Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 163 Shares135 Views

    in US Politics

    Federal judge rules return of Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador prison

    A federal judge on Friday afternoon ordered the US to return a Maryland man mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison after a Trump administration attorney was at a loss to explain what happened.The wife of the man, who was flown to a notorious Salvadoran prison had earlier joined dozens of supporters at a rally before a court hearing on Friday, where his lawyers had asked the judge – Paula Xinis – to order the Trump administration to return him to the US.Xinis on Friday called Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation “an illegal act” and pressed US justice department attorney Erez Reuveni for answers. Reuveni had few, if any, to offer, conceding that Abrego Garcia should not have been removed from the US and sent to El Salvador. He could not cite any authority held by the Trump administration to arrest Abrego Garcia in Maryland.“I’m also frustrated that I have no answers for you for a lot of these questions,” he said.Reuveni said, “I don’t know,” when asked why Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador, which has a history rife with human rights abuses.Abrego Garcia’s wife, US citizen Jennifer Vasquez Sura, hasn’t spoken to him since he was flown to his native El Salvador last month and imprisoned. She urged her supporters to keep fighting for him “and all the Kilmars out there whose stories are still waiting to be heard”.View image in fullscreen“To all the wives, mothers, children who also face this cruel separation, I stand with you in this bond of pain,” she said during the rally at a community center in Hyattsville, Maryland. “It’s a journey that no one ever should ever have to suffer, a nightmare that feels endless.”The campaign to reunite the couple will shift to a courtroom in Greenbelt, Maryland, a suburb of Washington DC.The White House has cast Abrego Garcia, 29, as an MS-13 gang member and assert that US courts lack jurisdiction over the matter because the Salvadoran national is no longer in the US.Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have countered that there is no evidence he was in MS-13. The allegation is based on a confidential informant’s claim in 2019 that Abrego Garcia was a member of a chapter in New York, where he has never lived.Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation, described by the White House as an “administrative error”, has outraged many and raised concerns about expelling noncitizens who were granted permission to be in the US.Abrego Garcia had a permit from the Department of Homeland Security to legally work in the US, his attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. He served as a sheet metal apprentice and was pursuing his journeyman license.He fled El Salvador around 2011 because he and his family were facing threats by local gangs. In 2019, a US immigration judge granted him protection from deportation to El Salvador because he was likely to face gang persecution. He was released and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) did not appeal the decision or try to deport him to another country.Abrego Garcia later married Vasquez Sura. The couple are parents to their son and her two children from a previous relationship.“If I had all the money in the world, I would spend it all just to buy one thing: a phone call to hear Kilmar’s voice again,” Vasquez Sura said. “Kilmar, if you can hear me, I miss you so much, and I’m doing the best to fight for you and our children.” More

  • 150 Shares95 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump extends deadline for TikTok sale to non-Chinese buyer to avoid ban

    Donald Trump said he will sign an executive order to extend the TikTok ban deadline. This is the second time the president will have delayed the ban or sale of the social media app, and will punt the deadline to 75 days from now.The TikTok deal “requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed”, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform on Friday.ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, issued a statement in response to the executive order: “ByteDance has been in discussion with the U.S. Government regarding a potential solution for TikTok U.S. An agreement has not been executed. There are key matters to be resolved. Any agreement will be subject to approval under Chinese law.”Congress passed a law last year forcing TikTok to either divest or sell its assets in the US. The law stemmed from concerns that the app’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, could use the social media platform to manipulate Americans. The first deadline to ban or force the sale of the app was 19 January. But, on his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to delay that decision to 5 April. Now the new deadline will be in mid-June.Earlier this week, the president met with potential buyers for TikTok and said his administration is “very close” to a deal. Among those who’ve reportedly thrown in bids are a consortium of investors led by the software giant Oracle, asset manager Blackstone, Amazon, Walmart, billionaire Frank McCourt, a crypto foundation, and the founder of the adult website OnlyFans.TikTok is a tremendously popular social media app with 170 million users in the US. Investors and corporations see huge appeal with owning the app and its secretive algorithm.ByteDance has said it has no plans to sell TikTok and in previous court filings said a divestiture “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally”.After announcing sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries, Trump hinted on Thursday aboard Air Force One that he might lessen the trade penalties on China if ByteDance were to approve a sale. The country faces a 54% tariff on goods imported to the US. “We have a situation with TikTok where China will probably say we’ll approve a deal, but will you do something on the tariffs. The tariffs give us great power to negotiate,” he said.In his Truth Social post Friday, Trump reiterated that sentiment, saying: “We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!).skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark,’” he continued. “We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” More

  • 175 Shares135 Views

    in US Politics

    North Carolina judges back Republican colleague in bid to toss votes and overturn election

    More than 65,000 people in North Carolina who believed they were eligible to vote could have their ballots thrown out nearly five months after election day, flipping the results of a supreme court election, a state appeals court ruled on Friday.The 2-1 ruling from the North Carolina court of appeals came in response to Republicans’ months-long effort to overturn the results of the state supreme court election in November. The Democrat Allison Riggs, who currently sits on the court, defeated appellate judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, by 734 votes. After the election, Griffin filed a protest seeking to get around 60,000 votes thrown out.Griffin currently sits on the North Carolina court of appeals – the body that issued Friday’s ruling. A panel of three of his colleagues heard the case.“To permit unlawful votes to be counted along with lawful ballots in contested elections effectively ‘disenfranchises’ those voters who cast legal ballots, at least where the counting of unlawful votes determines an election’s outcome,” Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore wrote for the majority.In a statement, Riggs said: “We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people.”The election is the only 2024 race still undecided.The state board of elections previously rejected Griffin’s request and a superior court judge upheld their decision. Friday’s ruling from the court of appeals overturned that ruling and ordered the state board to give challenged voters 15 days to prove their eligibility.When the case reaches the seven-member North Carolina supreme court, Riggs will be recused from hearing it. Without her, Republicans will have a 5-1 majority. If the court were to deadlock, the ruling from the court of appeals would stand.More than 60,000 of the voters challenged failed to provide either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their social security number on their voter registration forms. Another 5,500 challenged ballots came from overseas voters who had failed to provide ID.Republicans had filed a lawsuit making similar arguments ahead of election day last year and had it rejected. North Carolina has required the identifying information since 2004 to register to vote, but the state did not update its voter registration form until 2023.The ruling also said that voters who had never lived in the state, grew up overseas, and cast a ballot in the state were ineligible to vote and their votes should not count. That category of people typically includes children of North Carolinians who moved abroad before they turned 18.In a lengthy dissenting opinion, judge Toby Hampson noted that Griffin had not identified a single voter who cast a ballot who should not have been able to. Instead, he said, he was trying to change the rules around eligibility after the election.“The diligent actions these voters undertook to exercise their sacred fundamental right to vote was, indeed, the same as every other similarly situated voter exercising their voting right in the very same election,” he wrote.“Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the constitution.”Hampson said he was doubtful that many voters would respond to a notice to prove their eligibility.“The proposition that a significant portion of these 61,682 voters will receive notice and timely take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents,” he wrote.Bob Phillips, the executive director of the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause, a watchdog group, called the ruling a “disgrace” that “could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide”.Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, said the decision had “no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts”. More

  • 163 Shares103 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump insists he won’t back down from global trade war as markets slump

    Donald Trump doubled down on his decision to launch a global trade war, declaring that he would “never” back off from sweeping tariffs on US trading partners.The US president’s announced action sent shock waves around the world this week, prompting fierce threats of retaliation and sharp sell-offs in stock markets.In an all-caps message on his Truth Social social media platform, Trump sought to convey his defiance in the wake of news that Beijing is preparing to hit back with 34% tariffs of its own.“TO THE MANY INVESTORS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE,” he claimed. “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO GET RICH, RICHER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!”Within hours, however, the president was indicating that he might be prepared to change course. “Just had a very productive call with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who told me that Vietnam wants to cut their Tariffs down to ZERO if they are able to make an agreement with the U.S.,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that he looked forward to a meeting “in the near future”.The comments came as markets tumbled for the second straight day after Trump’s move to bring in tariffs on scores of countries. He claims the policy – a blanket 10% tariff from Saturday, with higher rates for specific markets from next week – will bring US manufacturing jobs back to the US and raise trillions of dollars for the federal government. Many economists have cautioned it will trigger economic chaos, and likely raise prices.The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned that the move may well knock the global economy. Kristalina Georgieva, its managing director, , said: “We are still assessing the macroeconomic implications of the announced tariff measures, but they clearly represent a significant risk to the global outlook at a time of sluggish growth.”Shortly before Wall Street opened on Friday, Trump claimed China had “panicked” by announcing new retaliatory tariffs on US imports. “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED – THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO!” he wrote on Truth Social.China’s industry associations have unanimously condemned the tariffs. The country’s National Textile and Apparel Council said it “supported the government’s forceful measures” and that the US had “damaged the resilience of the global textile industry’s supply chain”.The S&P 500 fell 4.4% in early trading, exacerbating a decline that began in February. The index, which tracks 500 of the leading US companies, is now down almost 14% from its peak.Shares in the US bank sector had fallen nearly 6% on Friday, reflecting fears that the trade war could trigger a recession. It could also be an indicator that investors are expecting faster interest rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve, in order to instigate growth.Crude oil prices also plunged by 8% on Friday, heading for their lowest point since the middle of the pandemic in 2021.Trump personally selected the controversial formula for determining what tariffs would be imposed on specific countries from a menu of options, according to the Washington Post.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe chosen formula was based on two simple variables: the trade deficit with each country and the total value of its US exports.Several Trump aides had apparently been working on crafting country-specific tariffs for weeks, taking into account a broad range of tariff & non-tariff barriers. Sources told the Post that more sophisticated approaches had been developed.Trump reportedly didn’t decide on the final plan until around 1pm Wednesday – less than three hours ahead of his Rose Garden address announcing the tariffs. It is unclear who authored the formula Trump ultimately picked.The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, told reporters that the markets “will adjust” to the sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump. “The markets are reacting to a dramatic change in the global order in terms of trade … As long as they know what the rules are going to be moving forward … the markets will adjust.”Many Democrats have expressed frustration with the early impacts of the tariffs on the US economy. JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, wrote on X: “The biggest tax hike in American history. Donald Trump’s tariffs are throwing the economy into the tank.”California senator Alex Padilla wrote: “I’m not enraged by the stock market crashing because I’m sympathetic towards traders on Wall Street. I’m mad because this hurts the pensions and retirement savings of so many Americans. And Trump couldn’t care less.” More

  • 175 Shares151 Views

    in US Politics

    More than 80 ex-staffers of top law firm express ‘deep outrage’ over Trump deal

    More than 80 former employees of Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom sent a letter to the law firm on Friday expressing “deep outrage” over its decision to reach an agreement with Donald Trump in order to avoid an executive order punishing the firm.Skadden, a top-ranked law firm, reached an agreement, announced on 28 March, to commit at least $100m in pro-bono services to causes both the firm and the president support, including assisting veterans, law enforcement, local government officials and combatting antisemitism. The agreement also says Skadden won’t engage in race-based hiring.In exchange, Skadden will avoid being the subject of one of Trump’s executive orders punishing law firms. The president has issued orders targeting several firms, threatening to cripple them by revoking security clearances, barring attorneys from access to government buildings, and forcing clients to disclose their relationship to the firm if they do business with the government.Experts see Trump’s efforts to intimidate lawyers from taking on cases adverse to the president’s interests as deeply anti-democratic, and employees and former employees of many of the firms targeted by the president have pushed back.“As attorneys, we all took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States,” the letter from former Skadden employees said. “As one of the country’s most powerful and most profitable law firms, Skadden’s influence over the legal profession cannot be understated. In light of Skadden’s position, it is outrageous and self-interested that rather than fulfilling the legal profession’s oath and standing in solidarity with fellow law firms that were fighting to uphold the Constitution, Skadden caved to bullying tactics instead.”Many of the country’s biggest and most profitable firms have stayed largely silent on the executive orders. The firms, which include places like Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore – notably did not join more than 500 US law firms that signed onto an amicus brief on Friday in support of a challenge to the order.“Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself. The judiciary should act with resolve – now – to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases,” said the brief, which was authored and signed by Donald Verrilli Jr, who served as the solicitor general under Barack Obama.Skadden reached the preemptive agreement after Perkins Coie, another firm targeted by Trump, successfully got a court to issue an injunction blocking most parts of the order. Skadden’s agreement was also announced the same day two other prominent firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, sued over executive orders targeting them. Both firms were also able to secure court orders blocking most of the provisions in Trump’s orders against them.Some lawyers at major law firms have been so angry over the position their employers have taken that they have quit.“I believe, as I know many of you do, that what the current presidential administration is doing is wrong,” Thomas Sipp, a Skadden associate, who quit this week wrote in a departure email. “That we are sliding into an autocracy where those in power are above the rule of law. Skadden’s agreement with the Trump administration sent our country deeper down this descent.”Law students and attorneys are also closely monitoring which firms are heeding Trump. A spreadsheet circulating online lists more than a dozen firms who have taken action to accommodate the administration in some way, even if they haven’t been targeted.One first-year law student at one of the country’s top law schools told the Guardian on Thursday that he was tracking how firms were responding and it was influencing where they were applying for a job.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSkadden’s capitulation, the alumni wrote in their letter, had only paved the way for Trump to further bully other firms into settling. Two other firms, Wilkie, Farr, and Gallgher and Milbank LLP have also reached preemptive deals with Trump.“We were shocked to hear about Skadden’s concessions, concessions given under the threat of an executive order whose substance had already been blocked by a federal court,” the letter said. “The deals Willkie Farr and Milbank struck with President Trump this week evinces the deeply disturbing behavior that Skadden helped normalize.”The agreement also takes aim at the firm’s prestigious Skadden fellowship, in which 25 to 30 lawyers a year from the nation’s top law schools work on social justice issues. Under the agreement with Trump, lawyers in the fellowship have to “represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals”. At least five lawyers from the fellowship have to be assigned to “assisting Veterans; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; combatting Antisemitism, and other similar types of projects”.“As alumni who have proudly represented Skadden in a variety of practice areas, we call on you to clearly affirm the firm’s commitment to reject the administration’s attacks on the judiciary, the Constitution, and rule of law before it’s too late,” the letter said. More

  • 200 Shares79 Views

    in US Politics

    The Guardian view on Donald Trump’s tariff ultimatum: tribute for access to America’s empire | Editorial

    When Donald Trump stood before union auto workers in the Rose Garden he declared “Liberation Day”, promising to stand up for Main Street. Whether that pledge will be fulfilled is moot. He will declare victory either way. What the US president offered was not just an economic programme, but an imperial one.Mr Trump’s logic, if it exists, lies in the 397-page report on “foreign trade barriers” he brandished on Wednesday. Its message is brutally simple: you may sell your goods to Walmart shoppers, but only if you let US cloud services hoover up your data, US media flood your screens and US tech monopolies operate on their terms – not yours. TikTok is the test case for Trump’s platform nationalism: only US firms may mine data, reap profits and rule the digital empire.A one-week ultimatum and a fabricated national emergency lay bare the theatrics driving Mr Trump’s agenda. The US president’s proposed tariffs and economic nationalism are not about correcting trade imbalances; they are about coercing others into accepting American economic dominance – without requiring the US to sacrifice its domestic advantage.The US continues to run goods deficits not because it “borrows” from abroad, but because the rest of the world willingly exchanges real goods for dollars it cannot issue. Mr Trump demands tribute for that privilege: control over digital infrastructure, forced access for hi-tech rentiers and suppression of rival technologies. The realpolitik is that you can sell to American consumers – but only if you buy into American rules, platforms and financial dependencies. Though Mr Trump’s foreign policy is transactional, its domestic effect will probably be transformative – and not in a good way. Tariffs raise prices for everyone, especially the poor, while shielding local producers from competition. Meanwhile, as Mr Trump made clear, the revenues are earmarked not for public investment or industrial policy, but for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. In this regime, tariffs redistribute upward: the poor pay more, so billionaires pay less.This is not so much anti-globalist as post-globalist. It seeks not withdrawal from the world, but a world that submits to new terms. The US empire still earns – but now demands more and spends less. Foreign aid is slashed and multilateral rules are replaced by bilateral bargains struck at speed. If allies want to trade, they must also license Google Cloud services, buy Boeing jets and resist Chinese influence. Trade, technology and security are bundled into a single, rent-seeking foreign policy.Markets, however, are less convinced – and their continued crashing reflects not just recession fears, but a dawning recognition that this model is not a one-quarter adjustment. It is a paradigm shift. The pain, even Mr Trump concedes, may be real. But for him, pain is purgative. It disciplines labour, justifies austerity and remakes the economy in the image of the deal.China’s retaliatory tariffs raise the prospect of a dangerous trade war. But Beijing is signalling that if it can’t win in the US-led system, it will build its own. For other major economies, including the UK, the task is not to replicate American leverage, but to reduce dependence on it – by deepening regional integration, investing in technological autonomy and limiting exposure to US-controlled chokepoints in finance, tech and defence. Resistance may provoke retaliation, but submission ensures subordination. In the long run, strategic cooperation – not bilateral concession – is the only durable answer to tariff imperialism. More

  • 200 Shares103 Views

    in US Politics

    I worked in Trump’s first administration. Here’s why his team is using Signal | Kevin Carroll

    No senior US government official in the now-infamous “Houthi PC Small Group” Signal chat seemed new to that kind of group, nor surprised by the sensitivity of the subject discussed in that insecure forum, not even when the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, chimed in with details of a coming airstrike. No one objected – not the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who was abroad and using her personal cellphone to discuss pending military operations; not even the presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, who was in Moscow at the time. Yet most of these officials enjoy the luxury of access to secure government communications systems 24/7/365.Reasonable conclusions may be drawn from these facts. First, Trump’s national security cabinet commonly discusses secret information on insecure personal devices. Second, sophisticated adversaries such as Russia and China intercept such communications, especially those sent or received in their countries. Third, as a result, hostile intelligence services now probably possess blackmail material regarding these officials’ indiscreet past conversations on similar topics. Fourth, as a first-term Trump administration official and ex-CIA officer, I believe the reason these officials risk interacting in this way is to prevent their communications from being preserved as required by the Presidential Records Act, and avoid them being discoverable in litigation, or subject to a subpoena or Freedom of Information Act request. And fifth, no one seems to have feared being investigated by the justice department for what appears to be a violation of the Espionage Act’s Section 793(f), which makes gross negligence in mishandling classified information a felony; the FBI director, Kash Patel, and attorney general, Pam Bondi, quickly confirmed that hunch. Remarkably, the CIA director John Ratcliffe wouldn’t even admit to Congress that he and his colleagues had made a mistake.The knock-on effects of this are many. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, needs to address his colleagues’ characterization of European partners as “pathetic” with foreign ministers now dubious of the US’s intentions. Allies already hesitant to share their countries’ secrets with the US, because of valid counterintelligence concerns regarding Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin, will clam up even more rather than risk their sources being compromised by Trump’s appointees. Gabbard and Ratcliffe may have perjured themselves before Congress regarding whether their Signal chat included classified national defense information; certainly, their credibility on Capitol Hill is shredded. As a former CIA case officer, I suspect these directors’ own subordinates will prefer not to share restricted handling information with them going forward. Hegseth, confirmed as secretary by a vote of 51-50 despite concerns over his character and sobriety, lost any moral authority to lead the defense department by reflexively lying about his misconduct, claiming that the story by Jeffrey Goldberg, the unsuspecting Atlantic editor improvidently included in the text chain, is somehow a “hoax” despite the fact the White House contemporaneously confirmed its authenticity.Trump dismisses this scandal, now under investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general, as a witch-hunt, and his followers will fall in line. But every senator who voted to confirm these national security officials, despite doubts regarding their temperaments and qualifications, quietly knows that they own part of this debacle. For fear of facing Republican primary challengers funded by Elon Musk, these senators failed in their solemn constitutional duty to independently provide wise advice and consent regarding nominations to the US’s most important war cabinet posts. How would the senators have explained their misfeasance to service members’ bereaved families – their constituents, perhaps – had the Houthis used information from the Signal chat, such as the time a particular target was to be engaged, to reorient their antiaircraft systems to intercept the inbound aircraft?I happen to have served in Yemen as a sensitive activities officer for special operations command (central). Conspicuous in their absence from the Signal chat were uniformed officers responsible for the recent combat mission: the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff Adm Christopher Grady, central command’s Gen Michael Kurilla and special operations command’s Gen Bryan Fenton. These good men would have raised the obvious objection: loose talk on insecure phones about a coming operation jeopardizes the lives of US sailors and marines standing watch on warships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, naval aviators flying over the beach towards the target, and likely special operators, intelligence officers and human sources working in the shadows on the ground.You don’t need 30-plus years in uniform to know that holding a detailed yet insecure discussion about a pending military mission is wrong; the participants in the chat knew, too. They just didn’t care, not as much as they cared about keeping their communications from being legally discoverable. They’re safe in the knowledge that in a new era without benefit of the rule of law, Patel’s FBI and Bondi’s justice department will never bring charges against them, for a crime which uniformed service members are routinely prosecuted for vastly smaller infractions. As the attorney general made plain in her remarks about this matter, federal law enforcement is now entirely subservient to Trump’s personal and political interests.Most senior US government officials in 2025 are, unfortunately, far gone from the fine old gentleman’s tradition of honorable resignation. But participants in the Signal chat should consider the Hollywood producer character Jack Woltz’s pained observation to the mafia lawyer Tom Hagen in The Godfather about his indiscreetly wayward mistress: “A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous.” Trump, the justice department and the Republican Congress may not make them resign, but to the US’s allies and adversaries, and to their own subordinates, these officials now look ridiculous.

    Kevin Carroll served as senior counselor to the former homeland security secretary John Kelly and as a CIA and army officer More