WASHINGTON — The curtain started to come down for President Trump at the Kennedy Center on Saturday.
After a day of legal maneuvers and thunderstorms, workers began the process in the early morning hours of removing the letters spelling out Trump’s name from the facade of the performing arts venue. They were a few hours past a court-ordered deadline and did their work shrouded by a tarp, much to the frustration of onlookers who had gathered for hours hoping to witness a dramatic moment symbolizing the limits of Trump’s power.
As the sun rose over Washington, the tarp remained in place, leaving it impossible to determine whether all the letters had been removed. Shortly after midnight, the Kennedy Center asked a judge to extend the deadline until noon Eastern time, citing the storms for delaying the work. The court agreed to that request Saturday morning.
The removal of Trump’s name closes one of the more unusual chapters in the history of the Kennedy Center, which began construction in 1964 and was dedicated to the memory of the slain president, John F. Kennedy. At what is typically one of the few relatively nonpartisan spaces in Washington, Trump has exerted unprecedented executive influence over the congressionally created venue during his second term.
Though he rarely discussed the Kennedy Center during his 2024 campaign, Trump moved quickly to oust the institution’s leadership when he returned to office in January 2025 and replaced it with a board of trustees that named him chairman. It rebranded the venue the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” and his name was quickly added to the building’s exterior, though an official name change would require an act of Congress.
While the removal of his name marks a setback for Trump, he is moving forward with other plans to reshape the physical landscape of the nation’s capital in ways that have few modern parallels.
He demolished the East Wing of the White House and is building a controversial ballroom in its place. He remodeled the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and plans extensive renovations of a golf course in East Potomac Park, moves that could significantly reduce the public’s access to running and biking paths. He is also moving forward with a triumphal arch that would sit near Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac River in Virginia.
Indeed, as Trump’s name is being removed from the Kennedy Center, the South Lawn of the White House has been transformed into a venue for a UFC match intended to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence but also coinciding with Trump’s birthday on Sunday.
Back at the Kennedy Center, there are many questions about the institution’s future. The same May court decision that ordered Trump’s name to be removed from the building also blocked a planned two-year closure for renovations that was set to begin next month.
The Kennedy Center’s calendar for the weeks ahead include performances of “Moulin Rouge! The Musical” and “Bluey’s Big Play.” Comedian Bill Maher is to be awarded the Mark Twain Award for American Humor during a ceremony on June 28.
But little is scheduled for the stages beyond that and, after the Kennedy Center substantially reduced staff, it is unclear how quickly it could build out a robust performance list. Trump, angered by the court’s order to remove his name, has said he would turn the Kennedy Center over to Congress and has suggested it might simply shutter because of public safety concerns.
In its unsuccessful appeal Friday seeking a pause on the order removing Trump’s name, the Kennedy Center’s leadership argued, in terms similar to the president’s use of language and framing of the argument, that the lower court was interfering with needed renovations.
“The District Court is not allowing us to close in order to properly fix up and repair the Building, including potentially life threatening structural damage like beams and parking garage ceilings that are rusted, and in serious danger of falling onto people below,” according to the appeal. “Indeed, total collapse!”
The institution also suggested that the president’s name could return to the building if the Kennedy Center later wins its appeal.
If the court denied the venue’s request for a pause, the Kennedy Center argued that it would “be forced to squander time and money — by both removing the signage and then potentially returning it after appeal.”
Sloan writes for the Associated Press.
Crews erected scaffolding on Friday as onlookers gathered into the evening, though storms delayed the work until Saturday.
Source link
The US president has sought to reshape the capital city’s image and institutions through series of plans and projects.
Published On 12 Jun 202612 Jun 2026
President Donald Trump’s name is set to be removed from the facade of the Kennedy Center, an entertainment and cultural institution in Washington, DC, after a judge rejected a last-minute request to keep it in place.
US District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed an effort by the centre’s board, whose members were handpicked by Trump, to reverse a previous order taking his name off the building by Friday.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The saga is yet another example of Trump’s effort to make changes to major sites and institutions across the nation’s capital, on which he has sought to impose himself through a series of planned projects that include an enormous triumphal arch and a White House ballroom.
Many of those efforts have faced legal challenges.
Trump dismissed the centre’s previous leadership and appointed a board that named him chairman.
Cooper had ruled last month that the addition of Trump’s name to the exterior of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was illegal and ordered its removal.
“Unfortunately, Judge Cooper and the Radical Left would rather see it DIE than have President Trump transform it into something that everyone could be proud of,” Trump wrote in a 580-word social media post at the time, slamming the decision, referring to himself in third-person.
A June 4 memo from the centre’s Office of General Counsel had instructed staff to use the name “The John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or “Kennedy Center” in email signatures, letterhead and other documents. The centre’s website also dropped Trump’s name.
But the board attempted to salvage the change in an appeal on Thursday, appealing a previous ruling that denied their request for a stay. Cooper rejected that request on Friday.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge agreed on Friday to extend a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s creation and operation of a $1.8 billion settlement fund for compensating people who claim to be victims of a weaponized government.
Earlier this month, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping its plans for the fund in the face of a fierce bipartisan backlash. Government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the fund are now moot, but plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t satisfied by Blanche’s assurances that the fund won’t move forward.
Neither was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will remain blocked until further notice from the court.
“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” the judge said.
President Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. He has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.
Brinkema gave the parties a week to negotiate an agreement for Blanche to submit a sworn declaration that the administration won’t revive the fund.
Brinkema previously agreed to temporarily block the administration from proceeding with the fund for at least two weeks. Her May 29 order was due to expire on Friday.
Trump’s Republican administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.
Plaintiffs who sued to block fund payouts argue that the government can’t legally divert taxpayer money into what they argue is a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies.
In a separate case on Wednesday, a different judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from forging ahead with the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he accepts Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.
Leon had asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind his May 18 order establishing the fund. Block said he didn’t know. He still didn’t have an answer to that question when Brinkema posed it two days later.
“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” the judge said.
In the Virginia case, attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward asked for an order to temporarily suspend the fund’s implementation and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.
The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.
Even before the administration said it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission that would decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out nor claims accepted.
Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.
Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the Jan. 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.
Brinkema was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat.
Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — After Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cut nine Navy officers, including all the women, from a promotion list, several female officers say they see the unusual intervention as a sign that their careers now have a ceiling and worry for the future generation of female military leaders.
The Navy had selected 31 sailors to promote from the rank of captain to one-star admiral, but Hegseth recently intervened to strike nine people from the list, including three women and two Black men, according to a Defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss information not permitted to be released publicly.
As a result, the Navy is not promoting a single woman to the one-star admiral rank this year even though women make up about one-quarter of all Navy officers and nearly one-third of the sea service’s midgrade ranks, according to military data from 2024.
The Associated Press spoke with eight female Navy officers of varying ranks and time in service after Hegseth’s cuts, which were reported earlier by the New York Times, became public. They spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution from their superiors.
The more junior officers said they saw the development as a sign that their careers would become politicized if they rose too far in the ranks, and some said they felt they now had a limit on how far they could be promoted. Some said it made them feel less valued within the military and wondered whether that wasn’t part of the intent.
The Pentagon has not offered any rationale on why the women, or any of the other six people, were removed from the promotion list.
Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s top spokesman, said on social media last week that “military promotions are given to those who have earned them” and that the Pentagon “will never consider the color of a service member’s skin or their gender as a factor in promotions.” The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request seeking further comment.
The Navy’s process for choosing which officers to promote to the one-star rank has been relatively constant and transparent over the years. The service convenes a group of officers, called a promotion board, that examines the records of eligible officers and chooses those deemed to be the most qualified.
The board that selected the initial slate of 31 officers for promotion was directed by then-Navy Secretary John Phelan, an appointee of President Trump, to “recommend for promotion the best qualified officers within their respective competitive category.”
The order from Phelan, who abruptly departed his post in April, said the board should consider an officer’s performance, competence and character, among other traits, as part of those qualifications.
It also said that given China’s prominence in the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy, “special consideration shall be given to officers who have excelled in their knowledge of the political military affairs and U.S. strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region, and operational contingency planning for Indo-Pacific war plans.”
Hegseth has long argued, without offering evidence, that women in the military benefit from preferential treatment and are not suited for combat roles.
“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth told hundreds of military leaders in September.
The approach, he asserted, made the Pentagon “less capable and less lethal.”
Phelan’s order said the Navy cannot discriminate based on criteria such as race and sex, and it specifically noted that “this guidance shall not be interpreted as requiring or permitting preferential treatment of any officer or group of officers on the grounds of race, religion, color, sex.”
The full list of 31 people to be promoted was approved by Phelan, other Navy leaders and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, before it reached Hegseth, who chose to make the changes, the Defense official said.
While Hegseth is within his rights to intervene in the list, “it’s just not the norm” and is “a break from tradition,” said Katherine Kuzminski, a researcher specializing in military recruiting and retention at the Center for New American Security think tank. She said that promotions historically have been seen as “the services’ business.”
Kuzminski noted that “this is a decision that’s not being made by the Navy — it’s being made by the secretary of Defense,” and she said Hegseth’s growing interference in operational aspects of the military services such as promotions is creating “tension” about what “normal” will look like going forward.
Some of the more senior Navy officers who spoke with the AP expressed concerns about the message it sends to the next generation of young sailors.
In addition to pulling the recent promotions of three women to admiral, Hegseth shortly after he took office fired Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the service’s top officer and the first woman to hold the job. He never explained his rationale.
Since then, he also has fired two other female three-star admirals without explanation.
Some of the officers who spoke to the AP said that while they were encouraging female sailors to stick with the Navy, they acknowledged that message is coming at a difficult time.
Kuzminski said the rhetoric and actions surrounding women in the military “affects individual service member decision-making and it also affects family unit decision-making,” including whether people make a career of the military.
Kuzminski said that following the months-long hold on military promotions by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) during the Biden administration, surveys showed that partisan politics spilling into the day-to-day lives of troops affected their decision-making.
One officer said this impact was not confined to women.
In conversations with other sailors in her unit, she said that male sailors were hesitant to deal with what appears to be a growing politicization of simply following the orders of previous administrations.
Toropin writes for the Associated Press.
This story includes spoilers for “Masters of the Universe.”
He-Man has made his way back to the big screen thanks to the power of Grayskull — and Hollywood’s love of nostalgia.
Now in theaters, “Masters of the Universe” stars Nicholas Galitzine as Eternia’s long-lost Prince Adam. Working a menial HR job after getting stranded on Earth as a child, Adam “(he/him)” dreams of reuniting with his Sword of Power in order to make his way back home.
Spoiler: He does (with a little help from his friends).
Helmed by “Bumblebee” and “Kubo and the Two Strings” director Travis Knight, the movie is “a dopey, friendly comedy about modern masculinity in crisis with a He-Man who openly wonders what kind of a man to be,” according to a review by Times film critic Amy Nicholson.
Much like the first live-action film around the popular 1980s toyline, the new “Masters of the Universe” features a couple of post-credits scenes that tease what could come in the franchise’s future. But for now, fans will have to wait to learn whether a sequel is forthcoming.
Fans of the He-Man franchise can rejoice because everyone’s favorite floating wizard (and court jester) does make an appearance after the main “Masters of the Universe” story ends. In a nod to the animated Filmation series in which the character originated, Orko appears in a brief stinger after the conclusion of the film in order to share what lessons audiences could learn from the story they just watched.
Has He-Man seen the last of Skeletor (Jared Leto)?
(Amazon MGM Studios / Prime)
The most significant of the bonus scenes comes in the middle of the credits. The scene opens with Prince Adam’s mother, Queen Marlena (Charlotte Riley), sharing a moment with Duncan (Idris Elba).
After the queen mentions she had given up hope for reuniting with “both of them,” Man-At-Arms replies “perhaps one day she’ll come back to us too.”
The scene then cuts to the “she” in question, wearing a red cape and holding a familiar sword.
“Force Captain… Adora?” calls out a voice.
“No, not anymore,” she replies.
Those familiar with the lore of the “Masters of the Universe” franchise will recognize that the mysterious woman is Adam’s long-lost twin sister, Adora. The most common backstory is that Adora was kidnapped by Hordak as an infant and raised on the planet Etheria as a member of his Evil Horde. She eventually learns the truth about her heritage and defects to fight for good.
The Sword of Protection gives her the power to transform into the hero She-Ra.
Nope. The final stinger shown after the credits are done rolling involves Evil-Lyn (Alison Brie) and Skeletor (Jared Leto). It appears He-Man has not seen the last of his nemesis — as long as a sequel is greenlit.
BOSTON — A federal judge on Tuesday heard from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Trump’s executive order seeking to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. They also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on state election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution.
“This is going to be a sea change in the way that some states administer their ballots,” said Michael Cohen, who was part of a team representing California, adding that “it will be difficult to overstate the disruption that this will cause.”
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
His latest order is being challenged through multiple lawsuits, including two filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the League of Women Voters in one of the two Boston cases, has called the order “a dangerous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide.” The group said the order transforms “the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.”
“This case challenges an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power over the administration of federal elections,” the organization said in its complaint.
The hearing comes less than a week after another judge declined to halt the order. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, agreed with the Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. They also argued the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claim, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referred to were subjective, since much can change with the voting list before it is finalized. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the executive order.
Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi, speaking for the states supporting the list, argued it was too early to say how his state might use the list, but that it was “unlikely” any voter would be removed this year from the voter rolls because of it.
“We are not exactly sure how we would use it,” Capozzi said, adding that “we don’t want this process to be strangled in the crib, so to speak.”
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani took the requests for motions to halt the order, along with motions to dismiss the cases under advisement.
During oral arguments, Talwani expressed concerns about whether the federal system envisioned under the executive order could be ready for the upcoming midterm elections and about the risks posed to election workers who rely on a state list that differs from the federal one. She also raised doubts about the reliability of a federal list — noting, for example, women who changed their names after getting married or someone who has moved from state to state might be missed.
“Isn’t there a reasonable fear and concern on behalf of voters that they will be precluded?” Talwani asked.
Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the postal service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.
The postal service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
Casey writes for the Associated Press.
President Trump signed an executive order on artificial intelligence Tuesday, less than two weeks after postponing a White House ceremony over his concerns that a similar policy could dull America’s edge on AI technology.
The order establishes a framework for the federal government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release. The government will be able to work with trusted partners “that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure,” the order says.
It was not immediately clear to what extent the order differed from the one he declined to sign on May 21.
Trump canceled an Oval Office event with tech industry executives last month because he did not like what he saw in the earlier version of the order’s text. “We’re leading China, we’re leading everybody, and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of that lead,” Trump told reporters at the time.
That directive was characterized as a voluntary collaboration with participating U.S.-based tech companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google.
O’Brien writes for the Associated Press.
Looking ahead to the second half of the year, corporate finance chiefs are hardwiring contingency into strategy.
Global corporate finance leaders are entering the second half of 2026 facing the most complex operating environment of the post-pandemic era, requiring them to balance cost discipline, technology investment, and capital deployment against a backdrop of geopolitical volatility and renewed energy uncertainty.
At the center of that uncertainty is the Strait of Hormuz. Normally a conduit for around 20% of global oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, the strait has remained largely blocked since war broke out in the Middle East in late February.
The conflict has added a new shock layer to an environment that was already fragile as a result of tariff turbulence, weakening demand, and declining consumer confidence.
The consequences for corporate finance professionals are direct and serious, forcing teams into defensive mode: conserving cash, deferring capital investment, and stress-testing portfolios against prolonged geopolitical disruption.
Cost pressures were already elevated before the war, and are continuing their upward trajectory. According to the ACCA and IMA Global Economic Conditions Survey (GECS), the further rise likely reflects some early impacts of the surge in energy and other commodity prices since the outbreak of hostilities in the Persian Gulf. Among the CFOs surveyed, the proportion reporting increased operating costs eased slightly in the first quarter of 2026, but remains high by historical standards.
Confidence across finance teams, meanwhile, fell sharply in the first quarter, taking sentiment to a low point previously seen only at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Since the GECS survey was conducted in the first half of March, the outbreak of hostilities would have been a major factor weighing on sentiment, owing to the surge in geopolitical uncertainty and the price jump in energy and some other commodities.
Logistics and energy are the most immediate concerns, according to findings of the Allianz Trade survey of 6,000 companies across 13 major economies: 60% said they are worried about supply chain disruption and rising commodity prices, with concern running highest in Vietnam, Poland, the UK, and the U.S.
One consequence of the war-induced shocks is that businesses are holding more inventory, adding to liquidity demand at precisely the moment rates are falling more slowly than expected, if at all.
When it comes to sustaining readiness in the months ahead, Naresh Aggarwal, associate director, Policy and Technical at the Association of Corporate Treasurers, says the framework is simple: “plan for the worst, hope for the best.” In practice, this means larger, more committed credit facilities, greater use of derivatives, and hedge duration adjusted to circumstances.
The effects of the war are extending far beyond the energy, shipping, and chemical manufacturing sectors. Alex Ashby, group treasurer at WPP, says the ongoing volatility has driven material change at the global media company.
“Geopolitical volatility has led us to materially step up our focus on foreign exchange risk management,” he notes. “We have invested heavily in training across the organization to raise capability and accountability and introduced new monitoring and reporting so that FX exposures and outcomes are reviewed regularly at executive and board level. Alongside more frequent liquidity stress-testing, this ensures risks are identified earlier, decisions are taken closer to the underlying exposure, and we remain agile as conditions evolve.”
The world remains deeply interconnected, says Raphael Savalle, CFO at Montblanc, and so shocks travel fast and wide. Businesses are no longer operating in a world where companies can remove volatility by hedging, but one where operating models must be built to absorb it.
“This isn’t going away; if anything, it’s increasing,” he says. “It’s the butterfly effect, times 10. The key is to maintain long-term strategic direction while also building agility into how you operate – what I call dynamic P&L management, or dynamic resource allocation – and still be on the lookout every day for risks that may not at first seem relevant but turn out to be, because of the way the world is connected.”
What impact will this level of uncertainty have on the day-to-day in the coming months? Beyond a structured routine of information exchange, it demands the confidence to be candid about these less-obvious risks.
The challenges of the coming months are also prompting some companies to review their technology needs. ERP systems are still the backbone of corporate finance, but their rigidity is fueling demand for smarter, more flexible tools to augment them.
Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) platforms are emerging as a viable contender, says Armand Angeli, AI and automation specialist and vice president of the Digital Transformation and AI Group at DFCG, the French network of CFOs, broadening their scope beyond finance to cover sales, purchasing, and logistics.
Major ERP transformation projects are stalling as companies wrestle with legacy integration, Angeli says; bridging old and new without discarding existing investment remains the central challenge.
“We can’t just abandon ERP,” he says. “We have to create bridges or APIs between AI tools and all the ERPs. So the question becomes, How do you create these bridges? It’s not easy.” While ERPs can be inflexible, they are still valuable tools, “thought through by experts, for CFOs.”
While the major ERP providers are working to embed AI in their offerings, corporate users are taking different routes, depending on individual views and budgets. In practice, then, AI adoption by corporate finance teams is advancing with extreme caution.
“If the pace of change for these tools is 100, the pace of change among individuals is 10, and for companies, it’s 1,” Angeli observes.
Predictive AI, built on auditable algorithms, has earned trust as a tool for reconciliations, fraud detection, and cash posting, while generative AI remains a source of deep skepticism. Hallucinations, compliance failures, and the risk of over-reliance are tangible concerns.
“We now see more and more suspicious posting, more and more duplicate payments,” says Angeli.
Agentic AI is further still from meaningful deployment, he adds: “CFOs don’t trust agentic AI. And given that studies show that hallucinations account for between 30% and 70% of Gen AI output, we don’t trust Gen AI, either. Maybe 1% or 2% of companies can say they have agents working.”
Aggarwal concurs, observing that corporate finance teams remain in the exploratory phase when it comes to AI, but with purpose. Companies are mandating structured upskilling; One treasury team of his acquaintance dedicates half a day every other week to some form of AI-related upskilling or evaluating AI processes, he says.
The priority for the second half of this year, however, will be data integrity and learning which insights are genuinely actionable, Aggarwal predicts; truly agentic AI is a story for 2027.
“The word I hear a lot in these circles is trust: trusted data, trusted algorithms, trusted outputs, trusted use of the outputs,” he says. Going forward, the deeper cultural question of if and when to remove the human from the loop will become harder to avoid as, presumably, AI systems accumulate error-free track records.
Progress may be cautious for now, but Gartner estimates that CFOs who get AI deployment right could unlock 10 additional margin points by 2029. It won’t be isolated pilots that deliver returns, however; the gains will come from managing technology as a portfolio. Three quarters of CFOs are already raising technology budgets for 2026, the research firm finds, with nearly half boosting them by 10% or more.
Quantifying return on investment is difficult for the majority of AI-based projects, however, and will continue to be so through this year, Angeli predicts: “We know that we have to implement AI and hope for financial ROI in the future, but most companies are not seeing it yet.”
Another aspect of the technology challenge that is intrinsically linked to wider geopolitical developments, says Montblanc’s Savalle, is digital sovereignty, or a nation’s ability to control, secure, and regulate its entire infrastructure: in accordance with its laws, but also its strategic interests. Different approaches to the governance of these technologies and the accompanying data have deepened geopolitical competition between the U.S., China, and the EU, according to the World Economic Forum.
“Many governments are now insisting that data centers sit within their own borders,” Savalle warns, “and increasingly, they’re looking at software dependency more broadly: not just AI, but email systems, video conferencing tools, the whole stack. As a CFO, you have to consider what that means for your IT architecture.” Under these circumstances, will the old ambition of a single global ERP still be viable in five years’ time? He is not so sure.
Whether physical war or digital friction, geopolitical risks are forcing the finance function into a state of permanent contingency thinking. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz is an extreme case, but it sits within a pattern that was already familiar to CFOs and treasurers. The post-Covid supply chain collapse, the Russia-Ukraine war’s impact on energy and commodities, the Red Sea disruptions of 2024–25 — each forced treasury teams to rethink counterparty risk, liquidity buffers, FX exposure, and supply chain financing.
What’s different this time is that finance leaders are no longer treating the shocks as exceptional.
Aggarwal sees the broader geopolitical realignment as structural rather than cyclical, and doubts even a change in US administration can reverse it: “The genie is out of the bottle around using trade as a way of imposing sovereignty.” Looking ahead, he foresees continued pressure on the finance function to operate against a challenging backdrop.
“What I understand from my CFO network is that there is no going back,” Savalle observes. “This is the new normal, and, if anything, it will continue and expand. So the question is about how you adapt your operating model. Make sure that you get that feedback loop and keep an open mind, because you are going into uncharted territory. Things used to work in a certain world order. This is changing.”
For corporate finance leaders, the priority is no longer waiting for stability to return, but operating effectively in its absence. While keeping to a long-term strategy is vital, so is reconsidering some of the operating model assumptions that a world divided into regional blocs is calling into question. That could include maintaining higher liquidity buffers, diversifying supply chains geographically, stress-testing cash flow forecasts against energy price scenarios, and investing in planning and forecasting tools that allow the organization to model disruption faster.
For the corporate finance function, these are no longer crisis measures, but the baseline.
This article appears in the June 2026 issue of Global Finance Magazine.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has denied Bill Cosby’s request for a new trial after a civil jury recently found he was liable for $19 million in damages in a sexual assault case.
Judge Bradley S. Phillips ruled Friday that Cosby did not prove there was “any irregularity” in the court proceedings that would have prevented him from getting a fair trial and that the damages awarded to his accuser were not “excessive.”
“The Court finds that there was sufficient evidence … to support the jury’s finding that defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff’s damages,” Phillips wrote in Friday’s order.
In March, a jury awarded former waitress Donna Motsinger $19.25 million in damages after she sued Cosby in 2023, alleging that the disgraced comedian drugged and sexually assaulted her in 1972 after escorting her to one of his shows.
Motsinger, now 84, claimed Cosby picked her up at her home and gave her wine and a pill she thought was aspirin on the way to the venue.
“Next thing she knew, she was going in and out of consciousness while two men attending to Mr. Cosby were putting her in the limousine,” the original complaint said. “The last thing Ms. Motsinger recalls were flashes of light,” before waking up in her house in nothing but underwear.
Cosby has denied Motsinger’s allegations, as well as those brought by dozens of other women who said they had been drugged and sexually assaulted by the former actor. Cosby served about three years in a Pennsylvania prison on sexual assault charges before that case was overturned in 2021.
Cosby had filed a motion for a new trial in the Motsinger case in early April. Attorneys for Cosby did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Friday’s ruling.
Times staff writer Fedor Zarkhin contributed to this report.
Walt Disney Co.’s ABC has filed renewal applications with the Federal Communications Commission “under protest” after an order mandating a years-early review of the network’s eight television station licenses.
The criticism was part of the network’s applications for the FCC review, which were filed ahead of a deadline Thursday. In an objection to the early renewal, Disney’s New York station WABC called the FCC order “unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional” and said it was “legally indefensible.”
“The Commission had not demanded early renewal in over five decades,” the station wrote in its filing. “And it has never before demanded simultaneous license renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a network as it has here. The order has no legitimate purpose.”
The licenses for the eight ABC-owned TV stations, including KABC in Los Angeles, were originally scheduled for renewal between 2028 and 2031.
The FCC order came shortly after ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about First Lady Melania Trump looking like an “expectant widow” days before a gunman tried to breach the White House Correspondents’ Assn. gala last month that President Trump attended.
Trump has frequently threatened to have TV station licenses pulled when he is unhappy with their coverage, but the order is the first time the government has acted on his wishes, sparking anger from free speech advocates. The FCC has said the order is part of an investigation into whether Disney’s diversity and inclusion policies violate federal law and the agency’s rules against “unlawful discrimination.”
In its response, WABC said the “only plausible reason” to issue the order was to “punish the station for speech the government does not like.”
“The ultimate injury here is not to the station or its parent company. It is to the public,” WABC wrote. “When a broadcaster must weigh regulatory retaliation before making editorial decisions, the public loses access to journalism that is free from government influence.”
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a statement Thursday that Disney filed its applications to renew its broadcast licenses only after the company was told its previous answers were “disingenuous, deficient and improper.”
“Contrary to Disney’s claim that the FCC called in their broadcast licenses for early renewal for no reason, the record shows something very different,” Carr said. “Broadcast licensees have a unique obligation to operate in the public interest. The FCC will follow the facts and law wherever they may lead.”
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the panel’s only Democrat who has backed Disney in its fight, cheered the Burbank media and entertainment company’s filing, saying in a post on X that she was “glad to see them expose the FCC’s actions as nothing more than naked political retribution and an unlawful assault on free speech and a free press.”
Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.
The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.
Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.
Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.
The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.
Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.
“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.
In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.
“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”
Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.
Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.
Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”
“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.
Anderson writes for the Associated Press.
A federal judge has declined to halt President Trump’s executive order creating a federal voter list and limiting mail voting, clearing the way for potential sweeping changes in how American elections are run shortly before this year’s midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, late Wednesday rejected the request by Democrats and civil rights groups that had argued Trump’s order would likely be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. Nichols agreed with the Republican Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.
Nichols’ ruling leaves the door open for further challenges when the Trump administration moves to implement the president’s directive. A separate lawsuit seeking to block the executive order is underway in Boston. No matter how rapidly the administration acts, no voting changes are expected during primary elections, which continue into next month.
“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”
The Trump administration has yet to formally issue lists of eligible voters, and those who filed the initial request for a temporary halt said they’d be back if the administration moves in that direction.
“We are ready to resume the fight if and when the administration takes those next steps,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the organizations that sought the stay from Nichols.
Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
Democrats and civil rights groups argued it was urgent that Nichols issue a restraining order in the midst of primary season and with states already gearing up for the fall midterm elections.
This was Trump’s second executive order seeking to overhaul elections and voting. His initial election executive order, issued just months after he took office in his second term, has been blocked by multiplefederal judges. That order sought to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other changes.
Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.
The military says areas south of the Zahrani River are now “combat zones” as it threatens Hezbollah with fresh strikes.
Source link
NEW YORK — Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to reconsider a decision that put the government a step closer to deporting him, the pro-Palestinian activist’s lawyers said.
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against having the court’s full complement of judges review the ruling. In January, a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release last year from immigration detention didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said his lawyers will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order preventing the decision from taking effect — and barring Khalil from being detained or deported — while it asks the Supreme Court to take up the case.
An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.
“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said in a statement.
In its January ruling, the 3rd Circuit found that Khalil’s lawsuit challenging his detention and U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz’s subsequent rulings in the case were premature because federal law requires that such challenges first move through the separate immigration court system. That system is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.
The decision didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.
Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who had voted for the 3rd Circuit to review the decision, wrote in a dissent that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims. The Judicial Branch, she wrote, cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”
Khalil, 31, has also appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was detained, after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order.
Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he had misrepresented information on his application for legal permanent resident status. That charge, Khalil’s lawyers said, was brought in retaliation for his protest activity.
The immigration judge suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.
An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested in March 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his child.
Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil of failing to disclose information on his green card application.
Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”
The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, Farbiarz ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.
President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor.
Judge Emil Bove, who was involved in investigating student protesters while a top Justice Department official, did not participate in the 3rd Circuit vote on whether to review the decision. He later issued an order denying a request by Khalil’s lawyers that he step aside from the matter, calling it moot.
Sisak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.
Dilok Klaisataporn
Japan reported a trade surplus of JPY 301.9 billion in April 2026, compared to a deficit of JPY 149.5 billion in April 2025, significantly exceeding expectations for a JPY 29.7 billion deficit.
This surplus is the largest since November, with exports
THE glitter has settled, the nerve-shredding votes are in, and Europe has crowned its brand-new pop royalty for 2026.
In a night packed with spectacular high notes, outrageous outfits, and the usual dose of nail-biting voting drama, one country managed to come out on top.
Whether your favourite act walked away with the grand prize or suffered the absolute dread of the infamous ‘nul points’ the night has not been short of entertainment.
Here is everything you need to know about who won Eurovision, how they managed to pull off the ultimate musical heist, and where the world’s biggest party is heading next year!
Lifting the iconic glass microphone trophy for 2026 was Bulgaria.
The country came through at the last moment to smash its competitors out of the water on 516 points.
After hearing the result, Dara performed her song Bangaranga for a second time before lifting the iconic glass trophy.
It’s also the first time Bulgaria has ever won the contest.
The UK suffered yet another crushing defeat in tonight’s grand final as Look Mum No Computer’s Sam Battle sadly didn’t do enough to win over the voters.
He ended up with just one point from the jury and zero points from the public, placing him in the bottom spot.
Here is the breakdown of tonight’s votes in full:
JURY VOTES
AUDIENCE VOTES
FINAL RESULTS IN FULL
Countries are unable to vote for themselves, but may vote for countries they consider friends.
This may be because the countries are close geographically, or if the nations have historical links, which could be culturally or in political terms.
The contest has been eager to avoid links to politics, with a view to avoiding bias.
The votes are split between public votes and national juries, often with celebrities from the various countries appearing to confirm where the juries have given their points.
RuPaul’s Drag Race UK and Strictly star, La Voix, announced the UK’s results.
The victorious nation is handed the honour of hosting the following year’s competition.
That means, thanks to Dara’s success this year, Bulgaria will have the chance to welcome all the other competing countries in 2027.
EUROVISION fans have picked their first ten finalists after the 70th edition of the iconic song contest kicked off in Vienna.
The BBC aired the first semi-final of the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest at 8pm on Tuesday, May 12, 2026.
Austria is hosting the world’s biggest music competition for the third time after JJ stormed to victory in Basel last year with Wasted Love.
Victoria Swarovski and Michael Ostrowski are hosting the show, with Emily Busvine looking after the Green Room.
Rylan and Angela Scanlon are providing commentary from the Wiener Stadthalle.
A total of 15 countries competed for 10 Grand Final spots on Tuesday night.
read more on eurovision 2026
Pre-qualified Italy and Germany were slotted in after the sixth and 10th songs respectively.
Both nations were performing and voting, but not competing for a place in the final.
After all acts had performed, it was down to Eurovision fans to vote for who they want to see in Saturday’s final.
Just ten countries were picked and they were:
Viewers in the UK were not able to vote during the first semi-final, but things are going to change tonight.
The second Eurovision semi-final follows at 8pm on Thursday, May 14, live on BBC One and iPlayer.
Another 15 countries will battle it out for the remaining 10 places.
Pre-qualified France, Austria and the UK will slot in after the fifth, eighth and 12th songs respectively.
These countries are performing and voting, but not competing for a place in the final.
The order for the second semi is as follows:
This is the show where UK fans can pick up the phone and vote.
The Eurovision 2026 Grand Final takes place on Saturday, May 16, with the show getting underway at 8pm on BBC One, iPlayer, BBC Radio 2 and BBC Sounds.
A whopping 25 acts will perform – the top 10 countries from each semi-final, alongside hosts Austria and the Big Four of Germany, France, Italy and the UK.
The full Grand Final running order won’t be locked in until after the second semi-final.
A draw will decide if each of the qualifying nations is slotted into the first or second half of the show.
Another draw has already determined that Austria are the closing act, meaning the host country is set to be the 25th and final performance of the night.
Graham Norton is back behind the mic for the BBC’s live coverage, with former Drag Race winner Tia Kofi heading up the broadcaster’s backstage and digital coverage.
Earnings Call Insights: Electromed, Inc. (ELMD) Q3 fiscal 2026
Seeking Alpha’s Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by an AI tool based on content available on the Seeking Alpha website, and has not been curated or reviewed by humans. Due to inherent limitations in using AI-based tools, the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such articles cannot be guaranteed. This article is intended for informational purposes only. Seeking Alpha does not take account of your objectives or your financial situation and does not offer any personalized investment advice. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took a first step on Monday to consider anti-abortion challenges to medication that has been commonly used to end early pregnancies for 25 years.
The justices moved quickly to put on hold an appeals court ruling that would block the mailing of abortion pills nationwide. Justice Samuel A. Alito issued a temporary “administrative stay” until May 11.
Three years ago, the court blocked a similar challenge to abortion pills, ruling that anti-abortion doctors had no grounds to sue over medication they did not use or prescribe.
Last year, Louisiana’s state lawyers sued and argued their state ban on abortions is thwarted if women can receive abortion pills through the mail after consulting a doctor online.
They questioned the federal regulation that permits doctors to prescribe the medication without seeing patients in person.
On Friday evening, the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans jolted abortion rights advocates, first by ruling this claim is likely to succeed and then by putting their order into effect immediately.
Judge Kyle Duncan, a President Trump appointee, said the Food and Drug Administration had “failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe.”
Moreover, women may suffer “irreparable harm” if these mail-order prescriptions are allowed to continue, he said.
If upheld, the order would go far beyond Louisiana and make it illegal for women in California and other states to obtain the pills through a pharmacy or by mail if they did not see a doctor first.
The legal dispute may put the Trump administration in an uncomfortable spot. In response to the abortion critics, the FDA agreed to review the safety of prescribing these commonly used pills without a required trip to a doctor’s office.
Its review is not likely to be completed until after the November elections.
The 5th Circuit judges said they were not prepared to wait for the outcome of that review.
On Saturday, two makers of mifepristone — Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro — filed emergency appeals asking the justices to block the 5th Circuit’s order.
“Never before has a federal court” rejected a long-standing drug approval by the FDA, they said, and restricted its distribution based on claims the agency had rejected.
The justices asked for a response from Louisiana by Thursday.
Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to an early pregnancy. It is typically used in combination with a second drug — misoprostol — which is not affected by the court’s decision.
If mifepristone becomes unavailable, women may use misoprostol alone, abortion rights advocates say.
In recent years, the majority of abortions in this country result from the use of medication.
Alito is responsible for emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit, and Monday’s order does not signal what the court will decide.
“This ruling is not final — keep watching,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Getting abortion pills through telehealth has been a lifeline for women since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Louisiana’s attempt to restrict access is political and not based in science or medicine. Americans deserve access to this critical drug that has been FDA approved for 25 years.”
Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, agreed the court’s order did not resolve anything.
“It is a temporary procedural step that leaves unresolved the very real concerns about the safety of these drugs and the decision under the Biden administration’s FDA to recklessly remove longstanding safeguards,” she said.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta joined with 21 other state attorneys in urging the court to block the 5th Circuit’s decision.
“Telehealth has made it easier for women — especially in rural, low-income, and underserved communities — to access mifepristone and obtain reproductive health care,” he said. “We should be guided by science, not politics. The in-person dispensing requirement was eliminated because it was medically unnecessary, and there is still no basis for reinstating it.”
When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president’s mass deportation effort.
Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn’t binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.
By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Biden, accused Trump officials in a ruling that month of seeking “to erode any semblance of separation of powers,” adding that they could “only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.”
Hardly isolated, the case illustrates a broader pattern of defiance of lower court decisions in President Trump’s second term.
The failure of Trump officials to follow court orders has been highlighted most notably in individual immigration cases. But a review of hundreds of pages of court records by the Associated Press also shows an extraordinary record of violations in lawsuits over policy changes and other moves.
In the administration’s first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices, the AP’s review of court records found. That’s about 1 out of every 8 lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration’s actions.
The Trump administration’s power struggle with federal courts — which is testing basic tenets of U.S. democracy — reflects an expansive view of executive authority that has also challenged the independence of federal agencies, a president’s ethical obligations and the U.S. role in the international order.
The Trump administration violations in the 31 lawsuits are in addition to more than 250 instances of noncompliance that judges have recently highlighted in individual immigration petitions — including failing to return property and keeping immigrants locked up past court-ordered release dates.
Legal scholars and former federal judges said they could recall at most a few violations of court rulings over the full four-year terms of other recent presidential administrations, including Trump’s first time in office. They also noted previous administrations were generally apologetic when confronted by judges; the Trump administration’s Justice Department has been combative in some cases.
“What the court system is experiencing in the last year and a half is just qualitatively completely different from anything that’s preceded it,” said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who studies federal courts and is tracking litigation against the Trump administration.
Though Trump officials eventually backed down in about a third of the 31 lawsuits, legal experts say their treatment of court orders poses serious dangers.
“The federal government should be the institution most devoted to the rule of law in this country,” said David Super, a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. “When it ceases to feel itself bound, respect for the rule of law is likely to break down across the country.”
The White House’s aggressive policy moves have prompted a barrage of lawsuits — more than 700 and counting.
The AP’s review also found that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, overruled the district courts and sided with the White House in nearly half of the 31 cases. Critics say those decisions are emboldening the administration to ignore judges’ orders.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the higher courts had overturned “unlawful district court rulings.” The administration will “continue to comply with lawful court rulings,” she added in a written statement.
“President Trump’s entire Administration is lawfully implementing the America First agenda he was elected to enact,” the statement said.
Among other instances of noncompliance, judges found the White House defied rulings when it deported scores of accused gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, withheld billions of dollars in foreign aid and failed to restore programming at the Voice of America. The three cases date to the first few months of the new administration, but judges have continued to find violations since then, including in two cases in April.
“The danger is that this gets normalized,” said JoAnna Suriani, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, which is tracking noncompliance cases. The group is also involved in litigation against the administration.
In October, U.S. District Judge William Smith took little time to conclude Homeland Security officials were flouting one of his orders. Smith, a nominee of President George W. Bush, had blocked them from making billions of dollars in disaster relief funding to states contingent on cooperation with the president’s immigration priorities.
The Department of Homeland Security responded by keeping the immigration requirement on some grants, but making it contingent on a higher court overriding Smith’s injunction. The judge called the move “ham-handed” and said the agency was trying to “bully the states.”
In a case over the suspension of refugee admissions, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden nominee, accused the Justice Department last May of “hallucinating new text” in an appellate court order and “rewriting” it to achieve the government’s preferred outcome.
In four additional cases the AP reviewed, judges stopped short of a clear written finding of noncompliance but still criticized the administration’s response to their orders.
Of the judges who have confirmed violations, 22 were appointed by Democratic presidents and seven by Republican presidents.
Former federal judges Jeremy Fogel and Liam O’Grady said jurists are losing trust in the integrity of the Department of Justice.
That’s making them “more aggressive in accusing the government of bad faith,” said O’Grady, who along with Fogel is part of the nonpartisan democracy group Keep Our Republic.
Fogel said judges are also getting frustrated.
“They make orders and the orders don’t get complied with, and then they have to inquire why the orders are not being complied with, and that’s where it gets very mushy and very political,” he said.
In Eureka, Calif., school administrator Lisa Claussen is worried about the impact on her students’ mental health if a judge does not find the Education Department in violation of a court order on federal grants.
Grant money allowed the school district in the poor coastal community in Northern California to hire more than a dozen psychologists and social workers to help students struggling with drug use and suicidal thoughts.
Education officials in the Trump administration told schools in California and other states last year that it was discontinuing the grants; the administration opposed diversity considerations in the grant process.
U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson blocked the move permanently in December, but California and 15 other states now say the administration is making an end run around her injunction by imposing new rules, including an initial limit of six months of funding.
Attorneys for the Education Department said they wanted to see whether schools were making progress on performance goals before releasing additional funds. The judge’s order did not block the six-month limit, they added in a court filing.
Evanson, a Biden nominee, has yet to rule.
In the absence of a one-year funding guarantee, Eureka City Schools and other districts say they have already issued layoff notices to mental health providers or eliminated positions.
“We have many kids who don’t trust adults for very good reason, and to be able to just swipe this grant like they’re doing … ,” Claussen said in a phone interview, her voice trailing off. “We didn’t do anything wrong.”
In court filings, Justice Department attorneys have generally disputed accusations that the government was not complying. They have argued over the meaning of words, cited favorable appellate court rulings and said they were acting outside the scope of the court’s order, among other legal maneuvering.
Outside of court, Trump and White House officials have railed against federal judges. Vice President JD Vance has even suggested the president could ignore court orders.
Will Chamberlain, senior counsel with the conservative legal advocacy group the Article III Project, said many of the judges who have found violations are ignoring laws that clearly prohibit their rulings.
Trump officials are “generally complying, appealing and winning,” he said. “If they were defying orders left and right, they’d be losing them.”
In March, a federal appeals court ruled Sykes, the judge in California, had probably exceeded her authority in requiring bond hearings nationwide and blocked her February decision.
The outcome was not unusual.
In 15 of the 31 lawsuits the AP reviewed, an appellate court or the Supreme Court either allowed the administration’s underlying policy, limited the district court’s efforts to correct or punish the noncompliance, or both.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized her fellow justices after one such ruling.
“This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” she wrote in June in a dissent joined by the court’s two other liberal justices. “Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
Thanawala writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michael Casey in Boston contributed to this report.
In a hearing about competing protective order filings from reality TV star Taylor Frankie Paul and her ex-boyfriend Dakota Mortensen, a Utah judge granted Thursday that both orders go into effect, though he delayed making a decision on a custody arrangement.
The orders, which were issued by third district court commissioner Russell Minas, are in place for three years and require Paul and Mortensen to stay at least 100 feet away from each other. He also warned that they both could be subjected to criminal charges if there’s a violation of the orders.
“I do think it’s important that there be mutual orders,” Minas said. “I am just concerned that if I don’t order both of them to stay away from each other, there’s going to be some additional problems.”
Addressing Paul and Mortensen, Minas said: “I’m hoping that you’re not people who just thrive on the drama and the conflict … I do want to work with both of you to try to restore some sense of normalcy. I just think right now, you two need to stay away from each other and there needs to be orders that will result in consequences if you attempt to try to engage each other because I still think you have this attraction to each other, physical or otherwise.”
“The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” star, 31, and Mortensen, 33, both appeared in Utah court for the hearing, which was livestreamed, the first time they’ve been seen in the same room together since news broke last month that they were involved in domestic violence investigations involving multiple allegations.
In the weeks leading up to the ruling, the judge had granted Mortensen custody of their son, with up to eight hours per week of supervised visitation for Paul, known as one of the stars of Hulu’s “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.” That arrangement will stay in place until the judge offers his recommendation on parent time on or before May 11.
Dakota Mortensen in the courtroom on Thursday.
(Bethany Baker / Associated Press)
A review hearing is set for June, once mental health and domestic violence assessments of Paul and Mortensen ordered as part of the safety plan by child protective services have been completed and processed.
Paul’s attorney, Eric M. Swinyard, described the hearing as a “significant step forward.”
“Taylor was incredibly candid with the Court that she is not perfect and owned her faults,” read part of his statement. “She looks forward to continuing to cooperate with the Court to make progress in the custody case.”
The Times also reached out to Mortensen for comment.
Paul and Mortensen had been under investigation by both the Draper City Police Department and West Jordan Police Department regarding a series of allegations each made that the other had acted violently during altercations in February, as well as an incident that took place in 2024. After the February allegations made headlines, a video of Paul in 2023 that led to her arrest was leaked; it showed the reality star throwing bar stools at Mortensen while her daughter was present. (Paul pleaded guilty in abeyance to aggravated assault following that incident and her probation in that case will be up in August.) Amid the investigation, Mortensen and Paul filed competing protective orders against each other.
The Salt Lake County district attorney’s office and the Draper City prosecutor both declined to file charges against Paul in April, citing insufficient evidence to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
The situation between the embattled exes also resulted in the pausing of filming of “Mormon Wives” Season 5. The show has documented the pair’s tumultuous relationship since it’s launch in 2024. It also led to the shelving of Season 22 of ABC’s “The Bachelorette,” which featured Paul as its heroine.
But Thursday’s ruling on the orders comes a week after reports surfaced that “Mormon Wives” has resumed production on its fifth season, without Paul and Mortensen’s involvement — though, Paul reportedly has the option to return. The fate of the unaired season of “The Bachelorette” remains unclear.
Alexandra Del Rosario contributed reporting.
