trump

CHARLESTON, S.C. — President Trump said Monday he’s recommended that Lindsey Graham’s sister be named as his temporary replacement in the U.S. Senate.

Trump posted on social media that Gov. Henry McMaster should appoint Darline Graham Nordone to fulfill the rest of Graham’s term, which expires in January. Graham died over the weekend at age 71, and McMaster is expected to announce his pick later Monday.

After their parents died at a young age, Graham was left to raise his sister, whom he later adopted. The pair were very close, and Graham’s sister was by his side as he filed reelection paperwork earlier this year.

A special election will be held next month to pick a new Republican nominee in the general election for Graham’s seat. He had been seeking a fifth term this year.

The rare open Senate seat has ignited a scramble among South Carolina’s most ambitious conservatives, who have been eager to climb the political ladder.

Republicans just finished a sprawling and bruising contest to figure out their nominee for succeeding McMaster, who is wrapping up his second term. State Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson won the nomination, overcoming a field that included Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Rep. Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman — all of whom are now eyeing Graham’s seat following his death over the weekend.

How will a special primary work?

According to South Carolina law, a one-week filing period for a special primary election begins on the second Tuesday after the candidate’s death, or July 21.

The special primary election would be held on the second Tuesday after that filing period closes, or Aug. 11. Any necessary runoff would follow two weeks after that, or Aug. 25.

From that point, the new nominee would have just over two months to campaign for the general election on Nov. 3.

All of this is problematic according to federal law, which requires military and overseas ballots to go out 45 days before any federal election. For the general election primary, that would have been June 27. Federal Election Commission officials didn’t immediately return a message seeking clarity about the process.

Who could replace Graham?

Graham died on Saturday night, and a preliminary medical examiner report said he suffered a tear in his aorta, known as an aortic dissection.

In the hours after Graham’s death was announced, South Carolina’s Republican circles were already swirling with rumors about possible replacements. Given the proximity of November’s election, it’s likely that whomever McMaster appoints could be a top contender in the special primary, although it’s possible that McMaster’s choice will only serve as a temporary caretaker.

Evette, who has served nearly eight years alongside McMaster and received his endorsement in the governor’s race, is one possibility. She lost the June 23 runoff to Wilson.

A person with knowledge of Evette’s thinking but not authorized to discuss it publicly said that she was getting encouragement from across the state and feels she would have good chances in the special primary.

It’s unlikely that any House member would be appointed to finish Graham’s current term, since Republicans have such a slim majority in the chamber.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, a rumored replacement, said he assured Trump on Sunday that “my goal is to remain in the House to keep his two-vote majority for the American people!!!”

However, that doesn’t mean that House members won’t run for the next full term. A person with knowledge of Mace’s thinking but not authorized to speak about it publicly said she was considering the race. Mace is not running for reelection to the House.

But another Republican from the state, Rep. Russell Fry, could be a possibility. The two-term lawmaker represents the growing area around Myrtle Beach, and he’s been a top Trump ally.

A spokesman for businessman Mark Lynch, whom Graham defeated in the primary, didn’t return a message Sunday.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who lived in South Carolina before joining the Trump administration, has fielded calls about potentially replacing Graham but doesn’t have interest in the role, according to a person who insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations.

How does Graham’s death affect the general election?

No Democrat has won a Senate seat in South Carolina in decades, and Republicans in recent history typically take statewide seats by double digits. When he last ran in 2020, Graham defeated his Democratic opponent, Jaime Harrison, by a 10 percentage point margin.

So while history suggests that Graham was en route to a fifth term, Republicans are carefully surveying the landscape.

Charleston pediatrician Annie Andrews won the Democratic nomination last month and has raised more than $8 million in the race, and she had just under $3 million cash on hand at the end of May, according to federal filings. Graham had taken in $6 million, with just over $4 million on hand.

In a statement Sunday, Andrews called on South Carolinians to join her “in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude” to Graham for his service.

Harrison, noting that he and Graham “had our share of political disagreements,” wrote on social media that he “always appreciated that even in our fiercest political battles, we could still share a conversation, a laugh, and a mutual respect for South Carolina and the institutions we were both privileged to serve.”

What happens to South Carolina’s Republican clout?

Graham leaves a major void in the Senate, where seniority can determine influence. He served more than two decades in the chamber, positioning himself to lead committees and set the agenda.

Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina’s junior senator, has been in office only since 2012 — short by the state’s standards. Fritz Hollings served for 38 years, and Strom Thurmond was there for 47.

Scott, who co-chaired Graham’s reelection effort, described his former colleague as “irreplaceable.”

“America lost a statesman, but I lost a friend,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

Based on the words of President Trump, America is well on the way to becoming a “global superpower in manufacturing” — indeed, as he declared in a Father’s Day social media post, we are already experiencing the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.” (Capitalization’s his.)

Here’s what the government’s own statistics tell us: Manufacturing investment has crashed during his watch, with construction spending in the manufacturing sector down 26.4% from Trump’s inauguration through May, to $174.8 billion. That’s the lowest figure since February 2023, when the economy was in the midst of a post-pandemic recovery.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email that “the last two jobs reports” showed manufacturing job growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a seasonally-adjusted decline of 2,000 manufacturing workers in May and a gain of 3,000 in June. But the June 2026 figure was 38,000 jobs, or about 0.3% below the level in June 2025, and 75,000 or about 0.6% below the level in January 2025, when Trump took office.

Desai said that “thanks to President Trump’s proven agenda of tariffs, deregulation, and tax cuts, American manufacturing will continue to rebound.”

There’s little mystery about what has come between Trump’s ambition and the real world. To a large extent it’s Trump’s economic program, particularly his tariff policies and, more recently, his war with Iran. Those have injected a level of uncertainty for corporate managements pondering whether to spend money on expansion that they haven’t had to confront in years.

The tariffs and the war have driven up manufacturers’ costs for raw materials and overseas shipping. The general economic atmosphere doesn’t help. U.S. gross domestic product growth came in at a 2.1% annualized rate in the first quarter of this year, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta expects it to have fallen to 1.3% in the second quarter ended June 30.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan consumer confidence index reached 44.8 in May, its lowest level ever (though it improved to 49.5 in June). Wages have been rising modestly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but those gains have been eaten up by higher prices, especially for gasoline and food.

To put things another way, the actual figures show the U.S. economy to be sputtering, and the “vibe economy” as measured by consumer confidence is doing even worse.

Now that Trump’s second term is about to reach its 18-month mark, let’s unpack the factors causing the discrepancy between his ambitions and claims, and the reality.

Trump declared economic victory just as his term was starting. On March 20, 2025, he proclaimed a “manufacturing renaissance” in the U.S. That was based on what he said were “trillions of dollars in new investments” he had “already secured in tech-based manufacturing.”

A White House statement said “the list of manufacturing wins is endless.” The provided list was a roster of announcements, not groundbreakings, much less completed ventures.

Business executives quite properly have taken these pledges with mounds of salt. “Announcements are what people say they’re going to do, but dollars spent is what’s actually happening,” Didi Caldwell, chief executive of a firm that helps companies find factory sites, told the Financial Times. “From where we’re standing, we are not seeing signs of a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S.”

Indeed, at least some of these announcements have had the flavor of performative efforts to satisfy Trump’s amour propre and extract government concessions.

For example, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook appeared with Trump at the White House in August to announce a $600-billion U.S. spending plan to take place over four years. That was a $100-billion increase over its previously-announced program.

More to the point, however, it incorporated spending with suppliers that Apple had been working with for years. Mentioned in the news announcement was a commitment to buy cover glass for iPhones from Corning. But Corning has been supplying that glass since the first iPhone appeared in 2007. In any case, the announcement appeared to secure a commitment from Trump to exempt Apple from tariffs imposed on imported chips.

Apple’s announcement Wednesday that it will spend $30 billion to buy chips from Broadcom was similarly ambiguous. The announcement didn’t provide details about the terms of the commitment or the timing of its expenditures. I asked Apple for details and whether the deal was related to a desire to remain in Trump’s favor, but didn’t hear back.

A similar phenomenon occurred during Trump’s first term; Trump had built much of his 2016 presidential campaign on a promise to increase manufacturing jobs in the United States. He blamed shrinkage in the manufacturing sector on trade agreements such as NAFTA and the policies of the Chinese, and took credit when an American manufacturer agreed to create or save jobs in the United States.

As I reported in 2019, many of those arrangements turned out to be exaggerated or bogus, or predated Trump’s claim. Some disappeared as soon as public attention turned elsewhere, or were outweighed by job cuts made elsewhere by the same companies.

Trump’s tariffs appear to have had a direct effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. Since Trump’s inauguration, the manufacturing sector has shed about 75,000 jobs, or 0.6%. After April 2, 2025, when he announced global “liberation day” tariffs supposedly as a response to years of unfair treatment of American exports, the decline picked up pace, with a shrinkage of 68,000 manufacturing jobs.

The Supreme Court invalidated those tariffs in February, but others are still in place, including tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and on goods from China. Nor has he ceased threatening partners with trade wars. As recently as Tuesday, he said he would cut off all trade with Spain because of that country’s disagreement with him over its defense spending and its criticism of his Iran war.

As it happens, Spain is one of the few countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. That means that any cutoff, which trade experts think will be unlikely, would come at a cost to the U.S.

One might have hoped that Trump had learned a lesson from his first-term trade war with China. That conflict provoked a sharp contraction in the manufacturing economy, with the Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing managers index falling to 49.1 by mid-2019. (A reading below 50 signifies contraction.)

The ISM index began to recover toward the end of Trump’s term but fell again during the pandemic. Lately it has been falling again, to 53.3 in June from 54 in May.

The Iran war is another deadweight on domestic manufacturing. That’s partially the consequence of blockages of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial thoroughfare not only for middle eastern oil, but also for such industrial inputs as fertilizer and aluminum. Cement, concrete, olive oil and spices are also among commodities produced in the region that use the strait as an outlet to reach the outside world.

Uncertainties in the region, tensions between the U.S. and China, and heightened concerns over the safety of shipping overall have driven up shipping costs between the far east and the U.S. The price of shipping a benchmark 40-foot container from China to the West Coast has nearly quadrupled to $6,687 now from about $1,700 just before the Iran war began, according to an index maintained by the cargo firm Freightos — even though shipping prices typically decline during this time of year.

There can be little doubt that the U.S. would benefit from an industrial policy — if it’s coherent. China supplanted America as the world’s leading exporter of manufactured goods in 2010, and the gap has only widened since then. China’s dominance may be hard to reverse, as it’s built on lower labor costs and transport infrastructure that enjoys focused government investment.

Tariffs could be a component of a new industrial policy, but Trump’s tariffs aren’t rationally geared to protecting domestic industries that need protection. They’re expressions of his whims, and as such they’re totally ineffective. If there are government investment policies targeting industries that need assistance, they’re not apparent to economists or industrialists.

Trump can talk as much as he likes about a golden age for U.S. manufacturing, but from his first term through this one, it’s nothing but talk. And talk, of course, is cheap.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the prominent Republican from South Carolina who served in the Senate for more than two decades, died after suffering an aortic dissection, his office said Sunday.

Graham died unexpectedly Saturday night, his office announced, shortly after he had returned to Washington after a trip to Ukraine.

In a statement, his spokesperson said a preliminary report from the medical examiner for the District of Columbia found that the 71-year-old senator died of aortic dissection due to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. With aortic dissection, a tear occurs in the wall of the aorta.

According to the Mayo Clinic, aortic dissection is not very common, and its symptoms may be mistakenly attributed to other health conditions. It usually affects men in their 60s and 70s. If the blood from the dissection travels outside the artery, the condition is often fatal.

A former military lawyer who reached the rank of colonel in the Air Force, Graham ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. Initially a cutting, vocal critic of then-candidate Donald Trump during the election, Graham became one of the president’s staunchest allies after Trump’s election.

“Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known, is dead!” Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth, on Sunday. “He was always working, and was a true American Patriot.”

Graham was known as a C student in high school, and was the first member of his family to attend college. His mother died while he attended the University of South Carolina, and his father died of a heart attack during Graham’s first semester of law school.

He served as a judge advocate in the Air Force, eventually becoming the chief prosecutor for the Air Force in Europe.

He was first elected to serve as senator for South Carolina in November 2002.

In a social media post on X, Vice President JD Vance described Graham as one of the most powerful lawmakers, and recalled an incident where he and Graham got into a shouting match over a funding bill for the war in Ukraine.

Later the same day, he wrote in the post, Graham was advocating for rail legislation that Vance supported.

“That was Lindsey Graham,” he wrote. “He fought like hell for the things he believed in, and he was just as willing to go to bat for you when it counted.”

Graham had been scheduled to appear on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday to discuss his trip to Ukraine. Instead, President Trump appeared in his stead, where he said the senator had been “like a member of the family.”

Trump called into several Sunday news programs to discuss Graham’s death, and said he had spoken to Graham on Saturday evening.

Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that the South Carolina senator had said he was “tired.”

The US president suggests he is considering a potential candidate to fill the late senator’s seat in South Carolina.

The disadvantage that the Republican majority in the United States Senate has suffered from the death of Lindsey Graham is likely to be short-lived.

Currently, Republicans hold 52 seats in the 100-member chamber, after losing Graham to a “brief and sudden illness” late on Saturday, according to his office.

But South Carolina’s election laws give Republican Governor Henry McMaster the authority to immediately appoint a replacement to fill Graham’s seat.

“In case of a vacancy in the office of United States Senator from death, resignation or otherwise, the Governor may fill the place by appointment,” the law says.

Graham’s term was set to expire in January. He was running for re-election in the November midterm vote.

A primary will be held next month to determine who will take his place as the Republican nominee. The first round of voting is set for August 11, and if no candidate wins a majority of the votes, a run-off would take place on August 25.

McMaster has released a brief statement mourning Graham, without mentioning plans to replace him. The law does not set a timeline for the appointment, but the governor is likely to fill the seat quickly to ensure that President Donald Trump’s agenda is not disrupted in the Senate.

Graham was one of Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill.

In his statement, McMaster called the late senator the “fiercest of fighters for South Carolina and America and a loyal and steadfast friend”.

“We grieve with Darline, his family and his devoted staff,” McMaster said, referring to Graham’s sister. “May God hold him gently in the palm of his hand. We shall not see his likes again.”

It is so far unclear who McMaster might select as Graham’s replacement. The governor might appoint a placeholder candidate who would fill the seat without seeking a full term in November’s midterms, to avoid influencing the election process.

He may also opt for someone who would run for the full term, which would give his pick the incumbent status that would boost their profile — and therefore, their chances at the ballot box.

Other governors have faced similar dilemmas. In California, for instance, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom pursued both paths in separate appointments in recent years.

When Kamala Harris vacated her Senate seat to serve as US vice president in 2021, Newsom picked state legislator Alex Padilla to replace her. Padilla won a special election for the seat the following year.

But in 2023, when Senator Dianne Feinstein died, Newsom appointed political operative Laphonza Butler, who did not end up running in the 2024 election.

In Graham’s case, however, the White House might weigh in. Trump has suggested that he is considering backing a candidate to replace the senator.

“I have somebody that I think would be great, but I don’t want to say it now because it’s just too soon with Lindsey,” the US president told NBC News.

“I don’t want to even talk about anybody, but I do have somebody that I think is really good.”

South Carolina, a southern state on the US’s Atlantic coast, has been a Republican stronghold for decades. Trump won the state by nearly 18 percentage points in 2024.

But polls have suggested that Graham was not cruising to re-election. His Democratic opponent, paediatrician Annie Andrews, was closing the gap on him.

A June poll by Impact Research showed the late senator leading by only three percent.

Graham had become a polorising figure even within the Republican base, due to his staunch devotion to Israel and support for the US-Israeli war on Iran.

On Sunday, Andrews praised Graham without mentioning elections or politics.

“I hope that South Carolinians will join me in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude to Senator Lindsey Graham for his service to the great state of South Carolina,” she said in a statement.

WASHINGTON — After the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had finally had enough of the man who was championed by the mob that stormed the pillar of American democracy: President Trump.

“Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh, my God, I hate it. From my point of view, he’s been a consequential president,” an emotional Graham said once authorities cleared the rioters and allowed senators to reclaim their chamber to certify Joe Biden’s election win. “All I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.”

It wasn’t, of course.

Graham, the South Carolina Republican who died unexpectedly Saturday night at 71, realized that his party’s future was inextricably tied to Trump and quickly reverted back to being a staunch defender. The shift made what had once seemed like a final rupture into just another twist in the topsy-turvy relationship between the powerful senator and the president who came to dominate their party.

“Can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,” Graham said in May 2021, just four months after the Jan. 6 insurrection. “I’ve determined we can’t grow without him.”

Trump, who called Graham a “true American Patriot” in a social media post Sunday, appeared shocked by the senator’s sudden death.

“I just can’t believe it,” the president said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “He was like a member of the family.”

Graham often advised Trump on foreign affairs, particularly on matters pertaining to Israel, Ukraine and Iran. He was a frequent visitor at the White House.

“At the end of a particularly thrilling and rollicking meeting in the Oval Office, Lindsey Graham turned to the room and said: ‘I’ve never had this much fun in my life,’” Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote on X. He said such gatherings “were filled with camaraderie, kinship and uproarious laughter.”

Trump recalled that during his last conversation with Graham, he told his friend, “We’ll see you soon, come over anytime you want.”

‘Unfit for office’

The senator and Trump first clashed while competing for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Graham described Trump as “unfit for office,” and was angered when Trump denigrated the military service of Graham’s close friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Trump, while talking about McCain’s years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said, “I like people that weren’t captured.”

Trump got mad enough at Graham to release the senator’s personal cellphone number. That prompted a viral video in which the senator dramatically destroyed a series of flip phones. He smashed one with a meat cleaver and another with a golf club, then used lighter fluid, a blender and toaster oven to pulverize others before tossing one off the roof.

Graham eventually likened Trump’s winning the nomination to “being shot in the head” and said he refused to vote for Trump that November. But the pair later bonded over golf and what Graham described as a mutual and irreverent sense of humor.

Trump and Graham began so frequently hitting the links together that the senator started seeing it as something of a career builder, leaning heavily into the kind of over-the-top flattery Trump relishes. In 2017, Graham joked that Trump had beaten him “like a drum” on the course, even worse than in the presidential primary.

“Their true friendship could only be seen behind the curtain,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said on ABC’s “This Week.” Scott said that relationship was forged as political adversaries but was strengthened by spending 100-plus hours golfing together.

During Trump’s first term, Graham helped advance Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court, lent credibility to the White House’s legislative agenda and even at times became part of the president’s inner circle. He frequently said Trump was maturing in politics and growing on the job.

Graham’s political divergence with McCain, who died in 2018, was never more clear than in 2017, when McCain voted against a Trump-backed plan to overturn the Affordable Care Act, former President Obama’s signature healthcare law. The effort had been co-sponsored by Graham.

A short-lived split, an alliance reignited

In his floor speech after the Capitol attack, Graham said that “he’d never been so humiliated and embarrassed for the country.” But the break with Trump ended quickly.

Weeks later, Trump invited Graham for golf and dinner at the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, reigniting their alliance. During Trump’s 2024 campaign, Graham was a frequent Trump surrogate on television, promoting U.S. military strength that he said would advance “America first” policies.

Graham never shed his more traditional Republican foreign policy views, including outspoken support for Ukraine after the Russian invasion — even as Trump frequently wavered in supporting Kyiv, sometimes castigating Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and praising Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

The senator was also a leading voice pushing the White House to more fully embrace Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and take a harder line against Iran, and he was a leading advocate of Trump’s ongoing war with Iran. After the U.S. and Israel attacked in February, Graham staunchly defended the action and working to counter many among Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base who supported the president’s longtime assertions that “America first” meant avoiding such military conflicts.

“To those who say Iran is stronger now than before, that is an insult to the American military and it is delusional thinking because the Iranian economy is in shambles,” Graham posted on social media June 19.

Graham’s admiration for Trump went far beyond Iran. When the senator clinched the South Carolina Republican primary last month, he suggested the president was just short of a deity.

“I want to start with a bunch of thank yous. I want to thank the big guy, God. Trump comes later,” Graham laughed. “Mr. President, you’re not far behind God, but we’re gonna start with him.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of US President Donald Trump, has died at the age of 71. He died on Saturday evening following a “brief and sudden illness”, according to his office.

Elected to the Senate in 2002, the South Carolina politician was one of Washington’s most influential voices on foreign policy, often pushing for US military intervention overseas.

Donald Trump said Graham was a “true American Patriot” who would be “greatly missed”.

Graham had just returned from Kyiv, where he met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. There were no known health concerns ahead of his trip.

Graham was a staunch supporter of arming Kyiv and applying sanctions against Moscow. Zelensky said in a post on X, external that he was “deeply saddened” by his death.

“America and the world have lost a determined leader,” he added.

Graham’s relationship with the US president had evolved since Trump first ran for office.

In a CNN interview during his campaign for the presidency in 2015, Graham called Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot”. The next year, he said: “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed… and we will deserve it.”

After the US Capitol riots in 2021, Graham gave a speech on the Senate floor in which he said: “Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way.

“All I can say is a count me out. Enough is enough.”

July 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to “decimate and destroy” Iran if they carried out an assasination attempt on him.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME! Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran – PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!,” the president said on Truth Social Friday night.

The comments are likely in response to new intelligence from Israel that Iran has a plan to kill the president, reported by The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. Also, Iran has been holding funeral rites for its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and photos have emerged of mourners carrying signs that say, “Kill Trump.” Khameinei was killed by an American and Israeli attack on Iran in February.

In a post on X Saturday, Khamenei’s son and successor Mojtaba Khamenei promised to avenge the deaths of those killed in U.S. strikes.

“This vengeance is what our nation is demanding, and this must definitely be done,” Mojtaba Khamenei said.

On Friday, Trump told The New York Post that he “left instructions” for the military to attack if anything happened to him.

“I’ve been on their list for a long time. That’s what we’re dealing with,” he said. “The only thing is, I’ve left instructions — if anything happens, to just literally bomb them at levels that they’ve never seen before.”

He said there was no new intelligence on a plot.

“No, no. Israel came up with nothing. No, no,” he said. “I’ve been No. 1 [on Iran’s kill list] for a long time, and it’s the way life is, you know.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the remnants of the government’s landmark case against far-right Proud Boys members who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House after he lost his reelection bid more than five years ago.

The case’s dismissal late Friday became a foregone conclusion when Trump last year used his pardon powers to erase every case that the government prosecuted after a mob of his supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge who presided over the Proud Boys leaders’ trial saw no basis to preserve the convictions after Trump’s sweeping act of clemency last year.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated during his first term, said there is “little mystery” about why the second Trump administration decided to abandon this case and every other Jan. 6 riot case.

“President Trump’s views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 — whether those views are based on fact or fiction — are well known, as is his intention to extend clemency to them,” Kelly wrote.

The judge stressed that his order should not be mistaken as an endorsement of the Department of Justice’s decision to abandon the case. He referred to the Capitol riot as “a perilous event” and an assault on the constitutional imperative for a peaceful transfer of power between presidents.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

Juries in the nation’s capital separately convicted leaders of the Proud Boys and another extremist group, the antigovernment Oath Keepers, of orchestrating violent plots to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

A different judge has not ruled yet on the Justice Department’s related request to throw out Oath Keepers’ seditious conspiracy convictions.

Friday’s ruling applied to four of five Proud Boys members who were convicted after a jury trial: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. Trump commuted their prison sentences, but they were not covered by the president’s mass pardons.

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio was convicted at the same trial but received a pardon from Trump. Kelly had sentenced Tarrio to 22 years, the longest prison term in any Capitol riot case.

Kunzelman and Durkin Richer write for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.

The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.

Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”

Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.

The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.

These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.

The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.

A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.

According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.

In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.

Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”

“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.

It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.

A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.

A United States federal court has dismissed the seditious conspiracy cases against four members of the Proud Boys, the far-right group involved in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On Friday, Judge Timothy J Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be revived in future.

But Kelly made it clear that the defendants — Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — had been “convicted of serious offences”.

He wrote in his seven-page ruling that his decision was ultimately rooted in the separation of government powers, not in the merits of the case.

“As the Court has said many times, the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a perilous event. It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured,” Kelly wrote.

“It was an attack on the Constitution’s mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next,” he added.

Inside the January 6 riot

Friday’s ruling was yet another milestone in Trump’s efforts to end the prosecution of January 6 rioters.

The attack on the Capitol came shortly after Trump lost his bid for re-election in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden. But in the aftermath of his loss, Trump spread false claims that the election had been rigged.

January 6, 2021, was the day Congress was scheduled to certify the Electoral College votes, confirming Trump’s defeat.

His vice president at the time, Mike Pence, held a ceremonial role overseeing the certification that day. But behind the scenes, Trump reportedly pressured Pence to reject the results of the election.

At midday, Trump held a “Save America” rally in front of the White House, repeating to his supporters that he had won “by a landslide”.

“If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election,” Trump said at one point. At another, he said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Afterwards, some of his supporters marched to the Capitol and broke into the building, attacking police officers and causing millions of dollars worth of damage. Participants signalled their aim was to stop the vote certification, with some chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

The attack proved to be deadly. One rioter was shot by police as she climbed through a broken window to enter the House Speaker’s Lobby. An officer died from a stroke the following day after being beaten. Others died by suicide after the attack. Members of Congress had to be led to safety.

Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice opened criminal cases against nearly 1,600 people involved.

But Trump has long defended the rioters and called their prosecution a “national injustice”.

Trump himself faced two criminal indictments — one at state level, the other federal — over his alleged attempts to subvert the election results, though the charges were dropped upon his re-election in 2024.

Unravelling the prosecutions

Calling the January 6 prosecutions an example of government “weaponisation”, Trump had campaigned during the 2024 race on a promise to pardon the rioters.

He followed through with that pledge on the first day of his second term. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order granting “a full, complete and unconditional pardon” to most of the defendants involved in the Capitol attack.

Trump also commuted the sentences of 14 people, including Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Pezzola. Under his authority, the Department of Justice also proceeded to seek the dismissal of ongoing January 6 cases.

Judge Kelly cited that series of events in Friday’s ruling, though he appeared to express a measure of scepticism.

“No one should mistake the Court’s granting of the Government’s motion for its agreement with those decisions,” Kelly wrote.

In May 2023, a jury in Washington, DC, found Nordean, Biggs and Rehl guilty of charges including seditious conspiracy, alongside Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.

Pezzola, meanwhile, was found not guilty of seditious conspiracy, but he was convicted of several felonies, including assaulting a police officer. At sentencing, the four men received prison terms ranging from 10 to 18 years, with Pezzola receiving the lightest sentence of the group.

But in weighing the future of the case against the four men, Judge Kelly explained that it was “hard to see” any other course forward other than dismissal.

The court system, Kelly explained, cannot “compel” the executive branch to pursue prosecutions. Trump’s executive order had also required the Department of Justice to seek the case’s dismissal.

“The Court will grant the motion because there are no grounds for it to withhold leave for the Government to dismiss the case with prejudice,” Kelly concluded.

But he ended his decision with a word of warning about protecting the future of American democracy from further attacks.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.

The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally on which the administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service this month. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.

The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the New York Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes.

They were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The journalists subpoenaed included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said in a statement.

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump’s “war on the press is looking for another victim.”

He said in a statement that the subpoenas “break from long-standing Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”

The department said that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

Its statement said that “we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”

While recognizing “there may always be natural tension there,” the department said, “we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s OK to leak classified information impacting national security.”

Pattern of anti-press actions

Issuing subpoenas represents a further ramping up of Trump’s effort to threaten independent new organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas.

In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.

Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Friday’s subpoenas and the prospect of “hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike: Watch what you say, or expect a knock on the door.”

“These tactics are becoming more common,” Steinbaugh said in a statement. “That doesn’t make them normal.”

During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an “enemy” of the American people. Since returning to the White House, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.

Trump’s attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him has included filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatening to revoke TV broadcast licenses and seeking to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.

The Justice Department over the years has developed and revised internal policies governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

Though the department across presidential administrations has periodically seized the phone records of individual journalists in hopes of identifying sources for national security stories, it is extremely rare for the government to attempt to compel reporters to reveal their sources before a grand jury.

In April 2025, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

Doing so again gave prosecutors the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

A memo Bondi issued said members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo stated.

Security issues with new Air Force One

The president flew the new Air Force One to Turkey during this week’s visit. But he departed Wednesday on one of the older-model Air Force One jets for Mildenhall, a Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, England.

The newer plane also flew to Mildenhall. Trump then switched to that plane for the flight home to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

The abrupt swap came as a shaky ceasefire with Iran had collapsed, with the U.S. launching airstrikes on Iran and Tehran attacking three gulf Arab states. Iran and Turkey share a border, sparking speculation that the new jet lacked certain sophisticated security and countermeasure systems.

The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service, and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities.

Trump denied any security concerns, posting on social media that the stop in Mildenhall was so that service members there could view the new jet. During the flight, Trump denied to the reporters accompanying him that security concerns involving Iran were a factor in flying two planes home.

Still, asked if he was aware of any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran, Trump responded, “I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list.”

The White House did not answer messages seeking comment about the subpoenas of the Times journalists.

Weissert and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Michelle L. Price and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has issued subpoenas against journalists from The New York Times, in what advocates say is an escalating attack on the free press.

Late on Friday, the Times reported that at least four of its reporters have received subpoenas, some delivered to their homes by federal agents.

Those subpoenas compel them to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” said David McCraw, the newspaper’s lawyer, in a statement quoted by the Times.

News of the subpoenas prompted outcry from leading news groups including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which demanded their withdrawal.

“The subpoenas are an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations, and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country,” said CPJ’s chief executive officer Jodie Ginsberg.

The subpoenas were authorised by a top official in Trump’s Department of Justice: Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Clayton is in line to succeed Bill Pulte as the director of national intelligence, a cabinet-level role Pulte holds on an interim basis. The Senate is set to begin hearings on Clayton’s confirmation next week.

Scrutiny on NATO travel coverage

At issue is The New York Times coverage of Trump’s return flight from the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye, this week.

While Trump flew to Europe on his new Air Force One, a jet gifted by Qatar and retrofitted by the US military, he left on the old Air Force One.

Trump claimed the switch was made to allow the new jet to visit RAF Mildenhall, an air force base in Suffolk, England, that supports US military operations.

He framed it as an opportunity to allow military members to tour the aircraft.

“It’s going to go to a couple of bases,” Trump said at the time, “so the soldiers can see it because it’s truly magnificent.”

But at the same July 8 news conference, Trump referenced concerns about his safety.

When asked about the airline switch by a reporter from The New York Post, Trump responded, “You know, the life of a president is very dangerous.” He proceeded to add that he’s “number one on the kill list for Iran”.

That same day, The New York Times reported swapped his new presidential jet for his old one because of security concerns, citing anonymous sources. The change reportedly came at the urging of the Secret Service.

Then, the next day, the Times expanded its coverage with a follow-up report, indicating that the new Air Force One lacked the security capabilities of the old jet.

The article anonymously cited two former Air Force officials as saying there would not have been enough time to make the necessary upgrades before the Ankara flight.

It is unclear what modifications have already been made, but experts have estimated that the updates could cost up to $1bn.

Friday’s subpoenas targeted four of the journalists involved in the Times’s reporting on the subject: Eric Schmitt, Tyler Pager, Eric Lipton and Julian E Barnes.

According to the Times, before the subpoenas were issued, the newspaper was contacted by a senior official from the FBI.

That person, who was unnamed, asked the newspaper to hold off on its reporting about Air Force One, citing national security. The FBI official also requested information on the Times’s anonymous sources.

The newspaper, however, declined to provide such information, in line with standard journalistic practice.

A testy relationship with journalists

The subpoenas mark the latest clash between the Trump administration and US media outlets that report on its activities.

Trump himself has a long-running feud with the Times. In September, he sued the newspaper for $15bn in damages, alleging it had defamed him and attempted to “sabotage” his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election, which he won.

After his initial complaint was thrown out as “improper”, Trump refiled it in October.

The Times, for its part, has sued the Department of Defence under Trump over its attempts to impose media restrictions on journalists.

Just this week, the Times also filed a countersuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, after it alleged the newspaper had discriminated against a white, male employee for failing to give him a promotion.

The Times has described the effort as an attempt to muffle the press, in violation of the free-speech protections enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Times is not the only newspaper to face legal backlash from the Trump administration. In December, Trump launched a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, arguing that a documentary it aired misrepresented his speech before the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump is also seeking $10bn from The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a birthday message he allegedly sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. After that suit was thrown out, Trump refiled it in May.

The Trump administration has also taken actions against individual journalists.

In January, for instance, the FBI executed a raid on the house of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who covered the Trump administration’s efforts to scale back the federal workforce.

The raid came as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of leaking information to the news media, but at least two judges have barred the Trump administration from using the information it seized from Natanson.

The Trump administration has denied seeking to erode the freedom of the press, instead citing national security needs.

But McCraw, the Times lawyer, argued that, with the latest subpoenas, the White House was trying to restrict “the American public’s right to know how their government is operating”.

“This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” he said.

Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also weighed in on the subpoenas, using them to slam Trump as corrupt.

“Donald Trump is one of the weakest, most thin-skinned individuals the world has ever seen,” Schumer wrote on social media.

“Reporters have the right and duty to report the truth. It’s not their fault his foreign-gifted plane is a national security threat. This subpoena is a gross overreach and a disgusting misuse of federal law enforcement resources that should alarm every American.”

WASHINGTON — Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.

It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.

Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.

Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.

Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.

At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.

Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.

(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.

Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.

A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”

“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.

“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”

Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.

“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”

The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”

The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.

The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.

Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.

But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.

“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”

“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

The L.A. Zoo’s elephants are now in Tulsa, and the zoo’s longtime nonprofit partner is now in bankruptcy court.

The litany of woes at the L.A. Zoo grew longer last month as the city’s nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoological Association, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing “incessant litigation” from the city of Los Angeles as the cause.

The city sued GLAZA — its partner for more than half a century — in 2024 over a $50 million endowment that each side argued was theirs to steward.

The city won a preliminary injunction in Los Angeles Superior Court that barred GLAZA from keeping the money when its contract with the zoo ended last year. Following the split and lawsuit, GLAZA dwindled in size from 42 full-time employees to just four part-time employees.

Now GLAZA says it owes its creditors, including more than $300,000 that it needs to pay a law firm that has represented the nonprofit in its legal battle with the city.

“The City has designated an army of eight attorneys to overwhelm GLAZA with endless discovery, depositions, and court filings all to run up GLAZA’s legal fees,” the nonprofit said in a statement shared with The Times. “As a result, GLAZA has been left with no options other than to seek protection from the bankruptcy court to ensure the survival of GLAZA and the protection of its donors.”

Following its separation from the city, GLAZA executives hope the nonprofit can work in the animal conservation efforts in Southern California.

On July 1, the City Council approved $250,000 in outside lawyers related to the bankruptcy case.

The zoo is facing headwinds as membership has declined precipitously and facilities have deteriorated, according to an Los Angeles County civil grand jury report.

The city attorney’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on GLAZA’s bankruptcy.

Pratt’s new frontier

Former mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt was far from Los Angeles as he took a meeting with President Trump in Washington, D.C., a few days ago.

Pratt, who came up short of the Nov. 2 runoff by a few percentage points, met with the president in the Oval Office, posting a photo of the rendezvous to social media Tuesday.

“I will never stop fighting for my community,” he wrote.

Pratt paired the visit with an announcement of a new media endeavor he plans to launch called “WAR.” He said the foundation will fight against political corruption, advocate for transparency in government and “restore common sense.”

The website for the foundation doesn’t have additional details, just a link to contribute and a link to a website selling Pratt merch.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Pratt also posted a 9-minute video Wednesday calling out California’s election system, claiming that the results of the June 2 primary were skewed by fraud.

Representatives for Pratt’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Phoning it in

After the flag salute and brief comments, L.A. City Council meetings kick off with a public comment period, during which crusading citizens often let loose on city officials as the council members quietly listen, leave the room or chat among themselves.

It’s not always L.A.’s finest hour, as certain commenters often resort to slurs and ad hominem attacks about the council members’ race, ethnicity and even physical appearance.

On July 1, public comment expanded as new state law, SB 707, went into effect, requiring the council to take telephonic public comment.

The council also had to verbally state the amendments they make to motions due to the new law, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson noted. Historically, the council has affixed amendments to a bulletin board in council chambers.

After frequent speaker Armando Herman used the N-word at the July 1 meeting, Harris-Dawson noted that the state legislature had done nothing about offensive comments at public meetings.

“Our friends in the state legislature made the decision to require us to have telephonic public comment. They did nothing, zero, about what we just heard. Since they want to intervene in our meetings, I’d call on them to do something about what they just heard,” he said.

The council did ban commenters from using the N-word and C-word last year. Speakers who use those words receive a warning and are booted from the meeting if they do it again.

Harris-Dawson said the new state law was “problematic” and noted another issue.

“We can’t verify if calls are bots or foreign agents, which poses a security risk,” he said in a statement to The Times.

State of play

— BOYLE-ING OVER: Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado and County Supervisor Hilda Solis were roundly booed and heckled by Boyle Heights residents during a town hall Thursday about the Boyle Heights fire. The three officials struggled to speak over the irate audience.

— SOLAR FLARE: Before the Boyle Heights warehouse fire, Lineage representatives lobbied City Hall over the rooftop solar array. The company says it was seeking a safer alternative to rapid shutdown devices.

— FISCAL EDUCATION: The Los Angeles Unified School District is facing “severe” indications it could be insolvent as soon as next year and has 45 days to fix its budget or risk an outside takeover. The Los Angeles County Office of Education has projected a $231 million cash shortfall by 2027.

— HIT THE STREETS: The LAPD is considering shutting down its police academy for part of 2028 to allow hundreds of officers to hit the streets for the Olympics, according to department sources. The move could lead to a drop in police hiring.

— LEGEND GONE: Billy G. Mills, one of the first Black men elected to L.A.’s City Council, died June 27. Mills was a civil rights leader before being elected to the legislative body in 1963, the same year Tom Bradley was elected to be a council member.

— IT TAKES A VILLAGE: Billionaire developer Rick Caruso’s Palisades Village will reopen in August after more than $100 million in renovations following the January 2025 wildfire.

— EVICTION BENEDICTION: Thousands of formerly homeless people whose housing subsidies will expire in December are no longer at risk of eviction, local housing officials announced Thursday. An infusion of new funds approved by Congress this year and a waiver of eligibility procedures have staved off a potential crisis that would have left 4,200 back on the street.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program had no operations this week.
• On the docket next week: The City Council remains on recess until Aug. 4.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Reporting from Sacramento — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday pardoned seven former felons, including two Cambodian refugees the Trump administration wants to deport, in his first acts of clemency since the Democrat took office in January.

Newsom adopted a policy of his predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown, to use his state constitutional authority to issue pardons to shield immigrants targeted by federal immigration officials.

The pardons are an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump, whose fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric and demands for a giant wall along the U.S.-Mexico border have been central to the escalating political feud between Newsom and the White House.

Newsom took another shot at Trump just hours before announcing the pardons while speaking to members of the Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Assn., a national nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization based in Sacramento. Newsom compared Trump to the anti-immigrant “demagogues” in San Francisco who championed the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the nation’s first immigration ban on a specific group of people.

“I’m constantly trying to understand the moment we’re living in, the xenophobia, the nativism that marks the populism of this moment,” Newsom said. “Any of us who are students of history know that it’s not without precedent. It’s not novel. It’s hardly new. It’s very familiar.”

Trump restricts asylum further but faces legal and financial limits »

One of the Cambodian refugees pardoned by Newsom, Hay Hov of Oakland, was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in March. He has since been released.

Hov, a naturalized citizen who arrived in the United States in 1985 as a legal refugee when he was 6, was convicted of solicitation to commit murder and participation in a criminal street gang in 2001, when he was 21, according to the Newsom administration.

The other refugee, Kang Hen of San Francisco, like Hov, fled to the Bay Area with his family to escape the Cambodian genocide in the 1980s. Hen was convicted of grand theft in 1994 when he was 18. Hen, who has a 4-year-old son and a partner with kidney and heart problems, was taken into custody by ICE in April.

Both Hov and Hen are being processed for deportation to Cambodia. The pardons do not automatically end a deportation effort but remove the underlying criminal offense that triggered the federal removal actions.

The pardons come as the federal government continues a crackdown on the Cambodian community that began in 2017 when Trump forced Cambodia to agree to take back more deportees. Many of the Cambodians facing deportation were refugees from the brutal Khmer Rouge regime that killed thousands, and came to the United States legally as children. They have few memories or ties to the country. But because they committed crimes, even if convicted decades ago, they can be deported.

In the 2016 fiscal year, ICE reported removing 74 Cambodians. In 2017, 29 Cambodians were removed. In 2018, that number has jumped to 110 thus far.

ICE reported that, as of March 26, there were 1,784 non-detained Cambodians nationals in the United States with a final order of removal. Of those, 1,294 had criminal records.

All seven of the people Newsom pardoned on Monday had completed their prison sentences.

“By granting these pardons to people who are transforming their lives, the Governor is seeking to remove barriers to employment and public service, restore civic rights and responsibilities and prevent unjust collateral consequences of conviction,” the governor’s office said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

The other five people pardoned committed offenses that varied from selling or possessing drugs to forgery.

Brown granted a historic 1,332 pardons and 283 commutations during his last two terms as governor. However, the California Supreme Court rejected 10 grants of clemency issued by Brown, the first time the high court has blocked a pardon or commutation in more than 50 years.

The court did not issue an explanation for the action. Under the California Constitution, the governor cannot grant a pardon or commute a sentence of anyone convicted of two separate felonies without the approval of the state Supreme Court.

None of the people whom Newsom pardoned on Monday had multiple felonies, according to a governor’s office spokesperson.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Twitter: @philwillon

A guy who owns a beach resort on the coast of Florida, where hundreds of miles of overdeveloped shores are threatened by increasingly severe storms driven by global warming, is trying to tell Californians how best to manage our coast.

Guess who.

It’s not that we needed the help. If there’s any thought to adding an eighth wonder of the world to the current lineup of seven, I’d nominate the 1,100-mile treasure that kisses Oregon on one end and Mexico on the other. And it’s not by accident that coastal habitats are aggressively protected and most of the shoreline is free of mega resorts and architectural clutter.

A half century ago, Californians rose up against the threat of over-development. By the will of the people, the coast was enshrined in state law as a precious public asset accessible to the many, not a private playground fenced off for the few.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, and just as we begin the party, President Trump and his minions are scheming to pump some crude oil into the punch bowl.

And here’s how:

Going back to the 1970s, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, California has gotten high marks from the feds for the way in which its coastal regulatory agencies work with D.C. to manage federal projects. But now the state is under attack, which could mean that millions in federal dollars will be clawed back and the state’s voice muted.

So what horrible sins have we committed?

Sit down and take a deep breath.

We’re being accused of “environmental extremism.”

It’s just been far too many years of paying attention to water quality and vehicle and industrial emissions and all the rest. Imagine how that comes across to a president who wouldn’t admit to climate change if his putter melted in his hands or Mar-a-Lago became a swim-up hotel.

As penance for our crimes, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (the one who labeled us environmental extremists) ordered the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to conduct “a full, formal review” of the state’s coastal management program.

“California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development,” Lutnick declared, referencing a dispute over how many rockets Elon Musk’s Space X can launch from the U.S. military’s Vandenberg base. (Per the California Coastal Commission, many of the launches are for private interests rather than military purposes, and even the federal government has noted that the thunderous sonic booms take a toll on sea life and humans.)

We’re also allegedly blind to basic economics and the preferences of the Trump administration when it comes to “offshore oil production, maintenance of pipelines and desalination.” And we need to fall into line in “removing regulatory barriers that hinder U.S. technological and economic leadership while responsibly stewarding coastal resources.”

Where to begin?

I thought California had the world’s fourth-largest economy, with technology as a primary driver. In fact, it’s just been reported that we drew 10 times more venture capital than any other state this year, with AI leading the way. If one or two other states matched our output, imagine the boasting Trump could do, legitimately, about the economy.

And while the administration seems intent on tapping more offshore oil, it’s toppling the nation’s offshore wind projects while the planet suffers through blistering, deadly heat waves directly related to greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

If the president’s blowtorch buddies want to call us “environmental extremists” for not burying our heads in the sand, it’s a badge of honor.

And another thing.

If Trump is so intent on keeping the world’s oil supply flowing, maybe he shouldn’t have bungled his way into a senseless war that has handed Iran the keys to the global gas pump, spiking prices for everyone.

By the way, it’s not as if the primary coastal regulatory agency in the state — the California Coastal Commission — has said nothing but “no” over the years to oil projects and desalination plants.

“When you look at the Coastal Act, it doesn’t prohibit offshore oil and gas production and we approved a lot of it,” said Susan Hansch, who retired from a top administrative position in 2021 after 47 years at the Coastal Commission. “It just has to be done correctly.”

The commission has also approved multiple desalination plants, but four years ago rejected one proposed for Huntington Beach, despite support for it from Gov. Gavin Newsom. I thought the rejection was the right call, because the proposal struck me as a private boondoggle, with no designated customer for the water and a slurry of environmental hazards.

A Falcon 9 rocket is launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base on Jan. 25.

(2nd Lt. Andrew Taller / U.S. Space Force)

Not that the Coastal Commission has been infallible over the years. It has worked many a critic into a lather, with complaints that the agency has stood in the way of housing development during the state’s mounting shortage, and that its permitting process is the equivalent of a years-long root canal.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the Coastal Act into law in 1976, once called the commissioners “bureaucratic thugs.”

And Trump has feuded with the agency over, among other things, a 70-foot-tall flagpole erected on his Rancho Palos Verdes golf course without a permit. Last year, Trump envoy Ric Grenell said the Coastal Commission was a “disaster” and must “absolutely be defunded,” calling commissioners unelected and “crazy woke left.”

Getting rid of the commission, he said, “is going to make California better.”

I don’t think so.

Ten years ago, I had the privilege of traveling the length of the state and meeting some of the heroes of the coast going back to the 1960s.

They were there when the devastating Santa Barbara oil spill blackened beaches, turned the shoreline into a wildlife graveyard, and galvanized grassroots defense of the coast.

When plans by PG&E to build a nuclear power plant at heavenly Bodega Head triggered an uprising.

When a massive Sonoma Coast residential development pitch sparked fears that beach access would be lost.

In 1972, ordinary Californians circulated petitions, knocked on doors, and rode bicycles down the coast, rallying support for Proposition 20, which aimed to regulate coastal development. It passed despite a massive opposition campaign from corporate, industrial and real estate interests.

That victory led, four years later, to the Coastal Act and creation of the Coastal Commission, whose job was to balance sensible development, habitat protection and conservation, and equitable public access.

Richard Charter, an Ocean Foundation senior fellow, told me in Bodega a decade ago that the California coast is “a public miracle” that was protected by ordinary people who saw it as “a global treasure.”

The Coastal Act has led to the creation of 2,500 public beach access points in the state, and its greatest achievements include wetlands not plowed, habitats not destroyed, and the preservation of countless mesmerizing vistas where land meets sea and California leaves you in speechless, grateful awe.

At Tuesday’s Coastal Commission meeting, Jennifer Savage of the Surfrider Foundation stepped to the microphone and said to commissioners:

“Surfrider sees this federal review as a politically motivated attempt to strip California of the coastal protections that our communities and our marine ecosystems depend on, and Surfrider stands with you, and we will fight this every step of the way.”

If you’d like to join that fight, you can speak in person or remotely when NOAA hosts public hearings Aug. 10-12 in Santa Monica. You can find more details on the Surfrider Foundation website.

One of the early leaders of the Coastal Commission, the late Peter Douglas, anticipated these trials and uttered a phrase I’ve repeated many times over the years. In the year of the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, it’s worth repeating once more, and you should think of it as a a clarion call:

“The coast is never saved,” Douglas said. “It’s always being saved.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

I am a lifetime resident of Los Angeles and my family has always rooted for the Dodgers. Last year we gave them a pass when they went to visit Trump at the White House. This year after Trump’s attack on our community we cannot accept the Dodgers visiting Trump again. Dave Roberts should know that the first obligation of a patriot is to stand up against tyranny. Shame on him and any other Dodger who goes to the White House this year. I will be canceling my Spectrum service. I’m not playing with the future of our democracy.

Felipe Caceres
Los Angeles

If the Dodgers kowtow to Donald Trump yet again, Angelenos should consider boycotting the team for the rest of the season. Yes, they are an exceptional team and might return to the World Series yet again. However, other great athletes, such as the recent U.S. women’s Olympic hockey team, have displayed their courage and integrity in refusing to bow down to that dangerous tyrant.

By serving, as too many others continue to do, to support and enable the thug, they are enabling him in his inhumane and destructive policies and actions. As well, Trump invaded L.A., and the Dodgers did little to support the city they allegedly represent. If they return, it is more than a slap in the face of every sane and thoughtful Angeleno.

Barry Cutler
Palm Desert

I have always paid for the Dodgers’ games on mlb.tv, but this year when the Dodgers did not decline the White House visit, I did not. I was holding out hope they wouldn’t squeeze a visit in on their road trip after the All-Star Game and I’d get half a season. Instead I’m listening to the games on the radio. I’ve heard the players say things like “you never know when this might happen again” or “it’s tradition.” I don’t get either one of those excuses. Is Mookie Betts going to ask Trump why he posted the picture of the Obamas as monkeys? Or any of the players going to stand up for anything?

How about be like the women’s Olympic hockey team and stand up for what is right? Don’t be a pawn for another photo op for this dysfunctional White House. Please?

Marnie Jernagan
Fresno

Columnist Bill Plaschke wants to impose his political views on us and the Dodgers. Let each player decide if he wants to go to the White House, and if some players don’t want to go, then fine — don’t go. But why should all the players be confined to Plaschke’s view of politics?

David Waldowski
Laguna Woods

I was a huge Dodgers fan until last year when they visited the White House. What a happy crowd they looked, even presenting President Trump with his own jersey, No. 47. That wasn’t enough? They’re off again, with Dave Roberts talking about “respecting the highest office in the land, it doesn’t matter who’s in office” while Clayton Kershaw, who presented the jersey is so “excited to go” again. Roberts had previously talked about it being a tradition. Nothing about this White House or this president is traditional, and not going is not making a “political” stand. It would be a stand for decency and normalcy. While visiting the East Wing maybe they can present Trump with the inaugural Baseball Peace Prize. Shame on the Dodgers!

Jane Peters
Los Angeles

England captain Harry Kane says he once played golf with United States President Donald Trump, describing the experience as “surreal”.

The striker will lead England for their World Cup quarter-final against Norway in Miami on Saturday (22:00 BST) and, in the build-up to that game, revealed he had played golf with Trump in Florida 18 months ago.

“I played alright to be honest,” said Bayern Munich striker Kane.

“He invited me to play when I was down in Palm Beach. So yeah, when the president invites you somewhere…

“It was a pretty surreal experience just to meet him and obviously play golf with him.

“His golf is pretty good, to be honest with you. I hope I can play golf as good as him when I’m his age, that’s for sure. A unique experience, but I was just grateful that he invited me to play.”

The US is co-hosting the 2026 World Cup along with Canada and Mexico, and Kane’s comments followed Trump, 80, saying the pair had played together.

“I think Kane is a great player,” said Trump after Kane, who has six goals and one assist for England at the World Cup, helped the Three Lions beat Mexico 3-2 in the last 16.

“I played golf with him and I like him a lot. He’s a good golfer too. He’s really great.”

Albanian prosecutors probe forged deeds tied to Kushner resort land as protests over the project intensify.

Albania’s anticorruption prosecution service is investigating whether the deeds to a stretch of protected coastline earmarked for a Jared Kushner-backed resort were forged, according to case files reviewed by the Reuters news agency, adding another legal complication to a project that has already provoked months of street protests.

The files, compiled by the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK), name Artur Shehu, a Miami-based businessman, as the seller who transferred the land to Albania Land Development, the entity behind the Kushner-linked scheme, in April.

Prosecutors allege Shehu and his associates funnelled proceeds from cocaine trafficking into Albanian property, using falsified titles to disguise the money’s origin, and have since frozen roughly 110 million euros ($126m) tied to the sale in a notary’s account.

Shehu’s lawyer, Kujtim Cakrani, rejected the allegations outright. “Nothing that has been alleged regarding Mr Artur Shehu’s character is true,” he told Reuters, adding that his client was neither a trafficker nor a document forger and had lawfully sold land his family had held since Ottoman times.

Cakrani said Shehu was untroubled by the arrest warrant, arguing it was widely assumed in Albania that prosecutors answered to political and business interests. He also said Shehu fled to the United States and won asylum in 1998 after gang violence killed his brother and uncle.

The SPAK files, running to 200 pages and not previously made public, were issued the same day the agency unveiled separate arrest warrants for 20 people accused of narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

Reuters found no evidence that Kushner, Sazan Real Estate Development or other backers of the resort knew of any suspicions surrounding Shehu when the land changed hands.

The disclosure comes amid sustained unrest over the development, which sits on wetlands and beaches along Albania’s southern coast that are home to sea turtles and flamingos, the latter adopted as a symbol by the self-styled “Flamingo Revolution” against the resort and alleged government corruption in general.

Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, have said the idea for the resort came to them after they spotted the coastline from a yacht. He unveiled renderings of hotels, villas and marinas on social media in 2024.

Nightly rallies that began in May, initially focused on the project, have broadened into a wider movement demanding Prime Minister Edi Rama’s resignation over accusations of corruption.

A crackdown last week saw riot police deploy tear gas and water cannon against demonstrators outside parliament, injuring 15 officers and leading to 25 arrests. A Tirana court freed 19 of those detained on Sunday, placing two under house arrest and ordering a dozen others to report periodically to judicial police.

Entela Koja, one of the protesters, said “this is a revolution against the big guys who want to use Albania like a playground for the rich.”

Villagers near the site have separately pursued a decade-long legal challenge to Shehu’s ownership claim, presenting title deeds and tax records they say establish that they are the rightful owners.

Nikolin Markpalaj, one of the landowners, told Al Jazeera: “I told them it would not be easy for them to take this land and enjoy someone else’s land and property. What is happening in this country is madness.”

Rama’s government has dismissed the protests as orchestrated by political rivals and insists the project complies with Albanian and European Union law.

July 10 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday rescinded a key provision of the Endangered Species Act that protected habitat crucial to imperiled wildlife.

For 50 years, the ESA definition of “harm” included not only specific species, but also their habitat from modification or degradation.

But on Friday, the administration said it was reversing the rule to focus on “actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife.”

“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.

“That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended,” Burgum said. “This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”

Enacted in 1973, the ESA has played a vital role in maintaining biodiversity.

Conservation experts say the act was key in saving many species from extinction, including the whooping crane, bald eagle and gray wolf.

Environmental advocates have vowed to sue over the rule change.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement.

“Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support,” Boyles added. “We will see the Trump administration in court.”

MINNEAPOLIS — Somali and Muslim communities in Minnesota are once again condemning a social media post by President Trump, alleging it communicates “anti-Muslim bigotry” toward children.

Trump posted a 14-second video clip showing children singing in graduation outfits, with girls also wearing hijabs. The children had sashes that read “kindergarten” on one side and “graduate” on the other. The video posted Monday appears to be from a Somali TV Minnesota news clip filming a ceremony at a charter school in St. Paul.

Included in Trump’s TruthSocial post is a screenshot of a caption from an X account that first posted the video in June. The caption said, “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

The post drew statements from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Somali American Partnership and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

“By using his global platform to amplify anti-Muslim bigotry and target Muslim children at this elementary school, President Trump is putting lives at risk,” said a statement from the national and Minnesota chapter of CAIR.

Trump and other Republican leaders have repeatedly been accused of making xenophobic and racist attacks against Muslim Americans in recent months. Trump has specifically singled out the Somali community in Minnesota numerous times, calling them “garbage” in December.

“Somali Americans are an integral part of Minnesota’s past, present, and future,” the Somali American Partnership said in a statement. “Our children deserve to be recognized for their potential — not used to fuel fear, division, or anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant narratives.

“Those with public platforms have a responsibility to protect children, not endanger them.”

In a statement on X, Walz accused Trump of “attacking a group of kindergarteners because of the clothes they wore to school.”

The Somali American Partnership, a collection of Minnesota-based nonprofit organizations that assist the Somali community, plans to hold a news conference Wednesday to address “the growing climate of anti-Somali and anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Members of the Muslim community in Minnesota have expressed fear for their safety numerous times in recent months, citing such rhetoric. In May, community members tied the rhetoric to a disturbance at a mosque in Lakeville, days after three people were killed at a San Diego mosque.

Last fall, Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, said there had been more than 40 instances of vandalism, arson or other disturbances at mosques in the last three years, higher than any other state. Damage totaled more than $3 million, Hussein said.

He said at the time that Islamophobic comments directed at Muslim institutions in Minnesota were “completely on a new level.”

Hughes writes for the Minnesota Star Tribune.