update - Fed'l judge rules Alina Habba is illegal and voids all her official actions

[mandrill]

Just three months after the first group of White South Africans arrived in the United States under a special refugee program, the Trump administration is now preparing to cap total refugee admissions at around 40,000 for 2026, according to Reuters.

Two U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said approximately 30,000 of those spots would be allocated to Afrikaners, a Dutch-descended minority in South Africa that President Trump has publicly prioritized for resettlement.

The proposed limit would mark a major shift in U.S. refugee policy. It is a significant drop from the 100,000 refugees admitted during President Joe Biden’s final year in office, although higher than the 15,000-person ceiling Trump set in 2021 before leaving office.

Trump administration reportedly plans refugee cap, prioritizing White South Africans
After returning to the White House in January, Trump temporarily froze refugee admissions. Weeks later, he launched a program specifically for Afrikaners, claiming the group faces racial discrimination and even the threat of genocide in majority-Black South Africa.

The South African government has strongly rejected those claims. Officials there have accused Trump of politicizing immigration policy and spreading misinformation.

If enacted, the cap would significantly reshape the U.S. refugee program and likely spark new debate over immigration priorities and racial bias.

U.S. to prioritize White South Africans in refugee admissions

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has agreed to provide to Congress documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation, a key House lawmaker said Monday in announcing a move that appears to avert, at least temporarily, a potential separation of powers clash.





The records are to be turned over starting Friday to the House Oversight Committee, which earlier this month issued a broad subpoena to the Justice Department about a criminal case that has long captivated public attention, recently roiled the top rungs of President Donald Trump's administration and been a consistent magnet for conspiracy theories.

“There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,” Kentucky Rep. James Comer, the Republican committee chair, said in a statement. "I appreciate the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.

A wealthy and well-connected financier, Epstein was found dead in his New York jail cell weeks after his 2019 arrest in what investigators ruled a suicide. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of helping lure teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.




The committee's subpoena sought all documents and communications from the case files of Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. It also demanded records about communications between Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration and the Justice Department regarding Epstein, as well as documents related to an earlier federal investigation into Epstein in Florida that resulted in a non-prosecution agreement in 2007.

It was not clear exactly which or how many documents might be produced or whether the cooperation with Congress reflected a broader change in posture since last month, when the FBI and Justice Department abruptly announced that they would not be releasing any additional records from the Epstein investigation after determining that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."

That announcement put the Trump administration on the defensive, with officials since then scrambling both to tamp down angry questions from the president's base and also laboring to appear transparent.




Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell at a Florida courthouse over two days last month — though no records from those conversations have been made public — and the Justice Department has also sought to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases, though so far those requests have been denied.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Monday.

The panel separately issued subpoenas to eight former law enforcement leaders as well as former Democratic President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton was among a number of luminaries acquainted with Epstein, a wealthy financier, before the criminal investigation against him in Florida became public two decades ago. Clinton has never been accused of wrongdoing by any of the women who say Epstein abused them.

Justice Department to begin giving Congress files from Jeffrey Epstein investigation, lawmaker says

 

[mandrill]

Since Medicaid was expanded by the North Carolina State Legislature in early 2024, around 650,000 residents of the swing state signed up for it. But now, according to Washington Post reporter Paige Winfield Cunningham, they are in danger of losing that coverage thanks to draconian Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" — which he signed into law over the 4th of July Weekend after it was passed by GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.


In an article published on August 18, Cunningham explains, "In signing that law, Trump approved more than $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade. Those cuts are colliding with state budget challenges, imperiling the future of Medicaid in states such as North Carolina.

In a letter sent on August 11, Devdutta Sangvai — secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) — told members of the state legislature that the department will begin slashing Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals on October 1.

READ MORE: 'Don’t be surprised': George Conway says Trump might pull out of NATO 'tonight'

Sangvai wrote, "To meet an effective date of October 1, we must begin several administrative steps now, including notifying providers and beneficiaries, updating contracts and systems, and informing our federal partners at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We have attempted to make these cuts reversible in the event that additional funding is approved. Absent additional appropriations by the General Assembly, however, NCDHHS will proceed with the reductions described herein."




Cunningham notes that "cuts to Medicaid affect more North Carolinians than ever before."

"The state's Medicaid rolls swelled nearly 30 percent, to 3 million people, after state Republicans dropped their decade-long opposition to expanding the program under the increasingly popular Affordable Care Act and worked with Democrats to broaden eligibility," the Washington Post journalist reports. "Before that expansion, Medicaid mainly covered people with low incomes who were disabled, had dependent children or were pregnant. But now, in most states, just about anyone earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold — $22,000 for a single person and $44,000 for a family of four — is eligible."

Cunningham adds, "Previously, these low-income earners had fallen through the cracks of a patchwork insurance system. Many had no employer-sponsored coverage and didn't earn enough to qualify for subsidized plans sold on Affordable Care Act marketplaces. But under Trump's new law, millions of Americans are projected to drop out of Medicaid under stricter rules to qualify for the insurance and stay enrolled. That in turn will result in states receiving fewer Medicaid dollars from the federal government, which covers about two-thirds of the costs."


Cunningham points to North Carolina resident Sonya Poole, a 64-year-old cancer survivor, as an example of someone who signed up for Medicaid but is in danger of losing her access to health care.

"Poole will become eligible for Medicare next year before the new Medicaid changes kick in," Cunningham notes. "But she's the kind of patient experts worry could lose Medicaid coverage if they fail to turn in the extra paperwork that might be required for them to stay on the program."

Trump’s Medicaid cuts threaten access for thousands in key swing state

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission from investigating Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog group that had alleged the spread of hate speech on X since Elon Musk acquired the social media platform.




U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled Friday that the FTC's probe of Media Matters, “purportedly to investigate an advertiser boycott concerning social media platforms,” represents a clear violation of the group's freedom of speech.

“It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,” Sooknanan wrote.

Even before the FTC got involved, Media Matters has been defending itself against a lawsuit by Musk following the organization's November 2023 story that, following Musk's purchase of the social media site once known as Twitter, antisemitic posts and other offensive content were appearing next to advertisements there.

Sooknanan said the injunction halting any FTC probe was merited because Media Matters is likely to succeed on its claim that the FTC is being used to retaliate against it for a critical article on a Trump supporter.



“The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,” said Angelo Carusone, chairman and president of Media Matters.

There was no immediate comment from an FTC spokesman.

The Associated Press

Judge issues injunction preventing Trump's FTC from investigating watchdog Media Matters

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Noem faces scrutiny over rent-free military home
A top member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet has quietly been living — for free — in a spacious waterfront residence on a military base, sparking controversy over the unprecedented housing arrangement, Knewz.com can report. An investigation has confirmed that in recent months, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem moved into a property known as Quarters 1 — which is traditionally the home of the Coast Guard’s top admiral — at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington.

Unorthodox living arrangement

President Trump fired Linda Fagan, the first female Coast Guard commandant, on his second day in office. By: Bonnie Cash – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
An official familiar with the situation confirmed to The Washington Post that Noem — who makes more than $200,000 a year as Department of Homeland Security secretary and has an estimated net worth of $5 million — is not paying rent to reside in the Coast Guard commandant’s house. The Post described the arrangement as “highly unusual” and “unorthodox.” Quarters 1 was vacant — until Noem moved in — following the Trump administration’s decision to fire four-star Admiral Linda Fagan, the first female commandant of the Coast Guard, in January. Fagan was evicted from her home with three hours’ notice, NBC News reported.

The controversy

Unnamed Coast Guard officials are questioning DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s military housing arrangement. By: The Marksman on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Critics — including unnamed current and retired Coast Guard officials and some Democrats — have expressed concern that Noem, who supervises the Coast Guard in her role as DHS secretary and has also faced scrutiny in recent months for her work overseeing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation raids, could be seen as exploiting her position. Limited housing on the base means Noem’s arrangement could impact senior military officials. A source familiar with Coast Guard housing policy told The Post that previous commandants paid to lease their quarters.

Unprecedented situation

Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson described the commandant’s residence as “a very nice, waterfront house.” By: Alex Edelman – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, who served under President Barack Obama, shared concerns about “the message” Noem’s rent-free arrangement “sends down the line in the career military community.” According to Johnson, no DHS secretary has previously resided in government housing until now. “Most likely, if a Cabinet secretary takes a government house, there’s a chain reaction and people very senior are getting displaced,” he told The Post. While some defense secretaries have resided in military housing, including current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, there is a federal law that allows them the perk, though they must pay for it. There is no law addressing the issue for other Cabinet secretaries, according to The Post.

Noem’s explanation

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s new living arrangement is temporary. By: Al Drago – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told The Post that Noem moved into the commandant’s residence, which she said was temporary, due to safety concerns following an April report in Britain’s Daily Mail that included photos of the area near the former South Dakota governor’s rented apartment in Washington’s Navy Yard neighborhood. “[The] need for heightened security for Secretary Noem should make sense, even to a reporter, given she has DHS going after the worst of the worst. That includes hundreds if not thousands of members of international cartels and terrorist organizations,” McLaughlin said in a statement. McLaughlin further told The Post that Noem was “so horribly doxxed and targeted that she is no longer able to safely live in her own apartment” and that it was “sad” for a Post reporter to “suggest a rancher should have to pay a second rent because of a reporter’s irresponsible decisions to dox where she lives.” She added, “If you cannot find humanity in another human’s safety and security, I invite you to find it here,” and offered a link to Washington National Cathedral.

Criticism from a top Democrat

Senator Chris Murphy has shared his concerns about the DHS secretary’s rent-free living arrangements. By: Rod Lamkey – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The commandant’s house is “not a vanity residence” and Noem is “essentially taking that property from the military,” Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, told The Post. “It’s a real insult to the brave men and women who are protecting our shores that she thinks that house belongs to her instead of to the Coast Guard,” the senator said.

 

[mandrill]

MIAMI (AP) — A federal judge in Miami has dismissed part of a lawsuit over the legal rights of detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz" and transferred the remaining case to a different jurisdiction.

U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz issued the decision late Monday, writing in a 47-page ruling that Fifth Amendment claims the detainees at the facility don’t have confidential access to hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration recently designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard.





The judge granted the state defendants a change of venue motion to the Middle District of Florida, where the remaining claims of First Amendment violations will be addressed. Those include allegations of delays in scheduling meetings between detainees and their attorneys and a lack of confidentiality when detainees are talking to their attorneys by phone or videoconference at the facility whose official name is the South Detention Facility.



ACLU attorney Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said the federal government only reversed course last weekend and allowed the detainees to petition an immigration court because of the lawsuit.

“It should not take a lawsuit to force the government to abide by the law and the Constitution,” Cho said. “We look forward to continuing the fight.”


The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility have access to their lawyers and can get a hearing.

The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida’s southern district was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state’s middle district.

Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate.

“Much has changed since the complaint’s filing,” Ruiz wrote.

Six of the plaintiffs have met with lawyers through videoconference, though they claimed the conferences are not confidential since they are not in an enclosed room and staff is close by and in listening proximity to the detainees.




A subset of detainees alleged they are eligible for bond hearings and their lawyers have been “unable to access — yet alone identify — the proper court for those hearings."

But Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed Saturday, when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center.

Ruiz wrote that the case has “a tortured procedural history” since it was filed July 16, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility.

“Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs’ civil action — their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief — have changed with each filing,” the judge wrote.

The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it’s in compliance with federal environmental laws.


U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt on additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question.

Judge dismisses part of lawsuit over ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ immigration detention center

 

[mandrill]

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway.

The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse “divisive concepts,” and ban diversity training requirements.

The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts.

The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from “engaging in discriminatory practices” by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding.

A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state.

“It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom,” he wrote.

Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff’s lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions.

Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance.

“The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement.

Wingate’s ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July.

At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech.


Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered “divisive topics.”

Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

“I think I’m in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that’s very important to me,” Johnson testified. “I feel a bit paralyzed.”

The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights.


“They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,” said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office.

She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say.

Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' “argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.”

Sophie Bates, The Associated Press

Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools

 

[mandrill]

A former Justice Department official — and longtime ally of President Donald Trump — should lose his license to practice law after he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, a Washington-based disciplinary panel decided. Jeffrey Clark, who was a senior DOJ attorney during the president’s first term, has vowed to fight the ruling that determined his conduct violated professional ethics.

The board’s conclusions

Jeffrey Clark was a senior U.S. Department of Justice official during President Donald Trump’s first term. By: Ron Sachs – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Clark was “prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie about the status of its investigation” into the 2020 presidential election — which was won by Democrat Joe Biden — the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility said in its report. “Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so,” the board explained. But former DOJ official Clark — who now, in Trump’s second term, leads the White House Office of Management and Budget division that vets proposed executive branch rules — “persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue,” the report stated. “He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”

Defending his actions


Jeffrey Clark wrote that he is drafting “the next round of legal papers” as he fights to retain his law license. By: Dalton Caraway on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Clark took to social media to brand the ruling “disappointing news from a 100% politicized D.C. Bar process.” He insisted he knows he “did the right thing in 2020 and 2021 during the first President Trump Administration and wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did.” Clark also shared a Bible verse as he asked supporters for prayers for his “vindication” and vowed to “challenge the nonsense lawfare the progressive movement has cooked up to bedevil lawyers with conservative backbones.”

What got him here


Jeffrey Clark has denied any wrongdoing. By: Nils Huenerfuerst on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
The disciplinary panel’s ruling is based on Clark’s attempt to pressure Department of Justice officials into issuing a false statement claiming there was substantial evidence of election fraud. A Senate Judiciary report detailed his alleged actions, claiming Clark in December 2020 tried to get his superiors to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers saying they’d “identified significant concerns” about the election in the state. When officials refused, Clark met with Trump himself and discussed the possibility of replacing then-Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. That led to a White House meeting in early January 2021 that left multiple senior Justice Department and White House officials threatening to resign if Trump made good on a plan to make Clark the acting AG.

Clark’s defenders speak out


The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that Jeffrey Clark have his law license taken away. By: Ron Sachs – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Clark’s attorney in the disciplinary case, Harry MacDougald, has defended his client, insisting, “They want to disbar Jeff Clark for the heresy of privately recommending further investigations of the 2020 election.” MacDougald believes Clark was unfairly targeted for giving legal advice, calling the situation “a pure thought crime and a travesty of justice.” Rachel Cauley, the White House OMB communications director, also backed Clark, branding the board’s ruling “another chapter in the Deep State’s ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him in defense of the truth.” According to Cauley, “Jeff Clark has been harassed, raided, doxed and blacklisted simply for questioning a rigged election and serving President Trump.” The disciplinary board’s disbarment recommendation next heads to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will make the final decision.

Trump ally faces disbarment over 2020 election lies

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration moved Tuesday to revoke the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials in the latest act of retribution targeting public servants in the federal government's intelligence community.

A memo posted online by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, accuses the targeted officials of having engaged in the “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” to advance partisan goals, as well as failure to safeguard classified information and “failure to adhere to professional analytic tradecraft standards.”




Many of the officials who were singled out left the government years ago and served in a broad range of roles, including in senior positions and lower-profile roles far from the public eye. Some have been openly critical of Trump and some worked on matters that have long provoked his ire, including the intelligence community assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf, or have openly criticized him.

The action is part of a broader Trump administration campaign to wield the levers of government against perceived adversaries. It reflects his continued distrust of intelligence officials from prior Democratic administrations and risks chilling dissenting voices from within the national security community.

The revocation of clearances, a vital tool for intelligence professionals needing to preserve access to sensitive information, has been a go-to tactic for Trump, used to target law firms that have fallen out of favor as well as dozens of former officials who signed onto a letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop saga bore the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.




“These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,” Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer whose own clearance was revoked by the Trump administration, said in a statement.

Gabbard defended Tuesday's move on social media by saying, “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right.”

In the last month Gabbard has declassified a series of years-old documents meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the assessment on Russian election interference.

Many of those whose clearances were revoked only learned of the Gabbard action from news reports published Tuesday, according to two former government officials who were on the list. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity as they ponder whether to take legal action.

Eric Tucker, Aamer Madhani And Matthew Lee, The Associated Press

Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge has ordered Mississippi to redraw its Supreme Court electoral map, after finding the map dilutes the power of Black voters.

U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock ruled the map, which was enacted in 1987, violates the Voting Rights Act and cannot be used in future elections.




The Mississippi branch of the American Civil Liberties Union helped litigate the lawsuit, arguing the map cut Mississippi's Delta region — a historically Black area — in half.

“This win corrects a historic injustice," said Ari Savitzky, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "All Mississippians will benefit from fair district lines that give Black voters an equal voice — and new generations of Black leaders an equal chance to help shape the state’s future by serving on the state’s highest court.”

The lawsuit, which was filed on April 25, 2022, argued the map diminished the Black vote in the Central District.

Aycock's ruling notes that only four Black people have served on the Mississippi Supreme Court. All of them held the same seat in the Central District and were first appointed to the position by a sitting governor.

Aycock wrote that she will impose a deadline for the Mississippi Legislature to create a new map.

Sophie Bates, The Associated Press

Mississippi Supreme Court map violates Voting Rights Act, judge rules

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump's ploy to bully Senate Republicans into dropping a longstanding rule about presidential nominations appears to have crashed and burned, Politico reported on Tuesday — with lawmakers holding their ground against him in a way they generally dare not do.

The drama began in July, when Trump lashed out at 91-year-old Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA), calling him "weak and ineffective" and demanding he axe "blue slips," the tradition that committees must have the approval of a nominee's home state senators to advance a nominee.


Republicans already weakened blue slip rules for circuit court nominees in 2017, which is how Trump's former personal lawyer Emil Bove got a circuit court appointment earlier this year despite objections from both of New Jersey's senators. But they have been adamantly against eliminating them for district court judges or executive nominations.

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

Grassley pushed back, taking umbrage at Trump's "personal insults" against him, and the broader Senate GOP caucus followed suit. According to Politico, there's no sign of the GOP backing down — they may tinker with nomination rules to speed up confirmations on the Senate floor, but they won't eliminate blue slips or weaken the committee vetting process.

Unlike in many other cases of resistance against Trump, where GOP lawmakers have given quotes anonymously, some senators are being quite open in rebuffing the president, with Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) telling Politico, “As a practical matter, the Senate’s not going to give up the blue slip. So my appeal to the president is: please reconsider. Why do we want to have this fight for nothing?”




There's a key reason GOP senators don't want to undermine their rules for Trump's benefit here, strategists told Politico: they know it would backfire on them.

Mike Fragoso, a former adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), "argued that even Republicans wary of crossing the president now have taken advantage of the blue slip policy when Democrats held power. He added that there are relatively few bench seats in solidly Democratic states that Trump could even fill now without consent from Democrats," noted the report. This means Trump would get very few judges nominated by totally eliminating blue slips, but a future Democratic president could flood red states with district court judges of their own.

Beyond judges, however, Trump is being stymied by blue slips when it comes to appointing federal prosecutors.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has blocked Jay Clayton's confirmation to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, while New Jersey's senators have blocked another personal Trump lawyer, Alina Habba, for the prosecutor office there, prompting a standoff where Trump's Justice Department has skirted rules and reversed decisions of local judges to install her on an acting basis.

'Please reconsider': GOP senators plead with Trump to stand down from latest fight

 

[mandrill]

The administration of President Donald Trump reacted badly to a Washington Post story reporting Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth quadrupled his security detail over that of past administrations to guard his multiple homes and properties.

The Post reported Wednesday that “Hegseth’s unusually large personal security requirements are straining the Army agency tasked with protecting him as it pulls agents from criminal investigations to safeguard family residences in Minnesota, Tennessee and D.C., according to numerous officials familiar with the operation.”




Described by the Post as a “sprawling, multimillion-dollar initiative” the security team has forced the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division to staff weeks-long assignments in each location and monitor residences belonging to Hegseths’ former spouses, say officials.

READ MORE: Aides sat 'helpless' as 'incoherent' Trump displayed 'stunning ignorance': biographer

“I’ve never seen this many security teams for one guy,” said one official, speaking anonymously to reporters. “Nobody has.”

Sources told the Post about 150 agents typically serve on VIP security details, but one source said Hegseth team is “400 and going up,” while another claimed it was “over 500.”

Trump administration officials pounced the Post for publishing the revelation.

“By publishing details about Secretary Hegseth’s security protocols, the Washington Post is actively putting him and his family in danger for clicks, posted Department of Defense Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson on X.



Several people working with the Department of Defense’s Press Secretary joined in and slammed the info, including Assistant Press Secretary Jacob Bliss, who called the Washington Post “scum” for publishing the embarrassing numbers. Bliss also claimed reporting the staff increase put “numerous lives and families at risk.”

“How do these reporters sleep at night,” asked Assistant Press Secretary Riley Podleski on X.

Acting Deputy Press Secretary Joel Valdez claimed the Post “intentionally published sensitive details of [Hegseth’s] security detail for him and his family — putting their safety at risk.” He even called for “severe punishment for what [reporters] are doing.”

“President Trump was SHOT and nearly KILLED just last year—yet the corporate media STILL plays reckless games with people’s lives,” posted the Department of Defense “Rapid Response” account on X.. “Have they learned NOTHING?”



None of the Department of Defense commenters explained in their posts how citing the size of Hegseth’s detail endangered lives as of early Wednesday morning.

Read the full Washington Post article at this link.

Trump official demands 'severe punishment' for journalists over Washington Post report

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Kilmar Abrego, the accused gang member whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador made him a symbol of President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration policies, on Tuesday said criminal charges against him should be dismissed because he had been "vindictively and selectively" prosecuted.





In a 35-page motion, Abrego's lawyers asked a judge in Tennessee to dismiss federal charges accusing him of unlawfully transporting migrants living illegally in the United States.

Federal law allows for the dismissal of criminal charges if a judge determines they were brought to punish someone for exercising their due process rights. Such requests rarely succeed.

"Even as government officials recognized both publicly and privately that Mr. Abrego's removal to El Salvador had been a serious mistake, the government responded not with contrition, or with any effort to fix its mistake, but with defiance," the motion stated.

"A group of the most senior officials in the United States sought vengeance; they began a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case."



Justice Department representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Abrego, a native of El Salvador who had been living in Maryland, was deported and imprisoned in El Salvador in March despite a 2019 judicial ruling that he could not be sent there because of a risk of gang persecution.

Abrego then challenged that deportation in a civil lawsuit before a federal judge in Maryland. The U.S. Supreme Court in April upheld an order from the Maryland judge that the Trump administration facilitate Abrego's return.

In June, U.S. officials brought Abrego back to the U.S. after securing an indictment accusing him of transporting migrants in the U.S. illegally as part of a smuggling ring. Abrego has pleaded not guilty and has disputed that he was a gang member.

Abrego is currently being detained in a Tennessee jail. He won a ruling last month that he could be freed from custody while awaiting trial, but his lawyers asked the judge to delay his release because of concerns that the Trump administration might deport him to a third country.

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Stephen Coates)

Kilmar Abrego accuses US government of 'vindictive prosecution'

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge slammed the Trump administration on Tuesday for attempting to apply its immigration powers too broadly.

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, in the Northern District of Illinois, was asked to determine whether federal immigration laws supersede Illinois' state labor laws. TheTrump administration argued that federal law ought to supersede the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, which would allow it to continue conducting immigration raids at workplaces in the state.




Coleman noted that the Trump administration's lawyers relied on a reading of the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) that she found was too broad.



"Because the provisions of the Privacy Act challenged by the federal government are not expressly preempted by IRCA and do not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs, and because the federal government’s broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration wouldswallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues, the Court grants the State’smotion to dismiss and denies the federal government’s motion for a preliminary injunction," Coleman wrote in her opinion.

Coleman also accused Trump administration lawyers of asking the court to ignore the context of cases the government cited as precedent for their argument.

"This interpretation of IRCA’s preemption clause is broad to the point of absurdity," Coleman's opinion reads in part.

Read the entire opinion by clicking here.

'Broad to the point of absurdity': Judge chides Trump for attempting to 'swallow' states

 

[mandrill]

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has rejected the government’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts.

The ruling Wednesday by federal Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government’s request.




Barring reversal on appeal, Berman’s decision forecloses the possibility of grand jury testimony being released given that other judges who received the same Justice Department request reached the same conclusions. The court opinions amount to a collective repudiation of the department’s effort to divert attention away from its stated refusal to release a massive trove of records in its own possession and make clear that the still-sealed court documents contain none of the answers likely to satisfy the immense public interest in the case.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department had informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, "had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.”



The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The entire transcript was 70 pages. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled.

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. She was recently transferred from a prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial.

Maxwell’s case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department’s statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of President Donald Trump’s base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up.




Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts.

“The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,” Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department’s refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts.

“By comparison,” he added, “the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged conduct.”

Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution.


In a letter Maxwell’s lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September.

Comer wrote that while Maxwell’s testimony was “vital” to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.

Judge denies Justice Department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

 

[mandrill]

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance blasted a top Justice Department official aligned with Donald Trump on Tuesday, saying his recent stunts made him look “more like a teenager creating content for social media than a federal prosecutor.”

That official is Edward Martin, who Trump nominated to become the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., a nomination that was ultimately withdrawn after it became clear he did not have sufficient support among Senate Republicans, largely over Martin’s lack of experience as a prosecutor. Instead, Trump installed him as DOJ Pardon Attorney, where Martin has been tasked with pursuing Trump’s political enemies under the banner of fighting so-called “weaponization” of the DOJ.




Now, Martin has wielded his new role as a “provocateur,” Joyce argued, staging stunts for social media and intimidating public officials in a manner she described as “amateur hour.”



“It’s not your grandma’s Justice Department,” Joyce wrote. “And it’s not one I recognize. It’s long overdue for DOJ leadership to discipline or remove Martin from his position for this behavior.”

Martin’s latest stunt saw him pose for photos outside the home of New York Attorney General Tish James, who in her capacity as AG, led a successful lawsuit against Trump for fraud that saw the president slapped with a fine of more than $355 million.

“He stopped to pose for photos curbside, looking more like a teenager creating content for social media than a federal prosecutor,” Joyce wrote.

“The Justice Department isn’t a tool for a president to deploy against his personal and political enemies. But if you’re Ed Martin and want the press to cover your work before any indictment decisions or grand jury review, that’s exactly what you do. It’s amateur hour at the Justice Department.”




Another recent incident of Martin’s saw the DOJ official send a letter to James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, in an effort to pressure the New York AG to resign, a letter that Martin pleaded with Lowell not to leak. Lowell almost immediately published the letter.

“He insults Lowell and then begs him to keep the letter – a letter the government has written to his client – ‘confidential,’” Joyce wrote.

“He says it would be a ‘leak’ to make it public, which most certainly isn’t the case. Letters like this aren’t confidential government documents. It’s a public one. Martin has now moved on from mugging to the camera to trying to threaten a public official into resigning after publicizing that he was investigating her.”

Trump DOJ called to remove official accused of 'trying to threaten' a prosecutor

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration slapped a Canadian judge on the International Criminal Court with sanctions as the U.S. State Department continues to push back on the tribunal.

The State Department said Wednesday that Kimberly Prost was sanctioned for "ruling to authorize the ICC's investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan."




The ICC website says Prost has been a judge in the trial division since 2018, following a two-year stint as Chef de Cabinet for the ICC president. Before joining the court, she was the first Ombudsperson for the United Nations Security Council Al Qaida Sanctions Committee.

She also worked for the Canadian Department of Justice for nearly two decades.

The State Department also took action against other ICC officials from France, Fiji and Senegal linked it to the tribunal's investigation into Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

The department said French judge Nicolas Guillou was sanctioned for ruling to authorize the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. Deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang were sanctioned for upholding the arrest warrants.




The State Department has sanctioned a growing list of ICC officials with similar actions since U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting the international tribunal in February. The sanctions freeze any assets the officials have in U.S. jurisdictions.

"We will continue to hold accountable those responsible for the ICC’s morally bankrupt and legally baseless actions against Americans and Israelis," Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on social media.

The ICC previously condemned the actions of the Trump administration, calling it an attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a member of the international court. The State Department alleged it is a "a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare against the United States and our close ally Israel."




"The United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach," the State Department said.

Trump also targeted the ICC during his first administration over its probes into Israel and complaints over the war in Afghanistan. The first Trump administration took significant efforts to block preliminary investigations into the Afghanistan situation, which eventually paused the court's probe.

Trump and other Republicans have criticized the court saying it could lead to warrants for American politicians, diplomats and military personnel. They say the ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel or the United States.

Trump's initial sanctions on officials were rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021 and the ICC resumed its investigation into Afghanistan the following year. The court in July issued warrants for two senior Taliban leaders as part of the investigation.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 20, 2025.

Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press

Trump slaps sanctions on Canadian International Criminal Court judge