ReportWire

Tag: trump news

  • US spent $40M to deport roughly 300 migrants to nations other than their own: Democratic report

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration spent at least $40 million to deport roughly 300 migrants to countries other than their own as immigration officials expanded the practice over the last year to carry out President Donald Trump’s goals of quickly removing immigrants from the U.S., according to a report compiled by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    The Democrats on the Foreign Relations panel, led by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, criticize the practice of third country deportations as “costly, wasteful and poorly monitored” in the report and call for “serious scrutiny of a policy that now operates largely in the dark.”

    The State Department, which oversees the negotiations to implement the programs, has stood behind the practice of third country deportations and defended it as a part of Trump’s campaign to end illegal immigration.

    “We’ve arrested people that are members of gangs and we’ve deported them. We don’t want gang members in our country,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded when asked about some of the third country deportations at a Senate hearing last month.

    The report, which is the first congressional review of the agreements, found lump sum payments ranging between $4.7 million and $7.5 million to five countries – Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini and Palau – to deport migrants to those nations. El Salvador has received about 250 Venezuelan nationals in March last year, while the other nations received far fewer deportees, ranging from 29 sent to Equatorial Guinea to none sent to Palau so far, according to the report.

    The nations examined in the report are just a fraction of the Trump administration’s overall work to deport migrants to third countries. According to internal administration documents reviewed by The Associated Press, there are 47 third-country agreements at various stages of negotiation. Of those, 15 have been concluded and 10 are at or near conclusion.

    The administration is also negotiating agreements with countries that will accept U.S. asylum seekers while their asylum claims are processed, according to the internal documents. There are 17 that are at various stages of negotiation, including 9 that have formally taken effect, although the administration claims that the agreements do not necessarily need to be concluded for people to be sent there.

    Immigration advocacy groups have criticized the “third country” policy as a reckless tactic that violates due process rights and can strand deportees in countries with long histories of human rights violations and corruption.

    During a visit to South Sudan, Democratic committee staff found a gated house with armed guards where deportees were held, including migrants from Vietnam and Mexico.

    The Democrats also largely take aim at how wasteful and ineffective the policy may be. It details several instances of migrants being deported to a third country, only for the U.S. to later pay for another flight to return the migrant to their home country.

    “In many cases, migrants could have been returned directly to their countries of origin, avoiding unnecessary flights and additional costs,” said Shaheen in a statement also signed by Democratic Sens. Chris Coons, Tammy Duckworth, Tim Kaine, Jack Rosen and Chris Van Hollen.

    It also remains unclear what benefits the countries may receive – or expect – in return for accepting third-country nationals.

    After an agreement was in place last year, South Sudan sent a list of requests to Washington that included American support for the prosecution of an opposition leader and sanctions relief for a senior official accused of diverting over a billion dollars in public funds, according to diplomatic communications made public by the State Department in January.

    Shaheen has also questioned a $7.5 million payment sent to Equatorial Guinea that came at the same time the Trump administration was developing ties with the country’s vice president, Teodoro “Teddy” Nguema Obiang. He is notorious among world leaders accused of corruption for a lavish lifestyle that has attracted the attention of prosecutors in several countries.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Justice Department sues Harvard for data as it investigates how race factors into admissions

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is suing Harvard University, saying it has refused to provide admissions records that the Justice Department demanded to ensure the Ivy League school stopped using affirmative action in admissions.

    In a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Massachusetts, the Justice Department said Harvard has “thwarted” efforts to investigate potential discrimination. It accused Harvard of refusing to comply with a federal investigation and asked a judge to order the university to turn over the records.

    Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department’s Civil Rights Division, said Harvard’s refusal is a red flag. “If Harvard has stopped discriminating, it should happily share the data necessary to prove it,” Dhillon said in a statement.

    A statement from Harvard said the university has been responding to the government’s requests. It said Harvard is in compliance with the Supreme Court decision barring affirmative action in admissions.

    “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach,” the university said.

    The suit is the latest salvo in President Donald Trump’s standoff with Harvard, which has faced billions of dollars in funding cuts and other sanctions after it rejected a list of demands from the administration last year.

    Trump officials have said they’re taking action against Harvard over allegations of anti-Jewish bias on campus. Harvard officials say they’re facing unconstitutional retaliation for refusing to adopt the administration’s ideological views. The administration is appealing a judge’s orders that sided with Harvard in two lawsuits.

    The Justice Department opened a compliance review into Harvard’s admissions practices last April on the same day the White House issued a series of sweeping demands aligned with Trump’s priorities. The agency told Harvard to hand over five years of admissions data for undergraduate applicants along with Harvard’s medical and law schools.

    It asked for a trove of data including applicants’ grades, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities and admissions outcomes, along with their race and ethnicity. It asked for the data by April 25, 2025. The lawsuit said Harvard has not provided that data.

    Justice Department officials said they need the data to determine whether Harvard has continued considering applicants’ race in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court barred affirmative action in admissions in 2023 after lawsuits challenged it at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

    Trump officials have accused colleges of continuing the practice, which the administration says discriminates against white and Asian American students.

    The White House is separately pressing universities across the U.S. to providing similar data to determine whether they have continued to factor race into admissions decisions. The Education Department plans to collect more detailed admissions data from colleges after Trump signed an action suggesting schools were ignoring the Supreme Court decision.

    Trump’s dispute with Harvard had appeared to be winding down last summer after the president repeatedly said they were finalizing a deal to restore Harvard’s federal funding. The deal never materialized, and Trump rekindled the conflict this month when he said Harvard must pay $1 billion as part of any deal, double what he previously demanded.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • US Olympians speaking up about politics at home face online backlash – including from Trump

    MILAN — U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said that it is hard to cheer for American Olympians who are speaking out against administration policies, calling one such critic “a real Loser” who perhaps should have stayed home.

    It was the latest and most prominent example of U.S. Olympians at the Milan Cortina Games inviting online backlash with their words.

    Reporters on Friday asked U.S. athletes at a news conference how they feel representing the country during the Trump administration’s heighted immigration enforcement actions. Freestyle skier Hunter Hess replied that he had mixed emotions since he doesn’t agree with the situation, and that he is in Milan competing on behalf of everyone who helped get him to The Games.

    “If it aligns with my moral values, I feel like I’m representing it,” Hess said. “Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

    Among those who piled on Hess were YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul.

    “From all true Americans If you don’t want to represent this country go live somewhere else,” he wrote on X, where he has 4.4 million followers. Minutes later, he was photographed sitting beside U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the U.S women’s hockey game in Olympic host city Milan.

    Trump said the next day that Hess’ comments make it hard to root for him.

    “Hess, a real Loser, says he doesn’t represent his Country in the current Winter Olympics. If that’s the case, he shouldn’t have tried out for the Team, and it’s too bad he’s on it,” he wrote on his Truth Social account.

    Hess wasn’t the only athlete voicing discontent – or facing blowback

    At Friday’s news conference with the athletes, freestyle skier Chris Lillis referenced Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying he’s “heartbroken” about what is happening in the U.S.

    “I think that, as a country, we need to focus on respecting everybody’s rights and making sure that we’re treating our citizens as well as anybody, with love and respect,” Lillis said. “I hope that when people look at athletes compete in the Olympics, they realize that that’s the America that we’re trying to represent.”

    And U.S. figure skater Amber Glenn said the LGBTQ+ community has had a hard time during the Trump administration.

    In addition to Paul, conservative figures criticizing the athletes on social media include former NFL quarterback Brett Favre, actor Rob Schneider and U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds – who Trump has endorsed for the Florida gubernatorial race in November. And there was a flood of vitriol directed at them from ordinary Americans.

    Glenn posted on Instagram that she had received “a scary amount of hate / threats for simply using my voice WHEN ASKED about how I feel.” She added that she will start limiting her social media use for her well-being.

    In response to questions from The Associated Press, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee said in a statement Sunday that it is aware of an increasing amount of abusive and harmful messages directed toward the athletes and was doing its best to remove content and report credible threats to law enforcement.

    “The USOPC stands firmly behind Team USA athletes and remains committed to their well-being and safety, both on and off the field of play,” it said.

    Anti-ICE protests in Italy

    Support for the U.S. abroad has eroded as the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive posture on foreign policy, including punishing tariffs, military action in Venezuela and threats to invade Greenland.

    During the opening ceremony, Team USA athletes were cheered on, but jeers and whistles could be heard as Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, were shown on the stadium screens, waving American flags from the tribune.

    In Milan, several demonstrations have broken out against the against the local deployment of ICE agents – even after clarification that they are from an investigations unit that is completely separate from the enforcement unit at the forefront of the immigration crackdown in the U.S.

    Homeland Security Investigations, an ICE unit that focuses on cross-border crimes, frequently sends its officers to overseas events like the Olympics to assist with security. The ICE arm seen in the streets of the U.S. is known as Enforcement and Removal Operations, and there is no indication its officers were sent to Italy.

    A demonstration on Saturday featured thousands of protesters. Toward its end, a small number of them clashed with police, who fired tear gas and a water cannon. That followed another one last week, when hundreds protested the deployment of ICE agents.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Graham Dunbar contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Judge blocks additional citizenship provisions in latest setback to Trump’s election executive order

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge on Friday blocked certain federal agencies from requesting citizenship status when distributing voter registration forms, the latest blow to a wide-ranging executive order on elections President Donald Trump signed last year.

    U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington ruled that the Constitution’s separation of powers, giving states and to an extent Congress authority over setting election rules, are at the heart of the case.

    “Put simply, our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures,” wrote the judge, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

    Specifically, Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked two provisions of the executive order that sought to impose proof-of-citizenship rules.

    Her decision said agencies will not be allowed to “assess citizenship” before providing a federal voter registration form to people enrolling in public assistance programs. It also said the Secretary of Defense cannot require documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

    “Our democracy works best when all Americans can participate, including members of our military and their families living overseas. Today’s ruling removes a very real threat to the freedom to vote for overseas military families and upholds the separation of powers,” said Danielle Lang, a voting rights expert with the Campaign Legal Center, which is representing plaintiffs in the case.

    The White House said Trump’s executive order was intended to ensure “election security” and said Friday’s ruling would not be the last word.

    “Ensuring only citizens vote in our elections is a commonsense measure that everyone should be able to support,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman. “This is not the final say on the matter and the administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

    The specter of noncitizens voting and tainting elections was a central strategy for Trump and Republicans during the 2024 campaign, and congressional Republicans are continuing to push proposals that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Research, even among Republican state officials, has shown voting by noncitizens is a rare problem.

    Friday’s ruling is among several setbacks for the president’s executive order, which has faced multiple lawsuits. In October, Kollar-Kotelly blocked the administration from adding a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form. Separate lawsuits by Democratic state attorneys general and by Oregon and Washington, which rely heavily on mailed ballots, have blocked various portions of Trump’s order.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Comparisons drawn between Alex Pretti, Kyle Rittenhouse in renewed Second Amendment debate

    Saturday’s fatal shooting of a man by a Border Patrol agent in Minneapolis has renewed a debate over the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws. But this time, the political roles are reversed.

    The right to bear arms has been a big Republican Party issue for decades. Conservative politicians have strongly defended the Second Amendment by successfully passing gun rights laws, such as concealed carry, in every state. Minneapolis shooting victim Alex Pretti was legally carrying a firearm. But top Trump administration officials say he did not have a right to do so.

    “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It is that simple,” said Director Kash Patel.

    However, President Donald Trump supported Kyle Rittenhouse after he shot and killed two men who tried grabbing his gun during protesters following a shooting involving police. Additionally, some Jan. 6 rioters were armed, and many Republicans supported a Missouri couple who pointed their firearms at protesters after George Floyd’s killing.

    Alex Pretti seen in bystander video Saturday morning in Minneapolis, left, and Kyle Rittenhouse at the Turning Point USA America Fest 2021 event Monday, Dec. 20, 2021, in Phoenix.

    (Bystander video)/(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

    The killing spurred notable tension with the GOP’s long-standing support for gun rights. Officials say Pretti was armed, but no bystander videos that have surfaced so far appear to show him holding a weapon. The Minneapolis police chief said Pretti had a permit to carry a gun.

    Yet administration officials, including Noem and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have questioned why he was armed. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Bessent said that when he has attended protests, “I didn’t bring a gun. I brought a billboard.”

    Such comments were notable for a party where support for the Second Amendment’s protection of gun ownership is foundational. Indeed, many in the GOP, including Trump, lifted Kyle Rittenhouse into prominence when the then-17-year-old former police youth cadet shot three men, killing two of them, during a 2020 protest in Wisconsin against police brutality. He was acquitted of all charges after testifying that he acted in self defense.

    In the wake of Pretti’s killing, gun rights advocates noted that it is legal to carry firearms during protests.

    “Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms – including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said in a statement. “These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed.”

    In a social media post, the National Rifle Association said “responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

    Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is often critical of the White House, said “carrying a firearm is not a death sentence.”

    “It’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right,” he said, “and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government.

    The second-ranking Justice Department official said he was aware of reports that Pretti was lawfully armed.

    “There’s nothing wrong with anybody lawfully carrying firearms,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. “But just make no mistake about it, this was an incredibly split-second decision that had to be made by ICE officers.”

    “The height of hypocrisy which continues out of the White House, scrambling to find some reason to show why these agents were justified,” said former Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin.

    Durkin says the hypocrisy surrounding the Minneapolis case will continue to fracture the Republican Party. While it took over 20 years to pass a restricted concealed carry law in Illinois, residents have a right to carry a loaded firearm to a protest. Minnesota shares the same rights.

    “Mr. Pretti was not violating the law in terms of the Second Amendment. He had a protected right, and the law in Minnesota did not prohibit him from carrying a firearm,” said Rob Chadwick with the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.

    But Chadwick, a former FBI agent, says the law gets dicey if the armed person inserts themselves in a law enforcement operation. USCCA and a growing number of Republicans are calling for a full investigation into Pretti’s death.

    “When you take that step and get involved physically in a law enforcement action, it is incredibly dangerous and unintended consequences do happen,” Chadwick said.

    Meanwhile, White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt says Trump absolutely supports the Second Amendment for law-abiding Americans, but not for people who impede immigration enforcement operations.

    ABC Chicago Station WLS and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.

    WTVD

    Source link

  • Air Force One safely returns to Washington area due to minor electrical issue, White House says

    President Donald Trump’s plane, Air Force One, returned to Joint Base Andrews about an hour after departing for Switzerland on Tuesday evening.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the decision to return was made after takeoff when the crew aboard Air Force One identified “a minor electrical issue” and, out of an abundance of caution, decided to turn around.Related video above: “You’ll find out:” Trump asked how far he’ll go to acquire Greenland ahead of overseas tripA reporter on board said the lights in the press cabin of the aircraft went out briefly after takeoff, but no explanation was immediately offered. About half an hour into the flight reporters were told the plane would be turning around.Trump will board another aircraft and continue on with his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos.The two planes currently used as Air Force One have been flying for nearly four decades. Boeing has been working on replacements, but the program has faced a series of delays. The planes are heavily modified with survivability capabilities for the president for a range of contingencies, including radiation shielding and antimissile technology. They also include a variety of communications systems to allow the president to remain in contact with the military and issue orders from anywhere in the world.Last year, the ruling family of Qatar gifted Trump a luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet to be added to the Air Force One fleet, a move that faced great scrutiny. That plane is currently being retrofitted to meet security requirements.Leavitt joked to reporters on Air Force One Tuesday night that a Qatari jet was sounding “much better” right now.Last February, an Air Force plane carrying Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Germany had to return to Washington because of a mechanical issue. In October, a military plane carrying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had to make an emergency landing in United Kingdom due to a crack in the windshield.

    President Donald Trump’s plane, Air Force One, returned to Joint Base Andrews about an hour after departing for Switzerland on Tuesday evening.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the decision to return was made after takeoff when the crew aboard Air Force One identified “a minor electrical issue” and, out of an abundance of caution, decided to turn around.

    Related video above: “You’ll find out:” Trump asked how far he’ll go to acquire Greenland ahead of overseas trip

    A reporter on board said the lights in the press cabin of the aircraft went out briefly after takeoff, but no explanation was immediately offered. About half an hour into the flight reporters were told the plane would be turning around.

    Trump will board another aircraft and continue on with his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos.

    The two planes currently used as Air Force One have been flying for nearly four decades. Boeing has been working on replacements, but the program has faced a series of delays. The planes are heavily modified with survivability capabilities for the president for a range of contingencies, including radiation shielding and antimissile technology. They also include a variety of communications systems to allow the president to remain in contact with the military and issue orders from anywhere in the world.

    Last year, the ruling family of Qatar gifted Trump a luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet to be added to the Air Force One fleet, a move that faced great scrutiny. That plane is currently being retrofitted to meet security requirements.

    Leavitt joked to reporters on Air Force One Tuesday night that a Qatari jet was sounding “much better” right now.

    Last February, an Air Force plane carrying Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Germany had to return to Washington because of a mechanical issue. In October, a military plane carrying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had to make an emergency landing in United Kingdom due to a crack in the windshield.

    Source link

  • Trump says he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the US controlling Greenland

    COPENHAGEN, Denmark — U.S. President Donald Trump suggested Friday that he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the U.S. controlling Greenland, a message that came as a bipartisan Congressional delegation sought to lower tensions in the Danish capital.

    Trump for months has insisted that the U.S. should control Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, and said earlier this week that anything less than the Arctic island being in U.S. hands would be “unacceptable.”

    During an unrelated event at the White House about rural health care, he recounted Friday how he had threatened European allies with tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

    “I may do that for Greenland too,” Trump said. “I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that,” he said.

    SEE ALSO | In their words: Greenlanders talk about Trump’s desire to own their Arctic island

    He had not previously mentioned using tariffs to try to force the issue.

    Earlier this week, the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland met in Washington this week with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    That encounter didn’t resolve the deep differences, but did produce an agreement to set up a working group – on whose purpose Denmark and the White House then offered sharply diverging public views.

    European leaders have insisted that is only for Denmark and Greenland to decide on matters concerning the territory, and Denmark said this week that it was increasing its military presence in Greenland in cooperation with allies.

    A relationship that ‘we need to nurture’

    In Copenhagen, a group of senators and members of the House of Representatives met Friday with Danish and Greenlandic lawmakers, and with leaders including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

    Delegation leader Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, thanked the group’s hosts for “225 years of being a good and trusted ally and partner” and said that “we had a strong and robust dialogue about how we extend that into the future.”

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said after meeting lawmakers that the visit reflected a strong relationship over decades and “it is one that we need to nurture.” She told reporters that “Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset, and I think that’s what you’re hearing with this delegation.”

    The tone contrasted with that emanating from the White House. Trump has sought to justify his calls for a U.S. takeover by repeatedly claiming that China and Russia have their own designs on Greenland, which holds vast untapped reserves of critical minerals. The White House hasn’t ruled out taking the territory by force.

    “We have heard so many lies, to be honest and so much exaggeration on the threats towards Greenland,” said Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic politician and member of the Danish parliament who took part in Friday’s meetings. “And mostly, I would say the threats that we’re seeing right now is from the U.S. side.”

    Murkowski emphasized the role of Congress in spending and in conveying messages from constituents.

    “I think it is important to underscore that when you ask the American people whether or not they think it is a good idea for the United States to acquire Greenland, the vast majority, some 75%, will say, we do not think that that is a good idea,” she said.

    Along with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, Murkowski has introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the use of U.S. Defense or State department funds to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council.

    Inuit council criticizes White House statements

    The dispute is looming large in the lives of Greenlanders. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said on Tuesday that “if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.””

    The chair of the Nuuk, Greenland-based Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents around 180,000 Inuit from Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia’s Chukotka region on international issues, said persistent statements from the White House that the U.S. must own Greenland offer “a clear picture of how the US administration views the people of Greenland, how the U.S. administration views Indigenous peoples, and peoples that are few in numbers.”

    Sara Olsvig told The Associated Press in Nuuk that the issue is “how one of the biggest powers in the world views other peoples that are less powerful than them. And that really is concerning.”

    Indigenous Inuit in Greenland do not want to be colonized again, she said.

    ___

    Superville reported from Washington. Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • In their words: Greenlanders talk about Trump’s desire to own their Arctic island

    NUUK, Greenland — U.S. President Donald Trump has turned the Arctic island of Greenland into a geopolitical hotspot with his demands to own it and suggestions that the U.S. could take it by force.

    The island is a semiautonomous region of Denmark, and Denmark’s foreign minister said Wednesday after a meeting at the White House that a ” fundamental disagreement ” remains with Trump over the island.

    The crisis is dominating the lives of Greenlanders and “people are not sleeping, children are afraid, and it just fills everything these days. And we can’t really understand it,” Naaja Nathanielsen, a Greenlandic minister said at a meeting with lawmakers in Britain’s Parliament this week.

    Here’s a look at what Greenlanders have been saying:

    Trump “undermining” Greenlandic culture

    Trump has dismissed Denmark’s defenses in Greenland, suggesting it’s “two dog sleds.”

    By saying that, Trump is “undermining us as a people,” Mari Laursen told AP.

    Laursen said she used to work on a fishing trawler but is now studying law. She approached AP to say she thought previous examples of cooperation between Greenlanders and Americans are “often overlooked when Trump talks about dog sleds.”

    SEE ALSO | How the US could take over Greenland and the potential challenges

    She said during World War II, Greenlandic hunters on their dog sleds worked in conjunction with the U.S. military to detect Nazi German forces on the island.

    “The Arctic climate and environment is so different from maybe what they (Americans) are used to with the warships and helicopters and tanks. A dog sled is more efficient. It can go where no warship and helicopter can go,” Laursen said.

    Greenlanders don’t believe Trump’s claims

    Trump has repeatedly claimed Russian and Chinese ships are swarming the seas around Greenland. Plenty of Greenlanders who spoke to AP dismissed that claim.

    “I think he (Trump) should mind his own business,” said Lars Vintner, a heating engineer.

    “What’s he going to do with Greenland? He speaks of Russians and Chinese and everything in Greenlandic waters or in our country. We are only 57,000 people. The only Chinese I see is when I go to the fast food market. And every summer we go sailing and we go hunting and I never saw Russian or Chinese ships here in Greenland,” he said.

    Down at Nuuk’s small harbor, Gerth Josefsen spoke to AP as he attached small fish as bait to his lines. He said, “I don’t see them (the ships)” and said he had only seen “a Russian fishing boat ten years ago.”

    Trump is interested in Greenland’s critical minerals

    Maya Martinsen, 21, a shop worker, told AP she doesn’t believe Trump wants Greenland to enhance America’s security.

    “I know it’s not national security. I think it’s for the oils and minerals that we have that are untouched,” she said, suggesting the Americans are treating her home like a “business trade.”

    She said she thought it was good that American, Greenlandic and Danish officials met in the White House Wednesday and said she believes that “the Danish and Greenlandic people are mostly on the same side,” despite some Greenlanders wanting independence.

    “It is nerve-wrecking, that the Americans aren’t changing their mind,” she said, adding that she welcomed the news that Denmark and its allies would be sending troops to Greenland because “it’s important that the people we work closest with, that they send support.”

    Greenlanders get support from Denmark

    Tuuta Mikaelsen, a 22-year-old student, told AP that she hopes the U.S. got the message from Danish and Greenlandic officials to “back off.”

    She said she didn’t want to join the United States because in Greenland “there are laws and stuff, and health insurance .. .we can go to the doctors and nurses … we don’t have to pay anything,” she said adding “I don’t want the U.S. to take that away from us.”

    Greenland is at the center of a media storm
    In Greenland’s parliament, Juno Berthelsen, MP for the Naleraq opposition party that campaigns for independence in the Greenlandic parliament told AP that he has done multiple media interviews every day for the last two weeks.

    When asked by AP what he would say to Trump and Vice President JD Vance if he had the chance, Berthelsen said:

    “I would tell them, of course, that – as we’ve seen – a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats are not in favor of having such an aggressive rhetoric and talk about military intervention, invasion. So we would tell them to move beyond that and continue this diplomatic dialogue and making sure that the Greenlandic people are the ones who are at the very center of this conversation.”

    “It is our country,” he said. “Greenland belongs to the Greenlandic people.”

    ___

    Kwiyeon Ha and Evgeniy Maloletka contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • How the US could take over Greenland and the potential challenges

    WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump wants to own Greenland. He has repeatedly said the United States must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semiautonomous region that’s part of NATO ally Denmark.

    Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss a renewed push by the White House, which is considering a range of options, including using military force, to acquire the island.

    Trump said Friday he is going to do “something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”

    If it’s not done “the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he said without elaborating what that could entail. In an interview Thursday, he told The New York Times that he wants to own Greenland because “ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

    Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO, and Greenlanders say they don’t want to become part of the U.S.

    This is a look at some of the ways the U.S. could take control of Greenland and the potential challenges.

    Military action could alter global relations

    Trump and his officials have indicated they want to control Greenland to enhance American security and explore business and mining deals. But Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of decades of neglect by several U.S. presidents towards Washington’s position in the Arctic.

    The current fixation is partly down to “the realization we need to increase our presence in the Arctic, and we don’t yet have the right strategy or vision to do so,” he said.

    If the U.S. took control of Greenland by force, it would plunge NATO into a crisis, possibly an existential one.

    While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn’t have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the U.S.

    It’s unclear how the remaining members of NATO would respond if the U.S. decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark’s aid.

    “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen has said.

    Trump said he needs control of the island to guarantee American security, citing the threat from Russian and Chinese ships in the region, but “it’s not true” said Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, or DIIS.

    While there are probably Russian submarines – as there are across the Arctic region – there are no surface vessels, Mortensgaard said. China has research vessels in the Central Arctic Ocean, and while the Chinese and Russian militaries have done joint military exercises in the Arctic, they have taken place closer to Alaska, she said.

    Bayoumi, of the Atlantic Council, said he doubted Trump would take control of Greenland by force because it’s unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and would likely “fundamentally alter” U.S. relationships with allies worldwide.

    The U.S. already has access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, and Denmark and Greenland would be “quite happy” to accommodate a beefed up American military presence, Mortensgaard said.

    For that reason, “blowing up the NATO alliance” for something Trump has already, doesn’t make sense, said Ulrik Pram Gad, an expert on Greenland at DIIS.

    Bilateral agreements may assist effort

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers this week that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have previously said the island isn’t for sale.

    It’s not clear how much buying the island could cost, or if the U.S. would be buying it from Denmark or Greenland.

    Washington also could boost its military presence in Greenland “through cooperation and diplomacy,” without taking it over, Bayoumi said.

    One option could be for the U.S. to get a veto over security decisions made by the Greenlandic government, as it has in islands in the Pacific Ocean, Gad said.

    Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, with the U.S.

    That would give Washington the right to operate military bases and make decisions about the islands’ security in exchange for U.S. security guarantees and around $7 billion of yearly economic assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service.

    It’s not clear how much that would improve upon Washington’s current security strategy. The U.S. already operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, and can bring as many troops as it wants under existing agreements.

    Influence operations expected to fail

    Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz told The Associated Press that Greenlanders want more rights, including independence, but don’t want to become part of the U.S.

    Gad suggested influence operations to persuade Greenlanders to join the U.S. would likely fail. He said that is because the community on the island is small and the language is “inaccessible.”

    Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lkke Rasmussen summoned the top U.S. official in Denmark in August to complain that “foreign actors” were seeking to influence the country’s future. Danish media reported that at least three people with connections to Trump carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.

    Even if the U.S. managed to take control of Greenland, it would likely come with a large bill, Gad said. That’s because Greenlanders currently have Danish citizenship and access to the Danish welfare system, including free health care and schooling.

    To match that, “Trump would have to build a welfare state for Greenlanders that he doesn’t want for his own citizens,” Gad said.

    Disagreement unlikely to be resolved

    Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations to 200 at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of the island, Rasmussen said last year. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.

    U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Thursday that Denmark has neglected its missile defense obligations in Greenland, but Mortensgaard said that it makes “little sense to criticize Denmark,” because the main reason why the U.S. operates the Pituffik base in the north of the island is to provide early detection of missiles.

    The best outcome for Denmark would be to update the defense agreement, which allows the U.S. to have a military presence on the island and have Trump sign it with a “gold-plated signature,” Gad said.

    But he suggested that’s unlikely because Greenland is “handy” to the U.S president.

    When Trump wants to change the news agenda – including distracting from domestic political problems – “he can just say the word ‘Greenland’ and this starts all over again,” Gad said.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • After legal setbacks, Trump says he’s dropping National Guard push in Chicago, other cities, for now

    CHICAGO — President Donald Trump said he’s dropping – for now – his push to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, a move that comes after legal roadblocks hung up the effort.

    Trump said in a social media post Wednesday that he’s removing the Guard troops for now. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” he wrote.

    Troops had already left Los Angeles after the president deployed them earlier this year as part of a broader crackdown on crime and immigration. They had been sent to Chicago and Portland but were never on the streets as legal challenges played out.

    The video in the player above is from a previous report.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    The Supreme Court earlier this month refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown, a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities.

    The justices declined the Republican administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act.

    Three justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – publicly dissented.

    The high court order is not a final ruling but it could affect other lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in other Democratic-led cities.

    “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the decision to keep the Chicago deployment blocked, but would have left the president more latitude to deploy troops in possible future scenarios.

    “The Supreme Court essentially has said two things here. It said that the president can federalize deploy the National Guard, but only if the U.S. military has the authority to enforce the laws in question in the first place and otherwise is unable to enforce them. And the Supreme Court is saying these are not the kinds of laws that the U.S. military is generally authorized to enforce,” said ABC7 Chief Legal Analyst Gill Soffer.

    The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. The conservative-dominated court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

    Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker applauded the decision as a win for the state and country.

    “American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets,” he said.

    White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, on the other hand, said the president had activated the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property from “violent rioters.”

    “Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public,” she said.

    Alito and Thomas said in their dissent that the court had no basis to reject Trump’s contention that the administration needed the troops to enforce immigration laws. Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government based on the declarations of federal law enforcement officials.

    The administration had initially sought the order to allow the deployment of troops from Illinois and Texas, but the Texas contingent of about 200 National Guard troops was later sent home from Chicago.

    The Trump administration has argued that the troops are needed “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    But Perry wrote that she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois and no reason to believe the protests there had gotten in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

    Perry had initially blocked the deployment for two weeks. But in October, she extended the order indefinitely while the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview has been the site of tense protests, where federal agents have previously used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists.

    Last month, authorities arrested 21 protesters and said four officers were injured outside the Broadview facility. Local authorities made the arrests.

    The Illinois case is just one of several legal battles over National Guard deployments.

    “Every one of these cases, when they come down, can have an impact on other cases, even if they’re not technically binding in another jurisdiction on a different set of facts. And they’re usually not. Nevertheless, the principles behind them will apply. And since this is the Supreme Court ruling here, it’s very consequential. And other courts are going to have to follow its lead,” Soffer said.

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul says the court’s ruling could affect other lawsuits challenging the president’s attempt to deploy the military in other Democrat-led cities.

    “We went first before the Supreme Court on this. And so this is an important case not only for the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois, but for the country at large,” Raoul said.

    District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb is suing to halt the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen in the nation’s capital. Forty-five states have entered filings in federal court in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.

    More than 2,200 troops from several Republican-led states remain in Washington, although the crime emergency Trump declared in August ended a month later.

    A federal judge in Oregon has permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there, and all 200 troops from California were being sent home from Oregon, an official said.

    A state court in Tennessee ruled in favor of Democratic officials who sued to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis, which Trump has called a replica of his crackdown on Washington, D.C.

    In California, a judge in September said deployment in the Los Angeles area was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained, and the judge did not order them to leave.

    The Trump administration has appealed the California and Oregon rulings to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    “There’s really no reason to think the government is going to throw up its hands. This is a preliminary ruling. It doesn’t dispose of the case. The government will continue to work this out, I’m sure. Or fight it out on appeal and work its way through the system,” Soffer said.

    The Defense department says outside of Illinois, the president has deployed Guard members to Tennessee, Oregon, California and the nation’s capital. But troops are only actively on the streets in Memphis, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker issued a statement on the ruling, saying, “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy. I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.

    American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets. The brave men and women of our National Guard should never be used for political theater and deserve to be with their families and communities, especially during the holidays, and ready to serve overseas or at home when called upon during times of immense need.

    While we welcome this ruling, we also are clear-eyed that the Trump Administration’s pursuit for unchecked power is continuing across the country. Illinois will remain vigilant, defend the rights of our people, and stand up to further abuses of authority by Donald Trump and his cronies.”

    White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson issued a statement, saying, “The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”

    Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a statement, saying, “We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling to block the deployment of National Guard personnel to the streets of Chicago, rebuking President Trump’s attempts to militarize and demonize our city.

    I’ve maintained that these threats are unconstitutional from the very beginning. I am encouraged that the Supreme Court shares this view.

    This decision doesn’t just protect Chicago-but protect cities around the country who have been threatened by Trump’s campaign against immigrants and Democratic-led cities.

    We moved swiftly to challenge any deployment in court the moment the president first made his threats. My administration will maintain our commitment to protecting Chicagoans from federal overreach and continue to ensure Donald Trump is held accountable before the law.”

    A Department of Justice spokesperson issued a statement, saying, “The National Guard has been instrumental in President Trump’s historic efforts to reduce crime and protect federal law enforcement as they execute their duties. This Department of Justice remains committed to enforcing our criminal laws and reversing the prior administration’s trend of crime and decline in America’s major cities.”

    Illinois state Rep. and Chairman of the Illinois Freedom Caucus Chris Miller told ABC7 in a statement, “The only people the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of today are illegal immigrants and criminals. JB Pritzker and the Democrats have allowed crime and illegal immigration to rob our citizens of their safety, and their tax dollars. The federal government should intervene by any means necessary. In light of the Christmas season, I would be glad to gift the ‘Republican’ justices in favor of this decision with a spine. I’m sure Santa can get it there by December 25th!”

    Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Sophia Tareen in Chicago contributed to this story.

    ABC7’s Cate Cauguiran contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • At least 16 files have disappeared from the DOJ webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein

    NEW YORK — 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.

    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.”

    SEE ALSO | Top DOJ official denies there’s any effort to redact mentions of President Trump from Epstein files

    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 forced 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 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 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 was no explanation 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 under age, 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.

    Jennifer Freeman, an attorney representing Epstein accuser Maria Farmer and other survivors, said Saturday that her client feels vindicated after the document release. Farmer sought for years documents backing up her claim that Epstein and Maxwell were in possession of child sexual abuse images.

    “It’s a triumph and a tragedy,” she said. “It looks like the government did absolutely nothing. Horrible things have happened and if they investigated in even the smallest way, they could have stopped him.”

    ___

    Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Kristin M. Hall, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.

    The video in the player above is from a previous report.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Israel’s army says it will advance preparations for the first phase of Trump’s plan

    TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel’s army said Saturday that it would advance preparations for the first phase of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza and return all the remaining hostages.

    The army said it was instructed by Israel’s leaders to “advance readiness” for the implementation of the plan. An official who was not authorized to speak to the media on the record said that Israel has moved to a defensive-only position in Gaza and will not actively strike. The official said no forces have been removed from the strip.

    This announcement came hours after Trump ordered Israel to stop bombing Gaza once Hamas said it had accepted some elements of his plan. Trump welcomed the Hamas statement, saying: “I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE.”

    Trump appears keen to deliver on pledges to end the war and return dozens of hostages ahead of the second anniversary of the attack on Tuesday. His proposal unveiled earlier this week has widespread international support and was also endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    On Friday, Netanyahu’s office said Israel was committed to ending the war that began when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, without addressing potential gaps with the militant group. Netanyahu has come under increasing pressure from the international community and Trump to end the conflict. The official told the AP that Netanyahu put out the rare late-night statement on the sabbath saying that Israel has started to prepare for Trump’s plan due to pressure from the U.S. administration.

    The official also said that a negotiating team was getting ready to travel, but there was no date specified.

    A senior Egyptian official says talks are underway for the release of hostages, as well as hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention. The official, who is involved in the ceasefire negotiations, also said Arab mediators are preparing for a comprehensive dialogue among Palestinians. The talks are aimed at unifying the Palestinian position toward Gaza’s future.

    On Saturday, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the second most powerful militant group in Gaza, said it accepted Hamas’ response to the Trump plan. The group had previously rejected the proposal days earlier.

    Also on Saturday, Gaza’s Health Ministry said that the death toll in the nearly two-year Israel-Hamas war has topped 67,000 Palestinians. The death toll jumped after the ministry said it added more than 700 names to the list whose data had been verified.

    Gaza’s Health Ministry does not say how many were civilians or combatants. It says women and children make up around half the dead. The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government, and the U.N. and many independent experts consider its figures to be the most reliable estimate of wartime casualties.

    Progress, but uncertainty ahead

    Yet, despite the momentum, a lot of questions remain.

    Under the plan, Hamas would release the remaining 48 hostages – around 20 of them believed to be alive – within three days. It would also give up power and disarm.

    In return, Israel would halt its offensive and withdraw from much of the territory, release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and allow an influx of humanitarian aid and eventual reconstruction.

    Hamas said it was willing to release the hostages and hand over power to other Palestinians, but that other aspects of the plan require further consultations among Palestinians. Its official statement also didn’t address the issue of Hamas demilitarizing, a key part of the deal.

    Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli general and chairman of Israel’s Defense and Security Forum, said while Israel can afford to stop firing for a few days in Gaza so the hostages can be released, it will resume its offensive if Hamas doesn’t lay down its arms.

    Others say that while Hamas suggests a willingness to negotiate, its position fundamentally remains unchanged.

    This “yes, but” rhetoric “simply repackages old demands in softer language,” said Oded Ailam, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs. The gap between appearance and action is as wide as ever and the rhetorical shift serves more as a smoke screen than a signal of true movement toward resolution, he said.

    Unclear what it means for Palestinians suffering in Gaza

    The next steps are also unclear for Palestinians in Gaza who are trying to piece together what it means in real terms.

    “What we want is practical implementation. … We want a truce on the ground,” said Samir Abdel-Hady, in Gaza’s Khan Younis. He worried that talks will break down like they’ve done in the past.

    Israeli troops are still laying siege to Gaza City, which is the focus of its latest offensive. On Saturday Israel’s army warned Palestinians against trying to return to the city calling it a “dangerous combat zone”.

    Experts determined that Gaza City had slid into famine shortly before Israel launched its major offensive there aimed at occupying it. An estimated 400,000 people have fled the city in recent weeks, but hundreds of thousands more have stayed behind.

    Families of the hostages are also cautious about being hopeful.

    There are concerns from all sides, said Yehuda Cohen, whose son Nimrod is held in Gaza. Hamas and Netanyahu could sabotage the deal or Trump could lose interest, he said. Still, he says, if it’s going to happen it will be because of Trump.

    “We’re putting our trust in Trump, because he’s the only one who’s doing it. … And we want to see him with us until the last step,” he said.

    ___

    Magdy reported from Cairo

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ‘s administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

    The appeal, shared with The Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices by early summer on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

    Lower-court judges have so far blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

    The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

    Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

    “The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

    Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

    “This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

    Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

    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.

    While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

    But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.

    The administration is appealing two cases.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

    Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

    Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

    The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Rubio arrives in Israel as Israeli strikes intensify in northern Gaza

    JERUSALEM — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Israel on Sunday, as Israel intensified its attacks against northern Gaza, flattening another high-rise building and killing at least 12 Palestinians.

    Rubio said ahead of the trip that he will be seeking answers from Israeli officials about how they see the way forward in Gaza following Israel’s attack on Hamas operatives in Qatar last week that upended efforts to broker an end to the conflict.

    His two-day visit is also a show of support for the increasingly isolated Israel as the United Nations holds what is expected to be a contentious debate on commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly opposes the recognition of a Palestinian state.

    Attack on Qatar

    Rubio’s visit went ahead despite President Donald Trump’s anger at Netanyahu over the Israeli strike against Hamas leaders in Doha, which he said the United States was not notified of beforehand.

    On Friday, Rubio and Trump met with Qatar’s prime minister to discuss the fallout from the Israeli operation. The dual, back-to-back meetings with Israel and Qatar illustrate how Trump administration is trying to balance relations between key Middle East allies despite the attack’s widespread international condemnation.

    The Doha attack also appears to have ended attempts to secure an Israel-Hamas ceasefire and the release of hostages ahead of the upcoming U.N. General Assembly session, at which the Gaza war is expected to be a primary focus.

    Deadly airstrikes mount

    On Sunday, at least 13 Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded in multiple Israeli strikes across Gaza, according to local hospitals.

    Local hospitals said Israeli strikes targeted a vehicle near Shifa hospital and a roundabout in Gaza City, and a tent in the city of Deir al-Balah that killed at least six members of the same family.

    Two parents, their three children and the children’s aunt were killed in that strike, according to the Al-Aqsa hospital. The family was from the northern town of Beit Hanoun, and arrived in Deir al-Balah last week after fleeing their shelter in Gaza City

    The Israeli military did not have immediate comment on the strikes.

    As part of its expanding operation in Gaza City, the Israeli military destroyed a high-rise residential building on Sunday morning, less than an hour after an evacuation order posted online by the military spokesman Avichay Adraee.

    Residents said said the Kauther tower in the Rimal neighborhood was flattened to the ground. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

    “This is part of the genocidal measures the (Israeli) occupation is carrying out in Gaza City,” said Abed Ismail, a Gaza City resident. “They want to turn the whole city into rubble, and force the transfer and another Nakba.”

    The word Nakba is Arabic for catastrophe and refers to when some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces or fled their homes in what is now Israel, before and during the 1948 war that surrounded its creation.

    Israeli strongly denies accusations of genocide in Gaza.

    Starvation in Gaza

    Separately, two Palestinian adults died of causes related to malnutrition and starvation in the Gaza Strip over the last 24 hours, the territory’s health ministry reported Sunday.

    That has brought the death toll from malnutrition-related causes to 277 since late June, when the ministry started to count fatalities among this age category, while another 145 children died of malnutrition-related causes since the start of the war in October 2023, the ministry said.

    The war in Gaza began when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, abducting 251 people and killing some 1,200, mostly civilians. There are still 48 hostages remaining in Gaza, of whom 20 Israel believes are still alive.

    Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed at least 64,803 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, which does not say how many were civilians or combatants. It says around half of those killed were women and children. Large parts of major cities have been completely destroyed and around 90% of some 2 million Palestinians have been displaced. ___

    Magdy reported from Cairo. Associated Press writer Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel, contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Illinois politicians condemn Trump’s threat to deploy National Guard to Chicago

    CHICAGO (WLS) — Illinois politicians stood united at a downtown press conference on Monday afternoon, saying there is no reason for President Donald Trump to send National Guard troops to Chicago to fight crime.

    ABC News confirmed that planning is underway, but no official decision has been made. A Pentagon spokesperson said, “We won’t speculate on further operations. The Department is a planning organization and is continuously working with other agency partners on plans to protect federal assets and personnel.”

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson said Monday that there has been no communication from the Trump administration regarding any possible National Guard deployment, which they say is unwarranted and unnecessary, because crime is falling in Chicago.

    “The last thing that Chicagoans want is someone from the outside of our city who doesn’t know our city try to dictate and tell us what our city needs,” Johnson said. “Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for publicity stunt to invoke chaos and terror, the federal government should spend that money on proven solutions to crime and violence reduction.”

    Pritzker made his way to Monday afternoon’s press conference on a water taxi that started at the base of Chicago’s Trump Tower, in an effort to draw a contrast to what Trump says is a city in crisis.

    “If it sounds to you like I am alarmist, that is because I am ringing an alarm,” Pritzker said. “Donald Trump wants to use the military to occupy a U.S. city to punish its dissidents and score political points. If this were happening in any other country, we would have no trouble calling it what it is: a dangerous power-grab.”

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker condemned President Donald Trump’s threat to send the National Guard to Chicago on Monday.

    The governor says he has made no request for federal intervention.

    “The president of the United States is doing this for theatrics. This is not because we’ve asked for it. It is not because there is some justice that he is going to seek. It is because he wants to create chaos,” Pritzker said.

    Earlier Monday, the president suggested he might wait to be asked before sending in the guard, but said he would still consider acting without such a request.

    “Chicago, everybody knows how bad it is. Everybody standing there knows. We know. You don’t have to be doing any studies. They should be saying, ‘Please, come in,’” Trump said.

    But Trump also signed an executive order that aims to create specialized units in the National Guard trained in “quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order.” It establishes a “quick reaction force… available for rapid nationwide deployment,” a clear sign the president wants to use the guard in domestic law enforcement.

    Local leaders push back

    Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson, among other Illinois politicians, gathered for a press conference in downtown Chicago on Monday afternoon.

    Various officials from all levels of government were joined by dozens of Chicago business, civic, and faith leaders in a show of solidarity against what the president is considering. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth were among those present.

    “The men and women who are brave enough to wear this country’s flag on their shoulder are doing so to defend our nation’s rights and freedoms, not to protect a tin pot dictator’s thin skin, or to police their own neighbors,” Duckworth said.

    Those at the press conference said that having the National Guard on the streets would disrupt businesses and the economy.

    “This is an authoritarian stunt. This is a declaration of war on our people,” said Rev. Ciera Bates-Chamberlain with Live Free Illinois.

    “It will impact businesses’ bottom lines and ability to operate efficiently. It will impact tourism and employees getting to their jobs,” said Civic Committee President Derek Douglas.

    One community leader said the guard would do more harm than good in Chicago, and he called out the president.

    “Before you dare speak about violence in Chicago… look into your mirror and address the violence coming from your White House,” said St. Sabina Church’s Fr. Michael Pfleger.

    Local leaders called on people to protest peacefully. And the governor had a warning for Trump administration officials helping to carry out what he says is an illegal action.

    “To any federal official who would come to Chicago and try to incite my people into violence as a pretext for something darker and more dangerous, we are watching, and we are taking names,” Pritzker said.

    Crime is down in Chicago

    Trump has touted his decision to send the National Guard to Washington, D.C. to fight crime as a success. In Chicago, local leaders say there is no need for the National Guard to be called up to help in the city, where crime is trending down.

    “Not one person here today will claim we have solved all crime in Chicago, nor can that be said of any major American metro area. But calling the military into a US city to invade our streets and neighborhoods and disrupt the lives of everyday people is an extraordinary action and it should require extraordinary justification,” Pritzker said.

    An ABC7 Data Team analysis of Chicago Police Department statistics shows overall violent crime and homicides at their lowest level year-to-date since 2014.

    Violent crimes are down 13% in 2025 compared to average of the past three years. Shooting incidents are down 31%, and murders are down by 27% compared to that same time period.

    “Over the past two years, we have seen significant reductions in crime and violence in the last year alone we have seen more than a 30% decline in homicides,” Johnson said.

    But Republicans say crime is still a problem that puts people’s lives in danger, and that the guard could help.

    “We need relief for the people of Chicago now, and people in the Southwest Side of Chicago have been waiting for decades to try to get a safe environment and community where they can develop and grow their kids and businesses want to come back, and under JB Pritzker and Brandon Johnson, that’s not happening,” said Cook County Republican Party Chairman Aaron Del Mar. “Because we’ve had peak crime for the last four or five years, there has been some small reductions in reported crime. I still think that we’re way over-the-top in what is an allowable amount of crime to be happening in the city of Chicago.”

    Del Mar added, “If we even save one life, I think it’s worth a challenge because Chicago has been crime-ridden for so long, and people have had enough.”

    Republican Illinois state Rep. Rep. Martin McLaughlin also weighed in, saying, “We should have done this a long time ago so that every neighborhood in Chicago deserves the same safety and security that we enjoy in the suburbs.”

    The conservative group “Chicago Flips Red” said despite CPD’s numbers showing crime is down, many still don’t feel safe, and welcome the National Guard.

    “It’s too much crime; so, it needs to be some type of law and order. And if this administration cannot get it done, the Johnson administration can’t get it done, then yeah, we need the National Guard,” said Zoe Leigh with Chicago Flips Red.

    But Ald. Michael Rodriguez, who represents the 22nd Ward, says city officials have to keep investing in what is working.

    “Imagine 26th Street, tanks rolling down our street,” Rodriguez said. “Do you think people are going to want to go to church? Go to school? Invest in our businesses with that kind of presence here? The answer is, ‘No.’”

    Rodriguez and Ald. Jeylu B. Gutierrez plan to introduce a resolution at the next Chicago City Council meeting, they said, that Trump “stands down.”

    Possible legal battle

    The National Guard has been brought into Chicago in recent years.

    Back in 2020, then-Mayor Lori Lightfoot requested the guard after civil unrest and protests over the murder of George Floyd became difficult for Chicago police to handle alone.

    They were also put on standby for the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last year. But they were never called in to respond, and Pritzker said they were solely there to support CPD, not actively police or patrol.

    “We’ve had guardsmen in the street before, but they were ordered in by the governor,” said Chicago-Kent College of Law Professor Douglas William Godfrey.

    And while Trump doubled down on ramping up deployments of the National Guard to Democratic cities on Monday, Illinois Democratic leaders say, not so fast. The White House does not have the same authority over cities beyond Washington.

    When the president calls on troops without the governor’s permission, the guard is limited to protecting federal buildings and personnel. And constitutional experts say the president can only nationalize the guard in the event of a rebellion, foreign invasion or when federal laws cannot be enforced.

    “Has the presence of the guard had any impact on public safety in LA? No. Huge waste of taxpayer dollars and maybe a violation of the law. We certainly believe that it is,” said Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Chicago.

    “D.C. and LA are actually not safer because he deployed the National Guard,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Chicago. “It’s actually people are living in less safety. People are scared. He’s attempting to do the same thing here in Chicago.”

    At Monday’s press conference, Raoul was asked if he is considering some type of preemptive legal action ahead of a possible deployment. He said that could be difficult from a legal standpoint, and he is not anticipating that he will take that action.

    Johnson has vowed legal action if a deployment occurs, but it is unclear if the courts would block such a move.

    “Brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities,” Johnson said.

    Weeks after the National Guard was sent to Los Angeles, a judge has yet to rule on California’s lawsuit.

    Johnson said in a statement Monday, “Mayor Johnson’s primary focus over his first two years in office has been driving down violent crime in Chicago. Since taking office, Chicago has recorded historic reductions in crime and violence as the Johnson administration has implemented a holistic approach to community safety. In the first six months of this year, Chicago has seen a 33% reduction in homicides and a 38% reduction in shootings.

    “To improve police clearance rates, Mayor Johnson added detectives and restructured the detectives bureau at the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to more efficiently allocate resources. This work has resulted in a citywide homicide clearance rate of 77.4%, the highest in more than a decade.

    “To address the root causes of violence, Mayor Johnson has doubled the number of mental health professionals responding to mental health crisis calls, expanded youth summer employment by 47%, and enhanced partnerships between police officers and community violence intervention (CVI) groups.

    “Year-to-date statistics
    – Overall Violent Crime: -21.6%
    – Homicides: -32.3%
    – Overall Shooting Incidents: -37.4%
    – Multi-Victim Shooting Incidents: -44.6%
    – Robberies: -31.9%
    – Vehicular Hijackings: -49%
    – Aggravated Assault: -18.1%”

    Pritzker said in a statement, “While the Trump Administration plans to deploy the National Guard, active-duty military, or federal agents into Democratic-led states, Illinois is showing that smart, data-driven policies, investment in strong law enforcement, and community engagement produce real results.

    “In contrast to the declines in violent crime in Illinois and Chicago, a number of Republican-led states continue to see a high level of violent crime. Yet, the Trump Administration ignores these crime levels, undermining their public safety claims. Deploying military officers only seeks to undermine the hard work both state and local police departments and community members have built on to regain trust, including the ways that state and local law enforcement already coordinate with federal law enforcement to tackle crime.

    “Instead, the Trump Administration should focus on releasing critical crime prevention and law enforcement funding back to local communities and states, rather than undermining the hard work of local police and communities.”

    Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    Stephanie Wade

    Source link

  • Senator Durbin speaks out against ‘political’ firing of immigration judges in Chicago

    CHICAGO (WLS) — Political retribution. That’s what Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin describes as the only possible reason for the unprompted firing of immigration judges in Chicago and across the country.

    In a new letter, he is demanding answers from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying it’s something judges are protected from by law.

    One of those fired immigration judges spoke candidly the ABC7 I-Team.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    Former Immigration Judge Carla Espinoza said she was under intense scrutiny from Trump administration officials during a high-profile immigration case just weeks before she was removed from her position.

    “There was a lot of pressure regarding the decision that I would render,” she said.

    When due process of law and the rule of law is eroded, as I believe is happening in this case, people distrust the process, and there’s a fair reason to do that under the circumstances

    Carla Espinoza, former immigration judge

    The case involved Ramon Morales-Reyes, who was accused of threatening to kill President Donald Trump, but Wisconsin investigators believe he was framed by a man trying to get him deported by sending threatening letters.

    “I’m also concerned that my ruling in that particular case played a significant role in my subsequent termination,” Espinoza said.

    Because evidence in the case presented to Espinoza showed Morales-Reyes was framed, she granted him bail, despite public comments from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, saying “Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars.”

    “The only fair result was for me to rule in the case efficiently and based on the law, and that’s what I did,” explained Espinoza, who is one of 103 immigration judges summarily fired or who have opted to take a deferred resignation by the Trump administration. Some were notified by mail with no justification included.

    Espinoza said she was one of the judges who received no explanation, but she described for the I-Team what she saw as a troubling and illegal pattern in the firings she said are potentially based on race, ethnicity and gender.

    “All of the judges that were sworn along me that have a Hispanic last name, such as myself, have been terminated,” Espinoza said. “All of those that have a Middle Eastern or South Asian last name have been terminated. All of those who are openly LGBTQ have been terminated.”

    RELATED | More immigration judges terminated as Trump administration works to cut down massive case backlog

    Matt Biggs, president of The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the union representing immigration judges, said this is a broad attack on the rule of law and due process.

    “Chicago’s there at the top of the list as one of the one of the courts that’s been targeted,” he added. “Either bring in political hacks that will rule the way that President Trump demands they rule, and or just get to a point where you say, Hey, we don’t have enough judges to hear these cases, so we’re just going to deport people, period.”

    Senator Durbin, recently standing side by side with Espinoza and other fired immigration judges, is now demanding answers from Attorney General Bondi. In a recently-released letter, he said in part, “The only plausible explanation for firing immigration judges… is a political one. However, immigration judges have protections from politicized hiring and firing.”

    Espinoza is now back in private practice. She worries what about the future of a court system she cares deeply about.

    “When due process of law and the rule of law is eroded, as I believe is happening in this case, people distrust the process, and there’s a fair reason to do that under the circumstances,” she said.

    Espinoza said she is pursuing all legal avenues to remedy what she calls her illegal firing.

    The I-Team reached out to Attorney General Bondi’s office, but has not heard back.

    Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    Mark Rivera

    Source link

  • Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters on Friday morning — the day after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial, during which he said his legal team would appeal the conviction and repeated claims that the trial was “rigged.”

    “The people of our country know it’s a hoax, they know it’s a hoax, they get it,” Trump claimed. “You know, they’re really smart. And it’s really something, so we’re going to be appealing this scam.”

    In a rambling speech, Trump spoke from the atrium of Trump Tower — just feet away from the golden escalator he rode down in 2015 when he kicked off his first bid for president.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower, Friday, May 31, 2024, in New York.

    AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson

    Now, nearly nine years later, Trump further responded to his conviction and the legal battles he faces that have been much of the focus of his third presidential bid. He was surrounded by campaign officials and some supporters.

    “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said as he kicked off his remarks. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

    Trump then dove into some of his signature campaign rhetoric, going after migrants coming to the United States and economic competition with China.

    His attention, though, quickly turned back to the New York criminal trial. He continued to claim, without evidence, the trial was “rigged” with a biased judge and prosecutors.

    “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said.

    ALSO SEE: Trump found guilty on all counts in historic case | What happens next

    Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

    Trump went on to air a litany of grievances against central figures in the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his former attorney Michael Cohen, and portrayed himself as a political martyr — a theme that has been central to his 2024 campaign.

    “In a way, I’m honored,” he said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant. It’s very bad for family, it’s very bad for friends and businesses, but I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one.”

    Trump did not take any questions from the media after his remarks.

    In the wake of his guilty verdict, Trump and his campaign have sought to center their focus back on the campaign trail, arguing that “the real verdict” will happen on Election Day and urging supporters to donate to Trump’s campaign.

    ALSO SEE: Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Trump has been attempting to turn the verdict around to his advantage by aggressively fundraising off of it, blasting out fundraising emails to smaller dollar donors, calling himself a “political prisoner,” and also attending a fundraiser with major Republican donors in Manhattan Thursday night just hours after the verdict dropped.

    Trump currently doesn’t have any public campaign events scheduled for next week, however, he is expected to do a fundraising blitz through the West Coast.

    The presumptive Republican nominee is facing additional criminal charges with two cases brought in federal courts and an additional one in state court. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 — three days prior to the Republican National Convention where he will become the Republican presidential nominee.

    Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. The hush money trial and subsequent conviction mark the first time a former U.S. president has ever been tried or convicted in a criminal case.

    Here’s the latest:

    TRUMP’S CONVICTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 2024 ELECTION

    Donald Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money trial is a stunning development in an already unorthodox presidential election with profound implications for the justice system and perhaps U.S. democracy itself.

    But in a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s status as someone with a felony conviction will have any impact at all on the 2024 election.

    RELATED: What the Biden campaign thinks the Trump verdict means: ‘It matters’

    Trump remains in a competitive position against President Joe Biden this fall, even as the Republican former president now faces the prospect of a prison sentence in the run-up to the November election.

    In the short term at least, there were immediate signs that the unanimous guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials in Congress and in state capitals across the country rallied behind their presumptive presidential nominee, while his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of new fundraising dollars.

    REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS RALLIED TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE

    Several Republican lawmakers reacted with fury to Donald Trump’s felony conviction on Thursday and rushed to his defense – questioning the legitimacy of the trial and how it was conducted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and labeled the charges as “purely political.”

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been one of Trump’s most frequent allies, said, “This verdict says more about the system than the allegations.”

    And while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refrained from attacking the judge or jury, he said the charges “never should have been brought in the first place.”

    Many GOP lawmakers, including Johnson, visited the courthouse in New York to support Trump during his criminal trial.

    UNLESS HE’S SENT TO PRISON, TRUMP CAN STILL VOTE

    Donald Trump may have been convicted of a felony and reside in Florida, a state notorious for restricting the voting rights of felons, but he can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

    That’s because Florida defers to other states’ disenfranchisement rules for residents convicted of out-of-state felonies. In Trump’s case, New York law only removes their right to vote when incarcerated. Once they’re out of prison, their rights are automatically restored – even if they’re on parole, per a 2021 law passed by the state’s Democratic legislature.

    “If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law,” Blair Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a post explaining the state of law, noting that people without Trump’s legal resources are often confused by Florida’s complex rules.

    THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

    Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts marked the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

    Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process could follow, especially as Trump’s legal team has already been laying the groundwork for an appeal.

    And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still faces three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters on Friday morning — the day after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial, during which he said his legal team would appeal the conviction and repeated claims that the trial was “rigged.”

    “The people of our country know it’s a hoax, they know it’s a hoax, they get it,” Trump claimed. “You know, they’re really smart. And it’s really something, so we’re going to be appealing this scam.”

    In a rambling speech, Trump spoke from the atrium of Trump Tower — just feet away from the golden escalator he rode down in 2015 when he kicked off his first bid for president.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower, Friday, May 31, 2024, in New York.

    AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson

    Now, nearly nine years later, Trump further responded to his conviction and the legal battles he faces that have been much of the focus of his third presidential bid. He was surrounded by campaign officials and some supporters.

    “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said as he kicked off his remarks. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

    Trump then dove into some of his signature campaign rhetoric, going after migrants coming to the United States and economic competition with China.

    His attention, though, quickly turned back to the New York criminal trial. He continued to claim, without evidence, the trial was “rigged” with a biased judge and prosecutors.

    “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said.

    ALSO SEE: Trump found guilty on all counts in historic case | What happens next

    Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

    Trump went on to air a litany of grievances against central figures in the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his former attorney Michael Cohen, and portrayed himself as a political martyr — a theme that has been central to his 2024 campaign.

    “In a way, I’m honored,” he said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant. It’s very bad for family, it’s very bad for friends and businesses, but I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one.”

    Trump did not take any questions from the media after his remarks.

    In the wake of his guilty verdict, Trump and his campaign have sought to center their focus back on the campaign trail, arguing that “the real verdict” will happen on Election Day and urging supporters to donate to Trump’s campaign.

    ALSO SEE: Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Trump has been attempting to turn the verdict around to his advantage by aggressively fundraising off of it, blasting out fundraising emails to smaller dollar donors, calling himself a “political prisoner,” and also attending a fundraiser with major Republican donors in Manhattan Thursday night just hours after the verdict dropped.

    Trump currently doesn’t have any public campaign events scheduled for next week, however, he is expected to do a fundraising blitz through the West Coast.

    The presumptive Republican nominee is facing additional criminal charges with two cases brought in federal courts and an additional one in state court. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 — three days prior to the Republican National Convention where he will become the Republican presidential nominee.

    Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. The hush money trial and subsequent conviction mark the first time a former U.S. president has ever been tried or convicted in a criminal case.

    Here’s the latest:

    TRUMP’S CONVICTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 2024 ELECTION

    Donald Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money trial is a stunning development in an already unorthodox presidential election with profound implications for the justice system and perhaps U.S. democracy itself.

    But in a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s status as someone with a felony conviction will have any impact at all on the 2024 election.

    RELATED: What the Biden campaign thinks the Trump verdict means: ‘It matters’

    Trump remains in a competitive position against President Joe Biden this fall, even as the Republican former president now faces the prospect of a prison sentence in the run-up to the November election.

    In the short term at least, there were immediate signs that the unanimous guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials in Congress and in state capitals across the country rallied behind their presumptive presidential nominee, while his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of new fundraising dollars.

    REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS RALLIED TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE

    Several Republican lawmakers reacted with fury to Donald Trump’s felony conviction on Thursday and rushed to his defense – questioning the legitimacy of the trial and how it was conducted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and labeled the charges as “purely political.”

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been one of Trump’s most frequent allies, said, “This verdict says more about the system than the allegations.”

    And while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refrained from attacking the judge or jury, he said the charges “never should have been brought in the first place.”

    Many GOP lawmakers, including Johnson, visited the courthouse in New York to support Trump during his criminal trial.

    UNLESS HE’S SENT TO PRISON, TRUMP CAN STILL VOTE

    Donald Trump may have been convicted of a felony and reside in Florida, a state notorious for restricting the voting rights of felons, but he can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

    That’s because Florida defers to other states’ disenfranchisement rules for residents convicted of out-of-state felonies. In Trump’s case, New York law only removes their right to vote when incarcerated. Once they’re out of prison, their rights are automatically restored – even if they’re on parole, per a 2021 law passed by the state’s Democratic legislature.

    “If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law,” Blair Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a post explaining the state of law, noting that people without Trump’s legal resources are often confused by Florida’s complex rules.

    THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

    Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts marked the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

    Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process could follow, especially as Trump’s legal team has already been laying the groundwork for an appeal.

    And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still faces three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • LIVE: After conviction, Trump says appeal is ahead

    LIVE: After conviction, Trump says appeal is ahead

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters on Friday morning — the day after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial, during which he said his legal team would appeal the conviction and repeated claims that the trial was “rigged.”

    “The people of our country know it’s a hoax, they know it’s a hoax, they get it,” Trump claimed. “You know, they’re really smart. And it’s really something, so we’re going to be appealing this scam.”

    In a rambling speech, Trump spoke from the atrium of Trump Tower — just feet away from the golden escalator he rode down in 2015 when he kicked off his first bid for president.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower, Friday, May 31, 2024, in New York.

    AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson

    Now, nearly nine years later, Trump further responded to his conviction and the legal battles he faces that have been much of the focus of his third presidential bid. He was surrounded by campaign officials and some supporters.

    “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said as he kicked off his remarks. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

    Trump then dove into some of his signature campaign rhetoric, going after migrants coming to the United States and economic competition with China.

    His attention, though, quickly turned back to the New York criminal trial. He continued to claim, without evidence, the trial was “rigged” with a biased judge and prosecutors.

    “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said.

    ALSO SEE: Trump found guilty on all counts in historic case | What happens next

    Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

    Trump went on to air a litany of grievances against central figures in the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his former attorney Michael Cohen, and portrayed himself as a political martyr — a theme that has been central to his 2024 campaign.

    “In a way, I’m honored,” he said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant. It’s very bad for family, it’s very bad for friends and businesses, but I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one.”

    Trump did not take any questions from the media after his remarks.

    In the wake of his guilty verdict, Trump and his campaign have sought to center their focus back on the campaign trail, arguing that “the real verdict” will happen on Election Day and urging supporters to donate to Trump’s campaign.

    ALSO SEE: Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Trump has been attempting to turn the verdict around to his advantage by aggressively fundraising off of it, blasting out fundraising emails to smaller dollar donors, calling himself a “political prisoner,” and also attending a fundraiser with major Republican donors in Manhattan Thursday night just hours after the verdict dropped.

    Trump currently doesn’t have any public campaign events scheduled for next week, however, he is expected to do a fundraising blitz through the West Coast.

    The presumptive Republican nominee is facing additional criminal charges with two cases brought in federal courts and an additional one in state court. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 — three days prior to the Republican National Convention where he will become the Republican presidential nominee.

    Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. The hush money trial and subsequent conviction mark the first time a former U.S. president has ever been tried or convicted in a criminal case.

    Here’s the latest:

    TRUMP’S CONVICTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 2024 ELECTION

    Donald Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money trial is a stunning development in an already unorthodox presidential election with profound implications for the justice system and perhaps U.S. democracy itself.

    But in a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s status as someone with a felony conviction will have any impact at all on the 2024 election.

    RELATED: What the Biden campaign thinks the Trump verdict means: ‘It matters’

    Trump remains in a competitive position against President Joe Biden this fall, even as the Republican former president now faces the prospect of a prison sentence in the run-up to the November election.

    In the short term at least, there were immediate signs that the unanimous guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials in Congress and in state capitals across the country rallied behind their presumptive presidential nominee, while his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of new fundraising dollars.

    REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS RALLIED TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE

    Several Republican lawmakers reacted with fury to Donald Trump’s felony conviction on Thursday and rushed to his defense – questioning the legitimacy of the trial and how it was conducted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and labeled the charges as “purely political.”

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been one of Trump’s most frequent allies, said, “This verdict says more about the system than the allegations.”

    And while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refrained from attacking the judge or jury, he said the charges “never should have been brought in the first place.”

    Many GOP lawmakers, including Johnson, visited the courthouse in New York to support Trump during his criminal trial.

    UNLESS HE’S SENT TO PRISON, TRUMP CAN STILL VOTE

    Donald Trump may have been convicted of a felony and reside in Florida, a state notorious for restricting the voting rights of felons, but he can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

    That’s because Florida defers to other states’ disenfranchisement rules for residents convicted of out-of-state felonies. In Trump’s case, New York law only removes their right to vote when incarcerated. Once they’re out of prison, their rights are automatically restored – even if they’re on parole, per a 2021 law passed by the state’s Democratic legislature.

    “If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law,” Blair Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a post explaining the state of law, noting that people without Trump’s legal resources are often confused by Florida’s complex rules.

    THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

    Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts marked the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

    Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process could follow, especially as Trump’s legal team has already been laying the groundwork for an appeal.

    And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still faces three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump could learn Monday whether the Supreme Court will let him appear on this year’s ballot as the leading Republican presidential candidate tries to close in on his party’s nomination.

    The justices are expected to decide at least one case Monday, with signs strongly pointing to a resolution of the case from Colorado that threatens to kick Trump off some state ballots because of his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST.

    Trump is challenging a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said he is disqualified from being president again and ineligible for the state’s primary, which is Tuesday.

    The resolution of the case on Monday, a day before Super Tuesday contests in 16 states, would remove uncertainty about whether votes for Trump will ultimately count. Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8.

    The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.

    RELATED: Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    The Colorado court was the first to invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump also has since been barred from primary ballot in Illinois and Maine, though both decisions, along with Colorado’s, are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

    The Supreme Court has until now never ruled on the provision, Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

    The court indicated Sunday there will be at least one case decided Monday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the Trump ballot case that will be handed down.

    Except for when the end of the term approaches in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. But the next scheduled court day isn’t until March 15. And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Monday.

    ALSO SEE: Trump faces deadline to ask SCOTUS for delay in election interference trial

    Separately, the justices last week agreed to hear arguments in late April over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s decision to step into the politically charged case, also with little in the way of precedent to guide it, calls into question whether Trump will stand trial before the November election.

    The former president faces 91 criminal charges in four prosecutions. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems on track to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial on March 25, and the judge has signaled his determination to press ahead.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link