The U.S. took the unprecedented step Monday of dropping the number of vaccines it recommends for every child—leaving other immunizations, such as flu shots, open to families to choose but without clear guidance.Officials said the overhaul to the federal vaccine schedule won’t result in any families losing access or insurance coverage for vaccines, but medical experts slammed the move, saying it could lead to reduced uptake of important vaccinations and increase disease.The change came after President Donald Trump in December asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to review how peer nations approach vaccine recommendations and consider revising its guidance to align with theirs.HHS said its comparison to 20 peer nations found that the U.S. was an “outlier” in both the number of vaccinations and the number of doses it recommended to all children. Officials with the agency framed the change as a way to increase public trust by recommending only the most important vaccinations for children to receive.“This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement Monday.Medical experts disagreed, saying the change without public discussion or a transparent review of the data would put children at risk.“Abandoning recommendations for vaccines that prevent influenza, hepatitis and rotavirus, and changing the recommendation for HPV without a public process to weigh the risks and benefits, will lead to more hospitalizations and preventable deaths among American children,” said Michael Osterholm of the Vaccine Integrity Project, based at the University of Minnesota.
WASHINGTON —
The U.S. took the unprecedented step Monday of dropping the number of vaccines it recommends for every child—leaving other immunizations, such as flu shots, open to families to choose but without clear guidance.
Officials said the overhaul to the federal vaccine schedule won’t result in any families losing access or insurance coverage for vaccines, but medical experts slammed the move, saying it could lead to reduced uptake of important vaccinations and increase disease.
The change came after President Donald Trump in December asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to review how peer nations approach vaccine recommendations and consider revising its guidance to align with theirs.
HHS said its comparison to 20 peer nations found that the U.S. was an “outlier” in both the number of vaccinations and the number of doses it recommended to all children. Officials with the agency framed the change as a way to increase public trust by recommending only the most important vaccinations for children to receive.
“This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement Monday.
Medical experts disagreed, saying the change without public discussion or a transparent review of the data would put children at risk.
“Abandoning recommendations for vaccines that prevent influenza, hepatitis and rotavirus, and changing the recommendation for HPV without a public process to weigh the risks and benefits, will lead to more hospitalizations and preventable deaths among American children,” said Michael Osterholm of the Vaccine Integrity Project, based at the University of Minnesota.
NEW YORK CITY, New York: Millions of Americans are beginning 2026 facing sharply higher health insurance bills after enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expired, locking in premium increases that could force some households to drop coverage altogether.
The tax credits, first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and later extended by Democrats, had lowered insurance costs for most people who buy coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Their expiration comes after months of political deadlock in Washington, despite warnings from both parties that the issue could carry significant electoral consequences.
Democrats pushed unsuccessfully to extend the subsidies, even triggering a 43-day government shutdown over the issue. Some moderate Republicans urged action, while President Donald Trump floated — then abandoned — a potential compromise after opposition from conservative allies. With no agreement reached before the deadline, the credits expired at the start of the new year.
A House vote expected later in January could reopen the debate, but there is no guarantee that lawmakers will succeed in restoring the subsidies.
The lapse affects millions of Americans who do not receive health insurance through an employer and are ineligible for Medicaid or Medicare — including self-employed workers, small business owners, farmers, and ranchers. The timing also coincides with a midterm election year in which affordability, particularly healthcare costs, ranks among voters’ top concerns.
“It really bothers me that the middle class has moved from a squeeze to a full suffocation, and they continue just to pile on and leave it up to us,” said Katelin Provost, a 37-year-old single mother whose premiums are set to soar. “I’m incredibly disappointed that there hasn’t been more action.”
Costs Jump Sharply for Many Households
The expanded subsidies, introduced in 2021, allowed some lower-income enrollees to obtain coverage with no monthly premium, capped costs for higher earners at 8.5 percent of income, and broadened eligibility for middle-class households. Democrats later extended the program through the end of 2025.
With those credits gone, the impact is substantial. On average, more than 20 million subsidized Affordable Care Act enrollees are seeing premium increases of 114 percent in 2026, according to an analysis by KFF.
The higher premiums come amid broader increases in U.S. healthcare costs, which are also pushing up deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses.
Some enrollees are absorbing the added burden. Stan Clawson, a 49-year-old freelance filmmaker and adjunct professor in Salt Lake City, said his monthly premium will rise from just under US$350 to nearly $500. Clawson, who lives with paralysis from a spinal cord injury, said the increase is painful but unavoidable.
Others face far steeper hikes. The Provost said her premium is jumping from $85 a month to nearly $750.
Enrollment Fallout Still Uncertain
Health policy experts warn that higher premiums could lead many people — particularly younger and healthier enrollees — to abandon coverage, raising costs further for those who remain insured.
An analysis by the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund last September projected that about 4.8 million Americans could lose coverage in 2026 due to the expiration of subsidies.
However, enrollment effects remain uncertain, as the deadline to select or change plans runs through Jan. 15 in most states.
Provost said she is hoping Congress revives the subsidies early this year. If not, she plans to drop her own coverage and keep insurance only for her four-year-old daughter.
Political Stalemate Continues
In December, the Senate rejected competing partisan proposals — a Democratic plan to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative centered on health savings accounts. In the House, four centrist Republicans joined Democrats to push for a vote on a three-year extension, though prospects for passage remain unclear.
For many Americans, the impasse feels detached from everyday realities.
“Both Republicans and Democrats have been saying for years, oh, we need to fix it. Then do it,” said Chad Bruns, a 58-year-old Affordable Care Act enrollee in Wisconsin. “They need to get to the root cause, and no political party ever does that.”
(CNN) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said the US would take control of Venezuela’s massive oil reserves and recruit American companies to invest billions of dollars to refurbish the country’s gutted oil industry.
Venezuela is sitting on a massive 303 billion barrels worth of crude — about a fifth of the world’s global reserves, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). That trove of crude will play a central role in the country’s future.
Oil futures don’t trade on the weekend, so the near-term impact on the price of oil is a bit of a guessing game, but Trump said the US would operate the Venezuelan government for the time being.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies — the biggest anywhere in the world — go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure,” Trump said at a news conference at Mar-a-Lago.
A US-led revamp could eventually make Venezuela a much bigger supplier of oil and could create opportunities for Western oil companies and could serve as a new source of production. It could also keep broader prices in check, although lower prices might disincentivize some US companies from producing oil.
Even if international access were fully restored tomorrow, it could take years and incredible expense to bring Venezuelan oil production fully back online. Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company PDVSA says its pipelines haven’t been updated in 50 years, and the cost to update the infrastructure to return to peak production levels would cost $58 billion.
“For oil, this has the potential for a historic event,” said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at the Price Futures Group. “The Maduro regime and (former Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez basically ransacked the Venezuelan oil industry.”
Control of Venezuela’s oil trove
Venezuela is home to the largest proven oil reserve on Earth, but its potential far outweighs its actual output: Venezuela produces only about 1 million barrels of oil per day — about 0.8% of global crude production.
That’s less than half of what it produced before Maduro took control of the country in 2013 and less than a third of the 3.5 million barrels it was pumping before the Socialist regime took over.
International sanctions on the Venezuelan government and a deep economic crisis contributed to the decline of the country’s oil industry — but so did a lack of investment and maintenance, according to the EIA. Venezuela’s energy infrastructure is deteriorating, and its capacity to produce oil has been greatly diminished over the years.
Venezuela simply doesn’t produce enough oil to make that big a difference.
Oil prices have been in check this year because of oversupply fears. OPEC has ramped up production, but demand has fallen off a bit as the global economy continues to struggle with inflation and affordability after the post-pandemic price shock.
US oil briefly rose above $60 a barrel when the Trump administration began seizing oil from Venezuelan vessels, but it has since fallen to $57 a barrel again. So the market’s reaction — if investors believe the strike is bad news for oil supply — will almost certainly be muted.
“Psychologically it might give it a bit of a boost, but Venezuela has oil that can be easily replaced by a combination of global producers,” Flynn said.
Venezuela’s oil potential
The kind of oil Venezuela is sitting on — heavy, sour crude — requires special equipment and a high level of technical prowess to produce. International oil companies have the capability to extract and refine it, but they’ve been restricted from doing business in the country.
The United States, the world’s largest oil producer, has light, sweet crude, which is good for making gasoline but not much else. Heavy, sour crude like the oil from Venezuela is crucial for certain products made in the refining process, including diesel, asphalt and fuels for factories and other heavy equipment. Diesel is in tight supply around the world — in large part because of sanctions on Venezuelan oil.
Unlocking Venezuelan oil could be particularly beneficial to the United States: Venezuela is nearby and its oil is relatively cheap — a result of its sticky, sludgy texture that requires significant refining. Most US refineries were constructed to process Venezuela’s heavy oil, and they’re significantly more efficient when they’re using Venezuelan oil compared to American oil, according to Flynn.
“If indeed this continues to go smoothly — and it looks like a masterful operation so far — and US companies are allowed to go back and rebuild the Venezuelan oil industry, it could be a game-changer for the global oil market,” Flynn said.
Trump called Venezuela’s oil business “a total bust.”
“They were pumping almost nothing by comparison to what they could have been pumping and what could have taken place,” Trump said.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies — the biggest anywhere in the world — go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” he added.
What’s next for oil prices
It is unclear how energy prices will be impacted by the US intervention in Venezuela.
Bob McNally, president of Washington, DC-based consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, told CNN that he thinks the impact on prices would be “modest,” but he doesn’t expect much of an impact “unless we see signs of widespread social unrest and things look messy. More likely if this looks ‘stable.’”
“The prospect is then how quickly could a Venezuela that is pro-US increase its production. That will be the parlor game. Perception may race ahead of reality. People will assume Venezuela can add oil faster than they actually can,” he said.
“Venezuela can be a huge deal but not for 5 to 10 years,” McNally said.
Oil markets open on Sunday night. Prices will depend on whether Trump “can manifest the turnaround” of Venezuela’s oil sector, according to Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets.
“It all hinges on whether Venezuela defies the recent history of US-led regime change efforts,” Croft told CNN. “President Trump signaled the US is back in ‘nation-building mode,’ and that US companies will make the requisite investments to ensure the revival of the oil sector. I think we need far more details before we declare ‘Mission Accomplished.’”
Caracas (CNN) — President Donald Trump announced Saturday that the US will “run” Venezuela after capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a large-scale military operation, a stunning development that plunged the country into uncertainty after weeks of spiraling tensions.
“The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolás Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country,” he wrote on Truth Social early Saturday morning.
Trump later said the US would play a central role in running the country indefinitely until a formal transition of power can take place, while declining to rule out the possibility of longer-term military involvement in Venezuela.
“We’re going to be running it,” he said from his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.
Venezuela requested an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council in response to the attack, Foreign Minister Yván Gil Pinto said.
“No cowardly attack will prevail against the strength of this people, who will emerge victorious,” he said on Telegram, sharing the letter sent to the UN.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez demanded the “immediate release” of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Rodríguez, who Trump said earlier was sworn in as president, said Venezuela’s territorial integrity was “savagely attacked” by the US operation.
Trump on Saturday morning posted a photo of Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima, where the Venezuelan president and his wife were held before being transported to New York, where they face charges. The ousted leader and his wife were brought to New York on Saturday evening, and Maduro is being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.
A new indictment filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and shared by Attorney General Pam Bondi alleges that Maduro ran “state sponsored gangs” and facilitated drug trafficking in the country.
Trump said he did not notify members of Congress until after the strike, saying at his news conference at Mar-a-Lago that “Congress has a tendency to leak. It would not be good if they leaked.”
Democratic lawmakers demanded an immediate briefing and criticized the administration for not seeking congressional authorization before the attack, while Republican lawmakers largely applauded the action.
Here’s what we know:
What happened?
A CNN team witnessed several explosions and heard the sounds of aircraft early Saturday in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, and reported that some areas of the city were without electricity.
Videos verified by CNN showed helicopters roaring over Caracas, with plumes of smoke rising into the night sky. Footage also showed a large blaze and explosions at an airport in the city of Higuerote.
Hours after the strikes, CNN’s Mary Mena said from Caracas that the capital was calm.
“We listened to many airplanes and helicopters passing by, but right now the city remains quiet, for the past two hours,” she said. “We haven’t heard people for example coming to the streets, and the state channel keeps repeating this message from the ministry of defense saying they want people to remain calm and they will deploy military forces across the country.”
The first blast witnessed by the CNN team was recorded at approximately 1:50 a.m. local time (12:50 a.m. ET).
“One was so strong, my window was shaking after it,” CNN en Español correspondent Osmary Hernández said.
US Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine later described an extensive overnight operation to capture Maduro and his wife that involved more than 150 aircraft launching from bases across the Western Hemisphere.
Among them were helicopters carrying an extraction force that entered Venezuela at low altitude before arriving at Maduro’s compound around 1 a.m. ET. The US soldiers came under fire, spending several hours on the ground before successfully capturing Maduro and his wife and flying out of Venezuela about 3:29 a.m. ET, Caine said.
Two sources familiar with the matter said Maduro and his wife were dragged from their bedroom by US forces during the raid. The couple was captured in the middle of the night as they were sleeping, the sources said.
The raid, carried out by the US Army’s elite Delta Force with the assistance of an FBI unit, did not lead to any US deaths. However, a handful of troops sustained bullet and shrapnel wounds, a source briefed on the matter told CNN. Caine also said that one aircraft “was hit, but remained flyable” and was able to make it out of Venezuela.
Maduro and his wife were then transferred to the USS Iwo Jima, beginning a trip that ultimately ended in New York, where they’re expected to stand trial on drug-trafficking charges.
Smoke raises at La Carlota airport after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in Caracas, Venezuela on January 3, 2026. Credit: Matias Delacroix / AP via CNN Newsource
Why is it happening?
The Trump administration has for years said that Maduro was a criminal and has sought to prosecute him through the US legal system.
In 2020, during Trump’s first term, the Department of Justice charged Maduro in the Southern District of New York for “narco-terrorism,” conspiracy to import cocaine, and related charges.
The Trump administration offered a $15 million bounty for Maduro’s arrest. That bounty was increased to $25 million in the waning days of the Biden administration, in early January 2025, and was increased again, to $50 million, in August 2025 after Trump took office for a second term and designated Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization. The administration has claimed that Maduro is the leader of that group, which it describes as a criminal organization.
Trump had repeatedly warned for months that the US was preparing to take new action against alleged drug-trafficking networks in Venezuela and that strikes on land would start “soon.”
Trump’s pressure campaign on Maduro has included strikes destroying more than 30 boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in what the US has described as a counter-narcotics campaign. Trump last month ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers coming to and leaving Venezuela, and the US has seized multiple vessels since the announcement.
The CIA carried out a drone strike in December on a port facility on the coast of Venezuela, CNN reported last month, citing sources, marking the first known US attack on a target inside that country.
Trump said Saturday he also directly urged Maduro to surrender voluntarily.
“I said, ‘You got to surrender,’” he said. “And I actually thought he was pretty close to doing so, but now he wished he did.”
Pedestrians run after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in Caracas, Venezuela on Saturday. Credit: Matias Delacroix / AP via CNN Newsource
Several world leaders, including US allies, have reacted with concern to the US operation.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he “wants to establish the facts” and speak to Trump about the military operation in Venezuela, according to the UK’s PA Media news agency.
“I always say and believe we should all uphold international law,” Starmer said, adding that Britain was “not involved in any way” in the strike on Caracas, PA Media reported.
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said in a post on X that the commission “stand(s) by the people of Venezuela and support(s) a peaceful and democratic transition. Any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.”
Many leaders across Latin America expressed concern to the US attack on Venezuela, with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel slamming what he called a “criminal” attack by the US. Meanwhile, Argentine President Javier Milei, a Trump ally, appeared to welcome the capture of Venezuela’s leader with a message on X: “Freedom advances! Long live freedom, damn it!”
Venezuela’s allies Russia and Iran condemned the US attack.
The Russian Foreign Ministry denounced what it called an “act of armed aggression against Venezuela” by the US, calling any “excuses” given to justify such actions “untenable.”
“We reaffirm our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and our support for the Bolivarian leadership’s course of action aimed at protecting the country’s national interests and sovereignty,” a statement from the foreign ministry said.
Similarly, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said the attack violates Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the UN Charter, Iranian state news outlet Press TV reported.
What comes next?
What happens next in Venezuela is far from clear. The country’s constitution states that power passes to Maduro’s vice president, Rodríguez.
Trump said that Rodríguez spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and that “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”
However, in a defiant address broadcast from Caracas, Rodríguez asserted that Maduro is “the only president of Venezuela” and that Venezuelans “must not become slaves again.”
Trump said he planned to have the US effectively run Venezuela for an indefinite period as it works toward a formal transition of power. Top US officials, including Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, will work with a “team” to assist in leading the country, he said, without offering specifics.
Trump could not say how long the US would be centrally involved in Venezuela’s governance, but suggested that he was open to a longer-term process that could include a US military presence.
He repeatedly asserted that his administration would partner with US energy companies to take control of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, arguing that the US was owed oil as “reimbursement for the damages” that he alleged had been inflicted on the country by Venezuela.
“We’re going to take back the oil that, frankly, we should have taken back a long time ago,” Trump said.
That leaves the future of the current Venezuelan regime in serious doubt, yet little clarity on whether its opposition — within and outside the country — will be positioned to capitalize on the opportunity.
If the US ultimately follows Venezuela’s constitutional path, elections are supposed to be held within 30 days. The newly elected president then serves a full six-year term.
The most likely opposition candidate is Edmundo González Urrutia, who ran in the 2024 election. González, an academic and longtime diplomat, is now in exile in Spain. He is supported by the recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, democratic activist María Corina Machado.
On Saturday, Machado said the time has come for “popular sovereignty” in Venezuela and the installation of González as the country’s leader.
“Nicolás Maduro from today faces international justice for the atrocious crimes committed against Venezuelans and against citizens of many other nations,” she said in a letter posted on X. “Given his refusal to accept a negotiated solution, the government of the United States has fulfilled its promise to enforce the law.”
But Trump declined to endorse any immediate successor or lay out a plan for holding elections and restoring stability in Venezuela, while rejecting the possibility that Machado could serve as an interim leader.
“She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country,” he said. “She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.”
Instead, Trump appeared comfortable in the immediate aftermath of Maduro’s ouster with maintaining control over Venezuela for as long as he deemed fit.
“It’s not going to cost us anything,” he said. “We’re going to be rebuilding.”
This story has been updated with additional information.
CNN’s Osmary Hernández, Mary Triny Mena, Tim Lister, Jennifer Hansler, Alejandra Jaramillo, Isaac Yee, Michael Rios, Billy Stockwell and Laura Sharman contributed to this report
Related
[ad_2]
Stefano Pozzebon, Simone McCarthy, Adam Cancryn and CNN
Since August, Washington has grappled with a federal blow to its autonomy after President Donald Trump declared a crime emergency in the nation’s capital. Hundreds of National Guard members began to roam the city streets and D.C. police began working with federal law enforcement agencies. But where does the city stand now?
This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker. In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.
How will DC’s law enforcement surge be remembered?
During a news conference on Aug. 11, President Donald Trump vowed to address crime in D.C. He promised to get rid of what he described as the city’s “slums,” activated hundreds of National Guard members to patrol D.C. streets and told Attorney General Pam Bondi she had control of the city’s police force.
Trump similarly described his aim to address vandalism, potholes and medians on city streets and homeless encampments.
In the months that followed, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had to walk a tightrope to navigate the federal intervention. She pushed back on the assertion that it was a federal takeover, instead calling it a “surge” of law enforcement in the nation’s capital.
Before the crime emergency was announced, city leaders maintained that violent crime had already been falling. The city’s crime data, though, has been the subject of congressional and Department of Justice investigations.
“If you were to talk to any police chief in the country, they’re always going to want more resources,” said Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow at Cato Institute. “I don’t think that there’s any of them that would turn down additional money, especially money to hire additional officers.”
But, Eddington said, there are federal grant programs in place for that.
“The National Guard is not one of those resources that should be used,” he said.
National Guard descends on DC
Protesters, police, and National Guard troops congregate at the entrance to Union Station in D.C., where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance visited Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
In the days after the crime emergency was declared, hundreds of National Guard members arrived on city streets. They worked near Metro stations and parks. Some helped collect garbage and assist with maintenance work.
At the same time, some residents reported a rise in masked federal officers working in their communities.
During appearances in late August, Bowser stressed the city didn’t ask for the federal assistance. But she said the federal help meant more resources, resulting in more traffic stops and more illegal gun seizures.
Bowser criticized agents wearing masks and “ICE terrorizing communities.” She described having National Guard troops, especially those from other states, in the city as something “not working.”
Asked for comment about the law enforcement surge’s impact, a spokesperson from Bowser’s office referred WTOP to those prior remarks.
Meanwhile, Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said Trump transformed D.C. “from a crime-ridden mess into a beautiful, clean, safe city. Federal law enforcement officers, in close coordination with local partners, have removed countless dangerous criminals and illegal drugs from the streets, arrested MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members, and rescued missing children.”
Federal government declines extension of declaration
Congress declined to extend the president’s crime emergency, which expired in September.
Bowser issued a mayor’s order, outlining how D.C. would continue to collaborate with the federal government after the 30-day declaration. It created a “Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center,” responsible for managing the city’s response to Trump’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force.
The order outlined the agencies D.C. would continue to collaborate with. It didn’t mention U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the National Guard.
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, hoping to end the National Guard’s deployment, in early September. The legal battle, though, is ongoing.
As of Dec. 14, a spokesman for D.C.’s Joint Task Force said there were 2,606 troops deployed to the city. Pending court rulings, troops could remain in D.C. through February.
Trump called for hundreds more troops in the city after two were shot near Farragut Square during the week of Thanksgiving. Twenty-year-old Specialist Sarah Beckstrom died, and Sgt. Andrew Wolfe is still recovering.
For a short time after the November shooting, D.C. police worked overtime patrolling city streets alongside the National Guard. That was no longer the case as of mid-December, a D.C. police spokesman told WTOP.
Surge still lingers in DC
Members of the National Guard patrol at Gallery Place Metro Station on Dec. 3, 2025 in D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Taylor Helle moved to D.C. this summer for an internship, and enjoyed the city so much she stayed. She said it felt like “the safest city I’ve ever been in.”
“I don’t think it’s really been that necessary, and I haven’t felt a lot safer because of it,” Helle said. “It just feels like there’s better things they can be doing with their time.”
Dylan Vanek, meanwhile, said troops on D.C. streets crossed a line, “because what separates us from Russia or China or Iran is civil liberties. How can we claim to be better if we have troops on our streets policing civilians?”
A federal government employee, who asked not to be named because she’s not authorized to speak publicly, said the surge and Guard presence “gave me a sense of calm.”
“I just get a sense (that) people are a little calmer now,” the woman said. “To me, you don’t see a lot of foolishness going on. Even homeless people — it’s just a calm. I don’t understand it, but it’s a nice calm.”
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with U.S. representatives on Christmas Day about ongoing peace proposals after Russia launched a deadly attack on Ukraine.Zelenskyy said in a video message that he had “a good conversation” with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, during which they drafted new ideas about how to bring about real peace.This comes after Russia fired more than 600 drones and three dozen missiles at Ukraine earlier this week, killing at least three people, including a 4-year-old child. The attack caused significant damage, collapsing homes and knocking out the power grid in 13 regions of Ukraine, leading to widespread outages in bitter cold temperatures.The strikes are “an extremely clear signal of Russian priorities,” Zelenskyy said. In Rome, Pope Leo XIV delivered his first Christmas message as pontiff, condemning the violence and praying for the fighting to end.”Let us pray in a particular way for the tormented people of Ukraine. May the clamor of weapons cease and may the parties involved with the support and commitment of the international community find the courage to engage in sincere, direct and respectful dialogue,” the pope said. Leaders in Ukraine will continue to speak with U.S. representatives Friday. Additionally, Zelenskyy said on social media that Ukraine agreed to a meeting with Trump in the near future.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
Zelenskyy said in a video message that he had “a good conversation” with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, during which they drafted new ideas about how to bring about real peace.
This comes after Russia fired more than 600 drones and three dozen missiles at Ukraine earlier this week, killing at least three people, including a 4-year-old child.
The attack caused significant damage, collapsing homes and knocking out the power grid in 13 regions of Ukraine, leading to widespread outages in bitter cold temperatures.
The strikes are “an extremely clear signal of Russian priorities,” Zelenskyy said.
“Let us pray in a particular way for the tormented people of Ukraine. May the clamor of weapons cease and may the parties involved with the support and commitment of the international community find the courage to engage in sincere, direct and respectful dialogue,” the pope said.
Leaders in Ukraine will continue to speak with U.S. representatives Friday. Additionally, Zelenskyy said on social media that Ukraine agreed to a meeting with Trump in the near future.
Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
The University of Oklahoma has fired an instructor who was accused by a student of religious discrimination over a failing grade on a psychology paper in which she cited the Bible and argued that promoting a “belief in multiple genders” was “demonic.”
The university said in a statement posted Monday on X that its investigation found the graduate teaching assistant had been “arbitrary” in giving 20-year-old junior Samantha Fulnecky zero points on the assignment. The university declined to comment beyond its statement, which said the instructor had been removed from teaching.
Through her attorney, the instructor, Mel Curth, denied Tuesday that she had “engaged in any arbitrary behavior regarding the student’s work.” The attorney, Brittany Stewart, said in a statement emailed to The Associated Press that Curth is “considering all of her legal remedies.”
Conservative groups, commentators and others quickly made Fulnecky’s failing grade an online cause, highlighting her argument that she’d been punished for expressing conservative Christian views. Her case became a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over academic freedom on college campuses as President Donald Trump pushes to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and restrict how campuses discuss race, gender and sexuality.
Fulnecky appealed her grade on the assignment, which was worth 3% of the final grade in the class, and the university said the assignment would not count. It also placed Curth on leave, and Oklahoma’s conservative Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, declared the situation “deeply concerning.”
“The University of Oklahoma believes strongly in both its faculty’s rights to teach with academic freedom and integrity and its students’ right to receive an education that is free from a lecturer’s impermissible evaluative standards,” the university’s statement said. “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”
A law approved this year by Oklahoma’s Republican-dominated Legislature and signed by Stitt prohibits state universities from using public funds to finance DEI programs or positions or mandating DEI training. However, the law says it does not apply to scholarly research or “the academic freedom of any individual faculty member.”
Home telephone listings for Fulnecky in the Springfield, Missouri, area had been disconnected, and her mother — an attorney, podcaster and radio host — did not immediately respond Tuesday to a Facebook message seeking comment about the university’s action.
Fulnecky’s failing grade came in an assignment for a psychology class on lifespan development. Curth directed students to write a 650-word response to an academic study that examined whether conformity with gender norms was associated with popularity or bullying among middle school students.
Fulnecky wrote that she was frustrated by the premise of the assignment because she does not believe that there are more than two genders based on her understanding of the Bible, according to a copy of her essay provided to The Oklahoman.
“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she wrote, adding that it would lead society “farther from God’s original plan for humans.”
In feedback obtained by the newspaper, Curth said the paper did “not answer the questions for the assignment,” contradicted itself, relied on “personal ideology” over evidence and “is at times offensive.”
“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs,” Curth wrote.
Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and an ex-officio trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, is bringing the lawsuit. She alleges a recent vote by the Center’s board of trustees to add Trump’s name went beyond the authority given to the board by Congress.
“This is a flagrant violation of the rule of law, and it flies in the face of our constitutional order,” she wrote in the filing.
Her complaint repeated an account she gave on socialmedia of being muted via Zoom during the board meeting last week when she tried to speak up in objection to the vote. She said in the lawsuit that the vote and the addition of Trump’s name to the physical building the day after were “scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic.”
Beatty is being represented by Democracy Defenders Action and the Washington Litigation Group. There had not been any request for emergency intervention filed to the case’s docket as of Monday evening.
CNN has reached out to the White House and Kennedy Center for comment.
“Only Congress has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center. President Trump and his cronies must not be allowed to trample federal law and bypass Congress to feed his ego,” Beatty said in a statement. “This entire process has been a complete disgrace to this cherished institution and the people it serves. These unlawful actions must be blocked before any further damage is done.”
Congress renamed the arts center after former President John F. Kennedy in legislation passed after his 1963 assassination, and federal law requires that the board “assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
Experts told CNN last week that while the board’s decision was likely unlawful, it’s unclear whether someone looking to challenge the move would have the legal right – known as “standing” – to even pursue such a case. “There is absolutely no way they can do this legally,” said David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law who specializes in legislation. But, he added, “the administration is not concerning itself with laws unless it has a realistic prospect of getting sued.”
New signage featuring the president’s name was installed the day after the vote.
Trump has touted his influence on the performing arts center, and he claimed last week that the institution is experiencing “record-setting numbers” in donors.
“We’re saving the building. We saved the building. The building was in such bad shape, both physically, financially and every other way. And now it’s very solid, very strong,” he said.
CNN’s Piper Hudspeth Blackburn contributed to this report.
There were some highs amid a lot of lows in a roller coaster year for clean energy as President Donald Trump worked to boost polluting fuels while blocking wind and solar, according to dozens of energy developers, experts and politicians.
Plug Power president Jose Luis Crespo said the developments — both policy recalibration and technological progress — will shape clean energy’s trajectory for years to come.
Energy policy whiplash in 2025
Much of clean energy’s fate in 2025 was driven by booster Joe Biden’s exit from the White House.
The year began with ample federal subsidies for clean energy technologies, a growing number of U.S.-based companies making parts and materials for projects and a lot of demand from states and corporations, said Tom Harper, partner at global consultant Baringa.
At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakersThe missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.Scant new insight in the initial disclosuresSome of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.The gaps go further.The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountabilityAmong the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.”I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked contextFederal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.”For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.”I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.”There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.
NEW YORK (AP) —
At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.
Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakers
The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”
Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”
The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.
Scant new insight in the initial disclosures
Some of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.
Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.
The gaps go further.
The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountability
Among the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.
The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.
There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.
Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.
That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.
“I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.
Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked context
Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.
The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.
Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.
Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.
Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.
The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.
Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.
One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.
Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.
“For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”
The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.
Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.
He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.
“I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.
“There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.
Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.
At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakersThe missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.Scant new insight in the initial disclosuresSome of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.The gaps go further.The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountabilityAmong the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.”I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked contextFederal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.”For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.”I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.”There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.
NEW YORK (AP) —
At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.
Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakers
The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”
Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”
The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.
Scant new insight in the initial disclosures
Some of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.
Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.
The gaps go further.
The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountability
Among the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.
The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.
There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.
Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.
That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.
“I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.
Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked context
Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.
The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.
Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.
Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.
Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.
The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.
Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.
One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.
Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.
“For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”
The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.
Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.
He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.
“I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.
“There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.
Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino announced on December 17 that he would be resigning from the bureau next month, ending a brief and tumultuous tenure.
In the few months he was at the bureau, Bongino was forced to reconcile the realities of his law enforcement job with the claims he made as a popular podcast host.
Bongino’s exit would be among the highest-profile resignations of the Trump administration. There has been an upheaval within the FBI with the sacking of career officials, followed by criticism of Director Kash Patel’s use of a government plane for personal purposes and social media posts about active investigations.
Bongino announced his departure in a post on X, saying he was grateful for the “opportunity to serve with purpose.” He did not say precisely when in January he would leave. However, President Donald Trump said, “Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show.”
In March this year, Trump appointed Bongino, a conservative podcaster who repeatedly railed against the FBI leadership and encouraged conspiracy theories related to the Epstein sex-trafficking case and pipe bombs discovered in Washington on January 6, 2021.
As the deputy director, he used social media to communicate directly with Trump supporters who were restless over the FBI’s leadership’s perceived lethargy in addressing their concerns. While he reassured them that the agency was focusing on the pipe bomb case and other incidents, he was unable to placate elements of Trump’s base who expected quick results.
For example, in the Epstein case, he was forced to accept that the wealthy financier had taken his own life in a New York jail. As a podcaster, he had constantly challenged that theory.
Bongino had also speculated as a podcaster that the pipe bombs placed on the eve of the January 6 Capitol riot were an “inside job,” and a “massive cover-up.” He was asked about those comments when the FBI earlier this month arrested a 30-year-old Virginia man with no evident connection to the federal government, raising doubts about whether investigators had actually detained the right person.
“I was paid in the past, Sean, for my opinions, that’s clear,” Bongino said in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. “And one day, I’ll be back in that space, but that’s not what I’m paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director, and we base investigations on facts.”
Questions about Bongino’s future had lingered for months, especially after an exchange at the White House last July with Attorney General Pam Bondi. It followed the announcement that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department would be releasing any more records from the Epstein investigation.
After that, Bongino went silent on his FBI account for several days. Far-right activist Laura Loomer posted on X at the time that Bongino was contemplating his future with the bureau.
In August, the Trump administration added former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director. On December 17, Bongino posted on X that he was leaving.
‘Very serious retaliation’: U.S. strikes ISIS targets in Syria
The Trump administration launched more than 70 strikes against ISIS targets in Syria on Friday, responding to an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter last week.
The Trump administration struck more than 70 ISIS targets in Syria on Friday, according to the Pentagon, in retaliation for a deadly attack on U.S. and Syrian forces last week.On Friday evening, President Donald Trump told a crowd in North Carolina, “Just 2 hours ago, we hit the ISIS thugs in Syria who were trying to regroup after their decimation by the Trump administration 5 years ago. We hit them hard.”Trump further described the operation as successful and precise. In a social media post ahead of his speech, he called it a “very serious retaliation.” That sentiment was echoed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, also known as the secretary of war, in another post. “This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance,” Hegseth said. The strikes were in response to an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter last weekend. The president blamed the attack on a member of the Islamic State, although the group has not claimed responsibility. Trump said the U.S. retaliation was fully supported by Syria’s new leader, who has overseen warming relations with the West since the fall of the Assad regime last year. Following the U.S. strikes, Syria’s foreign ministry reiterated its commitment to fighting ISIS and underscored the need to strengthen international cooperation to combat terrorism.In a recent national security strategy document, the Trump administration argued that the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy are over. The administration has sought to build ties with countries like Syria, including in the counterterrorism space, but contends that the threats can be contained “without decades of fruitless ‘nation-building’ wars.” The Trump administration is instead looking to focus closer to home, shifting military resources away from the Middle East and towards South America, as tensions mount with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Asked if the Trump administration would rule out regime change in Venezuela, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in an interview Friday, “The president has spoken about his concerns when it comes to the illegitimate regime in Venezuela, his concerns about the gangs we have seen come from Venezuela, the concerns about the narcotrafficking that we’ve also seen.”
WASHINGTON —
The Trump administration struck more than 70 ISIS targets in Syria on Friday, according to the Pentagon, in retaliation for a deadly attack on U.S. and Syrian forces last week.
On Friday evening, President Donald Trump told a crowd in North Carolina, “Just 2 hours ago, we hit the ISIS thugs in Syria who were trying to regroup after their decimation by the Trump administration 5 years ago. We hit them hard.”
Trump further described the operation as successful and precise. In a social media post ahead of his speech, he called it a “very serious retaliation.”
That sentiment was echoed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, also known as the secretary of war, in another post.
“This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance,” Hegseth said.
The strikes were in response to an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter last weekend. The president blamed the attack on a member of the Islamic State, although the group has not claimed responsibility.
Trump said the U.S. retaliation was fully supported by Syria’s new leader, who has overseen warming relations with the West since the fall of the Assad regime last year.
Following the U.S. strikes, Syria’s foreign ministry reiterated its commitment to fighting ISIS and underscored the need to strengthen international cooperation to combat terrorism.
In a recent national security strategy document, the Trump administration argued that the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy are over. The administration has sought to build ties with countries like Syria, including in the counterterrorism space, but contends that the threats can be contained “without decades of fruitless ‘nation-building’ wars.”
The Trump administration is instead looking to focus closer to home, shifting military resources away from the Middle East and towards South America, as tensions mount with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Asked if the Trump administration would rule out regime change in Venezuela, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in an interview Friday, “The president has spoken about his concerns when it comes to the illegitimate regime in Venezuela, his concerns about the gangs we have seen come from Venezuela, the concerns about the narcotrafficking that we’ve also seen.”
Only a day after President Donald Trump’s handpicked board voted to add his name to the Kennedy Center building, workers were in cherry picker forklifts changing the facade of the building to the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.
This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker. In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.
‘Like putting your name on someone’s gravestone’: What onlookers say about the Kennedy Center’s new name
For the first time in 54 years, there is a new name on the front of the Kennedy Center.
Only a day after President Donald Trump’s handpicked board voted to add his name to the Kennedy Center building, workers were in cherry picker forklifts changing the facade of the building to the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.
Along with members of the media, there were onlookers waiting for the blue tarp covering the work being done to drop.
Sam, who covered her mouth and shook her head in disbelief, described the scene.
“Feels like putting your name on someone else’s gravestone,” she said.
Barbara Best, who held up a stick figure of President Trump dressed as a court jester, said she was not happy.
“I’m pissed as hell,” Best said. “It’s a dishonor to Kennedy.”
The Virginia resident said the Kennedy Center is a memorial to the former president who gave his life to the county.
“It’s a disgrace. It’s disgusting, is what it is,” Best said.
Standing in Friday’s bitterly cold weather watching the work being done was Arlene Pietranton: “I’ve been coming to the Kennedy Center since the year it opened. At a very modest level, I’ve been a donor and longtime patron and attendee at the Kennedy Center.”
She said Congress needs to put guardrails in place to keep the executive branch in check.
“This is their duty. This is their responsibility. There’s a reason we have three branches of government,” Pietranton said.
Less than two weeks ago, on the red carpet at the Kennedy Center Honors, WTOP asked Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell if President Trump’s name would be added to the center’s name.
“If I could predict the future, you know what I would do? I’d go play the lotto and I wouldn’t be here,” Grenell said with a smile.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
The U.S. military said Thursday that it had conducted two more strikes against boats it said were smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing five people.U.S. Southern Command posted on social media, “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” though it did not provide evidence. It posted videos of each boat speeding through water before being struck by an explosion.The military said three people in one vessel and two in the other were killed.The attacks brought the total number of known boat strikes to 28 while at least 104 people have been killed, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.The administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign. The first attack in early September involved a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.
WASHINGTON —
The U.S. military said Thursday that it had conducted two more strikes against boats it said were smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing five people.
U.S. Southern Command posted on social media, “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” though it did not provide evidence. It posted videos of each boat speeding through water before being struck by an explosion.
The military said three people in one vessel and two in the other were killed.
The attacks brought the total number of known boat strikes to 28 while at least 104 people have been killed, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
The administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign. The first attack in early September involved a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.
In November, all of Randy Richards’ soybeans remained in storage on the land he farms just outside of Hope, North Dakota.
In 2024 and 2023 and many years before, that was not the case. Richards would have sold at least half of his soybeans to a local grain elevator and then, his crop might have ended up transported by train to the Pacific northwest and shipped to China, along with at least half of North Dakota’s soybeans.
What was typical for Richards and other farmers blew up in 2025 with Trump’s tariff strategy and subsequent trade war.
Richards, one of the family members who runs Richards & Judisch Farms, rents land to grow soybeans, corn and other crops. A third-generation, 71-year-old farmer, Richards has worked the land since he was a young child.
Randy Richards, right, and his grandson. (Photo courtesy of Richards family)
In January, when Trump took office, soybean prices in the Northern Plains, which includes North Dakota, stood at $9.50 per bushel, said Shawn Arita, a North Dakota State University agribusiness expert and former U.S. Department of Agriculture economist. After Trump levied tariffs on China — the largest market for U.S. soybeans — soybean prices tanked, crashing below $8.50 per bushel in the Northern Plains in early September.
Today, soybean prices are $10.10 per bushel, Arita said. It costs U.S. farmers more than $12 per bushel, on average, to grow them.
Chinaretaliated against Trump’s tariffs and bought soybeans from Argentina and Brazil instead. That was particularly painful because farmers have long relied on international trade: Roughly 20% of all U.S. agricultural production is exported.
“Those sales are often what make the difference between profit and loss at the farm level,” Faith Parum, an American Farm Bureau Federation economist, wrote in October. Parum wrote that soybean markets became “the clearest signal of stress in U.S. agricultural trade.”
Soybean farmers across the Midwest found themselves in limbo.
As of November, “Most all of my neighbors that I know of in my area here in Hope, their soybeans are in their bins,” Richards said. “Nobody sold any because the price isn’t very good.”
Ian Sheldon, an Ohio State University agricultural trade expert, said when China stopped importing U.S. soybeans in May, it put downward pressure on U.S. soybean prices.
Trump has falsely said tariffs are paid by foreign countries, including in his inaugural speech, when he said the U.S. will “tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens” and “massive amounts of money (will pour) into our treasury coming from foreign sources.”
His insistence that foreign governments are paying the tariffs is not how it works. U.S. businesses pay import taxes to the federal government. In the past, foreign companies sometimes lowered their prices to absorb some of the tariffs. But studies showed that during the first Trump administration, tariffs “were passed almost entirely through to US firms or final consumers,” the Tax Foundation concluded.
We asked the White House for evidence that foreign countries are paying the tariffs rather than U.S. importers.
Spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The Administration has consistently maintained that the cost of tariffs will ultimately be borne by the foreign exporters who rely on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market. If Americans were solely paying the price of tariffs, foreign countries would not have rushed to the table to strike trade deals to reduce their tariff rates and industry titans would not have committed to investing trillions in American manufacturing.”
In the lead-up to April 2 — what Trump called “Liberation Day,” when he rolled out “reciprocal” tariffs with countries that have trade imbalances with the U.S. — Trump appealed directly to U.S. farmers.
“To the Great Farmers of the United States: Get ready to start making a lot of agricultural product to be sold INSIDE of the United States,” he wrote March 3 on Truth Social. “Tariffs will go on external product on April 2nd. Have fun!”
The next day, Caleb Ragland, American Soybean Association president and a Kentucky soy farmer, said, “Tariffs are not something to take lightly and ‘have fun’ with.” Ragland said he voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in April on CNBC that because of the tariffs, “I expect most countries to start to really examine their trade policy towards the United States of America, and stop picking on us.”
Instead, China stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans in May and didn’t resume until October.
A few days after “Liberation Day,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on CNN, “We are unleashing a new golden age, and we will see an economy that will benefit not just every corner of America, but our farmers and our ranchers and the people that have been left behind for far too long by both Republicans and Democrats.”
Farm groups didn’t see it that way. They pleaded with Trump to secure a trade deal with China and with congressional leaders to “educate the White House on production agriculture.”
American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said on “Liberation Day” that Trump’s tariffs would drive up supply costs, and retaliatory tariffs from other nations would put American farmers at a disadvantage in the global market. He said tariffs threaten farmers’ competitiveness in the short term and also could cause long-term losses in market share.
Trump’s tariffs are not solely responsible for farmers’ challenges. In recent years, they have faced rising costs for essential items such as fertilizer. And in North Dakota, where Richards farms, June storms significantly damaged crops and farm buildings.
As his soybeans sit in storage, Richards said he and other farmers are “waiting and hoping and praying” that agreements Trump said have been negotiated will improve the outlook.
Richards farms land less than a mile from the city of Hope, home to about 300 people. Sometimes in tough times, he said he tells people, “I live just beyond Hope.”
“There is always hope in Hope. It’s really being strained now.”
Economists: U.S. companies and consumers pay first
Besides the soybean price crash, Richards has felt the tariff pinch in other ways.
Every purchase this year was more expensive, he said. The bearing for his combine used to harvest crops. The steel shovels for his digger. The new tire for a tractor.
Other farmers are feeling the strain. Farm production expenses are expected to rise by $12 billion this year compared with last year, the American Soybean Association wrote in December.
“Farmers are facing elevated prices for land, machinery, seeds, pesticides and fertilizers,” the association wrote.
Virtually all economists, citing years of data, say much of the cost of tariffs is passed on to consumers through higher prices.
According to the Budget Lab at Yale, the effect of this year’s U.S. tariffs and foreign retaliation placed a 16.8% overall average effective tariff rate on consumers, the highest in 90 years.
The tariffs represent a $1,700 loss for the average U.S. household, the lab said. Researchers arrived at the figure based on a projected 1.2% increase in consumer prices from tariffs and assuming that it is passed on to consumers.
Uncertainty looms for farmers
Farmers paid close attention in October, when Trump said he had struck a trade deal with China.
The White House said China would suspend retaliatory tariffs. China also agreed to purchase at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans during the last two months of 2025 and at least 25 million metric tons in each of 2026, 2027 and 2028. CNBC News reported Dec. 9, citing NBC News analysis, that China’s purchases have fallen well short of the 2025 goal.
Before the 2018 trade war, Arita said, China purchased 30 to 36 million metric tons a year.
After Trump’s announcement, soybean futures climbed above $11.50 per bushel — the highest level in more than a year — reflecting improved export prospects, Arita said. Futures prices are not a guarantee that farmers will receive that amount, though.
“Our Farmers will be very happy!” Trump wrote. “In fact, as I said once before during my first Administration, Farmers should immediately go out and buy more land and larger tractors.”
The president’s comments, Richards said, are “as far from the truth as you can get.”
A November survey of agricultural economists by the publication Farm Journal found that 41% said farmers are delaying decisions because of uncertainty.
Jackson Takach, chief economist for Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, known as Farmer Mac, told Farm Journal the economic stress is highest in parts of the country where soybeans are farmers’ No. 1 crop.
When the Trump administration said Dec. 8 it will provide $12 billion in relief funding to farmers, officials blamed former President Joe Biden and not the current administration’s tariffs.
Rollins told reporters, “There is almost zero evidence, if any evidence” that farms’ economic challenges have “anything to do with these trade renegotiations.”
Scott Lincicome, a Cato Institute international trade expert, said Rollins is “totally wrong.”
“Chinese purchases of soybeans effectively stopped when Trump’s trade wars started,” he said. The combination of lower U.S. crop prices as a result of tariffs and increased costs to farmers from tariffs on things they purchase caused what Lincicome called a “government-grown” crisis.
The federal relief will cover only a fraction of the losses. North Dakota State University’s Agricultural Risk Policy Center estimated crop losses at $44 billion.
The U.S. government said it expects to pay farmers by the end of February.
Richards wishes it wasn’t necessary.
“Do I want a government check?” Richards said. “Hell no. I want my money to come from the market, coming from somebody giving me a fair price for my product.”
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this article.
FILE – Jim Troupis reads a statement after his court appearance outside a Dane County courtroom Dec. 12, 2024, in Madison, Wis. (AP Photo/Morry Gash, File)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Two attorneys and an aide who all worked on President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign appeared in court Monday for a preliminary hearing in Wisconsin on felony forgery charges related to a fake elector scheme.
The Wisconsin case is moving forward even as others in the battleground states of Michigan and Georgia have faltered. A special prosecutor last year dropped a federal case alleging Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election. Another case in Nevada is still alive.
The Wisconsin case was filed a year ago but has been tied up as the Trump aides have fought, unsuccessfully so far, to have the charges dismissed.
The hearing on Monday comes a week after Trump attorney Jim Troupis, one of the three who were charged, tried unsuccessfully to get the judge to step down in the case and have it moved to another county. Troupis, who the other two defendants joined in his motion, alleged that the judge did not write a previous order issued in August declining to dismiss the case. Instead, he accused the father of the judge’s law clerk, a retired judge, of actually writing the opinion.
Troupis, who served one year as a judge in the same county where he was charged, also alleged that all of the judges in Dane County are biased against him and he can’t get a fair trial.
Dane County Circuit Judge John Hyland said he and a staff attorney alone wrote the order. Hyland also said Troupis presented no evidence to back up his claims of bias and refused to step down or delay the hearing.
The same judge will determine at Monday’s hearing whether there’s enough evidence to proceed with the charges against the three.
The former Trump aides face 11 felony charges each related to their roles in the 2020 fake elector scheme. In addition to Troupis, the other defendants are Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney who advised Trump’s campaign, and Mike Roman, Trump’s director of Election Day operations in 2020.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice, headed by Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul, brought the felony forgery charges in 2024, alleging that the three defrauded the 10 Republican electors who cast their ballots for Trump in 2020.
Prosecutors contend the three lied to the Republicans about how the certificate they signed would be used as part of a plan to submit paperwork to then-Vice President Mike Pence, falsely claiming that Trump had won the battleground state that year.
The complaint said a majority of the 10 Republicans told investigators that they were needed to sign the elector certificate indicating Trump had won only to preserve his legal options if a court changed the outcome of the election in Wisconsin.
A majority of the electors told investigators that they did not believe their signatures on the elector certificate would be submitted to Congress without a court ruling, the complaint said. Also, a majority said they did not consent to having their signatures presented as if Trump had won without such a court ruling, the complaint said.
Federal prosecutors who investigated Trump’s conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot said the fake electors scheme originated in Wisconsin.
The Trump associates have argued that no crime took place. But the judge in August rejected their arguments in allowing the case to proceed to Monday’s preliminary hearing.
Trump lost Wisconsin in 2020 but fought to have the defeat overturned. He won the state in both 2016 and 2024.
The state charges against the Trump attorneys and aide are the only ones in Wisconsin. None of the electors have been charged. The 10 Wisconsin electors, Chesebro and Troupis all settled a lawsuit that was brought against them seeking damages.
Democrats serving on the House Oversight Committee released dozens of photos on Friday from the estate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including some of President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Some of the photos show Trump alongside women whose faces were blacked out. No additional context for the redactions was provided in the initial press release. “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats are “selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”Trump told reporters Friday that he had not seen the photos and downplayed their significance.“He was all over Palm Beach. He has photos with everybody. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have photos with him, so that’s no big deal. I know nothing about it,” Trump said. Neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s known victims.Garcia didn’t specifically say whether the women whose faces were redacted in the photos were victims of abuse. He told reporters, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims.”Garcia said that the photos were released in the interest of transparency. He said the panel is in the process of reviewing the rest of the 95,000 photos received from Epstein’s estate on Thursday evening, and the public should expect more pictures to come out. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee defended Trump and took aim at the Clintons. Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, issued a statement warning that they will initiate proceedings to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January. Comer said it has been more than four months since they were subpoenaed as part of the committee’s Epstein probe. Friday’s developments are renewing focus on the yearslong controversy ahead of next week’s Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release another trove of documents related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation and his death behind bars in 2019. The release of those files was required by Congress in a near-unanimous vote last month. The DOJ has promised maximum transparency, but some fear the documents will be overly redacted.More from the Washington Bureau:
WASHINGTON —
Democrats serving on the House Oversight Committee released dozens of photos on Friday from the estate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including some of President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton.
Some of the photos show Trump alongside women whose faces were blacked out. No additional context for the redactions was provided in the initial press release.
“These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats are “selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”
Trump told reporters Friday that he had not seen the photos and downplayed their significance.
“He was all over Palm Beach. He has photos with everybody. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have photos with him, so that’s no big deal. I know nothing about it,” Trump said.
Neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s known victims.
Garcia didn’t specifically say whether the women whose faces were redacted in the photos were victims of abuse. He told reporters, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims.”
Garcia said that the photos were released in the interest of transparency. He said the panel is in the process of reviewing the rest of the 95,000 photos received from Epstein’s estate on Thursday evening, and the public should expect more pictures to come out.
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee defended Trump and took aim at the Clintons.
Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, issued a statement warning that they will initiate proceedings to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January. Comer said it has been more than four months since they were subpoenaed as part of the committee’s Epstein probe.
Friday’s developments are renewing focus on the yearslong controversy ahead of next week’s Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release another trove of documents related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation and his death behind bars in 2019. The release of those files was required by Congress in a near-unanimous vote last month. The DOJ has promised maximum transparency, but some fear the documents will be overly redacted.
The birthright citizenship order, which the president signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration’s broad crackdown on immigration.
Denver7 anchor Shannon Ogden spoke with P. (Deep) Gulasekaram, professor of law and director of the Byron R. White Center for the Student of American Constitutional Law at University of Colorado. Professor Gulasekaram said Trump’s order would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with the narrow exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.
“It has the possibility of creating hundreds of thousands of stateless individuals and depriving babies born in the United States of the ability to remain in the United States, to be educated in the United States and the possibility to be taken away from family in the United States,” said Gulasekaram.
National Politics
Supreme Court will take up case on Trump’s birthright citizenship changes
Gulasekaram explained that the Trump executive order argues that it is upholding the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
“If they are saying this was always the interpretation, this is what it meant from the jump, then we’re talking about generations of people who all of the sudden go, ‘Oh. We were never citizens,’” asked Ogden.
“That’s right. We’re talking about millions and millions of people,” replied Gulasekaram.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.
“You are talking about something that upends the way in which citizenship has been conferred and the settled expectations of the people of the United States for not just decades but centuries,” adds Gulasekaram.
The high court will hear arguments next year and will likely hand down a decision by the end of June 2026.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined 21 other attorneys general in a lawsuit attempting to block the president’s executive order banning birthright citizenship.
Twenty-four Republican-led states and 27 Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are backing the administration.
Denver7
Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Shannon Ogden
Denver7 evening anchor Shannon Ogden reports on issues impacting all of Colorado’s communities, but specializes in covering local government and politics. If you’d like to get in touch with Shannon, fill out the form below to send him an email.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently faced questions about a state fraud scandal involving Somalis that spawned a feud between him and President Donald Trump.
The scandal, outlined in a Nov. 29 article in The New York Times, centered on a nonprofit called Feeding Our Future that received federal funding to feed low-income children. NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker asked Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee, on Nov. 30 about the schemes mentioned in the article that involved people convicted in Minnesota for stealing taxpayer money during the pandemic.
Welker asked Walz: “Do you take responsibility for failing to stop this fraud in your state?”
The governor replied, “Well, certainly, I take responsibility for putting people in jail. Governors don’t get to just talk theoretically. We have to solve problems.”
His statement gives the impression that state officials were on the front lines of prosecuting historic fraud. That’s not what happened. Federal prosecutors led the investigations and brought the charges.
We asked Walz for evidence the governor was responsible for convictions.
“Prosecutions don’t materialize out of thin air,” Walz spokesperson Claire Lancaster said.
State officials cited Minnesota agencies’ work, including by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, whose laboratory provided forensic testing on evidence. Jen Longaecker, a Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokesperson, pointed to the bureau’s role in identifying fingerprints on a gift bag used in a Feeding Our Future juror bribery scheme. But that case was an offshoot of the initial fraud investigation.
Trump cited the scandal as a reason to end Temporary Protected Status for Somalis in Minnesota, writing Nov. 21 on Truth Social, “Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing.”
Temporary Protected Status is for people from certain countries experiencing war, natural disasters or epidemics and protects them from deportation. There are about 700 Somalis in the U.S. with TPS, many in Minnesota. Immigration lawyers said it isn’t possible to take away the status state by state.
Before Trump vowed to do that, the TPS program for Somalis across the U.S. was already set to expire in March 2026.
An estimated 100,000 people who identify as Somali live in Minnesota and the majority are U.S. citizens. Many came to the state in the 1990s fleeing a civil war.
Trump appeared to be reacting to a recent report from a conservative activist that said Somalis stole the money to use it for terrorism. That claim, which has circulated since 2018, lacks evidence.
Federal authorities took the lead
In February 2021, the FBI notified the Minnesota Department of Education about kickback allegations involving Feeding Our Future and allegations the group wasn’t providing meals as it said it had. Two months later, the education department notified the FBI that it believed some meal sites were submitting fraudulent documents and inflating the number of children receiving meals.
Prosecutors said defendants stole $250 million in federal money and spent it on international vacations, real estate, jewelry and luxury cars.
Then-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland called it “the largest pandemic relief fraud scheme.”
Feeding Our Future employees recruited people and entities to open sites to feed children, creating shell companies to launder the money. The group existed before the pandemic. But amid COVID-19 school shutdowns, the federal government lifted some requirements about where children could get meals, and afterward the number of meals Feeding Our Future said it served soared. Prosecutors said the defendants exploited those changes and created false documentation such as fake attendance rosters listing how many people had been fed, significantly inflating the numbers.
Some state employees raised red flags about the organization, and early in the pandemic, questioned its growth. Then Feeding Our Families sued the state, and a judge told the state it had “a real problem not reimbursing at this stage of the game.” But the judge did not rule on the matter in an April 2021 hearing, and the state resumed paying Feeding Our Future.
Walz sought in 2022 to blame the judge for the resumed payments, prompting the judge to issue a statement that the governor was wrong, and the education department had resumed the payments on its own, not because of an order from him, the Minnesota Reformer reported in 2022.
Federal prosecutors announced in September 2022 criminal charges against 47 defendants — a number that eventually grew to 78.
Most of the defendants were of Somali descent. More than 50 people have pleaded guilty while others were convicted at trial, including Feeding Our Future founder Aimee Bock, who is not Somali.
Did the state play a role?
We found scant mention of state agencies in stories about the investigation dating to 2022. In January 2022, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was working on the investigation along with federal offices, but news accounts largely cited the federal law enforcement work.
The FBI had to build its case from scratch, the Star Tribune found, obtaining records from hundreds of bank accounts. The newspaper wrote in 2022 that state and federal records showed that “Minnesota officials provided federal authorities with little or no evidence” that Feeding Our Future misappropriated government money.
The Minnesota Reformer and the Star Tribune have reported that state officials could have done more to stop or investigate fraud.
The state legislative auditor found in 2024 that the education department provided inadequate oversight and “could have taken more decisive action sooner.”
Mark Osler, a law professor at University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, told PolitiFact it makes sense that federal authorities led the case given the complexity, involvement of federal money and potential for conflicts of interest for state officials.
Osler, a former federal prosecutor, said the state should have detected the fraud earlier.
“The underlying issue isn’t really punishing people later, it is detecting the fraud before it became so large and stopping it,” he said.
Recent Minnesota fraud cases
During the “Meet the Press” interview, Welker mentioned $1 billion in fraud, a cumulative figure spanning many fraud cases, including more recent ones.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson told local ABC affiliate KSTP-TV in July that he expects the scope of fraud will exceed $1 billion when investigators complete their findings.
In September, federal prosecutors charged defendants in schemes misusing housing funding and money to provide services for people with autism spectrum disorder.
State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension agents continue to work with federal investigators on those cases, Longaecker said.
Our ruling
Walz said he took “responsibility for putting people in jail” in the Minnesota fraud scandal.
The work of federal investigators and prosecutors — not state officials — led to dozens of convictions in the Feeding Our Future scandal.
Reporting by media organizations in the state showed that Minnesota officials provided little or no evidence to federal investigators, who had to build a case from scratch, and that the state could have done more to aid the investigation.
We rate this statement False.
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
