Tag Archives: Department of Justice

Newsweek: Medicaid cuts: Judge backs Trump administration move

Posted on by
Reply

A network of family planning clinics in Maine will remain without Medicaid funding as it challenges Trump administration restrictions on abortion providers, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The decision leaves Maine Family Planning unable to access reimbursements that support thousands of low-income patients during the course of its lawsuit.

Why It Matters

The cuts stem from President Donald Trump‘s flagship congressional reconciliation package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which barred Medicaid dollars from going to Planned Parenthood.

But the law’s cuts weren’t limited to Planned Parenthood, which is the nation’s largest reproductive health care provider.

Smaller organizations, like Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics in the state, were also swept up in the cuts. The group provides affordable reproductive health care, primary care and other services to people across Maine, which is one of the poorest and most rural states in the Northeast.

What To Know

Maine Family Planning argued that the Trump administration’s cuts unfairly targeted its operations even though Medicaid funds do not cover abortion care, which makes up only a fraction of its services.

“It’s unfair to cut off funding for the clinics solely because Congress wanted to defund Planned Parenthood,” an attorney for the provider told the court earlier this month.

But U.S. District Judge Lance Walker, who was appointed by Trump in 2018, ruled that Medicaid payments will not resume while the case is ongoing.

His decision came despite a ruling last month by another federal judge requiring that Planned Parenthood clinics across the U.S. continue receiving Medicaid reimbursements while their legal fight with the Trump administration plays out.

That court battle is still underway.

Earlier this month, Emily Hall, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, defended the administration’s cuts in court, telling Walker that Congress has the authority to withhold funds from abortion providers, even when they provide other health care services.

“The rational basis is not simply to reduce the number of abortions, it’s to ensure the federal government is not paying out money to organizations that provide abortions,” Hall said.

Supporters of Maine Family Planning, meanwhile, emphasize that its clinics deliver essential care far beyond abortion. Services include contraception, cervical cancer screenings and primary care for roughly 8,000 low-income patients statewide. Losing Medicaid reimbursements, they argue, would devastate access to affordable health care.

The impact is “nothing short of catastrophic,” Meetra Mehdizadeh, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in court earlier this month.

The network previously warned that without Medicaid dollars, it could be forced to halt primary care services by the end of October.

While the Trump administration’s push centered on defunding Planned Parenthood, the bill avoided naming the organization directly. Instead, it barred reimbursements to providers primarily engaged in family planning services that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

Maine Family Planning argues the threshold was lowered specifically to ensure the cuts extended beyond Planned Parenthood, making it the only other organization so far to acknowledge its funding is at risk.

What People Are Saying

George Hill, the president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said in a statement to Newsweek: “This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care. The loss of Medicaid funds—which nearly half our patients rely on—threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement provided to Newsweek: “This ruling means that thousands of Mainers across the state may lose access to their trusted health provider for essential health care services, including cancer screenings, birth control, and primary care at Maine Family Planning.

She added, “The Trump Administration and Congress would rather topple a statewide health safety network than let low-income patients receive a cancer screening at a clinic that also offers abortions. This ruling takes a sledgehammer to an already overstretched health care network, and Mainers statewide will feel the effects of defunding Maine Family Planning, regardless of their insurance status.”

Medicaid cuts: Judge backs Trump administration move
A Trump-appointed judge delivered a legal win for the White House when he ruled against a network of Maine family planning clinics.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-judge-medicaid-abortion-providers-maine-2118945

Independent: They donated millions to Trump — now, ICE detention providers are reaping the rewards

Posted on by
Reply

Private contractors run many of ICE’s largest detention facilities. Now, with a push to deport more and more immigrants, these companies stand to win big under Trump.

Two issues here:

  1. Congress must have the power to regulate and/or ban campaign activity by corporations and PACS. This will require a constitutional amendment.
  2. We need to stop the expansion of detention facilities for immigrants.

For many workers or organizations reliant on the federal government, President Donald Trump’s return to office has meant jobs, funding and entire agencies slashed, as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) claims to have cut $202 billion.

But one industry has seen exponential growth — and expects even more to come: immigration detention.

“Private prison companies have been so giddy since last November, about the prospect of making billions of dollars at the expense of every American,” Stacy Suh, director at Detention Watch Network, told The Independent.

And the companies made sure to help Trump get elected.

America’s two leading detention companies, Geo Group and CoreCivic, were among the Trump campaign’s most notable donors last year, with executives and subsidiaries donating a total of $2.7 million to the president’s campaign and associated political action committees.

CoreCivic even bestowed over $500,000 towards Trump’s inauguration this year, while Geo Group contributed to his 2016 inauguration fund.

Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill set aside an unprecedented$45 billion for ICE to boost immigration detention. As the two largest detention powerhouses in the U.S., both Geo Group and CoreCivic stand to win big.

As soon as Trump won the election last November, CoreCivic’s share price saw a huge spike, nearly doubling from $13.63 per share to $22.13 per share in just one week.

GeoGroup’s share price jumped from $15.13 to $25.05 in the same post-election period.

This is likely because the privately-run facilities house 86 percent of the detained immigrant population, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Yet just 6 percent of Americans believe that ICE detention centers should be run privately, an exclusive poll for The Independent can reveal, with the majority saying facilities should be run by federal or state governments, according to Prolific.

Over 60,000 people are currently held in immigration detention across the U.S., according to ICE records seen by The New York Times.

That number has already jumped by 54 percent since Trump’s return, with average detention populations under the Biden administration around 39,000, according to TRAC.

But though the government may determine their future, the 20 largest ICE detention centers are all operated by private companies, according to TRAC’s data in January.

GeoGroup and CoreCivic are the leading operators, both in terms of facilities operated and their capacity. Other private firms, like Lasalle Corrections and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), also have contracts to run ICE facilities.

CoreCivic runs the biggest detention centre in the country — Adams County Correctional Facility in Natchez, Missouri, with over 2,100 detainees on average each day. The new federal facility at Fort Bliss may soon take the cake, however, with a capacity of 5,000 people.

Both CoreCivic and GeoGroup provide both traditional prison incarceration services, and immigration detention services, to federal and state governments.

But with a slowdown in incarceration and greater focus on rehabilitation in recent years, prison contracts have been drying up — and increased immigration detention contracts has become more foundational to their business models.

One of Trump’s first actions in office was also to end the Biden-era ban on private prison providers, allowing companies like GeoGroup and CoreCivic to once again contract with the Department of Justice.

When asked for comment about its reliance on punitive policies by the new administration to build its business, CoreCivic noted that it does not enforce immigration laws, or arrest anyone, or have any say over an individual’s deportation — but it acknowledged that Trump’s policies does provide it with growth opportunities.

“As the current administration is exploring all options available to them to address the increasing demand for detention services and capacity, we expect that those options will include the high-quality solutions CoreCivic provides,” Ryan Gustin, director of Public Affairs at CoreCivic, told The Independent.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for GeoGroup told The Independent that “simply put, our facilities are never overcrowded.”

But Freedom of Information Act requests by TRAC last month revealed that several facilities run by GeoGroup were significantly overcapacity on at least one day this year.

This includes GeoGroup’s Pine Prairie processing centre in Louisiana, which has a contractual maximum of 500 people but held 1,311 detainees at some point in 2025.

Immigration operations make up over a third of revenue for both Geo Group and Core Civic, latest financial reports show, making ICE their largest governmental partner.

“We are proud of the role our company has played for 40 years to support [ICE’s] law enforcement mission, over seven different Presidential Administrations,” a GEO Group spokesperson told The Independent.

Geo Group has been awarded nearly $8 billion in federal contracts over successive governments, according to the federal database, in addition to state contracts.

Over half of this ($4.4 billion) was awarded by ICE for immigration detention services.

Meanwhile CoreCivic has been awarded over $8.3 billion in federal contracts over time, with a quarter ($2 billion) of those being ICE contracts to run detention facilities.

“ICE’s budget now is larger than many militaries around the world, while our hospitals and schools remain underfunded, and people are losing their access to health care and food benefits,” said Suh.

The Independent contacted ICE for comment for this article but did not get a response.

Federal contracts from ICE have been steadily increasing since Trump’s first term (with for a brief time during the peak of the pandemic), according to the federal spending database, rising from $137.5 million awarded in 2016 to $463.4 million in 2025 so far.

ICE contracts awarded since January alone include $353.5 million to GeoGroup, $148 million to CoreCivic, and $313 million to CSI Aviation — ICE’s deportation flight contractor.

“There is more and more incentivization to cage people in immigration detention. The more people that they detain, the more their business grows,” Suh said. “Financial Incentives are really the bedrock of incarceration.”

And now, documents seen by The Washington Post reveal that ICE is planning to more than double detention capacity, from around 50,000 to more than 107,000 by January 2026.

These plans include opening or expanding 125 facilities before the end of the year – with over $1 billion in contracts each year between CoreCivic and GeoGroup, according to the Post’s analysis of ICE documents.

Already, both detention giants have seen a flood of new or amendedcontracts and have opened up new facilities to expand their capacity.

What’s more, ICE has issued nine of these contracts without allowing competitive bids, citing a national emergency at the Mexico border — meaning that CoreCivic secured the deal to reopen its contentiousLeavenworth facility without competition, according to PBS.

“We stay in regular contact with ICE and all our government partners to understand their changing needs, and we work within their established procurement processes. It is our policy to respect these processes,” Gustin told The Independent of CoreCivic’s contracts.

Since January alone, several facilities have been opened up to hold more immigrants in detention as ICE ramps up its raids.

In the Michigan town of Baldwin, former prison North Lake Correctional Facility has now reopened as an immigration center operated by Geo Group, to the tune of $70 million in annual revenue. The 1,800-bed facility opened in June despite facing significant pushback from residents and local protests.

And just last week, a tense dispute broke out at a local board meeting in Mason, Tennessee, over the reopening of a CoreCivic facility as an immigration detention center. Residents crowded the meeting and chanted outside in protest of the contract, which was ultimately approved, according to reports in the Tennessee Lookout.

“If ICE expansion plans are fully realized, that’s a massive shift in resources. It’s also a massive transformation in the very fabric of American society and how it operates,” Suh told The Independent.

“Communities across the country are rightly outraged about detention expansion happening on their doorstep. People are saying, ‘No, we don’t want detention in our community. We don’t want our neighbors to be torn apart away from their loved ones’.”

They donated millions to Trump, now ICE detention providers are reaping the rewards
Private contractors run many of ICE’s largest detention facilities. Now, with a push to deport more and more immigrants, these companies stand to win big under Trump. Alicja Hagopian reports.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-donors-ice-immigration-detention-private-funding-b2812474.html

Knewz: Trump admin fires former FBI boss who protected January 6 agents

Posted on by
Reply

The FBI is firing Brian Driscoll, the former acting director who led the bureau at the start of President Donald Trump‘s administration and notably refused to hand over a list of agents involved in January 6 investigations. A source familiar with the matter confirmed to The Hill that Driscoll, who had returned to a career post within the bureau, has been asked to leave.

Driscoll earned a reputation as a strong protector of FBI agents. While leading the bureau, he stood firm against demands to release a roster of thousands of agents involved in January 6 investigations. Many FBI employees opposed the list’s disclosure, fearing it could expose them to harassment or retaliation, which even led to a lawsuit challenging the request.

In a final message to staff shared on LinkedIn by a former FBI employee, Driscoll said he was not given a reason for his removal. “Last night I was informed that tomorrow will be my last day in the FBI. I understand that you may have a lot of questions regarding why, for which I currently have no answers. No cause has been articulated at this time,” he wrote. “Please know that it has been the honor of my life to serve alongside each of you. Thank you for allowing me to stand on your shoulders throughout it all. Our collective sacrifices for those we serve is, and will always be, worth it. I regret nothing. You are my heroes, and I remain in your debt.”

Driscoll’s departure appears to be just one piece of a larger shake-up at the FBI. Sources say Steve Jensen, the assistant director overseeing the Washington Field Office, and Walter Giardina, an agent tied to several cases involving President Trump, have also been asked to step down.

The FBI Agents Association condemned the firings, criticizing the lack of due process. The group emphasized that agents were “summarily fired without due process for doing their jobs investigating potential federal crimes.” Added the association, “Agents are not given the option to pick and choose their cases, and these agents carried out their assignments with professionalism and integrity. Most importantly, they followed the law.”

Trump admin fires former FBI boss who protected January 6 agents

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-admin-fires-former-fbi-boss-who-protected-january-6-agents/ss-AA1L2XPP

Another Bullshit ‘Assaulting An ICE Officer’ Case Falls Apart In Front Of A Grand JuryPlease expect delivery within the day.

Posted on by
Reply

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

Newsweek: US military action against Mexican cartels could backfire, experts warn

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Newsweek: Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

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

DC News Now: Man who threw Subway sandwich at law enforcement in DC becomes symbol of resistance

Posted on by
Reply

As photos and videos are widely shared online of ongoing police arrests and protests since federal agents were deployed to D.C., one notable exchange involving a man throwing a Subway sandwich at an officer is now reflected on posters as a symbol of defiance.

Posters of a masked man hurling a hoagie reflect an incident last week when a now-former employee with the Department of Justice was caught on camera yelling at a group of federal agents, and then threw a sandwich at the chest of an officer.

37-year-old Sean Charles Dunn was arrested thereafter, and the imagery of his actions is now being recreated as a protest piece of art.

“Too early to call it ‘the Subway rebellion,” Gordon Chaffin quipped near a poster on the side of a building on 9th and P streets in Northwest.

Brian, another passerby of the poster, liked the idea.

“I think it’s great. It attracts attention,” Brian said. “I think any expression that brings this kind of thing to the forefront is absolutely needed in this city.”

Many D.C. residents continue to express discontent at the president’s federalizing of local police, calling in the National Guard from other states and surging additional federal agents.

“They walking the streets like there’s a war going on,” one man, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “It makes us feel like we’re the terrorists.”

The posters are in the style of British street artist ‘Banksy’, and a piece known as “Flower Thrower,” only this time, the black and white bouquet has been replaced with a colorful foot-long sub.

One woman, Joy, heard about the sandwich-throwing incident, and despite not having seen the video, she has noticed the growing number of posters depicting the act.

“Just resisting and not being beat down by all the crap that’s going on right now, and just keep fighting back. It’s the little things,” she said.

The actual incident received national attention. D.C.‘s New U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro took to social media to announce Dunn is facing a felony charge for assaulting an officer

“So there! Stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else,” she proclaimed.

Caffin said that people do want to fight back.

Man who threw Subway sandwich at law enforcement in DC becomes symbol of resistance
As photos and videos are widely shared online of ongoing police arrests and protests since federal agents were deployed to D.C., one notable exchange involving a man throwing a Subway sandwich at a…

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/washington-dc/dc-takeover/man-who-threw-subway-sandwich-at-law-enforcement-in-dc-becomes-symbol-of-resistance

Slingshot News: ‘I’m Not Gonna Talk About Anything’: Pam Bondi Disrespects Senators To Their Faces, Stubbornly Rejects Answering Questions In Hearing

Posted on by
Reply
‘I’m Not Gonna Talk About Anything’: Pam Bondi Disrespects Senators To Their Faces, Stubbornly Rejects Answering Questions In Hearing
During a recent budget hearing held by the Senate Appropriations Committee several weeks ago, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi got heated and stubbornly refused to answer some of Senator Patty Murray’s questions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-m-not-gonna-talk-about-anything-pam-bondi-disrespects-senators-to-their-faces-stubbornly-rejects-answering-questions-in-hearing/vi-AA1KRpSP

Newsweek: Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow

Posted on by
Reply

Afederal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state’s workplace privacy law on the grounds that it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement.

In a ruling issued on August 19, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act is not preempted by federal immigration law.

Why It Matters

The ruling matters because it draws a clearer boundary between federal immigration power and state authority over workplace regulation. By rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to use immigration law to override Illinois’ privacy protections, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman reaffirmed that states retain broad authority to govern employment relationships.

The decision safeguards workers’ procedural rights in the hiring process, could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, and marks a significant check on the expansion of federal enforcement authority.

What To Know

The case centered on whether federal law—particularly the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)—supersedes state-level employment protections. The administration argued that provisions of Illinois’ law regulating the use of the federal E-Verify system and protecting employees during the employment verification process interfered with federal immigration authority.

Coleman disagreed, concluding that the state law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the government’s “broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues”.

The Federal Government’s Argument

The Trump administration claimed that several provisions of Illinois’ privacy law—including penalties for violations related to E-Verify—constituted sanctions on employers of unauthorized workers and therefore fell under IRCA’s preemption clause. That provision bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on employers who hire or recruit unauthorized workers/aliens.

The Justice Department also argued that Illinois’ law, by imposing notification requirements and other conditions on the use of E-Verify, conflicted with the federal goal of deterring unauthorized employment.

At oral argument, however, Coleman noted that government lawyers struggled to identify precisely which sections of Illinois law they believed were preempted. In her ruling, she wrote that the administration’s interpretation of IRCA’s preemption clause was “broad to the point of absurdity.”

Judge’s Reasoning

Coleman emphasized that employment regulation has historically been a power of the states. “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State,” she wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.

The judge found that Illinois’ law does not penalize employers for hiring unauthorized workers but rather regulates how employers use verification systems and ensures employees’ rights are respected during that process. “A person’s immigration or work authorization status is irrelevant to determine whether an employer has violated any of the provisions of the act,” Coleman explained.

She further rejected the administration’s conflict preemption argument, which claimed that Illinois’ law undermined federal objectives. The government suggested that the state’s notification rules could encourage unauthorized workers to evade detection. Coleman dismissed this as “simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption.”

Broader Implications

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda, which has frequently sought to expand federal authority over state and local policies. By upholding Illinois’ privacy protections, the court reaffirmed the principle that federal power over immigration does not automatically override state employment laws.

The decision may carry consequences beyond Illinois. Other states have enacted or considered similar laws governing the use of E-Verify and employee privacy. Coleman’s opinion suggests that such measures, when designed to regulate employment rather than immigration status, may withstand federal challenges.

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

What People Are Saying

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling that Illinois’ workplace privacy law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the administration’s interpretation of federal law was, “broad to the point of absurdity.”

Kyle Cheney of Politico wrote on X, August 20, 2025, “A federal judge in Illinois has thrown out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state that claims IL’s workforce privacy law conflicts with federal immigration enforcement.”

In a broader context, legal scholars and state officials have long debated the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement.

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Washington Post in 2017: “Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well.”

What Happens Next

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a possible path to the Supreme Court. For now, Illinois’ workplace privacy law remains in effect, and the ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar protections while intensifying debates over federal versus state authority.

Judge Coleman emphasized that federal immigration power “is not without limits,” and that preemption requires a clear conflict. By leaving Illinois’ law intact and denying an injunction, the ruling marks a notable legal setback for Trump’s immigration strategy.

Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow
Judge rejects Trump’s lawsuit, ruling Illinois’ workplace privacy law doesn’t clash with federal immigration power.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-immigration-legal-setback-illinois-workplace-privacy-2116468