Elbit sites be closed.

‘Engage with each one’

Leading human rights barrister Michael Mansfield has backed calls for the government to intervene.

“It’s a simple proposition, engage with each one,” he told Al Jazeera. “That’s your job [as government], that’s what you’re there for. You are safeguarding people’s health, welfare and life.”

In a letter addressed to Lammy, he wrote, “Fundamental human rights in the United Kingdom are being destroyed in this quagmire of disinterest and populist politics, the most important being the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial by means of preparation and due process.

“There has to be an equality of arms which can hardly be achieved when a defendant is held in oppressive and lengthy periods of remand.”

Families of the prisoners have alleged mistreatment in prison, saying some detainees have been verbally abused and left without care in dangerous health conditions. The Ministry of Justice has denied these accusations and says it cannot comment on individual cases.

“Government takes action when it chooses to,” Mansfield wrote. “There could be no more appropriate time than now with the life-endangering protest by the hunger strikers. The delay is grotesque in some cases, up to two years with trial dates being set in 2027.”

Nida Jafri, a friend of hunger striker Amu Gib, plans to deliver Mansfield’s letter – and one of her own – in hand to the Ministry of Justice on Tuesday.

“These people are on remand – not convicted, still awaiting full legal process,” reads Jafri’s letter. “They are weak, in pain, and visibly wasting away. The absence of adequate medical observation or humane treatment under prison or hospital care is not only unacceptable; it breaches fundamental rights to health, dignity, and life.”

NEW YORK — The Senate’s top Democrat urged his colleagues Monday to take legal action over the Justice Department’s incremental and heavily redacted release of records pertaining to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that required disclosure of records by last Friday.

“Instead of transparency, the Trump administration released a tiny fraction of the files and blacked out massive portions of what little they provided,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “This is a blatant cover-up.”

In lieu of Republican support, Schumer’s resolution is largely symbolic. The Senate is off until Jan. 5, more than two weeks after the deadline. Even then, the resolution will likely face an uphill battle for passage. But it allows Democrats to continue a pressure campaign for disclosure that Republicans had hoped to put behind them.

The Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis by the end of the year. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring victims’ names and other identifying information. So far, the department hasn’t given any notice when new records arrive.

That approach angered some accusers and members of Congress who fought to pass the transparency act. Records that were released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context.

There were few revelations in the tens of thousands of pages of records that have been released so far. Some of the most eagerly awaited records, such as FBI victim interviews and internal memos shedding light on charging decisions, weren’t there.

Nor were there any mentions of some powerful figures who’ve been in Epstein’s orbit, like Britain’s former Prince Andrew.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Justice Department’s decision to release just a fraction of the files by the deadline as necessary to protect survivors of sexual abuse by the disgraced financier.

Blanche pledged that the Trump administration would meet its obligation required by law. But he stressed that the department was obligated to act with caution as it goes about making public thousands of documents that can include sensitive information.

Blanche, the Justice Department’s second-in-command, also defended its decision to remove several files related to the case from its public webpage, including a photograph showing Donald Trump, less than a day after they were posted.

The missing files, which were available Friday but no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one of a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Blanche said the documents were removed because they also showed victims of Epstein. Blanche said the Trump photo and the other documents will be reposted once redactions are made to protect survivors.

“We are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with Mr. Epstein, and that narrative, which is not based on fact at all, is completely false,” Blanche told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Blanche said Trump, a Republican, has labeled the Epstein matter “a hoax” because “there’s this narrative out there that the Department of Justice is hiding and protecting information about him, which is completely false.”

“The Epstein files existed for years and years and years and you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years and yet … lo and behold, all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer suddenly cares about the Epstein files,” Blanche said. “That’s the hoax.”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — The government of President Rodrigo Paz said it will push to revise Bolivia’s legal framework for coca leaf cultivation after official data showed that planted areas exceed authorized limits and continue to expand.

According to the 2024 Coca Crop Monitoring Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, presented in La Paz, Bolivia ended 2024 with about 34,000 hectares of coca crops, a 10% increase from the previous year.

That figure exceeds by 12,000 hectares the cap set by the 2017 General Law of Coca, which authorizes 22,000 hectares for legal cultivation.

Coca leaf is recognized in Bolivia’s Constitution for traditional, medicinal and cultural uses, but part of the production is diverted to cocaine manufacturing, the report said.

Earlier this month, the World Health Organization decided to keep coca leaf on its list of controlled substances, citing the risk to public health posed by its easy conversion into cocaine.

Against that backdrop, the Office on Drugs and Crime urged the Paz administration to strengthen control strategies, particularly in protected areas, and to update data on domestic demand for licit consumption.

Vice Minister for Social Defense and Controlled Substances Ernesto Justiniano said the government plans to amend the law, but said new parameters will depend on a fresh study to determine how much coca is needed for traditional use in Bolivia, according to local newspaper El Deber.

“Bolivia has more coca than it needs for traditional uses. Crops have not stayed at 22,000 hectares. By 2024, they were at 34,000, and in the next report, we will probably be close to 40,000 hectares because very little was eradicated this year — barely 1,700 hectares,” Justiniano said.

He said he recalled a study released in 2013 estimated that 14,700 hectares were sufficient for legal consumption, but that the limit was raised to 22,000 hectares in 2017 — a decision the new government now questions as lacking “technical justification,” the outlet ERBOL reported.

At the same time, the government said the eradication of illegal coca crops will again become a central pillar of its anti-drug strategy, with a focus on what it calls surplus production feeding drug trafficking.

To prepare the new study on domestic demand for coca leaf, authorities said they will invite representatives from coca-growing groups, academic institutions and other sectors to ensure transparency of the data.

Officials expect that once the findings are released, negotiations will begin with coca growers from the Chapare, a coca-producing region in central Bolivia.

Justiniano said farmers there blocked eradication efforts this year, mainly in the tropical Cochabamba region, an area widely regarded as the political stronghold of former President Evo Morales.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — There are no legal or national security justifications for the Trump administration’s attacks on ships in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea, Sen. Chris Murphy said following a bipartisan classified briefing on the strikes.

At least 95 people have been killed in 25 military strikes on ships the Trump administration accuses of being used by drug cartels and gangs designated as terrorist organizations since Sept. 2.

The strikes have drawn mounting domestic and international condemnation and questions over their legality by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

The administration defends the strikes as legal under both U.S. and international law, arguing the United States is at war with the drug cartels who are flooding the country with deadly substances.

State Secretary Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a classified briefing on the strikes with members of Congress on Tuesday, with many Democrats, including Murphy, D-Conn., calling foul.

“While I obviously can’t tell you any classified information I learned, I can tell you this: that the administration had no legal justification for these strikes, and no national justification for these strikes,” Murphy said in a video posted to his X account.

On the national security front, the administration admitted to the lawmakers that there is no fentanyl coming to the United States from Venezuela and the cocaine that is coming from Venezuela is mostly going to Europe, he said.

“And so we are spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to wage a war in the Caribbean to stop cocaine from going from Venezuela to Europe,” he said. “That is a massive waste of national security resources and of your taxpayer dollars.”

On the legal front, the administration is justifying the strikes by stating they are targeting gangs and cartels that the Trump administration has designated as terrorist organizations.

Since February, President Donald Trump has designated 10 cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations, with Clan de Golfo blacklisted on Tuesday.

Murphy said that while the president has the power to designate groups as terrorist organizations, it does not give him the ability to carry out military strikes targeting them.

“A designated ‘terrorist organization’ allows the president to impose sanctions on those organizations and individuals,” he said. “Only Congress, only the American public, can authorize war. And there’s just no question that these are acts of war.”

SIMON Cowell could be locked in another copyright row after it emerged a group of British rockers also share the same name as his newly formed group.

Tattooed Scottish band December Tenth told the music mogul to get his lawyers to call them over the name dispute.

This week Netflix announced his new show Next Act will feature his latest band – December 10.

The seven-piece group – which conissits of Nicolas Alves, 16, Cruz Lee-Ojo, 19, Hendrik Christoffersen, 19, John Fadare, 17, Josh Olliver, 17, Danny Bretherton, 16, and Seán Hayden, 19 – released their new music earlier this week.

But they have an unexpected rivalry in the form of the Glasgow-based metallers, who are named after the date their pen pal was executed on death row.

They have challenged Simon after he and Netflix announced the new boy band with a very similar name to their group.

READ MORE ON SIMON COWELL

SI’S NEXTFLIX

Simon Cowell’s new band December 10 set for new doc about first crack at fame

POP SENSATION

Watch Simon Cowell’s new boyband December 10’s debut video Bye Bye Bye

In a post on social media the lead singer of the band said: “It came to light over the last few days that Simon Cowell, Netflix and Universal Music, are involved in a new boy band that share, to some extent, our name December Tenth.

“Now if anyone in Simon’s team, Universal or Netflix, would like to get in touch with ourselves and our legal team they can do so.

“I would like to point out, the hundreds of new followers we have over the last few days are most welcome, but I’m not entirely sure they are all genuine.”

The band, who formed in 2020, have also been swamped with messages with confused boy band fans who mistakenly followed them online.

He added: “Our social media accounts have blew up and we had no idea why. It turns out that Simon Cowell has released a new Netflix show, called “December 10”.

“We are now being inundated with well wishes from fans of the show thinking we are that band.”

It’s not the first time Simon has faced issues over a pop group’s name.

In 2011 X Factor was forced to change their girl band Rhythmix to Little Mix after a disabled children’s charity in Brighton with the same name threatened them with legal action.