Justice Department

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares112 Views

    What’s Next for Trump’s Plans to Dismantle the Education Department

    by

    Administration officials have already begun the process of transferring certain functions to other agencies.The Trump administration on Tuesday announced plans to shift key functions from the Education Department to other corners of the federal government, moving quickly to implement changes just one day after the Supreme Court cleared the way for mass layoffs.The department’s main purpose has been to distribute money to college students through grants and loans, to send federal money to K-12 schools, particularly for low-income and disabled students, and to enforce anti-discrimination laws. But soon after President Trump’s return to the White House, he signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Education Department.The order acknowledges that the department cannot be shuttered without approval from Congress. Still, Mr. Trump’s education secretary, Linda McMahon, has been focused on what she has called the department’s “final mission.” So far, at least 1,300 workers have been fired, an effective gutting of the agency, while more than 500 accepted the administration’s offer of early retirement. Ms. McMahon has said that there will be additional job cuts.Ms. McMahon told Fox News in an interview on Tuesday that one of her immediate goals was to “transfer different jobs that are being done at the Department of Education” to other agencies.Here is what we know about the next phase of the Trump administration’s effort to reshape and reduce the federal government’s role in education.Key training programs are outsourced to the Labor Department.Under the changes announced on Tuesday, the Labor Department will assume a larger role in administering adult education, family literacy programs and career and technical education. The Education Department will send $2.6 billion to the Labor Department to cover the cost of the programs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      When It Comes to Undermining America, We Have a Winner

      by

      Capitalizing on Democrats’ weakness, President Trump is winning his battle to undermine democracy in this country.But he has not won the war.A host of factors could blunt his aggression: recession, debt, corruption, inflation, epidemics, the Epstein files, anger over cuts in Medicaid and food stamps, to name just a few. Much of what Trump has done could be undone if a Democrat is elected president in 2028.But for federal workers, medical and scientific researchers, lawyers in politically active firms, prominent critics of Trump — thousands of whom have felt the sting of arbitrary firings, vanished paychecks and retracted grants, criminal inquiries and threatened bankruptcies — the 2028 election may prove too late to repair the damage.And that’s before we even begin to talk about the anti-immigration crackdown.Trump’s assaults are aimed at targets large and small, some based on personal resentments, others guided by a more coherent ideological agenda.The brutality of Trump’s anti-democratic policies is part of a larger goal, a reflection of an administration determined to transfer trillions of dollars to the wealthy by imposing immense costs on the poor and the working class in lost access to medical care and food support, an administration that treats hungry children with the same disdain that it treats core principles of democracy.Trump has succeeded in devastating due-process protections for universities, immigrants and law firms. He has cowed the Supreme Court, which has largely failed to block his violations of the Constitution. He has bypassed Congress, ruling by executive order and emergency declaration. He is using the regulatory power of government to force the media to make humiliating concessions. He has ordered criminal investigations of political adversaries. He has fired innumerable government employees who pursued past investigations — and on and on.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares90 Views

      in Elections

      Are the Courts Checking Trump — or Enabling Him?

      by

      A former federal judge weighs in.In this episode of “The Opinions,” the editorial director David Leonhardt talks to a conservative former federal judge, Michael McConnell, about the role of the courts in President Trump’s second term.Are the Courts Checking Trump — or Enabling Him?A former federal judge weighs in.Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.David Leonhardt: I’m David Leonhardt, the director of the New York Times editorial board. Every week I’m having conversations to help shape the board’s opinions.One thing that I find useful right now is talking with President Trump’s conservative critics. They tend to be alarmed by the president’s behavior, but they also tend to be more optimistic than many progressives about whether American democracy is surviving the Trump presidency. And that combination helps me and my colleagues think about where the biggest risks to our country really are.One area I’ve been wrestling with is the federal court system. I want to understand the extent to which the courts are acting as a check on President Trump as he tries to amass more power, or whether the courts are actually helping him amass that power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares146 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions Recorded With Autopen

      by

      Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is escalating his battle against Republican claims that he might not have been in control of high-profile clemency decisions issued under his name at the end of his term and, more generally, that his cognitive state impaired his functioning in office.In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Biden said that he had orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term, calling President Trump and other Republicans “liars” for claiming his aides had used an autopen to do so without his authorization.“I made every decision,” Mr. Biden said in a phone interview on Thursday, asserting that he had his staff use an autopen replicating his signature on the clemency warrants because “we’re talking about a whole lot of people.”The interview was Mr. Biden’s first about the parallel investigations begun by the Trump White House, the Justice Department and Congress into a series of clemency decisions made by Mr. Biden in his final weeks in office and his mental acuity during his term.Republicans in Congress have demanded sworn interviews with former Biden aides, prompting them to hire their own lawyers. Some lawyers are said to have warned their clients not to talk publicly and about the dangers of testifying because the Justice Department under Mr. Trump might be eager to bring perjury charges over any inconsistency, no matter how minor.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares135 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Fires More DOJ Employees Who Worked for Special Counsel

      by

      The latest round of firings targets not just prosecutors but also support staff members who played a smaller role.The Trump administration fired another batch of nearly 10 Justice Department employees who once worked for the special counsel’s office that twice indicted President Trump, some in relatively minor roles, according to two people familiar with the matter.The dismissals on Friday were the latest sign that the administration was reaching deep into the inner workings of the Justice Department to find and expel not just people who had a direct part in investigating and prosecuting Mr. Trump during his four years out of office but also those who had played secondary roles in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith.The latest firings, which include at least two federal prosecutors, appeared to once again ignore traditional civil service protections and were said to be based on a broad assertion of presidential authority, according to two people who spoke about the moves on condition of anonymity to avoid discussing a politically sensitive subject.At least seven others who were fired had served as support staff to Mr. Smith’s office, the two people said. They helped manage the office, handling tasks like overseeing financial records, performing paralegal services or conducting information security.Since the early days of Mr. Trump’s second term, the president’s aides have repeatedly sought to fire, punish or demote the people who worked on the cases against him as well on cases stemming from the attack on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.The purging from government ranks of anyone associated with these cases has been sporadic, with fresh batches of firings coming at different intervals and often without much explanation, other than the citing of Article II of the Constitution, which defines the powers of a president.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares135 Views

      in Elections

      Aware of Trump’s Desire for Retribution, Experts Appear Shy to Speak Up

      by

      A New York Times investigative reporter explains how a problem he encountered while reporting reveals something important about the second Trump era.This week, my colleague Eileen Sullivan and I reported that the Secret Service took the extraordinary step in May of surveilling the former F.B.I. director James Comey, a day after he posted a photo that President Trump’s allies claimed contained an assassination threat.The story raised questions about whether Comey was tailed not because he was a legitimate threat but as part of a retribution campaign Trump has promised to wage against those he sees as his enemies.To nail down the story, we had to do one of the most challenging tasks we face as reporters: pry loose details from the inside of a federal investigation.But there was also something unexpectedly difficult about that story, compared with similar stories I’ve reported over 20 years at The New York Times. Some of the people we’ve previously called on to provide outside expertise refused to speak with us this time.Tonight, I’m going to take you behind the scenes of our reporting, and explain why the speed bump we hit may be a sign of something more significant.A chill in WashingtonWhen we write a story like this, we reach out to experts who can put what we are writing about in context. Drawing on their work experience or academic expertise, they can help us — and our readers — understand whether and why an incident we are covering is unusual, or which laws might apply to it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares170 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Officials Take Steps to Target Comey and Brennan, Who Investigated Trump

      by

      It is unclear whether moves targeting the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan will lead to charges.The Trump administration appears to be targeting officials who oversaw the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s connections to Russia, examining the actions of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan, according to people familiar with the situation.John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director and a harsh critic of his Democratic-appointed predecessors, has made a criminal referral of Mr. Brennan to the F.B.I., accusing him of lying to Congress, officials said. The bureau is also scrutinizing Mr. Comey for his role in the Russia investigation, other officials said, although the exact basis for any inquiry remains unclear.Even if it is unclear whether the moves will lead to charges, they are among the most significant indications that President Trump’s appointees intend to follow through on his campaign to exact retribution against his perceived enemies. That includes people leading the investigation into what he has repeatedly denounced as the “Russia hoax” nine years ago and officials involved in two failed federal prosecutions of Mr. Trump during the Biden years.This all comes at a precarious moment for the appointed leadership of federal law enforcement agencies. Since Monday, Trump supporters on the far right have lashed out at Attorney General Pam Bondi and F.B.I. brass for closing the investigation into the death of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Those same allies have called for aggressive investigations of Trump investigators.C.I.A. and F.B.I. officials declined to comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman wrote in a statement that it did not comment on “ongoing investigations.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares118 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Explores Using Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

      by

      Such a path could drastically raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, bringing the department and the threat of criminalization into the election system.Senior Justice Department officials are exploring whether they can bring criminal charges against state or local election officials if the Trump administration determines they have not sufficiently safeguarded their computer systems, according to people familiar with the discussions.The department’s effort, which is still in its early stages, is not based on new evidence, data or legal authority, according to the people, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. Instead, it is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation, these people said.Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before.Federal voting laws place some mandates on how elections are conducted and ballots counted. But that work has historically been managed by state and local officials, with limited involvement or oversight from Washington.In recent days, senior officials have directed Justice Department lawyers to examine the ways in which a hypothetical failure by state or local officials to follow security standards for electronic voting could be charged as a crime, appearing to assume a kind of criminally negligent mismanagement of election systems. Already, the department has started to contact election officials across the country, asking for information on voting in the state.Ballots from the 2024 general election locked in a secure warehouse area of the Ada County Elections Office in Boise, Idaho, last November.Natalie Behring for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Orders Abrego Garcia Released on Smuggling Charges Before Trial

      by

      The order to release Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from criminal custody as he awaits trial was a rebuke to the Trump administration. But he is likely to remain in immigration custody.In a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department, a federal judge said on Sunday that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia should be freed from criminal custody as he awaits trial on smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador and return to the United States.In a scathing order, the judge, Barbara D. Holmes, ruled that Mr. Abrego Garcia was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The decision undermined repeated claims by President Trump and some of his top aides who have described the Salvadoran immigrant as a violent gang member, even a terrorist.But the decision by Judge Holmes, filed in Federal District Court in Nashville, was likely to be a short-lived victory for Mr. Abrego Garcia and his defense team. The judge acknowledged that he would probably remain in the custody of immigration officials, as his charges of smuggling undocumented immigrants across the United States moved through the courts.Judge Holmes’s ruling was the first judicial evaluation of the charges filed against Mr. Abrego Garcia since he was suddenly brought back to U.S. soil last month after prosecutors indicted him in Nashville. The decision to get him out of Salvadoran custody came as the Justice Department was under mounting pressure in a separate civil case. The judge in that case has threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for their serial evasions and delays in complying with her order to free him from El Salvador.Federal prosecutors immediately asked Judge Holmes to put the decision to free Mr. Abrego Garcia on hold, even as his lawyers hailed it.“We are pleased by the court’s thoughtful analysis and its express recognition that Mr. Abrego Garcia is entitled both to due process and the presumption of innocence, both of which our government has worked quite hard to deny him,” Sean Hecker, one of the defense lawyers, said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More