More stories

  • in

    Court overrides Trump officials’ rollback and blocks fishing in Pacific Islands monument

    A federal judge in Hawaii has ruled that commercial fishing is illegal in the Pacific Islands Heritage marine national monument, a federally protected area in the central Pacific Ocean.The decision from judge Micah WJ Smith overturns an April letter released by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) – also known as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) Fisheries – that allowed fishing in parts of the monument that Barack Obama had protected during his presidency. The letter came about a week after Donald Trump’s presidential proclamation to reverse fishing regulations across the national monument, a world heritage site that includes archeological treasures, marine mammals, seabirds and coral reefs.Regulations banning commercial fishing in the area remain in effect, according to Friday’s ruling. The court said “no commercial fishing operators may reasonably rely on” the April letter, meaning fishing in waters 50 to 200 nautical miles around Johnston Atoll, Jarvis Island, and Wake Island must halt immediately.“The Fisheries Service cannot ignore our perspectives as the native people who belong to the islands and to the ocean that surrounds us,” said Solomon Pili Kaho’ohalahala, founding member of the non-profit group Kāpaʻa, the Conservation Council for Hawaii and the Center for Biological Diversity. “The law guarantees a process where we can advocate for protecting the generations of our children’s children who are yet to be born.”The environmental conservation group Earthjustice, representing the non-profits in Hawaii, filed its lawsuit in May and argued NMFS violated federal law by bypassing the formal process for changing fishing rules, which requires public notice and comment.“The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration’s outrageous claim that it can dismantle vital protections for the monument’s unique and vulnerable species and ecosystems without involving the public,” Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said.Then president George W Bush created the marine monument in 2009. It consists of about 500,000 sq miles (1.3m sq km) in the remote central Pacific Ocean south-west of Hawaii. Obama expanded it in 2014.As part of his push to make the US the “world’s dominant seafood leader”, Trump called the regulations “so horrible and so stupid” – and claimed they force US fishers “to go and travel four to seven days to go and fish in an area that’s not as good”.The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument is about 370,000 sq nautical miles (1,270,000 sq km), or nearly twice the size of the state of Texas. It is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Noaa and the defense department. The monument is home to one of the largest collections of deep ocean coral reef, seabird, and shorebird protected areas on the planet. It provides refuge for species threatened by the climate crisis and other stressors caused by humans.Kingman Reef, considered one of the most pristine coral reefs in US waters, is also part of the monument. Unesco reports it has the highest proportion of apex predators of any studied coral reef worldwide.Its waters are home to several shark species, including grey reef, oceanic whitetip, hammerhead and silky sharks, all of which play an important role in maintaining ecological balance.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlong with the ecological value, the islands and ocean areas in and adjacent to the monument hold great value to Indigenous Pacific Islanders and researchers. The lawsuit says allowing commercial fishing in the monument expansion would harm the “cultural, spiritual, religious, subsistence, educational, recreational, and aesthetic interests” of a group of Native Hawaiian plaintiffs who are connected genealogically to the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific.“This is a huge win for the Pacific’s irreplaceable marine life and for the rule of law,” Maxx Phillips, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said about Friday’s ruling. “These sacred and irreplaceable ecosystems are home to endangered species, deep-sea corals, and rich cultural heritage.”Associated Press contributed to this report More

  • in

    Trump orders homeless he passed en route to golf course to leave Washington DC

    In a social media post on Sunday, Donald Trump demands homeless residents of Washington DC leave the country’s capital or face eviction, and again promised to use federal officers to jail criminals, even though violent crime in the city was at a 30-year low when he took office in January.“The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Sunday morning, shortly after being driven from the White House to his golf club in Virginia. “We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.”View image in fullscreenThe post was illustrated with four photographs, all apparently taken from the president’s motorcade along the route from the White House to his golf course. Two of the images showed a total of 10 tents pitched on the grass along a highway on-ramp just over a mile from the White House. The third image showed a single person sleeping on the steps of the American Institute of Pharmacy Building on Constitution Avenue. The fourth image showed the line of vehicles that whisk Trump to his golf course passing a small amount of roadside litter on the E Street Expressway, near the Kennedy Center.Trump’s post promoted a previously announced news conference on Monday, which he has promised, “will, essentially, stop violent crime” in the capital district, without explaining how. In a subsequent post, he said that the news conference at 10am Monday, “will not only involve ending the Crime, Murder, and Death in our Nation’s Capital, but will also be about Cleanliness”.The Free DC movement, which advocates for self-determination, immediately scheduled a protest on Monday to coincide with Trump’s news conference.Despite Trump’s claims, there is no epidemic of homelessness or violent crime in the capital.According to the Community Partnership, which works to prevent homelessness in Washington DC, on any given night there are about 800 unsheltered persons sleeping outdoors in the city of about 700,000 people. A further 3,275 people use emergency shelters in Washington, and 1,065 people are in transitional housing facilities.Trump’s repeated claims that it might be necessary to federalize law enforcement in the city to make it safe also ignores data collected by the Metropolitan police department, released in January by the federal government, which showed that violent crime in Washington DC in 2024 was down 35% from 2023 and was at the lowest level in over 30 years.“We are not experiencing a crime spike,” Washington DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, told MSNBC on Sunday. “We have spent over the last two years driving down violent crime in this city, driving it down to a 30-year low.” She added that Washington DC police statistics show that violent crime is down a further 26% so far this year.“Federal law enforcement is always on the street in DC, and we always work cooperatively with them” Bowser said, adding the the Washington DC national guard, which Trump has threatened to deploy, is under the control of the president.Earlier this week, Trump ordered a surge of federal officers from a variety of agencies to increase patrols in Washington DC, pointing to the assault on a young federal worker who came to Washington to work with Elon Musk as evidence that the city’s police force was failing to combat violent crime. Washington DC police, however, had stopped the assault Trump focused attention on, and arrested two 15-year-old suspects at the scene.Asked by Reuters, the White House declined to explain what legal authority Trump would use to evict people from Washington. The president controls only federal land and buildings in the city.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US Congress has control of the city’s budget but the DC Home Rule Act, signed into law in 1973 by Richard Nixon, gives Washington DC residents the right to elect the mayor, council members, and neighborhood commissioners to run day-to-day affairs in the district.Trump told reporters on Wednesday that White House lawyers were “already studying” the possibility of legislation to overturn the law granting the Washington DC self-rule and imposing direct federal control of the capital.“Even if crime in D.C. weren’t at a historic low point, President Trump’s comments would be misguided and offensive to the more than 700,000 people who live permanently in the nation’s capital,” Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents DC as a nonvoting delegate in congress said in a statement. “D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and brown, are worthy and capable of governing themselves without interference from federal officials who are unaccountable to D.C.”“The only permanent remedy that will protect D.C.’s ability to govern itself is enactment of my D.C. statehood bill into law,” the 88-year-old congresswoman added.Reuters contributed reporting More

  • in

    Texas redistricting fight with Democrats ‘could last years’, threatens Greg Abbott

    Texas governor, Greg Abbott, has stepped up his war of words with Democratic lawmakers who have left the state to foil an aggressive redistricting plan aimed at giving his Republican party five additional seats in Congress, saying on Sunday that the fight “could literally last years”.Abbott issued his new threat on Fox News Sunday, saying that he would use his powers to call a special session of the Texas legislature to extend the battle indefinitely. The special session lasts 30 days, he said, “and as soon as this one is over, I’m going to call another one, then another one, then another one, then another one”.Whenever the absent Democrats return to Texas, Abbott said, they would be arrested for violating their oath of office. “If they want to evade that arrest, they’re going to stay outside Texas for literally years,” he remarked. “And they might as well start voting in California or Illinois, or wherever they may be.”Sunday’s TV political talk shows were dominated by the increasingly acrimonious dispute over Texas’s audacious gerrymandering plans which were instigated at the direct behest of Donald Trump.The move to flip five US House seats to the Republicans is being made as polls indicate that the US president’s party will struggle to hang on to its razor-slim majority in the chamber in next year’s midterm elections. The Republicans currently hold a margin of just three seats.The stakes could not be higher: were Trump able to hang onto his narrow control of Congress, he could cement the attacks on democratic and constitutional norms that he has begun in the first six months of his second presidency.As the crisis reaches a crunch, more than 50 Texas Democrats have left the state, heading to Democratically-controlled states, including Illinois and New York. The relocation is designed to deprive Republicans of a quorum needed to pass the new gerrymandered maps in the Texas legislature in Austin.Democratic governors went on the political shows on Sunday to launch their own barrage of words threatening counter-action. The strong language deployed was the latest indication that the leadership of the Democratic party, which has floundered in the face of Trump’s radical authoritarian-leaning tactics, is determined at this point to take a stand.New York’s Democratic governor Kathy Hochul accused Abbott on Fox News Sunday of being a “lap dog” for Trump. “Knock it off,” she told her counterpart in Texas. “Let’s get back to governing.”She added that if Texas continued with what she called “these games”, “we’re not going to sit on the sidelines – we’re New Yorkers. We fight back.”New York’s room for maneuver, however, is more limited than that of Texas. The state has an independent redistricting commission that oversees the drawing of its electoral maps which has been the subject in recent years of much court action.Hochul said that the restrictions would not hold New York back. “We amend constitutions – we did it a few years ago,” she said. “We can put it to the people. I’m not going to let our democracy be eroded away because there’s a blatant power grab in our nation’s capital.”JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois where many of the Texas Democrats are holed up in an undisclosed hotel outside Chicago, unleashed his own verbal volley on NBC’s Meet the Press. He accused Trump of being a cheater, saying: “He cheats on his wives. He cheats at golf. And now he’s trying to cheat the American people out of their votes.”Pritzker was dismissive of claims by Texas US senator John Cornyn that the FBI had been brought in to help find the missing Democrats. “Texas law does not apply in the state of Illinois, and there’s no federal law that would allow the FBI to arrest anybody that’s here visiting our state,” Pritzker said. “So, it’s a lot of grandstanding.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs the governors were thrashing it out in the TV studios, lawsuits continued to fly around Texas’s courts as both sides seek to gain the upper hand legally. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton is suing a sample group of 13 of the Democratic lawmakers claiming that the “runaways” have officially vacated their offices.Paxton is now asking the state’s supreme court to remove the 13 from their seats.Beto O’Rourke, the former Democratic presidential candidate from El Paso, Texas, has also waded into the fray. On Friday, a state court in Fort Worth blocked his political action committee, Powered By People, from using its funds to support the fleeing lawmakers.O’Rourke has counter-sued, arguing that Paxton was trying to “intimidate” a potential rival in next year’s US senate race. Speaking at an event in New Orleans on Friday, he accused the Republicans of being “would-be fascists” and warned that if they got away with their plan to maintain power in Congress in 2026 “the consolidation of authoritarian control in the hands of Donald Trump will be nearly unstoppable”.Trump’s ruse to create more winnable congressional seats is being taken so seriously in Democratic circles that it has gelled even die-hard opponents of party political gerrymandering to come out in favor of counter measures. Bernie Sanders, the independent US senator from Vermont, is a fierce critic of the redrawing of electoral maps for partisan benefit.Yet he told CNN’s State of the Union that the Democratic party had no option but to fight fire with fire, saying: “Democrats have got to fight back. I think it’s pathetic, but I think that’s what they’ve got to do.”Asked whether that his position was defensible, given his years of opposing gerrymandering, Sanders said: “What we have now is terrible, and Republicans are making it worse. Well, what do you do if Republicans are doing it? You have to respond. It’s pathetic, but I think you have to respond.” More

  • in

    Confusion over the Alaska summit shows Vladimir Putin still calls the shots

    In the five months since Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy met at the Oval Office in late February, Ukrainian officials have worked hard to repair the damage of that day, which ended with the Ukrainian president being kicked out of the White House.With advice from European allies, Zelenskyy recalibrated his strategy for dealing with the Trump administration, and there was a feeling it was broadly going well. “We managed to reset communications, to find a new language to work with Trump,” said one senior official in Kyiv a week ago.It has also seemed as if Trump’s rhetoric was finally shifting, as he termed Russia’s bombing of Ukrainian cities “disgusting” in recent weeks and set Vladimir Putin a deadline of last Friday to stop the war or face the imposition of crippling new sanctions.Then came envoy Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow last Wednesday. Putin appears to have made no major concessions during the three-hour Kremlin meeting, and in return was rewarded not with debilitating sanctions but with an invitation to meet Trump in Alaska. The offer to thrash out a Ukrainian peace deal at a bilateral summit with Trump represents exactly the sort of great-power deal-making Putin has always craved. It will be his first trip to the US since 2007, with the exception of visits to the UN.Exactly how the Alaska summit will look is still unclear, with a particularly Trumpian kind of confusion and chaos accompanying its announcement. Kyiv, European capitals and even Trump’s own staff have been trying to understand what exactly was agreed in the Kremlin.The first announcements from the White House suggested Putin would meet Trump, followed by a three-way meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy. This was swiftly denied by Putin. As he put it, “we are still far from creating the conditions” for a meeting with Zelenskyy. An aide denied that the Russian side had ever agreed to a three-way meeting.A White House source told the New York Post on Thursday that if Putin did not agree to meet Zelenskyy, the meeting with Trump would not go ahead. But a few hours later, Trump denied that: he was happy to meet Putin anyway. The back-and-forth gave the distinct impression, not for the first time, that in the relationship between Trump and Putin, it is the Russian president who calls the shots.View image in fullscreenSome administration officials later briefed US media outlets that they may invite Zelenskyy anyway, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said in a Sunday interview he “hopes and assumes” that Zelenskyy will take part. For now, this does not seem likely. A senior White House official told NBC that Trump was “open” to a trilateral summit, but was “focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by president Putin”.As worrying for Kyiv as the planned format of the talks is the apparent Russian deal now on the table. The plan, as it has been reported after filtering through the Trump administration and then to European capitals, is that the Ukrainian army should unilaterally withdraw from the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk it still controls, which would presumably include the fortified military stronghold of Kramatorsk. In exchange, the Kremlin would agree to freeze the lines in other places.“Ukrainians will not give their land to occupiers,” Zelenskyy said over the weekend, adding that handing over land to Russia would violate the Ukrainian constitution. He said any deal done without Ukraine was destined to be “stillborn”.Zelenskyy’s public posture that Ukraine will never cede land is true up to a point. Kyiv is unlikely to renounce legal claims to its own territory, but the Ukrainian elite and much of Ukrainian society is increasingly ready for a deal that would recognise Russian de facto control, perhaps for a set period of time, in exchange for ending the fighting.The main problem with such a deal has always been what kind of guarantees Ukraine would receive that Russia would not simply use a ceasefire as time to regroup before attacking again. Brief discussions earlier this year about a European peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire were quickly scaled back to a “reassurance force” stationed far from the frontlines. Ukrainians would therefore have not much to rely on but Putin’s word, which they have learned from experience not to trust.Even still, there is a significant camp in the Ukrainian political and military elite who believe that, after more than three years of war, the situation has become so dire that the country is obliged to take such a deal, simply to allow for a pause in the fighting.The problem for Kyiv is the deal Putin apparently pitched to Witkoff is significantly worse than simply freezing the lines. “As things stand, Ukraine and Europe are on the verge of being confronted with exactly the kind of Faustian deal they feared would emerge back in February,” Sam Greene, a professor at King’s College London, wrote on X.Over the past few days, Zelenskyy and his team have been rallying support among European leaders and trying to put together an alternative, European plan. Unfortunately for Kyiv, previous experience suggests Trump is unwilling or unable to exert real pressure on Putin.“If Putin and Trump reach an agreement directly, Europe will be faced with a fait accompli. Kyiv – even more so,” said Roman Alekhin, a Russian war blogger, on Sunday. It is exactly that prospect Ukraine’s leadership will be doing their utmost to prevent in the days before Friday’s summit. More

  • in

    Pam Bondi fired him for prosecuting January 6 rioters. He’d do it again: ‘it’s about justice’

    When he showed up to work on 27 June, Mike Gordon was having one of the best weeks of his career.Gordon, a federal prosecutor in Tampa, had spent the last month working on a complex case involving allegations that well-known businessman Leo Govoni stole $100m from a fund for children with special needs. That Monday, the US attorney for the middle district of Florida held a press conference announcing an indictment in the case. On Wednesday, Gordon had his semi-annual performance review and received the top rating: outstanding. On Thursday, he appeared on behalf of the government in court and successfully convinced a judge that Govoni should remain in jail until his trial.As the end of the day rolled around on Friday 27 June, Gordon was fired.He wasn’t given a reason for his dismissal. An office assistant simply knocked on his door while he was preparing a witness for trial, and handed him a letter that told him he was being immediately fired “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States”, signed by the US attorney general, Pam Bondi. Gordon was told to turn in his devices, pack up his things and leave. The firing was so abrupt he had no chance to hand over his work to colleagues.Even without an official explanation, there was little doubt why he was fired. From 2021 until the end of 2023, Gordon had volunteered for the team prosecuting people involved in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. During his time working in a unit called the Capitol siege section, Gordon became known as one of the most skilled trial litigators and became a kind of coach to other prosecutors as they prepared for trials.But on his first day in office, Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to anyone involved in January 6.“I got fired because I prosecuted people that this administration wanted protected. Bottom line,” Gordon said.Trump has made no secret of his desire to exact revenge on those who investigated and prosecuted him and his allies. Scores of career prosecutors have been fired for getting in the president’s political crosshairs. Gordon’s firing is one of the best examples to date of how Trump is executing that promise and purging the justice department. It’s an attack on a fundamental pillar of the rule of law – that prosecutors should make decisions about whether and how they should bring cases without political concerns.View image in fullscreenEven though January 6 was one of the most explosive political events in recent history, Gordon said he never had any conversations with a supervisor in which they discussed the political ramifications of what they were doing. The political implications “didn’t matter”, he said.“What we did discuss was the importance we saw in protecting democracy and prosecuting these cases. And creating the precedent and the deterrence that political violence was unacceptable. Full stop,” he said. “And that was worth doing no matter what. It’s why I still think all these prosecutions were worth doing. Even after the pardons, even after my own firing.”The mass firings of career prosecutors is “unprecedented”, said Max Stier, the CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a watchdog group.“There’s enormous discretion that prosecutors have, and there is a tradition that it’s not about winning, it’s about doing justice, and we’re watching that tradition change into it’s neither about winning or doing justice, but it’s doing the bidding of President Trump,” he said.Two other prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases were fired on the same day. Their dismissals came after Ed Martin, a prominent defense lawyer for January 6 defendants, launched a “weaponization working group” at the Department of Justice.Gordon and others who work with him aren’t sure why he and two other colleagues were singled out among hundreds of career prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. The justice department did not return a request for comment on his firing.One theory is that Gordon was targeted because he took on some of the most high-profile cases, including that of Richard Barnett, who was photographed with his feet on a desk in Nancy Pelosi’s office (sentenced to 54 months in prison), Eric Munchel, known as Zip Tie Guy (sentenced to 57 months in prison), and Ray Epps, who became the center of conspiracy theories about January 6.In person, Gordon, who is 47 with salt-and-pepper hair, has a boyishness that belies his intensity as a prosecutor. During an interview at his home in Tampa, where an American flag was flying outside his door, he sat barefoot and in shorts, knees tucked to his chest as he recounted his time working on the January 6 cases and processing his firing.View image in fullscreenLast month, Gordon and two other justice department employees filed a federal lawsuit challenging his dismissal, alleging that they had been wrongfully fired. A litigator in his bones, Gordon has mapped out in his head how he thinks the administration is likely to defend itself. He thinks the case will ultimately be decided by the US supreme court.“I can tell you that I have been contacted plenty of times by colleagues from my former office who tell me that they’re all wondering, am I next? Have I done something that’s going to be on the wrong side of this administration? Am I going to be punished for some other work I’ve done?” he said.Before he was a prosecutor, Gordon taught high school humanities and his voice still carries the boom of someone who can hold the attention of a classroom of teenagers. He does not mix up facts. When I mistakenly said Barnett, one of the defendants he successfully prosecuted, had put his feet on Pelosi’s desk, he politely responded that it had been a desk in her office. And when I repeated what I thought were the names of his two cockapoos – Cereal and Cheerio – he quietly corrected me. “Maple and Cheerio,” he said.Gordon said he saw the January 6 riot unfold on television while he was folding laundry, four years after he joined the justice department. The prosecutor part of his brain quickly kicked in, he said: “I’m watching a crime scene, I’m watching a crime unfold. And there are all these television cameras around, which is really rare.”In the back of his mind, he recalled something that a mentor told him as a newly minted federal prosecutor in 2017. Throughout his whole life, she told him, he had probably seen something that might be a crime and thought “somebody should do something about that”. Now, he was the person who could do something about it.Initially, Gordon, who was working on violent crimes and narcotics cases in the US attorney’s office for the middle district of Florida, thought that he could help on some of the cases if they involved people from around Tampa. But as the federal prosecutor’s office in Washington charged with investigating January 6 began its work, more attorneys were needed and the department sent out a request for more staff. Gordon volunteered and was chosen.Working remotely from Tampa and traveling to Washington for trials, Gordon became one of several prosecutors taking on cases as they were randomly assigned. In 2022, one of the cases he prosecuted was Kyle Fitzsimons, a 39-year-old man from Maine who wore a white butcher’s jacket and fur pelt, and carried an unstrung bow, and who assaulted five law enforcement officers in a span of about five minutes. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison.Gordon’s performance got the attention of his supervisors and he earned a reputation as a skilled trial litigator. He was put on more trials on some of the more high-profile cases the department was prosecuting. He eventually got a new title – “senior trial counsel” – and would work with lawyers in the Capitol siege section to go over their briefs, help them prepare arguments and go to trial.“I felt the weight of the responsibility to do it well and do it right,” he said. Taking a long pause, he added: “I felt passionate about the righteousness of what we were doing.“I welcome the scrutiny. I’m well aware of the irony that it’s those kinds of things that are probably why I’m unemployed now, probably why I was fired, because I did take on those higher-profile things and this is the risk that sort of comes with it.”“I mean, he worked his ass off,” said Gregory Rosen, Gordon’s boss, and the head of the Capitol siege section (Rosen resigned from the justice department in June). “He is absolutely the heavy hitter in terms of getting cases across the line and taking these high-profile cases. He doesn’t shy away easily. He’s not afraid of the limelight. And he knows how to put his head down and get through the nitty-gritty.”Other prosecutors in the Capitol siege section would even come watch Gordon cross-examine a witness or present to a jury, said Jason Manning, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Gordon.“Mike’s reputation for excellence in court was such that people really made time to go watch him perform,” Manning said. “You simply don’t replace people like Mike overnight.”One of the highest-profile cases Gordon took on was that of Barnett, an Arkansas man who had become one of the most prominent January 6 rioters when he was photographed with his feet on a desk in Pelosi’s office. He also left her a note that said: “Hey Nancy Bigo was here, biatch.” Even though Barnett’s conduct was “somewhere in the middle” on the spectrum of January 6 cases, Gordon understood there would be considerable public attention on the trial.He welcomed the opportunity to show the public how thoroughly the government had investigated the case against Barnett. He also embraced the opportunity to show that Barnett’s crime wasn’t that he merely put his feet on a desk in Pelosi’s office – he came to the Capitol with weapons: a 10lb metal pole and a stun device concealed in a walking stick, which he brandished at a police officer.“The cross-examination got a lot of attention,” he said.View image in fullscreenBarnett offered a litany of excuses trying to downplay his conduct on the day of January 6, at one point arguing that he had been looking for a bathroom and had wandered into Pelosi’s office. Gordon pointed out he had spent a considerable amount of time wandering around the Capitol and never asked for directions to a bathroom.Barnett also stole an envelope from Pelosi’s office, but said he didn’t consider it a crime because it was a “biohazard” as he had gotten blood on it. He had left a quarter and said he didn’t consider it theft.“He had a number of just patently obvious lies,” Gordon said. “It’s very clear that he had the intent, and here’s all the evidence we’ve amassed against this guy to show the public we’ve done our homework.“People can see all the different witnesses. They can hear from Barnett himself, how he responds to cross-examination. Because folks go on friendly podcasts, they post on Twitter, there’s nobody pushing back.”Barnett was convicted on eight counts, both felonies and misdemeanors, and sentenced to more than four years in prison.After Barnett was sentenced, Gordon prosecuted the case against Epps, an Arizona man who was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 and, the night before, encouraged protesters to go to the Capitol. He initially wasn’t charged with a crime, but his life was upended when he became the subject of a conspiracy theory, touted by Tucker Carlson and others, that he was a federal agent. Eventually he was charged with a misdemeanor, making him one of the few people charged with a crime who didn’t enter the Capitol on January 6.Epps eventually pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. Gordon submitted a sentencing memo on behalf of the government that said Epps should be sentenced to six months in prison, $500 in restitution and a year of supervised release. He was eventually sentenced to a year of probation.Gordon said the case was the hardest one he worked on.“Figuring out what the right thing to do with the Ray Epps case was a real challenge,” he said.“I’m well aware that not everyone agrees. But someone needed to be the lightning rod to handle that, and somebody needed to be able to handle the public appearances.”Edward Ungvarsky, Epps’s lawyer, said that while he and Gordon disagreed on what should happen in the case, he saw Gordon as apolitical, “thoughtful” and “just very by the book”.“He wasn’t political in the slightest,” Ungvarsky said. “I wouldn’t have known if he was a Republican or a Democrat.”When Gordon and I first spoke shortly after he was fired, he was hesitant to go on the record because he thought there was an outside chance that he could get his job back. “It seemed so unjust. It seemed so, not only at odds with my performance, but also what I understood my reputation to be within my office,” he said. As the weeks stretched on, he said, it became clear that wasn’t going to happen.He’s since explained to his children why he was fired. Gordon’s 10-year-old son “understands the idea that something wrong happened to me and I’m doing what I can to speak up about it and to fight back”, he said. “And he really admires that. And that’s another thing that gives me inspiration and fuel.”These days, Gordon says that he has no regrets.“It was the right thing to do,” he said. “I will always operate from the position that I will do the right thing first, and then I’ll worry about what the consequences of that are.” More

  • in

    Trump promised to be a dictator on day one. We’re now past day 200

    The anger was raw and resolute. Speaking at the Republican congressman Mike Flood’s town hall in Lincoln, Nebraska, a woman pointed to the estimated $450m cost of “Alligator Alcatraz”, an immigration detention facility in Florida. “How much does it cost for fascism?” she demanded. “How much do the taxpayers have to pay for a fascist country?”The crowd erupted in applause and whoops. In the week that Donald Trump marked his 200th day in office, few mainstream political commentators are bandying around terms such as “fascist”. But many are warning of a societal march towards authoritarianism that, far from losing momentum, appears to be gathering pace.Over the past month the US president has demanded that his predecessor, Barack Obama, be prosecuted for “treason”, fired the government’s top labour statistician following a weak jobs report and forced Columbia University to pay more than $200m in a settlement that many saw as capitulation.Trump has also egged on Republicans in Texas and other states to redraw congressional maps so they favour his party in future elections – turning the FBI on dissenting Democrats – and ordered a new census that excludes people “who are in our Country illegally”.And his administration has pursued a hostile takeover of the nation’s capital, Washington DC, threatening to place the city under federal control, promising to restore a Confederate statue toppled by Black Lives Matter protesters and executing a radical makeover of the White House itself.The trend line is clear to Trump’s critics. Rachel Maddow, a leading progressive TV host, told viewers of her show on the MSNBC network this week: “We do now live in a country that has an authoritarian leader in charge. We have a consolidating dictatorship in our country.”Terms such as “fascist”, “authoritarian” and “dictatorship” were once dismissed as the refuge of those suffering “Trump derangement syndrome”. Not any more. There is now a growing consensus that the pillars of US democracy are being demolished one by one.Matt Bennett, an executive vice-president of Third Way, a centrist thinktank hardly prone to hyperbole, said: “It’s getting dramatically worse by the day. The question of whether we’re in a constitutional crisis or whether authoritarianism has arrived is kind of an academic one. It’s either here or it’s going to be here very soon.“We’re still short of them openly defying a supreme court ruling or intentionally deporting US citizens or attempting to shut down a news media operation. But we’re not very far short.”The assault on the constitution is wider and deeper than in Trump’s first term, when he arrived in the Oval Office like a trainee pilot sitting in the cockpit of a Boeing 747, overwhelmed by its array of dials and controls. Now he and his allies – notably his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller – know precisely which levers to pull and how little air resistance they are likely to meet.View image in fullscreenHaving promised to be a dictator only on “day one”, Trump got to work pardoning supporters involved in the 6 January 2021 riot at the US Capitol, installing loyalists at the justice department and FBI and recruiting the billionaire Elon Musk to scythe through government agencies, sidelining Congress along the way.The president repeatedly challenged judicial rulings, even calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against his administration. After a judge blocked a deportation order, Trump called him “crooked” and said he should be “impeached”, prompting a “rare rebuke” from the chief justice, John Roberts.The administration escalated attacks on media outlets it accused of unfavourable coverage, moving some out of their Pentagon workspace or barring them from the Oval Office and Air Force One. It also purged the leadership of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, installing Trump himself as chairman.At the 100-day mark, comparisons were being drawn with autocrats such as Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Two hundred days in, Orbán has been left looking like an amateur by the speed and scale of Trump’s efforts to expand presidential power, undermine institutions and control information.Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist, said: “He’s clearly made a decision to turn America into some form of dictatorship. There’s no way any longer to look away from that. The excuses – ‘Well, it can’t happen here, American civil society is strong enough to resist’ – may be true, but what’s clear now is that his aspiration is to end American democracy for all time and to turn this country into some kind of authoritarian state.”Among the starkest examples was Trump’s concerted effort to deflect attention from the Jeffrey Epstein files by baselessly reviving the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into allegations that members of Obama’s administration manufactured intelligence.Then came the abrupt dismissal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, after a jobs report showed downward revisions. Trump accused her of “faking the jobs numbers” and that the figures were “RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”, offering only “my opinion” as proof.Trump’s efforts to dominate US culture are far more sophisticated than in his first term. According to an analysis by the Axios news site, he has extracted more than $1.2bn in settlements from at least 13 of the most elite players in academia, law, media and tech. Among them was a $16m deal with Paramount that critics saw as a “bribe” and coincided with the cancellation of the late-night show of the CBS comedian Stephen Colbert, one of the most incisive satirical voices of the Trump era.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenRosenberg added: “There’s no question that our lack of history with a leader like this, and the perception of American exceptionalism, made many institutional players in our society unprepared for what was to come. The key here is that the way that Trump succeeds is by isolating people and by not allowing people to work together collectively.”Funding cuts by Republicans in Congress forced the shutdown of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, dealing a huge blow to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Government websites have been scrubbed of data on the climate and other issues – including, apparently, the constitution itself.Ominously, the Smithsonian National Museum of American History removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the presidency. A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal was part of a temporary fix and the exhibit eventually “will include all impeachments”.Although Trump has faced setbacks in the courts, he shows no signs of slackening his pace. Last month he signed a tax and spending bill that, while stripping health insurance from millions of people, includes a record $170bn for immigration enforcement and detention. Amid concerns over its masked agents snatching people off the streets, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will become the biggest domestic police force in the US – and bigger than many countries’ armies.Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “We’re on a glide path towards the dissolution of the cornerstones of American democracy. It started with Trump and his threats, even to Republicans, and now it’s accelerated to secret police. The billions of dollars going to Ice is going to create the largest police force in the country and it’s beholden to the president.”Jacobs added: “The next backstop is going to be, will there be competitive elections next year? The gerrymandering in Texas may be a bad sign about whether Democrats and Americans who are ready to vote against Republicans will have that opportunity around the country.”Despite the concerns over an uneven playing field, the midterm elections remain Democrats’ best chance of checking Trump’s power. They hope to harness the rage boiling over at Republican town halls, such as that held by Flood in Nebraska this week, and at protests such as “No Kings” demonstrations that brought millions of people to the streets.Indeed, for all his strongman posturing, Trump is deeply unpopular: a University of Massachusetts Amherst opinion poll released this week found his approval rating at just 38%, down six percentage points since April, though only 1% of Trump voters regret their vote. That drop includes men, one of the president’s most reliable groups of supporters.From his military parade in Washington to his bombing of Iran, from his escalation of immigration enforcement to his so-called “big, beautiful bill”, the American people are rejecting Trump’s leadership and agenda, according to Rosenberg, the Democratic strategist.“A majority of the country now knows that he’s the old man behind the curtain and not the wizard,” he said. “He still has control over Maga and Republicans in Congress but he doesn’t have the persuasive capacity any longer to keep his hold on the broad majority of the country.“This is a sign of his weakness and that he’s not as strong as he believes he is. It’s one of the reasons why he’s looking for these avenues to re-establish his strength and power and have there be a perception that people are bending the knee.“Every time he tries to do this, it fails and he grows more distant to the American people. That has to give us hope we have the tools in the coming months to start winning elections and building a more successful pro-democracy movement that can contain the damage that Trump and Maga are doing to the country in the coming years.” More

  • in

    Trump news at a glance: Lutnick threatens Harvard patents; former Fox commentator bound for UN

    The Trump administrations has threatened Harvard’s lucrative portfolio of patents amid its long-running dispute with the university, accusing it of breaching legal and contractual requirements tied to federally funded research.In a letter, commerce secretary Howard Lutnick demanded that Harvard provide within four weeks a list of all patents stemming from federally funded research grants, including how the patents are used and whether any licensing requires “substantial US manufacturing”. Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Many civil rights experts, faculty and White House critics believe the Trump administration’s targeting of schools for supposedly failing to address antisemitism on campus is a pretext to assert federal control and threaten academic freedom and free speech.Trump administration threatens Harvard federal funding and patentsIn his letter to Harvard, Lutnick also said the commerce department had begun a “march-in” process under the federal Bayh-Dole Act that could let the government take ownership of the patents or grant licenses.As of 1 July 2024, Harvard held more than 5,800 patents, and had more than 900 technology licenses with over 650 industry partners, according to the Harvard Office of Technology Development.Read the full storyTammy Bruce nominated for US deputy ambassador to UNDonald Trump said on Saturday he was nominating former Fox News commentator Tammy Bruce as the next US deputy representative to the United Nations.Bruce has been serving as the chief spokesperson for the state department since Trump took office this year. Trump said Bruce, who had no prior foreign policy experience before becoming spokesperson in January, “will represent our country brilliantly at the United Nations”.Read the full storyIRS commissioner reportedly removed over immigration policy disputeThe removal of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioner Billy Long after just two months came after the federal tax collection agency said it could not release some information on taxpayers suspected of being in the US illegally, it was reported on Saturday.The Washington Post reported the Department of Homeland Security had sent the IRS a list of 40,000 names that it suspected of being in the country illegally. DHS asked the tax service to crosscheck confidential taxpayer data to verify their addresses.The IRS reportedly responded that it was able to verify fewer than 3% of the names on the DHS list, but declined requests for further information, citing taxpayer privacy rights.Read the full story‘We are at war – bring it on’: Democrats ready to fight dirty to stop TrumpKen Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, speaking in Chicago this week, said: “This is a new Democratic party. We’re bringing a knife to a knife fight, and we are going to fight fire with fire.”It was a brutally honest acknowledgement of what a decade of Donald Trump’s politics has wrought. Out go the courtly and courteous playing-by-the-rules Democrats convinced that Maga is a passing phase, a fever that will break. In come a new generation of pugnacious Democrats prepared to take off the gloves and fight dirty.The trigger for this scorched-earth approach is Trump’s push to find more Republican seats in the House of Representatives ahead of next year’s crucial midterm elections through gerrymandering, a process of manipulating electoral maps to benefit one party over another.Read the full storyHow did we get all this gerrymandering? A brief history Extreme GOP gerrymanders have remade American politics over the last 15 years. They have locked Republicans into office in state legislatures nationwide, even in purple states when Democratic candidates win more votes. They have delivered a reliable and enduring edge to the GOP in the race for Congress.How did we get here? How did gerrymandered lines, rather than voters, gain the power to determine winners and losers?Read the full storyPete Hegseth reposts video that says women shouldn’t be allowed to voteThe US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, recently shared a video in which several pastors say women should no longer be allowed to vote, prompting one progressive evangelical organization to express concern.Hegseth reposted a nearly seven-minute report CNN segment on X on Thursday that focuses on pastor Doug Wilson, a Christian nationalist. In the segment, he raises the idea of women not voting.Doug Pagitt, a pastor and the executive director of the progressive evangelical organization Vote Common Good, said the ideas in the video were views that “small fringes of Christians keep” and said it was “very disturbing” that Hegseth would amplify them.Read the full storyUnder-fire FDA figure returns just days after leaving Vinay Prasad is returning to his role overseeing vaccine, gene therapy and blood product regulation at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a little more than a week after he left the agency.Two days before Prasad stepped down last month, Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer and conspiracy theorist, had released misleadingly edited audio to suggest Prasad had admitted sticking pins in a Trump voodoo doll, when the full audio made it clear that he was talking about the kind of thing an imagined liberal Trump-hater would do.Prasad is an oncologist who was a fierce critic of US Covid-19 vaccines and mask mandates.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

    A Georgia man who opened fire on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta on Friday, killing a police officer, had blamed a Covid-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal, a law enforcement official said.

    Documents filed recently in the New Orleans Roman Catholic archdiocese’s five-year bankruptcy case provide more clarity on how claims will be doled out to survivors of clergy abuse if a proposed settlement is approved.
    Catching up? Here’s what happened on 8 August 2025. More

  • in

    Trump administration threatens to strip Harvard University of lucrative patents

    The latest phase of the Trump administration’s offensive against Harvard University is a comprehensive review of the university’s federally funded research programs, and the threat to strip the school’s lucrative portfolio of patents.In a letter to the Harvard president, Alan Garber, posted online on Friday, Donald Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, accused Harvard of breaching its legal and contractual requirements tied to federally funded research programs and patents.Lutnick also said the commerce department has begun a “march-in” process under the federal Bayh-Dole Act that could let the government take ownership of the patents or grant licenses.“The Department places immense value on the groundbreaking scientific and technological advancements that emerge from the Government’s partnerships with institutions like Harvard,” Lutnick wrote.He said that carried a “critical responsibility” for Harvard to ensure that its intellectual property derived from federal funding is used to maximize benefits to the American people.Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Friday’s letter ratchets up White House pressure on Harvard, which it has accused of civil rights violations for failing to take steps dictated by the administration in response to accusations that student protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza were antisemitic.Harvard sued in April after the administration began stripping or freezing billions of dollars of federal research money.In his letter, Lutnick demanded that Harvard provide within four weeks a list of all patents stemming from federally funded research grants, including how the patents are used and whether any licensing requires “substantial US manufacturing”.As of 1 July 2024, Harvard held more than 5,800 patents, and had more than 900 technology licenses with over 650 industry partners, according to the Harvard Office of Technology Development.Other universities faced with federal research funding losses have signed settlement agreements with the government, including Columbia University, which agreed to pay more than $220m, and Brown University, which agreed to pay $50m.Harvard’s president reportedly told faculty that a New York Times report that the university was open to spending up to $500m to settle with the government was inaccurate and had been leaked to reporters by White House officials.The bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act was sponsored by senators Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas and signed into law by Jimmy Carter near the end of his term.Carter said at the time it was important that industrial innovation promote US economic health, and the legislation “goes far toward strengthening the effectiveness of the patent incentive in stimulating innovation in the United States”.Many civil rights experts, faculty and White House critics believe the Trump administration’s targeting of schools for supposedly failing to address antisemitism is a pretext to assert federal control and threaten academic freedom and free speech. More