order

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s emergency order over the nation’s capital, which federalized its police force and launched a surge of law enforcement into the city, is set to expire overnight Wednesday after Congress failed to extend it.

But the clash between Republicans and the heavily Democratic district over its autonomy was only set to intensify, with a House committee beginning to debate 13 bills that would wrest away even more of the city’s control if approved.

Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office said the order expires at midnight. The National Guard and some other federal agencies will continue their deployment and it’s not clear when that might end.

Trump’s takeover of Washington’s policing and Wednesday’s discussions in the House underscore how interlinked the capital is with the federal government and how much the city’s capacity to govern is beholden to federal decisions.

Trump’s order federalized the local police force

For the last 30 days, the city’s local Metropolitan Police Department has been under the control of the president for use in what he described as a crime-fighting initiative.

Local police joined hundreds of federal law enforcement officers and agents on sweeps and roundups and other police operations. About 2,000 members of the National Guard from D.C. as well as seven states were also part of the surge of law enforcement.

Crime has dropped during the surge, according to figures from the White House and the local police department, but data also showed crime was falling in the lead up to the federal takeover.

Congress, satisfied by steps that Bowser has taken to ensure that the cooperation with the city will continue, decided not to extend the emergency, returning the police to district control.

But Bowser, who has walked a tightrope in collaborating with Trump in an effort to protect the city’s home rule, must now pivot to a Congress that has jurisdiction over the city. The next order of business is a series of proposals that will be debated Wednesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Some of the House bills focus on law enforcement

Thirteen of the bills call for repealing or changing D.C. laws. Some provisions in play would remove the district’s elected attorney general, who recently asked a judge to intervene in the takeover. Others would allow the president to appoint someone to the position.

There is also a move to lower the age of trying juveniles to 14 from 16 for certain crimes, and one to change the bail system and remove methods the council can use to extend emergency bills.

Even if the bills pass the committee and House, the question is whether they can get through the filibuster-proof Senate. D.C. activists have already begun lobbying Senate Democrats.

Bowser urged the leaders of the House Oversight Committee to reject those proposals.

She argued that a bill sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, would “make the District less efficient, competitive, and responsive.” She said she looks forward to working with the committee to build a “productive partnership” that “respects the will of D.C. residents and honors the principles of home rule.”

Republican Rep. Ron Estes and several Republican colleagues said they want their constituents to feel safe visiting the capital, and noted the recent murder of an intern who worked in Estes’ office. “We want to make sure that we have a capital that Americans are proud of,” Estes said.

Members of the Republican Study Committee in the House held a news conference Sept. 2 praising Trump’s intervention and supporting codifying his executive order.

“Congress has a clear constitutional authority over D.C., and we will use it without hesitation to continue making D.C. safe and great again,” said Rep. August Pfluger, chairman of that committee.

D.C. mayor says the bills challenge the city’s autonomy

Bowser said the bills are an affront to the city’s autonomy and said “laws affecting the district should be made by the district.”

The district is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 but federal political leaders retain significant control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by the D.C council.

Bowser has said repeatedly that statehood, a nonstarter for Republicans in Congress, is the only solution.

Fields and Askarinam write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Ashraf Khalil contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday for the Trump administration and agreed U.S. immigration agents may stop and detain anyone they suspect is in the U.S. illegally based on little more than their working at a car wash, speaking Spanish or having brown skin.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal and lifted a Los Angeles judge’s order that barred “roving patrols” from snatching people off Southern California streets based on how they look, what language they speak, what work they do or where they happen to be.

The decision is a significant victory for President Trump, clearing the way for his oft-promised “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in American history.

The court’s conservatives issued a brief, unsigned order that freezes the district judge’s restraining order indefinitely and frees immigration agents from it. As a practical matter, it gives immigration agents broad authority to stop people who they think may be here illegally.

Although Monday’s order is not a final ruling, it strongly signals the Supreme Court will not uphold strict limits on the authority of immigration agents to stop people for questioning.

The Supreme Court has been sharply criticized in recent weeks for handing down orders with no explanation. Perhaps for that reason, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote a 10-page opinion to explain the decision.

He said federal law says “immigration officers ‘may briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’ if they have ‘a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned … is an alien illegally in the United States.’”

He said such stops are reasonable and legal based on the “totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”

Those were exactly the factors that the district judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said agents may not use as a basis for stopping someone for questioning.

The three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

“The Government … has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” she wrote.

Sotomayor also disagreed with Kavanaugh’s assertions.

“Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning,’ as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” she wrote. “Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.”

In response, Kavanaugh said he agreed agents may not use “excessive force” in making stops or arrests. But the judge’s order dealt only with the legal grounds for making stops, he said.

Kavanaugh stressed the court has a limited role when it comes to immigration enforcement.

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” he wrote.

He noted the court had ruled for the Biden administration and against Texas, which had sought stricter enforcement against those who crossed the border or had a criminal record.

The case decided Monday began in early June when Trump appointees targeted Los Angeles with aggressive street sweeps that ensnared longtime residents, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens.

A coalition of civil rights groups and local attorneys challenged the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens caught up in the chaotic arrests, claiming they had been grabbed without reasonable suspicion — a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lead plaintiffs — Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other Pasadena residents — were arrested at a bus stop when they were waiting to be picked up for a job.

On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order barring stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination.

On July 28, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The case remains in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction this month. But the Department of Justice argued even a brief limit on mass arrests constituted a “irreparable injury” to the government.

A few days later, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to set aside Frimpong’s order. They said agents should be allowed to act on the assumption that Spanish-speaking Latinos who work as day laborers, at car washes or in landscaping and agriculture are likely to lack legal status.

“Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal. Agents can consider “the totality of the circumstances” when making stops, he said, including that “illegal presence is widespread in the Central District [of California], where 1 in every 10 people is an illegal alien.”

Both sides said the region’s diverse demographics support their view of the law. In an application to join the suit, Los Angeles and 20 other Southern California municipalities argued that “half the population of the Central District” now meet the government’s criteria for reasonable suspicion.

Roughly 10 million Latinos live in the seven counties covered by the order, and almost as many speak a language other than English at home.

Sauer also questioned whether the plaintiffs who sued had standing because they were unlikely to be arrested again. That argument was the subject of sharp and extended questioning in the 9th Circuit, where a three-judge panel ultimately rejected it.

“Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks, not years, some repeatedly in the same location,” the panel wrote in its July 28 opinion denying the stay.

One plaintiff was stopped twice in the span of 10 days, evidence of a “real and immediate threat” that he or any of the others could be stopped again, the 9th Circuit said.

Days after that decision, heavily armed Border Patrol agents sprang from the back of a Penske movers truck, snatching workers from the parking lot of a Westlake Home Depot in apparent defiance of the courts.

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the justices to not intervene.

“The raids have followed an unconstitutional pattern that officials have vowed to continue,” they said. Ruling for Trump would authorize “an extraordinarily expansive dragnet, placing millions of law-abiding people at imminent risk of detention by federal agents.”

The judge’s order had applied in an area that included Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

“Every Latino should be concerned, every immigrant should be concerned, every person should be concerned,” Alfonso Barragan, a 62-year-old U.S. citizen, said Monday on his way into one of the L.A. Home Depots repeatedly hit by the controversial sweeps. “They’re allowing the [federal immigration agents] to break the law.”

Savage reported from Washington and Sharp from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Ruben Vives in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement officials Sunday removed a peace vigil that had stood outside the White House for more than four decades after President Trump ordered it to be taken down as part of the clearing of homeless encampments in the nation’s capital.

Philipos Melaku-Bello, a volunteer who has manned the vigil for years, told the Associated Press that the U.S. Park Police removed it early Sunday morning. He said officials justified the removal by mislabeling the memorial as a shelter.

“The difference between an encampment and a vigil is that an encampment is where homeless people live,” Melaku-Bello said. “As you can see, I don’t have a bed. I have signs and it is covered by the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.”

The White House confirmed the removal, telling the AP in a statement that the vigil was a “hazard to those visiting the White House and the surrounding areas.”

Taking down the vigil is the latest in a series of actions the Trump administration has ordered as part of its federal takeover of policing in the city, which began last month. The White House has defended the intervention as needed to fulfill Trump’s executive order on the “beautification” of D.C.

Melaku-Bello said he’s in touch with attorneys about what he sees as a civil rights violation. “They’re choosing to call a place that is not an encampment an encampment just to fit what is in Trump’s agenda of removing the encampments,” he said.

The vigil was started in 1981 by activist William Thomas to promote nuclear disarmament and an end to global conflicts. It is believed to be the longest continuous antiwar protest in U.S. history. When Thomas died in 2009, fellow protesters including Melaku-Bello manned the tiny tent and the banner — which read, “Live by the bomb, die by the bomb” — around the clock to avoid it being dismantled by authorities.

The small but persistent act of protest was brought to Trump’s attention during an event at the While House on Friday.

Brian Glenn, a correspondent for the far-right network Real America’s Voice, told Trump the blue tent was an “eyesore” for those who come to the White House.

“Just out front of the White House is a blue tent that originally was put there to be an anti-nuclear tent for nuclear arms,” Glenn said. “It’s kind of morphed into more of an anti-American, sometimes anti-Trump at many times.”

Trump, who said he was not aware of it, told his staff: “Take it down. Take it down today, right now.”

Melaku-Bello said that Glenn spread misinformation when he told the president that the tent had rats and “could be a national security risk” because people could hide weapons in there.

“No weapons were found,” he told AP. “He said that it was rat-infested. Not a single rat came out as they took down the cinder blocks.”

Monsivais and Amiri write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and New York, respectively. AP writer Will Weissert in New York contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — After months of campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump sent a sharply different message Friday when he signed an executive order aimed at rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

Trump said the switch was intended to signal to the world that the United States was a force to be reckoned with, and he complained that the Department of Defense’s name, established in the aftermath of World War II, was “woke.”

“I think it sends a message of victory. I think it sends, really, a message of strength,” Trump said of the change as he authorized the Department of War as a secondary title for the Pentagon.

Congress has to formally authorize a new name, and several of Trump’s closest supporters on Capitol Hill proposed legislation earlier Friday to codify the new name into law.

But already there were cosmetic shifts. The Pentagon’s website went from “defense.gov” to “war.gov.” Signs were swapped around Hegseth’s office while more than a dozen employees watched. Trump said there would be new stationery, too.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom Trump has begun referring to as the “secretary of war,” said during the signing ceremony that “we’re going to go on offense, not just on defense,” using “maximum lethality” that won’t be “politically correct.”

The attempted rebranding was another rhetorical salvo in Trump’s efforts to reshape the U.S. military and uproot what he has described as progressive ideology. Bases have been renamed, transgender soldiers have been banned and military websites have been scrubbed of posts honoring contributions by women and minorities.

The Republican president contended that his tough talk didn’t contradict his fixation on being recognized for diplomatic efforts, saying peace must be made from a position of strength. Trump has claimed credit for resolving conflicts between India and Pakistan; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Armenia and Azerbaijan, among others, though some leaders and others have disputed the significance of the U.S. role. (He’s also expressed frustration that he hasn’t brought the war between Russia and Ukraine to a conclusion as fast as he said he would.)

“I think I’ve gotten peace because of the fact that we’re strong,” Trump said, echoing the “peace through strength” motto associated with President Reagan.

When Trump finished his remarks on the military, he dismissed Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the room.

“I’m going to let these people go back to the Department of War and figure out how to maintain peace,” Trump said.

Rep. Gregory W. Steube (R-Fla.) proposed legislation in the House to formally change the name of the department.

“From 1789 until the end of World War II, the United States military fought under the banner of the Department of War,” Steube, an Army veteran, said in a statement. “It is only fitting that we pay tribute to their eternal example and renowned commitment to lethality by restoring the name of the ‘Department of War’ to our Armed Forces.”

Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

The Department of War was created in 1789, then renamed and reorganized through legislation signed by President Truman in 1947, two years after the end of World War II. The Department of Defense incorporated the Department of War, which oversaw the Army, plus the Department of the Navy and the newly created independent Air Force.

Hegseth complained that “we haven’t won a major war since” the name was changed. Trump said, “We never fought to win.”

Trump and Hegseth have long talked about restoring the Department of War name.

In August, Trump told reporters that “everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was Department of War. Then we changed it to Department of Defense.”

When confronted with the possibility that making the name change would require an act of Congress, Trump told reporters that “we’re just going to do it.”

“I’m sure Congress will go along,” he said, “if we need that.”

Trump and Hegseth have been on a name-changing spree at the Pentagon, sometimes sidestepping legal requirements.

For example, they wanted to restore the names of nine military bases that once honored Confederate leaders, which were changed in 2023 following a congressionally mandated review.

Because the original names were no longer allowed under law, Hegseth ordered the bases to be named after new people with similar names. For example, Ft. Bragg now honors Army Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper and Silver Star recipient from Maine, instead of Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg.

In the case of Fort A.P. Hill, named for Confederate Lt. Gen. Ambrose Powell Hill, the Trump administration was forced to choose three soldiers to make the renaming work.

The base now honors Union soldiers Pvt. Bruce Anderson and 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn, who contributes the two initials, and Lt. Col. Edward Hill, whose last name completes the second half of the base name.

The move irked Republicans in Congress who, in July, moved to ban restoring any Confederate names in this year’s defense authorization bill.

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who co-sponsored the earlier amendment to remove the Confederate names, said that “what this administration is doing, particularly this secretary of Defense, is sticking his finger in the eye of Congress by going back and changing the names to the old names.”

Megerian, Kim and Toropin write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.

Donald Trump’s recent floated proposal to deploy the National Guard to crime-overrun blue cities like Chicago and Baltimore has been met with howls of outrage from the usual suspects. For many liberal talking heads and Democratic officials, this is simply the latest evidence of Trump’s “authoritarianism.” But such specious analysis distracts from what all parties ought to properly focus on: the well-being of the people who actually live in such crime-addled jurisdictions.

What’s remarkable is not just the specific policy suggestion itself — after all, federal force has been called in, or sent in, to assist state-level law enforcement plenty of times — but rather how Trump is once again baiting his political opponents into defending the indefensible. He has a singular talent for making the left clutch onto wildly unpopular positions and take the wrong side of clear 80-20 issues. It’s political jiu-jitsu at its finest.

Crime in cities like Chicago and Baltimore isn’t a right-wing fever dream. It’s a persistent, documented crisis that continues to destroy communities and ruin lives. Chicago saw nearly 600 homicides in 2024 alone. In Baltimore, despite a recent downtick, violent crime remains exponentially higher than national averages. Sustained, decades-long Democratic leadership in both cities has failed, time and again, to secure even a minimum baseline level of safety for residents — many of whom are Black and working-class, two communities Democrats purport to champion.

Trump sees that leadership and quality-of-life vacuum. And he’s filling it with a popular message of law and order.

Trump’s proposal to deploy the National Guard isn’t the flight of fancy of a would-be strongman. It’s federalism functioning as the founders intended: The federal government must step in, per Article IV of the Constitution, when local governance breaks down so catastrophically that the feds are needed to “guarantee … a republican form of government.” Even more specifically, the Insurrection Act of 1807 has long been available as a congressionally authorized tool for presidents to restore order when state unrest reaches truly intolerable levels. Presidents from Jefferson to Eisenhower to Bush 41 have invoked it.

Trump’s critics would rather not have a conversation about bloody cities like Chicago — or the long history of presidents deploying the National Guard when local circumstances require it. They’d rather scream “fascism” than explain why a grandmother on the South Side of Chicago should have to dodge gang bullets on her way to church. They’d rather chant slogans about “abolishing the police” than face the hard fact that the communities most devastated by crime consistently clamor for more law enforcement — not less.

This is where Trump’s political instincts shine. He doesn’t try to “win” the crime debate by splitting the difference with progressives. He doesn’t offer a milquetoast promise to fund “violence interrupters” or expand toothless social programs. He goes right at the issue, knowing full well that the American people are with him.

Because they are. The public has consistently ranked crime and safety among their top concerns; last November, it was usually a top-five issue in general election exit polling. And polling consistently shows that overwhelming majorities — often in the 70-80% range — support more police funding and oppose the left’s radical decarceration agenda. Democrats, ever in thrall to their activist far-left flank, are stuck defending policies with rhetoric that most voters correctly identify as both dangerous and absurd.

Trump knows that when he floats these proposals, Democrats and their corporate media allies won’t respond with nuance. They’ll respond with knee-jerk outrage — just as they did in 2020, when Trump sent federal agents to Portland to stop violent anarchists from torching courthouses. The media framed it as martial law; sane Oregonians saw it as basic governance.

This dynamic plays out again and again. When Trump highlights the border crisis and the need to deport unsavory figures like Mahmoud Khalil and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Democrats defend open borders. When Trump attacks gender ideology indoctrination in schools, Democrats double down on letting teachers hide children’s gender transitions from parents. When Trump condemns pro-Hamas rioters in American cities, Democrats can’t bring themselves to say a word of support for Israel’s war against a State Department-recognized foreign terrorist organization. When Trump signs an executive order seeking to prosecute flag burning, Democrats defend flag burning.

On and on it goes. By now, it’s a well-established pattern. And it’s politically devastating for the left. Moreover, the relevant history is on Trump’s side. This sort of federal corrective goes back all the way to the republic’s origins; those now freaking out might want to read up on George Washington’s efforts to quash the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Call it the art of the 80-20 issue. Along with his sheer sense of humor, Trump’s instinctual knack for picking such winning battles is one of his greatest political assets. And this time, the winner won’t just be Trump himself — it will be Chicagoans and Baltimoreans as well.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

Sept. 4 (UPI) — A federal appeals court Thursday overturned a judge’s order to shut down Florida’s immigration detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” by Department of Homeland Security officials.

The opinion issued by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to wind down operations at the South Florida Detention Facility at Cypress National Preserve in Ochopee.

Environmental groups led by Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Miccosukee Tribe sued over the construction of the facility in May, saying the government didn’t perform a required environmental review first. They cited a federal law called the National Environmental Policy Act, which says the government must conduct such reviews before construction.

In a 2-1 opinion, the Atlanta-based appellate court said the construction of the facility can’t be challenged under NEPA because the state of Florida runs the prison, not the federal government.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis appealed the lower court’s August order based on these grounds. He praised the decision in a post on X accusing Williams of being a “leftist judge.”

“The mission continues at Alligator Alcatraz,” he wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security called it a “huge victory.”

“Today’s order is a win for the American people, the rule of law and common sense,” the department posted on X.

Friends of the Everglades issued a statement on Facebook saying environmental groups intend to continue “fighting” the case.

“While disappointing, we never expected ultimate success to be easy,” said Eve Samples, executive director of the group. “We’re hopeful the preliminary injunction will be affirmed when it’s reviewed on its merits during the appeal.”

The South Florida Detention Facility was the first of multiple prisons opened by the Trump administration in recent months as part of the president’s pledge to mass deport immigrants. Since “Alligator Alcatraz’s” opening in July, the DHS has opened or announced a number of other facilities with alliterative nicknames, including the “Speedway Slammer” at the Miami Correctional Center in Indiana; the “Cornhusker Clink” at the Work Ethic Camp in McCook, Neb.;, the “Deportation Depot” at the Baker Correctional Institution in north Florida; and the “Louisiana Lockup” at Angola Prison.

Immigrants’ rights groups have taken issue with the federal-state partnerships to open large-scale detention facilities and the “political spectacle” associated with the nicknames.

“The new agreements mark a new chapter in the level and scale of cooperation” between federal and state governments on immigration enforcement, the Marshall Project said in a statement in August.

The organization accused the DHS of preventing detainees from meeting confidentially with lawyers at the South Florida Detention Facility. The Marshall Project also alleged the conditions were filthy at the facility and detainees were treated inhumanely, both of which the Trump administration denied.

The DHS said Thursday that the legal challenge to the construction of the facility was about immigration policy, not the environment.

“This lawsuit was never about the environmental impacts of turning a developed airport into a detention facility. It has and will always be about open-borders activists and judges trying to keep law enforcement from removing dangerous criminal aliens from our communities, full stop.”

A woman who worked as a hairstylist for Fox Sports has resolved most of a lawsuit that alleged former host Skip Bayless made repeated, unwanted advances toward her — including an offer of $1.5 million to have sex with him.

Noushin Faraji is still seeking class-action status for her and others who worked at Fox in California over her allegations of unpaid wages and business expenses.

Fox Sports said in a statement: “We are pleased that this matter has been resolved. There will be no further comment.”

An attorney listed for Bayless in the lawsuit, Robert H. Platt, did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press seeking comment.

Faraji had claimed Fox executives fostered a hostile work environment that allowed senior managers and on-air personalities including Bayless to abuse workers without fear of punishment. The AP does not generally identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted or subjected to abuse unless they have publicly identified themselves, as Faraji had in filing the lawsuit.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Laura A. Seigle granted Faraji’s request to dismiss several allegations because “those claims were resolved,” according to an order by the judge filed this week. The judge’s order does not include details on the resolution.

The individual allegations that were dismissed include sexual battery, failure to prevent harassment and wrongful termination. Faraji was seeking unspecified damages when her lawsuit was filed in January.

Claims that remain for Faraji and allegedly others include failure to pay minimum wages and failure to reimburse business expenses, according to the judge’s order.

Faraji was a hairstylist at Fox for more than a decade. She claimed in her lawsuit that the advances by Bayless, which began in 2017 and continued until last year, included lingering hugs, kisses on the cheek and comments from Bayless that he could change Faraji’s life if she had sex with him.

In 2021, she claimed in the suit, Bayless offered Faraji $1.5 million for sex and, after she refused, later threatened her job.

Bayless worked for Fox Sports until 2024 when his show was canceled after its ratings plummeted with the departure of his co-host, Shannon Sharpe.

Faraji said she was fired in 2024 based on “fabricated” reasons. The lawsuit said she initially remained quiet about her treatment at Fox, believing she could be in danger if she went public.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — A Danish wind power company filed suit against the President Donald Trump administration Thursday seeking to reverse a stop-work order on its nearly completed Revolution Wind project off the coast of New England.

Orsted and its joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, asking it to vacate the order from the U.S. Department of the Interior, saying the administration had no authority to make it.

Orsted was ordered on Aug. 22 to stop construction on Revolution Wind to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interest of the United States.” On Aug. 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced it was cutting about $679 million in funding to 12 wind farms, calling the projects “wasteful.”

“The Project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals,” the filing said. “The Stop Work Order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious.”

The filing noted that the Department of Defense had already OKed the project.

The offshore wind farm is 80% complete and was expected to begin operations next year. It has 65 turbines, would have a production capacity of 704 megawatts and would give off enough power for more than 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut.

The filing said that if the company were forced to follow the stop-work order, it would “inflict devastating and irreparable harm” on Revolution Wind. The company has already spent or committed about $5 billion on the project and will incur more than $1 billion in costs if the project closes.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said the wind farm would interfere with the use of U.S. territorial waters. But Orsted called it a pretext, citing Trump’s history of hating wind power.

“The president has apparent hostility towards offshore wind, including based on statements made on the campaign trail,” Orsted’s attorney told the court.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, which the sane and democracy-loving among us should applaud — though of course an appeal is coming.

During the trial, though, a concerning but little-noticed exchange popped up between lawyers for the state of California and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was in charge of the federalized National Guard forces in L.A. It should have been an explosive, red-flag moment highlighting the pressure our military leaders are under to shake off their oath to the Constitution in favor of fealty to Trump.

Sherman testified that he objected to National Guard involvement in a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park, where Latino families often congregate.

That action, Sherman said, was originally slated for Father’s Day, an especially busy time at the park. Internal documents showed it was considered it a “high-risk” operation. Sherman said he feared his troops would be pushed into confrontations with civilians if Border Patrol became overwhelmed by the crowds on that June Sunday.

Gregory Bovino, in charge of the immigration efforts in L.A. for the Border Patrol, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country,” Sherman testified, for just showing hesitation about the wisdom and legality of an order.

It’s the pressure that “you’re not being patriotic if you don’t blow by the law and violate it and just bend the knee and and exhibit complete fealty and loyalty to Trump,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday. And it’s a warning of what’s to come as Trump continues to press for military involvement in civilian law enforcement across the country.

For the record, Sherman has served our country for decades, earning along the way the prestigious Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal among other accolades.

The MacArthur Park operation, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was itself little more than a performative display of power “to demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of maneuver of federal law enforcement within the Los Angeles,” according to agency documents presented in court. It was dubbed Operation Excalibur, in honor of the legendary sword of King Arthur that granted him divine right to rule, a point also included in court documents.

But none of that mattered. Instead, Sherman was pushed to exhibit the kind of blind loyalty to a dear leader that you’d expect to be demanded in dictatorships like those of North Korea or Hungary. Loyalty that confuses — or transforms — a duty to the Constitution with allegiance to Trump. Military experts warn that Sherman’s experience isn’t an isolated incident.

“There’s a chilling effect against pushing back or at least openly questioning any kind of orders,” Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told me. She’s former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Southwestern Law School and serves as a national security law expert.

VanLandingham sees the leadership of our armed forces under pressure “to not engage in the critical thinking, which, as commanders, they are required to do, and to instead go along to get along.” She sees Sherman’s testimony as a “telling glimpse into the wearing away” of that crucial independence.

Such a shift in allegiance would undermine any court order keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement, leaving Trump with exactly the boots on the ground power he has sought since his first term. This is not theoretical.

Through Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump has purged the top ranks of the military of those who aren’t loyal to him. In February, Hegseth fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black soldier who championed diversity in the armed forces. Hegseth has also purged the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the head of the National Security Agency, the chief of Naval Operations, multiple senior female military staff and senior military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In August, he fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency after that general gave a truthful assessment of our bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, angering Trump.

At the same time, the military is being pushed farther into civilian affairs, and not just as erstwhile cops. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Hegseth ordered 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges.

Not to dive too deep into the convoluted immigration system, but these are civilian legal positions, another possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, VanLandingham points out.

And beyond that, can a military lawyer — trained and bound to follow orders — really act as an impartial judge in proceedings where the administration’s wish to deport is clearly known?

Goodbye due process, goodbye fair trial.

That “looks like martial law when you have militarized … judicial proceedings,” VanLandingham said. “How can we trust they are making unbiased decisions? You can’t.”

And even though Sherman pushed back on a full-blown military presence in MacArthur Park, that raid did happen. Federal agents marched through, about three weeks after Father’s Day, with National Guard troops remaining in their vehicles on the perimeter. It was Hegseth himself who authorized the mission.

Sherman also said on the stand that he was told there were “exceptions” to the Posse Comitatus Act — the law being debated in the trial that prevents the military from being used as civilian law enforcement — and that the president had the power to decide what those exceptions were.

“So your understanding is that while [some actions] are on the list of prohibited functions, you can do them under some circumstances?” Judge Charles Breyer asked.

“That’s the legal advice I received,” Sherman answered.

“And the president has the authority to make that decision?” Breyer asked.

“The president has the authority,” Sherman answered.

But does he?

Breyer also asked during the trial, if the president’s powers to both command troops and interpret law are so boundless, “What’s to prevent a national police force?” What, in effect, could stop Trump’s Excalibur-inspired inclinations?

For now, it’s the courts and ethical, mid-level commanders like Sherman, whose common-sense bravery and decency kept the military out of MacArthur Park.

Men and women who understand that the oaths they have sworn are to our country, not the man who would be king.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s deployment of U.S. military troops to Los Angeles during immigration raids earlier this year was illegal.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limited the use of the military for law enforcement purposes. He stayed his ruling to give the administration a chance to appeal.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into service in other cities across the country … thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” Breyer wrote.

The ruling could have implications beyond Los Angeles.

Trump, who sent roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. in June in a move that was opposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, issued an executive order declaring a public safety emergency in D.C. The order invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that places the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control.

In June, Breyer ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of California National Guard members against the state’s wishes.

In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case plays out in federal court. The appellate court found the president had broad, though not “unreviewable,” authority to deploy the military in American cities.

In his Tuesday ruling Breyer added: “The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping outlines plans for new development bank and financing options for SCO members.

China and Russia presented their vision of a new international order at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, where Beijing offered new financial incentives to countries aligned with the Beijing-led economic and security group.

“Global governance has reached a new crossroads,” Chinese President Xi Jinping told the summit on Monday, in remarks that were widely seen as a critique of the United States.

“We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practise true multilateralism,” Xi said.

Xi’s remarks were echoed by those of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said the SCO would revive “genuine multilateralism” as it laid “the political and socioeconomic groundwork for the formation of a new system of stability and security in Eurasia”.

Xi and Putin spoke to more than 20 leaders, primarily from the Middle East and Asia, who had gathered on Sunday and Monday for the summit in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin.

Seen as an alternative power structure to most US-led international institutions, the 10-member SCO includes much of Central Asia, Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Belarus, with more than a dozen permanent dialogue partner countries, including Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Qatar, and Turkiye.

Though the work of the SCO has been largely symbolic since its founding in 2001, Xi outlined grander ambitions for the bloc at the summit.

Xi called for the creation of a new SCO development bank, and announced 2 billion RMB ($280m) in grants plus another 10 billion RMB ($1.4bn) in loans for SCO members.

The pivot into international finance marks a major turning point for the institution, said Eric Olander, the editor-in-chief of The China-Global South Project.

“Since the SCO’s founding 24 years ago, it has been a largely ineffective body with very few notable accomplishments. I think that’s going to change as the membership expands and Xi backs the SCO with development finance money, which is something we haven’t seen before,” he told Al Jazeera.

Xi also outlined a new “Global Governance Initiative” (GGI).

While light on details beyond espousing values such as “multilateralism” and “sovereign equality”, Olander said Xi’s speech offers insight into Beijing’s global ambitions.

“With the GGI, Xi is basically saying the quiet part out loud, that China is seeking to create a parallel global governance system outside the US and European-led order, something that would have been inconceivable a decade ago,” Olander said.

He attributed the shift to changing perceptions of the US in world affairs and demand from the Global South for a greater say in international affairs.

China’s push for multilateralism also comes at a time of growing distrust with the US under the leadership of President Donald Trump, whose trade war has provided SCO members and sometimes-rivals – such as China and India – with common grievances.

Ties between New Delhi and China plummeted in 2020 following skirmishes along their joint border in the Himalayas.

While relations began to normalise last year following a border agreement, Trump’s trade war has helped to speed up thawing diplomatic ties between the countries, according to analysts.

Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to resolve their differences at the summit, which came just days after Trump imposed a punitive 50 percent tariff on Indian goods and blasted the country for its purchase of Russian energy exports.

Xi, Modi, and Putin were also photographed talking and walking together, in another sign of diplomatic unity.

Most of the world leaders attending the SCO are expected to remain in China this week to attend a huge military parade in Beijing on Wednesday, commemorating the end of World War II in Asia.

They will be joined by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who is expected to have a prominent position at the parade alongside Xi and Putin.

Israel is rewriting the rules of the game in the Middle East, not through diplomacy, peace treaties, or multilateral negotiations, but by deploying advanced military tools such as drones, guided missiles, cyberattacks, and cross-border intelligence operations. This aggressive approach, often justified under the banner of “self-defense,” goes beyond defense in practice and has resulted in a violent reconfiguration of the region’s political geography. While the United States should strategically focus on containing China, competing in technology, and maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, Israeli policies have dragged Washington into a quagmire of costly and unending conflicts in the Middle East. This situation has not only undermined regional stability but has also jeopardized America’s global standing. Furthermore, this fragmented and chaotic Middle East demands greater energy and resources from the U.S., offering an opportunity for other actors to exploit this disorder to expand their influence.

Israel and the Violent Redesign of Middle Eastern Geography

Over the past decade, Israel has significantly altered its approach to perceived security threats. Rather than relying on diplomatic tools or classical deterrence, it has embraced a strategy that can best be described as a violent redesign of the Middle East’s geography. This strategy includes a combination of targeted assassinations, precision bombings, sophisticated cyberattacks, and deep intelligence operations inside neighboring countries. While the stated objective is to neutralize threats from actors like Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian resistance movements, the actual result has gone far beyond defense, raising fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of other nations in the region. 

    Israel’s repeated strikes on targets in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and most recently inside Iran, have not only violated national sovereignty but rendered traditional red lines—defined by international treaties—virtually meaningless. These actions send a clear message to the region: in the new Middle East order, borders are no longer defined through diplomatic agreements but by military power and the flight paths of drones and missiles. What we are witnessing today in the Middle East surpasses traditional conflicts or conventional warfare. Israel is creating a new missile-based order in which the rules of engagement are dictated not by negotiations or international treaties, but by military and technological superiority. In this new order, drones and guided missiles have become tools for rewriting the region’s political and military boundaries. Although this strategy is ostensibly designed to secure Israel, it has in practice contributed to the growing instability across the region.

    The message of this new order to regional actors is unmistakably clear: deterrence is no longer achieved through diplomacy or conventional state armies. In the absence of coordinated responses from regional governments, non-state resistance groups have emerged as the only effective counterforce to these aggressions. Groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—despite their ideological and political differences—share one common goal: resisting Israel’s military and intelligence dominance. This decentralized, networked resistance has posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel. Unlike traditional wars fought in defined battlefields with clear enemies, these confrontations lack both fixed timelines and geographic clarity. Even Israel’s most advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, face limitations in confronting these diffuse and asymmetric threats.

A Geopolitical Challenge for Washington

The strategic and political alignment between the United States and Israel has elevated this from a regional crisis to a global challenge for Washington. At a time when the U.S. should be allocating its resources to compete with China, secure maritime routes in the Asia-Pacific, protect Taiwan, and drive technological innovation, it is now forced to spend a significant share of its time, resources, and international credibility managing the fallout of Israeli policies. America’s unwavering support for Israel, from advanced arms sales to diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council and intelligence cooperation, has made it an active partner in this new missile order. Every Israeli strike on Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian, or Iraqi territory, directly or indirectly, implicates the United States. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Syria, Yemen, and deep inside Iraq have compelled Washington to again bolster its military presence in the region. The more America is drawn into managing Middle Eastern crises, the less it can concentrate on global rivalries, especially with China.

    This dynamic is particularly costly at a time when the U.S. is attempting to rebuild its image among countries of the Global South. Across the Islamic world—from North Africa to Central Asia—Israeli actions are viewed not as defensive, but as acts of aggression and occupation. Since the U.S. stands fully behind Israel, this animosity is directly projected onto Washington. Even America’s traditional allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now distancing themselves from U.S. favoritism and moving toward engagement with other powers like China and Russia.

    One of the most consequential outcomes of this new missile order is the shift in regional discourse. Whereas peace and negotiation were once regarded as primary means of conflict resolution, power now defines the regional order. Through its actions, Israel has demonstrated that the rules of engagement are no longer based on international agreements or even traditional diplomatic norms but on military and technological capability. This shift has not only militarized the region further but also placed the United States in a difficult position. While Washington tries to present itself as a mediator for peace and a guardian of global stability, its unconditional support for Israel has severely tarnished that image.

    Some analysts in Washington may still argue that Israel is America’s first line of defense in the Middle East. However, that view—rooted in Cold War logic—no longer aligns with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. If this “defense” leads to expanded conflict zones, intensified regional hostilities, and a stronger axis of resistance, it can no longer be considered a strategic asset. Israel has become a liability that holds American geopolitics hostage. The costs of this situation are multifaceted: military costs to sustain a regional presence; political costs from losing credibility in international institutions; missed opportunities in competing with China; and the growing influence of other powers in the security vacuum of the Middle East.
    The fundamental question for American policymakers is this: is the United States prepared to sacrifice its 21st-century geopolitical future for unconditional loyalty to a single ally? However strategically important Israel may be, it cannot alone justify America’s deviation from its global priorities. It is time for Washington to redefine its support for Israel—not based on historical habit or domestic pressures, but grounded in long-term national interest. This redefinition could include pressuring Israel to return to diplomacy, scale back aggressive actions, and strengthen regional cooperation. Without such a shift, Israel’s new missile order will not only further destabilize the Middle East but also place the United States on a trajectory where the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has unveiled his ambition for a new global security and economic order to challenge the United States and Europe. Xi was joined by Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that immigration operations will soon be expanded in Chicago, confirming plans for a stepped-up presence of federal agents in the nation’s third-largest city as President Trump continues to lash out at Illinois’ Democratic leadership.

Noem’s comments came a day after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson struck back against what he called the “out-of-control” plan to surge federal officers into the city. The Chicago Police Department will be barred from helping federal authorities with civil immigration enforcement or any related patrols, traffic stops and checkpoints during the surge, according to an executive order Johnson signed Saturday.

The Homeland Security Department last week requested limited logistical support from officials at the Naval Station Great Lakes to support the agency’s anticipated operations. The military installation is about 35 miles north of Chicago.

“We’ve already had ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago … but we do intend to add more resources to those operations,” Noem said during a Sunday appearance CBS News’ ”Face the Nation.”

Noem declined to provide further details about the planned surge of federal officers. It comes after the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops to Washington, saying they were needed to target crime, immigration and homelessness, and two months after it sent troops to Los Angeles.

Trump lashed out against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in a social media posting Saturday, warning him that he must straighten out Chicago’s crime problems quickly “or we’re coming.” The Republican president has also been critical of Johnson.

Johnson and Pritzker, both Democrats, have denounced the expected federal mobilization, noting that crime has fallen in Chicago. They are planning to sue if Trump moves forward with the plan.

In his order signed Saturday, Johnson directed all city departments to guard the constitutional rights of Chicago residents “amidst the possibility of imminent militarized immigration or National Guard deployment by the federal government.”

Asked during a news conference about federal agents who are presumably “taking orders,” Johnson replied: “Yeah, and I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

Johnson also blocked Chicago police from wearing face coverings to hide their identities, as most federal immigration officers have done since Trump launched his crackdown.

The federal surge into Chicago could start as early as Friday and last about 30 days, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that had not been made public.

Pritzker, in an interview aired Sunday on “Face the Nation,” said that Trump’s expected plans to mobilize federal forces in the city may be part of a plan to “stop the elections in 2026 or, frankly, take control of those elections.”

Noem said it was a Trump “prerogative” whether to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago as he did in Los Angeles in June in the midst of protests there against immigration raids.

“I do know that L.A. wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action,” Noem said. “That city would have burned if left to devices of the mayor and governor of that state.”

Unlike the recent federal takeover of policing in Washington, the Chicago operation is not expected to rely on the National Guard or military and is focused exclusively on immigration, rather than being cast as part of a broad campaign against crime, Trump administration officials have said.

Chicago is home to a large immigrant population, and both the city and the state of Illinois have some of the country’s strongest rules against cooperating with federal immigration enforcement efforts. That has often put the city and state at odds with the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

Johnson’s order builds on the city’s longtime stance, that neither Chicago nor Illinois officials have sought or been consulted on the federal presence and they stand against Trump’s mobilization plan.

During his news conference Saturday, Johnson accused the president of “behaving outside the bounds of the Constitution” and seeking a federal presence in Democratic cities as retribution against his political rivals.

“He is reckless and out of control,” Johnson said. “He’s the biggest threat to our democracy that we’ve experienced in the history of our country.”

In response, the White House contended that the potential flood of federal agents was about “cracking down on crime.”

“If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the President, their communities would be much safer,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email Saturday.

Critics have noted that Trump, while espousing a tough-on-crime push, is the only felon ever to occupy the White House.

Madhani and Beck write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Chicago, respectively.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he would sign an executive order requiring voters to present identification when casting ballots.

“Voter ID must be part of every single vote. No exceptions!” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. “I will be doing an executive order to that end! Also, no mail-in voting, except for those that are very ill, and the far away military. Use paper ballots only!”

The president did not provide any further details about the planned executive order, which comes amid his push to influence how elections are carried out in the United States. Trump has long claimed without evidence that voter fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.

This is not Trump’s first foray into voter ID via executive order. In March, he signed a similar mandate requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as passports or government-issued IDs, for voter registration in federal elections.

At the time, a White House fact sheet described the executive order as a way “to protect the integrity of American elections.”

“There are other steps that we will be taking in the coming weeks and we think we’ll be able to end up getting fair elections,” Trump hinted at the time. “This country is so sick because of the elections, the fake elections and the bad elections and we’re going to straighten it out one way or the other.”

But that order encountered immediate backlash, with critics characterizing it as a modern-day poll tax, arguing that many Americans lack the required documents, and warning it would disenfranchise low-income, elderly and marginalized voters.

A federal court later blocked the order’s documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms, citing constitutional overreach.

Similarly, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and others have vocally opposed nationwide voter ID mandates, viewing them as attempts to undermine progressive state-level voting reforms and restrict access to the ballot box.

It is expected that the latest executive order will also be widely and swiftly challenged ahead of the midterm elections in November 2026.

US president is seeking to overhaul country’s electoral system, falsely claiming his 2020 loss was a result of fraud.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to sign an executive order requiring voter identification from every voter.

“Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS! I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!!,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Saturday.

“Also, No Mail-In Voting, Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military,” he added.

The announcement comes as Trump seeks to overhaul the electoral system in the US over false claims that his 2020 loss to Democratic President Joe Biden was the result of widespread fraud.

The president and his Republican allies also have made baseless claims about widespread voting by non-citizens, which is illegal and rarely occurs.

For years, he has called for the end of electronic voting machines, pushing instead for the use of paper ballots and hand counts, a process that election officials say is time-consuming, costly and far less accurate than machine counting.

In March this year, Trump signed a sweeping executive order that included requirements for documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and for all ballots to be received by Election Day.

A judge in April blocked parts of that order, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement, saying that the US Constitution gives the power to regulate federal elections to states and Congress – not the president.

Trump, meanwhile, pledged to also issue an executive order to end the use of mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The November 3, 2026, elections will be the first nationwide referendum on Trump’s domestic and foreign policies since he returned to power in January. Democrats will be seeking to break the Republicans’ grip on both the House of Representatives and the Senate to block Trump’s domestic agenda.

The mayor of Chicago has signed an executive order seeking to protect residents against a possible decision by United States President Donald Trump’s administration to deploy federal troops to the city.

Mayor Brandon Johnson announced on Saturday that he was signing the so-called Protecting Chicago Initiative amid what he said were “credible reports” that Chicago could see militarised activity by the federal government within days.

“It is unclear at this time what that will look like exactly,” the mayor said at a news conference. “We may see militarised immigration enforcement. We may also see National Guard troops. We may even see active duty military and armed vehicles in our streets.”

Among other things, the order directs Chicago law enforcement officers not to collaborate with US military personnel on patrols or during immigration enforcement activities, Johnson told reporters.

He described the move as “the most sweeping campaign of any city in the country to protect ourselves from the threats and actions of this out-of-control administration”.

Johnson’s announcement comes after Trump earlier this month said that he was considering whether to expand his National Guard troop deployment from Washington, DC, to other major cities across the country.

Trump called up the National Guard in what he said was a push to address crime in the US capital. The Republican leader has since credited the deployment with cutting down rates of violence in the city.

But data from the Metropolitan Police Department showed violent crime in Washington, DC, was already at a 30-year low, and critics warned that the crackdown could end up being a test run for the broader militarisation of US cities.

Earlier this week, the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, said in an interview with CNN that Trump had “no authority” to send federal troops to Chicago.

The US Constitution gives the power of policing to the states.

JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, where Chicago is located, also rejected the idea.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families,” Pritzker said in a statement.

Citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, CNN reported on Friday that the Trump administration has been preparing to carry out a “major immigration enforcement operation” in Chicago as early as next week.

According to CNN, White House officials said those plans are separate from Trump’s idea of sending National Guard troops to Chicago for a broader crackdown on crime.

The president, who took office in January for a second term, has pursued a hardline, anti-immigration agenda and pledged to carry out the “largest deportation operation” in US history.

The administration has justified its push by saying it is deporting “criminals” who are in the US illegally. It has reached deals with third countries to take in deported asylum seekers and migrants.

But US media reports over the past months have shown that many people have been swept up in the immigration raids, including some American citizens and permanent residents with no criminal records.

In June, Trump sent 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after an intensified wave of arrests by US immigration authorities prompted massive protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.

On Saturday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson slammed the Chicago mayor’s executive order, saying in a statement shared by US media outlets that “cracking down on crime should not be a partisan issue”.

“If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the President, their communities would be much safer,” Jackson said.

During his news conference, Johnson, the mayor, said it remained unclear whether Trump would go ahead with his plans in the city.

“He could change his mind, he could reverse course – in fact, I encourage him to do that,” Johnson said, stressing that Chicago – the country’s third largest city – does not want its residents rounded up off the streets.

“We do not want to see families ripped apart. We do not want grandmothers thrown into the backs of unmarked vans. We don’t want to see homeless Chicagoans harassed or disappeared by federal agents,” he added.

Aug. 30 (UPI) — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson on Saturday signed an executive order that demands President Donald Trump end “his threats to deploy the National Guard” to his city.

The “Protecting Chicago Initiative” is in response to a “credible threat” that troops will be deployed in a few days, and directs the city to pursue all legal and legislative avenues stop stop the deployment.

“I do not take this executive action lightly,” Johnson said during a signing in the mayor’s ceremonial office, said. “I would’ve preferred to work more collaboratively to pass legislation … but unfortunately we do not have the luxury of time. We have received credible reports that we have days, not weeks, before our city sees some kind of militarized activity by the federal government.”

In addition, the order affirms that Chicago police will remain a locally controlled law enforcement agency. Earlier this month, when Trump deployed troops to Washington, D.C., the Trump administration took over the police department.

“We do not want military checkpoints or armored vehicles on our streets and we do not want to see families ripped apart,” Johnson said. “We will take any action necessary to protect the rights of all Chicagoans.”

Federal law enforcement and U.S. Armed Forces in the order are told to abide by municipal laws, including not concealing their identities, using body cameras when interacting with a member of the public and displaying which agency they are with, including their last name and badge number.

“This executive order makes it emphatically clear this president is not going to come in and deputize our police department,” Johnson said. “We do not want to see tanks in our streets. We do not want families ripped apart. … And I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

The Naval Station Great Lakes, about 40 miles north of downtown Chicago in North Chicago, confirmed that it is preparing to host federal immigration agents. The base, which is the largest military installation in the state, is planning to host more than 200 federal agents from Tuesday to Sept. 30.

Johnson has set Friday as the arrival date.

The Naval base is in Lake County, north of Cook County.

Esiah Campos, the county’s Board Commissioner and Navy corpsman who finished his training at Naval Station Great Lakes in 2020, urged state legislators Friday to ban law enforcement from using masks statewide. Also for Lake County mayors to reaffirm their commitment not to assist ICE.

“It hurts to see the base I drilled out of to house ICE and Homeland Security agents to terrorize our people,” Campos said at a Friday news conference with other legislators and community groups in North Chicago’s Veterans Memorial Park. “This is not a time for platitudes. Now is a time for action.”

Since 1985 Chicago has been a sanctuary city, which limits local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer has told Trump the federal response is not needed, considering crime has fallen significantly.

On Tuesday, he posted on X: “If Trump wants to get to Chicago, he’s going to have to go through us. And we’re not backing down.”

During a news conference in Chicago on Thursday, he said: “Donald Trump is exactly the kind of person that our founders warned us about. He cozies up to dictators like Putin because he idolizes them. His actions are dangerous and un-American.

Trump has said he would tackle crime next in Chicago after deploying personnel to the nation’s capital, which is a federal jurisdiction.

“We’re going to make our cities very, very safe,” Trump said on Aug. 22. “Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor. Grossly incompetent and we’ll straighten that one out probably next. That will be our next one after this. And it won’t even be tough.”

“No, Donald. You can’t do whatever you want,” the governor responded to the president on X.

Through late August, Chicago had 266 homicides in 2025, according to the Chicago Police Department, the Chicago Tribune reported.

The Midwest city is “about 25% below where they were in the first half of 2019,” Ernesto Lopez, a senior research specialist at the Council on Criminal Justice, told the Chicago Sun Times.

In 2024, there were 581 murders in Chicago with 621 in 2023 in a city of 2.7 million people.

The top homicide rate is in Memphis, Tenn., with 409 per 100,000 for a total of 372 in 2023. Chicago wasn’t even in the top 15 with 29.7 per 100,000.

The drop in homicides in Chicago from 2019 to 2025 was significantly larger than the national average.

Chicago’s highest concentrations of crime is in neighborhoods on the South and West sides, and not downtown.

The governor showed off parts of the city this week, including where crime dropped.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants detained in the interior of the United States.

The move is a setback for President Trump’s efforts to expand the use of the federal expedited removal statute to quickly remove some undocumented migrants without appearing before a judge first.

Trump promised to engineer a massive deportation operation during his 2024 campaign if voters returned him to the White House. And he set a goal of carrying out 1 million deportations a year in his second term.

But U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb suggested the administration’s expanded use of the expedited removal of migrants is trampling on due process rights.

“In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them,” Cobb wrote in a 48-page opinion issued Friday night. “Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.”

The Department of Homeland Security announced shortly after Trump came to office in January that it was expanding the use of expedited removal, the fast-track deportation of undocumented migrants who have been in the U.S. less than two years.

The effort has triggered lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups.

Homeland Security said in a statement that Cobb’s “ruling ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” It said Trump “has a mandate to arrest and deport the worst of the worst” and that ”we have the law, facts, and common sense on our side.”

Before the administration’s push to expand such speedy deportations, expedited removal was used only for migrants who were stopped within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days.

Cobb, an appointee of President Biden, didn’t question the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute or its application at the border.

“It merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process,” she wrote.

She added that “prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”

Cobb earlier this month agreed to temporarily block the administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole. The ruling could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

In that case the judge said Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand expedited removal for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After the arrests, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has vacated a ruling that a Texas law giving police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated a ruling by a three-judge panel, and now the full court will consider whether the law can take effect.

The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 4 in 2023, but a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional. Texas appealed that ruling.

Under the proposed law, state law enforcement officers could arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, detainees could agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a social media post Friday that the court’s decision was a “hopeful sign.”