The number of assaults on ICE officers was always going to increase. There’s no way it wouldn’t, not when ICE was sending out a task force composed of multiple federal law enforcement agencies daily to multiple locations in the United States, hoping to finally hit the baseline number of 3,000 arrests per day by Stephen Miller.

A massive increase in interactions was bound to result in an increase in alleged assaults. The surprising fact, however, was that the increase was so low. To hear the DHS tell it, ICE officers are being beaten to the ground daily, with spokespeople constantly posting eye-popping stats like a 690% increase in assaults. (Since then, the percentage has increased to nearly 1000%.)

But all that really meant — when the DHS decided to finally be honest about it — was that there had been 69 more assaults this year as compared to last year (79 to 10). And when you have the actual numbers, this supposed “war on ICE” looks more like ICE officers complaining a bit more than they did last year.

Well, ICE officers brought it on themselves. Their insistence on wearing masks, stripping themselves of identifying badges, driving unmarked vehicles, hanging around in courtroom hallways, chasing day laborers across Home Deport parking lots, lurking in rented moving vans, etc. all but ensured there would be the occasional violent reaction to the sudden appearance of masked kidnappers who somehow can’t manage to obtain the occasional judicial warrant.

The DHS is relying on its ever-increasing percentage to sell this skewed narrative. Unfortunately for ICE, DHS, and the DOJ, the narrative isn’t holding up in court. Not only are ICE’s tactics being shut down by federal courts, DOJ prosecutors can’t even sneak bullshit charges past grand juries — entities that are normally extremely receptive of the one-sided presentations made by government lawyers.

Late last month, the DOJ issued a press release touting one of its latest wins: the charging of DC resident Sydney Reid with assaulting ICE officers. DC US attorney, former Fox talking head Jeanine Pirro, made the announcement, using these words to describe what (allegedly) occurred during this so-called altercation:

The FBI agent was assisting two ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers outside the jail when Reid walked up close to the officers and started recording video. After multiple commands to step back, Reid tried to go around the ERO officers, placing herself between FBI agents and one of the suspects being transferred into their custody.

As Reid tried to impede the transfer, one of the ERO officers pushed her against the wall and told her to stop. Reid continued to struggle and fight with the officer. The FBI agent tried to help the officer control Reid who was flailing her arms and kicking. During Reid’s active resistance to being detained, the FBI agent’s hand was injured from striking and scraping the cement wall causing lacerations while the FBI agent was assisting ICE ERO officers.

LOL. Arm “flailing” is apparently assault, especially if an officer manages to injure themselves during the incident. This was enough for the DOJ to move forward with an attempt to secure an indictment from a grand jury. But it couldn’t even do that because the government seemingly isn’t interested in actually proving its case in court — not even in front of a court that only needs to see probable cause, rather than the much higher “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used by criminal courts.

Reid was charged with an enhanced felony assault charge, supposedly due to her “infliction of bodily injury” on the FBI agent who hurt themself while “assisting” ICE in arresting a person who began her interaction by doing nothing more harmful than simply filming them with her phone.

The DOJ has tried to indict Reid twice for this supposed “assault.” It has now failed twice, as WUSA9 reports.

Federal prosecutors twice sought a grand jury indictment against a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE inmate transfer — and were twice rejected, the U.S. Attorney’s Office admitted in court Thursday.

Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey revealed the denials to attorneys for Sydney Lori Reid and later granted their request to remove all bond conditions and release her on her own recognizance over prosecutors’ objections.

I’m sure someone will try to pretend these are the actions of an “activist” judge who shouldn’t be allowed to handle cases brought by this particular administration.

But the details show it’s the government that’s mostly inert, apparently assuming all it has to do is show up in front of a grand jury to obtain an indictment. Almost zero effort was made here, which makes the double-denial completely understandable:

Federal prosecutors declined to call the injured FBI agent or any of the ICE officers involved in the incident during Thursday’s hearing, however. Instead, they had an investigator with the U.S. Attorney’s Office testify about his review of video of the incident and brief conversations with the officers. The investigator, Special Agent Sean Ricardi, said he’d had no involvement in the case until he was asked to prepare for testimony Thursday morning.

When the government says “it’s our word against yours,” that’s generally enough to make people understand they’re already going up against a stacked deck. When the government fails (repeatedly, in recent weeks) to secure indictments even when it’s their word against no one’s, it’s clear the government actually has no case to present.

It would be nice to see a revised percentage from the DHS that only utilizes sustained assault allegations that result in an indictment or conviction. But we’ll never see that sort of honesty from this administration, which relies almost solely on misrepresentations of goddamn everything to push its narratives forward. There’s a war on Americans going on here, led by a super-charged ICE. But all the most powerful people can do is play the victim while trying to bully reality into better alignment with its bullshit narratives.

Another Bullshit ‘Assaulting An ICE Officer’ Case Falls Apart In Front Of A Grand Jury

The number of assaults on ICE officers was always going to increase. There’s no way it wouldn’t, not when ICE was sending out a task force composed of multiple federal law enforcement a…

Experts on U.S.-Mexico relations have told Newsweek that reported plans by the Trump administration for potential military operations against cartels in Mexico would be condemned as an act of aggression that could have disastrous unintended consequences — while also “fundamentally misdiagnosing” how the groups operate.

The reported plans, first revealed by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, are set to be ready for mid-September, and would involve action on Mexican soil at the direction of President Donald Trump.

“Absent Mexican consent, any military action in Mexico will be condemned, I believe justifiably, as an act of aggression in violation of the most basic provision of the UN Charter and customary international law,” Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech School of Law, told Newsweek.

“The U.S. will undoubtedly assert it is acting pursuant to the inherent right of self-defense. But that right is only applicable in response to an actual or imminent armed attack, not on activities of a non-state group that cause harm to the nation, which I believe is the case.”

The increased enforcement action would come after the Trump administration classified select cartels and transnational criminal gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in February. The president has long argued that the U.S. needed to be firmer in how it dealt with the groups, widely seen as the driving force feeding the cross-border drug trade.

Sending a Message

When Newsweek asked the Department of Defense about the report, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon‘s spokesperson, reaffirmed the president’s FTO designation and the belief that the groups are a “direct threat” to national security.

“These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe– that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs,” Parnell said.

Klippenstein’s report is not the first to detail potential military action, however, with the U.S. moving personnel into the seas around Mexico and Latin America in recent weeks.

“On the practical level, we have to clarify what ‘military action’ means. One could think of drone strikes on infrastructure, but fentanyl production and trafficking in Mexico is highly fragmented—small networks, labs inside houses in cities like Culiacán. Drone strikes there would be complicated and dangerous,” David Mora, senior analyst for Mexico at International Crisis Group, told Newsweek Thursday.

“If it were instead a deployment of U.S. troops to capture or eliminate a criminal leader, Trump might sell it as a victory. It would sound good and grab headlines, but it would be an empty victory. History shows that this strategy does not solve drug trafficking or organized crime.

“On the contrary, it increases violence. Even the Department of Justice and the DEA have admitted this.”

Military Action Could Backfire on the Border

When the FTO designation was first signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, policy experts raised concerns about the unintended consequences the move could have, particularly around immigration.

While Trump has all but shut down the southern border with Mexico, one critic said branding cartels as terrorist organizations could lead to stronger claims for asylum – a concern echoed by Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, the head of the North American Observatory at Global Initiative Against Transational Organized Crime.

“It is mutually exclusive from the border and migration objectives the administration has. Evidence shows that violence drives internal displacement,” Farfán-Méndez told Newsweek. “U.S. military action in Mexico, and potential responses by criminal groups in Mexico, could generate displacement of communities.

“As with other episodes of violence and displacement, it is not unthinkable these communities migrate to the border and seek asylum in the US. This prevents the orderly migration process the Trump administration has sought.”

All three experts Newsweek spoke with raised concerns about the viability and constitutionality of making such moves, when cartels have not necessarily carried out a coordinated attack on the U.S. that could be defined as military action that would require like-for-like retaliation.

Farfán-Méndez said she believed there was a misdiagnosis on the part of the White House regarding how criminal gangs operate, explaining that the drug trade was not “three men hiding in the Sierra Madre that you can target and eliminate”, and that there were actors working in concert on both sides of the border.

U.S. Sentencing Commission data for 2024 backed that up, showing 83.5 percent of those sentenced for fentanyl trafficking within the U.S. were American citizens, rather than foreign nationals.

Sheinbaum Could Be Political Victim

The experts also questioned how operations could affect the relationship between the U.S. and its southern neighbor, where President Claudia Sheinbaum has been clear publicly in her efforts to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs across the border while managing her relationship with Washington over other issues like trade.

“Mexico has always had less leverage,” Mora said. “If during Sheinbaum’s government there were any kind of unilateral U.S. action, it would be extremely politically sensitive. In Mexico, any unilateral action is equal to invasion.

“Imagine the slogan: being the president under whom the United States invaded Mexico again. Politically, it would be almost the end for her.”

For the Trump administration, which came into office in January promising strong border security and the end of fentanyl trafficking into the U.S., the likelihood of stronger actions on cartels appears clear, if the methods and strategy are less so.

Parnell told Newsweek that taking action against cartels, at the president’s directive, required a “whole-of-government effort and thorough coordination with regional partners” to eliminate the abilities of cartels to “threaten the territory, safety, and security” of the U.S.

Corn said any use of military force against the cartels would ultimately do more harm than good.

“I think this also is consistent with a trend we are seeing: when you think your best tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail,” the lawyer said. “This administration seems determined to expand the use of military power for all sorts of what it designates as ’emergencies.’ But this is fundamentally not a problem amenable to military attack.”

US military action against Mexican cartels could backfire, experts warn

The Trump administration is reportedly planning for the possibility of military operations south of the border.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-plans-military-action-mexico-cartels-2117318

Within 60 days, the facility must also remove “all generators, gas, sewage, and other waste and waste receptacles,” which calls into question how it would operate.

A federal judge in Miami ruled Thursday that “Alligator Alcatraz,” the contested migrant detention facility in the Florida Everglades, can remain operational for now but that it cannot be expanded and no additional detainees can be brought in.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered a preliminary injunction to prevent the installation of any additional industrial-style lighting and any site expansion. Her ruling further prevents “bringing any additional persons … who were not already being detained at the site at the time of this order.”

The ruling was filed late Thursday, allowing the injunction that was requested over National Environmental Policy Act violations.

Within 60 days, “and once the population attrition allows for safe implementation of this Order,” the facility must also remove “all generators, gas, sewage, and other waste and waste receptacles that were installed to support this project,” the 82-page ruling said.

It must also remove additional lighting that was installed for the detention facility. Light pollution was a hot topic during the hearings this month.

It’s unclear how the facility will remain operational if those resources are removed.

The government must also remove temporary fencing installed to allow Native American tribe members access to the site consistent with the access they had before the facility was erected.

The defense has appealed the ruling, court records show.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to requests for comment. The offices of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Division of Emergency Management also didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Williams’ decision came down the same day a temporary construction freeze she previously issued expired and after a four-day hearing over environmental concerns about the facility’s location in the sensitive wetlands.

Williams had issued a temporary restraining order this month to temporarily halt operations over a lawsuit alleging the detention facility’s construction skirted environmental laws. That ruling meant no filling, paving or installation of additional infrastructure was allowed, but it didn’t affect the center’s immigration enforcement activity.

A ‘major victory’

The environmental groups that sued demanding an injunction celebrated the ruling in a joint statement late Thursday as “a major victory for Florida’s imperiled wildlife and fragile ecosystems which are threatened by the detention center.”

“Today’s decision means the facility must wind down operations in an orderly fashion within 60 days,” the statement said, saying the center posed a threat to the Everglades ecosystem, endangered species, clean water and dark night skies.

“The state and federal government paved over 20 acres of open land, built a parking lot for 1,200 cars and 3,000 detainees, placed miles of fencing and high-intensity lighting on site and moved thousands of detainees and contractors onto land in the heart of the Big Cypress National Preserve, all in flagrant violation of environmental law,” said Paul Schwiep, counsel for Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity. “We proved our case and are pleased that the court has issued a preliminary injunction against this travesty”

Thursday’s “preliminary injunction will remain in place while the lawsuit challenging the detention center is heard,” the statement said.

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida also praised the ruling Thursday.

“This is not our first fight for our land and rights. The Miccosukee Tribe remains steadfast in our commitment to protect our ancestral lands in Big Cypress from development as a permanent detention facility,” Chairman Talbert Cypress said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure that the government does not dodge its legal requirements for environmental review on seized public lands, sacred to our people.”

“When it comes to our homeland, there is no compromise,” he added.

Environmental outcry

Environmental groups and Native Americans had protested the construction of the site, which is part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, because of the Everglades’ delicate and unique ecosystem, which is home to endangered and threatened species.

Environmental groups sued in June to stop the facility, which opened in July on an airstrip in Ochopee’s Big Cypress National Preserve.

The suit said that the center was built without ecological reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act and without public notice or comment and that the government failed to comply with other state and federal statutes, including the Endangered Species Act.

The Trump administration downplayed the environmental concerns and argued that the facility was necessary because voters want the federal government to curb illegal immigration.

Schwiep, the attorney, said in court Aug. 13 that the “suggestion there is no environmental impact is absurd.”

“So why here? There are runways elsewhere. … Why the jetport in this area?” Schweip asked. “Alligator Alcatraz. A name just meant to sound ominous. I would submit, judge, this is just a public relations stunt.”

Significance to Miccosukee Tribe

On Aug. 12, the court heard from Amy Castaneda, director of water resources for the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Castaneda said that she has worked with the tribe for 19 years and that the entrance to the jetport where the facility is built is a quarter-mile from the tribe’s land.

Asked what the Everglades land means to the Miccosukee tribe, she replied, “It’s written into the constitution to protect the Everglades because the Everglades protected them when they were hunted by the government.”

Castaneda said that for nearly two decades, there has been “minimal” activity at the jetport but that that changed after June with the construction of the detention facility.

“There’s much more activity there, vehicles going in and out, cars usually isolated on the southside of Tamiami Trail taking photos with the sign. Tankers, protesters, media, people setting up tents to sell merch for Alligator Alcatraz. Just different levels,” she said.

Castaneda said no one from the federal government, the state or any other governmental entity contacted the tribe about the construction.

She said water resources officials for the tribe have collected samples downstream from the facility to test and determine whether there has been a nutrient shift or potential health concerns.

Marcel Bozas, the director of fish and wildlife for the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, also testified Aug. 12, noting the airstrip is a couple of miles from the tribe’s sites.

While tribal members can’t access the airstrip, some trails are no longer accessible. Asked about the impact of hunting on the land, Bozas said, “Tribal members are concerned the wildlife they could be formerly hunting for are no longer in that area.” There’s also concern that medicinal plants are affected.

Judge rules ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ can stay open for now, but no further detainees or construction are allowed

Within 60 days, the facility must also remove “all generators, gas, sewage, and other waste and waste receptacles,” which calls into question how it would operate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-rules-alligator-alcatraz-florida-no-new-detainees-rcna224550

President Donald Trump’s administration has published the terms of the trade deal with the European Union, but some of the promises Trump claimed were coming didn’t materialize after all, according to one economics expert.

University of Michigan economics and public policy professor Justin Wolfers wrote on X that after perusing the deal, he discovered Trump’s promise of $600 billion being sent to the U.S. from the E.U. isn’t on the list.

“The most important thing is what’s not there. Trump had boasted, ‘They gave me $600 billion, and that’s a gift.’ But guess what? They didn’t. He didn’t get a penny,” wrote Wolfers. “Bottom line: The final text of the EU-US trade deal delivers $5,000 less to the average American household than the handshake agreement Trump boasted of on August 5.”

“I expect there will be soul-searching, an investigation, and recriminations, as the White House explores how its negotiators fell $600 billion short of the deal the president thought he had struck. Resignations seem likely, and a re-think of the entire deal-making apparatus,” Wolfers added.

The deal mapped out on July 28 promised, “The EU will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.”

It explained, “The EU will invest $600 billion in the United States over the course of President Trump’s term. This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion EU companies already invest in the United States every year.”

It appeared again toward the end of the July 28 plan: “The deal bolsters America’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. The EU will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.”

The Aug. 21 deal changes the language significantly, shifting from a commitment to phrases like “make new investments” and “invest,” and now saying things like they’re “expected to invest.”

“In this context, European companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028,” the document says, removing the firm commitment. “This investment reflects the European Union’s strong commitment to the transatlantic partnership and its recognition of the United States as the most secure and innovative destination for foreign investment,” the new deal says.

The deal can be read here.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-eu-trade-deal-resignations

Rodney Taylor, 46, who came to the United States from Liberia at age 2 for medical treatment, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in January and is awaiting a judge’s decision on whether he will be deported.

Newsweek confirmed in the ICE detainee tracker that Taylor is currently held at the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia.

Newsweek reached out to ICE for comment via email on Thursday.

Why It Matters

Taylor’s detention and potential deportation come amid an immigration crackdown under the Trump administration, with the president having pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. However, Taylor was arrested by ICE days before President Donald Trump‘s second term began.

Immigrants residing in the country both illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas, as well as those with criminal histories, have been detained. Many with past convictions, even from decades ago, have found themselves in ICE custody despite spending years without facing serious immigration problems. Some detainees have reported being held in inhumane and harsh conditions.

What To Know

Taylor came to the United States from Liberia as a child on a medical visa after losing both legs, according to Atlanta news station 11Alive. He has never returned to Liberia and was never granted U.S. citizenship.

On January 15, just five days before Trump took office, ICE agents, with guns reportedly drawn, arrested Taylor, his fiancée, Mildred Pierre told Fox 5 Atlanta. Taylor worked as a barber in Gwinnett County and is the father of seven children.

Taylor was arrested for burglary when he was 16, although he was later pardoned by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole in 2010.

“I thought I had a pardon from the state. It was all behind me in the past. They brought it up, and it was shocking to me,” Taylor told Fox 5 from his Stewart Detention Center cell in June. The center is owned by CoreCivic.

11Alive reported that state pardons don’t necessarily apply under federal immigration law, and this one did not meet the necessary thresholds for relief from deportation.

The news station said that Taylor applied for legal permanent status three times, but due to his juvenile conviction, the applications were denied. His family members are U.S. citizens living in America, according to 11Alive.

Pierre told 11Alive this month that Taylor’s August 12 hearing would be his final immigration hearing. Fox 5 reported that earlier this year, Taylor was held without proper medical care, with his prosthetics rubbing against him constantly.

What People Are Saying

Taylor’s fiancée, Mildred Pierre, told Fox 5 Atlanta: “There’s a truck that blocked me from the back, two cars come in the front, guns drawn, ‘Get out the car, get out the car.’ My kids were in the back crying. We didn’t know what was going on. It was like a scene from a movie.”

Sarah Owings, Taylor’s attorney, told Fox 5 Atlanta: “Mr. Taylor has a conviction, that’s true, but it was pardoned. It was pardoned, and moreover, he was only sentenced to probation and time served. He should not be subject to this type of detention. ICE has the ability to release all of them at their discretion.”

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a previous statement shared with Newsweek: “Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump’s and the American people’s mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens to make America safe. Secretary Noem unleashed ICE to target the worst of the worst and carry out the largest deportation operation of criminal aliens in American history.”

What Happens Next

A judge has less than a month to decide whether Taylor will remain in the United States or be deported. His fiancée fears he could die if sent back to Liberia, citing his medical condition and the lack of resources there.

ICE pushes to deport double amputee in US since age 2 after over 40 years

Rodney Taylor has been in ICE detention since the beginning of this year.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-pushes-deport-double-amputee-us-over-40-years-2117336

President Trump is once again demanding that Colorado officials “free” former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters from prison, this time adding a threat to “take harsh measures” if she is not let go.

Why it matters: The remark, made Thursday on his Truth Social platform, is the latest attempt by Trump to intervene on behalf of Peters, one of the nation’s most prominent 2020 election deniers.

What he’s saying: Trump called Peters “a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians” and criticized the state’s mail-in ballot elections.

• He added that Peters, 69, “is an old woman, and very sick.”

Reality check: Federal authorities cannot overturn a state court conviction, raising questions about the premise of Trump’s threat.

Yes, but: The administration could target Colorado by withholding federal funds or pursuing legal action regarding the state’s immigration laws.

Catch up quick: Last October, a Colorado judge sentenced Peters to 8 ½ years and six months in jail after a jury found her guilty on seven of 10 counts related to her role in tampering with county voting equipment after the 2020 election.

• She faced a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
• The Department of Justice announced in March it would review Peters’ case, in particular her sentence, and whether it was “oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice.”

The latest: In July, Peters asked a federal court to free her on bond while she appeals her conviction, arguing that the state is trying to silence her in violation of her First Amendment rights.

• U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak rejected the motion, saying there’s no legal precedent for granting her request.

The other side: Mesa County District Attorney Daniel P. Rubinstein, a Republican who prosecuted Peters, said earlier this year that politics did not play into her case.

• “Ms. Peters was indicted by a grand jury of her peers, and convicted at trial by the jury of her peers that she selected,” Rubinstein told the Associated Press in a statement.

Trump threatens “harsh measures” against Colorado if Tina Peters is not freed from prison

President Trump is once again demanding that Colorado officials “free” the former Mesa County clerk from prison.

https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2025/08/21/trump-threat-colorado-tina-peters

Ed Martin Jr., a top Trump official with the Department of Justice, posted a photo of himself and a colleague to social media Thursday, then quickly deleted it — but not before NPR’s Tom Dreisbach pointed out who the colleague seemed to be.

“It appears @EdMartinDOJ has deleted this post. Here’s a screenshot of what he posted earlier today,” Dreisbach wrote.

Dreisbach continued, “Ed Martin posts a photo of himself with a man who appears to be Jared Wise, a former Jan. 6 defendant who was caught on video urging rioters to ‘kill’ cops. Trump ordered the case against Wise dismissed before the jury reached a verdict, and Wise now works at DOJ.”

Dreisbach included a link to Martin’s original post to show that it no longer exists. Martin gave no reason for deleting the post.

In a story earlier this month, NPR published video of police bodycam displayed at Wise’s trial showing him “berating police officers” by calling them “Nazi” and “Gestapo,” and repeatedly yelling ‘kill ’em!’ as Capitol Police officers were attacked.

Wise was not convicted of any crimes related to the Capitol riot — as Trump, during Wise’s trial, put an end to all Jan. 6 prosecutions. Wise is now a senior adviser for the Department of Justice.

When asked about the video, a DOJ spokesperson told NPR in a statement, “Jared Wise is a valued member of the Justice Department and we appreciate his contributions to our team.”

Martin was an organizer of the “Stop the Steal” movement and defended at least three defendants charged in relation to the Capriol riots.

President Donald Trump withdrew Martin’s nomination to be Washington, D.C.’s top federal prosecutor after receiving pushback from congressional Republicans. He currently holds several roles within the Trump administration, including U.S. pardon attorney, director of the Weaponization Working Group, associate deputy attorney general, and special attorney for mortgage fraud.

Top Trump DOJ Official Deletes Photo of Him Meeting With Colleague — Who Appears to Be a Jan. 6 Rioter Who Urged to ‘Kill’ Cops

The DOJ’s Ed Martin posted to social media — then deleted — a photo of himself and a colleague who was also a Jan. 6 defendant.

The federal judge found that Habba “unlawfully held the role” of the state’s top prosecutor for more than a month.

A federal judge on Thursday found that acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s appointment was “unlawful” and her actions since July as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey may be declared void.

“The Executive branch has perpetuated Alina Habba’s appointment to act as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey through a novel series of legal and personnel moves,” U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote in a 77-page ruling.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann added.

Because the former Trump lawyer is “not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases,” the judge wrote.

Brann said his order is on hold pending appellate proceedings, meaning it will not take immediate effect to allow the Trump administration time to appeal the decision.

In his ruling, Brann cited numerous issues with how Habba was appointed. She was initially named interim U.S. attorney by President Donald Trump on March 24, replacing another person who’d been named interim U.S. attorney three weeks earlier.

Habba was sworn in on March 28, but interim appointments are capped at 120 days. Trump nominated her to be the permanent U.S. attorney on June 30, but the “Senate did not act,” Brann noted.

On July 22, the judges of the District Court of New Jersey invoked their statutory power to appoint a new U.S. attorney — Habba’s deputy.

“Trump Administration officials were not pleased with that appointment,” Brann noted, and “conceived a multi-step maneuver” to keep Habba on the job.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Habba’s successor and appointed Habba as “Special Attorney to the Attorney General” and then named her to the opened deputy spot, which allowed her to become acting U.S. Attorney.

Brann found the moves were improper, and a way to sidestep the Senate’s role in the process. He also found that Habba hadn’t legally been appointed deputy, and that her appointment as interim U.S. attorney expired earlier than the government maintains it did.

The challenge to Habba’s appointment came from two criminal defendants, and the judge found she was disqualified from having any involvement with their cases.

Abbe Lowell and Gerald Krovatin, the attorneys for one of the men, said in a statement that Habba’s “appointment ignored the rules that give legitimacy to the U.S. Attorney’s office. We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming U.S. Attorney appointments.”

The Justice Department and New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Brann, a Republican who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, is chief judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and was specially designated to hear the case.

The ruling comes on a day when Habba scored a huge legal victory dating back to her time representing Trump — an appeals court dismissed the New York attorney general’s $500 million fraud judgment against the president.

Habba, who’d been one of the attorneys on the case, posted about the ruling on X earlier in the day, calling the fraud action against him “politically motivated” and “legally baseless.”

“President Trump won — and justice won with him,” she wrote.

Former Trump lawyer Alina Habba’s appointment as U.S. attorney for New Jersey was ‘unlawful,’ judge rules

The federal judge found that Habba “unlawfully held the role” of the state’s top prosecutor for more than a month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/alina-habba-former-trump-lawyer-new-jersey-us-attorney-unlawful-rcna226417

The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump.

The case contests executive order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday.

Why It Matters

The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.

A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders.

With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity.

What To Know

The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June.

On July 18, the government’s deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22.

According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration’s broader legal strategy.

The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term.

“To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court,” government attorneys wrote.

The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. “This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same,” the motion said.

On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class.

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The constitutional provision says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants.

By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

What People Are Saying

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration’s approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: “Your argument … would turn our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: “So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.”

What Happens Next

If the Trump administration’s request for more time is approved, the government’s deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable.

Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate.

On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma

The Trump administration is seeking a 30-day delay as the DOJ maps the Supreme Court’s path to test birthright citizenship.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-grapples-birthright-citizenship-dilemma-2116126