ReportWire

Tag: federal government

  • The Trump administration’s war against ICE critics

    [ad_1]

    It’s no secret that the Trump administration is thin-skinned about criticism and intolerant of efforts to document its activities. Administration officials smear ideological opponents and those who monitor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as potential “domestic terrorists.” So, it’s no surprise the administration is targeting online channels where its opponents coordinate. It’s no surprise, that is, but it’s an intolerable attack by yet another presidential administration on free speech rights.

    Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged tech companies to resist federal demands for data about users who have been critical of the administration.

    “DHS has consistently targeted people engaged in First Amendment activity,” warns Mario Trujillo, a senior staff attorney for the civil liberties group. “Among other things, the agency has issued subpoenas to technology companies to unmask or locate people who have documented ICE’s activities in their community, criticized the government, or attended protests.”

    Trujillo emphasizes that the subpoenas “are unlawful” and that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been leery of testing their legitimacy. In November, DHS withdrew a subpoena seeking details about Instagram users who posted about ICE raids in Los Angeles rather than defend the document in court.

    EFF recommends that tech companies abide by recommendations developed with the ACLU of Northern California. Among other things, it urges that subpoena recipients fight the demands in court, inform targeted users so they can secure legal assistance, and resist gag orders that seek to prevent recipients from warning users and publicly discussing the situation.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is also battling the administration’s war against critics. As reported by Reason‘s August Billings, FIRE is suing the federal government on behalf of two plaintiffs who created a Facebook group and an app that helped people document ICE activities.

    “As U.S. citizens, we have the right to keep each other informed about what our government officials are doing and how they’re doing it,” commented Mark Hodges, one of the plaintiffs.

    The problem is that the Trump administration doesn’t recognize that right. In December. Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella asked a DHS representative if the feds considered following or recording federal agents to be obstruction of justice. He was told, “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice.”

    Since then, after violent clashes in Minneapolis culminating in two killings of protesters by federal agents, the FBI has opened an investigation into Signal group chats used by opponents of the federal immigration crackdown.

    “That sort of Signal chat being coordinated with individuals, not just locally in Minnesota, but maybe even around the country,” FBI Director Kash Patel commented, “if that leads to a break in the federal statute or a violation of some law, then we are going to arrest people.”

    Patel claims the investigation will result in arrests “if” Signal chats lead to violations of law, but that’s a big “if” that could be applied to any conversation at any time. Recording, tracking, and sharing information about government enforcers is perfectly illegal.

    “While the Supreme Court itself hasn’t yet faced the issue squarely, the seven federal circuits that have done so—the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th—all agree that the First Amendment protects the right to record police performing their duties in public,” points out Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

    The Trump administration must have some lawyers on staff who told them the same thing. So, federal officials have complained that critics are doxing—collecting and publicizing information about—federal agents and that this is, perhaps, illegal-ish.

    “Videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told the Center for Media and Democracy last September. “We will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law.”

    But doxxing isn’t illegally harassing. It’s not illegal anything.

    “Government officials and employees don’t enjoy special immunity from ‘doxxing’,” writes David L. Hudson, Jr., associate professor of law at Belmont University, for FIRE. “Merely disclosing the names of government agents or places where they carry out their official duties is constitutionally protected speech, especially when tied to political criticism.”

    If collected information is then used to do something illegal—like attack people in their homes—that’s a different matter. But it’s that extra action that violates the law, not the gathering of faces, names, and addresses. Unfortunately, the administration (like many of its predecessors) seems to have a problem with criticism and opposition of any sort.

    In the wake of the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk, when many Americans were understandably profoundly upset by the crime, the White House issued a memo charging that “common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi followed up with a directive to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to target “domestic terrorists” identified in part by “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

    It’s true that these viewpoints can inspire crimes—just look at Kirk’s murder, for starters. But if you target beliefs rather than violent actions, you go down a dangerous path that threatens everybody. Under the last administration, the FBI investigated fans of the Gadsden flag and other “Revolutionary War imagery.” In both cases, government officials clearly targeted opponents, not crimes. The intent was to stifle people’s right to dissent, not address real threats to the public.

    That’s why the EFF, FIRE, tech companies, and regular people need to resist efforts to investigate critics of the government and to shut down communications platforms. They need to resist not because the critics are always right, but because governments can’t be permitted to target and muzzle their opponents.

    [ad_2]

    J.D. Tuccille

    Source link

  • Judge orders slavery exhibits restored at George Washington’s Philadelphia home

    [ad_1]

    PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore exhibits on slavery that the National Park Service had removed from the President’s House last month.

    U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe’s ruling requires the federal government to restore the site “to its physical status as of January 21, 2026,” the day before the exhibits were removed.

    The order did not set a deadline for restoration, but required the National Park Service to take steps to maintain the site and ensure the safety of the exhibits that memorialize the enslaved people who lived in George Washington’s Philadelphia home during his presidency.

    Rufe, a George W. Bush appointee, compared the Trump administration’s argument that it can unilaterally control the exhibits in national parks to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” a novel about a dystopian totalitarian regime.

    “This Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts,” Rufe wrote. “It does not.”

    The administration’s attempt to alter the President’s House is part of a nationwide initiative to remove content displays from national parks that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” under orders issued by President Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last year. For instance, Park Service employees removed signage from the Grand Canyon about the mistreatment of Native Americans.

    Philadelphia filed a federal lawsuit against Burgum, acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron and their agencies the day the exhibits were dismantled.

    The federal government has the option to appeal the judge’s order. The Interior Department, National Park Service and U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately comment on the ruling, which fell on Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday.

    During a hearing last month, Rufe called the argument that a president could unilaterally change the exhibits displayed in national parks “horrifying” and “dangerous.” She ordered the federal government to ensure the panels’ safekeeping after an inspection and a visit to the President’s House earlier this month.

    Monday’s ruling followed an updated injunction request from the city that asked for the full restoration of the site — not merely that the exhibits be maintained safely. In response, the federal government’s brief argued that the National Park Service has discretion over the exhibits and that the city’s lawsuit should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

    The federal government also argued there could be no irreparable harm from the removal of the exhibits because they are documented online and replacement panels would cost $20,000.

    But the judge found the city met its burden.

    “If the President’s House is left dismembered throughout this dispute, so too is the history it recounts, and the City’s relationship to that history,” Rufe wrote.

    The injunction itself does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, and is in effect for the duration of the litigation.

    Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, the main advocacy organization leading the fight to protect the President’s House, was a little less than an hour into its Presidents’ Day event at the site when leaders got wind of their victory.

    Michael Coard, a leader of the Black-led advocacy group that helped develop the site before it opened in 2010, told the crowd of about 100 people gathered at the President’s House: “Thanks to you all, your presence and your activism, I have great news: We just won in federal court.”

    But the fight is not over, advocates said, with Coard expecting the Trump administration to appeal or ignore any future rulings.

    “This is a lawless administration. The people are going to have to take over to force them to do the right thing,” Coard said.

    Gutman and Roth write for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

    [ad_2]

    Abraham Gutman and Fallon Roth

    Source link

  • How much is Kristi Noem’s alleged adultery airplane costing you?

    [ad_1]

    Rumors of an affair between Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Trump administration political adviser Corey Lewandowski have been flying for months.

    And all that flying, it turns out, might come with a big price tag for taxpayers.

    The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Noem and Lewandowski have recently been traveling together aboard a luxury Boeing 737 MAX jet that includes a private cabin in the rear. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is “leasing the plane but is in the process of acquiring it for approximately $70 million,” the Journal reports, citing people familiar with the plane.

    That is just one small detail amid the explosive and deeply reported piece, which details a pattern of behavior that is both self-aggrandizing and petty. In one incident, Lewandowski reportedly fired a Coast Guard pilot for leaving Noem’s blanket on a plane (it is unclear whether that was the 737 MAX or a different plane), only to reinstate the pilot when a replacement could not be found. The report comes at a time when Noem is under intense scrutiny for her role in ordering the high-profile and aggressive immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis that led to the deaths of two American citizens at the hands of federal officers.

    The salacious rumors of an affair between Noem and Lewandowski—both of whom are married to other people—surface repeatedly in the Journal’s article but have been denied by the two officials.

    The deeper, indisputable truth is that taxpayers are being forced to support an aircraft-buying binge at the DHS that goes beyond the alleged adultery airplane used by Noem and Lewandowski.

    Last year, the department purchased a fleet of six commercial jets, ostensibly to carry out deportation flights, at a cost of $140 million. It is unclear whether Noem’s plane with the private cabin is one of those or an additional plane.

    The aircraft in question was apparently identified last year by The War Zone, a blog covering the national security state. The plane has a cabin configuration designed to accommodate 17 passengers and was being marketed at the time for its “extremely luxurious interior layout that includes two suites with full-size beds and a master bathroom with a shower stall, among many other amenities,” according to a brochure reviewed by The War Zone.

    Even if Noem and Lewandowski are not using the plane for, um, activities that go beyond their official duties, there ought to be hard questions asked about whether taxpayers are getting screwed.

    Indeed, there was a time—not even a year ago—when the Trump administration was promising to cut wasteful spending and hold government officials accountable to taxpayers. If the Journal‘s reporting turns out to be accurate, the mess at DHS looks a lot like the complete opposite of that.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Trump says federal government should ‘take over’ state elections

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the federal government should “nationalize” elections, repeating — without evidence — his long-running claim that U.S. elections are beset by widespread fraud.

    Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting the GOP.

    “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said.

    The proposal would clash with the Constitution’s long-standing framework that grants states primary authority over election administration, and underscored Trump’s continued efforts to upend voting rules ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

    Trump, for example, lamented that Republicans have not been “tougher” on the issue, again asserting without evidence that he lost the 2020 election because undocumented immigrants voted illegally for Democrats.

    “If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

    In his remarks, the president suggested that “some interesting things” may come out of Georgia in the near future. Trump did not divulge more details, but was probably teasing what may come after the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga.

    Days after FBI agents descended on the election center, the New York Times reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was with agents at the scene when she called Trump on her cellphone. Trump thanked them for their work, according to the report, an unusual interaction between the president and investigators tied to a politically sensitive inquiry.

    In the days leading up to the Georgia search, Trump suggested in a speech during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that criminal charges were imminent in connection to what he called a “rigged” 2020 election.

    Georgia has been central to Trump’s 2020 claims. That’s where Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2021, asking him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results. Raffensperger refused, affirming that a series of reviews confirmed that Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.

    Since returning to office a year ago, Trump has continued to aggressively pushed changes to election rules.

    He signed an executive order in March to require proof of U.S. citizenship on election forms, but months later a federal judge barred the Trump administration from doing so, saying the order violated the separation of powers.

    “Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in October.

    In Congress, several Republican lawmakers have backed legislation to require people provide proof of citizenship before they register to vote.

    Some conservatives are using the elections bill as bargaining chip amid negotiations over a spending package that would end a partial government shutdown that began early Saturday.

    “ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS. This is common sense not rocket science,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X on Monday as negotiations were continuing.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 1:27 PM EST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 10:27 AM PST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As ICE cracks down harder, support for abolishing ICE surges

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump was reelected to the presidency in 2024 after pledging to carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history.” In the first year of his second term, he followed through on his promise, weaponizing the agencies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and deploying thousands of federal troops into major U.S. cities like an occupying army.

    Earlier this month, the death of Renee Good at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer Jonathan Ross brought overly aggressive federal law enforcement into public view. As a result, more Americans than ever now think we should get rid of it.

    “More Americans now support the abolishment of ICE, in a major change since July and in Donald Trump’s first presidency,” Forbes‘ Mike Stunson wrote last week, “as the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal officer has led to a wave of backlash against the agency.”

    Stunson cited a January 2026 poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov, which found that 46 percent of respondents support abolishing ICE, with 43 percent opposed. The same poll found 50 percent felt Good’s shooting was “not justified,” while only 30 percent said it was justified.

    A separate poll by Civiqs found 43 percent of respondents support ending ICE, with 49 percent opposed. Notably, though, this represents a dramatic shift since only a few months ago. In September 2024, only 19 percent supported, and 66 percent opposed, abolishing the agency.

    It was also the highest number in favor of abolition, and the lowest number against, since Civiqs began asking the question in July 2018, when the #AbolishICE movement began in earnest. (At that time, respondents favored keeping the agency intact by a 2–to–1 margin.)

    And an Associated Press/NORC poll shows 61 percent of Americans now oppose Trump’s handling of immigration; as recently as March 2025, respondents were evenly split.

    The reason for the shift is clear: Americans are suddenly confronted with the reality of what ICE is doing, and they don’t like what they see.

    “Trump has deployed 3,000 federal officers and agents to Minneapolis this month, the largest operation in DHS history,” Nick Miroff wrote last week in The Atlantic. “Many of the ICE officers and Border Patrol agents are outfitted in tactical gear and wear body armor and masks, and they’re using the technological tools that the department acquired to protect the country’s borders: surveillance drones, facial-recognition apps, phone-cracking software. Powered by billions of dollars in new funding, they are making immigration arrests and grabbing protesters who try to stop them.”

    In August 2025, ICE announced a major recruitment push, offering perks like a $90,000 salary and a signing bonus of as much as $50,000. DHS recently announced that in just four months, ICE more than doubled its ranks, from 10,000 to 22,000.

    Those numbers may not be accurate: NOTUS‘ Jackie Llanos writes that according to the government’s official employment statistics, since Trump took office in January 2025, ICE “has hired 7,114 employees” but 1,746 have left in the same period, “placing the net growth of employees at 5,368.”

    Still, a 50 percent increase in one year is substantial. And such a quick expansion doesn’t come without tradeoffs: “ICE reduced training requirements to meet hiring targets,” Military.com reports, “though the agency has not been transparent about the criteria used to determine which recruits qualified for abbreviated training pipelines or how those changes were evaluated internally.”

    For example, NBC News’ Julia Ainsley reports that due to a technical glitch, about 200 recruits with no law enforcement experience were placed in a fast-tracked training process for experienced officers.

    The results are plain to see: ICE officers assaulting U.S. citizens, smashing windows and dragging them from their cars, going door-to-door without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion. In October, ProPublica reported ICE had arrested at least 170 Americans—in many cases using considerable force—including some who were detained for multiple days without being allowed to contact their families or an attorney.

    Ross was apparently even recording Good with his cellphone when he pulled his weapon and shot her. Soon after her death, media outlets released the footage; the shooting is not depicted, but afterward, someone can be heard saying, “Fucking bitch.”

    Social media is full of videos of ICE raids gone wrong, but the government has also saturated the internet with footage of its own.

    “During President Donald Trump’s second term, ICE’s public affairs arm has rapidly transformed into an influencer-style media machine, churning out flashy videos of tactical operations and immigration raids,” The Washington Post reported last month. Citing internal chat logs, the Post added that this team “coordinate[s] with the White House” to generate “brash content showing immigrants being chased, grabbed and detained” with “video edits that might help legitimize the administration’s aggressive stance.”

    “In President Trump’s second term, content is governing and governing is content,” added NPR.

    This may explain why Ross was filming Good when he drew his gun and shot her: to create content for social media.

    And much of that content is distasteful: Last month, on its official X account, Trump’s DHS “publicly announce[d] its dream to somehow eliminate 100 million people, the majority of whom would need to be citizens to hit that number, whose ancestry is seen as ‘third world,’” writes Reason‘s Brian Doherty.

    And in recent months, the DHS and ICE have posted recruitment ads with white nationalist imagery—including an Instagram post two days after Good’s death that used a song popular with neo-Nazis.

    It’s clear the more that Americans are exposed to ICE and its methods and tactics, the less they think the agency should continue to exist. And this is not an extreme position: Both ICE and the DHS are quite new, established in the early 2000s.

    And it’s not like either was without controversy, even in the aftermath of 9/11. “There were fears at the time of DHS’s founding, including on the political right, that the government was creating an authoritarian monster,” The Atlantic‘s Miroff added. “The United States had never had the kind of all-encompassing domestic-security apparatus common in autocracies, whose interior departments function as political police. DHS skeptics worried that civil liberties would be vulnerable to abuse if the government began assembling national databases and an expanded federal police force.”

    And yet, that’s exactly what happened. “ICE has routinely shown itself to be an overreaching and unaccountable agency,” Fiona Harrigan wrote in the December 2024 issue of Reason. “Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology found that ICE has scanned the driver’s license photos of one in three American adults and could access the driver’s license data of three in four American adults.”

    “ICE’s current powers and central deportation mission are neither appropriately sized nor easily reformed,” Harrigan added. “It would be much better for the government to extend an olive branch to nonviolent undocumented immigrants, reassign ICE’s useful functions elsewhere, and let the agency go once and for all.”

    “Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution’s original meaning,” agrees George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. “We may not be able to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution on this score. But abolishing ICE and shifting more law enforcement resources to state and local governments would bring us closer to it. It would also simultaneously curtail ICE abuses and reduce crime.”

    The U.S. went nearly its entire existence without ICE; it could do so again. And the more that Americans become familiar with the agency and see what it does, the more they seem to agree.

    [ad_2]

    Joe Lancaster

    Source link

  • Judge skeptical on ICE agents wearing masks in case that could have national implications

    [ad_1]

    A top Trump administration lawyer pressed a federal judge Wednesday to block a newly enacted California law that bans most law enforcement officers in the state from wearing masks, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    Tiberius Davis, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued at a hearing in Los Angeles that the first-of-its-kind ban on police face coverings could unleash chaos across the country, and potentially land many ICE agents on the wrong side of the law it were allowed to take effect.

    “Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are?” Davis told U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. “The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”

    The judge appeared skeptical.

    “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” Snyder said. “How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”

    The administration first sued to block the new rules in November, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act and its companion provision, the No Vigilantes Act, into law. Together, The laws bar law enforcement officers from wearing masks and compel them to display identification “while conducting law enforcement operations in the Golden State.” Both offenses would be misdemeanors.

    Federal officials have vowed to defy the new rules, saying they are unconstitutional and put agents in danger. They have also decried an exception in the law for California state peace officers, arguing the carve out is discriminatory. The California Highway Patrol is among those exempted, while city and county agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, must comply.

    “These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government,” Davis told the court Wednesday. “Federal officers face prosecution if they do not comply with California law, but California officers do not.”

    The hearing comes at a moment of acute public anger at the agency following the fatal shooting of American protester Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis — rage that has latched on to masks as a symbol of perceived lawlessness and impunity.

    “It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” California Department of Justice lawyer Cameron Bell told the court Wednesday. “The state has had to bear the cost of the federal government’s actions. These are very real consequences.”

    She pointed to declarations from U.S. citizens who believed they were being abducted by criminals when confronted by masked immigration agents, including incidents where local police were called to respond.

    “I later learned that my mother and sister witnessed the incident and reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that I was kidnapped,” Angeleno Andrea Velez said in one such declaration. “Because of my mother’s call, LAPD showed up to the raid.”

    The administration argues the anti-mask law would put ICE agents and other federal immigration enforcement officers at risk of doxing and chill the “zealous enforcement of the law.”

    “The laws would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities,” the government said in court filings.

    A U.S. Border Patrol agent on duty Aug. 14 outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a news conference in downtown Los Angeles.

    (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

    Davis also told the court that ICE‘s current tactics were necessary in part because of laws across California and in much of the U.S. that limit police cooperation with ICE and bar immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as schools and courts.

    California contends its provisions are “modest” and aligned with past practice, and that the government’s evidence showing immigration enforcement would be harmed is thin.

    Bell challenged Department of Homeland Security statistics purporting to show an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents and a 1,000% increase in assaults, saying the government has recently changed what qualifies as a “threat” and that agency claims have faced “significant credibility issues” in federal court.

    “Blowing a whistle to alert the community, that’s hardly something that increases threats,” Bell said.

    On the identification rule, Snyder appeared to agree.

    “One might argue that there’s serious harm to the government if agents’ anonymity is preserved,” she said.

    The fate of the mask law may hinge on the peace officer exemption.

    “Would your discrimination argument go away if the state changed legislation to apply to all officers?” Snyder asked.

    “I believe so,” Davis said.

    The ban was slated to come into force on Jan. 1, but is on hold while the case makes its way through the courts. If allowed to take effect, California would become the first state in the nation to block ICE agents and other federal law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty.

    A ruling is expected as soon as this week.

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s freeze of $10 billion in child-care funds

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s move to freeze $10 billion in child-care funds in five Democrat-led states including California.

    The ruling Friday afternoon capped a tumultuous stretch that began earlier this week when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told California officials and those in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York that it would freeze federal funding over fraud concerns.

    On Thursday the states sued the administration in federal court in Manhattan. The states sought a temporary restraining order, asking the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s demands for large volumes of administrative data.

    An attorney for the states argued Friday morning that there was an immediate need for funding — and that withholding it would cause chaos by depriving families of their ability to pay for child care, and would harm child-care providers who would lose income.

    In a brief ruling, Judge Arun Subramanian said that “good cause has been shown for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.”

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

    The federal government’s effort has been viewed as a broad attack on social services in California, and jolted tens of thousands of working families and the state’s child-care industry. Providers told The Times that the funding freeze could imperil child-care centers, many of which operate on slim margins.

    “The underscoring issue is that child care and these other federally funded social services programs are major family supports,” said Nina Buthee, executive director of EveryChild California. “They are essential infrastructure that our communities need and depend on, and should not be political tools. So the fact that this judge went in and blocked this very dramatic freeze, I think is only a good thing.”

    In a trio of Jan. 6 letters addressed to Gov. Gavin Newsom, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was concerned there had been “potential for extensive and systemic fraud” in child care and other social services programs that rely on federal funding, and had “reason to believe” that the state was “illicitly providing illegal aliens” with benefits.

    The letters did not provide evidence to support the claims. State officials have said the suggestions of fraud are unsubstantiated.

    Newsom has said he welcomes any fraud investigations the federal government might conduct, but said cutting off funding hurts families who rely on the aid. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, about $1.4 billion in federal child-care funding was frozen per the letters from Health and Human Services.

    “You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child-care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

    After Subramanian issued the ruling, Newsom’s press office said on X that “the feds went ghost-hunting for widespread ‘fraud’ (with no evidence) — and ended up trying to rip child care and food from kids.”

    “It took a federal judge less than 24 hours to shut down Trump’s politically motivated child care cuts in California,” the account posted.

    In instituting the freeze, Health and Human Services had said it would review how the federal money had been used by the state, and was restricting access to additional money amid its inquiries. The federal government asked for various data, including attendance documentation for child care. It also demanded beefed-up fiscal accountability requirements.

    “Again and again, President Trump has shown a willingness to throw vulnerable children, seniors, and families under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against Democratic-led states,” Bonta said in a statement following the ruling. “Cutting funding for childcare and other family assistance is cruel, reckless, and most importantly, illegal.”

    For Laura Pryor, research director at the California Budget & Policy Center, it is “a sigh of relief.”

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Miller, Kate Sequeira

    Source link

  • Polymarket returns to U.S. users after a nearly 3-year hiatus

    [ad_1]

    Talk is cheap—but Polymarket lets you put your money where your mouth is. Nearly four years after being shut down by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the online betting company that allows you to stake money on future events has become CFTC-compliant and relaunched for U.S. residents at the end of 2025.

    Not everybody is thrilled about Polymarket’s return. Commentators across the political spectrum have warned that betting, on sports or on anything, can cause financial and psychological harm, especially for those with a history of addiction. It’s prudent to abstain from speculating with money you can’t afford to lose, but Americans should still welcome Polymarket’s comeback.

    Shayne Coplan, an early ethereum investor and self-described cypherpunk, founded Polymarket in June 2020, when he was just 22 years old. The platform uses blockchain-backed smart contracts to operate “event markets”—futures-style markets where users bet on whether something will or will not happen. As Coplan has said, Polymarket “harness[es] the power of free markets to demystify the real world events that matter most to you” by using market prices to aggregate and transmit widely distributed knowledge—turning individual hunches into public information about the suspected likelihood of future events.

    Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, Polymarket’s monthly trading volume hit $25.9 million. Nobody can move that much money without catching the attention of the government. The CFTC launched an investigation in October 2021. By January 2022, Polymarket had settled the CFTC’s charges—facilitating event markets without registering with the CFTC—by paying a civil penalty of $1.4 million and barring U.S. residents from the platform.

    During its nearly three-year U.S. hiatus, Polymarket grew into the world’s largest prediction market, facilitating over $3 billion in monthly trades by October 2025. That same month, Intercontinental Exchange announced plans to invest as much as $2 billion in Polymarket after the company acquired a CFTC-registered contract market and clearinghouse in September.

    This article originally appeared in print under the headline “The Return of Polymarket.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack Nicastro

    Source link

  • Trump’s economic adviser says tariff refunds would be ‘very complicated’ and unlikely

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration is finally confronting the complicated reality of its complex and costly tariff policies.

    Oh, not when it comes to collecting those tariffs. The administration is happy to keep doing that.

    But if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Trump’s tariffs are illegal and requires the administration to issue refunds—then, suddenly, the complexity is an unsolvable problem. At least, that’s the line that Kevin Hassett, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, is trying out.

    If the Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs, “it’s going to be pretty unlikely that they’re going to call for widespread refunds, because it would be an administrative problem to get those refunds out to there,” Hassett told CBS News on Sunday.

    “It’d be very complicated,” he added. “It’s a mess, and that’s why I think the Supreme Court wouldn’t do it.”

    As a legal matter, it would certainly be strange for the Supreme Court to decide that the Trump administration had unlawfully imposed tariffs but also decide that it is just too gosh darn difficult to set things right.

    Imagine applying Hassett’s logic to other high-profile Supreme Court cases over the years. Sure, school segregation is unconstitutional, but don’t you know how complicated it would be to make sure everyone has equal access to public education? Yeah, of course the police should have to remind arrestees of their right to an attorney, but that sounds like a real administrative problem!

    By comparison, refunding tariff payments is relatively easy. There are records of those payments, and all the federal government would have to do is issue refunds to the American importers and businesses that paid those taxes over the course of the past several months. It would be politically awkward after all that misleading talk about how other countries are paying the tariffs, but not difficult.

    Indeed, the federal government collected over $5 trillion in taxes last year and spent over $7 trillion. But processing roughly $200 billion in tariff refunds is prohibitively complicated? Give me a break.

    Still, the real kicker here is how Hassett is positioning the Trump administration as the victim. If he thinks refunding the tariffs would be complicated, wait until he sees what goes into collecting them in the first place.

    The Trump administration’s tariff policies have created a process that is “mind-numbingly difficult for even the most skilled technicians and biggest corporations,” wrote Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, earlier this month in a must-read dive into the complexity of the tariff regime. For smaller businesses without the connections, staff, or resources to navigate the tariffs, the past nine months have been a nightmare.

    Lincicome and his team at Cato also put together this fantastic infographic to illustrate the maze that all American imports must now navigate.

    Source: Cato Institute (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2025-12/tariff-flowchart/tariff_flowchart_zoom_v3.png)

    Adding to the complexity is the fact that tariff rates and exemptions have changed from week to week depending on Trump’s mood. A fact sheet published in August by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which was ostensibly meant to help businesses comply with the new rules, contains a darkly hilarious disclaimer saying that it should not be relied upon because “exemptions and details of each tariff action are not fully covered.” The tariffs are so complicated that even the government agency tasked with enforcing them can’t accurately describe what they are.

    Against that backdrop, Hassett’s comments about the complexity of refunding the tariffs are not just laughable but downright infuriating.

    The Trump administration has forced American businesses to navigate an ever-changing gauntlet of new regulations in order to pay higher taxes that were imposed via questionably legal means and without congressional authorization. If the Supreme Court decides that refunds are necessary to ensure that justice is done, there will be approximately zero sympathy for the federal officials who created this “mess” in the first place.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Trump administration, Congress move to cut off transgender care for children

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration and House Republicans advanced measures this week to end gender-affirming care for transgender children and some young adults, drawing outrage and resistance from LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, families with transgender kids, medical providers and some of California’s liberal leaders.

    The latest efforts — which seek to ban such care nationwide, strip funding from hospitals that provide it and punish doctors and parents who perform or support it — follow earlier executive orders from President Trump and work by the Justice Department to rein in such care.

    Many hospitals, including in California, have already curtailed such care or shuttered their gender-affirming care programs as a result.

    Abigail Jones, a 17-year-old transgender activist from Riverside, called the moves “ridiculous” and dangerous, as such care “saves lives.”

    She also called them a purely political act by Republicans intent on making transgender people into a “monster” to rally their base against, and one that is “going to backfire on them because they’re not focusing on what the people want,” such as affordability and lower healthcare costs.

    On Wednesday, the House passed a sweeping ban on gender-affirming care for youth that was put forward by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), largely along party lines.

    The bill — which faces a tougher road in the U.S. Senate — bars already rare gender-affirming surgeries but also more common treatments such as hormone therapies and puberty blockers for anyone under 18. It also calls for the criminal prosecution of doctors and other healthcare workers who provide such care, and for penalties for parents who facilitate or consent to it being performed on their children.

    “Children are not old enough to vote, drive, or get a tattoo and they are certainly not old enough to be chemically castrated or permanently mutilated!!!” Greene posted on X.

    “The tide is turning and I’m so grateful that congress is taking measurable steps to end this practice that destroyed my childhood,” posted Chloe Cole, a prominent “detransitioner” who campaigns against gender-affirming care for children, which she received and now regrets.

    Queer rights groups denounced the measure as a dangerous threat to medical providers and parents, and one that mischaracterizes legitimate care backed by major U.S. medical associations. They also called it a threat to LGBTQ+ rights more broadly.

    “Should this bill become law, doctors could face the threat of prison simply for doing their jobs and providing the care they were trained to deliver. Parents could be criminalized and even imprisoned for supporting their children and ensuring they receive prescribed medication,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s leading LGBTQ+ rights groups.

    On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are proposing new rules that would ban such care by medical providers that participate in its programs — which includes nearly all U.S. hospitals. The health department said the move is “designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children.”

    The department said officials will propose additional rules to prohibit Medicaid or federal Children’s Health Insurance Program funding from being used for gender-affirming care for children or for young adults under the age of 19, and that its Office of Civil Rights would be proposing a rule to exclude gender dysphoria as a covered disability.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, issued warning letters to manufacturers of certain medical devices, including breast binders, that marketing their products to transgender youth is illegal.

    “Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”

    The proposed rule changes are subject to public comment, and the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBTQ+ organizations, including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, urged their supporters to voice their opposition.

    Joe Hollendoner, the center’s chief executive, said the proposed changes “cruelly target transgender youth” and will “destabilize safety-net hospitals” and other critical care providers.

    “Hospitals should never be forced to choose between providing lifesaving care to transgender young people and delivering critical services like cancer treatment to other patients,” Hollendoner said. “Yet this is exactly the division and harm these rules are designed to create.”

    Hollendoner noted that California hospitals such as Children’s Hospital Los Angeles have already curtailed their gender-affirming services in the face of earlier threats from the Trump administration, and thousands of transgender youth have already lost access to care.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a statement contrasting the Trump administration’s moves with California’s new partnership with The Trevor Project, to improve training for the state’s 988 crisis and suicide hotline for vulnerable youth, including LGBTQ+ kids at disproportionately high risk of suicide and mental health issues.

    “As the Trump administration abandons the well-being of LGBTQ youth, California is putting more resources toward providing vulnerable kids with the mental health support they deserve,” Newsom said.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office is already suing the Trump administration for its efforts to curtail gender-affirming care and target providers of such care in California, where it is protected and supported by state law. His office has also resisted Trump administration efforts to roll back other transgender rights, including in youth sports.

    On Thursday, Bonta said the proposed rules were “the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to strip Americans of the care they need to live as their authentic selves.” He also said they are “unlawful,” and that his office will fight them.

    “If the Trump Administration puts forth final rules similar to these proposals, we stand ready to use every tool in our toolbox to prevent them from ever going into effect,” Bonta said — adding that “medically necessary gender-affirming care remains protected by California law.”

    Arne Johnson, a Bay Area father of a transgender child who helps run a group of similar families called Rainbow Families Action, said there has been “a lot of hate spewed” toward them in recent days, but they are focused on fighting back — and asking hospital networks to “not panic and shut down care” based on proposed rules that have not been finalized.

    Johnson said Republicans and Trump administration officials are “weirdly obsessed” with transgender kids’ bodies, are “breaking the trust between us and our doctors,” and are putting politics in between families and their healthcare providers in dangerous ways.

    He said parents of transgender kids are “used to being hurt and upset and sad and worried about their kids, and also doing everything in their power to make sure that nothing bad happens to them,” and aren’t about to stop fighting now.

    But resisting such medical interference isn’t just about gender-affirming care. Next it could be over vaccines being blocked for kids, he said — which should get all parents upset and vocal.

    “If our kids don’t get care, they’re coming for your kids next,” Johnson said. “Pretty soon all of us are going to be going into hospital rooms wondering whether that doctor across from us can be trusted to give our kid the best care — or if their hands are going to be tied.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Peter Greene, character actor known for role as the iconic villain in ‘Pulp Fiction,’ has died

    [ad_1]

    Peter Greene, character actor known for role as the iconic villain in ‘Pulp Fiction,’ has died

    Updated: 9:38 AM EST Dec 13, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Peter Greene, a character actor best known for his role as the iconic villain Zed in “Pulp Fiction,” has died. He was 60.He died in his home in New York City, his manager, Gregg Edwards, confirmed on Friday. His cause of death was not immediately released.”He was just a terrific guy,” said Edwards. “Arguably one of the greatest character actors on the planet; Has worked with everybody.”Born in Montclair, New Jersey, Greene landed some of his first leading roles in “Laws of Gravity” in 1992 and “Clean, Shaven” in 1993, according to IMDb.In 1994, he played the memorable villain in Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction.” That same year, he played another leading villain opposite Jim Carrey and Cameron Diaz in “The Mask.”Greene was working on two projects when he died, including a documentary about the federal government’s withdrawal of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to Edwards.”We’ve been friends for over a decade,” said Edwards. “Just the nicest man.”

    NEW YORK —

    Peter Greene, a character actor best known for his role as the iconic villain Zed in “Pulp Fiction,” has died. He was 60.

    He died in his home in New York City, his manager, Gregg Edwards, confirmed on Friday. His cause of death was not immediately released.

    “He was just a terrific guy,” said Edwards. “Arguably one of the greatest character actors on the planet; Has worked with everybody.”

    Born in Montclair, New Jersey, Greene landed some of his first leading roles in “Laws of Gravity” in 1992 and “Clean, Shaven” in 1993, according to IMDb.

    In 1994, he played the memorable villain in Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction.” That same year, he played another leading villain opposite Jim Carrey and Cameron Diaz in “The Mask.”

    Greene was working on two projects when he died, including a documentary about the federal government’s withdrawal of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to Edwards.

    “We’ve been friends for over a decade,” said Edwards. “Just the nicest man.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • IRS considers plans for major new tax credit for millions

    [ad_1]

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury Department are seeking public feedback on how to implement a new federal tax credit scholarship program created under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which aims to expand school choice and help students cover education-related costs.

    The credit will apply to donations made to scholarship-granting organizations that support elementary and secondary students from low- and middle-income households.

    Under the OBBBA, the tax credit scholarship program is designed primarily to help K–12 students pay for private school tuition, though it also covers a range of other educational expenses. States will decide individually whether to participate in the program.

    This is a developing story. More to follow.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Traveling With Cannabis And CBD

    [ad_1]

    Holiday guide to traveling with cannabis and CBD, microdosing gummies, easing family anxiety, navigating airports smarter.

    The holidays are prime travel season — packed airports, crowded train stations and frayed nerves as families reunite. With the stress, what about traveling with cannabis and CBD. After all, they serve alcohol on the plane. For many Americans who use cannabis or CBD medically or recreationally, thoughtful, low-dose strategies — especially microdosing and small edible formats like gummies — can help manage travel stress, ease social anxiety at family gatherings and make transit days calmer. But travel with cannabis remains a patchwork of state and federal rules, and smart planning is essential.

    RELATED: How Cannabis Can Help A Family Thanksgiving

    Federal law still classifies marijuana as illegal, which means when you pass through a federal checkpoint (airports in particular), you’re technically subject to federal rules. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says officers do not search for marijuana — their primary mission is security — but if illegal substances are discovered during screening, TSA has the option to refer the matter to local law enforcement, although in most states where it is legal is this enforced. Outcomes vary by airport and the laws of the state where you land. International travel with cannabis is always illegal.

    Public opinion has shifted dramatically: large recent polls find a vast majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational uses. That cultural shift is one reason airports and some local enforcement have de-prioritized routine marijuana enforcement in legal states.

    Microdosing — taking very small amounts of THC or low-dose CBD repeatedly to get mild calming effects without intoxication — has become a popular strategy for social anxiety, focused relaxation and travel stress. Early research and user surveys suggest many people find microdosing helpful for reducing situational anxiety (like holiday travel), though clinical evidence is still evolving and results vary by individual. CBD-only microdosing is another option for people who want relaxation without THC’s psychoactive effects; products like low-dose tinctures or single-count gummies make dosing predictable and portable. Medical sources urge caution: the evidence is mixed and more study is needed, so start low, go slow, and test at home before trying a dose on travel day.

    Gummies and other edibles are popular for travel because they’re discreet and easy to dose. If you carry edibles:

    • Keep products in original, labeled packaging if possible (helps show legal purchase in some states).
    • Know dose per gummy and start with a microdose (often 2.5–5 mg THC) if you’re aiming for calm, not intoxication.
    • Consider CBD-only products for daytime travel or when you must be fully alert.

    There’s confusion about K9 units: some airport and federal canine teams are trained to detect narcotics, while others (and many TSA-owned dogs) focus primarily on explosives detection. As legalization has spread, some drug-detection programs have shifted their training priorities; nevertheless, law enforcement canine teams (and Customs/Border Protection narcotics dogs) can and do detect narcotics, including cannabis when trained for it. In short: don’t rely on any loophole — a canine alert or a discovered edible can still trigger police involvement.

    RELATED: 8 Wacky Things To Know About Thanksgiving

    The takeaway: many travelers find cannabis or CBD (especially microdosing and measured gummies) a genuinely helpful tool for holiday travel and family stress — but the legal landscape is uneven, and federal rules still govern many checkpoints. With smart dosing, careful packaging and an awareness of state vs. federal rules, you can use cannabis or CBD to smooth holiday journeys while minimizing legal risk.

    [ad_2]

    Anthony Washington

    Source link

  • RFK Jr. breaks his promises about the CDC on vaccines and autism

    [ad_1]

    Before voting to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) stated on the floor of the Senate that RFK Jr. had promised him that “he would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems. If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes. CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism.”

    Every one of the main promises made to Cassidy has been broken. Eschewing the usual system of consultations with outside independent vaccine experts, RFK Jr. announced on X in May that “as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.” This announcement makes it harder for expectant mothers to access the vaccines because some insurance companies are less likely to pay for them.

    In their lawsuit in response to RFK Jr.’s announcement, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association argued that the secretary’s goal is “to undermine trust in vaccines and reduce the rate of vaccinations in this country.”

    What about his promise to maintain the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes? Nope. RFK Jr. fired all of the vaccine experts and loaded up the committee with anti-vaccination appointees.

    Finally, there is RFK Jr.’s promise that the CDC will not remove statements on its website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism. As of Wednesday, the CDC website states:

    • The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
    • Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.
    • HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.

    After making these statements at the top of the webpage, the CDC website maintains a headline with an asterisk.

    A screenshot from the CDC website that says "Vaccines do not cause autism"
    cdc.gov

    Why the asterisk? A note at the bottom of the page explains:

    The header “Vaccines do not cause autism” has not been removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website.

    These changes are not merely dishonest; they are dangerous. All three of the new claims at the top of the CDC website are specious.

    First, evidence accumulated over numerous studies, including studies with millions of children, has found no link between vaccinations and autism.

    Second, in support of this claim that studies suggesting a link are ignored, the CDC gestures at reviews by the HHS’s own Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scrounging through them for something that might suggest harm, RFK Jr.’s team found a minor note in a 2021 AHRQ report that observed the current evidence for childhood Tdap (Tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) vaccination is “insufficient to support or reject a causal relationship between those vaccines and autism.”

    The report found that with respect to vaccines recommended for children and adolescents, “we found either no new evidence of increased risk for key adverse events with varied [strength of evidence] or insufficient evidence.” The critical question is: “insufficient evidence” for what? The report explains: “There remains insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about some rare potential adverse events [emphasis added].” Certainly, RFK Jr.’s alleged “autism epidemic” caused by vaccines would not count among “rare potential adverse events.”

    It is worth noting that the cited 2021 AHRQ report is peppered throughout with findings that vaccines do not cause autism. The new CDC site also fails to mention that the report observed that prenatal Tdap vaccination is not associated with a higher risk of autism in children.

    Meanwhile, as a result of falling Tdap vaccination rates, the number of American children infected with whooping cough (pertussis) is surging.

    What about the third claim that HHS has launched a “comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism”? In April, RFK Jr. appointed anti-vaccination stalwart David Geier to head up that assessment. As I noted at the time, “Geier will doubtlessly and transparently get the answers that our new secretary of Health and Human Services thinks he already knows.” In September, RFK Jr. announced the dubious finding that taking the painkiller Tylenol during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of autism in children.

    “We are appalled to find that the content on the CDC webpage ‘Autism and Vaccines’ has been changed and distorted,” declares the Autism Science Foundation in a statement, “and is now filled with anti-vaccine rhetoric and outright lies about vaccines and autism.”

    That’s correct. This isn’t what the Senate—or the American people—were promised.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Bailey

    Source link

  • Md. Gov. Wes Moore tells business leaders to ‘take big bets’ in 2026 – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Reeling from the recent government shutdown, the longest in us history, Gov. Wes Moore is urging business leaders take risks in 2026.

    Reeling from the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is urging business leaders to take risks in 2026 and curb the state economy’s reliance on what he called “eds, feds and meds.”

    “I want economic growth, economic diversification, and I want to move fast,” he said.

    Moore told a group of business leaders gathered at a Greater Washington Board of Trade meeting at National Harbor on Tuesday that Maryland, and the greater D.C. region, needs to diversify its economic bases.

    “I think, for anyone in the region, we all understand the complication of thinking that if you have a reliance on Washington, D.C., that somehow that is a good bet,” he said.

    Traditionally, Moore said, Maryland’s economy has been built on three things — education, the federal government and health care.

    “The challenge is when you have one of those stools that has not just been altered, in many ways it’s been severed, how do you come up with new ways to focus on economic growth?” he said.

    Moore said he wants to make it simpler for businesses to come to Maryland, stay in Maryland and grow industries that can provide long-term employment.

    “You have to take big bets, and if you’re not going to take big bets, then, frankly, get out of the seat and let someone else sit in it,” Moore said, in reference to business leaders as they think about 2026.

    Moore said he was exhausted by the idea that every business venture requires a five-year analysis.

    “We’ve got to stop being the place of no and slow and start being the place of yes and now,” he said.

    When it comes to the greater D.C. region, Moore said he’s excited to work with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger to foster alignment. That collaboration helps him recruit businesses to his state, he said.

    “Do you know one of the main things I’m selling them on? It’s not just the assets of Maryland, it’s the DMV,” Moore said.

    Even still, Moore said he keeps a competitive edge: “I still want to beat them every time I get a chance, though.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Kyle Cooper

    Source link

  • Justice Department sues to block laws restricting masked, unidentified law enforcement officers in California

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

    The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

    Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

    “California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

    The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

    The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

    “Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

    Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

    “The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

    Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

    The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

    In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

    “Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie King

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump administration push to fine UCLA $1.2 billion for alleged antisemitism

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from imposing a $1.2-billion fine on UCLA along with stipulations for deep campus changes in exchange for being eligible for federal grants.

    The decision is a major win for universities that have struggled to resist President Trump’s attempt to discipline “very bad” universities that he claims have mistreated Jewish students, forcing them to pay exorbitant fines and agree to adhere to conservative standards.

    A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California, rendered moot — for now — nearly every aspect of a more than 7,000-word settlement offer the federal government sent to the University of California in August after suspending $584 million in medical, science and energy research grants to the Los Angeles campus.

    The government said it froze the funds after finding UCLA broke the law by using race as a factor in admissions, recognizing transgender people’s gender identities, and not taking antisemitism complaints seriously during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 — claims that UC has denied.

    The settlement proposal outlined extensive changes to push UCLA — and by extension all of UC — ideologically rightward by calling for an end to diversity-related scholarships, restrictions on foreign student enrollment, a declaration that transgender people do not exist, an end to gender-affirming healthcare for minors, the imposition of free speech limits and more.

    “The administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities,” Lin wrote in her opinion. “Agency officials, as well as the president and vice president, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.”

    “It is undisputed,” Lin added, “that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California.”

    Universities including Columbia, Brown and Cornell agreed to pay the government hundreds of millions to atone for alleged violations similar to the ones facing UCLA. The University of Pennsylvania and University of Virginia also reached agreements with the Trump administration that were focused, respectively, on ending recognition of transgender people and halting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    Friday’s decision, for the time being, spares the UC system from proceeding with negotiations that it reluctantly entered with the federal government to avoid further grant cuts and restrictions across the system, which receives $17.5 billion in federal funding each year. UC President James B. Milliken has said that the $1.2-billion fine would “completely devastate” UC and that the system, under fire from the Trump administration, faces “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history.”

    This is not the first time a judge rebuked the Trump administration for its higher education campaign. Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in September ordered the government to reverse billions in cuts to Harvard. But that case did not wade directly into settlement negotiations.

    Those talks with UC have proceeded slowly. In a court hearing last week, a Department of Justice lawyer said “there’s no evidence that any type of deal with the United States is going to be happening in the immediate future.” The lawyer argued that the settlement offer was only an idea that had not received UC approval.

    Because of that, he said, a lawsuit was inappropriate. Lin disagreed.

    “Plaintiffs’ harm is already very real. With every day that passes, UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratcheting up defendants’ pressure campaign,” she wrote. “And numerous UC faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the UC system.”

    The case was brought by more a dozen faculty and staff unions and associations from across UC’s 10 campuses, who said the federal government was violating their 1st Amendment rights and constitutional right to due process. UC, which has avoided directly challenging the government in court, was not party to the suit.

    “This is not only a historic lawsuit — brought by every labor union and faculty union in the UC — but also an incredible win,” said Veena Dubal, a UC Irvine law professor and general counsel for one of the plaintiffs, the American Assn. of University Professors, which has members across UC campuses.

    Dubal called the decision “a turning point in the fight to save free speech and research in the finest public school system in the world.”

    Asked about Friday’s outcome, a spokesperson said UC “remains focused on our vital work to drive innovation, advance medical breakthroughs and strengthen the nation’s long-term competitiveness. UC remains committed to protecting the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the university.”

    Zoé Hamstead, chair of external relations and legal affairs for the Council of UC Faculty Assns., said she was “thrilled that the court has affirmed our First Amendment rights.”

    The organization is an umbrella group of faculty associations across UC campuses that sued.

    Hamstead, an associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley, said she was “deeply proud to be part of a coalition that represents the teachers, researchers, and workers of the University of California who are challenging rising authoritarianism in federal court.”

    Anna Markowitz, an associate professor in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies and president of the Los Angeles campus faculty association, said her chapter was “extremely pleased with this decision, which will put a pause on the current federal overreach at UC.”

    “UCLA faculty are honored to stand with this coalition, which continues to show that when faced with an administration targeting the very heart of higher education, fighting back is the only option,” Markowitz said.

    Lin’s injunction is not the final say on the case, which will proceed through the legal process as she determines whether a permanent injunction is warranted. The government also could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as it has done for other cases, including one filed by UC researchers that restored funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation among other agencies.

    An appeals court hearing in that case was held Friday; a decision is pending.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • White House: President ready to sign deal that ends government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said today that the president is ready to sign this deal to reopen the government, framing tonight as the end of *** 43 day standoff that left millions unpaid. Obviously the president’s main priority was to reopen the federal government and get people back to work, and that’s what this deal accomplishes. While the shutdown may end tonight, that doesn’t mean things are going to snap back to pre-shutdown status immediately. Air travel will most certainly have lingering impacts, the Transportation Secretary said. It will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers get back on the job. Many also retired during the shutdown. The FAA administrator said air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within 1 week, but it’s unclear how quickly other federal workers will get paid. After past shutdowns. It took as many as 8 weeks for some to get repaid. As for SNAP benefits, when you receive them may depend on where you live. The American Public Human Services Association anticipates most states will be able to issue full benefits within 3 days after the shutdown, but for others it may take about *** week, and that’s because there could be complications with states that issued partial benefits due to the shutdown. The Small Business Administration told me today that once the government reopens, they’ll be able to start processing and approving small business loans immediately at the White House, I’m Christopher.
    Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said today that the president is ready to sign this deal to reopen the government, framing tonight as the end of *** 43 day standoff that left millions unpaid. Obviously the president’s main priority was to reopen the federal government and get people back to work, and that’s what this deal accomplishes. While the shutdown may end tonight, that doesn’t mean things are going to snap back to pre-shutdown status immediately. Air travel will most certainly have lingering impacts, the Transportation Secretary said. It will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers get back on the job. Many also retired during the shutdown. The FAA administrator said air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within 1 week, but it’s unclear how quickly other federal workers will get paid. After past shutdowns. It took as many as 8 weeks for some to get repaid. As for SNAP benefits, when you receive them may depend on where you live. The American Public Human Services Association anticipates most states will be able to issue full benefits within 3 days after the shutdown, but for others it may take about *** week, and that’s because there could be complications with states that issued partial benefits due to the shutdown. The Small Business Administration told me today that once the government reopens, they’ll be able to start processing and approving small business loans immediately at the White House, I’m Christopher.

    White House: President ready to sign deal that ends government shutdown

    The government shutdown, now in its 43rd day, may conclude tonight as the House plans to vote on reopening, with the president ready to sign the agreement.

    Updated: 5:20 PM EST Nov 12, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ


    White House Correspondent

    The government shutdown, which has lasted nearly 43 days, could end tonight as the House prepares to vote on reopening the federal government, with the president ready to sign the agreement. The White House press secretary framed tonight as the end of a standoff that left hundreds of thousands of people out of work and millions without pay.”Obviously, the president’s main priority was to reopen the federal government and get people back to work, and that’s what this deal accomplishes,” said Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary.While the shutdown may end tonight, the return to pre-shutdown status will not be immediate. Air travel is expected to experience lingering impacts, as the transportation secretary noted that the speed of recovery will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers return to work, with many having retired during the shutdown. The FAA administrator stated that air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within a week, but it remains unclear how quickly other federal workers will be compensated. In previous shutdowns, it took up to eight weeks for some workers to receive back pay.Regarding SNAP benefits, the American Public Human Services Association anticipates that most states will issue full benefits within three days after the shutdown ends, though some states may take about a week due to complications from issuing partial benefits during the shutdown.The Small Business Administration has indicated that once the government reopens, it will immediately begin processing and approving loans for small businesses.An AP News/NORC poll shows the president’s job approval suffered during the shutdown, with approval among Republicans for his handling of the federal government dropping from 81% in March to 68% this past week. Only one in four independents now approve of his management of the government. Despite this decline, the president’s overall approval rating and his handling of key issues like the economy and immigration remain largely unchanged.Regarding the lawsuit about SNAP benefits that went to the Supreme Court, the administration stated that full benefits will be paid once the government reopens, rendering the lawsuit moot.Get the latest from our Washington Bureau here:

    WASHINGTON —

    The government shutdown, which has lasted nearly 43 days, could end tonight as the House prepares to vote on reopening the federal government, with the president ready to sign the agreement.

    The White House press secretary framed tonight as the end of a standoff that left hundreds of thousands of people out of work and millions without pay.

    “Obviously, the president’s main priority was to reopen the federal government and get people back to work, and that’s what this deal accomplishes,” said Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary.

    While the shutdown may end tonight, the return to pre-shutdown status will not be immediate. Air travel is expected to experience lingering impacts, as the transportation secretary noted that the speed of recovery will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers return to work, with many having retired during the shutdown.

    The FAA administrator stated that air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within a week, but it remains unclear how quickly other federal workers will be compensated. In previous shutdowns, it took up to eight weeks for some workers to receive back pay.

    Regarding SNAP benefits, the American Public Human Services Association anticipates that most states will issue full benefits within three days after the shutdown ends, though some states may take about a week due to complications from issuing partial benefits during the shutdown.

    The Small Business Administration has indicated that once the government reopens, it will immediately begin processing and approving loans for small businesses.

    An AP News/NORC poll shows the president’s job approval suffered during the shutdown, with approval among Republicans for his handling of the federal government dropping from 81% in March to 68% this past week. Only one in four independents now approve of his management of the government. Despite this decline, the president’s overall approval rating and his handling of key issues like the economy and immigration remain largely unchanged.

    Regarding the lawsuit about SNAP benefits that went to the Supreme Court, the administration stated that full benefits will be paid once the government reopens, rendering the lawsuit moot.

    Get the latest from our Washington Bureau here:

    [ad_2]

    Source link