Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Atlanta reporter detained by Ice ‘punished for his journalism’, rights groups say

      by

      Mario Guevara, a Salvadoran journalist imprisoned in a south Georgia immigration detention center after being arrested covering a “No Kings Day” protest in June, is being “punished for his journalism”, first amendment rights groups said.“The charges were dropped, yet he remains detained by Ice,” said José Zamora, the regional director for the Americas at the Committee to Protect Journalists, during a press conference on Tuesday morning at the Georgia capitol with Guevara’s attorneys and family. “Let’s be clear, Mario is being punished for his journalism. He is now the only journalist in prison in the US in direct retaliation for his reporting.”A police officer from the city of Doraville in north DeKalb county arrested Guevara on 14 June on misdemeanor charges of pedestrian in the roadway, failure to disperse and obstruction while Guevara was covering a protest in an immigrant-heavy neighborhood. Guevara is widely followed by a Spanish-speaking audience for his coverage of immigration raids in Georgia, and more than 1 million people were watching his livestream on Facebook when he was arrested.Guevara, a native of El Salvador, has been in the US for more than 20 years. While his petition for asylum was rejected in 2012, his deportation was administratively closed in an appeal, and he has both a work permit and a pending application for a green card, his attorney Giovanni Diaz said.Though charges from the protest were quickly dropped, the sheriff of nearby Gwinnett county laid a second set of unrelated misdemeanor traffic charges shortly after Guevara’s arrest. The Gwinnett county solicitor subsequently dropped those charges as well, but not before Gwinnett’s sheriff’s office seized his cell phone with a search warrant.Guevara’s cell phone has not been returned, and it is unclear where it is, what data has been transferred from it or whether that data has been shared with federal agencies, Diaz said.“Everybody’s saying we don’t see a warrant in the system,” Diaz said, describing his office’s inquiries with the sheriff and other agencies. “So, one of two things happened. Some other agency that hasn’t contacted us took it – US attorney’s [office], Ice, somebody else has it – or the phone was just plain stolen.“I think it’s par for the course, considering the government’s conduct in this case. We’re doing this, at least initially, to see if we get the phone back, but again, if they don’t give the phone back, its another reason to file a lawsuit in federal court.”Guevara’s family was forced to make an extortion payment after another inmate threatened him while he was briefly held in general population in the federal prison in Atlanta. Guevara is now being held in isolation, which may help protect him, but also limits his ability to report on conditions at the Folkston immigration center, set to become the largest Ice detention center in the US.“With every day that passes, we are losing time that we will never get back,” said his daughter Katherine Guevara. “I know so many others in the same situation understand it all too well. I’m deeply disappointed with this country. This is not just about one journalist. This is about what kind of country we want to be. If a government can punish a reporter for doing his job, what message does this send? What protections are left for the rest of us?” More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Losing Stephen Colbert and the Late Show is a crushing blow, whatever the reason | Adrian Horton

      by

      Last Thursday, when Stephen Colbert announced on air that CBS had decided to cancel The Late Show, its flagship late-night comedy program, after 33 years in May of next year, I was shocked.For the better part of six years, I have watched every late-night monologue as part of my job at the Guardian (hello, late-night roundup), and though I often grumble about it, The Late Show has become a staple of my media diet and my principle source of news; as a millennial, I haven’t known a television landscape without it. There are many bleaker, deadlier things happening daily in this country, and the field of late-night comedy has been dying slowly for years, but the cancellation of The Late Show, three days after Colbert called out its parent company for settling a lawsuit with Donald Trump, felt especially and pointedly depressing – more a sign of cultural powerlessness and corporate fecklessness in the face of a bully president than the inevitable result of long-shifting tastes.Reporting in the days since the announcement have lent some credence to CBS’s claim that this was “purely a financial decision”. Though The Late Show has led the field of late-night comedy in ratings for years, it only averages about 2.47 million viewers a night. Its ad revenue plummeted after the pandemic; Puck’s Matthew Belloni reported that the show loses $40m for CBS every year. Of the network late-night shows – NBC’s Late Night With Seth Meyers, The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon, and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! – Colbert’s Late Show has the smallest footprint on social media, where Fallon’s celebrity gags still reign supreme. The format of late-night television – a host delivering a topical monologue, house band, celebrity guest interviews – is a living relic of a different time, when a youth-skewing audience would reliably pop on linear television at 11.30pm. The field has been contracting for years, with programs hosted by Samantha Bee, James Corden and Taylor Tomlinson ending without replacement. Ad revenue for the genre as a whole is down 50% from just seven years ago, in the middle of Trump 1.0. It’s long been assumed that the hosts currently in these once-coveted chairs would be the last, their programs expiring when they decided to step down.What’s shocking is that Colbert, who was reportedly set to renegotiate his one-year contract at the end of this season, was not given that time, which just so happens to coincide with a critical window for the intended merger of CBS parent company Paramount with Skydance Media. Three days before the announcement, Colbert called Paramount’s settlement with Trump a “big fat bribe” to incentivize the administration’s approval of this $8bn deal managed by two billionaire families.Regardless of Colbert’s contract timing, it seems the cancellation of The Late Show is a financial decision, just not in the way CBS is framing it. It’s not about the $40m The Late Show is losing per year – a lot of money, to be sure, though a drop in the bucket for the major players here – but the $8bn on the line with this merger. There were presumably other options; Late Night With Seth Meyers dispensed of its house band and musical acts last year to save money. With new billionaire ownership, there could be some business maneuvering, should independent political comedy be a priority. Colbert’s Late Show, a leading critic of Donald Trump on network television, is clearly not; the show may have been a money loser, but in this context, it’s a convenient sacrifice.And though it’s easy to roll one’s eyes at late-night television – I often do – it’s an especially disappointing one, both in the culture at large and in the dwindling 11.35pm time slot. For years, I have argued that the late-night shows have long outstripped their original function as comedy programs. They are satirical, occasionally relevant, sometimes profane, but hardly ever funny, in the traditional sense of making you laugh. Often, they resort to so-called “clapter” – laughter as a polite applause, jokes for agreement rather than laughter – in a deadening anti-Trump feedback loop. With the exception of The Daily Show, a cable program founded for the purpose of political satire, the shows basically serve two functions in the internet era: 1 Generate viral celebrity content as they promote another project, and 2 Comment freely on the news, unbound from the strictures of decorum, tone and supposed “objectivity” that hamstrings so much journalism in the US.The latter was, I’d argue, the most important contribution of late-night television in the Trump era, when the president and his minions exceeded parody, and Colbert was the best at it. Nimble, erudite, self-deprecating but exceptionally well-read, Colbert transformed from extremely successful Fox News satirist to the reverend father of late-night TV: principled, authoritative but hardly ever self-righteous, deeply faithful to the American project, steadfastly believing in the decency of others. (Colbert is a practicing Catholic and die-hard Lord of the Rings fan, facts that sometimes snuck into his monologues.) At times, such old-school values felt insufficient for the moment; the format of late-night comedy as a whole has proven futile, even pathetic, in the face of Donald Trump’s brand of shamelessness, the Maga movement’s ability to turn everything into a joke. But these hosts, and the Daily Show-trained Colbert especially, did something that the rest of news media or the sprawling celebrity and comedian podcast network could not: call bullshit on the administration with the imprimatur of a major television network, and say exactly what they were feeling.That ability proved useful to me, as a viewer, at times when it seemed standard media was incapable of articulating what was happening. During the pandemic, or the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, or on January 6, or when Trump was re-elected, or when Republicans mocked Californians during the devastating LA wildfires earlier this year, late-night television had the freedom to express outrage, and Colbert in particular to express moral injury. The jokes were almost never surprising; they weren’t really even jokes. But it still felt soothing to see someone say them, with corporate backing, at an institution that still carried enough name recognition to, well, merit a “late-night roundup”.Colbert, ultimately, will be fine. He is a skilled comedian whose talents weren’t always well-tapped by the strict format of late-night comedy. Perhaps he will join the legion of comedians with podcasts, speaking directly to fans; perhaps he will release a special. But his absence from late-night television spells doom for the rest of the format, and more importantly for freedom of speech on the big networks. Late-night comedy has been fighting a losing battle for a long time, and The Late Show was never going to out-influence the rising tide of rightwing media, the manosphere or any number of independent shows in a fracturing media landscape. But the fact that he could try, from one of the more famed perches in television, still meant something. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court is giving a lawless president the green light | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Just when we thought the US supreme court couldn’t sink any lower in bowing and scraping to Donald Trump, it issued a shocking order last week that brushed aside important legal precedents as it ruled in the president’s favor. In that case, the court’s rightwing supermajority essentially gave Trump carte blanche to dismantle the Department of Education, which plays an important role in the lives of the nation’s 50 million public schoolchildren, sending federal money to schools, helping students with disabilities and enforcing anti-discrimination laws.Many legal experts, along with the court’s three liberal justices, protested that the court was letting Trump abolish a congressionally created federal agency without Congress’s approval. In their dissent, the liberal justices warned that the court was undermining Congress’s authority and the constitution’s separation of powers. Not only that, we should all be concerned that the court was giving dangerous new powers to the most authoritarian-minded president in US history.In the Department of Education case, the court issued a one-paragraph, unsigned order that lifted a lower court’s injunction that blocked the Trump administration from making wholesale layoffs that went far toward dismantling the department. Recognizing that Article I of the constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund federal agencies and define their responsibilities, prior supreme court decisions have held that presidents don’t have the power to defy what Congress has legislated and gut an agency without Congress’s approval.In a stinging dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” Sotomayor added that the court’s order “permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department” was “indefensible”.Making the court’s move even more maddening was its failure to include any reasoning to explain its action – it was the most recent in a string of brief “emergency docket” orders which, without giving any rationale, ruled in Trump’s favor. The rightwing justices might argue that this was a harmless, minor order, merely lifting a lower court’s injunction until the case is fully adjudicated. But by vacating the injunction, the court let Linda McMahon, the secretary of education, speed ahead with her plan to slash the department’s workforce by over 50%, a move that will gut the agency and prevent it from carrying out many functions that Congress authorized it to do. The supreme court’s order is likely to leave the department an empty shell by the time the judiciary issues a final ruling on whether Trump broke the law in gutting the department – and there’s a good chance the judiciary will conclude that Trump acted illegally.The Trump administration insisted that it wasn’t dismantling the education department, that it had merely ordered massive layoffs there to boost efficiency. But the district court judge didn’t buy the administration’s arguments, especially because Trump had spoken so frequently about killing the department.Sotomayor wrote that the constitution requires all presidents, including Trump, to faithfully execute the law. But in this case, Trump seemed eager to execute the Department of Education, while showing scant concern for executing the law. Noting Trump’s repeated vows to abolish the department, Sotomayor chided the supermajority, writing: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”With that language, the three dissenting justices were in essence accusing the supermajority of aiding and abetting Trump’s defiance of the law. In the court’s 236-year history, rarely have dissenting justices been so emphatic in criticizing the majority for “expediting” a president’s lawlessness.Sotomayor hammered that point home, writing: “The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle.”If the US constitution means anything, it means that the supreme court should stand up to a president who seeks to maximize his power by defying the law. But far too often today’s rightwing supermajority seems to lean in to back Trump. The court leaned in for Trump last year in Chief Justice John Roberts’ much-criticized ruling that gave Trump and other presidents vast immunity from prosecution. The supermajority leaned in for Trump last month when it gave Elon Musk and his Doge twentysomethings access to sensitive personal information for over 70 million Americans on social security.One would think the nine justices would be eager to strengthen the pillars that uphold our democracy: the separation of powers, fair elections, respect for the law, limits on the power of the executive. But the Roberts court has too often weakened those pillars: by giving Trump huge immunity from prosecution, by turning a blind eye to egregious gerrymandering that prevents fair elections and by letting Trump fire top officials from independent agencies long before their terms end. In late June, the supermajority curbed district courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions to put a brake on Trump’s rampant lawlessness – by that time, lower court judges had issued more than 190 orders blocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they deemed unlawful.In the Department of Education case, the court again weakened a pillar upholding our democracy; it gave Trump a green light to ignore Congress’s wishes and take a wrecking ball to the department. It’s hugely dismaying that the court undercut Congress’s power at a time when Trump has transformed the nation’s senators and representatives into an assemblage of compliant kittens by intimidating them with a social media bullhorn that bludgeons anyone who dares to defy his wishes. Instead of shoring up Congress’s power in the face of such intimidation, the Roberts court has seemed happy to undermine Congress and hand over more power to Trump.On top of all that, it is galling to see the court issue so many pro-Trump orders without giving any rationale. When the US is so polarized and the court so widely criticized for its many pro-Trump rulings, it would seem incumbent upon the court, when issuing orders, to explain why it’s doing what it’s doing. But the court has repeatedly failed to sufficiently explain its decisions, revealing an unfortunate arrogance and obtuseness.Justice Samuel Alito has complained about those who criticize the court over the rushed, unexplained decisions on its emergency docket. Critics have faulted the court for issuing too many orders through that docket, which uses abbreviated procedures to issue orders that remain in force while the courts adjudicate whether Trump’s actions are legal. Alito maintains that with the crush of cases, the court doesn’t have the time to write its usual, carefully wrought decisions.Alito has suggested, rather outrageously, that many critics of the court are engaged in improper bullying. He said that some critics of the emergency docket suggest it has been “captured by a dangerous cabal” that uses “sneaky” methods. Those criticisms, Alito warned, fuel “unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court”.When the court issues one order after another that favors Trump, the most lawless president in US history, often without explanation, the court should expect to be criticized for doing too little to defend our democracy and the rule of law. Alito shouldn’t be so thin-skinned or paranoid about supposed intimidation; he does have life tenure.The court’s critics aren’t seeking to intimidate the justices. Rather they are pleading with the rightwing supermajority to stop bowing to Trump and become more resolute in enforcing the law against the most authoritarian president in history, a president who said he could “terminate” parts of the constitution and who claims sweeping powers to singlehandedly nullify laws.The court’s supermajority should remember: we are supposed to have a government of laws, not of strongmen.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: immigration agents to ‘flood’ US sanctuary cities as marines withdraw from LA

      by

      The Trump administration is targeting US sanctuary cities in the next phase of its deportation drive, after an off-duty law enforcement officer was allegedly shot in New York City by an undocumented person with a criminal record.Tom Homan, Donald Trump’s hardline border tsar, vowed to “flood the zone” with Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (Ice) agents, saying: “Every sanctuary city is unsafe. Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals and President Trump’s not going to tolerate it.”In Los Angeles, meanwhile, 700 active-duty US marines was being withdrawn, the Pentagon confirmed, more than a month after Trump deployed them to the city against the objections of local leaders.Here’s more on these and the day’s other key Trump administration stories at a glance.Trump’s border tsar to target US sanctuary cities Tom Homan has vowed to “flood the zone” of sanctuary cities with Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (Ice) agents in an all-out bid to overcome the lack of cooperation he said the government faced from Democrat-run municipalities in its quest to arrest and detain undocumented people.The pledge from Donald Trump’s hardline border tsar followed the arrest of two undocumented men from the Dominican Republic after an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer suffered gunshot wounds in an apparent robbery attempt in New York City on Saturday night.Read the full story700 active-duty marines withdrawn from LAThe Pentagon confirmed to the Guardian on Monday that the full deployment of 700 active-duty US marines was being withdrawn from Los Angeles more than a month after Donald Trump deployed them to the city in a move state and city officials called unnecessary and provocative.Read the full storyTrump tax bill to add $3.4tn to US debt over next decadeThe president’s signature tax and spending bill will add $3.4tn to the national debt over the next decade, according to new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released on Monday.Major cuts to Medicaid and the national food stamps program are estimated to save the country $1.1tn – only a chunk of the $4.5tn in lost revenue that will come from the bill’s tax cuts.Read the full storyLegal group asks DoJ to look into ‘illegal DEI practices’ at Johns HopkinsA legal group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller has requested the justice department investigate “illegal DEI practices” at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.In a letter to the justice department’s civil rights division, America First Legal asked an assistant attorney general to investigate and issue enforcement actions against the prestigious medical university for embracing “a discriminatory DEI regime as a core institutional mandate”.Read the full storyHundreds of Nasa workers rebuke ‘arbitrary’ Trump cutsAlmost 300 current and former US Nasa employees – including at least four astronauts – have issued a scathing dissent opposing the Trump administration’s sweeping and indiscriminate cuts to the agency, which they say threaten safety, innovation and national security.Read the full storyTrump officials release FBI records on MLK JrThe Trump administration has released records of the FBI’s surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr, despite opposition from the slain Nobel laureate’s family and the civil rights group that he led until his 1968 assassination.Read the full storyEpstein accuser urged FBI to investigate Trump decades ago – reportAn artist who first accused Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of sexual assault almost three decades ago has told the New York Times that she had urged law enforcement officials back then to investigate powerful people in their orbit – including Donald Trump.The artist, Maria Farmer, was among the first women to report Epstein and his partner Maxwell of sexual crimes in 1996 when, according to the new interview with the Times, she also identified Trump among others close to Epstein as worthy of attention.Read the full storyHarvard argues Trump’s $2.6bn cuts are illegalHarvard University appeared in federal court on Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the college – a major test of the administration’s efforts to reshape higher education institutions by threatening their financial viability.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      Michael Bloomberg is calling on Senate Republicans to oust Robert F Kennedy Jr from his post as Trump’s health secretary.

      The US Federal Reserve is pushing back against claims from the White House that it is undergoing extravagant renovations with a video tour showing the central bank’s ongoing construction.

      Hunter Biden gave a profanity-laced interview during which he attacked George Clooney, denied owning the cocaine found in the White House and spoke about his father’s last efforts in the 2024 race before dropping out.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 20 July 2025. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump tax bill to add $3.4tn to US debt over next decade, new analysis finds

      by

      Donald Trump’s new tax bill will add $3.4tn to the national debt over the next decade, according to new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released Monday.Major cuts to Medicaid and the national food stamps program are estimated to save the country $1.1tn – only a chunk of the $4.5tn in lost revenue that will come from the bill’s tax cuts.The cuts will come through stricter work requirements and eligibility checks for both programs. The CBO estimates the bill will leave 10 million Americans without health insurance by 2034.The bill also makes permanent tax cuts that were first introduced by Republicans in Trump’s 2017 tax bill. The cuts included a reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 35% to 21%, and an increase to the standard deduction. It also includes a tax dedication for workers receiving tips and overtime pay, and removes tax credits that support wind and solar power development, which could ultimately raise energy costs for Americans.Increased costs will also come from boosts to immigration and border security funding. The bill allocates nearly $170bn to immigration law enforcement, including the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency and funding for a wall along the southern border.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that, with interest, the bill will actually add $4.1tn to the deficit. The US national debt currently stands at more than $36tn.“It’s still hard to believe that policymakers just added $4tn to the debt,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement. “Modelers from across the ideological spectrum universally agree that any sustained economic benefits are likely to be modest, or negative, and not one serious estimate claims this bill will improve our financial situation.”Trump signed the bill into law earlier this month after weeks of debate among congressional Republicans. The bill passed the Senate 51-50 before it passed the House 218-214.While Republicans largely celebrated the bill, with Trump calling it “the most popular bill ever signed in the history of the country”, only a quarter of Americans in a CBS/YouGov poll said that the bill will help their family.Democrats meanwhile universally criticized the bill, with Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee saying that while “the GOP continues to cash their billionaire donors’ checks, their constituents will starve, lose critical medical care, lose their jobs – and yes, some will die as a result of this bill.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon withdraws all 700 marines from Los Angeles – live updates

      by

      The Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, confirmed to the Guardian on Monday that the entire deployment of 700 active-duty US marines is being withdrawn from Los Angeles.The redeployment of the marines comes after 2,000 National Guard troops were withdrawn from the city last week. The troops were sent to the city last month by the federal government after violence broke out on the fringes on protests against immigration enforcement sweeps in LA.According to Parnell, the deployment of the marines, which state and city officials called unnecessary and provocative at a time when protests against immigration raids were already under control, had achieved it aim.“With stability returning to Los Angeles, the Secretary has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated”, Parnell said in a written statement. “Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law. We’re deeply grateful for their service, and for the strength and professionalism they brought to this mission.”Citing concerns over possible violations of bribery laws, senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden wrote on Monday to David Ellison, whose company Skydance is about to buy CBS owner Paramount, to ask if he struck a “secret side deal” with Donald Trump in exchange for federal approval of the purchase, or played any part in the decision to cancel Trump critic Stephen Colbert’s late-night CBS show.In their letter, the senators asked Ellison, whose father Larry Ellison is the co-founder of Oracle and a friend of Trump, to reply to 7 detailed questions, probing whether he was involved in any “quid-pro-quo arrangement” that could violate the law.The questions about a possible secret side deal were prompted, in part, by Trump’s own claims, after he accepted $16 million from Paramount to drop his lawsuit over the routine editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris last year, that the deal was worth twice as much.There have been recent reports that Ellison has been considering a possible role for the conservative journalist Bari Weiss in remaking CBS News.Among the questions Ellison is asked to reply to by 4 August are:

      “Is there currently any arrangement under which you or Skydance will provide compensation, advertising, or promotional activities that in any way assist President Trump, his family, his presidential library, or other Administration officials?” the senators ask Ellison in the letter.

      “Have you personally discussed with President Trump, any of his family members, any Trump Administration officials, or presidential library fund personnel any matters related to the Paramount-Skydance transaction?”

      “Has Skydance agreed or have you personally agreed to make changes to Skydance’s content or Paramount’s or CBS’s content at the request of the Trump Administration, to facilitate approval of the transaction?”
      The Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, confirmed to the Guardian on Monday that the entire deployment of 700 active-duty US marines is being withdrawn from Los Angeles.The redeployment of the marines comes after 2,000 National Guard troops were withdrawn from the city last week. The troops were sent to the city last month by the federal government after violence broke out on the fringes on protests against immigration enforcement sweeps in LA.According to Parnell, the deployment of the marines, which state and city officials called unnecessary and provocative at a time when protests against immigration raids were already under control, had achieved it aim.“With stability returning to Los Angeles, the Secretary has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated”, Parnell said in a written statement. “Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law. We’re deeply grateful for their service, and for the strength and professionalism they brought to this mission.”Democrats this afternoon are forcing another vote to push for the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents, further placing pressure on Republican lawmakers, according to a report from Politico.The Democratic lawmakers are planning to offer Republican representative Thomas Massie’s bill as an amendment during a Rules Committee meeting Monday afternoon. Massie’s bill, a bipartisan effort, seeks to push for the release of Epstein-related documents.On Monday, Politico also reported that the Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson does not have plans to put forward a Republican-led alternative Epstein bill before August’s recess break.The White House is removing the Wall Street Journal from the group of reporters covering Trump’s trip to Scotland, Politico reports.The Wall Street Journal’s removal from this upcoming weekend’s press pool follows the paper’s report that alleged Trump wrote a sexually suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump has sued the paper and its owners for its report, demanding $10 billion.“Due to the Wall Street Journal’s fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Politico. “Every news organization in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible.”According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump wrote a “bawdy” note to Epstein for his 2003 birthday.The Trump administration has flouted court orders in just over one-third of the lawsuits filed against its policies, a Washington Post analysis found. The Post’s analysis says it suggests a “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system” by the White House.A number of plaintiffs that have sued the Trump administration say that agencies and officials are ignoring rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence and quietly acting in defiance of court rulings.Since Trump took office, there has been a battle between the White House and the judiciary, during which officials have defied numerous court orders. Trump administration officials have repeatedly criticized federal judges as “activist judges.”According to the Post, despite judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents agreeing that the administration is flouting court orders, “none have taken punitive action to try to force compliance.”The Post analyzed 337 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration since January. Courts have ruled in 165 of the lawsuits. And the Post found that the Trump administration is accused of defying court orders in 57 of those cases.Two suspects are in custody for the alleged shooting and wounding of a customs officer in New York, officials said on Monday, the Guardian’s Robert Tait reports.During a press conference on Monday, homeland security secretary Krsiti Noem and Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, also said the episode was a direct result of New York’s sanctuary city policies and the approach to border security under Joe Biden’s presidency.On Saturday night, an off-duty customs officer was shot and wounded during an apparent attempted robbery. The officer was not in uniform at the time and police said there was indication he was targeted because of his occupation.A suspect in the incident, Miguel Francisco Mora Nunez, was later taken into custody after turning up at a hospital in the Bronx with gunshot wounds to the leg and groin.During Monday’s press conference, Noem also focused on the profile of Nunez, who she said had been arrested four times since entering the US illegally in 2023. She also discussed the profile of his accomplice, Christhian Aybar-Berroa, saying he had “entered the country illegally in 2022 under the Biden Administration and was ordered for final removal in 2023 by an immigration judge.”“There’s absolutely zero reason that someone who has scum of the earth like this should be running loose on the streets of New York City,” Noem said, referring to Nunez. “Arrested four different times in New York City and because of the mayor’s policies and was released back to do harm to people and to individuals living in the city. Make no mistake, this officer is in the hospital today, fighting for his life because of the policies of the mayor of the city and the city council and the people that were in charge of keeping the public safe.”Homan said “sanctuary cities are cities for criminals.” He said the administration would “flood the zone” with immigration, customs and enforcement (Ice) officials to detain undocumented people in sanctuary cities.“What we’re going to do [is deploy] more agents in New York City to look for that bad guy so sanctuary cities get exactly what they don’t want – more agents in the community and more agents in the worksite,” he said.“I’m sick and tired of reading in the media every day how Ice is not doing what the Trump administration has promised, that we’re not arresting criminals, that most of the people we arrested are not criminals. I look at the numbers every day. The numbers I looked at [are] 130,000 arrests and 90,000 criminals. Do the math. That’s 70%.”Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, has blamed the sanctuary city policies applied by Democratic mayors for the wounding of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer in an attempted robbery, allegedly carried out by undocumented immigrants, one of whom was reportedly subject to a deportation order, the Guardian’s Robert Tait reports.The 42-year-old officer sustained gunshot wounds to his face and arm after being attacked in a Manhattan park shortly before midnight on Saturday night.He was shot after drawing his service weapon after being approached by two men on a scooter as he sat on a bench with a female companion. The officer was not in uniform at the time and police said there was indication he was targeted because of his occupation.At a news conference on Monday, Noem, flanked by Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, and several law enforcement officials, said the episode was a direct result of the sanctuary city policy adopted by New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, as well as the approach to border security adopted during Joe Biden’s presidency. Noem also criticized Adams during the conference.Noem’s criticism of Adams came despite widespread reports of a deal made between the mayor and the Trump administration that involved New York giving greater cooperation than before on immigration. The agreement was reached around the same time that the justice department moved to dismiss federal corruption charges against Adams, although the mayor has insisted there was no quid pro quo.Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles had also suffered crime waves, according to Noem, because their mayors and municipalities were “protecting criminals” by declaring them sanctuary cities, whereby local authorities give only limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies.President Donald Trump has appointed Mike Rigas, a Bush-era official from the General Services Administration (GSA), as acting administrator of the agency, Politico reports.The move is seen as a further step by the White House to curb Elon Musk’s influence in the GSA, which is one of the federal agencies that Musk’s initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) nearly fully controlled.Rigas previously worked under the Trump administration as Deputy Secretary of State for management and resources. The former acting administrator was selected by a Musk ally to lead DOGE. The Rigas appointment is seen as a strategic move by the White House to rein in DOGE leadership.Border czar Tom Homan said Monday that immigration officials will escalate operations in New York and other so-called sanctuary cities.“Sanctuary cities are now our priority,” Homan said. “We’re gonna flood the zone.”Homan’s comments follow an attempted robbery and shooting of an armed, off-duty customs officer in Manhattan this weekend. The New York City Police Commissioner said the officer was not likely targeted due to his employment.When two men approached the off-duty officer to rob him and a companion in a Manhattan park, the officer withdrew a gun and engaged in a shootout with one of the robbers. The robber was arrested after being taken to a hospital. The customs officer is recovering from gunshots.Trump administration officials have said that so-called sanctuary policies were to blame for the shooting. New York and other cities have policies that limit local government cooperation in federal immigration matters.President Donald Trump threatened to appeal a federal judge’s decision in Massachusetts amid the ongoing and escalating battle between his administration and Harvard University.In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that the federal judge hearing the case is a “TOTAL DISASTER” and that when “she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.”Massachusetts district judge Judge Allison Burroughs heard arguments from lawyers with Harvard and the federal government on Monday, in a case that may decide whether the Trump administration’s attempts to cut billions of dollars in university funding is legal. Burroughs has not yet ruled on Monday’s arguments.In his Truth Social post, Trump also said Harvard is “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.”The US Border Patrol chief patrol agent for the El Centro Sector in southern California posted a video on X (formerly Twitter) saying that federal immigration officials “are not leaving” Los Angeles until “the mission is accomplished.”“Better get used to us now because this is going to be normal very soon,” Gregory K. Bovino, the Border Patrol agent said in a video. “I don’t work for [Los Angeles mayor] Karen Bass, the federal government doesn’t work for Karen Bass.”Border Patrol and other immigration officials have been conducting operations in Los Angeles to arrest, detain and deport undocumented immigrants. The operations gained widespread backlash in early June. Protests, opposing immigration arrests, engulfed certain areas of the city.Texas’s Republican-led state legislature is pushing to redistrict the state in a way that would favor Republicans when electing House representatives, the Washington Post reports.During the state’s special legislative session, beginning today, Trump is pushing for lawmakers to redistrict the state to add up to five more House districts.National Democratic Redistricting Committee, an anti-gerrymandering group, threatened to file lawsuits to stop attempts to redistrict the state.The special session was called by Texas’s state governor Greg Abbott after devastating floods in central Texas.Four US senators met with Canadian prime minister Mark Carney amid the looming 1 August deadline to strike a new trade and security deal.The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is being renegotiated and has faced strain from the Trump administration regarding a few key points, including lumber, digital services taxes and metal tariffs.This is the second congressional delegation to visit the Canadian prime minister in the past three months, Politico reports.Democratic senator Maria Cantwell, from Washington, is pushing for the Trump administration to bolster the US government’s weather disaster readiness, after recent tragic floods, hurricanes and wildfires, and as the administration seeks to slash resources.This comes as the Trump administration is pushing to drastically reduce the budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).The Trump administration is looking to cut the NOAA’s budget by 27%, a reduction of $2.2 billion.In a letter, Sen. Cantwell made five recommendations. They include modernizing weather data collection, funding more research and modernizing alert systems.“Communities across the United States are experiencing more frequent, intense, and costly flash floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, landslides, heatwaves, and wildfires,” Cantwell wrote. “We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create the world’s best weather forecasting system that would provide Americans with much more detailed and customized alerts days instead of minutes ahead of a looming extreme weather event.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Harvard argues in court that Trump administration’s $2.6bn cuts are illegal

      by

      Harvard University appeared in federal court on Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the storied college – a major test of the administration’s efforts to reshape higher education institutions by threatening their financial viability.US district judge Allison Burroughs heard arguments from Harvard and the Department of Justice. The cuts, imposed earlier this year, have halted major research efforts and Harvard argues they are a politically motivated attempt to pressure the school into adopting federal policies on student conduct, admissions, antisemitism and diversity.A ruling in favor of the university would revive Harvard’s sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.“This case involves the government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,” the university said in its complaint. “All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.”The case is being closely watched by other universities that have seen their research funds axed by the administration, which has suspended or threatened billions in grants and contracts from several institutions. The White House is reportedly close to finalizing a deal with Columbia University – the first institution it targeted for cuts – to restore $400m in funding in exchange for the university implementing a series of measures meeting the administration’s ideological demands.Harvard is the first – and so far only – university to sue.The university has separately sued the administration over its revocation of Harvard’s eligibility to host international students. (Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, but he has taken no action to that effect so far.)Burroughs is overseeing both of Harvard’s cases against the administration and in June issued an injunction stopping the government from barring foreign Harvard students from entering the country.Monday’s hearing was the first time the court heard arguments about the legality of the administration’s funding cuts. The hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing.Harvard’s lawsuit accuses Donald Trump’s administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism taskforce.The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said in court on Monday that the government has authority to cancel research grants when an institution is out of compliance with the president’s directives. He said episodes at Harvard violated Trump’s order combating antisemitism.Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make “ad-hoc” decisions to cancel grants and do so across Harvard without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic.She also argued the government had provided “no documentation, no procedure” to “suss out” whether Harvard administrators “have taken enough steps or haven’t” to combat antisemitism.“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” Burroughs said during Monday’s hearing. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong.”Velchik said the case comes down to the government’s choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding.“Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,” Velchik said. “The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlan Garber, Harvard’s president, pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”.The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Linda McMahon, the US education secretary, declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard.As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.Harvard, which has the nation’s largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can’t absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.In court filings, the school said the government “fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism”.The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.“It is the policy of the United States under the Trump administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,” it said in court documents.Last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard’s federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a “death sentence”.While Harvard’s cases against the administration proceeds in court, the university is reportedly also negotiating with the administration for a deal that might end the dispute out of court. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Hundreds of Nasa workers rebuke ‘arbitrary’ Trump cuts in scathing letter

      by

      Almost 300 current and former US Nasa employees, including at least four astronauts, have issued a scathing dissent opposing the Trump administration’s sweeping and indiscriminate cuts to the agency, which they say threaten safety, innovation and national security.The formal letter, titled The Voyager Declaration, is addressed to the acting Nasa administrator, Sean Duffy, a staunch Trump loyalist appointed on 7 July who is also his transportation secretary. The declaration, which is dedicated to 17 astronauts who have died in past spaceflight incidents, warns of catastrophic consequences if the proposed cuts to science grants, staffing and international missions are implemented.“Major programmatic shifts at Nasa must be implemented strategically so that risks are managed carefully,” the letter said. “Instead, the last six months have seen rapid and wasteful changes which have undermined our mission and caused catastrophic impacts on Nasa’s workforce.“We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety, scientific advancement, and efficient use of public resources. These cuts are arbitrary and have been enacted in defiance of congressional appropriations law. The consequences for the agency and the country alike are dire.”The letter sounds the alarm over suggested changes to Nasa’s Technical Authority, a system of safety checks and balances established in the wake of the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster that killed seven astronauts. “The culture of organizational silence promoted at Nasa over the last six months already represents a dangerous turn away from the lessons learned after the Columbia disaster,” the declaration states.The declaration has 131 named signatures – including at least 55 current Nasa employees – and 156 anonymous signatories. Interim administrator Duffy, a former television host who was appointed after the ousting of a longtime Nasa employee, Janet Petro, is the final step in the chain of Technical Authority command.Trump’s billionaire donor and former ally Elon Musk oversaw the loss of at least 2,600 of Nasa’s 17,000-plus employees, according to Politico, before the billionaire businessman stepped back from the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge). So far, at least $120m in Nasa grants have been terminated, and the White House has proposed slashing a quarter of the agency’s total budget for next year. International missions have been cancelled, and almost half the agency’s science budget could be cut in 2026.The signatories said they dissent from the indiscriminate cuts to Nasa research which supports national security by ensuring the US role as a global leader in science and technology. “Basic research in space science, aeronautics, and the stewardship of the Earth are inherently governmental functions that cannot and will not be taken up by the private sector,” the letter says.The Voyager Declaration, named after the twin Nasa spacecraft that are exploring interstellar space, is only the latest formal dissent against Trump’s unprecedented assault on science and federal agencies.In June, at least 300 employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a declaration calling for the restoration of grants into life-saving treatments that the Trump administration had “delayed or terminated for political reasons”.Earlier in July, 140 workers at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were placed on administrative leave after signing a letter highlighting key concerns including a culture of fear at the agency, the cancellation of environmental justice programs and grants, undermining public trust and “ignoring scientific consensus to protect polluters”. More