temporarily

Oct. 18 (UPI) — The U.S. Marine Corps‘ live-fire event at Camp Pendleton as part of its 250th birthday celebration will cause the closure of Interstate 5 for four hours on Saturday.

The closure is a precaution due to the firing of explosive artillery rounds over the freeway from gunnery ranges at Camp Pendleton in Southern California, which has drawn the ire of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Newsom accused President Donald Trump of “putting his ego over responsibility with this disregard for public safety” in a prepared statement released on Saturday morning.

“Firing live rounds over a busy highway isn’t just wrong — it’s dangerous,” Newsom said.

“Using our military to intimidate people you disagree with isn’t strength,” he added. “It’s reckless. It’s disrespectful, and it’s beneath the office he holds.”

Trump will not attend the celebratory event, but Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are scheduled to attend, with the live-fire scheduled at 1:30 p.m. local time.

Marine Corps officials initially said there would be no need to close the freeway and only asked that signs be posted warning drivers of the live-fire event and to expect to hear explosions.

California Highway Patrol officials instead announced the freeway would be closed while the event is in progress, according to KTLA-TV.

Due to safety concerns, a section of Interstate 5 will be closed Saturday due to a White House-directed military event at Camp Pendleton involving live ammunition being discharged over the freeway,” Caltrans officials said in a statement on Saturday morning.

“Drivers should expect delays on Interstate 5 and other state routes throughout Southern California before, during and after the event.”

The closure starts at 11 a.m. PDT for the 17-mile stretch of freeway running from Basilone Road near San Onofre in the north to Harbor Drive in Oceanside to the south and reopens at 3 p.m.

The event will include a demonstration of Navy and Marine Corps operations on land, sea and in the air.

Camp Pendleton is located about 40 miles north of San Diego and east of I-5, which runs along the Pacific Coast.

Caltrans officials advise motorists in Los Angeles County to use state routes in San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties to bypass the closed section of freeway.

Several local train routes also will be closed during the live-fire event.

A federal judge said the layoffs by the administration of US President Donald Trump seem politically motivated and ‘you can’t do that in a nation of laws’.

A United States federal judge in California has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to halt mass layoffs during a partial government shutdown while she considers claims by unions that the job cuts are illegal.

During a hearing in San Francisco on Wednesday, US District Judge Susan Illston granted a request by two unions to block layoffs at more than 30 agencies pending further litigation.

Her ruling came shortly after White House Budget Director Russell Vought said on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that more than 10,000 federal workers could lose their jobs because of the shutdown, which entered its 15th day on Wednesday.

Illston at the hearing cited a series of public statements by Trump and Vought that she said showed explicit political motivations for the layoffs, such as Trump saying that cuts would target “Democrat agencies”.

“You can’t do that in a nation of laws. And we have laws here, and the things that are being articulated here are not within the law,” said Illston, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, adding that the cuts were being carried out without much thought.

“It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost,” she said. “It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston said she agreed with the unions that the administration was unlawfully using the lapse in government funding that began October 1 to carry out its agenda of downsizing the federal government.

A US Department of Justice lawyer, Elizabeth Hedges, said she was not prepared to address Illston’s concerns about the legality of the layoffs. She instead argued that the unions must bring their claims to a federal labour board before going to court.

‘Won’t negotiate’

The judge’s decision came after federal agencies on Friday started issuing layoff notices aimed at reducing the size of the federal government. The layoff notices are part of an effort by Trump’s Republican administration to exert more pressure on Democratic lawmakers as the government shutdown continues.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding that any deal to reopen the federal government address their healthcare demands. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson predicted the shutdown may become the longest in history, saying he “won’t negotiate” with Democrats until they hit pause on those demands and reopen.

Democrats have demanded that healthcare subsidies, first put in place in 2021 and extended a year later, be extended again. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that was passed earlier this year.

About 4,100 workers at eight agencies have been notified that they are being laid off so far, according to a Tuesday court filing by the administration.

The Trump administration has been paying the military and pursuing its crackdown on immigration while slashing jobs in health and education, including in special education and after-school programmes. Trump said programmes favoured by Democrats are being targeted and “they’re never going to come back, in many cases.”

The American Federation of Government Employees and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees claim that implementing layoffs is not an essential service that can be performed during a lapse in government funding, and that the shutdown does not justify mass job cuts because most federal workers have been furloughed without pay.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the case. She said that the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.

After the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis, Tenn. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces, alarming many military analysts.

Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.

The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles and has about 636,000 residents.

The protests grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the Guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and intervenes in the protests only if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd-control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE building.

During his first term, Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bullets and used tear gas.

Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

The government agreed this year to settle an excessive-force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

Rush and Boone write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Boise, Idaho, respectively. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

The United States Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her post. The court’s announcement means Cook will stay in the job for now.

The high court announced the decision on Wednesday.

The White House has been trying to remove Cook in the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official, an unprecedented challenge to central bank independence.

The justices declined to immediately decide a Department of Justice request to put on hold a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Republican president from removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, while litigation over the termination continues in a lower court.

The justices said they would hear the case in January.

In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, such as allowing governors to be removed by a president only “for cause”, although the law does not define the term or establish procedures for removal. The law has never been tested in court.

Washington, DC-based US District Judge Jia Cobb on September 9 ruled that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies, likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.

Trump on August 25 said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s Board of Governors, citing allegations that before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favourable terms on a mortgage. Her term is set to expire in 2038.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump soon after. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give the president the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on September 15 denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold.

Expansive view of presidential powers

In a series of decisions in recent months, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove members of various federal agencies that Congress had established as independent from direct presidential control despite similar job protections for those posts. The decisions suggest that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, may be ready to jettison a key 1935 precedent that preserved these protections in a case that involved the US Federal Trade Commission.

But the court has signalled that it could treat the Fed as distinct from other executive branch agencies, noting in May in a case involving Trump’s dismissal of two Democratic members of federal labour boards that the Fed “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a singular historical tradition.

Trump’s bid to fire Cook reflects the expansive view of presidential power he has asserted since returning to office in January. As long as the president identifies a cause for removal, Cook’s sacking is within his “unreviewable discretion”, the Department of Justice said in a September 18 filing to the Supreme Court.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself – and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” the filing stated.

Cook’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on September 25 that granting Trump’s request, “would eviscerate the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence, upend financial markets and create a blueprint for future presidents to direct monetary policy based on their political agendas and election calendars”.

A group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties also urged the Supreme Court not to let Trump fire Cook.

The group included the past three Fed chairs, Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. In a brief to the court, they wrote that allowing this dismissal would threaten the Fed’s independence and erode public confidence in it.

Cook took part in the Fed’s highly anticipated two-day meeting in Washington, DC, in September, at which the central bank decided to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as policymakers responded to concerns about weakness in the job market. Cook was among those voting in favour of the cut.

Pressure on Fed

Concerns about the Fed’s independence from the White House in setting monetary policy could have a ripple effect throughout the global economy.

The case has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently and carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.

Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull,” “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron”.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum.

A British court has temporarily blocked the deportation of an asylum seeker to France, dealing an early setback to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s plan to return people who arrive in the United Kingdom on small boats.

The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, crossed the English Channel on August 12 and was due to be removed on Wednesday under a “one in, one out” pilot scheme agreed between the UK and France in July.

But on Tuesday, London’s High Court granted him an interim injunction preventing his removal, pending a full hearing of his trafficking claim.

Judge Clive Sheldon ruled: “I am going to grant a short period of interim relief. The status quo is that the claimant is currently in this country and has not been removed.

“So, I make an order that the claimant should not be removed tomorrow at 9am, but that this matter should come back to this court as soon as is reasonably practical in light of the further representations that the claimant … will make on his trafficking decision.”

“The removal takes place against the backdrop of the recently signed agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the French Republic.

“It seems to me there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.”

The case follows a decision by the UK’s National Referral Mechanism (NRM) – which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking – asking the man to submit further evidence in relation to his claim.

The ruling is a setback for Prime Minister Starmer, who has made stopping small boat crossings central to his government’s agenda.

His approach has drawn criticism from rights groups, who accuse him of bowing to pressure from the far right following attacks on asylum-seeker accommodation.

The UK-France scheme is also seen by analysts as part of the government’s attempt to blunt the growing support of the anti-immigrant Reform UK party, which has been climbing in opinion polls.

Under the plan, people arriving in Britain would be returned to France, while the UK would accept an equal number of recognised asylum seekers with family ties in Britain.

Downing Street has defended the plan, calling it a “fair and balanced” system designed to reduce irregular migration.

It insisted it expects deportations to begin “imminently”, with the prime minister’s official spokesman saying “for obvious reasons we’re not going to get into a running commentary on operational details before that”.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum in the UK.

Sept. 5 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration for now from ending Temporary Protected Status for more than 1.1 million migrants from Venezuela and Haiti.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ruled that the change unlawfully “truncated and condensed” the timeline to end temporary legal protections and work permits for people who fled the two Latin American nations. He was appointed by President Barack Obama.

About 600,000 Venezuelans had their protections expire in April or on Sept. 10. They have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger since receiving their protected status in 2021. The ruling affects 500,000 from Haiti.

The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end the status for several countries. Separate litigation is ongoing for migrants from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua.

“This case arose from action taken post haste by the current DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, to revoke the legal status of Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders, sending them back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries,” Chen wrote in a 69-page decision. “The Secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violates the law.”

The decision only temporarily halted the agency from deporting them. But Chen said he expects Venezuelans will be able to renew this status while the case goes through the courts, including appeals, and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Earlier, he halted a TPS order for several hundred thousand Venezuelans. But the Supreme Court in May allowed the Trump administration to end the program as it goes through the courts.

Chen said his new decision concerned only preliminary relief, and the high court didn’t bar him from deciding on the case based upon its merits under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the rule-making process of the agency.

In planning to appeal, Noem said the government will “use every legal option at the Department’s disposal to end this chaos and prioritize the safety of Americans.”

“For decades the TPS program has been abused, exploited, and politicized as a de facto amnesty program. Its use has been all the more dangerous given the millions of unvetted illegal aliens the Biden Administration let into this country,” the statement obtained by CBS News read.

The Trump administration has argued that conditions in Venezuela and Haiti have improved sufficiently to end those protections.

TPS was established in 1990 to allow for temporary immigrant protections for people experiencing wars, natural disasters or other “extraordinary” conditions.

“For 35 years, the TPS statute has been faithfully executed by presidential administrations from both parties, affording relief based on the best available information obtained by the Department of Homeland Security,” Chen wrote. “This case arose from action taken post haste by the current DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, to revoke the legal status of Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders, sending them back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries.”

When Donald Trump was president during his first term, he attempted to end TPS for several countries, including Haiti. Court cases were blocked during his presidency.

When Joe Biden was president, he designated Venezuela as part of TPS, covering 600,000 migrants. It was expanded to Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti and Ukraine.

Haiti was first designated the protection after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 2010. The nation faces widespread hunger and gang violence.

Two years later in 2023, he extended protections for those from Venezuela and Haiti.

When Trump became president again in January, Noem sought to reverse the extension for Venezuela and then sought to terminate the designation entirely. Haitians also were included, as well as those from other countries.

“As a matter of law, the Secretary lacked the implicit authority to vacate,” Chen wrote. “Even if she had such authority, there is no genuine dispute that she exceeded that authority.”

The National TPS Alliance and Venezuelan TPS holders in February challenged Noem’s decisions.

“From Day 1, Secretary Noem acted with a sole intent of stripping TPS-holders of their legal status whether or not there was a basis for it,” Emi MacLean, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement to The Washington Post. “This decision recognizes the illegality of that. As a result, TPS protections should go back into effect immediately.”

Aug. 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday replaced Bill Long as Internal Revenue Service commissioner after less than two months on the job with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a temporary role.

The New York Times was the first media outlet to confirm his ouster and Long later announced his departure on X with plans to become Iceland’s ambassador.

“It is a honor to serve my friend President Trump and I am excited to take on my new role as the ambassador to Iceland. I am thrilled to answer his call to service and deeply committed to advancing his bold agenda. Exciting times ahead!”

A spokesperson for the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, said in a statement to NBC News that the department “thanks Commissioner Long for his commitment to public service and the American people. His zeal and enthusiasm to bring a fresh perspective to the Federal Government was evident in both the House of Representatives and as part of the Trump Administration.”

Bessent has already been tasked with negotiating tariff rates as part of trade talks. Also, he is helping with the search for ultimately the next Federal Reserve chairman.

Long was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 12 and sworn in as commissioner four days later to a term that was supposed to last through Nov. 12, 2027. Trump nominated him on Dec. 4, 2024. While awaiting confirmation, he was appointed as a senior adviser in the Office of Personnel Management.

Lpng had limited tax experience and had supported the abolishment of the agency, CNN reported.

He served in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2023, representing a district in Missouri, and was previously an auctioneer.

On Thursday, he sent an email to all IRS employees with the subject line: “It’s Almost FriYay that read: “Please enjoy a 70-minute early exit tomorrow. That way you’ll be rested for my 70th birthday on Monday,” The New York Times reported.

He signed it: “Call Me Billy.”

The IRS has been processing tax forms since the April 15 deadline with extensions until Aug. 15.

The IRS workforce has shrunk 25% amid Trump’s government cuts and mass buyouts. In all there are plans to cut its 102,000 workforce by up to 40%, according to a memo obtained by CBS News in April.

And 26% of the agents who conduct audits have left the agency by May, according to the report.

And the IRS has been dealing with new deductions and tax cuts after the passage of the sprawling spending bill, labeled as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” The new law has no tax on tips or overtime.

Seven different people will have led the agency since Trump won the 204 election.

Danny Wefel held the role until Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 despite a statutory five-year term.

Other acting commissioners had policy differences with Trump: Doug O’Connell and Melanie Krause. Another acting boss, Gary Shapley, was appointed but ousted Bessent a few days later because he didn’t want him. Deputy Secretary Michael Faulkender became the acting commissioner until Long was confirmed.