removal

ORLANDO, Fla. — U.S. government lawyers say that detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” probably include people who have never been in removal proceedings, which is a direct contradiction of what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been saying since it opened in July.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice made that admission Thursday in a court filing arguing that the detainees at the facility in the Everglades wilderness don’t have enough in common to be certified as a class in a lawsuit over whether they’re getting proper access to attorneys.

A removal proceeding is a legal process initiated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to determine if someone should be deported from the United States.

The Justice Department attorneys wrote that the detainees at the Everglades facility have too many immigration statuses to be considered a class.

“The proposed class includes all detainees at Alligator Alcatraz, a facility that houses detainees in all stages of immigration processing — presumably including those who have never been in removal proceedings, those who will be placed into removal proceedings, those who are already subject to final orders of removal, those subject to expedited removal, and those detained for the purpose of facilitation removal from the United States pursuant to a final order of removal,” they wrote.

Since the facility opened, DeSantis has been saying publicly that each detainee has gone through the process of determining that they can’t legally be in the United States.

During a July 25 news conference outside the detention center, DeSantis said, “Everybody here is already on a final removal order.”

“They have been ordered to be removed from the country,” he added.

At a July 29 speech before a conference of the Florida Sheriffs Assn., the Republican governor said, “The people that are going to the Alligator Alcatraz are illegally in the country. They’ve all already been given a final order of removal.”

He added, “So, if you have an order to be removed, what is the possible objection to the federal government enforcing that removal order?”

DeSantis’ press office didn’t respond Monday morning to an email seeking comment.

The court filing by the Justice Department attorneys was made in a lawsuit in which civil rights groups allege the facility’s detainees have been denied proper access to attorneys in violation of their constitutional rights. The civil rights groups on Thursday asked a federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., for a preliminary injunction that would establish stronger protections for detainees to meet with attorneys privately and share documents confidentially.

The court case is one of three lawsuits filed by environmental and civil rights groups over the detention center, which was hastily built this summer by the state of Florida and operated by private contractors and state agencies.

A federal judge in Miami ordered in August that the facility must wind down operations within two months, agreeing with environmental groups that the remote airstrip site wasn’t given a proper environmental review before it was converted into an immigration detention center. But operations continued after the judge’s preliminary injunction was put on hold in early September by an appellate court panel. At one point, the facility held more than 900 detainees, but most of them were transferred after the initial injunction. It wasn’t clear on Monday how many detainees were at the center, which was built to hold 3,000 people.

President Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations. Federal officials on Friday confirmed that Florida has been approved for a $608-million reimbursement for the costs of building and running the immigration detention center.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A new report on book bans in U.S. schools finds Stephen King as the author most likely to be censored and the country divided between states actively restricting works and those attempting to limit or eliminate bans.

PEN America’s “Banned in the USA,” released Wednesday, tracks more than 6,800 instances of books being temporarily or permanently pulled for the 2024-2025 school year. The new number is down from more than 10,000 in 2023-24, but still far above the levels of a few years ago, when PEN didn’t even see the need to compile a report.

Some 80% of those bans originated in three states that have enacted or attempted to enact laws calling for removal of books deemed objectionable — Florida, Texas and Tennessee. Meanwhile, PEN found little or no instances of removals in several other states, with Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey among those with laws that limit the authority of school and public libraries to pull books.

“It is increasingly a story of two countries,” says Kasey Meehan, director of PEN’s Freedom to Read program and an author of the report. “And it’s not just a story of red states and blue states. In Florida, not all of the school districts responded to the calls for banning books. You can find differences from county to county.”

King’s books were censored 206 times, according to PEN, with “Carrie” and “The Stand” among the 87 of his works affected. The most banned work of any author was Anthony Burgess’ dystopian classic from the 1960s, “A Clockwork Orange,” for which PEN found 23 removals. Other books and authors facing extensive restrictions included Patricia McCormick’s “Sold,” Judy Blume’s “Forever” and Jennifer Niven’s “Breathless,” and numerous works by Sarah J. Maas and Jodi Picoult.

Reasons often cited for pulling a book include LGBTQ+ themes, depictions of race and passages with violence and sexual violence. An ongoing trend that PEN finds has only intensified: Thousands of books were taken off shelves in anticipation of community, political or legal pressure rather than in response to a direct threat.

“This functions as a form of ‘obeying in advance,’” the report reads, “rooted in fear or simply a desire to avoid topics that might be deemed controversial.”

The PEN report comes amid ongoing censorship efforts not just from states and conservative activists but from the federal government. The Department of Education ended an initiative by the Biden administration to investigate the legality of bans and has called the issue a “hoax.” PEN’s numbers include the Department of Defense’s removal of hundreds of books from K-12 school libraries for military families as part of an overall campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and “un-American” thinking.

In Florida, where more than 2,000 books were banned or restricted, a handful of counties were responsible for many of the King removals: Dozens were pulled last year as a part of a review for whether they were in compliance with state laws.

“His books are often removed from shelves when ‘adult’ titles or books with ‘sex content’ are targeted for removal — these prohibitions overwhelmingly ban LGBTQ+ content and books on race, racism, and people of color — but also affect titles like Stephen King’s books,” Meehan says. “Some districts — in being overly cautious or fearful of punishment — will sweep so wide they end up removing Stephen King from access too.”

PEN’s methodology differs from that of the American Library Assn., which also issues annual reports on bans and challenges. PEN’s numbers are much higher in part because the free expression organization counts any books removed or restricted for any length of time, while the library association only counts permanent removals or restrictions.

Both organizations have acknowledged that because they largely rely on media reports and information that they receive directly, their numbers are far from comprehensive.

The PEN report does not include data from Ohio, Oklahoma, Arkansas and other red states because researchers could not find adequate documentation. Meehan said PEN also doesn’t know the full impact of statewide laws.

Italie writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Fla., contributed to this report.

BOSTON — The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted non-U.S. citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel, a federal judged said Tuesday in a scathing ruling directly and sharply criticizing President Trump and his policies as serious threats to free speech.

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston agreed with several university associations that the policy they described as ideological deportation violates the 1st Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Young also found the policy was “arbitrary or capricious because it reverses prior policy without reasoned explanation.”

“This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do,’” Young, a nominee of Republican President Reagan, wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs in the case welcomed the ruling.

“The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Assn. of University Professors union. “This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out.”

The ruling came after a trial during which lawyers for the associations presented witnesses who testified that the Trump administration had launched a coordinated effort to target students and scholars who had criticized Israel or showed sympathy for Palestinians.

“Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech,” Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. “The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment.”

The student detentions, primarily on the East Coast, had caused widespread concern at California universities, which host the largest international student population in the nation and were home to major pro-Palestinian encampments in 2024. At UCLA, faculty earlier this year set up a 24-hour hotline for students who feared being potentially detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — although there were no high-profile targeted removals of international student activists.

In separate actions this year, the government also temporarily revoked visas and immigration statuses for students across the UC system and at other U.S. campuses based on minor violations such as traffic tickets. Revocations were reversed nationwide after a federal suit was filed.

In the Boston case, lawyers for the Trump administration put up witnesses who testified there was no ideological deportation policy as the plaintiffs contended.

“There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech,” Victoria Santora told the court. “The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws.”

John Armstrong, the senior bureau official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that visa revocations were based on long-standing immigration law. Armstrong acknowledged he played a role in the visa revocation of several high-profile activists, including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, and was shown memos endorsing their removal.

Armstrong also insisted that visa revocations were not based on protected speech and rejected accusations that there was a policy of targeting someone for their ideology.

One witness testified that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Out of the 5,000 names reviewed, investigators wrote reports on about 200 who had potentially violated U.S. law, Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit testified. Until this year, Hatch said, he could not recall a student protester being referred for a visa revocation.

Among the report subjects was Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Khalil, who was released last month after 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown on the protests.

Another was Tufts University student Ozturk, who was released in May from six weeks in detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained after an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to the war in Gaza.

Casey writes for the Associated Press. Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

A 12-foot statue depicting President Trump holding hands with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein appeared on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Tuesday morning and was removed by the National Park Service less than 24 hours later.

The saga, which made the rounds on late-night TV this week, did not stop there.

On Thursday, the group responsible for creating the statue — an anonymous collective of “satirical activists” called the Secret Handshake — said the National Park Service denied a second permit to reinstall the controversial statue, which featured a plaque reading, “We celebrate the long-lasting bond between President Donald J. Trump and his ‘closest friend,’ Jeffrey Epstein.”

“The statue was removed because it was not compliant with the permit issued,” Interior Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace told CNN, citing a height discrepancy.

The statue, spray-painted bronze and titled “Best Friends Forever,” was removed on Wednesday at 5:30 a.m., said Carol Flaisher, a D.C.-based location manager who had been contracted by Secret Handshake to obtain the appropriate permit for the statue.

It’s a job Flaisher says she’s been doing for film and television throughout her 40-year career, and she has never seen a permitted display on the National Mall removed, she says. If there are issues with the permit, the NPS is required to give the applicant 24-hour notice to fix the error before taking action. That notice was not given, Flaisher says.

“We’ve been doing this for so long. I’ve never had one rejected, ever, ever, ever,” said Flaisher. “I’ve never been thrown off of the property. I’ve never heard of such a thing. And they did it at 5:30 in the morning. … I wonder why they did that.”

On Wednesday around noon, Flaisher says she put in an application for a second permit — this time for a “demonstration” one. That type of permit usually has a 24-hour turnaround, and Flaisher says an employee at NPS told her she would have the new permit in about that time frame.

While Flaisher was trying to obtain a second permit, members of Secret Handshake were working to retrieve their art.

The statue “Best Friends Forever,” featuring President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands, was damaged when it was removed Wednesday morning by the National Park Service.

(Secret Handshake)

The statue was not treated kindly upon its removal, said the rep from Secret Handshake, who requested not to be named in keeping with the anonymous nature of the group’s activism. The statue was in several pieces, with heads and knees broken in half. They then spent several hours repairing, rebuilding and “gluing it together” the rep said. “It looks pretty cool, to be honest. It got kind of messed up, but in an interesting way.”

The Times reviewed a video taken by the group’s security that shows workers toppling the statue in the dark and removing it.

“Free speech. There goes Trump, there goes Epstein,” a passerby can be heard saying. “Taxpayers’ dollars.”

The damaged statue was taped back together.

(Secret Handshake)

Throughout Thursday, the Secret Handshake rep said, “we were told [of the permit], it’s approved, it’s approved, it’s approved.”

Flaisher called a little after noon and was told that the permit had not been issued, but the person she spoke with did not know why. An hour later she tried again and this time she was told, “‘No, you will not be issued a permit,’” she says. She pushed back and asked who she could talk to, but nobody would speak with her she says.

“Absolute silence. No one’s called me back with anything. No answer. You don’t have a permit. There is no reason,” said Flaisher. “It must have come from a very high place because nobody’s talking.”

The NPS has not yet responded to a request for comment about why a second permit was denied or why Secret Handshake was not given 24-hour notice before the statue was initially removed.

The rep for Secret Handshake, which has been responsible for four other political satirical statues on the National Mall, including “Poop Desk,” a bronze art installation featuring a pile of feces on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk, says the group is currently considering what to do next with its repaired “Best Friends” statue.

The rep said the group hires security to protect its work at the mall, as mandated by the permit, and that their security was in place Thursday afternoon, getting ready for the statue to be installed for the second time.

“They took video … and the amount of unmarked cars, Park Service cars, city police and giant trucks ready to haul it away if we decided to place it down anyway. … Wow. They were ready,” the rep said. “There were at least 10 vehicles, I would say.”

The question of whether the statue will be allowed to be replaced comes in the midst of a fierce debate about free speech in America that was kicked off by ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after the comedian weighed in on the killing of Charlie Kirk.

The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal against a temporary injunction blocking an Eritrean man from being removed to France as part of the “one in, one out” agreement between the two countries.

Last week, the 25-year-old, who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was due to be among the first people sent to France under the pilot scheme.

However, in a last-minute reprieve, the High Court in London gave him at least 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery.

The government had argued the order risked undermining the new returns policy, but the Court of Appeal refused Home Office lawyers permission to appeal against that decision.

The “one in, one out” scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

Under the treaty, France agreed to take back migrants who had travelled to the UK by small boat and had their asylum claim withdrawn or declared inadmissible.

For each person returned to France, the UK will accept someone with a case for protection as a refugee who has not attempted to cross the Channel.

Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that Mr Justice Sheldon, the High Court judge that granted the last-minute order halting the removal, had made a mistake when he did so.

“The judge’s decision to grant interim relief, and for such a significant period in the context of this policy, causes real damage to the public interest and undermines a central policy objective,” Kate Grange KC said on behalf of the Home Office.

Sonali Naik KC, who represented the asylum seeker, said the judge was “entitled to grant the order in the urgent circumstances he did, for the reasons he gave and for the period he did”.

Ms Naik said the man’s case “should be considered in its own context and on its own facts”, adding that it did not have wider significance for others whom the government might seek to remove as part of the returns pilot scheme.

In their judgement on Tuesday, Court of Appeal judges said the lower court had been “correct to hold that there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the Secretary of state was acting unlawfully” by seeking to remove the man in those circumstances.

United States television host Jimmy Kimmel’s live show was pulled off the air by Disney-owned ABC after he made comments about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot last week in what has been deemed by right-wingers in the US a political assassination.

But critics claim Kimmel’s removal is a violation of his free speech rights, which are enshrined under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

On Thursday, hundreds of Kimmel fans gathered on the streets in Burbank, New York and Hollywood, protesting the removal of his show.

Here is a closer look at what happened and what the US Constitution says about free speech rights.

What happened to Jimmy Kimmel?

Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in front of a crowd of about 3,000 people on September 10 while he was speaking at a university event in Utah.

After a 33-hour manhunt, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was arrested on suspicion of killing Kirk. Robinson has since been charged with aggravated murder.

Some right-wing figures, affiliated with US President Donald Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing, have described Robinson as “left-wing”.

On Monday, Kimmel said on his show: “The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Kimmel continued, criticising the response by Trump – who described Kirk as being “like a son” – to his death. “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel said.

Following a backlash, broadcasters Nexstar and Sinclair said they would pull Kimmel’s late-night show from their affiliated stations.

Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), also said he had a strong case for taking legal action against Kimmel, Disney and ABC.

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, criticised Carr’s response in an interview with CNN. “This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression,” Gomez said.

The FCC has the authority to grant licences to broadcasters, including ABC and its affiliated stations.

Democratic critics have said that pulling his show off the air is an infringement of Kimmel’s right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

What does the First Amendment say?

The First Amendment protects free speech from government interference. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In 1963, the US Supreme Court issued a key ruling that the government cannot create a “system of informal censorship” by putting pressure on private companies.

This was issued after a Rhode Island agency had threatened to prosecute book and magazine distributors for selling publications it considered objectionable.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that, in such situations, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the government’s actions exceeded allowable persuasion and directly caused them harm.

Was the removal of Kimmel’s show unconstitutional?

Experts say Kimmel’s show being pulled is unconstitutional since it infringes the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Ronnie London, a general counsel with free speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told PolitiFact that Carr’s actions are “a classic case of unconstitutional jawboning”, which means improperly using government threats to pursue policy goals.

“The FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views,’” the FCC says on its website.

“Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seek to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.”

How have people reacted to Kimmel’s removal?

Many Democrats, politicians, Hollywood stars and fellow talk-show hosts have stressed the importance of protecting free speech rights.

Former US President Barack Obama shared a series of articles and commentary on X on Friday, saying: “This commentary offers a clear, powerful statement of why freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy and must be defended, whether the speaker is Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.”

This commentary offers a clear, powerful statement of why freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy and must be defended, whether the speaker is Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 19, 2025

In another post, Obama wrote: “This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent – and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

Former late-night host David Letterman said during an event in New York on Thursday: “I feel bad about this, because we all see where this is going, correct? It’s managed media. It’s no good. It’s silly. It’s ridiculous.”

Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement: “The state under Donald Trump has amassed a chilling record of restricting speech, extorting private companies, and dropping the full weight of the government censorship hammer on First Amendment rights.”

Democratic California Senator Adam Schiff posted on X on Thursday: “This administration is responsible for the most blatant attacks on the free press in American history. What will be left of the First Amendment?”

By contrast, the suspension of Kimmel’s show has drawn celebration from the political right.

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC,” Trump continued, referring to late-night show hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.

Conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly wrote on X on Thursday: “I’m not sure who needs to hear this but Jimmy Kimmel got on the air and falsely stated as a fact that Charlie Kirk’s killer was MAGA, smearing an entire movement and Trump in particular with a vile disgusting lie.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday blocked President Trump’s administration from immediately deporting Guatemalan migrant children who came to the U.S. alone back to their home country, the latest step in a court struggle over one of the most sensitive issues in Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly comes after the Republican administration’s Labor Day weekend attempt to remove Guatemalan migrant children who were living in government shelters and foster care.

There was already a temporary order in place preventing the removal of Guatemalan children. But that was set to expire Tuesday.

Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, granted a preliminary injunction extends that temporary protection indefinitely, although the government can appeal.

There are also temporary restraining orders in separate cases in Arizona and Illinois, but those cases are much more narrow in the scope of children they cover.

Sept. 17 (UPI) — An immigration judge has ordered former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil to either Algeria or Syria, court documents filed Wednesday show, as his lawyers argue the Trump administration is ramping up its retaliation against the Palestinian activist.

Khalil has been at the forefront of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown targeting pro-Palestine activism at universities. He was arrested March 8 for his pro-Palestine speech by the federal government, which has sought to remove him from the country.

He fought his detention in the courts, gaining his freedom in June. But the Trump administration continues its attempt to remove him, despite his wife and children being American citizens, this time on grounds that he omitted or misrepresented information on his green card application. His attorneys described the allegations as “baseless.”

Civil rights organizations, advocates and Trump administration critics argue its targeting of Khalil is an attack on his due process rights in retaliation for expressing his support for Palestine.

In a letter dated Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, the judge who issued Khalil’s June release, the Palestinian activist’s representation revealed that immigration Judge Jamee Comans ordered Khalil’s removal to either of the two countries Friday when he denied their motion for a waiver to prevent his removal.

The lawyers said Khalil has 30 days from Friday to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, and they called on Farbiarz to intervene.

“The only meaningful impediment to Petitioner’s physical removal from the United States would be this Court’s important order prohibiting removal during the pendency of his federal habeas case,” Khalil’s representation said.

Farbiarz, a President Joe Biden-appointee, had ordered Khalil’s release from federal immigration detention in June after denying the government’s argument that the former Columbia University graduate student was a threat to U.S. foreign policy.

The Trump administration is now seeking his removal alleging Khalil omitted or misrepresented information on his green card application, specifically not mentioning his previous internship with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, better known as UNRWA.

The letter to Farbiarz on Wednesday states Comans denied Khalil’s request for a waiver against his removal without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

His lawyers also said Khalil was denied the waiver because of the alleged misrepresentation to adjust his immigration without the opportunity to present contrary evidence. Instead, the judge relied on Secretary of State Marco Rubio‘s statement that Khalil’s presence in the country is a threat to U.S. foreign policy to justify the denial.

“It’s no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech,” Khalil said in a statement provided by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Their latest attempt, through kangaroo immigration court, exposes their true colors once again.”

He accused the Trump administration of “fabricating baseless and ridiculous allegations” against him following its first failed attempt to deport him to try and silence his speech in support of Palestine.

“Such fascist tactics will never deter me from continuing to advocate for my people’s liberation,” he said.

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.

SUMMER is fully upon us, bringing with it holidays abroad, trips to the beach, dips in the pool – and, of course, bare legs.

I’ve grappled with various razors, at-home waxing kits and painful trips to the salon for years, which only leave me dreading the next time my leg hair is ripped from the root, before it grows back and I have to endure it all over again.

Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset, £299 £159.20 with code THESUN20

That was until I decided to take the plunge, listen to my mates, and join the at-home IPL brigade.

Instead of spending hundreds (thousands in the long run) on salon hair removal, I opted to try an at-home hair removal solution that would last — a Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset.

IPL (Intense Pulsed Light) uses a combination of targeted light and heat that is absorbed by the melanin found in hair follicles, essentially disabling and damaging them, which, in turn, stops the hair from growing back.

The highly rated Keskine handset boasts an impressive 4.9-star rating from almost 4,000 reviews, and one of its most notable features is the built-in ice-cooling technology, setting it apart from competitors.

This promises to soothe the skin and alleviate the biggest complaint people have about hair removal: pain.

So, I put the Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset to the test for six weeks to see what results I could achieve while the sun is still shining.

Pros

• Financially worth it in the long run 
• Portable
• Effective
• Works on a range of hair types and skin tones 
• Built-in cooling technology

Cons

• It can feel like a big cash injection
• Have to remain consistent with your sessions
• Slightly noisy (although worth it for the cooling option)

Rating: 8/10

How I tested the Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset

Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset, £299 £159.20 with code THESUN20

Keskine promises visible results within one to four weeks, with optimal results appearing between six and twelve weeks.

I decided to track the effects on my hair over six weeks, assessing every week..

As part of the Sun Shopping team, I’ve tested a range of beauty tech, including the best LED face masks, the best Dyson dupes, and more, so I’m well-versed in what makes a product worth your pennies, even if it’s at the higher end of the price spectrum.

I used the product the recommended number of times: up to three times a week for the first month and then twice a week for weeks four to six.

For some context, I have naturally fair and soft hair on my head, but my leg and armpit hair is thick and stubborn after years of shaving abuse, so my main goal was to see if the IPL would thin the hairs out before removing them completely.

Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset review: The Nitty Gritty

First impressions

I won’t lie to you, I often find myself sceptical about any at-home treatment that imitates salon visits, such as laser hair removal or at-home LED facial treatments.

Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset, £299 £159.20 with code THESUN20

However, always open to having my opinion changed, I unboxed the Keskine to discover a very easy-to-use handheld IPL, which came with a razor and a pair of protective sunglasses.

The device itself is extremely lightweight and compact, with a lovely white and rose gold colour scheme.

Its small size means you can take it on holiday with you, ensuring you never have to miss a session.

Setting it up proved to be an easy task. All you need to do is clean your chosen treatment area and shave off any hair using the razor provided, before patting the area completely dry.

Once you’ve connected the power cord to the adapter and plugged it into a power outlet, all you need to do is turn it on and choose one of the five built-in smart modes.

Don’t be alarmed by the loud whirring noise that comes from the device; that’s just an indication that the cooling capabilities are working.

You can select which part of your body you will be targeting with the IPL — face, armpit, body, bikini or beauty.

Keskine IPL Hair Removal Handset, £299 £159.20 with code THESUN20

Although it’ll make you look like a member of the Blues Brothers every time you use it, you will need to wear the protective sunglasses provided to shield your eyes from the effects of the light.

Does it deliver?

My hair has definitely become much finer and completely disappeared in places since I started using the Keskine.

When speaking to friends who go for professional laser removal treatments in a salon, our results were very similar at the four-week and six-week mark.

I saw most results at six weeks, but noticed that even at the four-week mark, after using the device appropriately and consistently, there were areas where the hair had disappeared, and surrounding areas were extremely wispy where it once was coarse.

I will say that this product is best suited if you already have body hair on the finer side and definitely on the darker side.

As per the Keskine colour chart, the tool is ineffective on darker skin tones and lighter hair types.

1

I found the best results were on intimate areas and my armpits, where I saw a massive improvement on darker, coarser hair.

The product is very simple to use, and the cooling sensation that Keskine offers is a standout feature, contributing to a pain-free experience.

The five adjustment levels are also a nice touch to reduce the pain in more sensitive areas.

How much is the Keskine IPL?

One thing that always used to put me off IPLs and at-home treatments was the hefty price tag that often accompanies them.

However, when you compare the cost of the Keskine – usually £299 but currently on sale for £199.99 (or just £159.20 with exclusive code THESUN20) — to just one session at a popular high street therapy clinic, it suddenly feels worthwhile, especially with very similar results on offer.

When compared to other IPLs, such as Braun or Philips, which offer the same level of settings and features, the Keskine IPL stands out financially, making it well worth the investment.

Where to buy the Keskine IPL?

The IPL can be purchased directly from the Keskine site, which often runs offers.

Additionally, Keskine have provided an exclusive 20% discount code for Sun readers, bringing the price down even further to £159.20; however, you may have to act fast as the code is only valid until July 31st at midnight!

There are also sign-up offers that allow 10% off across the site on your first order, as well as Clearpay being available as a payment plan, along with fast, free tracked shipping.

Keskine IPL alternatives

If you’re looking for the same level of quality as the Keskine IPL, with cooling technologies and adjustable power settings, here are some alternatives:

• Braun Silk Expert Pro 5 PL5124 Corded IPL Hair Removal, £425 £300 – buy here
• Ulike Air 3, £319.99 £279 – buy here
• FOREO Peach 2 Device, £369 – buy here

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The US president says Lisa Cook to be removed from position ‘effective immediately’.

United President Donald Trump has ordered the removal of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook amid unproven claims of mortgage fraud.

In a letter posted on social media on Monday night, Trump said Cook was being sacked “effective immediately”, in accordance with his powers under the US Constitution and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Citing allegations made last week by the US federal mortgage regulator, Trump said there was “sufficient reason to believe you may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements”.

“The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and members banks,” Trump said in the letter, which was shared on his platform Truth Social.

“The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve. In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

Trump had on Friday threatened to fire Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, if she did not resign.

Trump’s extraordinary move is set to raise further questions about the independence of the US central bank, which has been under intense pressure from Trump to lower interest rates.

In a letter addressed to US Attorney General Pam Bondi and Department of Justice official Ed Martin earlier this month, Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, a staunch Trump ally, alleged that Cook had listed two properties as her primary home addresses.

The Federal Reserve did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

More to follow…

US President Donald Trump said on Monday he would immediately remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from her position on the central bank’s board of directors.

In an announcement made on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump posted a letter addressed to Cook in which he informed her of his decision and accused her of making “deceitful and potentially criminal” mortgage agreements.

Neither Cook or the Fed has commented on the sacking.

Trump has put increasing pressure on the Fed – especially its chair Jerome Powell – in recent weeks over what he sees as the US central bank’s unwillingness to lower interest rates. He has repeatedly floated the possibility of firing Powell.

According to Trump’s letter, Cook signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be her primary residence for the next year.

“Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year,” he said.

“It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second,” Trump said.

In a statement last week, after she was accused of mortgage fraud by the head of the Housing Finance Agency, Cook said she had “no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet”.

She said she was “gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts”.

Cook is the first African American woman to sit on the board, a position she has held since 2022.

BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has become a flash point in President Trump’s aggressive effort to remove noncitizens from the U.S., was detained by immigration authorities in Baltimore on Monday to face renewed efforts to deport him after a brief period of freedom.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys quickly filed a lawsuit to fight his deportation until a court has heard his claim for protection, stating that the U.S. could place him in a country where “his safety cannot be assured.”

The lawsuit triggered a blanket court order that automatically pauses deportation efforts for two days. The order applies to immigrants in Maryland who are challenging their detention.

Within hours of Abrego Garcia’s detention, his lawyers spoke with Department of Justice attorneys and a federal judge in Maryland, who warned that Abrego Garcia cannot be removed from the U.S. “at this juncture” because he must be allowed to exercise his constitutional right to contest deportation.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said that overlapping court orders temporarily prohibit the government from removing Abrego Garcia, and that she would extend her own temporary restraining order barring his deportation.

Drew Ensign, a Justice Department attorney, told the judge that he understands Abrego Garcia’s “removal is not imminent” and that the process often takes time.

Crowd yells ‘shame!’

Abrego Garcia, a 30-year-old Maryland construction worker and Salvadoran national, spoke at a rally before he turned himself in.

“This administration has hit us hard, but I want to tell you guys something: God is with us, and God will never leave us,” Abrego Garcia said, speaking through a interpreter. “God will bring justice to all the injustice we are suffering.”

About 200 people gathered, prayed and crowded around Abrego Garcia while he walked into the offices for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Baltimore, where he was detained. When his lawyer and wife walked out without him, the crowd yelled, “Shame!”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted on X that Abrego Garcia was being processed for deportation. U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office that Abrego Garcia “will no longer terrorize our country.”

Brief reunion with family

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for years with his American wife and children and worked in construction. He was wrongfully deported in March to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador because the Trump administration believed he was a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies.

His removal violated an immigration judge’s 2019 ruling that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he had “well-founded fear” of threats by a gang there.

Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned him in June. He was subsequently charged in Tennessee with human smuggling. He has pleaded not guilty and asked a judge to dismiss the case on ground of vindictive prosecution.

The allegations stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Abrego Garcia was driving with nine passengers in the car, and officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. He was allowed to continue driving with a warning.

The Trump administration has said it wants to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, alleging he is a danger to the community and an MS-13 gang member.

A federal judge in Tennessee determined that Abrego Garcia was not a flight risk or a danger. He was released from jail Friday afternoon and returned to his family in Maryland.

Video released by advocates of the reunion showed a room decorated with streamers, flowers and signs. He embraced loved ones and thanked them “for everything.”

What’s next?

Federal officials argue that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally and that the immigration judge’s 2019 ruling deemed him eligible for expulsion, just not to his native El Salvador.

Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told reporters Monday that Abrego Garcia is being held in a detention facility in Virginia. His lawyers don’t know when he’ll have a reasonable-fear interview, where he can express fears of persecution or torture in the country the U.S. wants to send him. Officials have said it’s Uganda.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have raised concerns about human rights abuses in Uganda as well as his limited ability to speak English in a country where that’s the national language. But there are also unanswered questions about whether he could be imprisoned or sent on to El Salvador. A judge blocked the U.S. from sending Abrego Garcia back in 2019 because he faces credible threats from gangs there.

Uganda recently agreed to take deportees from the U.S., provided they do not have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors.

“We don’t know whether Uganda will even let him walk around freely in Kampala or whether he’ll be inside of a Ugandan jail cell, much less whether they are going to let him stay,” the attorney said.

If immigration officials determine that Abrego Garcia lacks a reasonable fear of being sent to Uganda, he should be able to ask a U.S. immigration judge to review that decision, Sandoval-Moshenberg said. And if the immigration judge upholds the determination, Abrego Garcia should be able to bring it to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Sandoval-Moshenberg said that’s the process when someone is slated for deportation to their native country. And he said it should be for third-country deportations as well.

“This is all so very new and unprecedented. … We will see what the government’s position on that is,” he said.

Abrego Garcia informed ICE over the weekend that Costa Rica was an acceptable country of removal because he had “received assurances from Costa Rica that they would give him refugee status, that he would be at liberty in that country, and that he will not be re-deported onto El Salvador,” his lawyer said.

“Costa Rica is not justice,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “It is an acceptably less-bad option.”

The notice to ICE about Costa Rica was separate from an offer made by federal prosecutors in Tennessee to send Abrego Garcia to the Central American nation in exchange for pleading guilty to human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia declined the proposal.

Witte, Loller, Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press.

SEOUL, Aug. 14 (UPI) — The influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Thursday denied Seoul’s claim that the North had begun removing propaganda speakers inside the DMZ and dismissed South Korean outreach efforts as a “pipedream,” state-run media reported.

South Korea is “misleading the public opinion by saying that we have removed the loudspeakers installed on the southern border area,” Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

“It is unfounded unilateral supposition and a red herring,” she said. “We have never removed loudspeakers installed on the border area and are not willing to remove them.”

The South’s military removed its anti-Pyongyang propaganda loudspeakers from border areas inside the DMZ last week. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported over the weekend that North Korea began dismantling its own speakers in some forward areas,

On Tuesday, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung commented on the North’s “reciprocal measures” during a cabinet meeting, saying he hoped it would lead to renewed inter-Korean dialogue and communication.

Lee’s administration has made efforts to improve relations between the two Koreas since he took office in June. In addition to the loudspeaker removal, Seoul has cracked down on activists floating balloons carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflets over the border and recently repatriated six North Koreans who drifted into southern waters on wooden boats.

Kim’s statement comes days before Seoul and Washington are scheduled to commence their summertime Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercise, set for Aug. 18-28. North Korea regularly denounces the allies’ joint drills as rehearsals for an invasion.

Half of Ulchi Freedom Shield’s 44 planned field training exercises have been rescheduled to next month, with local media reports claiming the move was made to avoid provoking Pyongyang.

Kim, however, rejected Seoul’s gestures as “nothing but a pipedream.”

“Whether the ROK withdraws its loudspeakers or not, stops broadcasting or not, postpones its military exercises or not and downscales them or not, we do not care about them and are not interested in them,” she said, using the official acronym for South Korea.

In response to Kim’s statement, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff maintained the military’s account that the North had removed some of its loudspeakers.

“The military has explained the facts regarding what it observed, and I believe we need to be careful not to be misled by the other side’s stated intentions,” JCS spokesman Col. Lee Sung-jun said at a briefing Thursday. “North Korea has always made claims that are untrue.”

SEOUL, Aug. 6 (UPI) — South Korea completed removing loudspeakers that had been installed along the DMZ to blast anti-Pyongyang messages across the border, military officials said Wednesday.

Around 20 speakers were completely dismantled by Tuesday afternoon, officials said. The military began the project on Monday, calling it a “practical measure that will help ease tensions between the South and the North.”

In June, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung ordered the suspension of the broadcasts, which included news, K-pop music, and information about democracy and life in South Korea.

Seoul had resumed the Cold War-style propaganda campaign one year earlier in response to a series of provocations by North Korea that included floating thousands of trash-filled balloons across the border.

The North countered by broadcasting bizarre noises such as metallic screeching and animal sounds, disturbing residents in areas near the DMZ. Pyongyang quieted its own speakers after the initial suspension but has not yet appeared to take corresponding action to remove them.

As of Tuesday, there were “no movements by the North Korean military to dismantle their loudspeakers,” Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Col. Lee Sung-jun said at a press briefing.

President Lee has made an effort to improve inter-Korean relations since taking office in June. In addition to the loudspeaker suspension, his administration has also cracked down on activists floating balloons carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border.

Last month, Seoul repatriated six North Koreans who drifted into southern waters on wooden boats and announced plans to return the remains of another North Korean national found near the maritime border.

Pyongyang did not respond to the repatriation plan by a deadline on Tuesday afternoon, South Korea’s Unification Ministry said. Local government officials will conduct “a respectful funeral in accordance with procedures for handling unclaimed bodies,” the ministry said.

North Korea has rebuffed Seoul’s attempts at rapprochement so far.

Last week, Kim Yo Jong — the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — said Pyongyang had “no interest” in responding to efforts by the Lee administration to thaw relations, citing Seoul’s “blind trust” in military ties with the United States.

The allies are scheduled to hold their annual large-scale Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercise this month. Pyongyang frequently condemns the joint drills as rehearsals for an invasion.

Smithsonian Institution says it will update exhibit to reflect all impeachments of US presidents following backlash.

The parent organisation of a top-visited history museum in the United States has denied that political pressure played a role in the removal of a display about the impeachments of US President Donald Trump.

The Smithsonian Institution, which runs the National Museum of American History in Washington, DC, said on Saturday that it removed the “temporary” placard for failing to meet the museum’s standards in “appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation”.

“It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard,” the institution said in a statement.

“We were not asked by any Administration or other government officials to remove content from the exhibit.”

The Smithsonian Institution, which runs 21 museums and the National Zoo, said the impeachment section of the museum would be updated in the coming weeks to “reflect all impeachment proceedings in our nation’s history”.

The statement comes after The Washington Post on Thursday reported that the museum removed an explicit reference to Trump’s impeachments last month, resulting in its exhibit about impeachment incorrectly stating that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal”.

The Post, citing an unnamed person familiar with the exhibit plans, said the display was taken down following a “content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director”.

The museum’s removal of the display drew swift backlash, with critics of Trump casting the development as the latest capitulation to the whims of an authoritarian president.

“You can run, but you cannot hide from the judgment of history,” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Friday.

“So, here’s my message to the president: no matter what exhibits you try to distort, the American people will never forget that you were impeached – not once, but twice.”

Trump has, with lightning speed, moved to exert greater control over political, cultural and media institutions as part of his transformative “Make America Great Again” agenda.

In March, the US president signed an executive order to remove “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian Institution’s properties and deny funding for exhibits that “degrade shared American values” or “divide Americans based on race”.

During his first term, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives twice, in 2019 and 2021, but he was acquitted by the Senate on both occasions.

He was the third US president to be impeached, after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and the only US president to be impeached twice.

Former President Richard Nixon faced near-certain impeachment before his resignation in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of 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.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.

Immigrants’ advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge’s ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case’s conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.

A plaintiffs’ attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

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 being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. 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.

“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Kunzelman and Spagat write for the Associated Press. Spagat reported from San Diego.

July 8 (UPI) — The Transportation Safety Administration will soon let passengers keep their shoes while they go through security checkpoints at select airports.

ABC News reports that a memo went out to TSA officers nationwide last week that stated the new policy would start Sunday, and CBS News correspondents at New York City’s LaGuardia Airport and Los Angeles International Airport reported Monday that they and other passengers were permitted to keep their shoes on during the screening process. NBC News reports a press release received Monday states the TSA is “exploring new and innovative ways to enhance the passenger experience and our strong security posture.”

NBC also reported Tuesday that a senior government official said that while this is only happening now at selected airports, the rule could be relaxed across the country in the future.

Other airports where the shoe rule is ending include Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Fort Lauderdale International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, Piedmont Triad International Airport in North Carolina and Portland International Airport.

However, the memo notes those who set off an alarm while being screened will then be required to take their shoes off for additional screening.

Shoe removal while being screened began in 2006 due to intelligence that indicated a threat that began after Richard Reid unsuccessfully tried to ignite homemade shoe explosives on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December of 2001.

June 28 (UPI) — Protestors took to the streets of Bangkok Saturday, calling for the removal of Thailand’s prime minister, less than a year after she was sworn into office.

Demonstrators blocked streets in the country’s capital city, taking issue with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s phone call with Cambodian leader Hun Sen.

The call was recorded and made public this week. In it, Shinawatra appears to be close with Hun, the former prime minister and ex-military officer who is the current head of the Cambodian Senate and the country’s de facto leader.

Shinawatra has since apologized for the phone call, which took place because of a border dispute between the two countries.

Following the phone call, Thai officials sent a letter of protest to the Cambodian government.

Earlier this week, authorities closed Thailand’s border to travelers looking to cross into Cambodia, following a dispute over scams. One Cambodian soldier has been killed in the rising tensions between the neighboring countries.

More than 6,000 people converged for the protests in heavy rain Saturday, Thai police reported.

Local media reported Saturday that Shinawatra reaffirmed the public’s right to peacefully protest, in a country where previous rulers have been overthrown in military coups, including two of the prime minister’s relatives.

Shinawatra became Thailand’s youngest-ever elected leader when she was sworn into office last August at the age of 37.

The leader of the country’s ruling Pheu Thai Party is the third member of her family to hold the title of Thai Prime Minister.

Her billionaire father Thaksin and aunt Yingluck both led the country during separate periods. The family made its money in the telecom industry.

Thaksin served as Thailand’s prime minister from 2001 until 2006 when he was deposed by the military. He has had previous close ties with Hun and is set to face trial in the coming weeks over charges he insulted the Thai military.

Yingluck Shinawatra served as prime minister between 2011 and 2014 and was removed by a constitutional court.

BALTIMORE — The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against federal judges in Maryland over an order that blocks the immediate removal of any detained immigrant who requests a court hearing.

The unusual suit filed Tuesday in Baltimore against the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Maryland and the court’s other judges underscores the administration’s focus on immigration enforcement and ratchets up its fight with the judiciary.

At issue is an order signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III and filed in May blocking the administration from immediately removing from the U.S. any immigrants who file paperwork with the Maryland federal district court seeking a review of their detention. The order blocks the removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the habeas corpus petition is filed.

In its suit, the Trump administration says such an automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

“Defendants’ automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien’s claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien’s claims may be,” the suit says. “And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core Executive Branch powers.”

The suit names the U.S. and U.S. Department of Homeland Security as plaintiffs.

The Maryland district court had no comment, Chief Deputy Clerk David Ciambruschini said in an email.

The Trump administration has repeatedly clashed with federal judges over its deportation efforts.

One of the Maryland judges named as a defendant in Tuesday’s lawsuit, Paula Xinis, has called the administration’s deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador illegal. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have asked Xinis to impose fines against the administration for contempt, arguing that it ignored court orders for weeks to return him to the U.S. from El Salvador.

And on the same day the Maryland court issued its order pausing removals, a federal judge in Boston said the White House had violated a court order on deportations to third countries with a flight linked to South Sudan.

A fired Justice Department lawyer said in a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday that a top official at the agency had suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said court injunctions “designed to halt” the president’s agenda have undermined his authority since the first hours of his administration.

“The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” she said in a statement announcing the lawsuit against Maryland’s district court.

The order signed by Russell says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

In an amended order, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.”

The Trump administration has asked the Maryland judges to recuse themselves from the case. It wants a clerk to have a federal judge from another state hear it.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.