ReportWire

Tag: Trump White House

  • Donald Trump suffers two major legal setbacks within hours

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump faced two major legal setbacks on Monday as courts in New York and Tennessee moved to constrain key parts of his domestic enforcement agenda.

    Within hours, a federal judge upheld New York’s limits on courthouse immigration arrests, while a state judge in Nashville blocked the deployment of Tennessee National Guard troops to Memphis.

    Newsweek contacted the DOJ and the office of the governors of the states for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Tuesday.

    Why It Matters

    Within the span of a few hours on Monday, President Donald Trump’s domestic enforcement agenda was hit by two separate court rulings that underscored growing judicial resistance to the administration’s attempts to expand federal authority in states that push back.

    A federal judge in New York upheld a state law restricting civil immigration arrests at courthouses, while a Tennessee judge blocked the deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis, finding the move likely violated state constitutional limits.

    Together, the decisions highlight the legal constraints confronting Trump as he seeks to intensify immigration operations and broaden the use of military force in U.S. cities over state objections.

    What To Know

    I. Judge Upholds New York Law Barring Immigration Arrests at Courthouses

    President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda encountered a significant legal setback on Monday after a federal judge rejected the administration’s attempt to strike down a New York law restricting civil immigration arrests in and around state courthouses.

    U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging the 2020 Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) and related state executive orders.

    In a 41-page ruling, D’Agostino concluded that the federal government’s suit amounted to an improper effort “to commandeer New York’s resources to aid in federal immigration efforts” according to the decision.

    The court held that New York acted within its rights in limiting where federal agents may conduct civil immigration arrests.

    The Trump administration had argued that the state law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and unlawfully restricted federal enforcement authority.

    Federal lawyers also sought to compel state and local law enforcement agencies to share information with federal immigration officials. D’Agostino rejected those claims, writing that New York was exercising “its permissible choice not to participate in federal civil immigration enforcement.”

    POCA, enacted in 2020 in response to a sharp rise in courthouse arrests under Trump’s first term, prohibits civil immigration arrests of individuals traveling to, attending, or leaving state court proceedings unless agents hold a judicial warrant.

    The measure was intended to limit disruptions to court operations and ensure that parties and witnesses could appear in court without fear of apprehension.

    In recent months, federal immigration agents had intensified courthouse operations in New York and other cities as part of the administration’s broader strategy to increase removals of undocumented immigrants.

    That posture led to renewed friction with states that maintain restrictions on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

    Monday’s ruling marks a notable setback for the administration’s efforts to expand civil immigration arrests in sensitive locations.

    The case, United States v. New York, challenged both POCA and executive orders issued during former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration that limited state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

    D’Agostino dismissed the suit in its entirety.

    The ruling is likely to serve as a reference point for similar disputes arising in other states where federal immigration enforcement priorities clash with local laws or policies restricting cooperation with federal agencies.

    II. Nashville Judge Blocks Memphis National Guard Deployment

    Just hours after the New York ruling, the Trump administration suffered a second legal blow—this time in Tennessee, where a state court halted the deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis.

    Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal issued a temporary injunction blocking Republican Governor Bill Lee from continuing the activation of Tennessee National Guard personnel for participation in President Trump’s Memphis Safe Task Force.

    The deployment, requested by the administration under Title 32 authority, was intended to supplement federal and local law enforcement operations in response to high violent-crime rates in the city.

    In her order, Moskal found that the plaintiffs—including Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, local commissioners, and several state lawmakers—had demonstrated sufficient immediate harm to justify halting the deployment.

    The judge wrote that the state’s militia law requires the Tennessee General Assembly to authorize National Guard activation for public-safety purposes and that crime conditions in Memphis did not constitute a “grave emergency” or “disaster” that would permit unilateral deployment by the governor.

    The order temporarily restrains Governor Lee and Major General Warner Ross III “from implementing and continuing the activation and deployment of Tennessee National Guard personnel” under the presidential memorandum.

    The injunction does not affect the presence of federal law enforcement officers already operating in the city.

    In a public statement, Mayor Harris called the ruling “a positive step toward ensuring the rule of law applies to everyone, including everyday Tennesseans and even the governor.”

    The state has five days to appeal the ruling.

    The lawsuit argues that deploying National Guard troops for routine law-enforcement functions violates both the Tennessee Constitution and state statutes, which strictly limit the circumstances under which the militia may be mobilized.

    The Memphis Safe Task Force, created by a September presidential memorandum, aims to increase law-enforcement presence and coordinate multi-agency operations across Memphis.

    Plaintiffs contend that the National Guard deployment exceeded both federal and state legal authority.

    The Tennessee ruling adds to a series of mounting legal challenges to the Trump administration’s domestic troop deployments, several of which are already moving through federal courts.

    What People Are Saying

    Kathy Hochul (Governor of New York) said: “Masked ICE agents shoved and injured journalists today at Federal Plaza. One reporter left on a stretcher. This abuse of law-abiding immigrants and the reporters telling their stories must end. What the hell are we doing here?”

    Bill Lee (Governor of Tennessee) who had approved the deployment of an undetermined number of Tennessee National Guard troops to Memphis, said: “I think [AG] General Skrmetti’s a brilliant lawyer who understands constitutional law, and I suspect he’s got the right answer on it.”

    What Happens Next

    Both rulings are likely to move quickly into appeals, with the Trump administration expected to challenge the New York decision in the Second Circuit and Tennessee Governor Bill Lee poised to seek an emergency stay and appellate review of the injunction blocking his National Guard deployment.

    New York’s courthouse-arrest restrictions will remain in effect during the federal appeal, while the Memphis deployment is paused unless a higher state court reverses the ruling.

    Together, the cases set up parallel legal battles over the limits of federal immigration enforcement and the circumstances under which state-controlled military forces can be used for domestic policing—disputes that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump sued over east wing demolition

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump is facing legal action over the demolition of the White House’s East Wing, part of a $300 million plan to build a new ballroom on the executive grounds.

    A Virginia couple, Charles and Judith Voorhees, filed an emergency motion in federal court on October 23 seeking to halt the project, alleging that it violates multiple federal preservation and planning laws.

    Newsweek contacted the White House and attorneys for the couple for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.

    Why It Matters

    The fight over Trump’s demolition project goes beyond a construction dispute—it’s a test of presidential power, public ownership, and historic preservation.

    The Voorhees lawsuit seeking to halt the project argues that Trump bypassed laws meant to protect national landmarks and public transparency.

    At stake is whether a sitting president can unilaterally alter one of the country’s most symbolically important buildings, or whether the “People’s House” must remain subject to the same review and accountability standards that govern other federal projects.

    What To Know

    The Lawsuit And What It Alleges

    The filing, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requests a temporary restraining order “to halt defendants’ destruction of the East Wing of the White House… without legally required approvals or reviews,” according to the plaintiffs’ application for injunctive relief.

    The defendants are listed as Trump, in his official capacity, and Jessica Brown, director of the National Park Service.

    Attorney Mark R. Denicore, who represents the Voorheeses, said he acted quickly to file the case. “I threw that together as fast as I could to try to get it filed as fast as I could,” Denicore told Politico on Thursday.

    He added that his clients “are just people, U.S. citizens, that don’t like their house being torn down without going through proper procedures.”

    The complaint argues that the administration began demolishing the East Wing without first submitting final plans to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) or consulting with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the D.C. State Historic Preservation Office.

    It also cites an alleged failure to seek guidance from the Commission of Fine Arts, which traditionally reviews exterior changes to federal landmarks.

    What’s Happening At The White House

    Photographs published on Thursday showed the entire East Wing—long home to first ladies’ offices, state dinner planning and ceremonial events—had been reduced to rubble as part of Trump’s proposal to construct a ballroom nearly twice the size of the White House.

    Addressing questions about the president’s earlier remarks that his planned ballroom project would not affect the existing structure of the White House, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration had made clear from the start that the East Wing would need to be “modernized.” She added that “plans changed” after Trump consulted with architects and construction firms working on the project.

    The National Trust for Historic Preservation expressed concern in a letter sent Tuesday to the National Park Service and other agencies.

    “We respectfully urge the Administration and the National Park Service to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes,” wrote Carol Quillen, the organization’s president and chief executive.

    Quillen said the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom “will overwhelm the White House itself,” which spans about 55,000 square feet.

    The Project And Its Wider Implications

    The White House has framed Trump’s new ballroom as the latest in a long tradition of presidential renovations, comparing it to historic presidential expansions from Theodore Roosevelt’s West Wing to John F Kennedy’s Rose Garden and Harry Truman’s full reconstruction.

    Officials have likened it to past expansions such as the creation of the West Wing and reconstruction of the Executive Mansion. The East Wing, first built in 1902 and expanded during World War II, historically housed the first lady’s offices and the White House Social Office.

    The structure sits above the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, a Cold War-era bunker constructed in 1942.

    The White House has defended the project as both lawful and consistent with presidential authority. Trump has argued the White House needs a large entertaining space, criticizing the past practice of presidents hosting state dinners and other large events in tents on the South Lawn.

    “President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate, and beautify the White House—just like all of his predecessors did,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told Politico.

    Leavitt also described public criticism as “fake outrage,” telling Fox News that “nearly every single president who has lived in this beautiful White House… has made modernizations and renovations of their own.”

    According to a July 31 White House press release, the ballroom will replace the “small, heavily changed, and reconstructed East Wing” with a larger facility capable of hosting 650 guests.

    The design, by Washington-based McCrery Architects, aims to match “the theme and architectural heritage” of the existing building, it added.

    The statement said the project would be privately funded through donations from “patriot donors” and completed before the end of Trump’s term. But the White House has not released a full list of the donors who have contributed to the project, raising ethical concerns and questions about conflicts of interest.

    Preservation experts note that the White House grounds are governed by multiple overlapping statutes, though the Executive Residence has historically been treated as exempt from some federal planning reviews.

    The National Park Service’s 2014 White House and President’s Park Foundation Document identifies the White House and its wings as “fundamental resources” whose design and integrity are central to the site’s national significance.

    What People Are Saying

    Donald Trump said on Thursday: “In order to do it properly, we had to take down the existing structure.”

    Hillary Clinton said on X on Monday: “It’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying it.”

    Sara C. Bronin, Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, and former chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, said: “There are other federal statutes requiring the administration to take certain steps before they act to do anything on White House grounds, if they had, they would have no doubt refrained from bulldozing our shared history.”

    What Happens Next

    It remains unclear whether the Voorhees lawsuit will gain traction. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will decide whether to grant the temporary restraining order sought by the couple to halt the project, but no hearing date has been set in the case.

    The court ruling will determine whether the renovation continues and could set precedent on how much control a president has over altering the nation’s most historic residence.

    Federal courts generally require plaintiffs to show a specific, personal injury to establish standing—a high bar for citizens objecting to government property decisions since courts often dismiss cases brought by citizens without a direct stake.

    Even if the case proceeds, most of the East Wing has already been torn down, making a work stoppage largely symbolic.

    Oversight bodies such as the National Capital Planning Commission may still review the ballroom plans, but their authority over the Executive Residence is limited.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Engadget Podcast: How to survive our AI video hellscape

    [ad_1]

    The era of AI video is upon us, and honestly it’s kind of terrifying. Between OpenAI’s Sora and official communications from the Trump White House, it’s clear that we’re not ready for an unending onslaught of AI video. In this episode, Devindra and producer Ben chat with the Washington Post’s technology reporter Drew Harwell and Jeremy Carrasco (AKA “ShowtoolsAI”), a former livestream and media producer turned AI video literacy creator. Also, we chat about our final thoughts on Apple’s M5 MacBook Pro and iPad Pro, with a few quick notes about the new Vision Pro.

    Subscribe!

    Topics

    • Google and Open AI’s video generation models have upended our sense of reality online, what comes next? – 1:10

    • Apple’s M5 chip is a significant boost in graphics power on the Macbook Pro – 34:11

    • The iPad Pro M5 is a solid speed boost for whoever wants it – 39:36

    • Preview of the Vision Pro M5 review – 44:00

    • Pop culture Picks – 51:45

    Credits

    Host: Devindra Hardawar
    Guests: Drew Harwell and Jeremy “ShowtoolsAI” Carrasco
    Producer: Ben Ellman
    Music: Dale North and Terrence O’Brien

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lindsey Halligan is already making mistakes prosecuting James Comey

    [ad_1]

    Lindsey Halligan’s debut as a federal prosecutor has drawn close scrutiny after a series of early errors surfaced in court filings related to the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.

    Halligan, previously known as a private attorney and one of Donald Trump’s personal lawyers, assumed the role of U.S. Attorney only recently and has never prosecuted a case before.

    Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.

    Why It Matters

    The missteps go beyond clerical slips: they test the strength and fairness of the government’s case and the credibility of the Justice Department itself.

    Procedural errors can delay or weaken a prosecution, giving defense lawyers leverage to argue overreach. They also risk reinforcing criticism that this politically charged indictment—announced soon after Donald Trump publicly urged charges against political opponents—is more about pressure than law.

    How Halligan recovers from these mistakes could shape not just the outcome of the Comey case but public trust in the department’s independence and competence.

    What To Know

    Problems in Halligan’s initial filings, including duplicate case numbers and clerical errors such as misspellings in official documents have been flagged.

    A widely shared social media post on X noted she “doesn’t know the difference between a bedrock principle and a bedrock ‘principal’.”

    The difference between the two is about word meaning—and in legal writing, it’s important:

    • Principle (with “le” at the end) means a fundamental truth, rule, or concept.
      Example: “Due process is a bedrock principle of American law.”
    • Principal (with “al” at the end) means a leader or main person (like a school principal) or can mean “main” or “primary.”
      Example: “The principal reason for dismissal was lack of evidence.”

    So “bedrock principle” is correct when you mean a foundational idea or standard. “Bedrock principal” would incorrectly suggest a foundational person or primary figure, which doesn’t make sense in legal filings.

    While U.S. Magistrate Judge Vaala was also described on X September 28, 2025, as “trying to untangle Lindsey Halligan’s first adventure in indicting someone.”

    Some social media commentary veered into personal territory—mentioning Halligan’s past role as Donald Trump’s lawyer—but the concerns raised publicly are framed around prosecutorial competence and case management.

    Questions about Halligan’s preparedness intensified when The Washington Post reported she “presented the Comey indictment all by herself to the grand jury,” citing people familiar with the matter.

    Legal Debate Over The Charges

    The case accuses Comey of misleading investigators about authorizing leaks during his tenure at the FBI.

    The prosecution’s path will not be straightforward. To convict under 18 U.S.C. §1001(a) (2), prosecutors must prove the statements were false, that Comey knew they were false when made, and that they were material to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry. Proving intent—showing deliberate deception rather than mistake or faulty memory—has historically been difficult with senior officials and complex testimony.

    And the legal theory behind the indictment is contested, including by some who have criticized Comey previously.

    Fox News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said on Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street that the charges appear weak. “Well, I don’t think there’s a case,” McCarthy told Bartiromo on September 26.

    He said the indictment seems “premised on something that’s not true, which is that [Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. … McCabe said that he directed the leak, and he told Comey about it after the fact. So, it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OK’ing it before it happened. So, I don’t see how they can make that case.”

    McCarthy also noted: “If you were talking about the information that was provided to the FISA court … that’s not what this case is about,” underscoring that the indictment focuses narrowly on a single disclosure.

    Not The First DOJ Misstep — But Unusual At This Level

    Filing mistakes are not unheard of in federal litigation, but they rarely surface repeatedly in a high-profile case led by a U.S. Attorney.

    In 2017, the Justice Department briefly misspelled then–acting Attorney General Sally Yates’s name in a filing, and in 2020 a DOJ motion in the Michael Flynn case cited the wrong date for a judge’s order; both were corrected quickly and drew little attention.

    Halligan, 36, the newly installed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—one of the most consequential federal prosecutorial offices in the country—spent most of her career in Florida insurance litigation before joining Trump’s legal team during the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation.

    Court records indicate she has participated in only three federal cases prior to this appointment.

    What stands out with Halligan’s early work is the combination of multiple procedural errors—including duplicate case numbers and the “principle/principal” slip — and her lack of prior prosecutorial experience while serving in one of the department’s most senior roles.

    What People Are Saying

    Carol Leonnig and Vaughn Hillyard added September 26, on X that “Lindsey Halligan, the newly installed U.S. Attorney who has never prosecuted a case, presented the Comey indictment all by herself to the grand jury … She may have a problem finding a prosecutor in office to work on the case.”

    What Happens Next

    The case now moves into pretrial motions, where Comey’s lawyers will challenge the charges and cite early filing errors. Halligan can correct those mistakes and may add experienced prosecutors, though support is uncertain.

    If the case survives, discovery will test the evidence that Comey authorized leaks as political scrutiny grows. Judges often allow technical fixes, but repeated missteps could damage the prosecution’s credibility and shape views of Halligan’s leadership.

    [ad_2]

    Source link