OKs

Nov. 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has dispersed an additional $155 million for western North Carolina to fund 130 projects from Tropical Storm Helene.

The funding is the most allocated in the state for the storm, which struck the western Appalachian region Sept. 27, causing widespread river flooding and landslides with 30 inches of rain in some areas. There were 85 direct and indirect deaths in the state.

The 2024 storm was the costliest and deadliest in North Carolina’s history at $60 billion. Helene had intensified into a Category 4 hurricane and made landfall in western Florida before hitting the Carolinas. The total impact was $79.8 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

More than $957 million has been provided for road repair, debris removal, infrastructure repair and emergency protective measures. Since Donald Trump became president Jan. 20, more than $632 million in public assistance reimbursements have been approved to support the recovery efforts in North Carolina. 

A senior HHS spokesman said Trump and HHS Secretary Kristi Noem “are committed to streamlining aid and supporting North Carolina’s recovery from Tropical Storm Helene and other disasters. These millions of dollars in federal assistance will help communities repair critical infrastructure, restore essential services and continue rebuilding stronger for the future.”

The grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency include $54 million to the North Carolina Department of Transportation to rebuild roads and bridges.

Also, $40 million was awarded for two utilities — French Broad Electric Co. and Rutherford Electric Membership Corp. — for repairs and emergency protective measures.

Other funding includes $14.8 million to Henderson County, $9.6 million to Buncombe County, $1.6 million for city of Boone, $1.4 million for Paddy’s Creek Beach and Catawba Beach, $1.3 million to the Buncombe County School District.

State officials are awaiting on other funding, NC Newsline reported.

A $1.4 billion pool of grant money for a homebuilding program that now has more than 4,000 applicants. Also, another grant program allows FEMA to buy out private properties with applications pending for months.

Oct. 30 (UPI) — President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has signed a new law that increases penalties and expands enforcement tools to combat organized crime in Brazil amid growing concern over violence in states such as Rio de Janeiro.

The measure, published Thursday in the Diário Oficial, imposes harsher penalties on those who obstruct investigations or collaborate with criminal organizations and provides greater protection for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers involved in such operations.

The legislation, which amends the Penal Code and the 2013 Law on Criminal Organizations, sets prison terms of up to 12 years for anyone who interferes with judicial proceedings or intimidates authorities. It also requires those convicted of these crimes to serve their sentences in federal maximum-security prisons.

The Brazilian government says the law strengthens the state’s ability to confront factions such as Comando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital, which are responsible for much of the country’s urban violence.

“We will not allow organized crime to continue oppressing communities and defying the Brazilian state,” Lula said during the signing ceremony at the Planalto Palace, according to Correio Braziliense.

The law’s enactment comes two days after a large-scale operation in the state of Rio de Janeiro targeting the Comando Vermelho faction, which reignited debate over urban violence and the use of force in the favelas.

Early Tuesday morning, security forces entered the Penha and Alemão favela complexes with armored vehicles, helicopters and drones. Criminal gangs responded by blocking streets, setting vehicles on fire to use as barricades and dropping explosives from drones.

The confrontation left 113 people arrested, 71 rifles seized and 121 dead, according to updated figures from Rio de Janeiro’s Public Defender’s Office. Among the dead were four police officers and dozens of suspected criminals.

The incident sparked concern within Brazil’s federal government and several states, where officials warned about the growing power of criminal organizations and the need for a coordinated response to contain their expansion.

Rio de Janeiro Gov. Cláudio Castro ordered increased patrols across the state amid fears of reprisals.

In a post on X, Castro said the Combat Operations Regiment — an elite unit that specializes in operations against organized crime, particularly in favelas and high-risk areas — had intensified police patrols along the Linha Amarela, one of Rio’s main urban highways connecting northern and western districts with the airport and other strategic areas.

The situation in Brazil also raised alarms in Argentina.

Argentina’s Security Minister Patricia Bullrich announced a “maximum alert” along the tri-border area shared with Brazil and Paraguay. She said migration controls would be tightened and surveillance increased to prevent members of the Comando Vermelho from crossing into the country.

“I will impose a maximum alert at the borders to ensure there is no crossing or passage by those who are evidently moving because of the conflict centered in Rio,” Bullrich told reporters at the presidential palace, according to Perfil.

Sept. 10 (UPI) — The Trump administration approved an assistance package worth $14.2 million to assist Lebanon with its efforts to disarm Hezbollah, the U.S. Defense Department announced Wednesday.

The Lebanese military will use funds from the Presidential Drawdown Authority package to dismantle arms held by non-state groups, including Hezbollah.

On Friday, the Lebanese government welcomed a plan by its army to disarm the Iran-backed Hezbollah. This came after Lebanon’s Cabinet approved of a U.S. proposal to direct the Lebanese military to enforce a state monopoly on weapons by the end of the year.

A release from the Pentagon said the package will provide the Lebanese military with the ability to carry out patrols and dispose of unexploded ordnance.

Through the package, the U.S. Defense Department is “empowering” the Lebanese military “in degrading Hezbollah in alignment with the administration’s priority to counter Iranian-backed terrorist groups in the region,” the release said.

During last week’s meeting between the Lebanese Cabinet and military, all five Shiite ministers, four of who represent Hezbollah and its main ally, the Amal Movement, left in protest of the disarmament plan. They said any plan to disarm Hezbollah must start with discussing a defense strategy to protect the country.

As part of the Nov. 27 cease-fire deal to end the 14-month war between Lebanon and Hezbollah, all parties agreed to discuss a national defense strategy. Hezbollah, however resisted government plans to set a deadline for disarmament.

Dalal Saoud contributed to this report.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed legislation for a new congressional map in the state in an attempt to add five GOP seats in the U.S. House for the 2026 midterm elections.

The border-changing in the Lone Star state has triggered efforts in other states to redraw their maps, including Democrat-dominant California, the largest state ahead of Texas.

Early Saturday, the Texas Senate sent the legislation to the governor for the new redistricting maps, three days after the state’s House passed the bill. For several days, the House couldn’t reach a quorum because Democrats fled the state, including to California and New York. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton sought to arrest them.

“Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law,” Abbott said in a video on X. “This map ensures fairer representation in Congress. Texas will be more RED in Congress.”

Holding the document with his signature, he said: “Texas is now more read in the United States Congress.”

The state currently has 38 congressional districts, 25 of which are controlled by Republicans.

In the U.S. House, Republicans currently hold a 219-212 advantage with vacancies from the deaths of three Democrats and one GOP member who resigned.

Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn every decade after data is released from the U.S. Census, which is next scheduled to take place in 2030.

President Donald Trump had asked Abbott to redraw the borders, which required a 30-day special legislative session. When Trump was first president, Democrats took control of the House in 2018. This led to blocking some of his legislative policies and two impeachments.

“I promised we would get this done, and delivered on that promise,” Abbott said in the statement after the Senate approval, calling the legislation “a bill that ensures our maps reflect Texans’ voting preferences.”

He had vowed to call additional special sessions if the quorum still was elusive.

State Sen. Phil King, a Republican, said while the maps will create more competitive districts, he expects Republicans will win the seats.

He said with House Bill 4 that “I believe, should elect more Republicans to the U.S. Congress, but I’m here to tell you, there are no guarantees.”

The redistricted maps are facing a court test. A three-judge panel in a U.S. District court in El Paso set a preliminary injunction hearing for Oct. 1-10.

“This isn’t over — we’ll see these clowns in court,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Kendall Scudder said. “We aren’t done fighting against these racially discriminatory maps, and fully expect the letter of the law to prevail over these sycophantic Republican politicians who think the rules don’t apply to them.”

Democrats say the new borders are racially discriminatory, including in metro areas of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin.

“Members, it breaks my heart to see how this illegal and rigged mid-decade redistricting scheme is dividing our state and our country,” Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat, said. “This is Texas, it’s not Washington D.C. The impulses of outside politicians and their billionaire backers shouldn’t dictate what we do in this chamber, in this House.”

Rep. Todd Hunter, a Republican who wrote the bill, said four of the five new districts were “majority-minority Hispanic” but now trending Republican.

And in California, the new map could add five seats for Democrats, who hold a 43-9 edge. But unlike in Texas, voters in November must approve the change. California’s borders are drawn by a nonpartisan group and new legislation left it up to a referendum.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the so-called “Election Rigging Response Act” on Aug. 21.

“The People of California will be able to cast their vote for a Congressional map. Direct democracy that gives us a fighting chance to STOP Donald Trump’s election rigging,” Newsom said on X after the legislation was approved. “Time to fight fire with fire.”

Other states with a Democratic majority, including Illinois, New York, Maryland and Oregon, are considering changing the borders.

On the flip side, legislatures in Ohio, Indiana and Florida may redraw congressional borders before the 2026 midterm elections.

And late Friday, Missouri’s Gov. Mike Kehoe announced a special legislative session to draw a new voting map for his state will begin next Wednesday. Trump had been requesting the move in that state, too.

These states traditionally redo their borders at the start of each decade but in Ohio, under state law, a new congressional map must be approved by November 30. The previous map lacked bipartisan support.

On Tuesday, Utah Judge Dianna Gibson threw out the state’s congressional map, forcing Republicans to defend the current lines or draw a new one. Republicans overruled a ballot measure passed by voters to outlaw gerrymandering.

Republican legislatures control 28 of the 50 states with 18 by Democrats and four chambers divided politically.

July 23 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission as the case proceeds through the courts in another emergency appeal on firings backed by the conservative-dominated court.

The court, in a 6-3 opinion along ideological lines, ruled in a lawsuit brought by Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., who were nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said the court majority decided on the emergency appeal to “destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress.”

The majority opinion was unsigned and based upon an earlier 6-3 order that allowed the dismissal of two independent labor boards in Trump vs. Wilcox: the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,” the court ruled. “The stay we issued in Wilcox reflected ‘our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.’

“The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect.”

The order is stayed pending disposition by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va. On July 1, the three-judge panel rejected Trump’s request for an administrative stay pending appeal.

“Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority, and no court has found that constraint unconstitutional,” the appeals court said. “The district court correctly declined to permit a President — any President — to disregard those limits.”

District Judge Matthew Maddox found on June 13 that Trump’s removal was unlawful and blocked it. Maddox, who serves in Maryland, was appointed by President Joe Biden.

“Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public’s interest in safe consumer products,” Maddox wrote in his decision. “This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs’ participation on the CPSC.”

The terms of the five members are staggered to overlap during presidencies.

Boyle’s term was to end in October after filling a vacancy in 2022, with Hoehn-Saric in October 2027 and Trumka in October 2028. The board consists of five members, and they are operating as a two-member quorum, which is allowed for six months.

The remaining members are Acting Chairman Peter Feldman, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, and Republican Douglas Dziak, who was appointed by Biden in 2024.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court ruling that Maddox’s decision has “sown chaos and dysfunction” at the agency.

In May, the three commissioners were notified their positions were terminated immediately. A president can legally only remove a commissioner for neglect of duty of malfeasance.

The court has allowed the termination of employees as the cases proceed through the courts.

Lower court judges have relied on a decision in 1935, called Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, about the mass firings. The Supreme Court has said it will act on this matter.

On July 14, the justices allowed the Trump administration to mass fire half of the Education Department. Trump wants the agency abolished, and the court has not ruled on that decision, which requires a vote by the U.S. Senate.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was created in 1972, protects consumers from dangerous products, including issuing safety standards and recalls.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat representing Minnesota, criticized the decision, saying: “For over 50 years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been free from politics so it can remain focused on its core mission of keeping Americans safe – from banning lead paint, to ensuring electronics aren’t fire hazards, to making swimming pools safe for kids. Last year alone, the Commission recalled 153 million unsafe items.”

“By firing the three Democratic commissioners, the President has undermined the independent structure of the Commission and its critical work — and the Supreme Court is letting it happen,” added the member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump the authority to dismantle the Education Department and to fire about half of its staff.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservatives set aside a Boston judge’s order and cleared the way for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to carry out her plans to shut down much of her department.

The court issued a brief order with no explanation, followed by a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that spoke for the three liberals.

“Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” she wrote.

“Yet, by executive fiat, the President ordered the Secretary of Education to ‘take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department’ … Consistent with that Executive Order, Secretary Linda McMahon gutted the Department’s work force, firing over 50 percent of its staff overnight. In her own words, that mass termination served as ‘the first step on the road to a total shutdown’ of the Department.”

McMahon called the decision a “significant win for students and families. … It is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.”

The Department of Education was created in 1979 under President Carter, and it has been a favorite of Democrats since then. It sends funds to school districts across the nation to support extra help for students, including those with disabilities, and it administers programs for grants and loans for students in colleges and universities.

Republicans have been anxious to dismantle the Education Department for decades. They say education policy should be left mostly to states and argue that the teachers unions have too much sway in Washington.

But they also say they would not change or block the federal funding that now goes to support schools and higher education students.

Last week, the court upheld the Trump administration plans for mass layoffs in the more than 20 departments and agencies.

Attorneys for California and 10 other Democratic-led states had sued to block the planned layoffs of about 1,400 Education Department employees, and they won before a federal judge in Boston and the 1st Circuit Court.

Those judges said Congress could reduce or redirect funding from the Education Department, but the president was not free to do it on his own.

But in last week’s order as well as Monday’s, the court’s majority sided with Trump and his broad view of executive power.

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the administration decided it can “carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared down staff” at the Education Department.

Democracy Forward, a progressive group that sued on behalf of educators, said it was “incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward. This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for the Trump administration to lay off tens of thousands of federal employees and downsize their agencies without seeking the approval of Congress.

In an 8-1 vote, the justices lifted an order from a federal judge in San Francisco who blocked mass layoffs at more than 20 departments and agencies.

The court has sided regularly with President Trump and his broad view of executive power on matters involving federal agencies.

In a brief order, the court said “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful,” referring to the plans to reduce staffing. But it said it was not ruling on specific layoffs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the decision on the grounds that it was narrow and temporary.

Dissenting alone, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should not have intervened.

“Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions,” she wrote.

Since mid-April, the court has handed down a series of temporary orders that cleared the way for Trump’s planned cutbacks in funding and staffing at federal agencies.

Litigation will continue in the lower courts, but the justices are not likely to reverse course and rule next year that they made a mistake in allowing the staffing cutbacks to proceed.

The layoff case posed the question of whether Congress or the president had the authority to downsize agencies.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said Congress, not the president, creates federal agencies and decides on their size and their duties.

“Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress,” she said on May 22.

Her order barred more than 20 departments and agencies from carrying out mass layoffs in response to an executive order from Trump.

They included the departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation and Veterans Affairs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration and the National Science Foundation.

She said the planned layoffs are large. The Health and Human Services department plans to cut 8,000 to 10,000 employees and the Energy Department 8,500. The Veterans Administration had planned to lay off 83,000 employees but said recently it will reduce that number to about 30,000.

Labor unions had sued to stop the layoffs as illegal.

Illson agreed that the agencies were not acting on their own to trim their staffs. Rather, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget under Russ Vought was leading the reorganization and restructuring of dozen of agencies. She said only Congress can reorganize agencies.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, turned down the administration’s appeal of the judge’s order.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers insisted the president had the full authority to fire tens of thousands of employees.

“The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said in his appeal, “and the President does not need special permission from Congress.”

He said federal law allows agencies to reduce their staffs.

“Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has ever intended to make federal bureaucrats a class with lifetime employment, whether there was work for them to do or not,” Sauer wrote.

June 23 (UPI) — The parent company behind the Truth Social social media platform announced Monday it will buy back millions of dollars’ worth of its own stock.

The Trump Media and Technology Group Corp., or DJT, of which President Donald Trump indirectly owns more than 114 million shares via a revocable trust and is the largest shareholder, stated in a press release that its board of directors has approved the repurchase of up to $400 million of the company’s common stock.

“The board took a vote of confidence in our company, our stock and our strategic plans,” said Trump Media’s CEO and Chairman Devin Nunes. “Since Trump Media now has approximately $3 billion on its balance sheet, we have the flexibility to take actions like this which support strong shareholder returns, as we continue exploring further strategic opportunities.”

DJT is the operator of Truth Social, the streaming platform Truth+ and the FinTech brand Truth.Fi.

The buybacks, comprised of either stocks or warrants, would be achieved through open-market transactions, with repurchased shares to then be retired by the company. According to the release, the “timing and amount of the repurchases would be at Trump Media’s discretion, in compliance with relevant Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations.”

The share repurchases would be funded separately from Trump Media’s previously announced Bitcoin treasury strategy, which featured a private placement offering of approximately $2.3 billion and won’t be changed by the buyback.

The announcement also notes that DJT might also consider repurchasing its outstanding convertible notes in either open-market or privately negotiated transactions and will maintain its discretion in regard of any related prices, terms and factors which would apply to such repurchases.

The move follows Trump Media’s $2.5 billion raise last month from institutional investors, which it says would be used to buy bitcoin with custody provided by Anchorage Digital and Crypto.com.

June 20 (UPI) — Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday.

California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years.

In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California’s clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices.

“This case concerns only standing, not the merits,” Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. “EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA’s approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers’ challenge to EPA’s approval of the California regulations is evident.”

The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California’s stricter standard.

The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term.

When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions.

Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California’s electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order.

“You couldn’t buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts,” Trump said last week. “They don’t have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you’d have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants.”

Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California’s regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit.

Automakers were involved in the case.

California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff’s injury.

The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California’s mandate and hence the regulations wouldn’t have an impact.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit.

“If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?” Kavanaugh wrote.

“The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell.”

Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot.

“I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,” Sotomayor wrote.

She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again.

Jackson said her colleagues weren’t applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,” Jackson wrote.

The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian.

“The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,” Patton said. “While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California’s bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.”