update - Fed'l judge finds overwhelming evidence of gratuitous violence and misconduct by ICE in Chicago
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Trump says he's terminating legal protections for Somali migrants in Minnesota
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday night that he’s “immediately” terminating temporary legal protections for Somali migrants living in Minnesota, further targeting a program seeking to limit deportations that his administration has already repeatedly sought to weaken.
Minnesota has the nation’s largest Somali community. Many fled the long civil war in their east African country and were drawn to the state’s welcoming social programs.
But how many migrants would be affected by Trump's announcement that he wants to end temporary protective status could be very small. A report produced for Congress in August put the number of Somalis covered by the program at just 705 nationwide.
Congress created the program granting Temporary Protective Status in 1990. It was meant to prevent deportations of people to countries suffering from natural disasters, civil strife or other dangerous conditions.
The designation can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary and is granted in 18-month increments.
The president announced his decision on his social media site, suggesting that Minnesota was “a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity.”
“Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from,” Trump wrote. “It’s OVER!”
The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Trump's decision “will tear families apart.” Executive Director Jaylani Hussein said in a statement late Friday, ”This is not just a bureaucratic change; it is a political attack on the Somali and Muslim community driven by Islamophobic and hateful rhetoric."
Trump promised while campaigning to win back the White House last year that his administration would deport millions of people. As part of a broader push to adopt hardline immigration policies, the Trump administration has moved to withdraw various protections that had allowed immigrants to remain in the United States and work legally.
That included ending TPS for 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians who were granted protection under President Joe Biden. The Trump administration has also sought to limit protections previously extended to migrants from Cuba and Syria, among other countries.
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday night that he’s “immediately” terminating temporary legal protections for Somali migrants living in Minnesota, further targeting a program seeking to limit deportations that his administration has already repeatedly sought to weaken.
Minnesota has the nation’s largest Somali community. Many fled the long civil war in their east African country and were drawn to the state’s welcoming social programs.
But how many migrants would be affected by Trump's announcement that he wants to end temporary protective status could be very small. A report produced for Congress in August put the number of Somalis covered by the program at just 705 nationwide.
Congress created the program granting Temporary Protective Status in 1990. It was meant to prevent deportations of people to countries suffering from natural disasters, civil strife or other dangerous conditions.
The designation can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary and is granted in 18-month increments.
The president announced his decision on his social media site, suggesting that Minnesota was “a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity.”
“Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from,” Trump wrote. “It’s OVER!”
The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Trump's decision “will tear families apart.” Executive Director Jaylani Hussein said in a statement late Friday, ”This is not just a bureaucratic change; it is a political attack on the Somali and Muslim community driven by Islamophobic and hateful rhetoric."
Trump promised while campaigning to win back the White House last year that his administration would deport millions of people. As part of a broader push to adopt hardline immigration policies, the Trump administration has moved to withdraw various protections that had allowed immigrants to remain in the United States and work legally.
That included ending TPS for 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians who were granted protection under President Joe Biden. The Trump administration has also sought to limit protections previously extended to migrants from Cuba and Syria, among other countries.
The Associated Press
Mike Johnson plots revenge for Epstein files humiliation: report
Speaker Mike Johnson is reportedly plotting a change in the rules for the House of Representatives after Democrats — joined by just a few rogue Republicans — forced his hand on a vote to release the government’s files on pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, a new report reveals.
The move, reported Friday by Axios, comes after the House passed a discharge petition filed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to declassify files related to the late convicted sex offender. Johnson had opposed the legislation until Trump gave his blessing.
An individual member can file a discharge petition to force a vote on the floor if a majority of members sign it. Still, only seven discharge petitions — including Epstein — have become law since 1935. But Johnson told Axios that discharge petitions have become “too common” and that he wanted to make them harder to obtain.
“I'd like to see a higher threshold for a lot of these motions. You know, privileged motions, discharge petitions,” added House Majority Leader Steve Scalise to the outlet.
This also comes as Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) received enough signatures for his discharge petition to restore union rights for federal workers.
And the discharge petition has become more popular over time, as Rep. Greg Steuebe, of Florida, forced a vote to provide tax relief for natural disaster victims and former Rep. Garret Graves used the discharge petition to pass his Social Security Fairness Act.
In addition, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, of Florida, earned enough signatures to allow for new parents to proxy vote. But Johnson blocked the effort due to the fact conservatives thought proxy voting was unconstitutional.
“I'm sure [leadership will] try to prevent members from doing it, because it takes power away from them,” Luna told Axios.
Luna is hoping to use the discharge petition again to force legislation to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
Johnson also faces a significant obstacle because rules can only be changed at the beginning of a Congress. Any change in the rules mid-Congress would require a vote to suspend the rules, which requires two-thirds of the Congress to support it.
“I don't think the votes would exist for that amongst Republicans, which means the votes don't exist for that in terms of Democrats,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.
Massie, who led the charge, said he is “brainstorming” ideas for discharge petitions with Democrats.
“The Speaker, because he's not giving an outlet for legislative pursuits, the things we got elected to do, he's probably going to see more of these discharge petitions,” he told Axios.
Speaker Mike Johnson is reportedly plotting a change in the rules for the House of Representatives after Democrats — joined by just a few rogue Republicans — forced his hand on a vote to release the government’s files on pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, a new report reveals.
The move, reported Friday by Axios, comes after the House passed a discharge petition filed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to declassify files related to the late convicted sex offender. Johnson had opposed the legislation until Trump gave his blessing.
An individual member can file a discharge petition to force a vote on the floor if a majority of members sign it. Still, only seven discharge petitions — including Epstein — have become law since 1935. But Johnson told Axios that discharge petitions have become “too common” and that he wanted to make them harder to obtain.
“I'd like to see a higher threshold for a lot of these motions. You know, privileged motions, discharge petitions,” added House Majority Leader Steve Scalise to the outlet.
This also comes as Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) received enough signatures for his discharge petition to restore union rights for federal workers.
And the discharge petition has become more popular over time, as Rep. Greg Steuebe, of Florida, forced a vote to provide tax relief for natural disaster victims and former Rep. Garret Graves used the discharge petition to pass his Social Security Fairness Act.
In addition, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, of Florida, earned enough signatures to allow for new parents to proxy vote. But Johnson blocked the effort due to the fact conservatives thought proxy voting was unconstitutional.
“I'm sure [leadership will] try to prevent members from doing it, because it takes power away from them,” Luna told Axios.
Luna is hoping to use the discharge petition again to force legislation to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
Johnson also faces a significant obstacle because rules can only be changed at the beginning of a Congress. Any change in the rules mid-Congress would require a vote to suspend the rules, which requires two-thirds of the Congress to support it.
“I don't think the votes would exist for that amongst Republicans, which means the votes don't exist for that in terms of Democrats,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.
Massie, who led the charge, said he is “brainstorming” ideas for discharge petitions with Democrats.
“The Speaker, because he's not giving an outlet for legislative pursuits, the things we got elected to do, he's probably going to see more of these discharge petitions,” he told Axios.
Not surprised he is upset.Mike Johnson plots revenge for Epstein files humiliation: report
Speaker Mike Johnson is reportedly plotting a change in the rules for the House of Representatives after Democrats — joined by just a few rogue Republicans — forced his hand on a vote to release the government’s files on pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, a new report reveals.
The move, reported Friday by Axios, comes after the House passed a discharge petition filed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to declassify files related to the late convicted sex offender. Johnson had opposed the legislation until Trump gave his blessing.
An individual member can file a discharge petition to force a vote on the floor if a majority of members sign it. Still, only seven discharge petitions — including Epstein — have become law since 1935. But Johnson told Axios that discharge petitions have become “too common” and that he wanted to make them harder to obtain.
“I'd like to see a higher threshold for a lot of these motions. You know, privileged motions, discharge petitions,” added House Majority Leader Steve Scalise to the outlet.
This also comes as Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) received enough signatures for his discharge petition to restore union rights for federal workers.
And the discharge petition has become more popular over time, as Rep. Greg Steuebe, of Florida, forced a vote to provide tax relief for natural disaster victims and former Rep. Garret Graves used the discharge petition to pass his Social Security Fairness Act.
In addition, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, of Florida, earned enough signatures to allow for new parents to proxy vote. But Johnson blocked the effort due to the fact conservatives thought proxy voting was unconstitutional.
“I'm sure [leadership will] try to prevent members from doing it, because it takes power away from them,” Luna told Axios.
Luna is hoping to use the discharge petition again to force legislation to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
Johnson also faces a significant obstacle because rules can only be changed at the beginning of a Congress. Any change in the rules mid-Congress would require a vote to suspend the rules, which requires two-thirds of the Congress to support it.
“I don't think the votes would exist for that amongst Republicans, which means the votes don't exist for that in terms of Democrats,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.
Massie, who led the charge, said he is “brainstorming” ideas for discharge petitions with Democrats.
“The Speaker, because he's not giving an outlet for legislative pursuits, the things we got elected to do, he's probably going to see more of these discharge petitions,” he told Axios.
He got beat soundly in that whole thing.
That said, the ease with which a discharge petition can be brought in has gone up and down over time, so it isn't like this is some unique move by Johnson here.
White House blew past legal concerns in deadly strikes on drug boats
President Donald Trump and his top White House aides pushed for lethal strikes on Western Hemisphere drug traffickers almost as soon as they took office in January, and in the past 10 months have repeatedly steamrolled or sidestepped government lawyers who questioned whether the provocative policy was legal, according to multiple current and former officials familiar with the debates.
As Trump weighs what could be imminent military action against Venezuela and its leader, Nicolás Maduro, while striking at alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, new details are emerging about the evolution of a strategy that involves unprecedented U.S. military force against the narcotics trade — and, critics say, outsize legal risk.
The deadly attacks on small boats are being carried out by the Pentagon, which at Trump’s orders has amassed a vast array of warships, aircraft and troops in the region, including the largest U.S. aircraft carrier.
But early on, according to two people familiar with the matter, the administration proposed having the CIA use its unique covert authorities to conduct the lethal strikes on drug traffickers that Trump and Stephen Miller, his powerful homeland security adviser, wanted.
The spy agency, under Director John Ratcliffe, was rapidly ramping up its counternarcotics arm, consciously modeling the effort to mirror the post-9/11 U.S. war against terrorists.
White House officials initiated proposals that envisioned the CIA taking the lead, and work began on drafting a presidential authorization for covert action, known as a “finding.”
Lawyers at the spy agency and elsewhere in the government were skeptical. Was killing civilian drug traffickers defensible under domestic law, they asked, if the cartels do not actually seek to attack Americans, even if the product they smuggle might lead to deaths in the United States? Was it legal to kill drug traffickers, many of them apparently low-level, without knowing their identities?
“There is no actual threat justifying self defense — there are not organized armed groups seeking to kill Americans,” said one person familiar with the legal debate, who like others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution and because of the matter’s sensitivity.
Though the hand behind covert actions is supposed to be hidden, Miller and his team wanted to publicize any strikes on what Trump has deemed “narcoterrorists,” including through videos of drug labs or boats being blown up, one person familiar with the matter said.
Amid pushback on CIA action from lawyers in the late spring, the administration forged ahead with an alternative plan that was already under discussion: to use the U.S. military. And it came up with a legal justification that national security law experts inside and out of government have said does not stand up to facts: that the country was in a “non-international” armed conflict with “designated terrorist organizations.”
This account of the evolution of the Trump administration’s lethal counter-drug strategy is based on interviews with almost 20 current and former officials and other people familiar with aspects of the discussions.
“President Trump is prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding in to our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” a senior administration official said in an email in response to questions from The Washington Post, noting that operations have been given careful legal scrutiny and were deemed lawful.
By midsummer, the administration was considering boat strikes and a second set of Venezuela-focused options, which included the seizure of oil fields and a “snatch and grab” of Maduro, said one former official.
“President Trump has been clear in his message to Maduro: Stop sending drugs and criminals to our country,” said the senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
The CIA declined to comment on deliberations about the lethal strikes.
In the ongoing mission the Pentagon recently dubbed Operation Southern Spear, U.S. military forces have killed more than 80 people in 21 strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Democratic and some Republican lawmakers have decried the strikes, which have roiled U.S. relations with several Latin American powers.
The president ultimately gave the CIA power to use lethal force. Trump acknowledged in October that he had authorized the agency to take covert action in support of his war on narcotraffickers.
The details of the finding that Trump signed in October are classified. But several people familiar with it have said it is broad in scope, aggressive and aimed at countering transnational criminal organizations, including through lethal force.
As far as is known, the CIA and other spy agencies are supplying intelligence to support the Pentagon strikes, but not choosing targets or launching weapons.
Speeding past legal guardrails
By late spring and early summer, as the White House was busy on multiple fronts — planning an operation to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, mediating a peace deal for Gaza — it seemed, temporarily at least, that the appetite for action had diminished.
But Miller, who has overseen Trump’s hard-line agenda on drugs and immigration, and other top advisers never lost sight of crushing the cartels. And in pursuing this goal they were aided in part by a personnel restructuring that removed potential obstacles.
Many of the lawyers and other career officials at the White House National Security Council, Pentagon and Justice Department who had over the preceding months raised concerns about using lethal force against narcotraffickers had either left government or were reassigned or removed.
Proposed findings are typically reviewed by lawyers at the CIA and other agencies, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Justice, State and Defense departments. Then an interagency review is conducted, usually overseen by the NSC’s legal adviser.
But by summer, the NSC’s entire full-time legal staff of about half a dozen was gone. Some left when their details ended and others — including the shop’s top lawyer, former Pentagon general counsel Paul Ney — were let go in a May staff shake-up, three former officials said. Ney had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes, the former officials said.
A senior administration official said that Ney left because “the original NSC legal versus White House Counsel’s Office structure never worked,” and praised the moves as achieving efficiency that gives the president “more visibility into his foreign policy agenda.”
“There are actually more lawyers working on the NSC portfolio than prior to the restructuring,” the official said, referring to lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office, who may also have other duties. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal NSC processes.
The NSC legal adviser vacancy in particular is significant, said Carrie Cordero, a national security lawyer in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “The absence of a seasoned national security lawyer serving in that role means that the principals in the White House are not getting the best national security legal advice that they can.”
Meanwhile, career civilian lawyers at the Defense Department had largely been cut out of cartel strike discussions by the political leadership.
In the summer, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel produced a classified opinion that asserted a legal foundation for the strikes. The memo, which runs several dozen pages, is said to argue that the U.S. is in an armed conflict with “narcoterrorists,” and that using lethal force against them advances an important national interest while not rising to a level of war that constitutionally would require congressional authorization.
The opinion “memorialized a decision taken by a restricted interagency lawyers group” made up of four career lawyers, including two uniformed military attorneys, and four political appointees, the senior administration official said. “The group unanimously concluded that ongoing actions are a legally available option for the president,” the official said.
The Defense Department declined to address questions about internal legal discussions about the strikes or worries among some personnel that the strikes could be unlawful.
The Defense Department “categorically denies that any Pentagon lawyers, including SOUTHCOM lawyers, with knowledge of these operations have raised concerns to any attorneys in the chain of command regarding the legality of the strikes conducted thus far because they are aware we are on firm legal ground,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement, referring to Southern Command, which is responsible for operations in the region.
“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict,” Parnell added.
In August, the administration’s determination that the U.S. was in an armed conflict with drug cartels was conveyed to military officials, according to people familiar with the matter.
Soon after, in early September, military special operators struck an alleged drug boat that Trump said was carrying “Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists … operating under the control of Nicolás Maduro.”
Two family members of the 11 killed did not deny they had been taking marijuana and cocaine from Venezuela to Trinidad, but denied they had worked for the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. U.S. intelligence agencies have determined that the Venezuelan government does not direct the group.
Two days later, on Sept. 4, Trump notified Congress of the strike.
Getting the CIA on board
At the end of September, the CIA’s Ratcliffe appointed his deputy, Michael Ellis, as temporary general counsel — an unusual dual role. Besides serving as deputy, helping run the agency, he would be “acting” as the agency’s top lawyer until a permanent general counsel, Josh Simmons, was confirmed. The confirmation is expected to happen early next month.
CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis. (CIA)
Ellis, a former NSC lawyer and intelligence aide in the first Trump administration, took over from a career CIA lawyer who was serving as acting general counsel. That lawyer, who is still in the general counsel’s office, was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force, according to people familiar with the matter.
After taking up the new role, Ellis gave his support to the proposed finding authorizing covert CIA action against alleged cartels, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Asked why Ratcliffe named Ellis acting general counsel, CIA spokeswoman Liz Lyons said: “The director asked Michael Ellis to serve as the acting general counsel given his reputation as one of the finest national security lawyers in the nation.”
Neither Ellis’s nor Ratcliffe’s sign-off was technically necessary, but it is highly unlikely that the president would have authorized the finding without support at the agency’s highest levels, former senior intelligence officials said.
In October, Trump acknowledged he had approved a covert action authorization, an extraordinary disclosure in that such activities are supposed to remain secret and deniable.
‘Is it legal just to kill the guy?’
At the CIA, some operational personnel are worried about a potential repeat of episodes where the agency’s covert operations prompted legal and political blowback, such as the 1980s Iran-contra scandal and the rendition and interrogation of terrorist suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to three former officials.
“The question is, is it legal just to kill the guy if he’s not threatening to kill you and you’re outside an armed conflict? There are people who are simply uncomfortable with the president just declaring we’re at war with drug traffickers,” said a former senior official familiar with the debate.
“Internally, a lot of people are treating this like the rendition program,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to get rid of [Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein or [Libyan autocrat] Moammar Gaddafi for counterterrorism reasons. This is different.’’
A big objection has been that “there’s no evidence these small boats qualify as legitimate operational targets,” said the former official, noting that in past counterterrorism strikes the CIA would distinguish between support and operational personnel, placing a much higher bar on targeting low-level couriers than, say, bombmakers. He noted that the CIA has taken part in lethal operations against the heads of drug cartels.
Concerns extend to the Americas and Counternarcotics Mission Center, according to current and former officials. “There’s just so much nervousness in the office,” said a second former official. “The mood is, we don’t even know if what we’re doing is legal.”
One mission center lawyer who questioned the use of lethal force against drug traffickers has been reassigned and replaced with a career CIA lawyer, people familiar with the matter said, though the reason for the person’s reassignment was not clear.
That concern is coming as the agency has surged personnel to that mission center, earlier reassigning more than two dozen analysts from other centers, including those that handle Europe and Eurasia and counterproliferation, according to another person familiar with the matter.
The former official noted that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel asserted that the use of lethal force against suspected drug cartels would be legal. “There’s no evidence of illegality — just a lot of hand-wringing from people who don’t want to do the mission or are nervous about it,” the former official said. “I get the nerves, but that doesn’t make the activity illegal.”
Still, in the military as at the agency, nerves are jangling.
The justification for directing the military to kill suspected drug traffickers triggered profound legal and ethical questions among troops. Some have drawn distinctions between the traffickers and terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and have struggled to accept that alleged criminals meet the same threshold for lethal strikes.
In recent weeks, junior officers in the military, fearing potential legal exposure, asked military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, for written sign-off before taking part in strikes, said two people familiar with the matter. It does not appear that such memos were furnished.
Some personnel are worried they might need attorneys in the future, said some current and former officials, describing concerns that a new administration and lawmakers might scrutinize the operation.
In the past week or so, some career civilian lawyers at the Pentagon have been included in strike discussions, and they are raising concerns about the use of lethal force, said people familiar with the matter.
On Tuesday, six Democratic lawmakers who served in the military or intelligence community released a video that went viral.
“You can refuse illegal orders,” they said, speaking directly to service members and intelligence professionals. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”
On Truth Social on Thursday, Trump said the lawmakers’ comments were “dangerous to our country.”
An hour later, he put up another post, accusing the group of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Dan Lamothe, Aaron Schaffer and Noah Robertson contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump and his top White House aides pushed for lethal strikes on Western Hemisphere drug traffickers almost as soon as they took office in January, and in the past 10 months have repeatedly steamrolled or sidestepped government lawyers who questioned whether the provocative policy was legal, according to multiple current and former officials familiar with the debates.
As Trump weighs what could be imminent military action against Venezuela and its leader, Nicolás Maduro, while striking at alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, new details are emerging about the evolution of a strategy that involves unprecedented U.S. military force against the narcotics trade — and, critics say, outsize legal risk.
The deadly attacks on small boats are being carried out by the Pentagon, which at Trump’s orders has amassed a vast array of warships, aircraft and troops in the region, including the largest U.S. aircraft carrier.
But early on, according to two people familiar with the matter, the administration proposed having the CIA use its unique covert authorities to conduct the lethal strikes on drug traffickers that Trump and Stephen Miller, his powerful homeland security adviser, wanted.
The spy agency, under Director John Ratcliffe, was rapidly ramping up its counternarcotics arm, consciously modeling the effort to mirror the post-9/11 U.S. war against terrorists.
White House officials initiated proposals that envisioned the CIA taking the lead, and work began on drafting a presidential authorization for covert action, known as a “finding.”
Lawyers at the spy agency and elsewhere in the government were skeptical. Was killing civilian drug traffickers defensible under domestic law, they asked, if the cartels do not actually seek to attack Americans, even if the product they smuggle might lead to deaths in the United States? Was it legal to kill drug traffickers, many of them apparently low-level, without knowing their identities?
“There is no actual threat justifying self defense — there are not organized armed groups seeking to kill Americans,” said one person familiar with the legal debate, who like others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution and because of the matter’s sensitivity.
Though the hand behind covert actions is supposed to be hidden, Miller and his team wanted to publicize any strikes on what Trump has deemed “narcoterrorists,” including through videos of drug labs or boats being blown up, one person familiar with the matter said.
Amid pushback on CIA action from lawyers in the late spring, the administration forged ahead with an alternative plan that was already under discussion: to use the U.S. military. And it came up with a legal justification that national security law experts inside and out of government have said does not stand up to facts: that the country was in a “non-international” armed conflict with “designated terrorist organizations.”
This account of the evolution of the Trump administration’s lethal counter-drug strategy is based on interviews with almost 20 current and former officials and other people familiar with aspects of the discussions.
“President Trump is prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding in to our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” a senior administration official said in an email in response to questions from The Washington Post, noting that operations have been given careful legal scrutiny and were deemed lawful.
By midsummer, the administration was considering boat strikes and a second set of Venezuela-focused options, which included the seizure of oil fields and a “snatch and grab” of Maduro, said one former official.
“President Trump has been clear in his message to Maduro: Stop sending drugs and criminals to our country,” said the senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
The CIA declined to comment on deliberations about the lethal strikes.
In the ongoing mission the Pentagon recently dubbed Operation Southern Spear, U.S. military forces have killed more than 80 people in 21 strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Democratic and some Republican lawmakers have decried the strikes, which have roiled U.S. relations with several Latin American powers.
The president ultimately gave the CIA power to use lethal force. Trump acknowledged in October that he had authorized the agency to take covert action in support of his war on narcotraffickers.
The details of the finding that Trump signed in October are classified. But several people familiar with it have said it is broad in scope, aggressive and aimed at countering transnational criminal organizations, including through lethal force.
As far as is known, the CIA and other spy agencies are supplying intelligence to support the Pentagon strikes, but not choosing targets or launching weapons.
Speeding past legal guardrails
By late spring and early summer, as the White House was busy on multiple fronts — planning an operation to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, mediating a peace deal for Gaza — it seemed, temporarily at least, that the appetite for action had diminished.
But Miller, who has overseen Trump’s hard-line agenda on drugs and immigration, and other top advisers never lost sight of crushing the cartels. And in pursuing this goal they were aided in part by a personnel restructuring that removed potential obstacles.
Many of the lawyers and other career officials at the White House National Security Council, Pentagon and Justice Department who had over the preceding months raised concerns about using lethal force against narcotraffickers had either left government or were reassigned or removed.
Proposed findings are typically reviewed by lawyers at the CIA and other agencies, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Justice, State and Defense departments. Then an interagency review is conducted, usually overseen by the NSC’s legal adviser.
But by summer, the NSC’s entire full-time legal staff of about half a dozen was gone. Some left when their details ended and others — including the shop’s top lawyer, former Pentagon general counsel Paul Ney — were let go in a May staff shake-up, three former officials said. Ney had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes, the former officials said.
A senior administration official said that Ney left because “the original NSC legal versus White House Counsel’s Office structure never worked,” and praised the moves as achieving efficiency that gives the president “more visibility into his foreign policy agenda.”
“There are actually more lawyers working on the NSC portfolio than prior to the restructuring,” the official said, referring to lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office, who may also have other duties. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal NSC processes.
The NSC legal adviser vacancy in particular is significant, said Carrie Cordero, a national security lawyer in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “The absence of a seasoned national security lawyer serving in that role means that the principals in the White House are not getting the best national security legal advice that they can.”
Meanwhile, career civilian lawyers at the Defense Department had largely been cut out of cartel strike discussions by the political leadership.
In the summer, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel produced a classified opinion that asserted a legal foundation for the strikes. The memo, which runs several dozen pages, is said to argue that the U.S. is in an armed conflict with “narcoterrorists,” and that using lethal force against them advances an important national interest while not rising to a level of war that constitutionally would require congressional authorization.
The opinion “memorialized a decision taken by a restricted interagency lawyers group” made up of four career lawyers, including two uniformed military attorneys, and four political appointees, the senior administration official said. “The group unanimously concluded that ongoing actions are a legally available option for the president,” the official said.
The Defense Department declined to address questions about internal legal discussions about the strikes or worries among some personnel that the strikes could be unlawful.
The Defense Department “categorically denies that any Pentagon lawyers, including SOUTHCOM lawyers, with knowledge of these operations have raised concerns to any attorneys in the chain of command regarding the legality of the strikes conducted thus far because they are aware we are on firm legal ground,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement, referring to Southern Command, which is responsible for operations in the region.
“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict,” Parnell added.
In August, the administration’s determination that the U.S. was in an armed conflict with drug cartels was conveyed to military officials, according to people familiar with the matter.
Soon after, in early September, military special operators struck an alleged drug boat that Trump said was carrying “Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists … operating under the control of Nicolás Maduro.”
Two family members of the 11 killed did not deny they had been taking marijuana and cocaine from Venezuela to Trinidad, but denied they had worked for the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. U.S. intelligence agencies have determined that the Venezuelan government does not direct the group.
Two days later, on Sept. 4, Trump notified Congress of the strike.
Getting the CIA on board
At the end of September, the CIA’s Ratcliffe appointed his deputy, Michael Ellis, as temporary general counsel — an unusual dual role. Besides serving as deputy, helping run the agency, he would be “acting” as the agency’s top lawyer until a permanent general counsel, Josh Simmons, was confirmed. The confirmation is expected to happen early next month.
CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis. (CIA)
Ellis, a former NSC lawyer and intelligence aide in the first Trump administration, took over from a career CIA lawyer who was serving as acting general counsel. That lawyer, who is still in the general counsel’s office, was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force, according to people familiar with the matter.
After taking up the new role, Ellis gave his support to the proposed finding authorizing covert CIA action against alleged cartels, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Asked why Ratcliffe named Ellis acting general counsel, CIA spokeswoman Liz Lyons said: “The director asked Michael Ellis to serve as the acting general counsel given his reputation as one of the finest national security lawyers in the nation.”
Neither Ellis’s nor Ratcliffe’s sign-off was technically necessary, but it is highly unlikely that the president would have authorized the finding without support at the agency’s highest levels, former senior intelligence officials said.
In October, Trump acknowledged he had approved a covert action authorization, an extraordinary disclosure in that such activities are supposed to remain secret and deniable.
‘Is it legal just to kill the guy?’
At the CIA, some operational personnel are worried about a potential repeat of episodes where the agency’s covert operations prompted legal and political blowback, such as the 1980s Iran-contra scandal and the rendition and interrogation of terrorist suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to three former officials.
“The question is, is it legal just to kill the guy if he’s not threatening to kill you and you’re outside an armed conflict? There are people who are simply uncomfortable with the president just declaring we’re at war with drug traffickers,” said a former senior official familiar with the debate.
“Internally, a lot of people are treating this like the rendition program,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to get rid of [Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein or [Libyan autocrat] Moammar Gaddafi for counterterrorism reasons. This is different.’’
A big objection has been that “there’s no evidence these small boats qualify as legitimate operational targets,” said the former official, noting that in past counterterrorism strikes the CIA would distinguish between support and operational personnel, placing a much higher bar on targeting low-level couriers than, say, bombmakers. He noted that the CIA has taken part in lethal operations against the heads of drug cartels.
Concerns extend to the Americas and Counternarcotics Mission Center, according to current and former officials. “There’s just so much nervousness in the office,” said a second former official. “The mood is, we don’t even know if what we’re doing is legal.”
One mission center lawyer who questioned the use of lethal force against drug traffickers has been reassigned and replaced with a career CIA lawyer, people familiar with the matter said, though the reason for the person’s reassignment was not clear.
That concern is coming as the agency has surged personnel to that mission center, earlier reassigning more than two dozen analysts from other centers, including those that handle Europe and Eurasia and counterproliferation, according to another person familiar with the matter.
The former official noted that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel asserted that the use of lethal force against suspected drug cartels would be legal. “There’s no evidence of illegality — just a lot of hand-wringing from people who don’t want to do the mission or are nervous about it,” the former official said. “I get the nerves, but that doesn’t make the activity illegal.”
Still, in the military as at the agency, nerves are jangling.
The justification for directing the military to kill suspected drug traffickers triggered profound legal and ethical questions among troops. Some have drawn distinctions between the traffickers and terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and have struggled to accept that alleged criminals meet the same threshold for lethal strikes.
In recent weeks, junior officers in the military, fearing potential legal exposure, asked military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, for written sign-off before taking part in strikes, said two people familiar with the matter. It does not appear that such memos were furnished.
Some personnel are worried they might need attorneys in the future, said some current and former officials, describing concerns that a new administration and lawmakers might scrutinize the operation.
In the past week or so, some career civilian lawyers at the Pentagon have been included in strike discussions, and they are raising concerns about the use of lethal force, said people familiar with the matter.
On Tuesday, six Democratic lawmakers who served in the military or intelligence community released a video that went viral.
“You can refuse illegal orders,” they said, speaking directly to service members and intelligence professionals. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”
On Truth Social on Thursday, Trump said the lawmakers’ comments were “dangerous to our country.”
An hour later, he put up another post, accusing the group of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Dan Lamothe, Aaron Schaffer and Noah Robertson contributed to this report.
White House proposed $50M reward leaflet drop over Venezuela capital
The White House proposed having U.S. military planes drop leaflets over Venezuela’s capital in an operation aimed at intensifying pressure on the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, according to a report.
In what could soon be the latest U.S. escalation against Venezuela, the reported plan entails planes dispersing leaflets in Caracas that contain details about the $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest and conviction, sources told the Washington Post.
The psychological operation, which has not yet been authorized, could take place as soon as Sunday to coincide with Maduro’s 63rd birthday, the paper reported.
The Independent has asked the White House for comment.
Maduro has been in power since 2013, following the death of Hugo Chavez; more than 50 countries, including the U.S., have refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state, claiming he lost the 2024 presidential election.
The White House has reportedly proposed dropping leaflets on Caracas containing information on a $50 million reward for Maduro’s arrest or conviction (REUTERS)
The State Department in 2020 offered a reward of up to $15 million for information leading to his arrest or conviction related to his indictment on narcoterrorism charges. The Biden administration raised that reward to $25 million in January 2025; in August, the Trump administration doubled that amount.
Reuters also reported that the U.S. was planning to launch “covert operations” related to Venezuela. A senior administration official told the outlet: "President Trump is prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”
For months, Trump has been ramping up a pressure campaign against Maduro.
Since early September, the U.S. has been launching strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, killing at least 80 people. The strikes are meant to target what administration officials say are “narco-terrorists.”
The United States also sent its most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the Caribbean Sea earlier this month.
As the aircraft carrier headed toward the waters off Venezuela earlier this month, Maduro said, “No more forever wars. No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan. Long live peace.”
The military buildup in the region also consists of at least eight other warships and F-35 aircraft.
The Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice Friday to airlines warning of a “potentially hazardous situation” when flying over Venezuela amid the "worsening security situation and heightened military activity in or around Venezuela.”
The latest reported escalation comes as the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, which Trump alleges are fueled by Maduro’s government.
At an October roundtable, when asked why he didn’t seek a declaration of war from Congress and insisted he had the authority to carry out such strikes.
“I don’t think we're going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them,” the U.S. president said.
Legal experts and former national security officials have disputed the president’s claim that he has legal authority to launch extrajudicial killings against the alleged drug traffickers. Bipartisan members of Congress have also shared their concerns.
“If we’re going to go to war with Venezuela, the president needs to make his case, and they’ve done zero on this,” Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon told CNN last week. “If he wants to continue the operations on these boats, he should get authorization.”
Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, who serves on both the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, said at a press conference this week: "The last time we received a briefing on Venezuela with the full committee was never. “That is something that should alarm everybody.”
The White House proposed having U.S. military planes drop leaflets over Venezuela’s capital in an operation aimed at intensifying pressure on the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, according to a report.
In what could soon be the latest U.S. escalation against Venezuela, the reported plan entails planes dispersing leaflets in Caracas that contain details about the $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest and conviction, sources told the Washington Post.
The psychological operation, which has not yet been authorized, could take place as soon as Sunday to coincide with Maduro’s 63rd birthday, the paper reported.
The Independent has asked the White House for comment.
Maduro has been in power since 2013, following the death of Hugo Chavez; more than 50 countries, including the U.S., have refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state, claiming he lost the 2024 presidential election.
The White House has reportedly proposed dropping leaflets on Caracas containing information on a $50 million reward for Maduro’s arrest or conviction (REUTERS)
The State Department in 2020 offered a reward of up to $15 million for information leading to his arrest or conviction related to his indictment on narcoterrorism charges. The Biden administration raised that reward to $25 million in January 2025; in August, the Trump administration doubled that amount.
Reuters also reported that the U.S. was planning to launch “covert operations” related to Venezuela. A senior administration official told the outlet: "President Trump is prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”
For months, Trump has been ramping up a pressure campaign against Maduro.
Since early September, the U.S. has been launching strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, killing at least 80 people. The strikes are meant to target what administration officials say are “narco-terrorists.”
The United States also sent its most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the Caribbean Sea earlier this month.
As the aircraft carrier headed toward the waters off Venezuela earlier this month, Maduro said, “No more forever wars. No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan. Long live peace.”
The military buildup in the region also consists of at least eight other warships and F-35 aircraft.
The Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice Friday to airlines warning of a “potentially hazardous situation” when flying over Venezuela amid the "worsening security situation and heightened military activity in or around Venezuela.”
The latest reported escalation comes as the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, which Trump alleges are fueled by Maduro’s government.
At an October roundtable, when asked why he didn’t seek a declaration of war from Congress and insisted he had the authority to carry out such strikes.
“I don’t think we're going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them,” the U.S. president said.
Legal experts and former national security officials have disputed the president’s claim that he has legal authority to launch extrajudicial killings against the alleged drug traffickers. Bipartisan members of Congress have also shared their concerns.
“If we’re going to go to war with Venezuela, the president needs to make his case, and they’ve done zero on this,” Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon told CNN last week. “If he wants to continue the operations on these boats, he should get authorization.”
Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, who serves on both the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, said at a press conference this week: "The last time we received a briefing on Venezuela with the full committee was never. “That is something that should alarm everybody.”
Trump fires D.C. building board for loyalists 'aligned with' his vision
In the wake of demolishing the White House East Wing and beginning construction on his new $300 million White House ballroom — and with more projects in mind — President Donald Trump has fired all six sitting members of the board that oversees architecture in Washington, D.C., Knewz.com can reveal.
“We are preparing to appoint a new slate of members to the commission that are more aligned with President Trump’s America First policies,” a White House spokesperson explained of the move.
Commission of Fine Arts gets canned
The Commission of Fine Arts is an independent federal agency charged with giving expert advice to the president, Congress and the federal and D.C. governments on matters of design and aesthetics, as they affect the federal interest and preserve the dignity of the nation’s capital. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The Commission of Fine Arts was comprised of six members, all of whom were appointed during former President Joe Biden’s White House tenure.
The firings are not unprecedented, as Biden also replaced at least six members of the commission that Trump had named during his first term.
Trump is currently in the midst of his big building project at the White House with his focus on erecting a grand and gilded 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
He also has plans to build a gigantic triumphal arch monument across the river from D.C.
In his second term, the president signed an executive order titled “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” that calls for all new federal buildings to be designed and constructed in classical and traditional architectural styles. It also discouraged the use of modernist styles such as Brutalism.
East Wing demolition
President Donald Trump, who made much of his fortune as a property developer before entering politics, called White House construction noise “music” to his ears. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Trump spoke out as demolition began on the East Wing.
“You probably hear the beautiful sound of construction to the back,” he told reporters. “You hear that sound? That’s music to my ears. I love that sound. Other people don’t like it, I love it. I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.”
Although he’d previously promised the ballroom would be “near” the East Wing “but not touching” it, and assured reporters it wouldn’t be touched, the entire building came down.
A White House spokesperson put a Trump spin on it, saying the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized.”
The White House statement
The White House called out “unhinged leftists” for criticizing the East Wing demolition. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
There has been widespread criticism over Trump’s decision to alter the East Wing.
In response, the White House issued a statement hitting back.
“In the latest instance of manufactured outrage, unhinged leftists and their Fake News allies are clutching their pearls over President Donald J. Trump’s visionary addition of a grand, privately funded ballroom to the White House — a bold, necessary addition that echoes the storied history of improvements and additions from commanders-in-chief to keep the executive residence as a beacon of American excellence,” the White House said.
Alongside the statement, the administration listed previous renovation updates, including changes made to the East Wing in decades past.
Amid the pushback, a seven-foot fence was put up around the East Wing so that most of the construction would be blocked from public view.
Trump slammed
Some critics accused President Donald Trump of building the ballroom as a “vanity” project. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Social media users were quick to slam Trump for the East Wing demolition and new ballroom project.
“Trump’s ‘grand ballroom’ is just the latest brick in his wall of vanity, demolishing not just the White House but the soul of our nation, one historic facade at a time,” wrote one X user.
“The reason he’s completely ‘overhauling’ the White House is because he doesn’t plan on leaving,” wrote another. “When he told his base this was the last time they would ever have to vote, he meant that. Everything that is happening in this country is indicative of that. Wake up.”
In the wake of demolishing the White House East Wing and beginning construction on his new $300 million White House ballroom — and with more projects in mind — President Donald Trump has fired all six sitting members of the board that oversees architecture in Washington, D.C., Knewz.com can reveal.
“We are preparing to appoint a new slate of members to the commission that are more aligned with President Trump’s America First policies,” a White House spokesperson explained of the move.
Commission of Fine Arts gets canned
The Commission of Fine Arts is an independent federal agency charged with giving expert advice to the president, Congress and the federal and D.C. governments on matters of design and aesthetics, as they affect the federal interest and preserve the dignity of the nation’s capital. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The Commission of Fine Arts was comprised of six members, all of whom were appointed during former President Joe Biden’s White House tenure.
The firings are not unprecedented, as Biden also replaced at least six members of the commission that Trump had named during his first term.
Trump is currently in the midst of his big building project at the White House with his focus on erecting a grand and gilded 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
He also has plans to build a gigantic triumphal arch monument across the river from D.C.
In his second term, the president signed an executive order titled “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” that calls for all new federal buildings to be designed and constructed in classical and traditional architectural styles. It also discouraged the use of modernist styles such as Brutalism.
East Wing demolition
President Donald Trump, who made much of his fortune as a property developer before entering politics, called White House construction noise “music” to his ears. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Trump spoke out as demolition began on the East Wing.
“You probably hear the beautiful sound of construction to the back,” he told reporters. “You hear that sound? That’s music to my ears. I love that sound. Other people don’t like it, I love it. I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.”
Although he’d previously promised the ballroom would be “near” the East Wing “but not touching” it, and assured reporters it wouldn’t be touched, the entire building came down.
A White House spokesperson put a Trump spin on it, saying the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized.”
The White House statement
The White House called out “unhinged leftists” for criticizing the East Wing demolition. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
There has been widespread criticism over Trump’s decision to alter the East Wing.
In response, the White House issued a statement hitting back.
“In the latest instance of manufactured outrage, unhinged leftists and their Fake News allies are clutching their pearls over President Donald J. Trump’s visionary addition of a grand, privately funded ballroom to the White House — a bold, necessary addition that echoes the storied history of improvements and additions from commanders-in-chief to keep the executive residence as a beacon of American excellence,” the White House said.
Alongside the statement, the administration listed previous renovation updates, including changes made to the East Wing in decades past.
Amid the pushback, a seven-foot fence was put up around the East Wing so that most of the construction would be blocked from public view.
Trump slammed
Some critics accused President Donald Trump of building the ballroom as a “vanity” project. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Social media users were quick to slam Trump for the East Wing demolition and new ballroom project.
“Trump’s ‘grand ballroom’ is just the latest brick in his wall of vanity, demolishing not just the White House but the soul of our nation, one historic facade at a time,” wrote one X user.
“The reason he’s completely ‘overhauling’ the White House is because he doesn’t plan on leaving,” wrote another. “When he told his base this was the last time they would ever have to vote, he meant that. Everything that is happening in this country is indicative of that. Wake up.”
Alito temporarily reinstates Texas’ Trump-requested maps
© provided by AlterNet
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito’s order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were “racially gerrymandered.”
“It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court,” Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court’s ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
Friday’s ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas’ new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case “on a fast-track.”
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump’s request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven’t given up on voters.
“Well, the Supreme Court f—— us yet again,” said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, “but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn’t come for us. We save ourselves.”
“100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket,” Campolo continued. “Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We’ll be seeing you at the polls.”
© provided by AlterNet
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito’s order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were “racially gerrymandered.”
“It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court,” Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court’s ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
Friday’s ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas’ new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case “on a fast-track.”
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump’s request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven’t given up on voters.
“Well, the Supreme Court f—— us yet again,” said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, “but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn’t come for us. We save ourselves.”
“100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket,” Campolo continued. “Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We’ll be seeing you at the polls.”
Another country is lining up behind Israel to cause MAGA's next big 'divide'
Israel may not be President Donald Trump’s only international policy threatening MAGA unity, said Ransom Miller, reporting for the Hill.
“More Trump voters disapprove of the president’s handling of China than any other foreign policy issue,” said Ransom, according to a public opinion poll by his team at the Institute for Global Affairs. “Even as Trump makes overtures to Beijing, most of his voters continue to view China as a moderate or severe threat (83 percent), and almost a third agree that it intends to destroy the U.S. or replace the world order.
Trump is facing open revolt from his base regarding Chinese student visa after he reversed course from his earlier crackdown. The president announced the U.S. would grant 600,000 H-1B visas to Chinese students in the next two years, citing international students’ high fees and the value they add to the U.S. economy. He then doubled down on Wednesday, claiming that welcoming H-1B visa workers is “MAGA.”
But Miller said his message isn’t resonating with the MAGA base, with surveys revealing that more than half of Trump’s constituency feels that Chinese students shouldn’t be allowed to study in the U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, far-right activist Laura Loomer, Fox News host Laura Ingraham and longtime Trump advisor Steve Bannon also disagree, according to Miller.
Likewise, Trump’s approach to Chinese export controls are also causing argument with his high-tariff strategy damaging American growth, while Trump signals openness to exemptions on selling advanced U.S. technology to China, including semiconductors.
“For some, this is the worst of both worlds, as Americans are forced to pay higher costs for goods and Chinese military manufacturers gain greater access to American technology,” said Miller. “Trump’s former Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger predicts that allowing semiconductor sales to China would be ‘unilaterally deindustrializing America.’”
Miller added that Trump’s former National Security Council China director described the policy as “playing 2-D chess while Beijing is playing 4-D chess.”
But while Trump clings to China many of his MAGA voters want a clean break from the Chinese economy.
“White House Senior Counsel Peter Navarro continues to argue that U.S. industrial weakness has invited foreign aggression and that the U.S. must reshore manufacturing through high tariffs,” said Miller.
From their perspective, complete withdrawal remains the end goal. Steve Bannon went so far as to advise: “If you don’t do this, you’re always going to have the threat of the gun to your head.”
“The president may be able to tamp down on a potential insurgency as he dictates what is and isn’t America First. However, if the conversation among MAGA today is any indication, the worst for Trump be yet to come,” said Miller.
Read the Hill report at this link.
Israel may not be President Donald Trump’s only international policy threatening MAGA unity, said Ransom Miller, reporting for the Hill.
“More Trump voters disapprove of the president’s handling of China than any other foreign policy issue,” said Ransom, according to a public opinion poll by his team at the Institute for Global Affairs. “Even as Trump makes overtures to Beijing, most of his voters continue to view China as a moderate or severe threat (83 percent), and almost a third agree that it intends to destroy the U.S. or replace the world order.
Trump is facing open revolt from his base regarding Chinese student visa after he reversed course from his earlier crackdown. The president announced the U.S. would grant 600,000 H-1B visas to Chinese students in the next two years, citing international students’ high fees and the value they add to the U.S. economy. He then doubled down on Wednesday, claiming that welcoming H-1B visa workers is “MAGA.”
But Miller said his message isn’t resonating with the MAGA base, with surveys revealing that more than half of Trump’s constituency feels that Chinese students shouldn’t be allowed to study in the U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, far-right activist Laura Loomer, Fox News host Laura Ingraham and longtime Trump advisor Steve Bannon also disagree, according to Miller.
Likewise, Trump’s approach to Chinese export controls are also causing argument with his high-tariff strategy damaging American growth, while Trump signals openness to exemptions on selling advanced U.S. technology to China, including semiconductors.
“For some, this is the worst of both worlds, as Americans are forced to pay higher costs for goods and Chinese military manufacturers gain greater access to American technology,” said Miller. “Trump’s former Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger predicts that allowing semiconductor sales to China would be ‘unilaterally deindustrializing America.’”
Miller added that Trump’s former National Security Council China director described the policy as “playing 2-D chess while Beijing is playing 4-D chess.”
But while Trump clings to China many of his MAGA voters want a clean break from the Chinese economy.
“White House Senior Counsel Peter Navarro continues to argue that U.S. industrial weakness has invited foreign aggression and that the U.S. must reshore manufacturing through high tariffs,” said Miller.
From their perspective, complete withdrawal remains the end goal. Steve Bannon went so far as to advise: “If you don’t do this, you’re always going to have the threat of the gun to your head.”
“The president may be able to tamp down on a potential insurgency as he dictates what is and isn’t America First. However, if the conversation among MAGA today is any indication, the worst for Trump be yet to come,” said Miller.
Read the Hill report at this link.
Trump pardons British billionaire who had pleaded guilty to insider trading
President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned British billionaire Joe Lewis, who had pleaded guilty to insider trading in 2024.
The Lewis family trust owns the English Premier League soccer club Tottenham Hotspur.
Lewis, 88, “requested a pardon so that he may receive medical treatment and visit his grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the United States,” a White House official told NBC News.
"I am pleased all of this is now behind me, and I can enjoy retirement and watch as my family and extended family continue to build our businesses based on the quality and pursuit of excellence that has become our trademark," Lewis said in a statement, according to international media.
British billionaire Joe Lewis, whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur football club, arrives to the United States Courthouse in Manhattan to be sentenced in a New York court, after pleading guilty in January to insider trading charges in New York, US, April 4, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/EDUARDO MUNOZ/FILE PHOTO)
"Mr. Lewis admitted he made a terrible mistake, did not fight extradition in the case, and paid a $5 million fine," according to international media.
Lewis was accused of passing on information about his companies to his romantic partners, friends, and private pilots, and others, according to international media.
Lewis had an estimated net worth of over $6 billion
In 2023, the year Lewis was arrested, he had an estimated net worth of over $6 billion and was ranked 39th in the Sunday Times Rich List. Lewis currently has an estimated net worth of around $6.9 billion, according to Forbes.
Lewis owns many assets through the investment group Tavistock, the BBC reported. These include shares in finance, sports, energy, and life science companies.
US federal prosecutors, in 2023, accused Lewis of orchestrating a "brazen" insider trading scheme by passing tips about companies in which he invested to friends, personal assistants, private pilots, and romantic partners, including two of Lewis' pilots.
Lewis agreed to a deal in which he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and two counts of securities fraud.
Prosecutors said that in 2019, Lewis lent each pilot $500,000 and encouraged them to buy stock in oncology company Mirati Therapeutics before it released favorable clinical results. Pilot O'Connor texted a friend that he thought "the Boss has inside info," according to the indictment.
Reuters contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned British billionaire Joe Lewis, who had pleaded guilty to insider trading in 2024.
The Lewis family trust owns the English Premier League soccer club Tottenham Hotspur.
Lewis, 88, “requested a pardon so that he may receive medical treatment and visit his grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the United States,” a White House official told NBC News.
"I am pleased all of this is now behind me, and I can enjoy retirement and watch as my family and extended family continue to build our businesses based on the quality and pursuit of excellence that has become our trademark," Lewis said in a statement, according to international media.
British billionaire Joe Lewis, whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur football club, arrives to the United States Courthouse in Manhattan to be sentenced in a New York court, after pleading guilty in January to insider trading charges in New York, US, April 4, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/EDUARDO MUNOZ/FILE PHOTO)
"Mr. Lewis admitted he made a terrible mistake, did not fight extradition in the case, and paid a $5 million fine," according to international media.
Lewis was accused of passing on information about his companies to his romantic partners, friends, and private pilots, and others, according to international media.
Lewis had an estimated net worth of over $6 billion
In 2023, the year Lewis was arrested, he had an estimated net worth of over $6 billion and was ranked 39th in the Sunday Times Rich List. Lewis currently has an estimated net worth of around $6.9 billion, according to Forbes.
Lewis owns many assets through the investment group Tavistock, the BBC reported. These include shares in finance, sports, energy, and life science companies.
US federal prosecutors, in 2023, accused Lewis of orchestrating a "brazen" insider trading scheme by passing tips about companies in which he invested to friends, personal assistants, private pilots, and romantic partners, including two of Lewis' pilots.
Lewis agreed to a deal in which he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and two counts of securities fraud.
Prosecutors said that in 2019, Lewis lent each pilot $500,000 and encouraged them to buy stock in oncology company Mirati Therapeutics before it released favorable clinical results. Pilot O'Connor texted a friend that he thought "the Boss has inside info," according to the indictment.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Internet erupts as MAGA influencers exposed for being based in other countries
A large number of MAGA social media influencers were exposed over the weekend as being being based in other countries.
Podcaster Matt Binder posted screenshots showing that Charlie’s Voice Rising, a popular Charlie Kirk fan account, is based in Eastern Europe (non-EU).
One popular influencer wrote "wait this is crazy" along with a screenshot showing that Defiant Ls, a MAGA account that has 1.6 million followers, is from Japan.
Dem influencer DreamLeaf wrote, "This one is great," along with evidence that a MAGA account called "Americaman" is actually based in Indonesia.
PatriotTakes, which is dedicated to research monitoring and exposing right-wing extremism and other threats to democracy, drew attention to post Trump himself had shared.
"Trump just boosted a MAGA account based in 'South Asia' #AmericaFirst," he wrote, before Brian Tyler Cohen said, "Perhaps it would be easier to identify which MAGA accounts are actually based *inside* the United States."
A large number of MAGA social media influencers were exposed over the weekend as being being based in other countries.
Podcaster Matt Binder posted screenshots showing that Charlie’s Voice Rising, a popular Charlie Kirk fan account, is based in Eastern Europe (non-EU).
One popular influencer wrote "wait this is crazy" along with a screenshot showing that Defiant Ls, a MAGA account that has 1.6 million followers, is from Japan.
Dem influencer DreamLeaf wrote, "This one is great," along with evidence that a MAGA account called "Americaman" is actually based in Indonesia.
PatriotTakes, which is dedicated to research monitoring and exposing right-wing extremism and other threats to democracy, drew attention to post Trump himself had shared.
"Trump just boosted a MAGA account based in 'South Asia' #AmericaFirst," he wrote, before Brian Tyler Cohen said, "Perhaps it would be easier to identify which MAGA accounts are actually based *inside* the United States."
Rapiss come in all nationalties not just Jewish,The last 1 milllion men who raped were Christian in the USA and Canada. A half a billion were arab.
