U.S. District Judge Richard Berman has denied the Justice Department (DOJ)’s third request to release grand jury transcripts in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case, citing safety concerns and unmet legal criteria. President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have expressed frustration over the perceived lack of transparency. The DOJ is withholding roughly 100,000 pages of evidence on Epstein.
Release them, all 100,000 pages of them!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/clinton-appointed-judge-rejects-epstein-motion/ss-AA1Lz7CM
The Justice Department is in turmoil as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to penalize sanctuary cities, prompting multiple resignations among senior attorneys who say they were sidelined in the enforcement push.
Since January 2025, the administration has rolled out a series of executive actions aimed at jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Executive Order 14287, signed in April, requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) to identify and pursue legal remedies against non-compliant cities. Meanwhile, the “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” order emphasizes enforcement against individuals unlawfully present in the U.S., with a focus on public safety threats.
Officials within the DOJ say the administration has sidelined career attorneys and replaced them with political appointees, prompting several high-level resignations. Critics describe the reshuffling as a political purge rather than a legitimate enforcement initiative.
Legal challenges from sanctuary cities are already underway. Courts in Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles have issued preliminary injunctions blocking attempts to withhold federal funding. The administration has signaled its intent to appeal, keeping the battles over federal authority versus local jurisdiction unresolved.
Despite the legal pushback, the administration is moving forward with enforcement operations. DHS plans to deploy hundreds of officers to cities like Chicago as part of a crackdown targeting sanctuary jurisdictions, focusing on individuals unlawfully present in the U.S., particularly those involved in criminal activity.
The developments highlight the administration’s aggressive posture on immigration, the tensions between federal and local governments, and internal strains within the DOJ as political priorities collide with career enforcement norms.
https://www.salon.com/2025/08/30/trumps-doj-power-play-on-sanctuary-cities-fuels-resignations
Kilmar Abrego Garcia has spent the past several months on an involuntary tour of detention centers at home and abroad. Back in March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement picked up the Maryland dad and took him to immigration detention facilities in Louisiana and then Texas before the U.S. government flew him to the notorious Salvadoran megaprison CECOT—which Trump administration officials have admitted was a mistake.
Months after a federal judge ordered him returned to the U.S., he was brought back in June and immediately taken into criminal custody in Tennessee before he was once again ordered released, at which point he was swiftly put back into ICE custody and shuttled to a facility in Virginia. Over the course of a few months, Abrego Garcia has been in at least three immigration detention facilities, one criminal facility, and a foreign gulag entirely unauthorized to receive U.S. detainees, all while the government has failed at every attempt to establish a clear legal basis for his detention. It is effectively ferrying him from one type of custody to another only when it skirts close to being in open contempt of court.
According to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, he was offered a plea deal for the thin trafficking charge federal prosecutors are pursuing against him with the promise that he would then be deported to Costa Rica; if he refused, federal authorities would instead send him to Uganda, a country he’s never been to. That’s exactly what Trump officials then moved to do before the same federal judge ruled that he could not be deported until at least early October while she considered the legality of their deportation efforts; in the interim, Abrego García is renewing his application for asylum. This is the first time in a decade of covering immigration that I can recall the explicit use of a removal location as a cudgel to gain compliance, especially in a separate criminal matter.
It’s easy to lump this odyssey in with the rest of the Trump-era immigration enforcement spectacle, but I’d argue that it is more of an avatar for the collapse of various systems into an all-encompassing expression of government power. Lawyers, journalists, and researchers have long used the term crimmigration to refer to the interplay between the criminal and civil immigration systems—how a criminal charge can trigger immigration consequences, for example. Still, due process generally demands some independence between the processes; except where explicitly laid out in law, you shouldn’t be able to bundle them together, in the same way that it would be obviously improper to, say, threaten someone with a tax investigation unless they plead guilty to unrelated charges.
Yet since the beginning of Abrego Garcia’s ordeal, the government has been trying to make his case about essentially whatever will stick, flattening the immigration and criminal aspects into one sustained character attack. It attempted to justify his deportation by tarring him as a gang member, an accusation that was based on comically flimsy evidence and which the government never tried to escalate to proving in court. Per internal Department of Justice whistleblower emails, officials desperately cast about for scraps of evidence to paint him as a hardened MS-13 leader and basically struck out.
After a federal judge ordered that he be brought back, the Justice Department devoted significant resources to retroactively drumming up charges over a three-year-old incident that police didn’t act on at the time, in which the government’s main witness, unlike Abergo Garcia, is a convicted felon. It is so flimsy that his lawyers are pursuing the rare defense of vindictive prosecution, pointing out the obvious fact that the criminal charge was ginned up as punishment and PR in itself.
It’s not that the specific contours of the legal cases are immaterial or that we shouldn’t pay attention to the arguments and evidence that the administration is trotting out (or, as the case may be, attempting to manufacture). These things all create precedent and they signal what the administration is willing to do and how judges can or will exercise their power. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the specifics of the immigration and criminal cases are effectively beyond the point, and this is all really about bringing the awesome weight of the government down to bear on a designated enemy.
The administration is attempting to create a situation where Abrego Garcia cannot actually win, even if he does ultimately succeed in his immigration and criminal cases. His life has become untenable despite the fact that the administration has, despite dedicating significant resources to the search, failed to produce any conclusive evidence that he is a public danger or a criminal or really anything but the normal “Maryland man” descriptor that they’ve taken such issue with. This is an effort to demonstrate to everyone the Trump administration might consider an enemy that it has both the will and capacity to destroy their lives by a thousand cuts.
Abrego Garcia is perhaps the most acute example because he sits at the intersection of an array of vulnerabilities: he is a noncitizen without clear-cut legal status, is not wealthy, has had criminal justice contact in the past, and is a Latino man, a demographic that right-wing figures have spent years trying to paint as inherently dangerous. Each of these characteristics provides a certain amount of surface area for the government to hook onto in order to punish him for the offense of making them look bad through the self-admitted error of deporting him illegally.
This is unforgivable for reasons that go beyond ego or malice; as Trump and officials like Stephen Miller move to tighten their authoritarian grip in areas of political opposition, they’re relying partly on might but also partly on a sense of infallibility and inevitability. To put in court documents that they erred in removing this one man to one of the most hellish places on Earth is, in their view, to call the entire legitimacy of their enterprise into question, and that cannot stand.
It is more useful to look at Abrego Garcia’s case as the ultimate extrapolation of this strategy, which is being deployed to various extents against administration opponents like, for example, Federal Reserve board governor Lisa Cook. Trump is attempting to fire her ostensibly over allegations of mortgage fraud, though the administration itself is barely even pretending that this is anything but the easiest and quickest entry point they could find to come after an ideological opponent, or at least a potential obstacle. If Cook had had some hypothetical immigration issue, the administration would almost certainly have latched onto that instead. It’s all a means to an end.
The Justice Department plans to scrap longstanding rules and qualifications for immigration judges and create a new policy where it can appoint any lawyer it wants to temporarily preside over cases, reported Government Executive on Wednesday.
“The change gives Attorney General Pam Bondi wide latitude in selecting officials to oversee asylum and other cases pending before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that runs the nation’s immigration courts,” said the report. “That authority could provide President Trump with additional power to withhold legal status from immigrants and expedite his mass deportation efforts.”
Immigration judges are different from typical so-called “Article III” judges, like the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and district courts, who are constitutional officers appointed for life; they are instead “Article I” judges who were authorized by Congress to serve at the pleasure of the presidential administration and hear narrow types of subject matter issues.
“Since 2014, the department has allowed only former immigration judges, administrative law judges from other agencies or Justice attorneys with at least 10 years of experience related to immigration law to serve as temporary immigration judges, or TIJs,” said the report. “In its update, to be issued Thursday as a final rule, EOIR called those parameters overly restrictive, noting it has hired fewer than a dozen temporary judges since the Obama administration put them into place.”
The shortage of immigration judges available to hear cases has been a contentious issue for years, and was part of the reason for the massive backlog of cases for the surge of migrants in the years prior to the Trump administration.
A bipartisan immigration deal cut in the final years of the Biden administration would have established more funding for immigration courts to operate on an expedited basis; however, Trump worked behind the scenes to tank the deal among Republican lawmakers.
President Donald Trump is taking a much more direct, hands-on approach to governing in his second term compared to his first four years in the White House, according to a new report.
In a Wednesday article, the Wall Street Journal’s Josh Dawsey and Annie Linskey reported that the second Trump administration is moving with a decidedly faster tempo given that there are far fewer people in the Trump White House today who are willing to rein in his most impulsive decision-making. This has led to Trump making numerous unprecedented moves, including his attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors and teeing up a showdown with the Supreme Court — something that has never been done in the Fed’s 112-year history.
Despite his status as a term-limited commander-in-chief constrained by the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution from running for another four years, Trump nonetheless keeps “Trump 2028” campaign hats on display in the Oval Office and shows them off to visitors. Earlier this week, he toyed with the idea of being a “dictator,” saying that while some unnamed “people” had told him that they might “like” to have a dictator, he didn’t like dictators and refused to describe himself as such (Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he would be a dictator, “but only on Day One.”)
The Journal reported that Trump is more “in the weeds” in the day-to-day operations of federal agencies, ordering his Cabinet secretaries to make certain hiring and firing decisions and floating various ideas. He also reportedly spends much more time at the White House, “blaring music with doors of the Oval Office open, working later into the evening and telling his advisers that he is having fun.”
This is a sharp contrast to his first term, where he was dogged by multiple investigations like former DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump also lamented about his treatment at the hands of the Federal Reserve and the Kennedy Center after his first election. Trump has since commandeered the Kennedy Center and installed himself as chairman, with little to no pushback from his inner circle. Even his chief of staff, Susie Wiles (who managed his 2024 campaign), has taken a more lenient approach to her boss, insisting that her role is to manage the staff rather than the president.
According to Douglas Brinkley, who is a presidential historian at Rice University, Trump’s ultimate goal is “having control over all American institutions, adding: “He seems to want to grab everyone by the neck and say ‘I’m in charge.’”
“I think he’s learned there is not much that can really stop him from what he wants,” Marc Short, who was Trump’s first-term director of legislative affairs, told the Journal.
Homan Pledges to Remove Alleged Gang Member with ‘Significant Public Safety Threat’
Border Czar Tom Homan has vowed to deport Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant with a documented criminal past, despite a U.S. District Judge’s recent order to keep him in the country.
Appearing on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Homan called Abrego Garcia a “significant public safety threat,” citing his alleged status as a gang member, a “designated terrorist,” and his past indictment for human trafficking and alien smuggling.
Homan’s statement comes after an Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge, Paula Xinis, temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Judge Xinis ordered that he remain in the U.S. until an evidentiary hearing could be held.
During the interview, Homan expressed confidence that Abrego Garcia would be deported, stating, “I’m giving you my word. He will be deported from this country. I got my teeth in this thing. I’m not letting it go.”
The case has been a point of contention between the Trump administration and some Democrats, including Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has previously advocated for Abrego Garcia.
Documents released by the Department of Justice in April showed evidence of Abrego Garcia’s alleged MS-13 ties dating back to 2019. Despite these allegations and past domestic abuse accusations from his wife, Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. in June to face human smuggling charges.
Homan dismissed the possibility of Abrego Garcia’s asylum claim, arguing that he is “beyond the required one year” and that his case lacks the necessary evidence of persecution to qualify under asylum law.
He maintains that if the judge “rules on the law,” Abrego Garcia” is gone.”
