update - Trump purges top navy brass

[mandrill]

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge ordered the Trump administration Tuesday to immediately improve conditions at a New York City immigration holding facility, acting on complaints by jailed migrants that it is dirty, smelly and overcrowded.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, ruling in a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainees, issued a temporary restraining order requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to limit capacity, ensure cleanliness and provide sleeping mats in so-called hold rooms at 26 Federal Plaza, a government building in Manhattan.



FILE - The United States Court of International Trade is seen in front of the Jacob K. Javits Federal building in this Wednesday, March 18, 2015, in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)© The Associated Press
Cellphone video recorded last month by a detainee showed about two dozen men crowded in one of the building’s four hold rooms, many lying on the floor with thermal blankets but no mattresses or padding.

In court filings, detainees complained they had no soap, toothbrushes or other hygiene products. They said they were fed inedible “slop" and endured the “horrific stench” of sweat, urine and feces, in part because the rooms have open toilets. One woman having her period couldn't use menstrual products because women in her room were given just two to divvy up, the lawsuit said.



FILE - Members of the NYPD Strategic Response Group enter 26 Federal Plaza, where immigration court is located, June 8, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Heather Khalifa, File)© The Associated Press
Kaplan ordered immigration officials to allocate 50 square feet (4.6 square meters) per person — shrinking the largest hold room’s capacity to about 15 people after detainees said 40 or more were being jammed in. The building, home to immigration court and the FBI‘s New York field office, has become an epicenter of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.



The judge ordered the government to thoroughly clean the cells three times a day and provide an adequate supply of hygiene products. Addressing concerns that detainees weren't able to communicate with lawyers, Kaplan ordered the government to make accommodations for confidential legal telephone calls.

“My conclusion here is that there is a very serious threat of continuing irreparable injury, given the conditions that I’ve been told about," Kaplan said at a hearing Tuesday where a government lawyer conceded that some of the complaints were valid.

“I think we all agree that conditions at 26 Federal Plaza need to be humane, and we obviously share that belief,” government lawyer Jeffrey S. Oestericher said, adding that he agreed “inhumane conditions are not appropriate and should not be tolerated.”

The lawsuit — filed by the immigrant rights organization Make the Road New York, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union — sought court intervention to end what plaintiff lawyer Heather Gregorio called “inhumane and horrifying conditions."




Some detainees have been held at 26 Federal Plaza far longer than the 72-hour norm, Gregorio said.

Murad Awawdeh, the president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, welcomed Kaplan’s ruling as a “step forward” but said the facility “must be shut down permanently."

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who was arrested at 26 Federal Plaza in June after he tried to lock arms with a person authorities were attempting to detain, said the decision “is a much-needed rebuke of Trump’s cruel immigration policies."

In a sworn declaration, Nancy Zanello, of ICE’s New York City Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, wrote that as of Monday, a total of 24 people were held in the building’s four hold rooms — well shy of the city fire marshal’s 154-person cap.

Each room has at least one toilet and sink, and hygiene products are available, including soap, teeth cleaning wipes and feminine products, Zanello said.




Sergio Barco Mercado, the lawsuit’s named plaintiff, said in a court filing that he was held at 26 Federal Plaza for two days last week after his arrest there while leaving an immigration court hearing.

Barco Mercado, a native of Peru who said he sought asylum in the U.S. in 2022, said his hold room was “extremely crowded," cold and “smelled of sewage," and that the conditions exacerbated a tooth infection that swelled his face and altered his speech.

“We did not always get enough water,” Barco Mercado said. "There was one guard who would sometimes hold a bottle of water up and people would wait to have him squirt some into our mouths, like we were animals.”

Another detainee, Carlos Lopez Benitez, said he fled violence in Paraguay in 2023 and was seeking asylum in the U.S. when he was arrested in July while leaving an immigration hearing. He said officers told him he’d be in detention until a 2029 hearing on his asylum application.

Lopez Benitez said an officer showed him a cellphone photo of his arrest and mocked him for crying. In his holding cell, he said, officers blasted air conditioning and doled out meals that “looked like dog food."

Michael R. Sisak, The Associated Press

Judge orders ICE to improve conditions after NYC immigration detainees complain of mistreatment

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Harvard University and the Trump administration are getting close to an agreement that would require the Ivy League university to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end investigations, according to a person familiar with the matter.




The framework is still being sorted out with significant gaps to close, but both sides have agreed on the financial figure and a settlement could be finalized in coming weeks, according to the person who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Harvard declined to comment.

The agreement would end a monthslong battle that has tested the boundaries of the government’s authority over America’s universities. What began as an investigation into campus antisemitism escalated into an all-out feud as the Trump administration slashed more than $2.6 billion in research funding, ended federal contracts and attempted to block Harvard from hosting international students.

The university responded with a pair of lawsuits alleging illegal retaliation by the administration after Harvard rejected a set of demands that campus leaders viewed as a threat to academic freedom.




Details of the proposed framework were first reported by The New York Times.

A $500 million payment would be the largest sum yet as the administration pushes for financial penalties in its settlements with elite universities. Columbia University agreed to pay the government $200 million as part of an agreement restoring access to federal funding, while Brown University separately agreed to pay $50 million to Rhode Island workforce development organizations.

Details have not been finalized on where Harvard’s potential payment would go, the person said.

The Republican president has been pushing to reform prestigious universities that he decries as bastions of liberal ideology.

His administration has cut funding to several Ivy League schools while pressing demands in line with his political campaign. None has been targeted as frequently or as heavily as Harvard, the richest U.S. university with an endowment valued at $53 billion.




More than a dozen Democrats in Congress who attended Harvard cautioned against a settlement on Aug. 1, warning the university it may warrant “rigorous Congressional oversight and inquiry.” Capitulating to political demands, they said, would set a dangerous precedent across all of higher education.


Harvard and the Trump administration are nearing a settlement including a $500 million payment

 

[mandrill]

BALTIMORE (AP) — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn’t issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration’s extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.




Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland’s 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.

At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Donald Trump’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.




“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush's solicitor general. “There really is no precursor for this suit”

Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Cullen also asked the government’s lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration's case.




Hedges denied that the case would “open the floodgates” to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge’s order.

The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the order.


Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.


The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail pending trial.

Lea Skene, The Associated Press

Trump administration's lawsuit against all of Maryland's federal judges meets skepticism in court

 

[mandrill]

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration may continue withholding billions of dollars in foreign aid, dealing a major blow to relief groups and potentially teeing up a critical Supreme Court test to the president’s attempts to control funding approved by Congress.



The 2-1 decision from the three-judge panel — which includes judges appointed by Trump and George H.W. Bush — overturned a district court’s injunction that ordered the administration to keep providing money for food, medicine and other aid that the president blocked on his first day in office.

Aid groups that sued the administration to unfreeze foreign assistance did not have standing to bring the case, and “the district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims,” the majority judges wrote on Wednesday.

In a dissent, the only Democrat-appointed judge on the panel accused the court of supporting the president’s “unlawful behavior.”

“At bottom, the court’s acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive’s unlawful behavior derails the ‘carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power’ that serves as the ‘greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single branch,’” wrote Judge Florence Y. Pan, who was appointed by Joe Biden.





The administration “immediately suspended and subsequently terminated thousands of foreign-aid grants, with catastrophic consequences for the grantees and the people that they serve,” Pan wrote.

Plaintiffs in the case will now ask for the full 15-member appeals court panel to review the case, which could then land at the Supreme Court.

“Today’s decision is a significant setback for the rule of law and risks further erosion of basic separation of powers principles,” Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Lauren Bateman said in a statement.

“In the meantime, countless people will suffer disease, starvation and death.”

A recent study in The Lancet estimated Trump’s cuts could contribute to the deaths of 14 million million people by 2030, including as many as 5 million children under the age of 5.



A breast feeding mother in Uganda collects nutritional food for her children through the World Food Program, which faces a projected 40 percent reduction in funding for 2025 after Trump’s cuts, leaving an estimated 58 million people around the world vulnerable to starvation (Getty Images)
Hours after entering office, Trump issued an executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid distribution, then gutted the U.S. Agency for International Development and placed virtually all of its staff on administrative leave while folding what remains of the dismantled agency into Marco Rubio’s State Department.




The agency was one of the largest aid programs in the world, providing essential humanitarian relief in dozens of life-saving missions in more than 100 countries. Elon Musk, who assumed control of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency with a mandate to slash budgets across the federal government, said he wanted the agency to be fed into a “wood chipper.”

Two nonprofit groups that receive federal funding — AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network — sued the Trump administration over the funding freeze, and a Biden-appointed judge in Washington, D.C. ordered the government to pay out nearly $2 billion in outstanding aid to U.S. partners.

Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court, which froze the deadline from Judge Judge Amir Ali but left open the door for Ali to order the administration to resume funding. He then issued another injunction, and ordered the administration to pay out billions of dollars for roughly 10,000 aid contracts that were canceled.


But the appeals court panel on Wednesday decided that only the Government Accountability Office can sue over alleged violations of the Impoundment Control Act.

The White House Office of Management and Budget called the ruling a “BIG WIN!”

“Radical left-wing groups have been abusing the court system in an attempt to seize control of U.S. foreign policy from the President,” the office said on X. “Today’s decision puts a stop to that, affirming the President's ability to spend responsibly to enact his America First agenda.”

The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart player in the British news industry. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, and across the world, pluralism, reason, a progressive and humanitarian agenda, and internationalism – Independent values – are under threat. Yet we, The Independent, continue to grow.

Court panel affirms Trump’s Day One order pulling billions of dollars worth of foreign aid

 

[mandrill]

A federal appeals court handed a win to President Donald Trump in his effort to freeze foreign aid passed by Congress, reported The New York Times.

But buried in the ruling is a way things could still fall apart for the president.

According to the report, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, "cleared the way on Wednesday for the Trump administration to continue refusing to spend billions of dollars in foreign aid, finding that aid organizations that had sued to recover the money lacked the legal right to bring the challenge," ruling 2-1 in a move that "handed the White House a significant legal victory."



Since taking office, Trump and his associates have openly defied the Impoundment Control Act, a 1970s law that prohibits the president from refusing to spend money that Congress appropriated.

However, the court's decision came with an asterisk — they did not actually rule on the merits of whether Trump violated the law.

The court "ruled that under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, only the Government Accountability Office, which serves as Congress's independent watchdog, could challenge the president’s efforts to withhold foreign aid funding," said the report. "The panel found that groups that receive government funding — in this instance, a number of global health nonprofits — do not have cause to challenge Mr. Trump’s funding cuts."

However, this comes as the Trump administration, through its Department of Government Efficiency task force, has tried to forcibly audit GAO, even though it is answerable strictly to Congress and not the executive branch.

Trump's termination of foreign aid programs has been a major push since he took office. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAIhas been dismantled and the few surviving functions rolled into the State Department.

Court lets Trump’s foreign aid freeze stand — and names the one agency that can stop him

 

[mandrill]

Atlantic writer Quinta Jurecic reports Trump’s plan to use the DOJ for revenge against protesters and Democratic politicians is not going as well as he’d like.

“The Justice Department has been slow to move forward with the investigations Trump demanded, hemmed in by the constraints of the legal system,” writes Jurecic. “… American criminal law appears to be a less flexible tool in the hands of an authoritarian than Trump hoped — at least for now.”



Attorney General Pam Bondi may be ready to carry out Trump’s “personal-retribution project” with investigations of the Obama administration and former prosecutor Jack Smith, says Jurecic, but a prosecutor still requires a jury to issue an indictment, and to do that the prosecutor has to make a convincing case. This is usually easy, but Jurecic says the “administration keeps tripping up.”

READ MORE: 'That's how this ends': George Conway reveals 'the only way' to stop Trump's 'gangsterism'

Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli filed more than 35 felony prosecutions against June protestors against ICE raids in Los Angeles, but they only managed to persuade grand juries to indict some of them. Later, his office dismissed eight of his own indictments and downgraded others to misdemeanors after “falling short at the grand jury stage” according to the LA Times.




By comparison, Jurecic reports only sixrefusals by grand juries to indict suspects across the nation in 2016 — out of roughly 180,000 cases.

Meanwhile, over on the east coast, prosecutors moved to dismiss U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he attempted to visit an ICE detention facility. The judge in that case slammed Habba’s office so hard for trying to press the charges that Baraka could be heard saying: “Jesus, he tore these people a new a——.”

READ MORE: 'Severe pushback': House Republicans fear constituent revolt over divisive new proposal

And Jurecic reports Bondi appears to be “struggling” to pursue Trump’s demand to prosecute people involved in perpetrating what Trump calls the “Russia hoax.”

“The biggest challenge there is that there was no hoax,” said Jurecic, “as both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a bipartisan Senate intelligence report concluded, Russia really did try to help Trump win the 2016 election.”




Jurecic said it looks like Bondi“was caught unawares” by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s release of documents related to the “hoax” from 2016, and “displeased about the political pressure from the right to launch an investigation in response.”

“All Bondi appears to have done is ask prosecutors to possibly present grand jurors with evidence, with no clear deadline,” said Jurecic, despite “exciting” Fox News headlines.



And regarding the investigation of Smith, Jurecic says the “harshest penalty that the Office of Special Counsel could demand would be Smith’s dismissal from government service, but he has already resigned.”

“A jury is in essence a democratic institution, requiring citizens to exercise their judgment in a model of shared deliberation that is at odds with Trump’s autocratic tendencies,” said Jurecic. “… So far, that system has held up against Trump’s encroachment. But the rapid erosion of democratic life in the United States over the past six months is a reminder of how quickly things can change.”


Read the full Atlantic report at this link.

Trump’s 'personal-retribution project' hits a major roadblock — for now

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge in Maryland gave yet another loss to President Donald Trump on Thursday, deciding against one of his administration's signature anti-diversity policies, Newsweek reported.

The judge in question is one of his own appointees.

"U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019 during his first term, ruled that the Education Department acted unlawfully when it threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that continued DEI initiatives," reported Gabe Whisnant. Gallagher's ruling "came in response to a motion for summary judgment filed by the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which sued in February."



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

Under that order, schools receiving federal funding are compelled to stop what the Department of Education refers to as "race-based decision-making" — part of a broader assault by the Trump administration on policies that promote diversity in education and the workforce.

This is the second time this week that a Trump-appointed federal judge handed the president a blow — on Monday, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich held the Trump administration illegally blocked millions of dollars Congress appropriated for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a nonprofit that supports the cause of democracy worldwide.

It also comes as Trump is staring down another huge legal hurdle, as a federal judge on Wednesday seemed hostile to Trump's highly unusual lawsuit suing the entire federal bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, after judges on that court limited his ability to make deportations in the state.


Trump hit with another court loss — by one of his own appointees

 

[mandrill]

Harvard University and the Donald Trump administration are nearing a settlement that could end a months-long standoff over federal research funding. According to four people familiar with the matter, the proposed agreement would commit Harvard to invest $500 million in vocational programs, education and research in exchange for the restoration of billions in federal grants and the termination of ongoing federal investigations. Knewz.com has learned that the deal, still pending final approval from President Trump and senior Harvard officials, could become a landmark settlement between a U.S. administration and an academic institution.

Terms of the deal

Harvard would avoid paying the federal government directly while meeting President Trump’s demand for a financial commitment. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Under the draft framework, Harvard would avoid paying the federal government directly while meeting President Trump’s demand for a financial commitment that exceeds Columbia University’s $250 million settlement. Harvard would also continue initiatives to address antisemitism on campus. In return, the administration would lift freezes on research grants, end multiple Justice and Commerce Department investigations and halt efforts to limit enrollment for thousands of international students. The arrangement would also prevent the appointment of a federal monitor, a move Harvard views as critical to maintaining its academic independence. “A deal would allow Mr. Trump to claim that Harvard forked over $500 million amid pressure from him. For Harvard, the deal would allow the school to remain one of the most robust higher education institutions in the country. Harvard has insisted that any settlement must not jeopardize its academic freedom, and Mr. Trump has taken a keen interest in the details,” reports have mentioned.

The dispute between Harvard and the White House

The dispute started in the spring when the Trump administration sent Harvard a set of proposed reforms aimed at student life and faculty governance. BY: Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
The dispute started in the spring when the Trump administration sent Harvard a set of proposed reforms aimed at student life and faculty governance. The proposals included surveys of students’ political views, audits of course content and limits on the influence of non-tenured faculty members. Harvard rejected the list outright. Within hours, the administration froze billions in research funding and signaled it would review Harvard’s compliance with a range of federal laws. Harvard’s $53 billion endowment is the largest in higher education, yet much of it is restricted by donor agreements. University officials have warned that the ongoing freeze, combined with higher federal taxes on endowments, could leave the school facing a budget shortfall approaching $1 billion annually. In April, Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the funding freeze and investigations were politically motivated and violated constitutional protections.

The unresolved dispute over data and oversight

One unresolved issue involves the White House’s demand for detailed admissions records. BY: Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
One unresolved issue involves the White House’s demand for detailed admissions records, including information on applicants’ race, gender and academic performance. The administration argues that this data is necessary to ensure compliance with last year’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions. It has been reported that Columbia and Brown University both agreed to release similar data in their own settlements, while Harvard has resisted, describing the request as a breach of institutional privacy. May Mailman, the White House adviser leading the negotiations, suggested in a recent interview that Harvard’s “inclination to provide data surrounding its consideration of race in admissions would be a factor in the government’s willingness to sign off on a deal,” per reports.

Harvard’s faculty and students divided

Critics have warned that it could set a precedent for political interference in higher education and question whether the administration would uphold its terms. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Critics have warned that it could set a precedent for political interference in higher education and question whether the administration would uphold its terms. Supporters contend a settlement is necessary to restore research funding and stabilize the university’s finances. Harvard negotiators want the deal to be legally binding to limit the ability of future administrations to alter it. Nobel laureate and economics professor Oliver Hart underscored the need for clear safeguards. “I would spell out what happens if a party feels the agreement is not being honored. If they have so many things up their sleeve, they’re going to have those things up their sleeve once you’ve agreed on a deal,” he said. Some inside the university have argued that even if Harvard prevails in court, “the administration could continue to pelt the school with investigations and subpoenas while, over time, bleeding it of research funding through more standard protocols. To them, a settlement was an unappealing but essential outcome.”

Trump closes in on massive Harvard payday

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump administration is beginning to realize that his assertion of nearly boundless, unilateral authority to impose tariffs at any rate of his choosing may not be legally possible, noted writer Jason Willick in anarticle in the Washington Post published Thursday.




"The president’s claim of virtually unlimited, unilateral power to impose tariffs at whatever rate he chooses is in serious legal trouble," Willick wrote.

He argued that the forceful letter sent by Justice Department officials on Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, following last month’s hearings, warned that a rollback of Trump’s tariff powers could precipitate a second Great Depression. It said: “In such a scenario ... millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard‑working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened.” And they concluded: “In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.”

READ MORE: 'Duty to disobey': A stunning number of US troops know they can defy Trump's orders

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Fox News Tuesday: “The amount of money that’s coming in here — I think the more deals we’ve done, the more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for [the Supreme Court] to rule against us.”


He added that tariff income is “well in excess” of $300 billion.

Willick wrote: "Think about that for a second. At issue in the tariff case is whether the president is usurping Congress’s power to tax. And the Treasury secretary is pointing out that the tax is so large that the courts can’t possibly find that the president has exceeded his power. That has it backward."

He added that revenue‑raising authority lies with Congress. He cited James Madison, who wrote in the Federalist Papers, “The legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people.”



Tariffs, Willick noted, are taxes imposed on U.S. importers — both individuals and companies — paid to Customs and Border Protection, which then transfers the proceeds to the U.S. Treasury.



"If Trump is ordering Americans to pay huge sums of money without clear authorization from Congress, that ought to heighten judicial scrutiny of whether the taxes are legal," he wrote.

But Willick added that Bessent's point about the “deals we’ve done” with other countries is constitutionally stronger. "The Supreme Court doesn’t want to intervene in diplomacy, which — unlike taxation — is a core presidential power."

He added: "But the administration might be realizing that its constant invocations of foreign affairs aren’t sufficient to wave off judicial review. It should have worked with Congress and put its trade dealings on a stronger legal foundation. There’s still time to do so."


Top Trump official suggests signature policy may be in 'serious legal trouble': analysis

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ordered the nation's health department to stop giving deportation officials access to the personal information — including home addresses — of all 79 million Medicaid enrollees.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services first handed over the personal data on millions of Medicaid enrollees in a handful of states in June. After an Associated Press report identified the new policy, 20 states filed a lawsuit to stop its implementation.




In July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services entered into a new agreement that gave the Department of Homeland Security daily access to view the personal data — including Social Security numbers and home address — of all the nation's 79 million Medicaid enrollees. Neither agreement was announced publicly.

The extraordinary disclosure of such personal health data to deportation officials in the Trump administration’s far-reaching immigration crackdown immediately prompted the lawsuit over privacy concerns.

The Medicaid data sharing is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to provide DHS with more data on migrants. In May, for example, a federal judge refused to block the Internal Revenue Service from sharing immigrants’ tax data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help agents locate and detain people living without legal status in the U.S.




The order, issued by federal Judge Vince Chhabria in California, temporarily halts the health department from sharing personal data of enrollees in those 20 states, which include California, Arizona, Washington and New York.

“Using CMS data for immigration enforcement threatens to significantly disrupt the operation of Medicaid—a program that Congress has deemed critical for the provision of health coverage to the nation’s most vulnerable residents,” Chhabria wrote in his decision, issued on Tuesday.

Chhabria, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said that the order will remain in effect until the health department outlines “reasoned decisionmaking” for its new policy of sharing data with deportation officials.

A spokesperson for the federal health department declined to directly answer whether the agency would stop sharing its data with DHS. HHS has maintained that its agreement with DHS is legal.




Immigrants who are not living in the U.S. legally, as well as some lawfully present immigrants, are not allowed to enroll in the Medicaid program that provides nearly free coverage for health services. But federal law requires all states to offer emergency Medicaid, a temporary coverage that pays only for lifesaving services in emergency rooms to anyone, including non-U.S. citizens. Medicaid is a jointly funded program between states and the federal government.

Immigration advocates have said the disclosure of personal data could cause alarm among people seeking emergency medical help for themselves or their children. Other efforts to crack down on illegal immigration have made schools, churches, courthouses and other everyday places feel perilous to immigrants and even U.S. citizens who fear getting caught up in a raid.

“Protecting people’s private health information is vitally important,” Washington state's Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. “And everyone should be able to seek medical care without fear of what the federal government may do with that information.”

___

Judge orders RFK Jr.'s health department to stop sharing Medicaid data with deportation officials

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's capital sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city’s law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department.




Washington’s top legal official sought an emergency restraining order in federal court blocking a Trump administration move to put a federal official in charge of its police. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to “wreak operational havoc."

The lawsuit comes after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief's duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city’s current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor.

FILE - Brian Schwalb, attorney general for the District of Columbia, center, speaks outside the federal courthouse, Sept. 3, 2024 in Washington. (AP Photo/Lindsay Whitehurst, File)© The Associated Press
Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump's authority and implementing it would “sow chaos” in the Metropolitan Police Department. “The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

FILE - Drug Enforcement Agency Administrator Terrance Cole speaks during a television interview outside the White House, Aug. 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)© The Associated Press
The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Friday morning.

The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally.

FILE - Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith speaks during a news conference with Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser on President Donald Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National guard troops to Washington, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)© The Associated Press
It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city’s homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed.

FILE - Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith listens as Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference on President Donald Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National guard troops to Washington, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)© The Associated Press
Chief had agreed to share immigration information

Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful,” arguing it could not be followed by the city’s police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.




The district’s attorney general is an elected position and the city’s top legal officer. It’s separate from federal U.S. attorney appointed by the president to serve in Washington, a role now filled by former Fox News Channel host and judge Jeanine Pirro. Trump also appointed Bondi as U.S. attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Bondi’s directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief’s directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of “sanctuary policies,” which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back Thursday, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”




The president has more power over the nation’s capital than other cities, but D.C. has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973.

Trump is the first president to exert control over the city's police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Trump has suggested he’d seek to extend it. Schwalb argues the president's role is narrow under the law, limited to requiring the mayor to provide police services for federal purposes.

Residents are seeing a significant show of force

A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear.


Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.

Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.


Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Lindsay Whitehurst, Ashraf Khalil And Alanna Durk

Washington sues to block Trump's federal takeover of its police department as crackdown intensifies

 

[mandrill]

Several of the law firms that agreed to do pro-bono work for Donald Trump’s administration after he publicly targeted them with threats have yet to do a single thing for the president because they believe the terms of the agreements are unenforceable.

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s campaign against the law firms resulted in a series of executive orders threatening their access to federal buildings, removing security clearances and putting their clients’ government contracts at ris.




It caused multiple high-profile firms to cave to the president and promise to provide millions of dollars worth of pro bono legal services.



While some of them have come through, others haven’t lifted a finger since the president moved on to other perceived enemies.

As the Journal reported, “Several firms that struck the unprecedented deals have shrugged them off as unenforceable and have taken on little to no additional unpaid work, according to people familiar with the matter. They are hoping Trump has moved on.”

RELATED: Clients dump law firms that rolled over for Trump: 'Don't know how to fight'

According to their report, one way the firms are getting around complying stems from the fact that no one at the White House is compelling them to make good on their promises.




“Many firm leaders said they received limited follow-up from the White House after inking the deals,” the Journal reported, before adding, “One leader at a firm with a White House agreement told associates that they wouldn’t have to work on causes favored by Trump, including representing participants in the Jan. 6 riots on the Capitol — and wouldn’t face new obligations because of the deal, according to people familiar with those discussions.“

According to attorney Gary DiBianco, “I think the administration has completely lost the leverage it has over future firms.”

The report goes on to note, “The Oversight Project, a conservative watchdog group formerly affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, has been approaching law firms that made deals to ask for legal help, but most never responded, the group’s president, Mike Howell, said. A few firms took meetings but haven’t yet taken on any proposed legal work.”

You can read more here.

Law firms that caved to Trump now ignore 'unenforceable' deals after aides drop the ball

 

[mandrill]

A respiratory disease allegedly sweeping through Alligator Alcatraz has prompted multiple affidavits in support of a class-action lawsuit against the remote Florida immigrant detention center.

Lawyers and migrants being held inside the Everglades facility have reported a trend of negligence and worsening conditions, including a mystery illness, possibly Covid-19, running rampant through the camp.




Eric Lee, an attorney for former detainee Luis Manuel Rivas Velásquez, filed a complaint on Wednesday against Alligator Alcatraz, accusing it of being a “petri dish for disease.”

Last Thursday, Velásquez, a 38-year-old Venezuelan influencer, told Lee that he fell seriously ill with breathing problems. After allegedly being denied medical care for 48 hours, at one point, the detainee collapsed and became unresponsive.

In the filings, Lee said that Velásquez was taken to Miami’s Kendall regional medical center and diagnosed with a respiratory infection before being briefly returned to the Florida camp and then transferred to another facility in El Paso, Texas.

The Department of Homeland released a statement on Thursday and said that Velásquez “fainted and was taken to the hospital out of precaution.”

Along with reporting respiratory symptoms, the plaintiff said that conditions at the facility had deteriorated significantly, with more detainees falling ill.




Lee told the Guardian on Tuesday that “multiple detainees” have informed him that the “vast majority” of those held in the camp have become sick.

“There are people who are losing breath,” he said. “There are people who are walking around coughing on one another.”

Protesters at the jail gates say they have recorded several instances of ambulances arriving and leaving.

However, the DHS said in its statement that there is “no widespread disease circulating at Alligator Alcatraz” and “no cases of COVID and no cases of Tuberculosis.”

In an earlier statement to the Miami New Times, Stephanie Hartman, a department spokesperson, did not answer questions about a possible outbreak.

“Detainees have access to a 24/7, fully staffed medical facility with a pharmacy on site,” she said.



President Donald Trump toured the freshly opened immigrant detention facility on July 1 (AFP via Getty Images)
After being transferred to the El Paso facility, Velásquez reportedly called Lee and said that his condition was worsening.

“I don’t want to die in here,” he told Lee on the phone call before abruptly being cut off, according to the filing.

In a separate filing, detainees and attorneys alleged that Alligator Alcatraz had poor sanitation, limited access to legal counsel, and overcrowded tented housing.




Plaintiffs portrayed the site as lacking “adequate medical infrastructure” with hundreds of migrants “crammed into close quarters in extreme heat and humidity, with poor ventilation and limited access to hygiene.”

According to the filing, detainees have been left in their bunks without testing or treatment. It also accuses immigration officials of erecting “an unconstitutional barrier between detainees and their counsel.”

Federal judges have recently intervened in other detention settings to order improved conditions after lawyers documented unsafe and unsanitary environments.

Separately, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Mary Williams last Thursday temporarily halted any further construction of Alligator Alcatraz after two days of testimony about the environmental impact of the site.

In response, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said that “operations at Alligator Alcatraz are ongoing and deportations are continuing.”

Lawyers say immigrants battling medical emergencies and disease at Alligator Alcatraz: ‘I don’t want to die in here’

 

[mandrill]

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — El Salvador’s Congress voted Friday to give government prosecutors two more years to hold the more than 80,000 people swept up under the state of emergency while they investigate alleged ties to the country’s gangs.

The Congress, controlled by President Nayib Bukele’s New Ideas party and its allies, voted 57 to 3 in favor of extending the period of pretrial incarceration.




Attorney General Rodolfo Delgado said that with the extension authorities could carry out more complete investigations, present solid evidence and win sentences against members of organized crime.

Lawmakers also gave the government the option of extending for another 12 months if necessary.

Improved public safety under the state of emergency has swelled Bukele’s popularity, but the suspension of some constitutional rights and general lack of due process has drawn criticism within and outside El Salvador.

Opposition lawmaker Claudia Ortiz of the VAMOS party, said Friday it showed the government’s “inability to deliver justice.”

“They’ve had more than two years to do a serious investigation of all of the cases and be able to take all of those detained to trial, and since they haven’t done it on time, the (National) Assembly has to do a favor for the Attorney General’s Office,” she said.




Following an outburst of gang violence in March 2022, Bukele asked lawmakers for extraordinary powers to respond to a gang massacre. Among the rights the Congress agreed to suspend were the maximum time period take a prisoner before a judge, as well as fundamental protections like access to a lawyer.

Since then, more than 88,000 people have been arrested for alleged ties to gangs, with 90% still awaiting trial.

In July 2023, the Congress voted to give the government 24 months to prosecute a group of gang members. That period is up this month on Aug. 25.

Delgado said the plan is to carry out hundreds of mass trials as they’ve been able to sort the accused into groups.

“This big quantity of people isn’t going to be judged in one or two weeks,” Delgado said. “It takes a considerable amount of time for the judges to receive the evidence that links each one of them and then later issue verdicts according to each corresponding law.”

Marcos Alemán, The Associated Press

El Salvador extends pretrial detention for 80,000 gang suspects 2 more years

 

[mandrill]

The Colorado attorney general’s office has asked for the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition filed by former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, arguing that the federal court does not have jurisdiction in the case.

Peters is serving a nine-year prison sentence for her role in a breach of Mesa County’s elections systems during a 2021 software update. She was convicted by a jury in August 2024 on four felony counts related to the security breach, which was part of an effort to demonstrate that the 2020 election was untrustworthy, even though there is no credible evidence to support that position.




Peters has appealed the conviction, and while the Colorado Court of Appeals reviews her appeal, her legal team filed a federal habeas corpus petition. The petition, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, argues that Peters should be released on bond pending the appeal decision.

The filing by the attorney general’s office cites the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris, in which the court recognized “longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings.”

According to the filing, if three conditions in the case are met, then the federal court “must abstain from exercising jurisdiction regarding state proceedings.” Those conditions are that the state proceedings are ongoing; the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges.




The filing argues that those conditions are met, because Peters’ state-level appeal is ongoing, her conviction is criminal, thus an important state interest, and her appeal allows her to present her constitutional challenge. Based on the precedent set in the Younger case, the filing says the federal court does not have jurisdiction in Peters’ habeas corpus petition.

Peters’ attorneys argue in the federal habeas corpus petition that her First Amendment rights have been violated because she has not been allowed bail pending her appeal. Her attorney, Peter Ticktin, cited a statement made by the Mesa County District Court judge when denying her bond. The judge said, “So the damage that is caused and continue to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis. And it’s particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence like you.”







“(Peters) has been made to stay in prison because people are afraid of what she would say,” Ticktin said in an interview with Newsline.

The filing by the attorney general’s office, however, says, “The court pointed to her deceptive conduct as evidence of Ms. Peters’ belief that she was above the law and noted the impact it had on her reputation and the community. The court also discussed Ms. Peters’ allegations of election fraud in the context of her criminal conduct, explaining that she used her position to commit crimes for the purpose of promoting allegations of election fraud, which benefitted her personally.”

Ticktin has called Peters a “political prisoner.”

Peters was convicted by a Mesa County jury, and prosecuted by the office of a Republican district attorney. There has been no credible claim that the trial was politically compromised.


Peters’ case has garnered national attention and President Donald Trump has called for the U.S. Department of Justice to take “all necessary action” to secure her release. Trump cannot pardon Peters, because her conviction involves state crimes.

Peters’ attorneys have approximately two weeks to file a brief in response to the argument by the attorney general’s office that the federal court does not have jurisdiction in the habeas corpus case.

SUPPORT

Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com.

Jailed Trump-loving election fraudster back in court claiming she's a 'political prisoner'

 

[mandrill]

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody.




Gee called last week's hearing “déjà vu” after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order.

“There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants’ motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement.

In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement.

Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, “These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.”




Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump’s tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities.

Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. “But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that’s essentially void,” he said last week.

The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s.

The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children.




The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs.

In arguing against the Trump administration’s effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April.

The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed “ Alligator Alcatraz,” where a lawsuit alleges detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated.


Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.

Valerie Gonzalez, The Associated Press

Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody

 

[mandrill]

A split federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump can move forward with mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), concluding that a lower court lacked the jurisdiction to temporarily block the action, according to court records.

However, the panel delayed the ruling from taking immediate effect, giving attorneys for CFPB employees and pro-consumer advocacy groups an opportunity to request a rehearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.




Why It Matters
In February, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought directed the CFPB to stop work on proposed rules, stop investigative work and "cease all supervision and examination activity," according to an email obtained by the Associated Press.

The CFPB was created after the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The agency helps ensure that markets for consumer financial products are "transparent, fair, and competitive," according to the agency's website. Since its creation, the CFPB has secured over $21 billion in monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debts and other consumer relief.

The CFPB was created by Congress, which means it would require a separate act of Congress to formally eliminate it.

What To Know
The case was decided by Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao and Cornelia Pillard. Katsas and Rao, both Trump appointees, were in the majority. Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented.

"We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment," the majority wrote.



In a dissent, Pillard wrote, "It is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all."

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson directed the government to stop firing CPFB employees, except for reasons relating to performance or misconduct. The order also blocked Vought from defunding the agency.

What People Are Saying
Attorney General Pam Bondi, on X: "Another victory for President Trump! In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Circuit sided with my [Justice Department] attorneys in our effort to dismantle the CFPB and rein in crippling Obama-era regulations. We will continue to pursue the President's deregulation efforts."


Trump administration gets major court win

 

[mandrill]

Federal troops are patrolling the National Mall and neighborhoods across Washington while President Donald Trump's administration exerts extraordinary power over law enforcement in the nation's capital.

District of Columbia National Guard soldiers keep watch as travelers arrive at Union Station near the Capitol, Thursday, Aug 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)© The Associated Press
But the administration backed down from an attempt to take over the city's police department by installing its own emergency police commissioner after a federal judge indicated she would rule against it. The partial retreat interrupted one aspect of the most sweeping uses of federal authority over a local government in modern times.




How it will play out and whether the federal government will use this experience as a potential blueprint for dealing with other cities remains up in the air. Here's what to know about the situation and what might come next:

Why is Trump taking over the police in DC?

The Republican president this week announced he’s taking control over Washington’s police department and activating National Guard troops to reduce crime, an escalation of his aggressive approach to law enforcement. But District of Columbia officials say the action isn't needed, pointing out that violent crime in the district reached historic 30-year lows last year and is down significantly again this year.

Can he do that?

D.C.'s status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump a window to assert more control over the district than other cities. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser didn't offer much resistance at first, allowing city workers to clear homeless encampments and work closely with federal immigration agents. But on Friday, the heavily Democratic district asked for an emergency court order blocking Trump officials from putting a federal official in charge of D.C. police.

A homeless encampment is seen near the Lincoln Memorial as President Donald Trump uses federal law enforcement and the National Guard eliminate violent crime and unhoused people from the nation's capital, in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)© The Associated Press
So, who is in charge of police in Washington?

The Trump administration on Friday agreed to leave the Washington, D.C., police chief in control of the department. That came one day after Attorney General Pam Bondi said the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration would take over the police chief’s duties, including authority over orders issued to officers.



The two sides sparred in court for hours before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes after the city sued to stop the order. The judge indicated the law likely doesn’t grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably does give the president more power than the city might like. She pushed the two sides to compromise, promising to issue a court order temporarily blocking the administration from naming a new chief if they couldn’t agree.

Department of Homeland Security police officers interact with people arriving at Nationals Park during a baseball game between the Washington Nationals and Philadelphia Phillies in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
But while Attorney General Pam Bondi agreed to leave the police chief in charge, she directed the District’s police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law.

A man carring his personal belongings as he crosses the street infront of Washington Metropolitan Police officer outside of the Martin Luther King Memorial library in downtown Washington, Thursday, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)© The Associated Press
What's at stake

The showdown in Washington is the latest attempt by Trump to test the boundaries of his legal authority to carry out his tough-on-crime agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally.



What are the federal troops doing in DC?

About 800 National Guard troops are being activated, with Humvees parked along the Washington Monument and near Union Station. Troops have been spotted standing outside baseball's Nationals Park and neighborhood restaurants. The White House says guard members aren’t making arrests but are protecting law enforcement officers who are making arrests and helping deter violent crime. Trump says one of the objectives will be moving homeless people far from the city.



Trump has the authority to do this for 30 days and says he might look into extending it. But that would require congressional approval. Whether Republicans in Congress would go along with that is unclear. Some D.C. residents have protested against the increased police presence. For some, the action echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint predominantly Black cities with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify police action.


Will Trump try to take control in other US cities?

Washington is very different from any other American city, and the rules that govern it give the federal government much more control than it would have anywhere else. Whether Trump is using this as a blueprint for how to approach cities — largely Democratic cities — that he wants to exert more control over remains to be seen.

John Seewer, The Associated Press

Trump administration partially retreats from a takeover of Washington's police. Here's what to know

 

[mandrill]

The Trump administration has reduced funding for climate research, dismissed federal scientists who worked on the National Climate Assessment, and removed past editions of the report from government websites. Now, critics say, it is taking the next step: rewriting the science itself, according to a lawsuit filed this week by environmental groups.




As the Environmental Protection Agency moves to revoke the Endangerment Finding, the 2009 scientific determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, the Department of Energy published a new review of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. climate that aims to support the EPA's efforts.

The report was developed this spring by the 2025 Climate Working Group, which is composed of five independent climate scientists selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

But environmental groups and independent scientists have criticized the report and how it was written, claiming it was assembled in secret by the five scientists who are recognized by the larger scientific community as climate skeptics.

"The secret report was produced by a set of known climate contrarians who were commissioned to write this report that's full of inaccuracies," said Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director of climate and energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's clearly geared towards trying to give the EPA a way to evade its legal responsibility to address the health harms of heat trapping emissions and climate change."





A "secret report"
The DOE report, entitled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," was commissioned in March when Wright assembled the group to undertake a massive review of scientific findings in a very short period of time, with no public announcement of this effort.

The five authors delivered their final draft by May 28. In the report's preface, the authors wrote, "The short timeline and the technical nature of the material meant that we could not comprehensively review all topics."

Their report argues that carbon-driven warming may be less economically damaging than commonly believed, and that aggressive U.S. climate policies would have little measurable impact on the global climate. It attributes some warming to natural climate cycles or changes in the sun, instead of the burning of fossil fuels, and also claims sea level rise has not been accelerating, contrary to widely accepted scientific evidence. Finally, it highlights the potential benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels for plant growth.





"I would say that it presents an incomplete and misleading picture of how climate change is affecting the United States," said Phil Duffy, chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, who previously worked in the Biden and Obama administrations as a science policy expert.

Duffy and other scientists say the DOE report cherry-picks evidence, misrepresents peer-reviewed research, and ignores the overwhelming consensus that human activity is driving dangerous warming. Numerous climate-based groups and researchers have published their own fact-checks on the report, with one listing more than 100 false or misleading claims made by the authors.

CBS News reached out to the Department of Energy about the criticisms of the report. They responded by referring to Wright's statement in the preface, where he wrote that he chose the panel "for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate."

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, center, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, right, outside the White House on March 19, 2025. / Credit: Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images
"This DOE report is in service of a political goal, it's not credible science," said Ben Santer, a climate researcher and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Santer says his own published work was misrepresented in the DOE report and said the authors "fundamentally twist" the work of many researchers to reach conclusions that "will be used for a political purpose."


Critics in the scientific community have pointed out that the panel's five authors are known for their contrarian views on climate science, which are often at odds with the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.

"The people that were handpicked by the Trump administration's energy secretary are this very small group of people who are known to disagree with that mountain of [scientific] evidence," said Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund. "Some of them have connections to the fossil fuel industry."

Accusations of rewriting science
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas executive, has been vocal about his views on climate change, which align with the report's findings. In an op-ed earlier this year, he called climate change "a by-product of progress," and wrote, "I am willing to take the modest negative trade-off for this legacy of human advancement." He argues that while climate change is real, it is not the greatest threat, and that expanding access to affordable, reliable energy should remain the priority.


Wright has been transparent about how he views U.S. climate research, telling CNN's Kaitlan Collins that the administration is reviewing past federal climate reports, including the National Climate Assessment, and may provide "updates" later this year, leading many in the scientific community to fear the administration is aiming to edit or censor critical research.

"It's important that science be allowed to speak for itself and I do have concerns that that's not happening," Duffy told CBS News.

National Climate Assessments typically take years to write and are authored by hundreds of scientists.

Duffy says that Wright didn't oversee the previous reports and therefore has no authority to review or revise them. "He can't rewrite the National Climate Assessment any more than I can rewrite 'The Great Gatsby,'" Duffy says.

The Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court against the EPA and the Department of Energy, arguing that their actions violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires transparency and balanced membership for government advisory panels. The suit alleges that the Climate Working Group was created in secret, its work withheld from the public, and then its report was used extensively by the EPA, cited 22 times, to justify repealing the Endangerment Finding. The organizations are asking a judge to block the government's use of the report to comply with transparency laws.


When asked about the lawsuit, the EPA responded in an email saying, "As a matter of longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on current or pending litigation," and referred CBS News to the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy did not respond to any of our requests for comment.

Trump administration faces lawsuit over "secret report" on climate change

 

[mandrill]

The ability of former Donald Trump lawyer Alina Habba to remain in her job as acting New Jersey U.S. attorney will face another hurdle next week when a federal judge will rule on arguments for and against the controversial appointee.

According to a report from Politico’s Matt Friedman, a skeptical Judge Matthew Brann, who sits on the bench in Pennsylvania’s Middle District, had Habba’s case drop in his lap and has announced he hopes to rule on Habba’s eligibility on Wednesday while admitting at the same time he expects whatever decision he makes will be appealed by the losing party.





As Friedman notes, “Two criminal defendants in New Jersey — Julien Giraud Jr., who’s facing gun and drug charges, and Cesar Pina, a house-flipping influencer who’s charged with running a Ponzi-like real estate scheme — are challenging Habba’s authority and seeking dismissal of their indictments. Giraud was charged before Habba took office, and Pina after.”

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

Politico is reporting Brann has already questioned the appointment of the controversial Habba by Attorney General Pam Bondi as a “special attorney,” which would permit her to oversee the office for years without the U.S. attorney title.

In July, New Jersey’s district court judges appointed then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace to replace Habba who had yet to be approved by the Senate, only for Bondi to step in and fire Grace and re-hire Habba.




According to Politico, “Brann suggested that maneuver to keep Habba in charge of the office as special attorney would render the law on appointing U.S. attorneys ‘pointless’ since a person could do the job indefinitely without Senate confirmation.”

As the judge explained, “Even if you believe [the law] is ambiguous — and I don’t think it is — going to the legislative history is a death knell.”

You can read more here.

Alina Habba's future as a US attorney facing new hurdle next week: report