trump administration

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has halted all asylum decisions and paused issuing visas for people traveling on Afghan passports, days after a shooting in the nation’s capital that left one National Guard member dead and another in critical condition.

Investigators continued Saturday to seek a motive in the shooting, in which the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, faces charges including first-degree murder.

Lakanwal is a 29-year-old Afghan national who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan war. He applied for asylum during the Biden administration, which was granted this year under President Trump, according to #AfghanEvac, a group that assists with resettlement of Afghans who helped U.S. forces in their country.

The Trump administration has seized on the shooting Wednesday several blocks from the White House to intensify efforts to rein in legal immigration, promising to pause entry from some poor countries and review Afghans and other legal migrants already in the country. That is in addition to other measures, some of which were previously set in motion.

Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died after Wednesday’s shooting, and Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains hospitalized in critical condition. They were deployed with the West Virginia National Guard as part of Trump’s mission in Washington, D.C., which he says aims to combat crime. The president also has deployed or tried to deploy National Guard members to other Democratic-run cities to assist with his mass deportation efforts but has faced court challenges.

U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office said the charges against Lakanwal also include two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. In an interview on Fox News, she said there were “many charges to come.”

Asylum decisions halted

Trump called the shooting a “terrorist attack” and criticized the Biden administration for enabling entry by Afghans who worked with U.S. forces.

The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, said Friday in a post on the social platform X that asylum decisions would be paused “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.”

Experts say the U.S. has rigorous vetting systems for asylum seekers. Asylum claims made from inside the country through USCIS have long faced backlogs. Critics say the slowdown has been exacerbated during the Trump administration.

Also Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his department was pausing “visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports.”

Shawn VanDiver, president of San Diego-based #AfghanEvac, which has coordinated with the U.S. government on its Afghan resettlement efforts, said in response: “They are using a single violent individual as cover for a policy they have long planned, turning their own intelligence failures into an excuse to punish an entire community and the veterans who served alongside them.”

The suspect

Lakanwal lived in Bellingham, Wash., about 80 miles north of Seattle, with his wife and five children, former landlord Kristina Widman said.

Neighbor Mohammad Sherzad said Lakanwal was polite and quiet and spoke little English.

Sherzad said he attended the same mosque as Lakanwal and heard from other members that he was struggling to find work. He said Lakanwal “disappeared” about two weeks ago.

Lakanwal worked briefly this summer as an independent contractor for Amazon Flex, which lets people use their own cars to deliver packages, according to a company spokesperson.

Investigators are executing warrants in Washington state and other parts of the country.

Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration program that resettled Afghans after the U.S. withdrawal, officials said. Lakanwal applied for asylum during that administration, but his asylum was approved this year under the Trump administration, #AfghanEvac said in a statement.

Lakanwal served in a CIA-backed Afghan army unit, known as one of the specialized Zero Units, in the southern province of Kandahar, according to a resident of the eastern province of Khost who identified himself as Lakanwal’s cousin and spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The man said Lakanwal started out working for the unit as a security guard in 2012 and was later promoted to a team leader and a GPS specialist.

Binkley and Finley write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Sarah Brumfield, Siddiqullah Alizai, Elena Becatoros, Randy Herschaft, Cedar Attanasio and Hallie Golden contributed to this report.

Northwestern University has agreed to pay $75 million to the U.S. government in a deal with the Trump administration to end a series of investigations and restore hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding.

President Trump’s administration had cut off $790 million in grants in a standoff that contributed to university layoffs and the resignation in September of Northwestern President Michael Schill. The administration said the school had not done enough to fight antisemitism.

Under the agreement announced Friday night, Northwestern will make the payment to the U.S. Treasury over the next three years. Among other commitments it also requires the university to revoke the so-called Deering Meadow agreement, which it signed in April 2024 in exchange for pro-Palestinian protesters ending their tent encampment on campus.

During negotiations with the Trump administration, interim university President Henry Bienen said Northwestern refused to cede control over hiring, admissions or its curriculum. “I would not have signed this agreement without provisions ensuring that is the case,” he said.

The agreement also calls for Northwestern to continue compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, develop training materials to “socialize international students” with the norms of a campus dedicated to open debate, and uphold a commitment to Title IX by “providing safe and fair opportunities for women, including single-sex housing for any woman, defined on the basis of sex, who requests such accommodations and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the deal cements policy changes that will protect people on campus from harassment and discrimination.

“The reforms reflect bold leadership at Northwestern and they are a road map for institutional leaders around the country that will help rebuild public trust in our colleges and universities,” McMahon said.

Trump has leveraged government control of federal research money to push for ideological changes at elite colleges he claims are overrun by “woke” ideology.

The fine agreed to by Northwestern is the second-largest behind Columbia, which agreed in July to pay the government $200 million to resolve a series of investigations and restore its funding. Brown and Cornell also reached agreements with the government to restore funding after antisemitism investigations.

Harvard, the administration’s primary target, remains in negotiations with the federal government over its demands for changes to campus policies and governance. The Ivy League school sued over the administration’s cuts to its grant money and won a court victory in September when a federal judge ordered the government to restore federal funding, saying the Trump administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen.”

This fall, the White House tried a different approach on higher education, offering preferential treatment for federal funds to several institutions in exchange for adopting policies in line with Trump’s agenda. The administration received a wave of initial rejections from some universities’ leadership, including USC’s, citing concerns that Trump’s higher education compact would suffocate academic freedom.

The Trump administration is promising an even tougher anti-immigration agenda after an Afghan national was charged this week in the shooting of two National Guard members, with new restrictions targeting the tens of thousands of Afghans resettled in the U.S. and those seeking to come, many of whom served alongside American soldiers in the two-decade war.

But those still waiting to come were already facing stricter measures as part of President Trump’s sweeping crackdown on legal and illegal migration that began when he started his second term in January. And the Afghan immigrants living in the U.S. and now in the administration’s crosshairs were among the most extensively vetted, often undergoing years of security screening, experts and advocates say.

In its latest move, the Trump administration announced Friday that it will pause issuing visas for anyone traveling on an Afghan passport.

The suspected shooter, who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan war, “was vetted both before he landed, probably once he landed, once he applied for asylum,” said Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute. “But more importantly, he was almost certainly vetted extensively and much more by the CIA.”

Haris Tarin, a former U.S. official who worked on the Biden-era program that resettled Afghans, predicted that “as the investigation unfolds, you will see that this is not a failure of screening. This is a failure of us not being able to integrate — not just foreign intelligence and military personnel — but our own veterans, over the past 25 years.”

The program, Operations Allies Welcome, initially brought about 76,000 Afghans to the United States, many of whom had worked alongside American troops and diplomats as interpreters and translators. The initiative was in place for around a year before shifting to a longer-term program called Operation Enduring Welcome. Almost 200,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.S. under the programs.

Among those brought to the U.S. under the program was the suspected shooter, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who now faces a first-degree murder charge in the death of 20-year-old Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom. The other National Guard member who was shot, 24-year-old Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, remains in critical condition.

Those resettlements are now on hold. The State Department has temporarily stopped issuing visas for all people traveling on Afghan passports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced late Friday on X.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric

Trump and his allies have seized on the shooting to criticize gaps in the U.S. vetting process and the speed of admissions, even though some Republicans spent the months and years after the 2021 withdrawal criticizing the Biden administration for not moving fast enough to approve some applications from Afghan allies.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe said Lakanwal “should have never been allowed to come here.” Trump called lax migration policies “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation,” and Vice President JD Vance said Biden’s policy was “opening the floodgate to unvetted Afghan refugees.”

That rhetoric quickly turned into policy announcements, with Trump saying he would “permanently pause all migration” from a list of nearly 20 countries, “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States.” Many of these changes had already been set in motion through a series of executive orders over the last 10 months, including most recently in June.

“They are highlighting practices that were already going into place,” said Andrea Flores, a lawyer who was an immigration policy advisor in the Obama and Biden administrations.

Lakanwal applied for asylum during the Biden administration, but his request was approved in April of this year — under the Trump administration — after undergoing a thorough vetting, according to #AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the U.S. during the war.

Flores said the system has worked across administrations: “You may hear people say, ‘Well, he was granted asylum under Trump. This is Trump’s problem.’ That’s not how our immigration system works. It relies on the same bedding. No asylum laws have really been changed by Congress.”

Afghans in the U.S. fearful for their status

Trump and other U.S. officials have used the attack to demand a reexamination of everyone who came to the U.S. from Afghanistan, a country he called “a hellhole on Earth” on Thursday.

“These policies were already creating widespread disruption and fear among lawfully admitted families. What’s new and deeply troubling is the attempt to retroactively tie all of this to one act of violence in a way that casts suspicion on entire nationalities, including Afghan allies who risked their lives to protect our troops,” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, said in a statement Friday.

This has left the nearly 200,000 Afghans living across the U.S. in deep fear and shame over actions attributed to one person. Those in the U.S. are now worrying about their legal status being revoked, while others in the immigration pipeline here and abroad are waiting in limbo.

Nesar, a 22-year-old Afghan who arrived in the U.S. weeks after the fall of Kabul, said he had just begun to assimilate into life in the U.S. when the attack happened Wednesday. He agreed to speak to the Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used for fear of reprisals or targeting by immigration officials.

“Life was finally getting easier for me. I’ve learned to speak English. I found a better job,” he said. “But after this happened two days ago, I honestly went to the grocery store this morning, and I was feeling so uncomfortable among all of those people. I was like, maybe they’re now looking at me the same way as the shooter.”

Two days before the shooting, Nesar and his father, who worked for the Afghan president during the war, had received an interview date of Dec. 13 for their green card application, a moment he said they had been working toward for four years. He says it is now unclear if their application will move forward or whether their interview will take place.

Another Afghan national, who also spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, said that after fearing for his life under Taliban rule, he felt a sense of peace and hope when he finally received a special immigrant visa to come to the U.S. two years ago.

He said he thought he could use his experience working as a defense attorney in Afghanistan to contribute to American society. But now, he said, he and other Afghans will once again face scrutiny because of the actions of an “extremist who, despite benefiting from the safety and livelihood provided by this country, ungratefully attacked two American soldiers.”

“It seems that whenever a terrorist commits a crime, its shadow falls upon me simply because I am from Afghanistan,” he added.

Cappelletti and Amiri write for the Associated Press. AP writer Renata Brito contributed to this report.

California state Senate leader Kevin de León introduced Senate Bill 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Donald Trump.

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León discusses legislation that would prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources for immigration enforcement. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

The proposal, known as the “sanctuary state” bill, was sparked by the Trump administration’s broadened deportation orders. It would expand so-called sanctuary city policies, prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes.

But as President Trump and U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions have threatened to slash federal funding from “sanctuary cities,” the state legislation is raising heated opposition from Republican lawmakers and sheriffs. They argue its provisions could strain the state’s finances and shield dangerous criminals.

Here’s what you should know about the bill.

1. It builds on an earlier law that provides protections to immigrants

De León has said his proposal builds on the California Trust Act, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed in October 2013. That state statute prevents law enforcement agencies from detaining immigrants longer than necessary for minor crimes, allowing federal immigration authorities to take them into custody.

Senate Bill 54 would prevent state and local agencies from complying with any “hold requests” to detain immigrants, for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from using their facilities, property, equipment or personnel for immigration enforcement, and from spending money on it. The agencies would be barred from:

• Collecting information about a person’s immigration status
• Responding to notification or transfer requests from federal immigration agencies
• Responding to requests for personal information that is not publicly available for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws
• Arresting people based on civil immigration warrants
• Giving federal immigration officers access to interview someone in their custody for immigration enforcement purposes
• Helping federal immigration officers search a car without a warrant
• Performing the functions of an immigration officer

Hundreds of Sacramento residents protested, listened and shouted while acting ICE Director Thomas Homan, left, and Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones held a community forum. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

(Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

2. It would establish ‘safe zones’ for immigrants

Within three months of Senate Bill 54 becoming law, the state Department of Justice would have to publish policies outlining what state and local law enforcement agencies can and can’t do to assist federal officials.

It would also create “safe zones” for immigrants by requiring all public schools, public libraries, courthouses and health facilities run by state or local government to implement those policies or “equivalent” regulations, though they would not have to be approved by the state. All other government-run organizations and entities that offer physical or mental health and wellness services, or that provide access to education, legal aid and social services, including the University of California, would be encouraged but not required to adopt the state policies.

3. Law enforcement officers would be able to work with task forces — so long as they’re not dedicated to immigration enforcement

To address some concerns from law enforcement, De León has added new amendments to his bill that would allow local and state officers to participate in task forces — and work alongside federal immigration officers — as long as their main purpose is not immigration enforcement.

Agencies that participate in a joint law enforcement task force would have to submit a report every six months to the state Department of Justice describing the types and frequency of arrests made by the task force. Within 14 months of the bill going into effect and twice a year thereafter, the state attorney general would have to publish the reports online.

4. Federal immigration officials would be notified when felons who have violent or serious convictions are released

Other changes to the bill by De León have attempted to address concerns from Republican lawmakers and sheriffs over the release of violent felons.

Federal law requires that electronic fingerprint records for all offenders booked into state prisons and local jails be sent to the FBI and to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE receives an electronic notification when DHS has previously entered an inmate’s information into its databases and determines whether the person is a priority for deportation. If so, it can request the arresting agency to hold or notify ICE before the person is let go.

Under Senate Bill 54, communication between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies would be limited to passing on information about inmates who have previously been deported for a violent felony, or are serving time on a misdemeanor or felony and have a prior serious or violent felony conviction. State and local agencies would only be able respond to requests from ICE for other information if it is already available to the public.

Other recent amendments to the bill would require the State Parole Board or the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give ICE 60-days advance notice of the release date of inmates who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony, or those who are serving time for a nonviolent crime but have a prior conviction for violent or serious crimes.

Law enforcement officers also would be allowed to contact and transfer people to ICE, with a judicial warrant, if they come into contact with someone who was previously deported for a violent felony.

5. It’s unclear how much of a financial burden the legislation will be for state and local law enforcement agencies

The Senate Appropriations Committee has determined it would take a one-time cost of $2.7 million and ongoing costs of $2.3 million per year for the state to develop compliance policies, provide training and outreach to state agencies and compile task force reports as required by Senate Bill 54.

But the costs for local law enforcement agencies to change their existing procedures — and to end contracts with federal immigration agencies, some of which generate millions of dollars in revenue from leased jail space — are unknown, as is how much it will cost state agencies including courts and schools to implement the new policies. The committee has not been able to measure the potential loss in funding from Washington should the state refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

The state is unlikely to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for their financial losses because while the bill would impose restrictions, it would not require them to develop new policies, programs or services, according to an analysis by the Senate Public Safety Committee. But the state would probably have to foot the bill for expenses accrued by local government operations, including school districts and county health facilities, which would be asked to devise new policies that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement.

6. Many sheriffs are vehemently opposed to the bill

The bill has drawn fierce opposition from sheriffs across the state, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell and Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones, who last month hosted a community forum on immigration enforcement with acting ICE Director Thomas Homan that drew a large crowd of protestors.

The sheriffs say the bill would severely limit communication and collaboration between local and federal agencies, forcing federal immigration officers to go into communities — instead of jails — when searching for immigrants who are a danger to public safety.

As the head of the nation’s largest sheriff’s department, McDonnell runs the largest jail system in the country, which houses approximately 18,000 inmates on any given day. Asst. Sheriff Kelly Harrington, who oversees the jail operation, has previously said federal immigration agents have access inside the county’s jail system every day. L.A. County jail officials last year handed over about 1,000 inmates to immigration agents — a small portion of the more than 300,000 people released from the county’s jails that year.

The sheriffs also argue the changes to the bill don’t address the potential loss of federal funding in counties that lease space to federal immigration agencies for detainees. An SB 54 opposition letter from Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Sandra Hutchens estimated that shortfall for her agency at roughly $22 million annually. Jones, who has said his department has $4.8 million in ICE contracts, insists his opposition stems from public safety concerns, not financial losses.

But no sheriff in California’s 58 counties is willing to hold inmates past their release dates for ICE, the Times has found. Several sheriffs said their defiance was not rooted in ethical or political opposition, but in concerns over federal court rulings, including a case in Oregon where a judge found that police violated a woman’s constitutional rights by keeping her in jail at the federal agency’s request.

7. Supporters argue the bill will protect vulnerable communities

Dubbed the California Values Act, Senate Bill 54 is at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 3 million people living in the state illegally. Other bills aim to protect immigrants’ religious affiliations and create a $12-million legal defense program for immigrants facing deportation who do not have a violent felony on their records.

The bill has drawn a long list of supporters, including Los Angeles County Supervisors Hilda Solis and Sheila Kuehl and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Other supporters include city officials from sanctuary cities like Santa Ana and Berkeley, immigrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers. They are urging opponents of the bill to move away from embracing Trump’s rhetoric, which they say stereotypes immigrants as criminals, and are pointing to studies that reflect low crime rates in immigrant communities.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has said he supports with the legislation’s “underlying tenets,” but wants to ensure it does not protect criminals.

Meanwhile, some university police chiefs have supported the bill from the beginning, saying fear can keep witnesses and victims to crimes from coming forward. A 2013 study conducted by the University of Illinois found 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police if they have been a victim of crime because they fear that police officers will ask about their immigration status.

[email protected]

Twitter: @jazmineulloa

ALSO

Controversial ‘sanctuary state’ bill clears major hurdle after hours of debate

New amendments to ‘sanctuary state’ bill will allow police and sheriffs to contact ICE about violent felons

Here’s why law enforcement groups are divided on legislation to turn California into a ‘sanctuary state’

Protests erupt at Sacramento town hall meeting as ICE director answers questions about immigration enforcement

Updates on California politics

UPDATES:

12:01 p.m.: This article was updated to reflect that law enforcement agencies are allowed to notify immigration officials about inmates with prior violent felony convictions.

This article was originally published at 12:00 a.m.

The Trump administration filed a federal suit Thursday against California and its public university systems, alleging its practice of offering in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants who graduate from California high schools is illegal.

The suit, which named Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the UC Board of Regents, the Cal State University Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges, also seeks to end some provisions in the California Dream Act, which in part allows students who lack documentation to apply for state-funded financial aid.

“California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This marks our third lawsuit against California in one week — we will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

Higher education and state officials were not immediately available to comment.

The tuition suit targets Assembly Bill 540, which passed with bipartisan support in 2001 and offers in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who completed high school in California. The law also offers in-state tuition to U.S. citizens who graduated from California schools but moved out of the state before enrolling in college.

Between 2,000 and 4,000 students attending the University of California — with its total enrollment of nearly 296,000 — are estimated to be undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, are community college students.

The Trump administration’s challenge to California’s tuition statute focuses on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Scholars have debated whether that law affects California’s tuition practices since AB 540 applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.

Thursday’s complaint was filed in Eastern District of California, and it follows similar actions the Trump administration has taken against Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma and Minnesota.

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.

BILLINGS, Mont. — President Trump’s administration moved Wednesday to roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live, reviving a suite of changes to Endangered Species Act regulations during the Republican’s first term that were blocked under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The changes include the elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule” that automatically protects animals and plants newly classified as threatened. Government agencies instead would have to craft species-specific rules for protections, a potentially lengthy process.

Environmentalists warned the changes could cause years-long delays in efforts to save species such as the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl and North American wolverine.

“We would have to wait until these poor animals are almost extinct before we can start protecting them. That’s absurd and heartbreaking,” said Stephanie Kurose with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The proposals come as extinctions have accelerated globally because of habitat loss and other pressures. Prior proposals during Trump’s second term would revise the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act and potentially bypass species protections for logging projects in national forests and on public lands.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the administration was restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent while respecting “the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.”

The changes answer long-standing calls for revisions to the 1973 Endangered Species Act from Republicans in Congress and industries including oil and gas, mining and agriculture. Those critics argue the law has been wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth.

Another change proposed Wednesday tasks officials with weighing potential economic impacts when deciding what habitat is crucial to the survival of a species.

“These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense,” Burgum said in a statement.

The Interior Department was sued over the blanket protection rule in March, by the Property and Environment Research Center and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The two groups argued the rule was illegal and discouraged states and landowners from assisting in species recovery efforts.

PERC Vice President Jonathan Wood said Wednesday’s proposal was a “necessary course correction” from the Biden administration’s actions.

“This reform acknowledges the blanket rule’s unlawfulness and puts recovery back at the heart of the Endangered Species Act,” Wood said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

At a White House event on Nov. 6 announcing price cuts for those blockbuster weight-loss drugs, Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Mehmet Oz made an astonishing claim.

Because the price cuts would vastly improve access to the prescription drugs, Oz said, by next year’s midterm elections in November, “Americans will lose 135 billion pounds.”

As though to make sure nobody missed the magnitude of the achievement, Oz hit the word “billion” with all its plosive force: “135 BILLION pounds.”

Well, that would be some achievement. The U.S. population is just over 340 million. Do the math, and Oz’s figure works out to an average weight loss of 347 pounds for every man, woman and child in America.

Oz called the calculation “our estimate based on company numbers,” referring to Lilly and Novo Nordisk, the makers of the most popular drugs in the category. His figure was a vast improvement over what he said was his agency’s original estimate of 125 million pounds.

Perhaps Oz just misspoke; it’s certainly not uncommon for people to substitute “billions” for “millions” in quotidian speech. (More on that shortly.) But his casual retailing of obviously bogus arithmetic points to a broader issue with the numbers the Trump White House routinely injects into its policy statements.

The administration’s suspect arithmetic is in many respects deliberately aimed at portraying some condition as better than the real numbers show.

It’s also reliant, however, on people’s proverbial dislike, even fear, of math — whether we’re talking about calculating the tip at a restaurant or the statistical risk of dying from a lightning strike or in a terrorist attack. The mathematician John Allen Poulos described this phenomenon as “innumeracy,” the title of his classic 1989 book on the topic.

As is the case in all hierarchical organizations, the problem starts at the top. President Trump loves to define his ostensible political achievements and goals with big numbers. For example, he claimed in August to have cut prescription drug prices “by 1,200, 1,300 and 1,400, 1,500%.”

To an unwary listener, that sounds like another major achievement. In mathematical terms, though, it’s impossible: A 1,500% reduction would mean reducing a $100 drug bill to negative $1,400, meaning that the drug company would be paying you to use its product.

In recent weeks, Trumpian innumeracy has cropped up in official dispatches not only in relation to healthcare, but also home mortgages and (especially) inflation. The partisan value of mathematical deception is manifest. But it’s also dangerous.

“One rarely discussed consequence of innumeracy is its link with pseudoscience,” Poulos wrote. That’s at the core of the anti-vaccine movement and the doubts sown by partisan actors in the science of COVID-19‘s origins — specifically, the evidence-free assertions that the virus was concocted in a Chinese laboratory.

Let’s examine the most recent displays of bogus math from the Trump administration.

Healthcare math: Oz employed his weight-loss conjecture to dress up the effect of Trump’s price negotiations with Lilly and Novo Nordisk. The figure he offered as the administration’s initial estimate of 125 million pounds lost by next November’s election was not especially impressive, as it implied an average loss of about one-third of a pound per capita.

If we adjust these stats to cover the 12% of American adults who have taken the drugs — about 3.12 million users — that’s a loss of 40 pounds per user, which is at the very high end of per-user weight loss experiences. A 2023 study found that about one-third of users lost more than 5% of their body weight after about 18 months; for a 250-pound user, that’s a loss of about 12.5 pounds in a year and a half.

I asked the Department of Health and Human Services, Oz’s parent agency, to clarify his statement but didn’t receive a reply. I also asked Novo Nordisk and Lilly what “company numbers” he might have been referring to. Lilly didn’t reply, and Novo Nordisk emailed me to say it had nothing to say on the matter.

Mortgage math: As an ostensible solution to the diminishing affordability of home ownership, the administration advanced the idea of giving homebuyers the option of 50-year mortgages. That’s a big departure from the standard 30-year, fixed-rate home loan, the most popular option.

Trump endorsed this fundamentally unserviceable idea with a Truth Social post in which he depicted himself as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s equal as a “great American President” — indeed, as going one better than FDR, to whom he attributed the introduction of the 30-year mortgage.

(Actually, under FDR the standard mortgage, a three-to-five-year loan with interest-only payments ending in a balloon payment and required refinancing, gave way to fully amortized loans that would be paid off in 15 years; the 30-year mortgage didn’t become the standard until the 1950s.)

What makes the 50-year mortgage such a chuckleheaded product? Let’s do the math.

Here’s a nugget of truth about it: The monthly payment on the same size mortgage at the same rate would be lower on a 50-year term than on a 30-year term. On a $400,000 loan at 6%, the interest and principal payment would be $2,106 for the former versus $2,398 on the latter, an apparent savings of $292 a month. For borrowers living on the edge, that’s a sizable difference.

Here are the catches, however. First, over the life of the loan, borrowers will pay much more in interest for the longer loan — in our examples, the total in interest on the 50-year loan comes to about $650,000, versus $461,000 over 30 years.

Moreover, it’s almost certain that lenders will charge a higher rate for the longer-term loan. No one is quite sure how much higher, but Adam Levitin of Georgetown Law conjectures that it might be higher by a percentage point or more. The monthly payment on a 50-year, $400,000 loan at 7% would be $2,407 — higher than the payment on the shorter loan at the lower rate — and the total interest paid over the term rises to about $774,500.

It’s true that very few borrowers pay off their entire mortgage; Americans stay in their homes an average of 12 years, real estate experts say. That brings the issue of home equity into play.

This is important because a home is the largest single investment for most Americans, with the growth of home equity the financial holy grail of home ownership. Yet equity grows much more slowly under the longer-term loan. At the beginning, most of the monthly payment goes to pay down interest, not principal.

After 12 years of payments, the holder of a 30-year, $400,000 loan at 6% would have accumulated nearly $84,000 in home equity. The holder of a 50-year loan would have accumulated only about $22,000 in equity. (If that loan were at 7%, the gain would be even less — only about $16,500.)

“Homeowners are not building much wealth with a 50-year mortgage,” economist Dean Baker observes.

The 50-year mortgage idea reportedly was sold to Trump by Bill Pulte, the real estate scion serving as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency who’s best known as the instigator of the mortgage fraud accusations against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, and other Trump critics.

After his idea was pilloried by sources including the Wall Street Journal, Pulte stated in a tweet that it was one of “a wide arsenal of solutions” to housing costs. The only solutions he mentioned were assumable mortgages and portable mortgages. The first are loans that can be assumed by new buyers of existing homes, the second are loans that borrowers can apply to their own new homes.

These are pigs in a poke. Mortgage lenders generally are averse to carrying existing loans over to new borrowers or new properties, at least without new appraisals, credit checks and other paperwork. No one in the administration can wave a wand and make them happen. I asked Pulte’s agency to explain his thinking but received no reply.

That brings us to the White House’s inflation math.

On Nov. 10, after the government shutdown rendered the monthly inflation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics missing in action (perhaps permanently), the White House issued a statement asserting, “President Trump has tamed inflation.”

The statement drew heavily from a report on the consumer economy issued last week by the gig delivery company DoorDash, principally its Breakfast Basics Index, which showed a decline in breakfast prices of 14% from March through September. The index measures price movements for three eggs, a glass of milk, a bagel and an avocado.

A couple of points about this: First, the company acknowledges that the driver of the index decline was the price of eggs; those for the other commodities were stable. Second, Trump has had nothing to do with the price of eggs. They’ve come down sharply since March because of the passing of the avian flu epidemic, which devastated flocks and accordingly the supply of fresh eggs. Finally, the price of eggs bottomed out in early October .

The White House tried to take credit for ending bird flu. “Egg prices are down because the Trump administration implemented a robust plan to tackle bird flu and increase egg production,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email. “The bird flu crisis did not magically disappear.”

Nope, it didn’t: After a lull in cases this summer, bird flu is again on the rise, after a marked increase in infections in October. And — surprise! — that’s when egg prices started heading higher too. Anyway, Desai insisted that “the Trump administration’s policies have cooled inflation.”

DoorDash told me that although its report was published this month, its data collection ended in September. But the company’s full report shows price increases over the last year in baked, canned and jarred goods, and automotive supplies and clothing. The average price of a cheeseburger, soda and fries, it says, rose by 3.8% in the year through September.

The White House still is trying to hide the effects of its economic policies on inflation — especially its tariffs. Just last week, Trump moved to roll back tariffs on coffee, beef, bananas and other foodstuffs to bring prices down.

Despite Trump’s insistence that foreign exports pay the tariffs, his move is an implicit admission that U.S. consumers are paying the price. Desai explained Trump’s tariff climb down as demonstrating Trump’s “nimble, nuanced, and multi-faceted strategy on trade and tariffs.”

The bottom line is that one shouldn’t trust the math coming from this White House. If you do the calculations for yourself, you’ll see why.

The Trump administration is calling its new immigration sweep in North Carolina’s largest city “Operation Charlotte’s Web.”

But the granddaughter of E.B. White, the author of the classic 1952 children’s tale “Charlotte’s Web,” said the wave of immigration arrests goes against what her grandfather and his beloved book stood for.

“He believed in the rule of law and due process,” Martha White said in a statement. “He certainly didn’t believe in masked men, in unmarked cars, raiding people’s homes and workplaces without IDs or summons.”

White, whose grandfather died in 1985, works as his literary executor. She pointed out that in “Charlotte’s Web,” the spider who is the main character devoted her life on the farm to securing the freedom of a pig named Wilbur.

The Trump administration and Republican leaders have seized on a number of catchy phrases while carrying out mass deportation efforts — naming their holding facilities Alligator Alcatraz in Florida, Speedway Slammer in Indiana and Cornhusker Clink in Nebraska.

Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol official now on the ground in Charlotte, was the face of the “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles and “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago, two enforcement surges earlier this year. As the Charlotte operation got underway, Bovino quoted from “Charlotte’s Web” in a social media post: “We take to the breeze, we go as we please.”

SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

After a surge in Border Patrol activity in North Carolina’s largest city over the weekend, including dozens of arrests, Gov. Josh Stein said the effort is “stoking fear,” not making Charlotte safer.

The Trump administration has made the Democratic city of about 950,000 people its latest target for an immigration enforcement surge it says will combat crime, despite fierce objections from local leaders and downtrending crime rates. Charlotte residents reported encounters with federal immigration agents near churches, apartment complexes and stores.

“We’ve seen masked, heavily armed agents in paramilitary garb driving unmarked cars, targeting American citizens based on their skin color, racially profiling, and picking up random people in parking lots and off of our sidewalks,” Stein said in a video statement late Sunday. “This is not making us safer. It’s stoking fear and dividing our community.”

Stein acknowledged that it was a stressful time, but he called on residents to stay peaceful. If people see something wrong, he said they should record it and report it to local law enforcement.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CBP, has said it was focusing on North Carolina because of so-called sanctuary policies, which limit cooperation between local authorities and immigration agents.

Several county jails house immigrant arrestees and honor detainers, which allow jails to hold detainees for immigration officers to pick them up. But Mecklenburg County, where Charlotte is located, does not. Also, the city’s police department does not help with immigration enforcement. DHS alleged that about 1,400 detainers across North Carolina had not been honored, putting the public at risk.

Gregory Bovino, who led hundreds of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in a similar effort in Chicago, documented some of the more than 80 arrests he said agents had made in social media posts on Sunday. He posted pictures of people the Trump administration commonly dubs “criminal illegal aliens,” meaning people living in the U.S. without legal permission who allegedly have criminal records. That included one of a man with an alleged history of drunk driving convictions.

The activity has prompted fear and questions, including where detainees would be held, how long the operation would last and what agents’ tactics — criticized elsewhere as aggressive and racist — would look like in North Carolina.

However, some welcomed the effort, including Mecklenburg County Republican Party Chairman Kyle Kirby, who said in a post Saturday that the county GOP “stands with the rule of law — and with every Charlottean’s safety first.”

Bovino’s operations in Chicago and Los Angeles triggered lawsuits over the use of force, including widespread deployment of chemical agents. Democratic leaders in both cities accused agents of inflaming community tensions. Federal agents fatally shot one suburban Chicago man during a traffic stop.

Bovino, head of a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, and other Trump administration officials have called their tactics appropriate for growing threats on agents.

Tareen, Witte and Dale write for the Associated Press. Tareen and Dale reported from Chicago. Witte reported from Annapolis, Md.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in the Caribbean Sea on Sunday in a display of U.S. military power, raising questions about what the new influx of troops and weaponry could signal for the Trump administration’s drug enforcement campaign in South America.

The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford, announced by the U.S. military in a news release, marks a major moment in what the Trump administration says is an antidrug operation but has been seen as an escalating pressure tactic against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Since early September, U.S. strikes have killed at least 80 people in 20 attacks on small boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean.

The Ford rounds off the largest buildup of U.S. firepower in the region in generations, bringing the total number of troops to around 12,000 on nearly a dozen Navy ships in what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dubbed Operation Southern Spear.

The Ford’s carrier strike group, which includes squadrons of fighter jets and guided-missile destroyers, transited the Anegada Passage near the British Virgin Islands on Sunday morning, the Navy said in a statement.

Rear Adm. Paul Lanzilotta, who commands the Ford’s carrier strike group, said it will bolster an already large force of American warships to “protect our nation’s security and prosperity against narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.”

The administration has maintained that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narco-terrorists.” An Associated Press report recently found that those killed included Venezuelan fishermen and other impoverished men earning a few hundred dollars per trip.

President Trump has indicated military action would expand beyond strikes by sea, saying the U.S. would “stop the drugs coming in by land.”

The U.S. has long used aircraft carriers to pressure and deter aggression by other nations because their warplanes can strike targets deep inside another country. Some experts say the Ford is ill-suited to fighting cartels, but it could be an effective instrument of intimidation for Maduro in a push to get him to step down.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the United States does not recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Rubio has called Venezuela’s government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs.

Maduro, who faces charges of narco-terrorism in the U.S., has said the government in Washington is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government recently touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.

Trump has justified the attacks on drug boats by saying the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels while claiming the boats are operated by foreign terrorist organizations.

He has faced skepticism and opposition from leaders in the region, the United Nations human rights chief and U.S. lawmakers, including Republicans, who have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the boat strikes.

Senate Republicans, however, recently voted to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Experts disagree on whether or not American warplanes may be used to strike land targets inside Venezuela. Either way, the 100,000-ton warship is sending a message.

“This is the anchor of what it means to have U.S. military power once again in Latin America,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for the Andes region. “And it has raised a lot of anxieties in Venezuela but also throughout the region. I think everyone is watching this with sort of bated breath to see just how willing the U.S. is to really use military force.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

As the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier sails to the Caribbean, the U.S. military continues striking drug-carrying boats off the Venezuelan coast and the Trump administration debates what to do about Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, one thing seems certain: Venezuela and the western hemisphere would all be better off if Maduro packed his bags and spent his remaining years in exile.

This is certainly what Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado is working toward. This year’s Nobel Prize laureate has spent much of her time recently in the U.S. lobbying policymakers to squeeze Maduro into vacating power. Constantly at risk of detention in her own country, Machado is granting interviews and dialing into conferences to advocate for regime change. Her talking points are clearly tailored for the Trump administration: Maduro is the head of a drug cartel that is poisoning Americans; his dictatorship rests on weak pillars; and the forces of democracy inside Venezuela are fully prepared to seize the mantle once Maduro is gone. “We are ready to take over government,” Machado told Bloomberg News in an October interview.

But as the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. While there’s no disputing that Maduro is a despot and a fraud who steals elections, U.S. policymakers can’t simply take what Machado is saying for granted. Washington learned this the hard way in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, when an opposition leader named Ahmed Chalabi sold U.S. policymakers a bill of goods about how painless rebuilding a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would be. We all know how the story turned out — the United States stumbled into an occupation that sucked up U.S. resources, unleashed unpredicted regional consequences and proved more difficult than its proponents originally claimed.

To be fair, Machado is no Chalabi. The latter was a fraudster; the former is the head of an opposition movement whose candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, won two-thirds of the vote during the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (Maduro claimed victory anyway and forced González into exile). But just because her motives are good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question her assertions.

Would regime change in Caracas produce the Western-style democracy Machado and her supporters anticipate? None of us can rule it out. But the Trump administration can’t bank on this as the outcome of a post-Maduro future. Other scenarios are just as likely, if not more so — and some of them could lead to greater violence for Venezuelans and more problems for U.S. policy in Latin America.

The big problem with regime change is you can never be entirely sure what will happen after the incumbent leader is removed. Such operations are by their very nature dangerous and destabilizing; political orders are deliberately shattered, the haves become have-nots, and constituencies used to holding the reins of power suddenly find themselves as outsiders. When Hussein was deposed in Iraq, the military officers, Ba’ath Party loyalists and regime-tied sycophants who ruled the roost for nearly a quarter-century were forced to make do with an entirely new situation. The Sunni-dominated structure was overturned, and members of the Shia majority, previously oppressed, were now eagerly taking their place at the top of the system. This, combined with the U.S. decision to bar anyone associated with the old regime from serving in state positions, fed the ingredients for a large-scale insurgency that challenged the new government, precipitated a civil war and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Regime change can also create total absences of authority, as it did in Libya after the 2011 U.S.-NATO intervention there. Much like Maduro today, Moammar Kadafi was a reviled figure whose demise was supposed to pave the way for a democratic utopia in North Africa. The reality was anything but. Instead, Kadafi’s removal sparked conflict between Libya’s major tribal alliances, competing governments and the proliferation of terrorist groups in a country just south of the European Union. Fifteen years later, Libya remains a basket case of militias, warlords and weak institutions.

Unlike Iraq and Libya, Venezuela has experience in democratic governance. It held relatively free and fair elections in the past and doesn’t suffer from the types of sectarian rifts associated with states in the Middle East.

Still, this is cold comfort for those expecting a democratic transition. Indeed, for such a transition to be successful, the Venezuelan army would have to be on board with it, either by sitting on the sidelines as Maduro’s regime collapses, actively arresting Maduro and his top associates, or agreeing to switch its support to the new authorities. But again, this is a tall order, particularly for an army whose leadership is a core facet of the Maduro regime’s survival, has grown used to making obscene amounts of money from illegal activity under the table and whose members are implicated in human rights abuses. The very same elites who profited handsomely from the old system would have to cooperate with the new one. This doesn’t appear likely, especially if their piece of the pie will shrink the moment Maduro leaves.

Finally, while regime change might sound like a good remedy to the problem that is Venezuela, it might just compound the difficulties over time. Although Maduro’s regime’s remit is already limited, its complete dissolution could usher in a free-for-all between elements of the former government, drug trafficking organizations and established armed groups like the Colombian National Liberation Army, which have long treated Venezuela as a base of operations. Any post-Maduro government would have difficulty managing all of this at the same time it attempts to restructure the Venezuelan economy and rebuild its institutions. The Trump administration would then be facing the prospect of Venezuela serving as an even bigger source of drugs and migration, the very outcome the White House is working to prevent.

In the end, María Corina Machado could prove to be right. But she is selling a best-case assumption. The U.S. shouldn’t buy it. Democracy after Maduro is possible but is hardly the only possible result — and it’s certainly not the most likely.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

WASHINGTON — British political commentator Sami Hamdi is going to voluntarily leave the U.S. after spending more than two weeks in immigration detention over what his supporters say was his criticism of Israel. The Trump administration has accused him of cheering on Hamas.

Hamdi, who is Muslim, was on a speaking tour in the U.S. when he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Oct. 26. He had just addressed the annual gala for the Sacramento chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the day before his arrest.

In a statement late Monday, the organization said Hamdi had “chosen to accept an offer to leave the United States voluntarily.”

“It is this simple: Sami never should have spent a single night in an ICE cell. His only real ‘offense’ was speaking clearly about Israel’s genocidal war crimes against Palestinians,” said the chief executive of CAIR’s California chapter, Hussam Ayloush, in a statement.

Hamdi’s detention was part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to identify and potentially expel thousands of foreigners in the United States who it says have either fomented or participated in unrest or publicly supported protests against Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

Those enforcement actions have been criticized by civil rights groups as violations of constitutional protections for freedom of speech, which apply to anyone in the United States and not just to American citizens.

Zahra Billoo, executive director of CAIR’s San Francisco office, said Tuesday that the logistics of Hamdi’s departure were still being worked out but that it might happen later this week. Billoo said there were “no conditions to the voluntary departure” and that he’s not barred from seeking another U.S. visa in the future.

CAIR said Hamdi’s charging document in immigration court did not accuse him of criminal conduct or security concerns but only listed a visa overstay, which they blamed on the government revoking his visa.

Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in a statement Tuesday that Hamdi had requested voluntary departure and “ICE is happily arranging his removal from this country.”

The State Department said due to “visa record confidentiality,” it could not comment on specific cases.

CAIR has said that Hamdi, 35, was detained in response to his vocal criticism of the Israeli government during a U.S. speaking tour.

The Department of Homeland Security said at the time of Hamdi’s arrest that the State Department had revoked his visa and that ICE had put him in immigration proceedings. Homeland Security later accused him of supporting the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel.

In a statement at the time, McLaughlin cited remarks he made in a video posted online shortly after the Hamas-led attack in which he asked: “How many of you felt it in your hearts when you got the news that it happened? How many of you felt the euphoria? Allah akbar.”

Hamdi said later his intent was not to praise the attacks but to suggest that the violence was “a natural consequence of the oppression that is being put on the Palestinians.”

The State Department has not said specifically what Hamdi said or did that initiated the revocation but in a post on X the department said: “The United States has no obligation to host foreigners” whom the administration deems to “support terrorism and actively undermine the safety of Americans. We continue to revoke the visas of persons engaged in such activity.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

BALTIMORE — U.S. Catholic bishops elected Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley as their new president on Tuesday, choosing a conservative culture warrior to lead during President Trump’s second term.

The vote serves as a barometer for the bishops’ priorities. In choosing Coakley, they are doubling down on their conservative bent, even as they push for more humane immigration policies from the Trump administration.

Coakley was seen as a strong contender for the top post, having already been elected in 2022 to serve as secretary, the No. 3 conference official. In three rounds of voting, he beat out centrist candidate Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, Texas, who was subsequently elected vice president.

Coakley serves as advisor to the Napa Institute, an association for conservative Catholic powerbrokers. In 2018, he publicly supported an ardent critic of Pope Francis, Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who was later excommunicated for stances that were deemed divisive.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has often been at odds with the Vatican and the inclusive, modernizing approach of the late Pope Francis. His U.S.-born successor, Pope Leo XIV, is continuing a similar pastoral emphasis on marginalized people, poverty and the environment.

The choice of Coakley may fuel tensions with Pope Leo, said Steven Millies, professor of public theology at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.

“In the long conflict between many U.S. bishops and Francis that Leo inherits, this is not a de-escalating step,” he said.

Half the 10 candidates on the ballot came from the conservative wing of the conference. The difference is more in style than substance. Most U.S. Catholic bishops are reliably conservative on social issues, but some — like Coakley — place more emphasis on opposing abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

The candidates were nominated by their fellow bishops, and Coakley succeeds the outgoing leader, Military Services Archbishop Timothy Broglio, for a three-year term. The current vice president, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, was too close to the mandatory retirement age of 75 to assume the top spot.

Coakley edged out a well-known conservative on the ballot, Bishop Robert Barron of Minnesota’s Winona-Rochester diocese, whose popular Word on Fire ministry has made him a Catholic media star.

In defeating Flores, Coakley won over another strong contender, who some Catholic insiders thought could help unify U.S. bishops and work well with the Vatican. Flores has been the U.S. bishops’ leader in the Vatican’s synod process to modernize the church. As a Latino leading a diocese along the U.S.-Mexico border, he supports traditional Catholic doctrine on abortion and LGBTQ issues and is outspoken in his defense of migrants.

Flores will be eligible for the top post in three years. His election as vice president indicates that the U.S. conference “may eventually, cautiously open itself to the church’s new horizons,” said David Gibson, director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture.

The bishops are crafting a statement on immigration during the annual fall meeting. On many issues, they appear as divided and polarized as their country, but on immigration, even the most conservative Catholic leaders stand on the side of migrants.

The question is how strongly the whole body plans to speak about the Trump administration’s harsh immigration tactics.

Fear of immigration enforcement has suppressed Mass attendance at some parishes. Local clerics are fighting to administer sacraments to detained immigrants. U.S. Catholic bishops shuttered their longstanding refugee resettlement program after the Trump administration halted federal funding for resettlement aid.

“On the political front, you know for decades the U.S. bishops have been advocating for comprehensive immigration reform,” Bishop Kevin Rhoades, of Indiana’s Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, said during a news conference.

Rhoades serves on Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, and he leads the bishops’ committee on religious liberty. He said bishops are very concerned about detained migrants receiving pastoral care and the sacraments.

“That’s an issue of the right to worship,” he said. “One doesn’t lose that right when one is detained, whether one is documented or undocumented.”

The bishops sent a letter to Pope Leo from their meeting, saying they “will continue to stand with migrants and defend everyone’s right to worship free from intimidation.”

The letter continued, “We support secure and orderly borders and law enforcement actions in response to dangerous criminal activity, but we cannot remain silent in this challenging hour while the right to worship and the right to due process are undermined.”

Pope Leo recently called for “deep reflection” in the United States about the treatment of migrants held in detention, saying that “many people who have lived for years and years and years, never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what is going on right now.”

Stanley writes for the Associated Press.

States administering a federal food aid program serving about 42 million Americans faced uncertainty Monday over whether they can — and should — provide full monthly benefits during an ongoing legal battle involving the U.S. government shutdown.

President Donald Trump’s administration over the weekend demanded that states “undo” full benefits that were paid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during a one-day window between when a federal judge ordered full funding and a Supreme Court justice put a temporary pause on that order.

A federal appeals court in Boston left the full benefits order in place on Sunday, though the Supreme Court order ensures the government won’t have to pay out for at least 48 hours. The Trump administration is also expected to ask the justices to step in again, and Congress is considering whether to fund SNAP as part of a proposal to end the government shutdown.

Some states are warning of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they already authorized. Meanwhile, other states are providing partial monthly SNAP benefits with federal money or using their own funds to load electronic benefit cards for SNAP recipients.

Millions receive aid while others wait

Trump’s administration initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November because of the government shutdown. After some states and nonprofit groups sued, two judges each ruled the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely.

The administration then said it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said that wasn’t good enough, and ordered full funding for SNAP benefits by Friday.

Some states acted quickly to direct their EBT vendors to disburse full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of people in those states received funds to buy groceries before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put McConnell’s order on hold Friday night, pending further deliberation by an appeals court.

Millions more people still have not received SNAP payments for November, because their states were waiting on further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Trump’s administration has argued that the judicial order to provide full benefits violates the Constitution by infringing on the spending power of the legislative and executive branches.

States are fighting attempt to freeze SNAP benefits

On Sunday, the Trump administration said states had moved too quickly and erroneously released full SNAP benefits after last week’s rulings.

“States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. He warned that states could face penalties if they did not comply.

Wisconsin, which was among the first to load full benefits after McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursement frozen. As a result, the state’s SNAP account could be depleted as soon Monday, leaving no money to reimburse stores that sell food to SNAP recipients, according to a court filing submitted by those that had sued.

Some Democratic governors vowed to challenge any federal attempt to claw back money.

In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said “those who received their benefits should not worry about losing them.”

“No, Connecticut does not need to take back SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on them for food and who should have never been caught in the middle of this political fight,” Lamont said. “We have their back.”

Lieb and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

The Trump administration is demanding states “undo” full SNAP benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the Supreme Court has stayed those rulings, marking the latest swing in a seesawing legal battle over the anti-hunger program used by 42 million Americans.

The demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture came as more than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they authorized before the Supreme Court’s stay.

Nonprofits and Democratic attorneys general sued to force the Trump administration to maintain the program this month. They won the favorable rulings last week, leading to the swift release of benefits to millions in several states.

But, even before it won a stay on those rulings through an appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday night, the Trump administration balked at reimbursing states for the initial round of SNAP payments. Wisconsin, for example, loaded benefits onto cards for 700,000 residents, but after the U.S. Treasury froze its reimbursements to the state, it anticipates running out of money by Monday, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration warned in a lengthy statement Sunday.

The lack of money could leave vendors unpaid and trigger escalating legal claims, the states warned. “States could face demands to return hundreds of millions of dollars in the aggregate,” the filing at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals says.

That situation “would risk catastrophic operational disruptions for the States, with a consequent cascade of harms for their residents,” the filing concludes.

That filing arrived as the Department of Agriculture on Saturday told states it would now consider any payments made last week to be “unauthorized.”

“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”

Evers issued a quick response to the Trump administration’s demand. “No,” the governor said in a statement.

“Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries,” Evers said. “After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available.’ They have failed to do so to date.”

Bauer and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.

The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.

The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.

“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.

The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.

But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.

While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”