U.S.

May 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration is considering the creation of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate people allied with President Donald Trump who were investigated during the Biden administration.

The fund would be part of a settlement with Trump that would result in him dropping his lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service over the leaking of his tax returns six years ago, ABC News and The New York Times reported.

The deal emerged after months of negotiations between the White House and Department of Justice, which had originally been aiming to directly pay Trump, but conflict of interest concerns steered toward the compensation fund.

Although Trump has the right to sue as a private citizen, his position as president means that he also can instruct agencies within the executive branch, which would make him both the plaintiff and defendant in a trial.

The concept is partially modeled on an Obama administration compensation fund for Native American farmers and ranchers that distributed $760 million from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund.

In addition to Trump allies’ legal fees linked to investigations during his first term, the fund also likely would be open to people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol building that saw the building get ransacked by Trump supporters.

Critics of the plan have called it a “slush fund” for Trump and his allies.

“An insane level of corruption — even for Trump,” U.S. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said of the plan earlier this week.

May 15 (UPI) — Texas Children’s Hospital plans to create the first “detransition clinic” in the United States as part of a settlement with the state for provided transgender care, officials announced Friday.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the settlement, which will also require the hospital to fire and revoke the medical privileges of doctors, as well as pay a $10 million fine.

The hospital will make care at the clinic free of charge for its first five years and offer services for children to detransition to their gender assigned at birth.

Paxton investigated the Houston-based hospital in 2023 for the transgender care services it offered at the same time the state legislature was outlawing gender-affirming care for children.

“I applaud Texas Children’s Hospital for changing course and committing to being part of the solution by agreeing to form a first-of-its kind Detransition Clinic that will provide free care to those who have been victimized by twisted, morally bankrupt transgender ideology,” Paxton said in a statement.

The settlement, he said, is meant to reverse damage caused by “ideologically motivated physicians who harmed patients with their transition care, which the attorney general’s office alleged included the use of false diagnosis codes.

The hospital, in its own statement, said that it had spent the past three years cooperating with the investigation, “navigating an unconscionable campaign of mistrusts and mischaracterizations of gender affirming care.”

It said that multiple internal and external investigations support that the hospital has been compliant with all laws — before and after the state ban on transition care.

“Today, we made the difficult decision to settle with the Texas attorney general and the Department of Justice, closing a chapter that has been wrought with falsehoods and distractions,” the hospital said.

“To be clear — we are settling to protect our resources from endless and costly litigation,” it said. “This settlement will allow us to redirect those precious resources to focus on life-saving care and groundbreaking discoveries of our exceptional clinicians and scientists.”

DAKAR, Senegal — It’s an existence that Congo’s president has described as “living the Congolese dream.” For the 15 Latin Americans deported to the African nation under the Trump administration’s widely criticized crackdown on migrants, it feels more like a nightmare.

The Associated Press spoke with one, a 29-year old Colombian woman who confirmed what people deported to other African nations have described: A shackled deportation despite a U.S. immigration judge’s protection order. Confinement in a hotel with supervised outings.

And an impossible choice: Return to a home country with the risk of persecution or stay in Congo, a country the Colombian woman had never heard of before she arrived.

“They treat us like we’re children,” she said as their three-month Congolese visas near an end, with no plan in sight.

“What would one do in a completely unknown place, without a place to live and without knowing what to do?” she added, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

It was not immediately clear what a new U.S. court ruling, saying the U.S. likely broke the law by deporting a fellow Colombian to Congo, will mean for her.

A United Nations-affiliated group plays a central role

In her interview from the hotel in Congo’s capital, Kinshasa, where she and other deportees are held, the woman gave new details about the central role that a United Nations-affiliated body, the International Organization for Migration, is playing.

She said deportees are allowed to leave the hotel about once a week and only accompanied by IOM staff. When they shop at a supermarket or withdraw money they are quickly ushered back to their vehicle, with IOM staff never out of sight.

“They choose where we go and what we buy,” she said.

At the hotel, she said, IOM staff have organized activities like painting, music and volleyball but many deportees have stopped participating, bored with the routine. She goes for meals and remains in her room otherwise, making late-night calls to her 10-year-old daughter in Colombia and worrying when she will see her again.

Most striking is the role IOM staff are playing in presenting deportees with their possible fates.

They have offered the woman two paths: Return to Colombia, where a U.S. judge has ruled she cannot safely be sent back, while receiving IOM “protection and assistance,” or remain in Congo with no support.

“They are given impossible choices,” said Alma David, the woman’s U.S.-based attorney. “By deporting them to a third country with no opportunity to contest being sent there, the U.S. not only violated their due process rights but our own immigration laws and our obligations under international treaties.”

Congo is one of at least eight African countries that have made deals with the Trump administration to facilitate deportations of third-country nationals, which legal experts say are effectively a legal loophole for the U.S. Most deportees had received legal orders of protection from U.S. judges shielding them against being returned to their home countries, lawyers said.

The AP has interviewed others sent to African nations who were forced to make risky decisions, such as a gay Moroccan asylum-seeker deported to Cameroon, a country where homosexuality is illegal.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about the Colombian woman’s case, but it has asserted that third-country deportation agreements “ensure due process under the U.S. Constitution.” The Trump administration says the agreements are needed to “remove criminal illegal aliens” whose country of origin will not take them back.

Details of Congo’s deal with U.S. are unclear

The details of Congo’s deal with the Trump administration are not clear. Other countries have received millions of dollars to participate.

Earlier this month, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi called the agreement an “act of goodwill between partners,” with no financial compensation. It comes as Washington has ramped up pressure on neighboring Rwanda over its support for the M23 rebel group that has seized cities in eastern Congo — a dynamic some analysts say may explain Kinshasa’s willingness to take deportees.

“We agreed to do so as a friendly gesture, simply because it was what the Americans wanted,” Tshisekedi said, adding that the migrants are free to leave Congo at any time.

“We understand that psychologically they must be unsettled because, at first, they dreamed of living the American dream, and now they are living the Congolese dream — in a country they probably did not know and may never even have noticed on a map of the world,” Tshisekedi said.

Congolese human rights groups have called it a violation of international refugee law. The Congo-based Institute for Human Rights Research described the situation as “arbitrary detention by proxy for the United States.”

The current U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy says if a government has made blanket diplomatic assurances that it won’t persecute people who are deported, no further process is required for deportation, not even giving deportees notice where they are being sent, said David, the attorney.

“When they told me they were going to deport me, I almost fainted,” the Colombian woman said. She was told about Congo the day before the flight.

She was detained at a routine check-in with ICE

She said she left Colombia in 2024, following threats from armed groups and abuse by a former partner who worked for the government.

She went to Mexico, where she waited for a border appointment booked with the U.S. government. When she presented herself at an Arizona port of entry in September 2024, immigration officials determined she had a credible fear of persecution, clearing her to apply for asylum, but kept her in ICE detention.

“You spend a year and a half locked up, living the same day over and over again. You see fights, punishments where people are locked in cells for many hours. You lose your privacy even to use the bathroom,” she said.

Some officers made racist remarks. “They made derogatory comments toward us as migrants, shouted at us all the time and sometimes denied basic things like showers as punishment,” she said.

In May 2025, a federal judge granted her protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, ruling she could not be safely returned to Colombia, according to court documents seen by the AP.

She filed a habeas corpus petition and won her release in February. She moved to Texas and was required to wear a GPS monitoring device, but at her first check-in appointment with ICE, she was detained again.

“All they told me was that I was under detention, as they had found a third country for me,” she said.

Less than three weeks later, she was put on a plane to Congo. She and the other deportees arrived on April 17 after a nearly 24-hour charter flight during which their hands and feet were restrained.

She doesn’t feel safe in Congo

Now they stay at a hotel near Kinshasa’s airport, in tidy white bungalows. Congo’s government covers the cost, the IOM said. It was not clear whether that would last after the deportees’ visas run out.

The hotel gates are locked according to one of the deportees lawyers. The Colombian woman also said security personnel do not let them leave on their own.

They were told they could apply for asylum, an option no one has chosen. “I don’t feel safe in Congo,” the woman said.

An IOM spokesperson said the organization has provided her with humanitarian assistance based on an assessment of her vulnerability. It includes “protection interventions, referrals, rights safeguarding and promotion of migrants’ overall well-being,” with no details.

The IOM also may offer “assisted voluntary return” — covering documents, flights, transit and temporary housing on arrival — with migrants’ consent.

The IOM said it plays no role in determining who is deported and reserves the right to withdraw its assistance for deportees if “minimum protection standards” aren’t met.

The Colombian woman remains in limbo, anxious. She said the food “has made us very sick,” with stomach ailments ongoing.

Local languages, like French and Lingala, are as foreign as her surroundings.

“The worst part is having to go through all of that without having committed any crime, simply for going to another country to ask for safety and protection.”

Banchereau writes for the Associated Press.

May 15 (Asia Today) — South Korea and the United States signed a letter of intent Friday to cooperate on drone and counter-drone systems, South Korea’s Defense Ministry said.

The agreement was signed at the ministry’s headquarters in Seoul by Jun Joon-beom, director general of the Defense Artificial Intelligence Planning Bureau, and Patrick Mason, deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Army for defense exports and cooperation.

Under the agreement, the two sides will work to build a joint supply chain for drone and counter-drone systems and strengthen cooperation on standardization.

The U.S. Defense Department plans to consider registering Korean-made products on an online platform for drone and counter-drone transactions that it aims to establish this year.

South Korean officials said the platform could allow both countries to purchase and operate Korean-made systems, improving interoperability and reducing logistics costs.

The two countries also plan to cooperate on common standards for drone and counter-drone systems to improve the efficiency and compatibility of combined South Korea-U.S. operations.

In the near term, they will seek to adopt a common battery standard for small drones. They will also exchange information and conduct joint research toward a shared standards system.

“We hope the signing of this letter of intent will accelerate the establishment of common standards and certification systems for drone and counter-drone systems,” Jun said.

Mason said allies such as South Korea could overcome existing acquisition barriers and quickly field efficient and interoperable drone systems.

“We will ensure that the best available technologies are provided to South Korean and U.S. combined warfighters,” Mason said.

Before the signing ceremony, Won Jong-dae, South Korea’s deputy defense minister, met U.S. officials and said the agreement marks the beginning of the South Korea-U.S. alliance evolving into a “drone alliance.”

Won said the ministry would work with related agencies, including the Industry Ministry and the Transport Ministry, to build a stable joint supply chain between the two countries.

Jang Ji-hyung, head of the technical research division at the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality, said the agency would play a central role in producing practical results from drone and counter-drone cooperation.

The two defense authorities plan to form a working-level consultative body to continue cooperation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260515010004281

May 15 (UPI) — Representatives of both parties in the House on Friday demanded to know why the Department of Defense stopped deployment of troops to Poland, and top Army leaders didn’t have clear answers.

House Armed Services Committee members said the halting of troop deployment with no notice was a surprise to Congress, Politico reported. They had a hearing Friday with top Army leaders who gave them few answers.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The deployment was a long-planned rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put a sudden stop to it.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., on Friday questioned Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who said the rotation was canceled “just a couple days ago,” though acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said the decision was made in the “last two weeks.”

Neither man gave an explanation for the decision.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told Driscoll and LaNeve.

On Thursday, acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the decision was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

“I don’t see how [the Pentagon] statement can be true,” Scott said.

LaNeve confirmed that some equipment was already in Europe or en route when Hegseth canceled the deployment.

Driscoll said the Army can adjust its plans based on the preferences of regional commanders or the secretary of defense.

“This is not meant to hide the ball; this is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year every single year,” he said.

On April 30, President Donald Trump decided to remove 5,000 troops from Germany after German Chancellor Friederich Merz said the United States was “humiliated” by Iran.

Trump has often complained about NATO, but he has called Poland a “model ally” for its move to spend more on defense. In September, Trump said he would support Poland and stand with Warsaw “all the way” after the candidate he backed, Karol Nawrocki, won the election for president.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Army leaders should be able to give a straight answer to Congress.

“The only answer I’ve got is, ‘Well, that’s what they told us to do.’ OK, why?” Smith asked the Army leaders. “If there’s some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.”

Bacon said that Polish officials were “blindsided” by the move, which he learned from a phone call from Poland.

“They called me yesterday, they did not know, they were blindsided,” The Hill reported Bacon told Driscoll and LaNeve. “These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don’t know what the plan is.”

Bacon said he knew the Army leaders didn’t make the decision, but he called it “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country … what we just did to Poland.”

He added, “I know I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. … We’re sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., said, “When we take that many troops away, it says that we are not a reliable ally.

May 15 (UPI) — The FBI is offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of a former Air Force counterintelligence specialist who defected to Iran in 2013.

Monica Elfriede Witt, 47, of El Paso, Texas, is accused of spying for Iran. She was indicted in February 2019 by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on espionage charges. The charges allege she transmitted classified defense information to Iran.

Witt served in the military between 1997 and 2008 before working as a U.S. government contractor until 2010. She had access to top secret information, including the true names of Americans working undercover, an FBI press release said.

She “allegedly betrayed her oath to the Constitution” by “defecting to Iran and providing the Iranian regime National Defense Information and likely continues to support their nefarious activities,” said Daniel Wierzbicki, special agent in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office’s Counterintelligence and Cyber Division.

“The FBI has not forgotten and believes that during this critical moment in Iran’s history, there is someone who knows something about her whereabouts,” he added.

The press release said that “Witt allegedly intentionally provided information endangering U.S. personnel and their families stationed abroad. She also allegedly conducted research on behalf of the Iranian regime to allow them to target her former colleagues in the U.S. government.”

May 15 (UPI) — President Donald Trump told reporters Friday that the first sentence of Iran’s peace proposal was “unacceptable” and accused the country of backtracking on its nuclear policy, but Iran signaled it’s still ready to negotiate.

Trump said the first sentence was an “unacceptable sentence, because they have fully agreed no nuclear, and if they have any nuclear of any form, I don’t read the rest,” CNN reported he said. He added that he is unsatisfied with the “level of guarantee from them.”

Trump said Iran had agreed to give up its enriched uranium, which he calls “nuclear dust.” But “then they took it back,” he said.

But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that discussion about uranium enrichment “is currently not on the agenda of discussions or negotiations,” but the country is willing to talk about it later in negotiations, according to Iran’s news agency Tasnim.

Iran has said it doesn’t plan to build a nuclear weapon but has refused to give up its uranium.

Trump’s comments were on his trip from Beijing after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

When reporters asked if Xi had agreed to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the president replied, “We don’t need favors,” but that “we may have to do a little cleanup work,” without clarifying what he meant.

“We had a little monthlong cease-fire, I guess you’d call it, but we have a blockade that’s so effective, that’s why we did the cease-fire.”

China appears hesitant to get involved in the conflict, Al Jazeera reported.

Trump said the United States and China agree that the strait must be opened and the war must end. About half of China’s crude oil comes through the strait.

Araghchi said Iran would welcome Chinese diplomacy to help defuse the war with the United States.

“Any effort made by the Chinese to support diplomacy will be welcomed by the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said at a press conference in New Delhi, India. He was attending the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting.

But he also said that Iran considers itself as the protector of the strait.

Araghchi said on X that with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, he “clarified that Iran will always carry out [its] historical duty as protector of security” in the Strait of Hormuz.

He added that “all friendly nations” can “rely on safety of commerce.”

Following his visit with Xi, Trump also said he is considering removing sanctions on Chinese companies that have been buying Iranian oil as the war and high gas prices linger.

“I’m going to make a decision over the next few days. We did talk about that,” Trump said on Friday.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC Friday that China will likely buy more oil from the United States.

“I suspect we’ll see a growth in their oil imports from the United States,” Wright said.

“But ultimately, the world needs to get the Persian Gulf open. Iran’s attempt to hold the whole world hostage, people know it’s temporary.

“One way or the other, we will see an end to the Iranian nuclear program and we will see free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. That can happen relatively rapidly with an agreement with Iran,” he said.

TALLINN, Estonia — Belarus’ authoritarian leader on Friday greeted U.S. Rev. Franklin Graham, who arrived in the tightly controlled country to hold the largest evangelical Christian gathering in its history.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko asked Graham to convey warm greetings to President Trump and tell him that he has “reliable friends and supporters in Belarus.”

Since Trump returned to the White House, Lukashenko has released hundreds of political prisoners as part of U.S.-brokered deals that lifted some U.S. sanctions, part of the isolated leader’s efforts to improve ties with the West.

“Without the U.S. president, it might have been more difficult for us to establish our relations,” Lukashenko told Graham, president of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn. Graham was accompanied by Greta Van Susteren, the anchor for Newsmax TV who is married to Trump’s special envoy for Belarus, John Coale.

Lukashenko has ruled the nation of 9.5 million with an iron fist for more than three decades, and the country has been sanctioned repeatedly by Western countries — both for its crackdown on human rights and for allowing Moscow to use its territory in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Graham is set to hold the largest gathering of evangelicals ever in Belarus’ history, with thousands expected to attend what the organizers called the Festival of Hope at an indoor sports arena in Minsk, the capital.

Lukashenko’s rule was challenged after a 2020 presidential election, when hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest a vote they viewed as rigged. In an ensuing crackdown, tens of thousands were detained, with many beaten by police. Prominent opposition figures fled the country or were imprisoned.

Five years after the mass demonstrations, Lukashenko won a seventh term last year in an election that the opposition called a farce.

As part of a deal in March that Washington helped broker, Lukashenko ordered the release of 250 political prisoners, while the U.S. agreed to lift sanctions from two Belarusian state banks and the country’s Finance Ministry, and to remove the top Belarusian potash producers from a sanctions list.

Another deal in April released prominent journalist Andrzej Poczobut in a swap with Poland that saw a total of 10 people freed.

However, Belarus still has 845 political prisoners, including 22 journalists, according to the Viasna human rights center.

Belarus opposition leader-in-exile Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya voiced hope that Graham’s visit will help the release of all political prisoners. “We continue to push for a complete end to the harsh political repressions in Belarus,” Tsikhanouskaya told the Associated Press.

Belarusian authorities’ permission for the massive gathering of evangelicals marks a shift, following years of crackdown on clergy — Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant — which saw dozens jailed, silenced or forced into exile for protesting the 2020 election. In the country of 9.5 million, about 80% are Orthodox Christians; nearly 14% are Catholics, residing mostly in western, northern and central parts of the country; and about 2% belong to Protestant churches.

A 2024 law required all religious organizations to reregister with authorities or face being outlawed if their loyalty to the state is in doubt.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has listed Belarus among countries with religious freedom violations, particularly noting its restrictive legislation.

Natallia Vasilevich, coordinator of the Christian Vision monitoring group, noted that even as Graham’s visit to Belarus was a “mega-important event” for evangelicals in the country, they continue to face a repressive environment.

“Some believers view Graham’s visit as a miracle and a window of opportunity, while others see a risk that they will have to turn a blind eye to repression and take part in something that makes the regime look nice,” Vasilevich said.

Karmanau writes for the Associated Press.

May 15 (UPI) — The House Ethics Committee has launched an investigation into Rep. Chuck Edwards over allegations of creating a hostile work environment and engaging in sexual harassment.

Little information about the probe was made public.

In a brief statement issued Thursday, the committee said it was “reviewing allegations that Representative Chuck Edwards may have created or fostered a hostile work environment and engaged in sexual harassment in violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any other applicable standard of conduct.”

The committee said that its investigation and public disclosure do not indicate a violation has occurred.

Edwards told The Hill that he welcomes the investigation and plans “to comply fully with the committee.”

“I am confident the investigation will expose the facts, not politically motivated fiction,” he said.

The announcement follows recent reports that the committee was investigating Edwards, with Axios having been the first to report on the development.

Specifics of the allegations were not clear, but Politico earlier this week reported that he allegedly had an improper relationship with a subordinate as well as allegedly engaged in sexually harassment.

The investigation comes on the heels of two high-profile House resignations last month over sexual misconduct allegations.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., stepped down amid accusations of sexual misconduct and abuse, while Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned after admitting he had an affair with a former aide who died by suicide.

Amid growing concern and anger about alleged abuses by members of the lower chamber, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., announced Wednesday the creation of a bipartisan partnership between their parties’ women’s caucuses to combat workplace sexual misconduct in Congress.

Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez, D-N.M., and Kat Cammack, R-Fla., were designated to lead the effort as respective chairs of the Democratic and Republican Women’s Caucuses in the House.

“To state the obvious, all women should feel comfortable and safe working in the halls of Congress,” Johnson said in a statement, adding that he is happy Cammack and Leger Fernandez “will lead this bipartisan partnership to find ways we can continue to make Capitol Hill safer for women and all staff.”

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The bitter divorce between an Ohio congressman and his former wife, the daughter of one of the state’s U.S. senators, has escalated into new legal action.

Republican U.S. Rep. Max Miller filed a defamation lawsuit against Emily Moreno, his one-time spouse, on Wednesday in Cleveland, citing “the considerable reputational and financial harm” caused to him by her accusations that he was “a violent and abusive husband and father.”

Miller, a two-term congressman up for reelection this fall, alleges that Moreno, her attorney Andrew Zashin and his law firm have engaged in a defamatory campaign against him by spreading knowingly false information about him to media outlets including the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, and the New York Post. The action contends that the resulting damage to his reputation undermines his chances of reelection.

Those outlets have “circulation measured in the tens of millions of print and online readership,” the complaint states, and their articles have been read, viewed or discussed by Miller’s constituents, his congressional colleagues, ”his political supporters and donors, the media, and the general public.”

The suit seeks compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, punitive damages sufficient to deter future similar conduct and attorney’s fees.

“Congressman Miller is seeking to hold those responsible accountable and to obtain damages for the significant personal, professional, and political harm that he has suffered,” his spokesman said in a statement.

Zashin declined comment.

The incident brings to mind a similar situation that played out as Miller, a White House aide to President Trump during the Republican’s first term, made his first run for Congress in 2021.

Miller’s former girlfriend, one-time White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, raised allegations in her book and in a Washington Post op-ed at the time that a former White House staffer later identified as Miller had physically abused her while they were dating. Miller responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against her. He voluntarily dismissed the suit with prejudice in August 2023, just before the case was set to go to trial.

Moreno’s spokesperson, Stefan Mychajliw, cited the earlier lawsuit in a statement Thursday.

“Mr. Miller is upset because he’s tried to silence Emily Moreno the same way he silenced Stephanie Grisham — and Emily won’t let him,” he said, suggesting Miller is “running the same playbook against a woman with photographs of her bruises and burns.” He added, “Mr. Miller will not silence Ms. Moreno.”

Miller married Emily Moreno in 2022. They had a daughter in 2023.

He filed for divorce in August 2024, as her father, Bernie, was making a successful run for U.S. Senate backed by Trump. The abuse allegations — most recently, Moreno said Miller threw boiling water at her, an allegation he denies — come amid a messy custody battle that has included Miller seeking a restraining order against his ex-wife and subpoenaing the senator to testify. The divorce was finalized last June.

Miller’s spokesperson provided documentation that several allegations that he had abused his daughter were investigated by the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services and deemed unsubstantiated.

Amid the drama, Democrat Brian Poindexter, a five-term local councilman and union ironworker, is looking to oust Miller and flip Ohio’s 7th Congressional District in November.

Smyth writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) The House on Thursday passed the Cashless Bail Reporting Act, which is intended to deter states and communities from releasing people charged with crimes before trial without paying bail. Ninety-six Democrats joined most Republicans to approve the measure, 308 to 116.

If the Senate were to write a companion bill and pass it, the act could have significant repercussions for the Black, Latino and low-income communities, according to researchers and activists. Advocacy groups also had raised concerns that the bill would lessen states’ rights.

“We have seen state and local governments making reforms to their bail systems in response to the growing body of research which has highlighted the inequities in bail systems, which disproportionately burden racial minorities, women and overwhelmingly the poor,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said in an earlier hearing on the bill

The bill expanded on a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump, “Taking Steps to End Cashless Bail to Protect Americans,” which required the U.S. Attorney General to send a list of states and local jurisdictions that have eliminated cash bail for some crimes that “pose a clear threat to public safety and order.”

These crimes include violent, sexual and indecent acts, and burglary, looting and vandalism. To encourage elimination of cashless bail, the executive order also directed agencies to identify funding to these communities that could be “suspended or terminated.”

The bill would require annual lists of states and communities that allow cashless bail.

“It would be creating a bit of a hit list for different policymakers to attack and to try to pressure those states, counties, localities to change their policies and practices, to avoid … a lot of public safety funding that they get every year from the federal government getting completely gutted,” Nicole Zayas Manzano, deputy director of policy for the Bail Project, a non-profit group that advocates for bail reform and provides bail assistance, said about the lists.

In a Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday, Republicans said the act would lower crime rates.

“We know violent criminals released on cashless or artificially low bail have reoffended,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. voted for the bill, but said it would do little more than track bail practices in states and localities.

“It’s hard to see how issuing a report advances community safety or justice, given the strangely hostile rhetoric we are hearing from our colleagues about cashless bail,” Raskin said in the debate before the vote.

In a 2024 study, the Brennan Center for Justice found that there was “no statistically significant relationship” between cashless bail policies and increases in violent crime.

In the Rules Committee meeting, Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn., referenced the Bail Project, a non-profit organization that pays bail for low-income people who cannot afford it. She claimed that the group put violent offenders back on the street.

“In Indiana, from 2019 to 2021, 24% of the roughly 1,000 defendants cut loose by the Bail Project … had been charged with a crime of violence, so we’re putting violent offenders back on the road. And 35% were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence,” Fischbach said.

The group rejected the congresswoman’s description.

“The cutting loose reference mischaracterizes our work. We only step in after a judge has deemed somebody eligible for release, and it is only the affordability of cash bail that is preventing them from getting out, which is also unconstitutional,” Zayas Manzano said. “Then we really connect them with social services in their own communities.”

Moreover, studies found that cash bail disproportionately harms minorities, notably those in Black, Latino and low-income communities. In 2024, the Criminology & Public Policy Journal reported that Black defendants were 34% more likely to be recommended to be held behind bars until their cases were resolved when compared to white defendants.

Zayas Mazano said people jailed before trial were more likely to pre-emptively plead guilty, receive harsher punishments and end up with worse criminal records.

“Your life also just falls apart once you’re trapped inside, right? You could lose your housing if you can’t go and pay rent. You can lose your job if you’re not able to show up after a certain number of days. You could lose custody of your children. I mean, all kinds of things can really happen, but then just really snowball onto communities of color, in particular, and low-income people in general,” she said.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, 69% of pretrial detainees were people of color, with Black (43%) and Hispanic (19.6%) defendants especially overrepresented compared to their share of the total U.S. population.

“Study after study shows that judges tend to assign people of color higher cash bail amounts and that they are less likely to be able to afford those cash bail amounts. And so they are very often forced into whether or not they must stay behind bars, which we certainly see huge racial disparities in jail, pretrial, and otherwise,” Zayas Manzano said.

During the Rules Committee meeting, Democrats mirrored concerns about the bill passing. Notably, Raskin discussed how the federal court system has functioned on a cashless bail system for about 60 years, instead of making bail decisions based on the danger of flight or violence to others.

“In America, whether you’re a president or a pope or a pauper, you’re innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the charged offense,” Raskin said. “And no one should be detained pretrial simply because they don’t have the financial resources to post bail.”

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to bring a Colombian woman back to the U.S. from Congo, after she was deported to the African nation that had refused to accept her.

The deportation of Adriana Maria Quiroz Zapata “was likely illegal,” U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled Wednesday.

Zapata, 55, who has diabetes and a thyroid condition, “has been sent to a country that refused to accept her because they cannot provide sufficient medical care,” the ruling said. “As a result, she faces a daily risk of medical complications, up to and including death.”

Black spots began to grow on Zapata’s back and foot while she was in detention, her skin started to peel and her nails blackened, according to a declaration that Zapata submitted in court, and which was provided to the AP by her lawyer.

“She’s not doing well and does worry that she’s going to die,” her lawyer, Lauren O’Neal, said.

Zapata entered the U.S. from Mexico in August 2024 and was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. Since being deported, she has lived in a hotel in Kinshasa, Congo’s capital. The hotel gates are locked, O’Neal said. Zapata and other deportees are rarely allowed out, and only with supervision, she said.

Zapata was among thousands of immigrants living legally in the U.S., waiting for rulings on asylum claims, when they were suddenly issued deportation decrees that ordered them expelled to countries where most had no connections.

More than 15,000 third-country deportation orders were issued in the White House push for ever more immigrant expulsions, advocacy groups say, though only a fraction of the orders have been carried out.

Few details are known about the agreements to accept these deportees, though the U.S. has signed them with a range of countries, including Ecuador, Honduras, Uganda, Cameroon and Congo. Advocacy groups estimate only a couple of hundred third-country deportations, at most, have been carried out.

Galofaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The head of U.S. Border Patrol, the agency tasked with securing the nation’s frontiers and increasingly tapped by the Trump administration for immigration operations in American cities, announced his resignation Thursday.

Michael Banks’ decision, announced in a Fox News interview and later confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security, is the latest leadership shake-up of officials implementing President Trump’s immigration crackdown and comes as the Republican administration appears to be recalibrating its approach.

“It’s just time,” Banks was quoted as saying in a report on the Fox News website. “I feel like I got the ship back on course from the least secure disastrous chaotic border to the most secure border this country has ever seen,” he said.

In a statement, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner, Rodney Scott, thanked Banks for his service “during one of the most challenging periods for border security.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear who will replace Banks. He led an agency at the forefront of Trump’s high-profile immigration enforcement efforts but kept a lower profile than some other officials such as Gregory Bovino, a now-retired commander who became a public face of the city operations.

CBP is one of the federal agencies that participated since last year in a series of immigration enforcement operations, carried out primarily in cities governed by Democrats —an effort that triggered a spike in arrests and led to the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis this year at the hands of federal immigration officers.

Banks’ resignation takes place two months after Markwayne Mullin, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma, became homeland security secretary. DHS oversees CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE.

Banks is stepping down at the same time that ICE is also going through a leadership transition. Todd Lyons, the acting ICE director, is leaving later this month and will be replaced by David Venturella, who worked for years for private contractors before returning to government service.

CBP was established in 2003 and handles customs, immigration, and agricultural regulations to secure U.S. borders.

Banks returned to the Border Patrol last year after a long agency career that had never landed him in its senior ranks. His star had risen as border czar to Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, during a period when illegal crossings reached record highs and the state launched a multibillion-dollar enforcement surge that led to turf battles with the Biden administration.

Banks kept a relatively low public profile as arrests for illegal crossings that have plunged to their lowest levels since the mid-1960s, a trend that began toward the end of that Democratic administration.

Banks did not appear publicly at the Border Security Expo this month in Phoenix, an annual conference at which government officials update contractors on the state of the border. Scott, who was Banks’ supervisor, is a close ally of Trump border czar Tom Homan and has acted more as the agency’s public face.

In the interview with Fox News, Banks said that after 37 years, “it’s time to enjoy the family and life.”

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) — Every day at 4 a.m., Cesar wakes up to sell burritos on the streets of Los Angeles. He spends a few hours preparing food in his apartment kitchen and later sets up a small canopy tent with a grill, several coolers and a large sign, made by his sister, advertising “burritos for sale.”

He has done this for the last three weeks, after finding out just over a month ago that he was terminated from his human relations job. He lost the job because of renewal delays to his status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, said Tuesday that 32,000 people have lost their DACA status largely as a result of delays. The Department of Homeland Security has not released data on the number of people waiting for renewals.

More than 500,000 people rely on DACA, according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The program requires recipients to renew their status every two years.

“At first, when I was let go, I was feeling devastated, defeated,” said Cesar, who came to the United States when he was 4 and who did not want his last name used for fear of government retribution. “But, after going through those feelings, I knew I couldn’t just sit there.”

Cesar is one of many DACA recipients who have lost their jobs in recent months due to renewal delays, largely caused by increased vetting procedures. The program requires recipients to renew their status every two years.

The Obama-era immigration program provides work authorization to those who qualify, as well as protection from deportation. When their status expires, DACA recipients lose both protections. Many, like Cesar, now have been terminated from their jobs as a result and fear deportation.

Cesar applied for his renewal in early December, nearly six months ago. Like many others, he has received no communication since from USCIS. Previously, renewal applications took one to two months on average, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Last year, the median processing time was 15 days, according to DHS data.

“In its 14 years, we have certainly seen the DACA program face a whole host of attacks,” said Anabel Mendoza, a spokesperson from United We Dream, a youth-led immigrant network. “But what we’re seeing now is truly the most dangerous moment in DACA’s history.

More than 700 people attended a Zoom event hosted by United We Dream last week to help DACA recipients navigate the instability created by these delays. There was a distinct sense of anxiety among the attendees.

Participants flooded the chat feature of the call with anecdotes of losing solid jobs and questions on whether DACA recipients qualified for paid leave or unemployment.

One attendee wrote that, although he would prefer not to use unemployment, he had been waiting five months to receive his renewal. Like many others, he was worried about his ability to pay off significant bills and loans after losing his job.

One person even questioned whether they could sue the current administration.

Another asked whether they could now be deported, with many worrying whether they may even be detained at their immigration appointments.

The two central benefits of DACA, historically, have been legal protection from deportation and work authorization. However, a recent ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, an arm of the Department of Justice, said that judges can no longer stop deportation proceedings simply based on the plaintiff having DACA status. This marked a significant shift in immigration policy.

Organizers at the event stressed that DACA still protects recipients from deportation, but judges now have to consider DACA cases more closely. They later acknowledged that many DACA recipients were detained and deported by ICE last year, even before the ruling.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons confirmed in April that 343 people with DACA status were detained between January and November 2025, while 176 were deported.

Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement in February that most of these people had “criminal histories.” However she did not specify their crimes or whether they had been arrested, charged or convicted.

“It is part of a broader pattern of really trying to undermine DACA and erode the very protections that the program was meant to uphold,” Mendoza said.

This was a sentiment echoed by Maria Fernanda Madrigal, a mother of three who recently lost her job as an immigration attorney after losing her work permit because of the delays.

In an interview, she questioned whether the delays were an intentional strategy by the Trump administration. She explained that the renewal process had previously been very straightforward for many of her clients — sometimes taking just a week.

“I’m still trying to figure out what the goal is,” Madrigal said. “Because it’s hard, do they want us to leave?”

She highlighted Trump’s attempted termination of the DACA program in 2017 during his first term. The Supreme Court blocked him and preserved the program in 2020.

Now, she wonders whether it may be easier for her and her family to leave the United States. She explained that, unlike their parents, “a lot of us [DACA recipients] have degrees and careers, so we know that we’ll be able to build lives somewhere else.”

Madrigal now keeps the doors of her house locked at all times out of fear of being detained while she awaits her renewal. She said she and her husband have had discussions about whether their small children should share a bed with them.

“If I’m ever detained, these are the moments that I’m going to want, right? I’m going to look back and say I wish I would have cuddled with them a little longer,” Madrigal said.

As Cesar’s new business continues to grow, he faces similar fears, worrying whether he might be “taken away at any moment.”

“I know a lot of people say we’re resilient and we’ll figure it out. And that’s very true,” Madrigal said. “But, I think the main thing that our people understand is, even though we might be able to stick together and get over this, we shouldn’t have to.”

May 14 (UPI) — U.S. consumers spent $757.1 billion on retail and food services in April, a 0.5% increase over March, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday.

For 12 months ending in April, not adjusted for price changes, sales increased by 4.9%. Total sales for February through April increased 4.4% over the same period in 2025.

Gasoline sales climbed 2.8% in April after jumping 13.7% in March.

Retail trade sales increased by 0.5% over March and 5.2% over last year. Non-store retail went up 11.1% for the year. Sales minus gasoline and building materials increased 0.46%.

While retail sales increased in April, they did so at a slower rate than in March, which increased by 1.6% for the month. Yet it was still the third consecutive monthly increase.

Retail sales as a whole grew but several categories experienced declines, including furniture store sales, down 2%, car dealerships, down 0.5%, department stores, down 3.2%, and clothing stores, down 1.5%.

A consumer survey conducted by the University of Michigan found that consumer sentiments are low due to concerns about high prices and current economic conditions. This has caused consumers to hold off on making major purchases, such as furniture and automobiles.

Preparations for a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un appear almost nonexistent on the occasion of Trump’s ongoing visit to China, but the possibility cannot be ruled out, a senior South Korean government said Thursday.

“At this stage, the possibility of a U.S.-North Korea summit cannot be ruled out. However, our understanding is that almost no preparations have been made. We shall have to wait and see,” the foreign ministry official said on the chances of a meeting between Trump and Kim.

Trump traveled to Beijing on Wednesday for a three-day visit, marking his first trip to China since November 2017. He and Xi last met in person in Busan, South Korea, in late October on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

The U.S. president has repeatedly expressed his desire to reengage with Kim despite concerns about Pyongyang’s advancing nuclear and missile programs.

Trump held three in-person meetings with Kim during his first term — the first in Singapore in February 2018, the second in Hanoi in February 2019 and the last one at the inter-Korean truce village of Panmunjom in June that year.

The Seoul official noted there can “always be unpredictable developments” regarding summit meetings involving Trump. “Since the visit has already begun, we will have to watch closely.”

Regarding the U.S.-China summit, the official said South Korea has received relatively detailed explanations of the meeting from both Washington and Beijing.

The ministry official also said Seoul and Washington have been in consultations over security issues behind the scenes, including South Korea’s bid to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, and uranium enrichment and reprocessing capabilities, despite delays in formal meetings due to scheduling issues on both sides.

“There will be significant progress before the U.S. midterm elections,” the official said.

Regarding the resumed “shuttle diplomacy” between the leaders of South Korea and Japan, the official suggested another summit could take place in the near future.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Ahead of President Trump’s arrival in Beijing on Wednesday for his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, longtime China expert Kurt M. Campbell offered a novel way of watching the two leaders’ high-stakes faceoff. Think of it not as nation-versus-nation or army-versus-army, but as the sort of “single combat” celebrated in ancient literature, along the lines of David and Goliath in the Bible or Achilles and Hector in “The Iliad.”

“This one has the feel of a geopolitical heavyweight matchup,” Campbell, chairman of the Asia Group strategic consulting firm, wrote in Foreign Affairs this week.

Unlike in their initial get-together early in Trump’s first term, both men now are seasoned leaders in their separate ways — Xi an unchallenged dictator, and an envious Trump seeking to be. Both act with few immediate checks on their power, though Xi acts strategically and Trump impulsively and transactionally. And both, as leaders of super-powers, have the capability to shape the economic and security fates of a wary world.

That world, Campbell concluded in his essay, is “eager to see whether the two leaders emerge driving together in the chariot, or with one dragging the other behind,” as Achilles did the vanquished Hector.

However the Trump-Xi meeting ends, Trump is no Achilles going into this match. In fact, in the six decades of U.S.-China relations, perhaps no American president has entered the summit arena in a weaker position than Trump, the would-be strongman and artiste of the deal. Worse, his weakness — and by extension his country’s — is mostly self-inflicted.

Trump had postponed what was intended as an early April meeting in hopes of striding triumphantly into Beijing as the conqueror of Iran, a China ally. Instead China is receiving him as a “giant with a limp,” in the phrase of its Communist Party-controlled Global Times newspaper.

Trump’s Mideast war, the sort he’d promised never to start, lingers for a third month in a costly stalemate — $29 billion and counting — that has humiliated the president in the public words of Germany’s chancellor and the private thoughts of many more global leaders, Xi likely among them. Trump can’t “project the same arrogance” as he did visiting China in 2017, a former Chinese army officer, Yue Gang, told the New York Times.

At home, the conflict has caused gasoline prices and inflation to spike while tanking Trump’s already depressed polls. A newly released CNN poll conducted April 30 to May 4 had 65% of Americans disapproving of his overall job performance and a whopping 70% against his handling of the economy — the issue that arguably got him elected. With experience, American consumers and soybean farmers now know that they, not the Chinese, have paid for Trump’s beloved tariffs.

The president’s standing at home could hardly have been helped by his parting words to reporters at the White House. Asked “to what extent are Americans’ financial situation motivating you to make a deal” with Iran, Trump blithely replied, “Not even a little bit.” He added, in the sort of political gaffe that journalist Michael Kinsley defined as telling the truth: “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

He’s already a loser in the negotiations with Xi. For weeks the Trump administration has unsuccessfully urged China to use its leverage to goad Iran to accept a peace on Americans’ terms or, at a minimum, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, given China’s self-interest as Iran’s biggest oil customer by far. As China scholar Henrietta Levin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Associated Press, “I don’t think China has any interest in solving the problems the U.S. has created for itself in the Middle East.”

Not least, perhaps, because China has seen that, by the Pentagon’s own reckoning, the war has depleted U.S. stockpiles of weaponry after thousands upon thousands of strikes against Iran. And that has further raised questions in China and beyond about whether Trump would have the United States come to the defense of Taiwan, the self-governing, U.S.-armed island that China claims as its own.

After all, the thinking goes, if the United States can’t bring a lesser power like Iran quickly to heel, how might it fare against a near-peer such as China, especially with a diminished U.S. arsenal and Mideast distractions?

It’s mostly a mystery what the leaders’ talks might yield. In a break with diplomatic tradition, though not with Trump’s seat-of-the-pants style, apparently little planning went into this super-power summit — another reflection of a distracted U.S. side. Still, with a number of tech, agribusiness, finance and aerospace chieftains in tow, Trump and his team are hoping for a few politically appealing deliverables, such as sales of U.S. soybeans and Boeing aircraft, to give the president a lift back home.

But don’t look for progress on the longstanding issues dividing the United States and China over trade and military dominance in the Pacific region. And as for another of those perennial issues — climate change and clean-energy technology — the U.S. under Trump has willfully surrendered global preeminence to China, ceding markets for solar, wind energy, electric vehicles, grid storage and more in his backward-looking, ostrich-like obsession with drilling oil and mining coal.

Whatever hyperbolic claims Trump makes for his China trip, the outcome of the summit (on top of his quagmire in Iran) should at least be this: retiring the myth of Trump the deal-maker and savvy businessman.

If he were such a visionary, Trump would be prodding the nation to global leadership in technology and clean-energy investments, not reversing past progress and paying companies billions of taxpayers’ dollars to stop clean-energy projects. In markets worldwide, the future is now and America is forfeiting the game to China.

In this contest, Trump is letting Xi drive the chariot. Unfortunately, average Americans are the ones being dragged through the dust as China rides into the 21st century.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democratic legislation that would halt President Trump’s war with Iran, but the number of GOP senators voting against the war grew.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against the war for the first time since it began at the end of February. Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against the war, as they had done previously.

The war powers legislation ultimately failed to advance 49-50, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to oppose it, yet the close tally reflected growing unease with Trump’s war. Several other Republican senators have signaled they want Congress to weigh in on the direction of the conflict.

“There will be a day — and it might be soon, I believe — where this Senate will say to the president, ‘Stop this war,’” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has spearheaded his party’s tactic of forcing repeated votes on the war, said before the vote.

Even if it passes the Senate, a war powers resolution would have a slim chance of passing the House and would also certainly be vetoed by Trump. But Democrats say the votes are about building political pressure on the president either to withdraw from the conflict or seek congressional authorization to wage the war.

Trump officials downplay role for Congress

The White House, meanwhile, has asserted that it does not need congressional authorization for the war and has circumvented legal requirements to gain approval from Congress to continue the military campaign. It claims that it has “terminated” hostilities with Iran because the U.S. has entered a ceasefire.

That posture has created tension between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House because presidents under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are required to obtain authorization from Congress after 60 days of engaging in a conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers this week that the U.S. could start attacking Iran again without the White House seeking congressional approval. He told Murkowski during a hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration believes it has “all the authorities necessary.”

Murkowski voiced skepticism about that argument. She pointed to the troops and war ships deployed to the region, saying, “It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended.”

GOP leaders back the war, but unease grows

Republican leadership has continued to back the war with Iran, arguing that the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz that has blocked most commercial shipping puts more economic pressure on Iran than it does on the U.S.

“Iran’s economy is on life support. Its leadership is eliminated,” said Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican in leadership, during a floor speech Wednesday.

He also argued that the Democratic effort on the war is all about undermining Trump. Forcing the issue just as he arrived in China for a summit would “pull out the rug from under him,” Barrasso said.

Still, Republicans are also growing uneasy about the high gas prices, especially as the November elections draw near.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, said Wednesday he’d prefer that the two branches of government work out the constitutional issues instead of a congressional war powers vote or a potential challenge in court.

The two sides should sit down together and say “we have shared constitutional responsibilities,” Rounds said.

Democrats plan to keep forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions and are looking ahead to put limitations on Trump during the debate over annual legislation that authorizes and funds the military.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sponsored Wednesday’s resolution, told reporters that he believes there is an “erosion of support, erosion of enthusiasm, an increase in skepticism” about the war from Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

May 13 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Wednesday evening against D.C. disciplinary officials who recommended Jeffrey Clark be disbarred over his efforts to overturn 2020 election results, the latest move by the Trump administration to defend allies accused of helping President Donald Trump remain in power after that election loss.

The lawsuit in a federal court in D.C. alleges the disciplinary officials used their powers to punish lawyers over what federal prosecutors describe as “internal Executive Branch deliberations” in order to regulate federal government actions.

“Weaponizing state bar discipline against Executive Branch attorneys in this way chills them from giving candid legal advice to others in the Executive Branch, including the president and attorney general,” the lawsuit states.

“To permit these proceedings is to allow state bar authorities to control the Executive Branch. That is not the law.”

Clark was an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department following Trump’s 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, and urged Justice Department officials to issue a letter he wrote casting doubt on election results, according to congressional investigators and D.C. disciplinary officials.

The letter specifically targeted the results in Georgia, a swing state Trump lost to Biden by 11,779 votes, alleging a Justice Department investigation had uncovered election “irregularities” despite Attorney General William Barr having already announced there was no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud in the election prior to his resignation.

Clark had prepared the letter to be signed by Barr’s replacement, then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, the second highest-ranking Justice Department lawyer, both of whom refused because they knew its contents were untrue.

Clark continued to push for the Justice Department to issue the letter, which he intended to be used as a template to be sent to other states. Amid the political turmoil, Trump considered appointing Clark as attorney general — a move Clark encouraged so he could launch nationwide investigations to uncover unfounded claims of election issues.

Trump abandoned the idea of appointing Clark only after being informed doing so would cause mass resignations among Justice Department leadership.

The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel opened its investigation into Clark’s actions after Sen. Dick Durbin, as then-chairman of the committee, asked it to probe his “serious violations of professional conduct.”

The D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility in July recommended that Clark be disbarred in D.C., stating that “when a lawyer attempts to make intentional false statements on an issue that the lawyer understands to be a ‘pressing matter of overriding national importance,’ or knowing that the false statement would have serious and far-ranging consequences, they deserve the ultimate sanction.”

A final judgment has not yet been issued in the case.

The Justice Department on Wednesday asked the court to quash the D.C. disciplinary proceedings against Clark, and alleged they violate the Supremacy Clause and Article II of the Constitution by arguing that Clark was acting as a federal government employee who cannot be punished for performing Executive Branch duties.

Federal prosecutors also frame the issue as involving internal discussions. They said Clark attempted to persuade his superiors to issue a draft letter “that he felt reflected the actual law and facts about the 2020 election.”

“D.C. disciplinary authorities may not punish a United States official for disagreeing with a superior or coworker or for sharing an opinion just because those disciplinary authorities disagree with it,” the filing states.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also accused the D.C. Bar of being “a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes,” accusing it of being weaponized.

“The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree, and federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues,” he said in a statement.

Clark was never charged in federal court in connection with his role in the alleged scheme, but he, Trump and 17 others were indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges. The case was dismissed after the prosecutor appointed following Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ removal declined to pursue the charges.

Other Trump allies accused of aiding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election have also been sanctioned in D.C., including Rudy Giuliani, who was disbarred in D.C. and New York, and John Eastman, whose D.C. law license was suspended on an interim basis after he was disbarred in California.

Wednesday’s lawsuit is the latest action by the federal government aiding those who supported Trump’s false election claims.

On Trump’s first day in office, he issued clemency to the roughly 1,500 people charged or convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

He also issued pardons to Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Sidney Powell and many others accused of aiding his efforts.

May 13 (UPI) — The remains of a second U.S. soldier who went missing during exercises in Morocco earlier this month have been recovered, the U.S. military said Wednesday evening, ending a joint U.S.-Morocco search.

The remains of Spc. Mariyah Symone Collington, 19, of Tavares, Fla., were located and retrieved Tuesday from a coastal cave roughly 1,640 feet from where she and 27-year-old 1st Lt. Kendrick Lamont Key Jr. are believed to have fallen into the ocean, U.S. Army Europe and Africa said.

Key’s remains were located and recovered Saturday.

“The loss of Spc. Collington is a profound loss for the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command,” Brig. Gen. Curtis King, commanding general of the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, said in a statement.

“Her recovery closes the search for our two missing soldiers, but our commitment to caring for their families, friends and teammates continues. We are grateful to the U.S. and Moroccan forces for their professionalism and support throughout the search.”

Key and Collington went missing May 2 near the Cap Draa Training Area, a coastal military training site near Tan-Tan, located in southwestern Morocco about 342 miles southwest of Marrakech, where they were participating in African Lion 26, this year’s iteration of the U.S. military’s largest Africa-based exercise.

Their disappearance was not related to active training. Military officials believe they fell into the Atlantic Ocean near cliffs during a recreational hike. They were reported missing the night of May 2 after a base-wide head count, prompting a joint U.S.-Moroccan search.

U.S. military officials said Collington’s remains were transported via helicopter by the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces to the morgue of Moulay El Hassan Military Hospital in Guelmim, about 80 miles northeast of Tan-Tan.

Moroccan and U.S. forces conducted a “dignified carry” at the military airport in Guelmim on Tuesday, and the remains of Key and Collington have departed Morocco for the United States, USAREUR-AF said.

“Spc. Collington was a bright light in this battalion,” said Lt. Col. Chris Couch, the 5-4 ADAR battalion commander.

“To the soldiers who knew her best and served alongside her each day, she was a treasured friend whose loss leaves a deep and profound void on our team.”

SAN SALVADOR — The number of people deported to El Salvador from the U.S. nearly doubled in the first months of 2026, according to official figures, coming as Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has positioned himself as an ally willing to help the Trump administration accelerate deportations, a central priority.

The U.S. deported 5,033 Salvadorans back to their country in the first three months of 2026 compared with 2,547 deportees in the same period in 2025, according to El Salvador migration authority figures obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday.

That marks nearly a 98% increase at the same time that the Trump administration has boosted deportation flights across the world. Globally, deportation flights from the U.S. rose an estimated 61% between 2024 and 2025, according to data compiled by the Asociación Agenda Migrante El Salvador, or AAMES, and other organizations.

The U.S. has stopped regularly releasing deportation data, so experts instead are relying on other information from countries such as El Salvador, deportation flights and other numbers.

The sharp increase in deportations “confirms a real hardening of the U.S. immigration system toward the region,” said César Ríos of AAMES.

The jump comes as Bukele, a tough-on-crime politician, has sought to align himself with President Trump, and the U.S. government has lined up allies across Latin America to help the Republican carry out his agenda. While Mexico and other Central American nations have quietly accepted deportees from third countries, Bukele has boldly embraced Trump’s efforts in Latin America.

In March 2025, Bukele most notably accepted 238 Venezuelan deportees accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and locked them up in a mega-prison built for accused gang members in the Salvadoran leader’s ongoing offensive on domestic gangs. The incident fueled widespread accusations of human rights abuses.

The geopolitical firestorm came after Trump’s government struck a deal with Bukele to accept what they described as transfer and imprisonment of foreign criminals to El Salvador. Under the agreement, El Salvador would receive $6 million from the U.S.

In March 2025, the Trump administration mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland resident and Salvadoran citizen with protected status in the U.S., setting off yet another legal and political controversy. Bukele originally refused to return Abrego García and denied accusations of beating and torture — which have been widely documented by human rights groups in Salvadoran prisons.

He was returned to the U.S. in June to face charges that he helped bring immigrants to the U.S. illegally, something his lawyers call “baseless.” Abrego García has pleaded not guilty and asked a judge to dismiss his case as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that it hoped to deport Abrego García to Liberia.

Even more recently, Bukele joined a coalition of other right-leaning Trump allies in a group of countries that the Republican president dubbed the Shield of the Americas, purportedly aimed at cracking down on criminal groups in Latin America, even though the two most essential countries in that effort — Mexico and Colombia — refused to attend.

Meanwhile, many migrants in the U.S. are turning their eyes on U.S. Supreme Court arguments as Trump seeks to stop shielding hundreds of thousands of migrants from Haiti and Syria, a decision many of the more than 200,000 Salvadoran migrants with temporary protections worry might eventually affect them.

Bukele has helped the U.S. with its immigration agenda even before Trump entered office.

In 2023, El Salvador’s government began to slap a $1,130 fee on travelers from dozens of countries connecting through the nation’s main airport, amid pressure from the Biden administration to help control the number of migrants moving toward the United States’ southern border. At the same time, migration from El Salvador, fueled by gang violence and poverty, dipped after Bukele’s contentious war on the gangs.

Analysts said that Bukele’s government used dips in migration as a bargaining chip to offset human rights criticisms by the U.S.

Alemán and Janetsky write for the Associated Press. Janetsky reported from Mexico City.