update - Preservation Trust sues Trump over "illegal" east Wing demolition
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Trump rages 'corrupt' CNN must be sold and has another fiery clash with reporter
President Donald Trump raged against 'corrupt' CNN on Wednesday, saying he'd like to see the cable news network sold as part of a media megadeal.
He then clashed with the network's reporter, telling her she worked for the 'Democrat Party,' continuing his series of spats with female White House journalists.
Trump was hosting a handful of tech leaders in the Roosevelt Room Wednesday afternoon to talk about some of his Trump-branded products - the Trump Gold Card immigration visas - and Trump savings accounts.
The topic shifted to media deals when Trump was asked about son-in-law Jared Kushner's involvement in Paramount's hostile bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN's parent company. He was also questioned about what changes he'd like to see made to CNN, which he's long labeled 'fake news.'
'Well, I'm not involved in that,' Trump answered initially. 'I will be probably involved—maybe involved in the decision. It depends. You have some good companies bidding on it.'
'I think the people that have run CNN for the last long period of time are a disgrace,' the president added.
As he continued, he grew more vehement in his belief that CNN needed new ownership.
'I think CNN should be sold because I think the people that are running CNN right now are either corrupt or incompetent,' Trump said.
President Donald Trump was asked Wednesday about Paramount's hostile bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN's parent company, which could see the cable news network under the control of more Trump-friendly faces
A hostile bid from Paramount–Skydance could place CNN under a company led by David Ellison, a Trump ally who has privately indicated he would shift CNN’s coverage in a more conservative direction, similar to Paramount’s influence on CBS News.
But Trump said he feared that certain deals would lead to CNN being able to 'spend even more money spreading poison.'
'Because it's lies, it's a disgrace,' he complained.
Later during the event, Trump made clear he thought CNN was a partisan entity.
'Has Secretary Hegseth told you why he hasn't released the video of the second strike?' asked CNN's Kristen Holmes.
The White House and the Pentagon have been under fire after the military made a second strike at an alleged Venezuelan drug boat to kill off survivors, a move experts characterized as illegal.
'No, he hasn't told me,' Trump said of Hegseth. 'I thought that issue was dead.'
The Venezuelan boat strike was a top news story last week, but other stories have since eclipsed it.
President Donald Trump (right) told a CNN reporter that she worked for the 'Democrat Party' after she asked a follow-up about the controversial strike on a sinking alleged Venezuelan drug boat
'I'm surprised you're bringing it up,' Trump continued. 'You must be CNN. Are you CNN? Are you CNN?'
Holmes said she was with the network and pointed out that lawmakers are still discussing the boat strike on Capitol Hill.
'Which lawmakers are you talking about? You mean the people that you work for? The Democrats,' Trump insisted. 'You know you work for the Democrats. You're basically an arm of the Democrat Party.'
With that, he dismissed the reporters from the room.
Trump has had several prickly encounters with female reporters in recent weeks, saying 'quiet, quiet piggy,' to a Bloomberg reporter on Air Force One who asked him about Jeffrey Epstein, and calling Politico's Dasha Burns 'dramatic' when she asked about Americans' economic woes.
President Donald Trump raged against 'corrupt' CNN on Wednesday, saying he'd like to see the cable news network sold as part of a media megadeal.
He then clashed with the network's reporter, telling her she worked for the 'Democrat Party,' continuing his series of spats with female White House journalists.
Trump was hosting a handful of tech leaders in the Roosevelt Room Wednesday afternoon to talk about some of his Trump-branded products - the Trump Gold Card immigration visas - and Trump savings accounts.
The topic shifted to media deals when Trump was asked about son-in-law Jared Kushner's involvement in Paramount's hostile bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN's parent company. He was also questioned about what changes he'd like to see made to CNN, which he's long labeled 'fake news.'
'Well, I'm not involved in that,' Trump answered initially. 'I will be probably involved—maybe involved in the decision. It depends. You have some good companies bidding on it.'
'I think the people that have run CNN for the last long period of time are a disgrace,' the president added.
As he continued, he grew more vehement in his belief that CNN needed new ownership.
'I think CNN should be sold because I think the people that are running CNN right now are either corrupt or incompetent,' Trump said.
President Donald Trump was asked Wednesday about Paramount's hostile bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN's parent company, which could see the cable news network under the control of more Trump-friendly faces
A hostile bid from Paramount–Skydance could place CNN under a company led by David Ellison, a Trump ally who has privately indicated he would shift CNN’s coverage in a more conservative direction, similar to Paramount’s influence on CBS News.
But Trump said he feared that certain deals would lead to CNN being able to 'spend even more money spreading poison.'
'Because it's lies, it's a disgrace,' he complained.
Later during the event, Trump made clear he thought CNN was a partisan entity.
'Has Secretary Hegseth told you why he hasn't released the video of the second strike?' asked CNN's Kristen Holmes.
The White House and the Pentagon have been under fire after the military made a second strike at an alleged Venezuelan drug boat to kill off survivors, a move experts characterized as illegal.
'No, he hasn't told me,' Trump said of Hegseth. 'I thought that issue was dead.'
The Venezuelan boat strike was a top news story last week, but other stories have since eclipsed it.
President Donald Trump (right) told a CNN reporter that she worked for the 'Democrat Party' after she asked a follow-up about the controversial strike on a sinking alleged Venezuelan drug boat
'I'm surprised you're bringing it up,' Trump continued. 'You must be CNN. Are you CNN? Are you CNN?'
Holmes said she was with the network and pointed out that lawmakers are still discussing the boat strike on Capitol Hill.
'Which lawmakers are you talking about? You mean the people that you work for? The Democrats,' Trump insisted. 'You know you work for the Democrats. You're basically an arm of the Democrat Party.'
With that, he dismissed the reporters from the room.
Trump has had several prickly encounters with female reporters in recent weeks, saying 'quiet, quiet piggy,' to a Bloomberg reporter on Air Force One who asked him about Jeffrey Epstein, and calling Politico's Dasha Burns 'dramatic' when she asked about Americans' economic woes.
Senate poised to reject extension of health care subsidies as costs rise for many
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is poised on Thursday to reject legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits for millions of Americans, a potentially unceremonious end to a monthslong Democratic effort to prevent the COVID-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.
Despite a bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution. Instead, the Senate is expected to vote on two partisan bills and defeat them both — essentially guaranteeing that many who buy their health insurance on the ACA marketplaces see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.
“It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” said Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has unsuccessfully pushed his Republican colleagues to extend the tax credits for a short time so they can find agreement on the issue next year.
Neither side has seemed interested in compromise.
Democrats who forced a government shutdown for 43 days on the issue have so far not wavered from their proposal to extend the subsidies for three years with none of the new limits that Republicans have suggested. Republicans are offering their own bill that would let the subsidies expire, even as some in the GOP conference, like Tillis, have said they would support an extension. The GOP proposal would create new health savings accounts to replace the tax credits, an idea that Democrats called “dead on arrival.”
The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of President Donald Trump’s nominees.
A small group of moderate Democratic senators crossed the aisle and made a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown last month, raising some hopes for a health care compromise that quickly faded with a lack of real bipartisan talks.
An intractable issue
The votes were also the latest salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.
Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.
“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in November.
Schumer has also been clear that Democrats will not seek compromise.
Thursday’s vote is “the last train out of the station," he said. “What we need to do is prevent premiums from skyrocketing, and only our bill does it,” he said.
The health care shutdown
Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes would be a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.
While most Democratic senators pushed to keep the shutdown going as Republicans refused to negotiate, a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Majority Leader John Thune for a future health care vote, with no guarantee of success, in exchange for their votes to reopen the government.
Maine Sen. Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But he said the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats.
“They’re going to own these increases,” King said of Republicans.
A plethora of plans, but little agreement
Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of Obamacare and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done. The GOP plan that the Senate will vote on Thursday would replace the tax credits with health savings accounts, an overhaul of the law that they say would put the money in the hands of consumers, not insurance companies that currently receive the current subsidies directly.
Thune announced Tuesday that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.
In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.
Moderates in the party who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.
If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.
___
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
Mary Clare Jalonick, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is poised on Thursday to reject legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits for millions of Americans, a potentially unceremonious end to a monthslong Democratic effort to prevent the COVID-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.
Despite a bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution. Instead, the Senate is expected to vote on two partisan bills and defeat them both — essentially guaranteeing that many who buy their health insurance on the ACA marketplaces see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.
“It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” said Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has unsuccessfully pushed his Republican colleagues to extend the tax credits for a short time so they can find agreement on the issue next year.
Neither side has seemed interested in compromise.
Democrats who forced a government shutdown for 43 days on the issue have so far not wavered from their proposal to extend the subsidies for three years with none of the new limits that Republicans have suggested. Republicans are offering their own bill that would let the subsidies expire, even as some in the GOP conference, like Tillis, have said they would support an extension. The GOP proposal would create new health savings accounts to replace the tax credits, an idea that Democrats called “dead on arrival.”
The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of President Donald Trump’s nominees.
A small group of moderate Democratic senators crossed the aisle and made a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown last month, raising some hopes for a health care compromise that quickly faded with a lack of real bipartisan talks.
An intractable issue
The votes were also the latest salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.
Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.
“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in November.
Schumer has also been clear that Democrats will not seek compromise.
Thursday’s vote is “the last train out of the station," he said. “What we need to do is prevent premiums from skyrocketing, and only our bill does it,” he said.
The health care shutdown
Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes would be a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.
While most Democratic senators pushed to keep the shutdown going as Republicans refused to negotiate, a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Majority Leader John Thune for a future health care vote, with no guarantee of success, in exchange for their votes to reopen the government.
Maine Sen. Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But he said the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats.
“They’re going to own these increases,” King said of Republicans.
A plethora of plans, but little agreement
Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of Obamacare and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done. The GOP plan that the Senate will vote on Thursday would replace the tax credits with health savings accounts, an overhaul of the law that they say would put the money in the hands of consumers, not insurance companies that currently receive the current subsidies directly.
Thune announced Tuesday that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.
In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.
Moderates in the party who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.
If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.
___
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
Mary Clare Jalonick, The Associated Press
Republicans threaten early retirement as Trump sinks midterm chances
Republicans in Congress are increasingly breaking with President Donald Trump, with some reportedly looking for the exits as his unpopularity impacts the midterms. According to one Washington insider reporter, a "seismic number" of GOP House members could be set to leave office soon.
Leigh Ann Caldwell, the chief Washington correspondent for Puck News, spoke with Vox on Thursday about the growing unrest in the GOP House caucus. According to their sources, the reports of a larger and larger number of Republicans looking to forgo reelection in 2026 or resign early are real, and that "the scope could be pretty big."
"I’m hearing from Republican sources, lawmakers, aides, and people close to these people who are expecting a lot more retirement announcements in the coming weeks," Caldwell said.
Coming off bruising losses to Democrats in the recent off-year elections, Republicans in Washington are increasingly concerned that the party is set to endure major losses in the 2026 midterms, with the very likely possibility of losing the House majority, as well as the Senate potentially. These losses have been widely interpreted as the result of voter discontent with Trump's economic agenda and his failure to keep costs down, an issue he has seemed uninterested in actually addressing.
"There are so many reasons for it, but the most immediate is the political environment," Caldwell continued. "It’s been a really tough fall for Republicans. They had completely underperformed in those November elections. There was a special election in Tennessee in a very red district that Trump won by 22 points. The Republican who won only won by nine points."
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first major House GOP member to call it quits, announcing that she would leave office in January rather than finish her term. In the fallout of that news, numerous reports surfaced that similar departures were likely, as House GOP members reckoned with the likelihood of a wipeout in the midterms.
"The thing about serving in the House is you get to reevaluate your life every two years, and we’re in that season where people, Republicans especially, are deciding if it’s worth it," Caldwell explained. "And I’m told that many more Republicans are going to say that it’s not."
When pressed about the specific scope of the issue, Caldwell shared one source's estimate that close to 20 Republicans are set to retire soon, which Vox's "Today, Explained" host Astead Herndon called a "seismic number."
"It is. We’re already at 23 Republicans who have announced," Caldwell said. "So it also talks about the mood of the Congress. People are just not happy right now."
Republicans in Congress are increasingly breaking with President Donald Trump, with some reportedly looking for the exits as his unpopularity impacts the midterms. According to one Washington insider reporter, a "seismic number" of GOP House members could be set to leave office soon.
Leigh Ann Caldwell, the chief Washington correspondent for Puck News, spoke with Vox on Thursday about the growing unrest in the GOP House caucus. According to their sources, the reports of a larger and larger number of Republicans looking to forgo reelection in 2026 or resign early are real, and that "the scope could be pretty big."
"I’m hearing from Republican sources, lawmakers, aides, and people close to these people who are expecting a lot more retirement announcements in the coming weeks," Caldwell said.
Coming off bruising losses to Democrats in the recent off-year elections, Republicans in Washington are increasingly concerned that the party is set to endure major losses in the 2026 midterms, with the very likely possibility of losing the House majority, as well as the Senate potentially. These losses have been widely interpreted as the result of voter discontent with Trump's economic agenda and his failure to keep costs down, an issue he has seemed uninterested in actually addressing.
"There are so many reasons for it, but the most immediate is the political environment," Caldwell continued. "It’s been a really tough fall for Republicans. They had completely underperformed in those November elections. There was a special election in Tennessee in a very red district that Trump won by 22 points. The Republican who won only won by nine points."
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first major House GOP member to call it quits, announcing that she would leave office in January rather than finish her term. In the fallout of that news, numerous reports surfaced that similar departures were likely, as House GOP members reckoned with the likelihood of a wipeout in the midterms.
"The thing about serving in the House is you get to reevaluate your life every two years, and we’re in that season where people, Republicans especially, are deciding if it’s worth it," Caldwell explained. "And I’m told that many more Republicans are going to say that it’s not."
When pressed about the specific scope of the issue, Caldwell shared one source's estimate that close to 20 Republicans are set to retire soon, which Vox's "Today, Explained" host Astead Herndon called a "seismic number."
"It is. We’re already at 23 Republicans who have announced," Caldwell said. "So it also talks about the mood of the Congress. People are just not happy right now."
Kilmar Abrego Garcia released from ICE custody after judge’s order
Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a brutal prison in his home country in March, igniting a high-profile legal battle for his return at the center of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda.
Government lawyers admitted he was removed due to a procedural error, and several federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return after his “illegal” arrest.
But the government spent weeks battling court orders for his return while administration officials launched a barrage of public attacks, declaring that he would never again step foot in the country.
He was abruptly returned to the United States in June only to face allegations that he illegally moved other immigrants across the country. He has pleaded not guilty.
Abrego Garcia was released from pretrial detention in that case, but ICE immediately arrested him, again, and relaunched a legal fight to deport him before he could face trial for the charges against him.
Since then, the Trump administration has tried to deport him to at least six different countries, including African nations Eswatini, Ghana, Liberia and Uganda.
Abrego Garcia’s legal team has said he is prepared to leave the country for Costa Rica, an offer that the Trump administration rescinded after he did not agree to its condition that he plead guilty to human smuggling charges.
The offer from Costa Rica to grant Abrego Garcia “residence and refugee status is, and always has been, firm, unwavering, and unconditional,” Xinis wrote Thursday.
In her order, the judge reprimanded administration officials for repeatedly defying court orders and suggested that the government’s “conduct” in his case “belie” arguments that his ongoing ICE detention “has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal.”
The government’s “steadfast refusal to remove him to Costa Rica amid constant threats of removal to a series of African countries that expressed no or limited desire to take him can only be construed as punitive and contrary to the purposes of ICE detention,” she wrote.
Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the order “naked judicial activism.”
“This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” she told The Independent.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, partner at Murray Osorio PLLC and lead counsel on the case, called the ruling a “powerful affirmation that the rule of law still matters.”
“The court made unmistakably clear that the government cannot detain a person indefinitely without legal authority, and that every agency involved must now comply fully and promptly with the court’s directives,” he said in a statement to The Independent.
“We remain hopeful that this marks a turning point for Mr. Abrego Garcia, who has endured more than anyone should ever have to,” he said. “At the same time, we are mindful of the government’s past conduct in this case and will stay vigilant to ensure that nothing undermines the court’s decision.”
The wrongly deported Salvadoran immigrant is separately fighting criminal charges that his attorneys argue were solely brought against him in retaliation for his successful challenge of his immigration case (AP)
Inside El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, Abrego Garcia and dozens of other deportees experienced weeks of “severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture,” attorneys allege.
Upon returning to the United States in June, Abrego Garcia briefly reunited with his wife and U.S. citizen children in Maryland, where he has been living and working as a sheet metal worker since entering the country without legal permission as a teenager in 2012.
An immigration judge in 2019 determined he could not be deported to El Salvador over credible fears of gang violence from a group that targeted his family.
Xinis has granted Abrego Garcia a similar “withholding of removal” order that prevents ICE from immediately deporting him.
Separately, Abrego Garcia is pressing a different federal judge overseeing his criminal case to drop the charges against him, citing vindictive and selective prosecution. His attorneys argue he has been “singled out by the United States government.”
“Rather than fix its mistake and return [him] to the United States, the government fought back at every level of the federal court system,” attorneys wrote in court filings. “And at every level, [he] won. This case results from the government’s concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.”
Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a brutal prison in his home country in March, igniting a high-profile legal battle for his return at the center of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda.
Government lawyers admitted he was removed due to a procedural error, and several federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return after his “illegal” arrest.
But the government spent weeks battling court orders for his return while administration officials launched a barrage of public attacks, declaring that he would never again step foot in the country.
He was abruptly returned to the United States in June only to face allegations that he illegally moved other immigrants across the country. He has pleaded not guilty.
Abrego Garcia was released from pretrial detention in that case, but ICE immediately arrested him, again, and relaunched a legal fight to deport him before he could face trial for the charges against him.
Since then, the Trump administration has tried to deport him to at least six different countries, including African nations Eswatini, Ghana, Liberia and Uganda.
Abrego Garcia’s legal team has said he is prepared to leave the country for Costa Rica, an offer that the Trump administration rescinded after he did not agree to its condition that he plead guilty to human smuggling charges.
The offer from Costa Rica to grant Abrego Garcia “residence and refugee status is, and always has been, firm, unwavering, and unconditional,” Xinis wrote Thursday.
In her order, the judge reprimanded administration officials for repeatedly defying court orders and suggested that the government’s “conduct” in his case “belie” arguments that his ongoing ICE detention “has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal.”
The government’s “steadfast refusal to remove him to Costa Rica amid constant threats of removal to a series of African countries that expressed no or limited desire to take him can only be construed as punitive and contrary to the purposes of ICE detention,” she wrote.
Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the order “naked judicial activism.”
“This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” she told The Independent.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, partner at Murray Osorio PLLC and lead counsel on the case, called the ruling a “powerful affirmation that the rule of law still matters.”
“The court made unmistakably clear that the government cannot detain a person indefinitely without legal authority, and that every agency involved must now comply fully and promptly with the court’s directives,” he said in a statement to The Independent.
“We remain hopeful that this marks a turning point for Mr. Abrego Garcia, who has endured more than anyone should ever have to,” he said. “At the same time, we are mindful of the government’s past conduct in this case and will stay vigilant to ensure that nothing undermines the court’s decision.”
The wrongly deported Salvadoran immigrant is separately fighting criminal charges that his attorneys argue were solely brought against him in retaliation for his successful challenge of his immigration case (AP)
Inside El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, Abrego Garcia and dozens of other deportees experienced weeks of “severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture,” attorneys allege.
Upon returning to the United States in June, Abrego Garcia briefly reunited with his wife and U.S. citizen children in Maryland, where he has been living and working as a sheet metal worker since entering the country without legal permission as a teenager in 2012.
An immigration judge in 2019 determined he could not be deported to El Salvador over credible fears of gang violence from a group that targeted his family.
Xinis has granted Abrego Garcia a similar “withholding of removal” order that prevents ICE from immediately deporting him.
Separately, Abrego Garcia is pressing a different federal judge overseeing his criminal case to drop the charges against him, citing vindictive and selective prosecution. His attorneys argue he has been “singled out by the United States government.”
“Rather than fix its mistake and return [him] to the United States, the government fought back at every level of the federal court system,” attorneys wrote in court filings. “And at every level, [he] won. This case results from the government’s concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.”
Trump DOJ fails — again — to indict New York's Letitia James
President Donald Trump's Justice Department suffered yet another humiliating setback on Thursday, as a grand jury in Virginia refused to return a fraud indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James — the second time this has happened since the original case against her was thrown out.
According to ABC News, "Federal prosecutors on Thursday failed to convince a majority of grand jurors to approve charges that James misled a bank to obtain favorable loan terms on a home mortgage, according to sources. The charges were presented to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia's Alexandria branch after a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, last week rejected the charges."
A federal grand jury rejecting a prosecutor's proposed indictment, also called a "no true bill," is extremely rare, as prosecutors generally get to present their case unchallenged at this stage of a criminal investigation.
The allegations against James stem from Trump's housing finance director, Bill Pulte, who has lodged similar complaints against a number of people who happen to be political critics or opponents of the president.
Pulte is currently under a separate investigation, which is looking at how he obtained that information.
Initially, Trump's acting prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, obtained an indictment against James. That case was thrown out, however, after a federal judge ruled the DOJ had improperly appointed Halligan to the role, which voided the indictment, as only her signature was on the documents.
Despite that loss, Halligan is continuing to serve in the U.S. Attorney's office despite ongoing calls for her resignation.
President Donald Trump's Justice Department suffered yet another humiliating setback on Thursday, as a grand jury in Virginia refused to return a fraud indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James — the second time this has happened since the original case against her was thrown out.
According to ABC News, "Federal prosecutors on Thursday failed to convince a majority of grand jurors to approve charges that James misled a bank to obtain favorable loan terms on a home mortgage, according to sources. The charges were presented to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia's Alexandria branch after a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, last week rejected the charges."
A federal grand jury rejecting a prosecutor's proposed indictment, also called a "no true bill," is extremely rare, as prosecutors generally get to present their case unchallenged at this stage of a criminal investigation.
The allegations against James stem from Trump's housing finance director, Bill Pulte, who has lodged similar complaints against a number of people who happen to be political critics or opponents of the president.
Pulte is currently under a separate investigation, which is looking at how he obtained that information.
Initially, Trump's acting prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, obtained an indictment against James. That case was thrown out, however, after a federal judge ruled the DOJ had improperly appointed Halligan to the role, which voided the indictment, as only her signature was on the documents.
Despite that loss, Halligan is continuing to serve in the U.S. Attorney's office despite ongoing calls for her resignation.
Trump sparks outrage after threatening to defund Indiana over gerrymandered maps
Heritage Action and President Donald Trump are coming under fire after the conservative advocacy organization made a claim that the president threatened to defund the state of Indiana should lawmakers not pass legislation to redraw its congressional district maps.
“President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state,” Heritage Action wrote on social media on Thursday. “Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.”
While President Trump has publicly threatened to support primary challengers against lawmakers who oppose his redistricting push, NCRM has not found any news reports confirming Heritage Action’s assertion. It is possible the group is relying on information that has not been reported or made public.
Should Indiana pass legislation to redistrict, it reportedly could pick up only two more GOP-held seats.
Critics blasted Heritage Action, a sister group to the Heritage Foundation, for appearing to support Trump’s alleged threat, and blasted the president as well.
“The president and one of the most influential conservative groups in the country are threatening to deprive all Indiana residents of paved roads, guard bases, and major projects if they don’t pass an extremely gerrymandered map to deprive voters of choice,” noted Isaac Saul, founder of Tangle News. “Awesome stuff.”
Related video: Indiana Senate Republicans reject new congressional maps in defiance of Trump’s redistricting push (The Canadian Press)
“Heritage sure loves authoritarianism,” remarked Media Matters researcher Zachary Pleat.
Calling it “nonsense,” Joel Griffith, a senior fellow at the conservative group Advancing American Freedom wrote: “Appalling to see @Heritage_Action endorse this unconstitutional threat by @realDonaldTrump. The President does not have power to coerce state legislators to redraw congressional maps.”
Others appeared to aim their ire directly at the president.
“This is the behavior of a madman,” declared Tim Carney, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
“This isn’t conservative. This is fascist,” commented former Republican U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh.
Mother Jones’ D.C. bureau chief David Corn declared the move “dictatorial.”
“This does not sound like an appropriate or legal use of federal authority or presidential discretion,” observed Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias.
“Nothing about this shakedown is conservative,” noted CNN’s Jake Tapper.
Jacob Stewart, the deputy opinion editor for the IndyStar called the move “illegal.”
Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the conservative online magazine The Dispatch, wrote: “I remember when Heritage cared about federalism, the rule of law, separation of powers, and all that stuff. Now it’s all ‘We love Trump’s musk, do what he says (or what Tucker says).'”
“This is called extortion,” wrote former White House correspondent Sam Youngman, also deeming it “illegal.”
“If this comes to pass,” wrote IndyStar columnist James Briggs, “then the story will be that Trump is punishing Indiana citizens for reasons that have nothing to do with them and so-called Indianans will see the punitive measures for what they are.”
Heritage Action and President Donald Trump are coming under fire after the conservative advocacy organization made a claim that the president threatened to defund the state of Indiana should lawmakers not pass legislation to redraw its congressional district maps.
“President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state,” Heritage Action wrote on social media on Thursday. “Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.”
While President Trump has publicly threatened to support primary challengers against lawmakers who oppose his redistricting push, NCRM has not found any news reports confirming Heritage Action’s assertion. It is possible the group is relying on information that has not been reported or made public.
Should Indiana pass legislation to redistrict, it reportedly could pick up only two more GOP-held seats.
Critics blasted Heritage Action, a sister group to the Heritage Foundation, for appearing to support Trump’s alleged threat, and blasted the president as well.
“The president and one of the most influential conservative groups in the country are threatening to deprive all Indiana residents of paved roads, guard bases, and major projects if they don’t pass an extremely gerrymandered map to deprive voters of choice,” noted Isaac Saul, founder of Tangle News. “Awesome stuff.”
Related video: Indiana Senate Republicans reject new congressional maps in defiance of Trump’s redistricting push (The Canadian Press)“Heritage sure loves authoritarianism,” remarked Media Matters researcher Zachary Pleat.
Calling it “nonsense,” Joel Griffith, a senior fellow at the conservative group Advancing American Freedom wrote: “Appalling to see @Heritage_Action endorse this unconstitutional threat by @realDonaldTrump. The President does not have power to coerce state legislators to redraw congressional maps.”
Others appeared to aim their ire directly at the president.
“This is the behavior of a madman,” declared Tim Carney, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
“This isn’t conservative. This is fascist,” commented former Republican U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh.
Mother Jones’ D.C. bureau chief David Corn declared the move “dictatorial.”
“This does not sound like an appropriate or legal use of federal authority or presidential discretion,” observed Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias.
“Nothing about this shakedown is conservative,” noted CNN’s Jake Tapper.
Jacob Stewart, the deputy opinion editor for the IndyStar called the move “illegal.”
Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the conservative online magazine The Dispatch, wrote: “I remember when Heritage cared about federalism, the rule of law, separation of powers, and all that stuff. Now it’s all ‘We love Trump’s musk, do what he says (or what Tucker says).'”
“This is called extortion,” wrote former White House correspondent Sam Youngman, also deeming it “illegal.”
“If this comes to pass,” wrote IndyStar columnist James Briggs, “then the story will be that Trump is punishing Indiana citizens for reasons that have nothing to do with them and so-called Indianans will see the punitive measures for what they are.”
Justice Department again fails to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, AP sources say
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A grand jury declined for a second time in a week to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday in another major blow to the Justice Department's efforts to prosecute the president's political opponents.
The repeated failures amounted to a stunning rebuke of prosecutors' bid to resurrect a criminal case President Donald Trump pressured them to bring, and hinted at a growing public leeriness of the administration's retribution campaign.
A grand jury rejection is an unusual circumstance in any case, but is especially stinging for a Justice Department that has been steadfast in its determination to seek revenge against Trump foes like James and former FBI Director James Comey. On separate occasions, citizens have heard the government’s evidence against James and have come away underwhelmed, unwilling to rubber-stamp what prosecutors have attempted to portray as a clear-cut criminal case.
A judge threw out the original indictments against James and Comey in November, ruling that the prosecutor who presented to the grand jury, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Justice Department asked a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, to return an indictment Thursday after a different grand jury in Norfolk last week refused to do so. The failure to secure an indictment was confirmed by two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to publicly discuss the case and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
It was not immediately clear Thursday whether prosecutors would try for a third time to seek a new indictment. One of the people familiar with the matter said prosecutors were still evaluating next steps and stood behind the charges.
A lawyer for James, who has denied any wrongdoing, said the “unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.”
“This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. "Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”
James, a Democrat who infuriated Trump after his first term with a lawsuit alleging that he built his business empire on lies about his wealth, was initially charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in 2020.
During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise. Rather than using the home as a second residence, prosecutors say James rented it out to a family of three, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.
Both the James and Comey cases were brought shortly after the administration installed Halligan, a former Trump lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney amid public calls from the president to take action against his political opponents.
But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out the cases last month over the unconventional mechanism that the Trump administration employed to appoint Halligan. The judge dismissed them without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to try to file the charges again.
Halligan had been named as a replacement for Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor in the office and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid Trump administration pressure to file charges against both Comey and James. He stepped aside after Trump told reporters he wanted Siebert “out.”
The White House is moving forward with the formal confirmation process for Halligan, and she recently returned her nominee questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which vets all U.S. attorney picks. But her nomination faces significant procedural obstacles.
James’ lawyers separately argued the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish the Trump critic who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and won a staggering judgment in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later tossed out by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.
Comey was separately charged with lying to Congress in 2020. Another federal judge has complicated the Justice Department’s efforts to seek a new indictment against Comey, temporarily barring prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a close Comey friend and Columbia University law professor whom prosecutors see as a central player in any potential case against the former FBI director.
Prosecutors moved Tuesday to quash that order, calling Richman’s request for the return of his files a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution.” They said the judge had overstepped her bounds by ordering Richman’s property returned to him and said the ruling had impeded their ability to proceed with a case against Comey.
_____
Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker and Seung Min Kim in Washington contributed.
Alanna Durkin Richer And Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A grand jury declined for a second time in a week to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday in another major blow to the Justice Department's efforts to prosecute the president's political opponents.
The repeated failures amounted to a stunning rebuke of prosecutors' bid to resurrect a criminal case President Donald Trump pressured them to bring, and hinted at a growing public leeriness of the administration's retribution campaign.
A grand jury rejection is an unusual circumstance in any case, but is especially stinging for a Justice Department that has been steadfast in its determination to seek revenge against Trump foes like James and former FBI Director James Comey. On separate occasions, citizens have heard the government’s evidence against James and have come away underwhelmed, unwilling to rubber-stamp what prosecutors have attempted to portray as a clear-cut criminal case.
A judge threw out the original indictments against James and Comey in November, ruling that the prosecutor who presented to the grand jury, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Justice Department asked a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, to return an indictment Thursday after a different grand jury in Norfolk last week refused to do so. The failure to secure an indictment was confirmed by two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to publicly discuss the case and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
It was not immediately clear Thursday whether prosecutors would try for a third time to seek a new indictment. One of the people familiar with the matter said prosecutors were still evaluating next steps and stood behind the charges.
A lawyer for James, who has denied any wrongdoing, said the “unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.”
“This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. "Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”
James, a Democrat who infuriated Trump after his first term with a lawsuit alleging that he built his business empire on lies about his wealth, was initially charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in 2020.
During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise. Rather than using the home as a second residence, prosecutors say James rented it out to a family of three, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.
Both the James and Comey cases were brought shortly after the administration installed Halligan, a former Trump lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney amid public calls from the president to take action against his political opponents.
But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out the cases last month over the unconventional mechanism that the Trump administration employed to appoint Halligan. The judge dismissed them without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to try to file the charges again.
Halligan had been named as a replacement for Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor in the office and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid Trump administration pressure to file charges against both Comey and James. He stepped aside after Trump told reporters he wanted Siebert “out.”
The White House is moving forward with the formal confirmation process for Halligan, and she recently returned her nominee questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which vets all U.S. attorney picks. But her nomination faces significant procedural obstacles.
James’ lawyers separately argued the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish the Trump critic who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and won a staggering judgment in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later tossed out by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.
Comey was separately charged with lying to Congress in 2020. Another federal judge has complicated the Justice Department’s efforts to seek a new indictment against Comey, temporarily barring prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a close Comey friend and Columbia University law professor whom prosecutors see as a central player in any potential case against the former FBI director.
Prosecutors moved Tuesday to quash that order, calling Richman’s request for the return of his files a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution.” They said the judge had overstepped her bounds by ordering Richman’s property returned to him and said the ruling had impeded their ability to proceed with a case against Comey.
_____
Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker and Seung Min Kim in Washington contributed.
Alanna Durkin Richer And Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press
Trump pardons former Colorado elections clerk, but it alone won't free her from prison
President Donald Trump issued a symbolic pardon for Tina Peters on Thursday, but it alone won't free the former Colorado elections administrator who was convicted under state laws of orchestrating a data breach scheme driven by false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Trump's pardon power does not extend to state crimes like those for which Peters was convicted last year and sentenced to nine years in prison.
“Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest,” Trump said in a social media post that repeated his false claims of election fraud.
Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, was convicted of allowing a man to misuse a security card to access the election system and being deceptive about that person’s identity. The man was affiliated with MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell, a prominent promoter of false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election from Trump.
The pardon underscores Trump’s continued efforts to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general at the time found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. Reviews, recounts and audits of the election in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss also affirmed Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump issued similar symbolic pardons last month for his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and dozens of others charged in state courts with backing his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Peters has been unapologetic about what happened, and her case has become a cause célèbre in the election conspiracy movement. Her allies have for months pressured Trump to try to free her from prison. His administration last month tried to have Peters moved from state to federal prison. State officials oppose the transfer.
A federal magistrate judge on Monday rejected her bid to be released from prison while she appeals her state conviction.
Jonathan J. Cooper, The Associated Press
President Donald Trump issued a symbolic pardon for Tina Peters on Thursday, but it alone won't free the former Colorado elections administrator who was convicted under state laws of orchestrating a data breach scheme driven by false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Trump's pardon power does not extend to state crimes like those for which Peters was convicted last year and sentenced to nine years in prison.
“Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest,” Trump said in a social media post that repeated his false claims of election fraud.
Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, was convicted of allowing a man to misuse a security card to access the election system and being deceptive about that person’s identity. The man was affiliated with MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell, a prominent promoter of false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election from Trump.
The pardon underscores Trump’s continued efforts to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general at the time found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. Reviews, recounts and audits of the election in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss also affirmed Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump issued similar symbolic pardons last month for his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and dozens of others charged in state courts with backing his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Peters has been unapologetic about what happened, and her case has become a cause célèbre in the election conspiracy movement. Her allies have for months pressured Trump to try to free her from prison. His administration last month tried to have Peters moved from state to federal prison. State officials oppose the transfer.
A federal magistrate judge on Monday rejected her bid to be released from prison while she appeals her state conviction.
Jonathan J. Cooper, The Associated Press
Kilmar Abrego Garcia freed from federal immigration detention, his attorney's office says
PHILIPSBURG, Pa. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia was freed from immigration detention on a judge's order Thursday while he fights to stay in the U.S., handing a major victory to the immigrant whose wrongful deportation to a notorious prison in El Salvador made him a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to let Abrego Garcia go immediately, writing that federal authorities had detained him again after his return to the United States without any legal basis.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney’s office confirmed he was released just before 5 p.m., the deadline the judge gave the government for an update on Abrego Garcia’s release. His attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, earlier told The Associated Press that Abrego Garcia plans to return to Maryland, where he has an American wife and child and where he has lived for years after originally immigrating to the U.S. illegally as a teenager.
Abrego Garcia had been held at Moshannon Valley Processing Center about 115 miles (185 kilometers) northeast of Pittsburgh.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said he’s not sure what comes next, but he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.
“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”
The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized the judge's decision and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.
“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”
Abrego Garcia, with an American wife and child, has lived in Maryland for years but entered the U.S. illegally as a teenager. An immigration judge ruled in 2019 that Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family. When he was mistakenly sent there in March, his case became a rallying point for those who oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement actions.
A court later ordered his return to the United States. Since he cannot be removed to El Salvador, ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. His federal suit claims the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish Abrego Garcia for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.
In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” The judge was referencing the successive list of four African countries that officials had sought to remove Abrego Garcia to, seemingly without commitments from those countries, as well as officials' affirmations that Costa Rica withdrew its offer to accept him, a claim later proven untrue.
“But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” the judge wrote.
Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.
Separately, Abrego Garcia is asking an immigration court to reopen his case so he can seek asylum in the United States.
He is also criminally charged in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has asked the federal court to dismiss the case, arguing the prosecution is vindictive. His defense attorney in Tennessee, Sean Hecker, declined to comment.
A judge in that case has ordered an evidentiary hearing after previously finding some evidence that the charges “may be vindictive.” The judge also noted several statements by Trump administration officials that “raise cause for concern,” including a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case. ___
Loller reported from Nashville and Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio. Associated Press reporters Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington and Claudia Lauer in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Travis Loller, John Seewer And Marc Levy, The Associated Press
PHILIPSBURG, Pa. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia was freed from immigration detention on a judge's order Thursday while he fights to stay in the U.S., handing a major victory to the immigrant whose wrongful deportation to a notorious prison in El Salvador made him a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to let Abrego Garcia go immediately, writing that federal authorities had detained him again after his return to the United States without any legal basis.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney’s office confirmed he was released just before 5 p.m., the deadline the judge gave the government for an update on Abrego Garcia’s release. His attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, earlier told The Associated Press that Abrego Garcia plans to return to Maryland, where he has an American wife and child and where he has lived for years after originally immigrating to the U.S. illegally as a teenager.
Abrego Garcia had been held at Moshannon Valley Processing Center about 115 miles (185 kilometers) northeast of Pittsburgh.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said he’s not sure what comes next, but he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.
“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”
The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized the judge's decision and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.
“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”
Abrego Garcia, with an American wife and child, has lived in Maryland for years but entered the U.S. illegally as a teenager. An immigration judge ruled in 2019 that Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family. When he was mistakenly sent there in March, his case became a rallying point for those who oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement actions.
A court later ordered his return to the United States. Since he cannot be removed to El Salvador, ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. His federal suit claims the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish Abrego Garcia for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.
In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” The judge was referencing the successive list of four African countries that officials had sought to remove Abrego Garcia to, seemingly without commitments from those countries, as well as officials' affirmations that Costa Rica withdrew its offer to accept him, a claim later proven untrue.
“But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” the judge wrote.
Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.
Separately, Abrego Garcia is asking an immigration court to reopen his case so he can seek asylum in the United States.
He is also criminally charged in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has asked the federal court to dismiss the case, arguing the prosecution is vindictive. His defense attorney in Tennessee, Sean Hecker, declined to comment.
A judge in that case has ordered an evidentiary hearing after previously finding some evidence that the charges “may be vindictive.” The judge also noted several statements by Trump administration officials that “raise cause for concern,” including a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case. ___
Loller reported from Nashville and Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio. Associated Press reporters Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington and Claudia Lauer in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Travis Loller, John Seewer And Marc Levy, The Associated Press
House votes to nullify Trump order and restore bargaining rights for federal workers
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly two dozen House Republicans joined Democrats Thursday to pass a bill that would restore collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees, an attempt to overturn an executive order that President Donald Trump issued earlier this year.
The measure passed 231-195 after reaching the floor through a bipartisan maneuver that bypassed GOP leadership — a so-called “discharge” tactic that is being used with growing frequency as Republicans seethe over dysfunction in the chamber. The bill still needs Senate approval to become law, but 20 Republicans sided with Democrats in a rare break from the president.
The executive order that Trump issued in March aimed to end collective bargaining for employees of agencies with national security missions across the federal government. He said he had the authority to revoke the rights under a 1978 law.
“Reinstating these rights is not a concession — it is a commitment. A commitment to treat federal workers with dignity, to reinforce a resilient public service, and to honor the commitment of the men and women who show up for the American people every single day,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a co-sponsor of the bill, said on the floor before passage.
Trump's order targeted the union rights of roughly 600,000 of the 800,000 federal workers represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, or AFGE, including those at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense.
The union is challenging those moves in court, arguing they are illegal and retaliatory. In May, an appeals court said the administration could move forward with the executive order while the lawsuit plays out.
In a statement after Thursday's vote, the AFGE said it “extends its deep appreciation to every member of Congress who voted for the bill.” The group's president, Everett Kelley, called it a “seismic victory.”
The bill's approval was also praised by the AFL-CIO, the biggest labor federation in the U.S.
“We commend the Republicans and Democrats who stood with workers and voted to reverse the single largest act of union-busting in American history,” said Liz Shuler, the group's president.
The bill reached the floor through a discharge petition led by Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine. It’s a tactic that has been used with increasingly frequency this Congress due to frustrations with GOP leadership, including in the high-profile push to force release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Any lawmakers can force a vote on legislation if their petition gains 218 signatures, a majority in the 435-member House.
All House Democrats who voted supported the measure to restore the bargaining rights. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries supported the bill, saying on the floor prior to its passage that it would help “public servants who have been targeted viciously by the Trump administration from the very beginning of his time in office.”
While passage in the Republican-held Senate appears unlikely, the vote represented one of the chamber’s first formal rebukes of the president and the flurry of executive orders he has issued during his second term.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Still, most of the Republicans who backed the bill still held back from directly calling out the president. Speaking on the House floor before voting in favor of the bill, New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler said that “earlier this year, an executive order changed the collective bargaining status.”
“Every American deserves a voice in the workplace, and that includes the people who keep our government running and open,” said Lawler.
Of the 20 Republicans who backed the bill, many, including Fitzpatrick, face tough reelections next year. It comes at a time when some Republicans, following Trump's lead, have become more supportive of labor unions, long a key part of the Democratic Party's coalition.
New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who switched parties in Trump's first term, was among the Republicans to support the bill, but told reporters prior to the vote that he wasn't trying to send a message to the president with his vote.
“No message here at all,” said Van Drew. “This is a New Jersey message. I got to take care of my people. And I’ve always been supportive of unions.”
___
Joey Cappelletti, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly two dozen House Republicans joined Democrats Thursday to pass a bill that would restore collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees, an attempt to overturn an executive order that President Donald Trump issued earlier this year.
The measure passed 231-195 after reaching the floor through a bipartisan maneuver that bypassed GOP leadership — a so-called “discharge” tactic that is being used with growing frequency as Republicans seethe over dysfunction in the chamber. The bill still needs Senate approval to become law, but 20 Republicans sided with Democrats in a rare break from the president.
The executive order that Trump issued in March aimed to end collective bargaining for employees of agencies with national security missions across the federal government. He said he had the authority to revoke the rights under a 1978 law.
“Reinstating these rights is not a concession — it is a commitment. A commitment to treat federal workers with dignity, to reinforce a resilient public service, and to honor the commitment of the men and women who show up for the American people every single day,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a co-sponsor of the bill, said on the floor before passage.
Trump's order targeted the union rights of roughly 600,000 of the 800,000 federal workers represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, or AFGE, including those at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense.
The union is challenging those moves in court, arguing they are illegal and retaliatory. In May, an appeals court said the administration could move forward with the executive order while the lawsuit plays out.
In a statement after Thursday's vote, the AFGE said it “extends its deep appreciation to every member of Congress who voted for the bill.” The group's president, Everett Kelley, called it a “seismic victory.”
The bill's approval was also praised by the AFL-CIO, the biggest labor federation in the U.S.
“We commend the Republicans and Democrats who stood with workers and voted to reverse the single largest act of union-busting in American history,” said Liz Shuler, the group's president.
The bill reached the floor through a discharge petition led by Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine. It’s a tactic that has been used with increasingly frequency this Congress due to frustrations with GOP leadership, including in the high-profile push to force release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Any lawmakers can force a vote on legislation if their petition gains 218 signatures, a majority in the 435-member House.
All House Democrats who voted supported the measure to restore the bargaining rights. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries supported the bill, saying on the floor prior to its passage that it would help “public servants who have been targeted viciously by the Trump administration from the very beginning of his time in office.”
While passage in the Republican-held Senate appears unlikely, the vote represented one of the chamber’s first formal rebukes of the president and the flurry of executive orders he has issued during his second term.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Still, most of the Republicans who backed the bill still held back from directly calling out the president. Speaking on the House floor before voting in favor of the bill, New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler said that “earlier this year, an executive order changed the collective bargaining status.”
“Every American deserves a voice in the workplace, and that includes the people who keep our government running and open,” said Lawler.
Of the 20 Republicans who backed the bill, many, including Fitzpatrick, face tough reelections next year. It comes at a time when some Republicans, following Trump's lead, have become more supportive of labor unions, long a key part of the Democratic Party's coalition.
New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who switched parties in Trump's first term, was among the Republicans to support the bill, but told reporters prior to the vote that he wasn't trying to send a message to the president with his vote.
“No message here at all,” said Van Drew. “This is a New Jersey message. I got to take care of my people. And I’ve always been supportive of unions.”
___
Joey Cappelletti, The Associated Press
Kristi Noem busted by Dem lawmaker over fake excuse for fleeing her hearing after grilling
A Florida Democrat punched a hole in the reason Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem gave for abruptly getting up and leaving a House Homeland Security Committee hearing just before another Democrat was poised to ask her five minutes' worth of questions.
Noem, who was accused of committing perjury and threatened with impeachment at various times, suddenly stood up and exited with her entourage just as Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX) began to speak.
After Donald Trump’s appointee left, participants at the hearing were told that she had to get to pre-scheduled FEMA meeting.
However, as Rep. Moskowitz (D-FL) posted on X — the meeting had already been cancelled.
“Noem said she had to go chair the FEMA review council meeting. BUT I’m told that meeting was canceled,” he wrote.
That was backed up by NOTUS reporting, “Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem left a House hearing early on Thursday to attend a meeting about the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, drawing the ire of Democrats in the hearing room. The FEMA Review Council meeting was then abruptly canceled minutes before it was set to begin.”
The report added, “One source inside FEMA said they received a message that the meeting had been postponed until further notice,” while adding “it’s not clear whether Noem had prior knowledge that the FEMA council meeting had been canceled,” despite her overseeing the agency.
A Florida Democrat punched a hole in the reason Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem gave for abruptly getting up and leaving a House Homeland Security Committee hearing just before another Democrat was poised to ask her five minutes' worth of questions.
Noem, who was accused of committing perjury and threatened with impeachment at various times, suddenly stood up and exited with her entourage just as Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX) began to speak.
After Donald Trump’s appointee left, participants at the hearing were told that she had to get to pre-scheduled FEMA meeting.
However, as Rep. Moskowitz (D-FL) posted on X — the meeting had already been cancelled.
“Noem said she had to go chair the FEMA review council meeting. BUT I’m told that meeting was canceled,” he wrote.
That was backed up by NOTUS reporting, “Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem left a House hearing early on Thursday to attend a meeting about the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, drawing the ire of Democrats in the hearing room. The FEMA Review Council meeting was then abruptly canceled minutes before it was set to begin.”
The report added, “One source inside FEMA said they received a message that the meeting had been postponed until further notice,” while adding “it’s not clear whether Noem had prior knowledge that the FEMA council meeting had been canceled,” despite her overseeing the agency.
US citizen arrested by ICE in Minneapolis because he 'looks Somali'
An American man was dragged out of a restaurant, forcibly arrested, and detained for two hours by masked federal immigration officers, according to reports.
The 20-year-old man, who gave MPR News only his first name, Mubashir, moved to the U.S. from Somalia as a child and later became a naturalized citizen.
Mubashir was outside on his lunch break in Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis when he was arrested on Tuesday.
While walking out on the street near 4th Street and Cedar Avenue, Mubashir said he noticed two masked men approach him, to avoid them he went into a nearby restaurant.
The two men followed him inside, dragged him outside, and arrested him. Mubashir was also pushed onto his knees in the snow and put into a chokehold, CBS News reported.
Mubashir began yelling, “I have my ID,” to the officers; however, the agents did not respond.
When he was put into the car, Mubashir was asked if the agents could take his picture.
“I declined, because how will a picture prove I’m a US citizen?” he said.
“I told him, ‘I have my passport, it’s in my phone. Can I open it and show you?’ He declined. I told him ‘can I give you my name and my date of birth?’ He declined.”
Due to Mubashir’s refusal to have his picture taken, he was in the car for almost an hour. The agents also tried to take his fingerprints; however, their machine was not working.
President Trump last week called Rep. Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, 'garbage,' and called for her to be deported (AFP via Getty Images)
Mubashir said the officers drove him to the ICE detention facility at Fort Snelling, a 17-minute drive from where he was arrested. He claimed the officers were lost and did not know their surroundings.
“They kept going back on the same highway. I told them, ‘are you guys lost?; they said, ‘this is our first time taking someone in’. They had their maps out and everything and they were trying to intimidate me,” he said.
Once they arrived, the officers kept him outside until he agreed to have his face scanned; however, like the first machine, the second machine was not working, so he was brought inside.
At the facility, a staff member allowed him to turn on his phone to show his ID, which prompted them to release Mubashir as his parents arrived to pick him up.
The Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, who has been a staunch advocate for the Somali community in his city, said the actions of the ICE agents were unconstitutional.
“What we saw by these ICE agents that clearly did not know what they were doing was violence and unwillingness to hear the simple truth, which he was repeating again and again, which is, ‘I’m an American citizen’,” he said.
“[He was] taken into custody for now reason at all, in clear violation of law and the Constitution of the United State for simply walking down the streeting and looking like he’s Somali.”
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar branded Trump as a national embarassment for his rant against immigrants and Somalis (Getty Images)
President Donald Trump has been stoking tensions against the Somali immigration population, describing the community as “garbage” and saying he does not want them in the country.
Federal agents have also launched a crackdown against Minnesota Somalis, sparking criticism from leaders of the Somali community and democrats, including Frey and Governor Tim Walz.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has also branded Trump as a national embarrassment on X after his rant against immigrants and Somalis.
“He needs serious help,” she wrote. “Since he has no economic policies to tout, he’s resorting to regurgitating bigoted lies instead.
“He continues to be a national embarrassment.”
About 84,000 of the 260,000 Somalis in the country live in the Minneapolis-St. In the Paul area, the overwhelming majority of them are U.S. citizens. Almost 58 per cent were born in the U.S., and 87 per cent of those born elsewhere are naturalized citizens.
A new website launched by the Department of Homeland Security lists at least six Somalis arrested in Minnesota in recent weeks. The site says it is “highlighting the worst of the worst criminal aliens” arrested by ICE to show how agents are “fulfilling President Trump’s promise and carrying out mass deportations.”
An American man was dragged out of a restaurant, forcibly arrested, and detained for two hours by masked federal immigration officers, according to reports.
The 20-year-old man, who gave MPR News only his first name, Mubashir, moved to the U.S. from Somalia as a child and later became a naturalized citizen.
Mubashir was outside on his lunch break in Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis when he was arrested on Tuesday.
While walking out on the street near 4th Street and Cedar Avenue, Mubashir said he noticed two masked men approach him, to avoid them he went into a nearby restaurant.
The two men followed him inside, dragged him outside, and arrested him. Mubashir was also pushed onto his knees in the snow and put into a chokehold, CBS News reported.
Mubashir began yelling, “I have my ID,” to the officers; however, the agents did not respond.
When he was put into the car, Mubashir was asked if the agents could take his picture.
“I declined, because how will a picture prove I’m a US citizen?” he said.
“I told him, ‘I have my passport, it’s in my phone. Can I open it and show you?’ He declined. I told him ‘can I give you my name and my date of birth?’ He declined.”
Due to Mubashir’s refusal to have his picture taken, he was in the car for almost an hour. The agents also tried to take his fingerprints; however, their machine was not working.
President Trump last week called Rep. Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, 'garbage,' and called for her to be deported (AFP via Getty Images)
Mubashir said the officers drove him to the ICE detention facility at Fort Snelling, a 17-minute drive from where he was arrested. He claimed the officers were lost and did not know their surroundings.
“They kept going back on the same highway. I told them, ‘are you guys lost?; they said, ‘this is our first time taking someone in’. They had their maps out and everything and they were trying to intimidate me,” he said.
Once they arrived, the officers kept him outside until he agreed to have his face scanned; however, like the first machine, the second machine was not working, so he was brought inside.
At the facility, a staff member allowed him to turn on his phone to show his ID, which prompted them to release Mubashir as his parents arrived to pick him up.
The Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, who has been a staunch advocate for the Somali community in his city, said the actions of the ICE agents were unconstitutional.
“What we saw by these ICE agents that clearly did not know what they were doing was violence and unwillingness to hear the simple truth, which he was repeating again and again, which is, ‘I’m an American citizen’,” he said.
“[He was] taken into custody for now reason at all, in clear violation of law and the Constitution of the United State for simply walking down the streeting and looking like he’s Somali.”
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar branded Trump as a national embarassment for his rant against immigrants and Somalis (Getty Images)
President Donald Trump has been stoking tensions against the Somali immigration population, describing the community as “garbage” and saying he does not want them in the country.
Federal agents have also launched a crackdown against Minnesota Somalis, sparking criticism from leaders of the Somali community and democrats, including Frey and Governor Tim Walz.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has also branded Trump as a national embarrassment on X after his rant against immigrants and Somalis.
“He needs serious help,” she wrote. “Since he has no economic policies to tout, he’s resorting to regurgitating bigoted lies instead.
“He continues to be a national embarrassment.”
About 84,000 of the 260,000 Somalis in the country live in the Minneapolis-St. In the Paul area, the overwhelming majority of them are U.S. citizens. Almost 58 per cent were born in the U.S., and 87 per cent of those born elsewhere are naturalized citizens.
A new website launched by the Department of Homeland Security lists at least six Somalis arrested in Minnesota in recent weeks. The site says it is “highlighting the worst of the worst criminal aliens” arrested by ICE to show how agents are “fulfilling President Trump’s promise and carrying out mass deportations.”
Trump plans to break up EU by ‘pulling four MAGA allies’ out of bloc
The Trump administration made plans to pull four friendly countries out of the European Union and into America’s orbit in an effort to “Make Europe Great Again”, according to a report.
The 29-page US National Security Strategy (NSS) sent shockwaves around Europe when it was unveiled last week, condemning Washington’s European allies as “weak” and offering support to far-right political parties.
According to Defense One, a longer and unpublished version of the document suggested taking Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland out of the EU and into greater alignment with the US, while backing movements supportive of “traditional European ways of life”.
The four nations were cited as countries the US should “work with more ... with the goal of pulling them away” from the EU, according to the US-based news channel, which claimed to have reviewed the document.
The White House strongly pushed back against the existence of an unabridged version of the report.
Defense One claims that it elaborated on how Donald Trump would like to build Washington’s relationship with ideologically aligned administrations, as the US focuses on domestic priorities.
“We should support parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life … while remaining pro-American,” it said, according to Defense One.
The alleged document is likely to spark further alarm in Europe, just days after the NSS claimed countries such as France and Germany were “decaying” due to migration and stifled economic growth.
White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly refuted the existence of the report, telling Defense One: “No alternative, private, or classified version exists.
“President Trump is transparent and put his signature on one NSS that clearly instructs the U.S. government to execute on his defined principles and priorities.”
The published version of the document also accused Europe of failing to stop the war in Ukraine, claiming that European leaders had let the conflict “keep going on and on”.
The published document accused Europe of failing to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine (Getty)
It said “the Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition”.
The report also claimed that Europe faces “civilisational erasure” – a narrative that aligns with far-right parties. Last week, a former US diplomat told The Independent that the document is “disastrously dumb.”
As Europe is forced to spend more to replenish depleted defence industries, Nato’s secretary general warned on Thursday that the continent should prepare for a war “like our grandparents endured” and boost defence spending to deter Russia.
“I fear that too many are quietly complacent. Too many don’t feel the urgency. And too many believe that time is on our side. It is not. The time for action is now,” he said.
“Allied defence spending and production must rise rapidly. Our armed forces must have what they need to keep us safe.”
The Trump administration made plans to pull four friendly countries out of the European Union and into America’s orbit in an effort to “Make Europe Great Again”, according to a report.
The 29-page US National Security Strategy (NSS) sent shockwaves around Europe when it was unveiled last week, condemning Washington’s European allies as “weak” and offering support to far-right political parties.
According to Defense One, a longer and unpublished version of the document suggested taking Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland out of the EU and into greater alignment with the US, while backing movements supportive of “traditional European ways of life”.
The four nations were cited as countries the US should “work with more ... with the goal of pulling them away” from the EU, according to the US-based news channel, which claimed to have reviewed the document.
The White House strongly pushed back against the existence of an unabridged version of the report.
Defense One claims that it elaborated on how Donald Trump would like to build Washington’s relationship with ideologically aligned administrations, as the US focuses on domestic priorities.
“We should support parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life … while remaining pro-American,” it said, according to Defense One.
The alleged document is likely to spark further alarm in Europe, just days after the NSS claimed countries such as France and Germany were “decaying” due to migration and stifled economic growth.
White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly refuted the existence of the report, telling Defense One: “No alternative, private, or classified version exists.
“President Trump is transparent and put his signature on one NSS that clearly instructs the U.S. government to execute on his defined principles and priorities.”
The published version of the document also accused Europe of failing to stop the war in Ukraine, claiming that European leaders had let the conflict “keep going on and on”.
The published document accused Europe of failing to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine (Getty)
It said “the Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition”.
The report also claimed that Europe faces “civilisational erasure” – a narrative that aligns with far-right parties. Last week, a former US diplomat told The Independent that the document is “disastrously dumb.”
As Europe is forced to spend more to replenish depleted defence industries, Nato’s secretary general warned on Thursday that the continent should prepare for a war “like our grandparents endured” and boost defence spending to deter Russia.
“I fear that too many are quietly complacent. Too many don’t feel the urgency. And too many believe that time is on our side. It is not. The time for action is now,” he said.
“Allied defence spending and production must rise rapidly. Our armed forces must have what they need to keep us safe.”
Why did Finland and Sweden join NATO?
Wasnt it because the bear invaded?
Wasnt it because the bear invaded?
They actually said they felt they could spend less with the USA defending them.
