Protection

The U.S. Secret Service dealt with several drone-related incidents without adjusting its protection policies or documenting why it didn’t, according to a government report released Thursday. That information may have helped illustrate the emerging threat of civilian drone use before one was used in the 2024 assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pa.

The report from the Government Accountability Office found delays and holes in how the Secret Service updates its policies regarding threats, and arrives after a few turbulent years for the agency charged with the president’s protection.

The would-be assassin in Butler positioned himself on a roof left unsecured, nicking the president’s ear with a bullet. Months later, a man with a rifle got surprisingly close to Trump at his West Palm Beach, Fla., golf course. And in April, an armed man got beyond security barriers at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, where the president sat.

The report found that between 2015 and 2025 the Secret Service dealt with 83 security incidents and that it updated its protection policies in response to 25 of them. Among the incidents was a drone that made contact with President Obama’s motorcade in 2015 and another flown about 200 feet over a rally for then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Failing to document why the Secret Service decided not to change its policy is the concern, said Nathan Tranquilli, acting director of the Government Accountability Office, adding that the drone incidents were a “compelling example” of that.

“Some of the missing information has been relevant to subsequent attacks,” the report read. It cited the Butler incident, where the culprit flew a drone for 11 minutes over the crowd, which helped him position himself to get a clear shot at Trump.

The Secret Service also failed to update eight of 22 protection policies within a required time frame of four years. A memorandum of understanding between the Secret Service and the Diplomatic Security Service, which designates each agency’s responsibilities for the president’s overseas security, hasn’t been updated since 1991, even though an annual review and update are required. As a consequence, the memorandum doesn’t address newer threats, such as drones.

“When you look at the Secret Service and you look at their mission, really it’s a zero-fail mission, and they’ve got a ton of challenges,” Tranquilli said. “When decisions were being made about where to put time and energy, some of these things fell to the side, and, as a result, there were some delays.”

The report recommended three fixes, including that the Secret Service revise its policy to require that, when a security incident doesn’t warrant a policy update, that the rationale is documented.

A spokesperson for the Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the report stated that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service, agreed with all recommendations and plans to implement changes.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

The spouses and parents of US service members have been reportedly detained or deported after the Trump administration ended protections for military families. The Associated Press believes the dozens of cases its investigation found are just the beginning.

SAN DIEGO  — Emanuel Lexius’ market in El Cajon is typically bustling.

Not lately.

Lexius is Haitian, and so are most of the shoppers at Miche Caribbean Market. They come to stock up on familiar Haitian staples — Ti Malice vegetable oil spread, long-grain heirloom rice, Cola Couronne soda.

“People don’t want to be out,” he said, and “no one wants to be exposed.”

A wave of fear swept Haitian American communities in San Diego County and nationwide last week after the Trump administration revoked protections for Haitian immigrants living in the U.S. under temporary protected status, or TPS. The program has allowed roughly 350,000 Haitians — including thousands in San Diego and Los Angeles — to live and work in the U.S. because their home country is unsafe.

A federal district judge temporarily blocked the action for nearly five months before the Supreme Court upheld the Trump order in June. The Department of Homeland Security officially moved to remove the protections last Monday.

That has left Haitians in Southern California in a state of anxiety over whether and when they could be deported. Community leaders say the repercussions could be widespread, with people now scared to leave their homes or go to work — or at risk of losing their jobs because they no longer have work authorization.

“People who applied for a program that the U.S. government laid in place … they came to the U.S. in search of safety and protection, only for that to be pulled from under them without any support,” said Guerline Jozef, the executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, a local nonprofit that provides legal and social services to Haitians and other immigrant groups.

Along with Haiti, the Trump administration has moved to roll back temporary protected status for people from 13 countries, all of them majority Black or brown.

“Temporary Protected Status is exactly that — temporary,” said a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson. “For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent.”

TPS was established for Haiti in 2010, after a catastrophic earthquake killed more than 200,000 people and destabilized the country. The protection was extended in 2021 amid the civil chaos that unfolded after Haiti’s president was assassinated and again in 2024 due to ongoing safety concerns. Today, armed gangs control sections of the country, presidential elections haven’t been held in a decade, and millions of people struggle with daily needs, per a recent United Nations report.

Today, the Trump administration says conditions in Haiti have improved enough for Haitians to return. But Haiti remains under a “Do not travel” advisory from the U.S. State Department, and the country has been under a state of emergency since March 2024.

Since their deportation protections ended Monday, local Haitians say they can’t go back to Haiti, pointing to safety concerns for themselves and their families.

“I had no choice but to leave Haiti,” said Galencha, a Haitian TPS holder who works in San Diego and requested his last name be withheld for fear he might be deported.

The 42-year-old, who is married with two young daughters, has lived in San Diego for seven years. He said his mother and uncle were killed in Haiti; his older brother was shot. His father is still there, but his sisters and close friends have left.

A Homeland Security spokesperson declined to comment on plans for any enforcement operations targeting Haitians but said enforcement actions are happening every day.

“Whenever we go out, it makes me feel bad,” said a 43-year-old Haitian man who lives near El Cajon. He too just lost his temporary protected status.

He arrived in the U.S. two years ago, alone, leaving behind his family. He typically waits in a Home Depot parking lot with the hope of getting picked up for a job, but it hasn’t been easy to find steady work.

Now, he and other local Haitians say they have been keeping their head on a swivel for immigration enforcement.

Even with temporary protected status, immigrants face a host of challenges to find work in the first place, said Maria Chavez, immigration legal director at the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. The process to qualify for a work permit and a reauthorization can take over a year with delays, she noted.

Most Haitians who have settled in San Diego since 2010 have found work in the hospitality, healthcare and construction industries — though many arrive with an entrepreneurial mindset forged in their home country, explained Jozef, from the Haitian Bridge Alliance.

“Due to the lack of a formal job market, the majority of the people have to find ways to create small businesses in Haiti,” she said. “So they come with that mindset of creating businesses.”

Right now, Haitian Bridge Alliance is focused on helping former TPS holders create a family plan — including getting their financial documents in order and creating contingency plans in case they’re deported. It’s also helping get basic needs like food to Haitians who are scared to leave home and connecting them with legal representation.

Since going back to Haiti is not an option for many Haitians in the region, now is the time for former TPS holders to pursue alternatives such as asylum or seeing if they qualify to stay in the U.S. through marriage, Chavez said.

“None of these are fast options,” she noted.

PANA and Haitian Bridge Alliance are fighting in court against the Trump administration’s termination of temporary protected status for Somalia. But Chavez says that fighting the termination for Haiti is largely off the table, since the Supreme Court has already upheld that order.

In the meantime, the end of Haitians’ temporary protections has created heartbreak throughout the community.

Husband and wife Martha and Feret Milliem own Caribbean Pleasure, a Point Loma restaurant serving Haitian cuisine in a dining room hung with Haitian flags.

The couple have lived in San Diego for nearly half a century and aren’t personally affected by the end of TPS protections — but it’s been painful to watch their community grow fearful and lose their grip on the American lives they’ve worked to build.

The impact extends to families back in Haiti, too, they add, if relatives in the U.S. who suddenly lose their legal jobs are unable to send money back to them.

“Right now, the Haitians are living under hell,” Martha said.

Fox writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

BILLINGS, Mont. — The U.S. Interior Department on Friday canceled a rule meant to protect plants and animals that are determined to be threatened with extinction, the latest step by the Trump administration to dismantle key provisions of the landmark Endangered Species Act at the behest of industry.

Instead of receiving automatic protections, imperiled species will need individualized protection plans once they are added to the threatened species list. That’s a potentially lengthy process in which companies could seek exemptions for oil and gas drilling, mining and other development where those species live.

Opponents said it would make it harder to save wildlife awaiting federal protections and in danger of disappearing, such as monarch butterflies and alligator snapping turtles.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the Endangered Species Act had been used for too long “to stop almost any new project in America, driving up costs for families, weakening our competitiveness, and undermining our national security.”

“Success should be measured by species recovery and delisting, not by adding more species to the list,” Burgum added.

A second change finalized Friday requires officials to analyze economic effects when deciding whether habitat is critical to a species’ survival. Critics say it gives corporations an opportunity to put their thumb on the scale so officials will allow development in those areas.

“If you’re exempting certain industries that cause habitat destruction, in many instances you’ll be exempting the main threat to those species,” said Noah Greenwald with the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity.

Officials made similar changes during Trump’s first term, but they were reversed under the Biden administration.

The rules that gave what some consider “blanket protections” to threatened species were first adopted for wildlife in 1975 and for plants in 1977.

Two groups, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Property and Environment Research Center, sued the Biden administration in 2024 after officials restored the blanket protections rule. They argued the rule unfairly imposed the same restrictions on landowners when a species’ status improves from endangered, which is more dire, to threatened.

That removed incentives for landowners to participate in species recovery, said Jonathan Wood, vice president at the Montana-based research center.

Wood said the Trump administration’s approach allows officials to “better reward progress and encourage proactive conservation.”

There have been no species added to the endangered or threatened lists in Trump’s second term. By comparison, more than 20 species were added in Trump’s first term, and about 60 under President Biden.

About 30 species are currently proposed to be listed as threatened. Besides monarchs and alligator snapping turtles, they include California spotted owls and various snakes, fish, clams and insects.

Changes to government policies for endangered plants and wildlife have come faster and extended further in Trump’s second term than in his first.

The administration in March exempted oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said environmentalists’ lawsuits threatened to hobble domestic energy supplies as the U.S. wages war against Iran.

A week before the latest rule change, Interior officials sharply narrowed the definition of what constitutes “harm” to a species. The change would allow development in critical wildlife habitat so long as the animals themselves are not immediately killed or injured.

Officials this week sharply reduced the amount of critical habitat in the Rocky Mountains designated for Canada lynx, forest-dwelling wildcats that are threatened by climate change and other pressures.

Also this week, Burgum said in a visit to Montana that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would turn over more management authority for grizzly bears to states where the bruins live. That’s been a long-standing priority for the Republican governors of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

The Endangered Species Act is credited with bringing back animals including the California condor, the bald eagle and the American alligator from the brink of extinction.

Burgum noted Friday that 97% of the species that have been given protections still have them. That’s a frustration for Republican lawmakers who say species should be taken off the endangered and threatened lists more quickly once they’ve recovered.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.

In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.

The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.

In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.

Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.

But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.

Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.

However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.

Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.

Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.

DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.

Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.

Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.

Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.

Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.

“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.

Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”

USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.

The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.

That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”

Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.

Pope Leo delivered a landmark address to Spain’s parliament, warning that the world is facing a profound spiritual, cultural, and political crisis marked by escalating conflicts, deepening polarization, and growing disregard for human rights.

The speech, the first by a pope before the Spanish legislature, formed a central part of his week long visit to Spain. Coming amid renewed hostilities between Israel and Iran and ongoing debates over migration and European security, the address reflected the Vatican’s increasing engagement with major geopolitical and humanitarian issues.

Leo used the occasion to reiterate long standing Catholic concerns regarding war, social fragmentation, migration, and the ethical implications of technological development. He also addressed the relationship between religion and public life, defending religious freedom and the confidentiality of confession.

Key Themes

Peace Over Militarisation

A central theme of the pope’s address was opposition to the growing militarisation of international politics. He argued that military force may suppress conflict temporarily but cannot create lasting peace.

His remarks came as European governments continue increasing defence expenditures in response to heightened security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and broader geopolitical instability. The pope warned that excessive reliance on military solutions risks deepening rather than resolving global tensions.

Migration and Human Dignity

Leo devoted significant attention to migration, describing inadequate responses to displaced populations as a challenge to the ethical foundations of the international order.

He urged governments to move beyond border management policies and address the underlying drivers of migration, including conflict, poverty, and climate change. His comments coincided with plans to meet migrants in Spain’s Canary Islands, a major entry point for migrants attempting to reach Europe from Africa.

The pontiff framed migration as both a humanitarian and moral issue, arguing that the treatment of vulnerable populations serves as a measure of a nation’s moral character.

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics

The pope also expanded on concerns he has raised previously regarding artificial intelligence. He called for stronger ethical oversight of emerging technologies, particularly their application in military contexts.

As governments and defence industries increasingly integrate AI into weapons systems and military planning, Leo argued that technological progress must remain subject to moral and humanitarian considerations.

Religion in Public Life

Another notable aspect of the speech was the pope’s defence of religious participation in public affairs. He argued that faith should not be excluded from public discourse and stressed the importance of protecting religious freedoms.

Leo also defended the confidentiality of confession, a topic that has generated debate in several countries considering legal requirements for clergy to report abuse disclosed during confessions.

Why It Matters

The speech signals a more assertive Vatican engagement with global political debates at a time of mounting international instability.

Unlike purely theological addresses, Leo’s remarks directly addressed issues shaping contemporary international relations, including war, migration, technological governance, and democratic cohesion. His intervention places the Catholic Church within broader discussions regarding the future direction of global governance and international cooperation.

The address also highlights the Vatican’s growing concern that rising geopolitical competition, nationalism, and social polarization are weakening international institutions and undermining collective approaches to global challenges.

Stakeholders

The Vatican

• Seeking to shape global debates on peace, migration, ethics, and human rights.

European Governments

• Balancing security concerns with humanitarian responsibilities and social cohesion.

Migrants and Refugees

• Directly affected by immigration policies and international responses to displacement.

Technology Sector

• Facing increasing scrutiny over the ethical implications of artificial intelligence.

Religious Communities

• Monitoring debates surrounding religious freedom and the role of faith in public life.

Human Rights Organisations

• Engaged in discussions regarding migration, conflict resolution, and protections for vulnerable populations.

Strategic Implications

The address reflects the Vatican’s effort to position itself as a moral counterweight to rising geopolitical competition and militarisation. By linking war, migration, technology, and social division within a single framework, the pope presented these issues as interconnected symptoms of a broader crisis affecting the international order.

His criticism of increased military spending places the Vatican at odds with many Western governments currently prioritising defence expansion. At the same time, his focus on migration challenges increasingly restrictive immigration policies adopted across Europe.

The pope’s intervention on artificial intelligence also signals that ethical governance of emerging technologies may become a more prominent area of Vatican diplomacy in the coming years.

Analysis

Pope Leo’s address represents one of the clearest articulations yet of his vision for the Church’s role in contemporary global affairs. Rather than limiting his remarks to spiritual concerns, he framed international conflict, migration pressures, technological change, and democratic fragmentation as interconnected challenges requiring moral as well as political responses.

The speech suggests a papacy willing to engage directly with policy debates at a time when many governments are prioritising security, strategic competition, and economic interests. While the Vatican lacks conventional political power, its ability to shape public discourse and influence ethical debates remains significant.

By positioning peace, human dignity, and ethical governance at the centre of his message, Leo is seeking to reassert the relevance of moral leadership in an increasingly fragmented international environment. Whether governments embrace those arguments remains uncertain, but the address signals that the Vatican intends to remain an active participant in debates over the future of the global order.

With information from Reuters.