ruling

WASHINGTON — A federal judge’s dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, two political foes of President Trump, won’t be the final word on the matter.

The Justice Department says it plans to immediately appeal a pair of rulings that held that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It also has the ability to try to refile the cases, though whether it can successfully secure fresh indictments through a different prosecutor is unclear, as is whether any new indictments could survive the crush of legal challenges that would invariably follow.

A look at the possible next steps:

What exactly did the rulings say?

At issue is the slapdash way the Trump administration raced to put Halligan in charge of one of the Justice Department’s most elite offices. A White House aide with no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, Halligan was named interim U.S. attorney in September after the veteran prosecutor who held the job, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out amid Trump administration pressure to charge Comey and James.

U.S. attorneys, top federal prosecutors who oversee regional Justice Department outposts across the country, are typically nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, though attorneys general do have the authority to directly appoint interim U.S. attorneys who can serve in the job for 120 days.

But lawyers for Comey and James argued that the law empowers only one such temporary appointment and that, after that, federal judges in the district have say over who fills the vacancy until a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney can be installed.

Since Halligan replaced an interim U.S. attorney who had already served for more than 120 days, the lawyers said, her appointment was invalid and the indictments she secured must be dismissed as a result.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie overwhelmingly agreed. Currie, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to hear the dispute despite serving in South Carolina, not only dismissed the cases but also concluded that Halligan had been serving illegally in her position since the day she was sworn in.

Could the Justice Department appeal?

Yes, and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi indicated that the department would do exactly that.

Any appeal would first be considered by the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but theoretically could go all the way up to the Supreme Court and present a fresh constitutional test about the Justice Department’s appointment authority.

Interestingly, Currie implied that her interpretation of the law might be well-received by at least one current conservative member of the Supreme Court.

In a footnote, she cited a 1986 legal memo from Samuel Alito, then a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that concluded that the Justice Department could not make another temporary appointment after a first 120-day period expired.

Can the cases be filed again?

Since the cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” the Justice Department is clearly able to seek a new indictment against James using a different prosecutor with lawful authority to present to the grand jury.

The question, however, is much trickier in Comey’s case. It’s complicated by the fact that the five-year statute of limitations — or the limited time in which charges can be filed — expired at the end of the September, just days after Halligan raced to present to the grand jury.

Federal law allows prosecutors to return a new indictment within six months of dismissal even after the statute of limitations has passed. But Comey’s lawyers said they will argue the judge’s ruling makes the indictment “void,” and therefore “the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment.”

The judge noted in her ruling that the deadline had passed and suggested that the statute of limitations is not tolled — or paused — in the case of an “invalid indictment.” Quoting from an earlier ruling, the judge wrote that “if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which” to extend the deadline.

Regardless, the Justice Department in either case would have to convince a new grand jury to return new indictments, and that may be harder given the intense publicity around the cases. Widespread media coverage of the allegations and the defense claims of improper conduct by prosecutors could make it more difficult to find grand jurors who can view the cases impartially.

What happens to the other challenges to the indictments?

For now, those arguments are all moot as the Justice Department labors to salvage the indictments.

But in the event prosecutors do succeed in getting new indictments, they’ll likely have to fend off some of the same challenges that Comey and James had already raised and that remain pending as of Monday’s rulings.

Comey is charged with lying to Congress about whether he authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source for the news media. James was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in Norfolk, Va., in 2020.

Both have pleaded not guilty and had urged judges to throw out their indictments on grounds that the prosecutions were illegally vindictive and emblematic of a Justice Department that’s been weaponized to pursue the president’s adversaries. Those arguments would presumably be revived in the event of any new indictments.

Comey, for his part, has challenged a series of irregularities in Halligan’s presentation to the grand jury after a different judge who reviewed a record of the proceedings said he had identified a series of flaws — including the fact that the prosecutor apparently suggested to the panel that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right to not testify at trial.

He has also said that the testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee that underpins his criminal case was truthful and that, in any event, the question he was responding to was so vague and ambiguous as to make a false statement prosecution a legal impossibility.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

BISMARCK, N.D. — Abortion is again illegal in North Dakota after the state’s Supreme Court on Friday couldn’t muster the required majority to uphold a judge’s ruling that struck down the state’s ban last year.

The law makes it a felony crime for anyone to perform an abortion, though it specifically protects patients from prosecution. Doctors could be prosecuted and penalized by as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Three justices agreed that the ban is unconstitutionally vague. The other two justices said the law is not unconstitutional.

The North Dakota Constitution requires at least four of the five justices to agree for a law to be found unconstitutional, a high bar. Not enough members of the court joined together to affirm the lower court ruling.

In his opinion, Justice Jerod Tufte said the natural rights guaranteed by the state constitution in 1889 do not extend to abortion rights. He also said the law “provides adequate and fair warning to those attempting to comply.”

North Dakota Republican Atty. Gen. Drew Wrigley welcomed the ruling, saying, “The Supreme Court has upheld this important pro-life legislation, enacted by the people’s Legislature. The attorney general’s office has the solemn responsibility of defending the laws of North Dakota, and today those laws have been upheld.”

Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, who introduced the 2023 legislation that became the law banning abortion, said she was “thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake.”

The challengers called the decision “a devastating loss for pregnant North Dakotans.”

“As a majority of the Court found, this cruel and confusing ban is incomprehensible to physicians. The ban forces doctors to choose between providing care and going to prison,” Center for Reproductive Rights senior staff attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh said. “Abortion is healthcare, and North Dakotans deserve to be able to access this care without delay caused by confusion about what the law allows.”

The ruling means access to abortion in North Dakota will be outlawed. Even after a judge had struck down the ban last year, the only scenarios for a patient to obtain an abortion in North Dakota had been for life- or health-preserving reasons in a hospital.

The state’s only abortion provider relocated in 2022 from Fargo to nearby Moorhead, Minn.

Justice Daniel Crothers, one of the three judges to vote against the ban, wrote that the district court decision wasn’t wrong.

“The vagueness in the law relates to when an abortion can be performed to preserve the life and health of the mother,” Crothers wrote. “After striking this invalid provision, the remaining portions of the law would be inoperable.”

North Dakota’s newly confirmed ban prohibits the performance of an abortion and declares it a felony. The only exceptions are for rape or incest for an abortion in the first six weeks of pregnancy — before many women know they are pregnant — and to prevent the woman’s death or a “serious health risk” to her.

North Dakota joins 12 other states enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Four others bar it at or around six weeks of gestational age.

Judge Bruce Romanick had struck down the ban the GOP-led Legislature passed in 2023, less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and opened the door to the state-level bans, largely turning the abortion battle to state courts and legislatures.

The Red River Women’s Clinic — the formerly sole abortion clinic in North Dakota — and several physicians challenged the law. The state appealed the 2024 ruling that overturned the ban.

The judge and the Supreme Court each denied requests by the state to keep the abortion ban in effect during the appeal. Those decisions allowed patients with pregnancy complications to seek care without fear of delay because of the law, Mehdizadeh previously said.

Dura writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.

The court’s conservative majority has blocked similar lower court rulings because they have come too close to elections.

The order came about an hour after the state called on the high court to intervene to avoid confusion as congressional primary elections approach in March. The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The order was signed by Alito because he is the justice who handles emergency appeals from Texas.

Texas redrew its congressional map in the summer as part of Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle.

The new redistricting map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 Tuesday that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

If the ruling holds for now, Texas could be forced to hold elections next year using the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 based on the 2020 census.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court is separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s not entirely clear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday night at least temporarily paused a lower court’s decision to throw out Texas’ new congressional map to potentially add five House seats for Republicans.

Justie Samuel Alito, chosen to decide on emergency appeals in the state, granted the request, writing it “is hereby administratively stayed” with a response to the application to be filed by 5 p.m. Monday.

So, this puts the block on hold until the full court decides.

Earlier Friday, state lawyers formally asked for an emergency stay to allow the map borders that were approved this summer by the legislature.

On Tuesday, a three-member panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas threw out the mapsin a 2-1 vote.

President Donald Trump had urged Texas to change the maps to favor Republicans.

After the state filed its appeal, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a news release: “Texas engaged in partisan redistricting solely to secure more Republican seats in Congress and thereby better represent our state and Texans. For years, Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered their states and only cry foul and hurl baseless ‘racism’ accusations because they are losing.”

He described the legislation signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August as Texas’ “Big Beautiful Map.”

The state had asked the high court by Monday night to decide on pausing the lower court ruling.

The lower court’s decision caused “chaos” for the election, the state said.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the Supreme Court.

Those seeking to run for House seats must declare their candidacy by Dec. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump in his first term, and David Guaderrama, appointed by President Obama, threw out the maps.

Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.

“If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

In the 107 pages, he mentioned billionaire George Soros, a donor for Democrats, 17 times.

Brown, writing the majority opinion, directed the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

But Texas disagreed, saying: politics, not race, drove the new maps.

“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” the state told the high court.

Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.

After the decision, Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’ sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats.

Missouri and North Carolina approved a new map that could create another Republican-leaning district in each state.

Unlike those Republican-dominant states, California voters approved the new map that potentially can add five Democratic seats. Proposition 50 was approved by a 64.4-35.6%. The breakdown now is 43 Democrats and nine Republicans.

Other states are considering changes.

The U.S. House party breakdown is 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats and three vacancies. On Thursday, Democrat Mikie Sherill resigned her seat because she was elected New Jersey’s governor earlier this month.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Wednesday he plans to move ahead quickly on a contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington said a ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave him the authority to proceed with the inquiry, which will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter for prosecution. He asked attorneys to identify witnesses and offer plans for how to conduct the probe by Monday and said he’d like to start any hearings on Dec. 1.

The judge has previously warned he could seek to have officials in the administration prosecuted.

On March 15, Boasberg ordered the aircraft carrying accused gang members to return to the U.S., but they landed instead in El Salvador, where the migrants were held at a notorious prison.

“I am authorized to proceed just as I intended to do in April seven months ago,” the judge said during a hearing Wednesday. He added later, “I certainly intend to find out what happened on that day.”

Boasberg said having witnesses testify under oath appeared to be the best way to conduct the contempt probe, but he also suggested the government could provide written declarations to explain who gave orders to “defy” his ruling. He suggested one witness: a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint that claims a top official in the department suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members.

The Trump administration has denied any violation, saying the judge’s directive to return the planes was made verbally in court but not included in his written order. Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis told Boasberg the government objected to further contempt proceedings.

Boasberg previously found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court. The ruling marked a dramatic battle between the judicial and executive branches of government, but a divided three-judge appeals court panel later sided with the administration and threw out the finding. The two judges in the majority were appointed by President Trump.

On Friday, a larger panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit said the earlier ruling by their colleagues did not bar Boasberg from moving ahead with his contempt probe. Boasberg’s contempt finding was a “measured and essential response,” Judges Cornelia Pillard, Robert Wilkins and Bradley Garcia wrote.

“Obedience to court orders is vital to the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its constitutionally appointed role,” they wrote. “Judicial orders are not suggestions; they are binding commands that the Executive Branch, no less than any other party, must obey.”

The Trump administration invoked an 18th-century wartime law to send the migrants, whom it accused of membership in a Venezuelan gang, to a mega-prison in El Salvador known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. It argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In June, Boasberg ruled the Trump administration must give some of the migrants a chance to challenge their deportations, saying they hadn’t been able to formally contest the removals or allegations that they were members of Tren de Aragua.

The judge wrote that “significant evidence” had surfaced indicating that many of the migrants were not connected to the gang “and thus were languishing in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.”

More than 200 migrants were later released back to Venezuela in a prisoner swap with the U.S.

Their attorneys want Boasberg to issue another order requiring the administration to explain how it will give at least 137 of the men a chance to challenge their gang designation under the Alien Enemies Act.

The men are in danger in Venezuela and fear talking to attorneys, who have been able to contact about 30 of them, but they “overwhelmingly” want to pursue their cases, Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday.

Davis said it may be hard to take the men into custody again given tensions between the U.S. and the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Boasberg did not immediately rule on the matter.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal court has blocked Texas from moving forward with a new congressional map hastily drawn in recent months to net Republicans up to five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

The ruling on Tuesday is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.

The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.

Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.

Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.

But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.

“Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.

Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.

“Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

Legal scholars had warned that Texas’ bid would invite accusations and legal challenges of racial gerrymandering that California’s maps would not.

The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.

Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.

While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.

In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah judge on Monday rejected a new congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers, adopting an alternate proposal creating a Democratic-leaning district ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans hold all four of Utah’s U.S. House seats and had advanced a map poised to protect them.

Judge Dianna Gibson ruled just before a midnight deadline that the Legislature’s new map “unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”

She had ordered lawmakers to draw a map that complies with standards established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor a party, a practice known as gerrymandering. If they failed, Gibson warned she may consider other maps submitted by plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led her to throw out Utah’s existing map.

Gibson ultimately selected a map drawn by plaintiffs, the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. It keeps Salt Lake County almost entirely within one district, instead of dividing the heavily Democratic population center among all four districts, as was the case previously.

The judge’s ruling throws a curveball for Republicans in a state where they expected a clean sweep as they’re working to add winnable seats elsewhere. Nationally, Democrats need to net three U.S. House seats next year to wrest control of the chamber from the GOP, which is trying to buck a historic pattern of the president’s party losing seats in the midterms.

The newly approved map gives Democrats a much stronger chance to flip a seat in a state that has not had a Democrat in Congress since early 2021.

“This is a win for every Utahn,” said state House and Senate Democrats in a joint statement. “We took an oath to serve the people of Utah, and fair representation is the truest measure of that promise.”

In August, Gibson struck down the Utah congressional map adopted after the 2020 census because the Legislature had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters.

The ruling thrust Utah into a national redistricting battle as President Trump urged other Republican-led states to take up mid-decade redistricting to try to help the GOP retain control of the House in 2026. Some Democratic states are considering new maps of their own, with California voters approving a map last week that gives Democrats a shot at winning five more seats. Republicans are still ahead in the redistricting fight.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade after a census. There are no federal restrictions to redrawing districts mid-decade, but some states — more led by Democrats than Republicans — set their own limitations. The Utah ruling gives an unexpected boost to Democrats, who have fewer opportunities to gain seats through redistricting.

If Gibson had instead approved the map drawn by lawmakers, all four districts would still lean Republican but two would have become slightly competitive for Democrats. Their proposal gambled on Republicans’ ability to protect all four seats under much slimmer margins rather than create a single-left leaning district.

The ruling came minutes before midnight on the day the state’s top election official said was the latest possible date to enact a new congressional map so county clerks would have enough time to prepare for candidate filings for the 2026 midterms.

Republicans have argued Gibson does not have legal authority to enact a map that wasn’t approved by the Legislature. State Rep. Matt MacPherson called the ruling a “gross abuse of power” and said he has opened a bill to pursue impeachment against Gibson.

Gibson said in her ruling she has an obligation to ensure a lawful map is in place by the deadline.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

A high-ranking Russian lawmaker claims his government recently sent Venezuela air defense systems and could provide ballistic and cruise missiles in the future. The comments, to an official Russian media outlet, are a response to the ongoing buildup of U.S. forces in the region aimed at narco-traffickers and Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is now in the Atlantic, heading for the Caribbean, which you can read more about later in this story. You can catch up with our latest coverage of the Caribbean situation in our story here.

“Russian Pantsir-S1 and Buk-M2E systems were just recently delivered to Caracas by Il-76 transport aircraft,” Alexei Zhuravlev, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, told Gazeta.Ru earlier this week.

“Russia is actually one of Venezuela’s key military-technical partners; we supply the country with virtually the entire range of weapons, from small arms to aircraft,” Zhuravlev added. “Russian Su-30MK2 fighters are the backbone of the Venezuelan Air Force, making it one of the most powerful air powers in the region. The delivery of several S-300VM (Antey-2500) battalions has significantly strengthened the country’s ability to protect important installations from air attacks.”

The delivery of Pantsir-S1 systems would appear to be a new development; however, without visual proof, we cannot independently verify Zhuravlev’s claim. An Ilyushin Il-76 airlifter, owned by the Russian Aviacon Zitotrans air transport company, did arrive in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas on Oct. 26 after a circuitous route from Naberezhnye Chelny in Russia, according to FlightRadar24. It is not publicly known what, if any, cargo was delivered. Defense News was the first to report the flight. It’s unclear is other flights have occurred, as well.

Russia has previously provided Venezuela with Buks and S-300VMs. It has also received 21 Su-30MK2 Flanker fighters that are capable of air defense missions, but they can also sling supersonic anti-ship missiles, as well as flying other types of missions.

Just how Maduro’s air defenses could affect any U.S. military strike on Venezuela is something we examined in our deep dive on the topic.

“Venezuela has an unusually varied collection of air defense assets, including smaller numbers of more capable systems. However, even most of the older surface-to-air missile systems have been upgraded and, as stated earlier, are generally highly mobile, meaning they can appear virtually anywhere, disrupting carefully laid mission plans. They could still pose a threat that would have to be taken seriously during any kind of offensive U.S. air operation directed against Venezuela.”

In addition to military aid already given to Venezuela, Zhuravlev suggested that Moscow, which recently ratified a mutual aid agreement with Caracas, could also provide long-range strike weapons.

“Information about the volumes and exact types of what is being imported from Russia is classified, so the Americans could be in for some surprises,” the Russian parliamentarian proferred. “I also see no obstacles to supplying a friendly country with new developments like the Oreshnik or, say, the proven Kalibr missiles; at least, no international obligations restrict Russia from doing so.”

The Oreshnik, a large, intermediate-range ballistic missile system, has been used against Ukraine by Russia. In August, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that production had started on the Oreshniks and reaffirmed his plans to deploy them to ally Belarus later this year. The Kalibr cruise missile, which can be launched from surface combatants and submarines, has been frequently used by Russia in its full-on war against Ukraine. 

With a reported maximum range of about 3,400 miles and a minimum effective range of about 400 miles, the Oreshnik could theoretically threaten much of the continental United States as well as Puerto Rico, which is being used as a staging base for the Caribbean operations. The Kalibr is thought to have a range of between 930 and 1,550 miles, which could possibly threaten the southern continental U.S., as well as facilities throughout the Caribbean.

Whether Russia can actually deliver any meaningful supply of these weapons remains unclear. The country is facing a shortage of air defenses after waves of attacks by Ukraine. Meanwhile, though Russia is still making them, it is unknown how many Kalibrs it still has after nearly four years of hitting Ukrainian targets. International sanctions have stymied advanced standoff weapon production in Russia. The rate at which new Kalibrs are being delivered isn’t known. Regardless, these standoff weapons are far more precious than they once were. The Oreshnik is an experimental weapon in very limited supply. That could change if Russia can produce them in meaningful quantities, but they are also larger and more complex to deploy. They would also be far more threatening to the United States than cruise missiles if they were perched in Venezuela, but that seems more like a questionable possibility in the future, not today.

While the exact extent of Moscow’s supply of new arms to Venezuela is also unknown, Putin has threatened in the past that Russia could provide standoff weapons to America’s enemies. As debate swirled last year about whether Ukraine’s allies would deliver long-range weapons to Kyiv, Putin said Russia could supply similar “regions” around the world where they could be used for strikes against Western targets. Venezuela came up as a possibility for where these weapons could go at the time.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Caribbean buildup could give Putin a pretext to carry out his threat, and in America’s backyard. Trump has also been mulling giving Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missiles (TLAMs) to Ukraine, which would also fit into a potential narrative from Moscow to justify standoff weapons transfers. Clearly, some would draw direct parallels to the Cuban Missile Crisis just on the thought of such a notion. While there are clear similarities to that historic series of events, there are major differences too. It’s also possible Russia could give lower-end, but still long-range ‘deterrence’ weapons to Venezuela in the form of Shahed-136 one-way attack drones, which it has an increasingly large supply of.

We reached out to the White House and Pentagon for further context about the Russian lawmaker’s claims and will update this story with any pertinent details shared. The Pentagon referred us to the White House, which did not directly answer our questions.

Meanwhile, the Ford and one of its escorts, Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge, have passed through the Strait of Gibraltar and are now in the North Atlantic, a Navy official confirmed to The War Zone Tuesday morning. As we have previously reported, the Ford has been dispatched by Trump to take part in the ongoing operations in the Caribbean.

The rest of the carrier strike group’s Arleigh Burke class ships, however, are not with the Ford, according to the Navy. 

The USS Winston S. Churchill is the closest to the carrier, currently in the North Atlantic above Morocco, the Navy official told us. The USS Forrest Sherman and USS Mitscher are in the Red Sea while the USS Mahan is in Rota, Spain.

In addition, the San Antonio class amphibious transport dock ship USS Fort Lauderdale is now north of Cuba, the Navy official added. A U.S. official told us the ship is headed south to the Caribbean to rejoin the rest of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG)/22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) operating as part of the enhanced counter-narcotics operation. There are now eight surface warships, a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, and the MV Ocean Trader – a roll-on/roll-off cargo ship modified to carry special operators and their gear – assembled in the region. There is also an array of aviation assets, among them F-35B stealth fighters, AC-130 gunships, airlifters and MQ-9 Reaper drones, deployed for this operation.

Amid all this signaling by the U.S. and Russia, the Trump administration has “developed a range of options for military action in Venezuela, including direct attacks on military units that protect Maduro and moves to seize control of the country’s oil fields,” The New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing multiple U.S. officials.

Trump “has yet to make a decision about how or even whether to proceed,” the newspaper noted. “Officials said he was reluctant to approve operations that may place American troops at risk or could turn into an embarrassing failure. But many of his senior advisers are pressing for one of the most aggressive options: ousting Mr. Maduro from power.”

The president’s aides “have asked the Justice Department for additional guidance that could provide a legal basis for any military action beyond the current campaign of striking boats that the administration says are trafficking narcotics, without providing evidence,” the publication added. “Such guidance could include a legal rationale for targeting Mr. Maduro without creating the need for congressional authorization for the use of military force, much less a declaration of war.”

Trump is also directing staff to brief more members of Congress on the aggressive anti-narcotics tactics in the Caribbean and Pacific, Axios reported on Tuesday.

“The unprecedented military maneuvers off Venezuela and the continual extra-judicial killings of unarmed suspects —at least 64 of whom have died in 15 boat sinkings— have sparked bipartisan calls for more intel on the White House’s decision making,” the news outlet posited.

While the U.S. is blowing up alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, it is also seizing them in the Pacific.

“MORE WINNING,” Trump posted on Truth Social Monday. “U.S. military captures another drug speedboat and seizes over 5,000 lbs of drugs and apprehends nearly 60 narco terrorists as part of its Operation Pacific Viper.”

In addition to operations against Venezuela’s drug trafficking organizations, NBC News on Monday reported that the U.S. was planning kinetic actions against cartels in Mexico. On Tuesday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pushed back on that possibility.

“It’s not going to happen,” Sheinbaum said during her daily morning news conference on Tuesday. “We do not agree with any process of interference or interventionism.”

It remains unknown at the moment if or when Trump will order an attack on Venezuela. He has previously suggested strikes on ports and other facilities associated with narcotraffickers. However, he has also delivered mixed messages, saying he doubts there will be an attack but that Maduro must go.

Contact the author: [email protected]

President Trump’s administration said Monday that it will partially fund SNAP after a pair of judges’ rulings required it to keep the food aid program running.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture had planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting Nov. 1 because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. It costs about $8 billion per month nationally.

It’s not clear how much beneficiaries will receive, nor how quickly beneficiaries will see value show up on the debit cards they use to buy groceries. The process of loading the SNAP cards, which involves steps by state and federal government agencies and vendors, can take up to two weeks in some states. The average monthly benefit is usually about $190 per person.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the nation’s largest food program, said last month that benefits for November wouldn’t be paid out due to the federal government shutdown. That set off a scramble by food banks, state governments and the nearly 42 million Americans who receive the aid to find ways to ensure access to groceries.

Most states have boosted aid to food banks, and some are setting up systems to reload benefit cards with state taxpayer dollars.

It also spurred lawsuits.

Federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled separately but similarly Friday, telling the government that it was required to use one fund with about $5 billion to pay for the program, at least in part. The benefits and administration cost over $8 billion per month.

The judges gave the government the option to use additional money to fully fund the program and a deadline of Monday to decide.

Judge John J. McConnell Jr., in Providence, Rhode Island, said if the government chose full funding, it would need to make payments Monday. With a partial version, which would require recalculating benefits, the payment deadline is Wednesday.

Trump said on social media Friday that he does “NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.” He said he was telling government lawyers to prepare SNAP payments as soon as possible.

Benefits will be delayed in November because many beneficiaries have their cards recharged early in the month and the process of loading cards can take weeks in many states.

Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions. Cities and nonprofits also filed a lawsuit.

The USDA has a $5 billion contingency fund for the program, but the Trump administration reversed an earlier plan to use that money to keep SNAP running. Democratic officials argue that the administration could also use a separate fund of about $23 billion.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, said SNAP must be funded using at least contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

In an additional order Saturday, McConnell said if the government makes full payments, it must do so by the end of the day Monday. If it chooses partial ones — which involve recalculating how much recipients get — those would need to be issued by Wednesday.

That does not mean people would necessarily see the payments that quickly, because the process of loading cards can take up to two weeks in some circumstances.

McConnell also ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. During the shutdown, the USDA has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled the suspension was unlawful and said USDA has to pay for SNAP. Talwani ordered the federal government to advise by Monday whether they will use emergency reserve funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program using both contingency funds and additional available funds.

Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the SNAP debit cards.

Rhode Island officials said Monday that under their program, SNAP beneficiaries who also receive benefits from another federal program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, received payments Saturday equal to one-fourth of what they typically get from SNAP. Officials in Delaware are telling recipients that benefits there won’t be available until at least Nov. 7.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a household’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line. For a family of four, that’s about $32,000 per year. Last year, SNAP assisted nearly 42 million people, about two-thirds of whom were families with children.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.