WASHINGTON – The FBI searched multiple properties in Washington state and San Diego on Thursday in what officials said was a terrorism probe into an Afghan national suspected of shooting two National Guard members, who remained in critical condition.
Investigators seized numerous electronic devices from the suspect’s house in Washington state, including cellphones, laptops, and iPads, and interviewed the suspect’s relatives, FBI Director Kash Patel told a news conference in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Jeanine Pirro identified the two wounded Guard members as Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Andrew Wolfe, 24.
Pirro said the suspect ambushed the Guard members while they were patrolling near the White House on Wednesday afternoon. Armed with a powerful revolver, a .357 Magnum, he shot one member who fell and then shot again before firing multiple times at the second member.
Suspect worked with U.S. forces in Afghanistan
Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News the U.S. government planned to bring terrorism charges against the gunman and seek a sentence of life in prison “at a minimum.”
At her briefing, Pirro said the gunman faces three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed and a charge of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.
He could be charged with murder in the first degree if either of the Guard members does not survive their injuries, she said.
Patel described the shootings as a “heinous act of terrorism,” but neither he nor Pirro offered a possible motive.
The assailant appeared to have acted alone, said Jeff Carroll, executive assistant chief of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.
The suspect has been identified by authorities as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who lived in Washington state with his wife and five children.
Lakanwal, who was wounded in an exchange of gunfire before he was arrested, had been involved with U.S. partner forces during the war in Afghanistan, Patel said.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Fox News and the New York Times that Lakanwal had worked with CIA-backed local units in Afghanistan.
“He drove his vehicle cross-country from the state of Washington with the intended target of coming to our nation’s capital,” Pirro told the news conference.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden-era program to resettle thousands of Afghans who assisted the U.S. during the Afghanistan war and feared reprisals from Taliban forces who seized control after the U.S. withdrawal there.
President Donald Trump, who was at his Florida resort at the time of the attack, released a video statement late on Wednesday calling the shooting “an act of evil, an act of hatred and an act of terror.”
It was unclear if the shooting would lead to changes to how the Guard operates in cities. Members typically patrol in small groups, including on foot, mostly armed with pistols.
Lakanwal approved for U.S. asylum this year
Trump said his administration would “re-examine” all Afghans who came to the U.S. during Joe Biden’s presidency.
Pirro and Patel blamed the Biden administration for improperly vetting Lakanwal, although they offered no evidence to support this assertion.
A Trump administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Lakanwal applied for asylum in December 2024 and was approved on April 23 this year, three months after Trump took office. Lakanwal, who resided in Washington state, had no known criminal history, the official said.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said on Wednesday it had halted processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals indefinitely, “pending further review of security and vetting protocols.”
FBI Director Kash Patel, center, and District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, left, speak after two National Guard soldiers were shot near the White House on Wednesday, Nov. 26.
Vance defends immigration policy
Vice President JD Vance, who was in Kentucky on Wednesday, said on social media that the shooting proved the Trump administration’s immigration policy was justified.
“We must redouble our efforts to deport people with no right to be in our country,” he said.
Critics of the administration’s immigration policy say it has employed harsh and illegal tactics and swept up immigrants indiscriminately, including many with no criminal history and others in the U.S. legally.
The two Guard members from West Virginia were part of a militarized law enforcement mission ordered by Trump in August and challenged in court by Washington, D.C., officials. Trump ordered 500 more troops to be deployed in the capital in the wake of the shooting, joining about 2,200 already in the city as part of the president’s immigration and crime crackdown targeting Democratic-led cities.
Trump, a Republican, has suggested repeatedly that crime has disappeared from the capital as a result of the deployment, an assertion at odds with the police department’s official crime statistics. (Reporting by Leah Douglas, Jana Winter, Phil Stewart, Ted Hesson, Lucia Mutikani, Jasper Ward and Tim Reid; Additional reporting by Idrees Ali, Jeff Mason, Steve Gorman; Writing by Julia Harte and Rod Nickel; Editing by Ross Colvin and Deepa Babington)
Philadelphia role in Afghan resettlements
The Philadelphia region played a crucial role in supporting the largest resettlement effort since the end of the Vietnam War.
Philadelphia International Airport served as the nation’s main arrival point for more than 25,000 evacuees, about 1,500 of whom needed immediate medical attention for everything from diabetes to gunshot wounds. The flights to Philadelphia came from first-stop, emergency evacuation centers in Germany, Bahrain, Qatar, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere.
Most arrivals to Philadelphia were bused from the airport to temporary living quarters at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in South Jersey.
At one point more than 11,000 Afghans were living in a tent city, christened “Liberty Village,” on the South Jersey base. The Trump administration recently designated the base as one of two military sites where it intends to holds immigration detainees.
Ultimately at least 600 evacuees were resettled in the Philadelphia area, many of them living in the Northeast, which already had a significant Afghan population.
Almost everyone who came to Philadelphia and to this country served the United States in a military, diplomatic, or development capacity, or was the family member of someone who did. Others worked in media, women’s organizations, or humanitarian groups that faced Taliban retaliation.
Inquirer staff writer Jeff Gammage contributed to this article.
HONG KONG – Hong Kong’s deadliest fire in three decades has highlighted its risky use of flammable bamboo scaffolding and mesh for building work in a tradition dating back centuries to mainland China. Authorities have not determined the cause of the blaze, but images from the scene showed the fire spreading rapidly across green netting covering the scaffolding erected around the housing complex.
Some of the bamboo lattices crashed to the ground in flames. For decades in the skyscraper-strewn former British colony, bamboo has been the material of choice for scaffolding – cheap, abundant and flexible – bound together with nylon cords.
The craft originated on mainland China where bamboo, viewed as symbolizing grace and moral fortitude, has since ancient times been a cornerstone of architecture, even reputedly used for scaffolding and tools in the building of the Great Wall.
Now, though, it has largely been phased out in Mainland China for sturdier metal scaffolding and clamps. But Hong Kong, despite its modernity, still has around 2,500 registered bamboo scaffolding masters, according to official figures.
The number of metal scaffolders is around triple that. Small teams of scaffolders scrambling up vertiginous gleaming facades to sheathe a building in a matter of weeks is a familiar sight in the global financial hub.
The bamboo lattices are also often used alongside green construction mesh to prevent debris from injuring passers-by, as was the case in the tower blocks at the Wang Fuk Court housing complex in Hong Kong’s northern Tai Po district.
Scaffolding checks promised
The fire that began Wednesday afternoon killed at least 55 people with nearly 300 missing. Hong Kong police said on Thursday that “the building’s exterior walls had protective nets, membranes, waterproof tarpaulins, and plastic sheets suspected of not meeting fire safety standards.”
The city’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) said it had launched an investigation, while Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee said a task force had been set up to investigate the cause of the blaze. He said the government would check whether scaffolding mesh materials meet fire retardant standards and other safety standards on other projects.
Police arrested two directors of the contractor responsible for the renovation of the building and a consultant on manslaughter charges after finding materials were used in construction that did not meet safety standards.
The company, Prestige Construction & Engineering, did not answer repeated requests for comment.
In March, the government said 50% of new public works contracts would be required to use metal scaffolding going forward.
But the emphasis appeared to be more on worker safety rather than fire risks. There were 22 deaths involving bamboo scaffolders between 2019 and 2024, according to official figures.
A firefighter works to extinguish the blaze that broke out at Wang Fuk Court in Hong Kong.
Lee told reporters on Thursday that Hong Kong’s government was considering mandating the use of metal scaffolding in the future and had met with industry to discuss a phase-out of bamboo. In October, a massive bamboo scaffolding caught fire at the Chinachem Tower in the Central business district. Fire consumed construction netting and bamboo poles, leaving windows burnt out and external walls badly seared.
The Association for the Rights of Industrial Accident Victims in Hong Kong said in a Facebook post that there had been at least two other fires involving bamboo scaffolding this year.
Protective nets, screens and tarpaulins or plastic sheeting installed on the face of scaffolding “should have appropriate fire retardant properties in compliance with a recognized standard,” says the Hong Kong Labour Department’s Code of Practice for Bamboo Scaffolding Safety.
Whistle-blower points to risks in other housing blocks
Jason Poon, a whistle-blower who has previously exposed shoddy construction work in Hong Kong, said in a Facebook post on Wednesday that fire hazard risks existed in scaffolding at many housing complexes.
He said he had reached out to various government departments last year concerning the lack of fire retardant in scaffolding nets at another complex, but he was ignored.
Firefighters work to extinguish the fire at Wang Fuk Court on Wednesday.
Hong Kong’s fire and building safety regulators did not respond to a request to comment.
“Of course, in terms of material, metal scaffolding is less flammable. That’s a fact,” said Chau Sze Kit, chairman of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union. But he said the fire risk for bamboo scaffolding could be limited if a construction management team takes the right steps.
“Fires on scaffolding usually happen because construction debris accumulates on it – things like paper, towels, clothing, or other flammable materials,” he told Reuters. “Poor management leads to these incidents.”
HONG KONG/BEIJING – A huge fire still burning in a Hong Kong high-rise apartment complex that has killed at least 55 people with almost 300 missing poses the biggest test of Beijing’s grip on the city it has transformed since the mass pro-democracy protests of 2019.
Under sweeping legislative changes, pro-democracy voices and other critics have been silenced and elections limited to “patriotic” candidates, with the next legislative council poll set for December 7.
The fire struck as Hong Kong braces for the sentencing of media tycoon Jimmy Lai – the most prominent of hundreds of pro-democracy figures and activists facing lengthy jail terms under national security and protest-related charges.
“I think Beijing is attaching great importance to two issues – number one, how will the government handle this tragedy? And secondly, will we see a changing perception of the citizens on the Hong Kong government,” said Sonny Lo, a political scientist who has written several books on Hong Kong politics.
“The government has done well on national security, but national security includes a human security dimension.”
The leadership of both the Hong Kong government and China’s Communist Party moved quickly to show they attached utmost importance to the tragedy, with police targetting the construction company in charge of the renovations.
Hong Kong’s sky-high property prices have long been a trigger for discontent and the tragedy could stoke resentment towards authorities despite their efforts to tighten political and national security control, analysts said.
From faulty fire alarms to workers smoking cigarettes and the risks of traditional bamboo scaffolding, many residents questioned whether risks were ignored and safety systems installed and operational.
As they huddled in shelters, some criticized what they saw as negligence and cost-cutting as a cause of the fire, echoing similar sentiments online.
Around 10 p.m. on Wednesday night – with flames still shooting out of windows – Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing urged an “all-out effort” to extinguish the fire and to minimize casualties and losses, according to state media reports.
Xi “expressed sympathy to the families of the victims and those affected by the disaster” and “attached great importance to the accident and immediately sought updates on the rescue efforts and casualties.”
Four hours later, Hong Kong leader John Lee held a news conference after touring shelters for survivors of the blaze.
Some 4,600 people live in the complex’s eight towers, seven of which caught fire.
“The priority is to extinguish the fire and rescue the residents who are trapped,” Lee said. “The second is to support the injured. The third is to support and recover. Then, we’ll launch a thorough investigation.”
But at 5:54 a.m., only three hours after Lee’s news conference and before the fire was fully under control, police announced the cause of its spread and said three officials from the construction company had been arrested.
As well as the towers being covered with sheets of protective mesh and plastic that may not meet fire standards, some windows on one unaffected building were sealed with a foam material that had been installed by a construction company carrying out maintenance work, police said.
“We have reason to believe that the company’s responsible parties were grossly negligent, which led to this accident and caused the fire to spread uncontrollably, resulting in major casualties,” said Eileen Chung, a Hong Kong police superintendent.
Three men from the construction company, two directors and one engineering consultant, had been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter over the fire, she added.
Questions of accountability
While protests are relatively tightly controlled in Hong Kong, a full range of online forums remain accessible and are likely to offer an early barometer of the public mood.
Analysts say public anger and concern may spread beyond the construction firms to the government’s fire safety and building regulators and pressure is likely to build for extensive and open investigations into what happened.
Traditionally, the Hong Kong government has staged open inquiries into large-scale tragedies, often headed by an independent judge.
One comparison raised by experts is a commission of inquiry into a fire in a Kowloon commercial building that killed 41 people in 1996, a year before the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China.
That inquiry sparked new building and fire safety laws and regulations. But it may no longer be enough.
“I believe we need to seriously review fire safety and site safety management across the entire industry, including government oversight,” said Chau Sze Kit, chairman of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union.
WASHINGTON – Two National Guard soldiers were shot on Wednesday near the White House in what officials described as a targeted ambush, and the suspect was in custody after suffering gunshot wounds during the attack.
Investigators identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national from Washington State, according to a Justice Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The attack is being investigated as an act of terrorism, the official said.
Lakanwal came to the U.S. in 2021 on a special visa program for Afghans who assisted the U.S. during the Afghanistan war and were vulnerable to reprisals from the ruling Taliban after the U.S. withdrawal, the official said. But he overstayed his visa and is in the country illegally, according to the official.
President Donald Trump was in Florida at the time of the attack, which prompted the White House to go into lockdown as law enforcement from multiple federal and city agencies swarmed the area.
The two soldiers, members of the West Virginia National Guard, were part of a “high-visibility patrol” around 2:15 p.m. ET (1915 GMT) near the corner of 17th and I streets, a few blocks from the White House. The suspect came around a corner and “ambushed” them, Metropolitan Police Assistant Chief Jeff Carroll said at a press briefing.
After an exchange of gunfire, other National Guard troops were able to subdue the shooter, he said. The two wounded soldiers were in critical condition at local hospitals, FBI Director Kash Patel said.
“This is a targeted attack,” Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said at the briefing.
The shooter appeared to have acted alone, officials said.
Trump is at his resort in Palm Beach ahead of Thursday’s Thanksgiving holiday, while U.S. Vice President JD Vance is in Kentucky.
In a social media post, Trump called the suspected shooter an “animal” who would “pay a very steep price” and praised the National Guard.
He also ordered 500 more guard soldiers deployed to Washington, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, joining about 2,200 already in the city as part of the president’s contentious immigration and crime crackdown targeting Democratic-led cities.
Witnesses describe chaotic scene
The shooting unfolded near Farragut Square, a popular lunch spot for office workers just a few blocks from the White House. The park, where light posts are wrapped in wreaths and bows for the holiday season, is flanked by fast-casual restaurants and a coffee shop, as well as two metro stops.
Witnesses described a chaotic scene after shots were fired, with pedestrians fleeing.
Mike Ryan, 55, said he was on his way to buy lunch nearby when he heard what sounded like gunfire. He ran half a block away and heard another round of apparent gunfire.
When he made his way back to the scene, he saw two National Guard soldiers on the ground across the street, with people trying to resuscitate one of them. At the same time, other guard troops had pinned someone on the ground, Ryan said.
Another witness, Emma McDonald, said she saw one of the soldiers carried away on a stretcher minutes after the shooting, his head covered in blood and an automated compression system attached to his chest.
National Guard soldiers have been in Washington since Trump’s initial deployment in August, a move that was opposed by local officials and criticized by Democrats. The guard troops in the city include contingents from the District of Columbia as well as Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia and Alabama.
Trump, a Republican, has suggested repeatedly that crime has disappeared from the capital as a result of the deployment, an assertion at odds with the police department’s official crime statistics.
HONG KONG – At least 36 people were killed and 279 were missing on Wednesday after Hong Kong’s deadliest fire in three decades ripped through high-rise residential towers sheathed in flammable bamboo scaffolding, authorities said.
More than 10 hours after the fire started in the northern Tai Po district, flames and thick smoke still engulfed the 32-story towers as rescue workers swarmed the site and shocked inhabitants watched nearby.
The cause of the blaze was not immediately known, but it was fanned by green construction mesh and bamboo scaffolding which the government began phasing out in March for safety reasons.
Firefighters work to extinguish a blaze that broke out at Wang Fuk Court in Hong Kong on Wednesday.
Working through the night, firefighters were struggling to reach upper floors of the Wang Fuk Court housing complex, which has 2,000 apartments in eight blocks, due to the intense heat.
One 71-year-old resident surnamed Wong broke down in tears, saying his wife was trapped inside.
A firefighter was among the 36 killed, and 29 people were in hospital, Hong Kong leader John Lee told reporters. Some 900 people were in eight shelters.
“The priority is to extinguish the fire and rescue the residents who are trapped. The second is to support the injured. The third is to support and recover. Then, we’ll launch a thorough investigation,” Lee told reporters. Harry Cheung, 66, who has lived at Block Two in one of the complexes for more than 40 years, said he heard a loud noise about 2:45 p.m. (6:45 GMT) and saw fire erupt in a nearby block.
“I immediately went back to pack up my things,” he said.
“I don’t even know how I feel right now. I’m just thinking about where I’m going to sleep tonight because I probably won’t be able to go back home.”
A firefighter was among those killed, the director of Fire Services said.
China’s XI urges ‘all-out’ effort against fire
Frames of scaffolding were seen tumbling to the ground as firefighters battled the blaze, while scores of fire engines and ambulances lined the road below the development.
From the mainland, China’s President Xi Jinping urged an “all-out effort” to extinguish the fire and to minimize casualties and losses, China’s state broadcaster CCTV said.
Hong Kong’s sky-high property prices have long been a trigger for social discontent in the city and the fire tragedy could stoke resentment towards authorities ahead of a city-wide legislative election in early December.
The cause of the blaze was not immediately known, but it was fanned by green construction mesh and bamboo scaffolding which the government began phasing out in March for safety reasons.
Hong Kong’s Transport Department said that due to the fire, an entire section of the Tai Po road, one of Hong Kong’s two main highways, had been closed and buses were being diverted.
At least six schools will be closed on Thursday due to the fire and traffic congestion, the city’s Education Bureau said.
It was Hong Kong’s worst fire since 41 people died in a commercial building in the heart of Kowloon in November 1996.
That fire was later found to be caused by welding during internal renovations.
A public inquiry yielded sweeping updates to building standards and fire safety regulations in the city’s high-rise offices, shops and homes.
Dozens of shocked residents and onlookers in Hong Kong watched from nearby walkways as smoke funneled up from the complex.
Bamboo scaffolding being phased out
Hong Kong is one of the last places in the world where bamboo is still widely used for scaffolding in construction.
The government moved to start phasing that out in March, citing safety. It announced that 50% of public construction works would be required to use metal frames instead.
Wang Fuk Court is one of many high-rise housing complexes in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Tai Po, located near the border with mainland China, is an established suburban district with some 300,000 residents.
Occupied since 1983, the complex is under the government’s subsidized home ownership scheme, according to property agency websites. According to online posts, it has been undergoing renovations for a year at a cost of HK$330 million ($42.43 million), with each unit paying between HK$160,000 and HK$180,000.
Owning a home is a distant dream for many in Hong Kong, one of the world’s most expensive housing markets and where residential rents are hovering around record highs.
President Donald Trump has argued with the architect he handpicked to design a White House ballroom over the size of the project, reflecting a conflict between architectural norms and Trump’s grandiose aesthetic, according to four people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.
Trump’s desire to go big with the project has put him at odds with architect James McCrery II, the people said, who has counseled restraint over concerns the planned 90,000-square-foot addition could dwarf the 55,000-square-foot mansion in violation of a general architectural rule: don’t build an addition that overshadows the main building.
A White House official acknowledged the two have disagreed but would not say why or elaborate on the tensions, characterizing Trump and McCrery’s conversations about the ballroom as “constructive dialogue.”
“As with any building, there is a conversation between the principal and the architect,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “All parties are excited to execute on the president’s vision on what will be the greatest addition to the White House since the Oval Office.”
McCrery declined an interview request through a representative who declined to answer questions about the architect’s interactions with Trump in recent weeks.
Trump’s intense focus on the project and insistence on realizing his vision over the objections of his own hire, historic preservationists and others concerned by a lack of public input in the project reflect his singular belief in himself as a tastemaker and obsessive attention to details. In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump has waged a campaign to remake the White House in his gilded aesthetic and done so unilaterally – using a who’s-going-to-stop-me ethos he honed for decades as a developer.
Multiple administration officials have acknowledged that Trump has at times veered into micromanagement of the ballroom project, holding frequent meetings about its design and materials. A model of the ballroom has also become a regular fixture in the Oval Office.
The renovation represents one of the largest changes to the White House in its 233-year history, and has yet to undergo any formal public review. The administration has not publicly provided key details about the building, such as its planned height. The 90,000-square-foot structure also is expected to host a suite of offices previously located in the East Wing. The White House has also declined to specify its plans for an emergency bunker that was located below the East Wing, citing matters of national security.
On recent weekdays, a bustling project site that is almost entirely fenced off from public view contained dozens of workers and materials ready to be installed, including reinforced concrete pipes and an array of cranes, drills, pile drivers and other heavy machinery, photos obtained by The WashingtonPost show.
Plans for the addition as of Tuesday had not been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member board charged by Congress with overseeing federal construction projects and now led by Trump allies. A preliminary agenda for the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for Dec. 4, does not include the ballroom project under projects expected to be covered at the meeting or reviewed by the body in the next six months. White House officials say that the administration still plans to submit its ballroom plans to the commission at “the appropriate time.”
The administration’s rapid demolition of the East Wing annex and solicitations from companies and individuals to fund the new construction have caused controversy over the project, which Trump believes the White House needs to host special events. Democrats, historical preservation groups and some architects have criticized the project’s pace, secrecy and shifting specifications. The White House initially said this summer that the ballroom would cost $200 million and fit 650 people, while Trump in recent weeks asserted that it could cost $300 million or more and would fit about 1,000 people.
McCrery has kept his criticism out of the public eye, quietly working to deliver as Trump demanded rushed revisions to his plans, according to two of the people with knowledge of the conversations. The president – a longtime real estate executive who prides himself on his expertise – has repeatedly drilled into the details of the project in their Oval Office meetings, the people said.
McCrery has wanted to remain with the project, worried that another architect would design an inferior building, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.
McCrery, a classical architect and the founder and principal of McCrery Architects, had designed works like the U.S. Supreme Court bookstore and the pedestal for President Ronald Reagan’s statue in the U.S. Capitol. The ballroom was the largest-ever project for his firm, which has specialized in designing churches, libraries and homes.
Trump hired McCrery for the project on July 13. Eighteen days later, the White House announced the ballroom project, with officials promising to start construction within two months and finish before the end of Trump’s second term.
Trump also appointed McCrery in 2019 to serve a four-year term on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which provides advice to the president, Congress and local government officials on design matters related to construction projects in the capital region.
Democrats have pressed the White House and its donors for more details on the planned construction and what was promised to financial contributors. The ballroom is being funded by wealthy individuals and large companies that have contracts with the federal government, including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir Technologies. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)
Several donors have cast the decision in statements as an investment in the future of a building that belongs to the American people, pushing back on the suggestion that their largesse sought to curry favor with Trump.
A donor list released by the White House of 37 businesses and individuals who underwrote the ballroom is not comprehensive, administration officials acknowledged, leaving open the possibility that millions of dollars have been funneled toward the president’s pet project with no oversight.
“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom – and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement last week. Warren andhercolleagues also introduced legislation that would impose restrictions on White House construction and require more transparency from donors.
WASHINGTON – A prosecutor on Wednesday dropped all criminal charges in Georgia against U.S. President Donald Trump for interference in the 2020 presidential election, ending a high-profile racketeering case that once seemed like a significant threat to the Republican.
The decision by Peter Skandalakis, a state official who recently took over the prosecution, was a stinging defeat for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who brought the case in 2023 but then lost control of it amid ethics complaints by defense lawyers.
It was one of four criminal prosecutions that Trump faced in the years since losing his 2020 presidential re-election bid to Democrat Joe Biden. Only one of them — a New York case over a hush-money payment to a porn star during his 2016 campaign — went to trial. Trump was found guilty in that case but has asked for it to be thrown out.
The dismissal highlighted how Trump’s return to the White House this year, a political comeback unparalleled in U.S. history, dismantled a thicket of legal cases that once seemed set to define his post-presidency era.
Trump’s political career had appeared to be over after his false claims of election fraud led a mob of supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a failed bid to overturn his 2020 defeat.
Skandalakis said in a court filing that “there is no realistic prospect that a sitting President will be compelled to appear in Georgia to stand trial,” so it would be “futile and unproductive” to push forward with the case.
Skandalakis said his decision, which was approved by a judge on Wednesday morning, “is not guided by a desire to advance an agenda but is based on my beliefs and understanding of the law.”
Steve Sadow, a lawyer for Trump, praised the dismissal, saying the case should have never been brought.
Willis had brought the case against Trump and 18 co-defendants, charging a sweeping criminal conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results after a recording surfaced in the media of Trump asking Georgia’s top electoral official to “find” him enough votes to win the state.
The co-defendants included former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, who like Trump pleaded not guilty.
An appeals court removed Willis, an elected Democrat in Atlanta, from the case last year. The court said she had created an “appearance of impropriety” by having a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case.
Skandalakis heads the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, a government agency that supports the state’s local prosecutors. Earlier this month, he appointed himself to lead the case, saying he had been unable to find another prosecutor willing to take it over.
Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, said Skandalakis’s decision to drop the charges was not surprising. The agency he oversees does not have the resources to prosecute such a complex case with several co-defendants, Kreis said.
In his second term, Donald Trump has turned a campaign pledge to punish political opponents into a guiding principle of governance.
What began as a provocative rallying cry in March 2023 — “I am your retribution” — has hardened into a sweeping campaign of retaliation against perceived enemies, reshaping federal policy, staffing and law enforcement.
A tally by Reuters reveals the scale: At least 470 people, organizations and institutions have been targeted for retribution since Trump took office — an average of more than one a day. Some were singled out for punishment; others swept up in broader purges of perceived enemies. The count excludes foreign individuals, institutions and governments, as well as federal employees dismissed as part of force reductions.
The Trump vengeance campaign fuses personal vendettas with a drive for cultural and political dominance, Reuters found. His administration has wielded executive power to punish perceived foes — firing prosecutors who investigated his bid to overturn the 2020 election, ordering punishments of media organizations seen as hostile, penalizing law firms tied to opponents, and sidelining civil servants who question his policies. Many of those actions face legal challenges.
At the same time, Trump and his appointees have used the government to enforce ideology: ousting military leaders deemed “woke,” slashing funds for cultural institutions held to be divisive, and freezing research grants to universities that embraced diversity initiatives.
Reuters reached out to every person and institution that Trump or his subordinates singled out publicly for retribution, and reviewed hundreds of official orders, directives and public records. The result: the most comprehensive accounting yet of his campaign of payback.
The analysis revealed two broad groups of people and organizations targeted for retaliation.
Members of the first group – at least 247 individuals and entities – were singled out by name, either publicly by Trump and his appointees or later in government memos, legal filings or other records. To qualify, acts had to be aimed at specific individuals or entities, with evidence of intent to punish. Reuters reporters interviewed or corresponded with more than 150 of them.
Another 224 people were caught up in broader retribution efforts – not named individually but ensnared in crackdowns on groups of perceived opponents. Nearly 100 of them were prosecutors and FBI agents fired or forced to retire for working on cases tied to Trump or his allies, or because they were deemed “woke.” This includes 16 FBI agents who kneeled at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020. The rest were civil servants, most of them suspended for publicly opposing administration policies or resisting directives on health, environmental and science issues.
Most common were punitive acts, such as firings, suspensions, investigations and the revocation of security clearances.
Reuters found at least 462 such cases, including the dismissal of at least 128 federal workers and officials who had probed, challenged or otherwise bucked Trump or his administration.
The second form was threats. Trump and his administration targeted at least 46 individuals, businesses and other entities with threats of investigations or penalties, including freezing federal funds for Democratic-led cities such as New York and Chicago.
Trump openly discussed firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for resisting interest rate cuts, for instance. Last week, he threatened to have six Democratic members of Congress tried for sedition – a crime he said is “punishable by DEATH” – after the lawmakers reminded military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders.” This week, the Defense Department threatened to court-martial one of them, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, a former Naval officer.
The third form was coercion. In at least a dozen cases, organizations such as law firms and universities signed agreements with the government to roll back diversity initiatives or other policies after facing administration threats of punishment, such as security clearance revocations and loss of federal funding and contracts.
It’s a campaign led from the top: Trump’s White House has issued at least 36 orders, decrees and directives, targeting at least 100 individuals and entities with punitive actions, according to the Reuters analysis.
Trump openly campaigned on a platform of revenge in his latest run for the presidency, promising to punish enemies of his Make America Great Again movement. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” he said in a March 2023 speech. Weeks later, while campaigning in Texas, he repeated the theme. “I am your justice,” he said.
Today, the White House disputes the idea that the administration is out for revenge. It describes recent investigations and indictments of political adversaries as valid course corrections on policy, necessary probes of wrongdoing and legitimate policy initiatives.
“This entire article is based on the flawed premise that enforcing an electoral mandate is somehow ‘retribution.’ It’s not,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. There is no place in government for civil servants or public officials “who actively seek to undermine the agenda that the American people elected the president to enact,” she added. Trump is abiding by campaign promises to restore a justice system that was “weaponized” by the Biden administration, Jackson said, and “ensure taxpayer funding is not going to partisan causes.”
Trump’s actions have been cheered by his staunchest backers. Right-wing commentator and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon told Reuters the use of government power to punish Trump’s enemies is “not revenge at all” but an attempt to “hold people accountable” for what he said were unfair investigations targeting Trump. More is on the way, he said.
“The people that tried to take away President Trump’s first term, that accused him of being a Russian asset and damaged this republic, and then stole the 2020 election – they’re going to be held accountable and they’re going to be adjudicated in courts of law,” he said in an interview. “That’s coming. There’s no doubt.” There’s no evidence the 2020 election was stolen.
Trump’s allies point to actions former President Joe Biden took upon taking office. After Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a failed bid to overturn his election loss, Biden revoked Trump’s access to classified information, a first for any former president. Biden also won a court battle to dismiss Senate-confirmed directors of independent agencies serving fixed terms, such as the Federal Housing Finance Authority, and removed scores of Trump-era appointees from unpaid advisory boards.
Yet the scale and systematic nature of Trump’s effort to punish perceived enemies marks a sharp break from long-standing norms in U.S. governance, according to 13 political scientists and legal scholars interviewed by Reuters. Some historians say the closest modern parallel, though inexact, is the late President Richard Nixon’s quest for vengeance against political enemies. Since May, for instance, dozens
of officials from multiple federal agencies have been meeting as part of a task force formed to advance Trump’s retribution drive against perceived enemies, Reuters previously reported.
“The main aim is concentration of power and destruction of all checks against power,” said Daron Acemoglu, Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which faces an ongoing federal investigation for embracing diversity and equity programs. “Retribution is just one of the tools.”
Dozens of Trump’s targets have challenged their punishments as illegal. Fired and suspended civil servants have filed administrative appeals or legal challenges claiming wrongful termination. Some law firms have gone to court claiming the administration exceeded its legal authority by restricting their ability to work on classified contracts or interact with federal agencies. Most of those challenges remain unresolved.
Investigating foes of Trump
The administration has moved aggressively against officials in the government’s legal and national security agencies, institutions central to investigations of Trump’s alleged misconduct during and after his first term.
At least 69 current and former officials were targeted for investigating or sounding alarms about Russian interference in U.S. elections. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded soon after the 2016 election that Moscow sought to tilt the race toward Trump, a finding later affirmed by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in August 2020. Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the September 25 indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a break from Justice Department norms meant to shield prosecutions from political influence.
Comey, who led the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign, was charged after Trump demanded his prosecution. The Justice Department has cast the case as a corruption crackdown. Comey and his lawyers said in court documents that the case was “vindictive” and motivated by “personal animus.” Comey, who pleaded not guilty, declined to comment. A federal judge dismissed the case on Monday, ruling that Trump’s handpicked prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed.
Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. His lawyers say he is the target of a “vindictive” prosecution.
At least 58 acts of retribution have targeted people Trump viewed as saboteurs of his election campaigns, including Chris Krebs, the top cybersecurity official during his first term. Trump fired him in 2020 for disputing claims that the election was rigged. In April, Trump stripped Krebs’ security clearance and ordered a federal investigation into his tenure. Krebs, still asserting that Trump’s defeat was valid, has vowed to fight the probe. He did not respond for this story.
Reuters documented 112 security clearances revoked from current and former U.S. officials, law firms and state leaders – credentials needed for work that involves classified information. In August, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she was revoking 37 clearances.
In a response to Reuters posted on X, an agency spokesperson said Gabbard and Trump are working “to ensure the government is never again wielded against the American people it is meant to serve.” She added: “President Trump said it best, ‘Our ultimate retribution is success.’”
Leon Panetta, CIA director and defense secretary under former President Barack Obama, had his security clearance revoked in January along with others who signed an October 2020 letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. At the time, Joe Biden — Hunter’s father — was Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2020 election. An executive order Trump signed in January claimed: “The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions.” Panetta has said he stands by signing the letter.
Panetta told Reuters he had already surrendered his clearance after leaving government nearly a decade ago. Trump’s retribution campaign is hurting CIA morale and wrecking the bipartisan trust that allows Washington to function, Panetta said. “What I worry about is that our adversaries will look at what’s happening and sense weakness,” he said. “This kind of political retribution leads to a loss of trust, which ultimately leads to a failure of governing.” The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.
Former CIA director Leon Panetta had his security clearance revoked along with others who signed a letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The revenge effort also reaches deep into the civil service, punishing employees who speak out against Trump’s policies and turning forms of dissent that were tolerated by past administrations into grounds for discipline.
This summer, hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency staffers wrote an open letter protesting deep cuts to pollution control and cleanup programs. The fallout was swift. More than 100 signers who attached their names were placed on paid leave. At least 15 senior officials and probationary employees were told they would be fired. The rest were informed they were under investigation for misconduct, leading to at least 69 suspensions without pay. Many remained out of work for weeks.
“They followed all the rules” of conduct for civil servants, said Nicole Cantello, one of the signers and an officer with the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents many affected workers. She called the punishments an attempt to “quell dissent,” stifle free speech and “scare the employees.” In a statement, the EPA said it has “a zero-tolerance policy for career officials using their agency position and title to unlawfully undermine, sabotage, and undercut” administration policy.
At the Federal Emergency Management Agency, about 20 staffers were put on leave and now face misconduct investigations after signing a letter criticizing the agency’s decision to scrap bipartisan reforms adopted years ago to speed disaster relief.
Cameron Hamilton, a Republican who served briefly as acting head of FEMA, was fired in May, a day after telling Congress he didn’t believe the agency should be shut down, contradicting the administration.
Hamilton told Reuters he still supports Trump. But he said too many senior officials are firing people in the name of retribution, trying to impress the White House. “They want to find ways to really launch themselves to prominence and be movers and shakers, to kick ass and take names,” said Hamilton. “They’re trying to show the president ‘look at what I am doing for you.’”
In a statement to Reuters, the Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA, said it is building a “new FEMA” to fix “inefficiency and outdated processes.” Employees “resisting change” are “not a good fit,” the statement said.
Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, former head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, sees her firing in October — three weeks after filing a whistleblower complaint alleging politicization of research and vaccine policy — as a warning shot. She told Reuters the administration’s purge of dissenting health officials is breeding “anticipatory obedience” — a reflex to comply before being asked. “People know if they push back … this is what happens,” she said. The effect, she says, is an ecosystem of fear: those who stay in government self-censor; those who speak out are branded “radioactive, too hot to handle.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that oversees NIAID, did not respond to a request for comment.
Federal agency leaders have dismissed a wide array of officials they deemed out of step with Trump’s MAGA agenda, including employees involved in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and those working on transgender issues.
David Maltinsky, a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, says he was fired by Director Kash Patel for displaying a Pride flag at work — one of at least 50 bureau personnel dismissed on Patel’s watch. Maltinsky sued the FBI and Justice Department, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking reinstatement. The Justice Department has yet to file a formal response.
In his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters,” Patel named 60 people that he said were members of an “Executive Branch deep state” that opposed Trump, including former Democratic government officials and Republicans who served in Trump’s first administration but eventually broke with him. He called for firings and said that anybody who abused their authority should face prosecution. In his 2025 confirmation hearing before Congress, Patel denied that it was an “enemies list.”
Under FBI Director Kash Patel’s watch, at least 50 FBI personnel have been dismissed. In this photo, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff speaks in front of an image of Patel at a Senate hearing on FBI oversight.
Reuters found that at least 17 of the 60 people on Patel’s list have faced some sort of retribution, including firings and stripping of security clearances. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.
Against perceived foes in the private sector, the administration has wielded financial penalties as leverage. At least two dozen law firms faced inquiries, investigations or restrictions on federal contracting, often for employing or representing people tied to past cases against Trump. Eight struck deals to avoid further action.
Nine media organizations have faced federal investigations, lawsuits, threats to revoke their broadcast licenses and limits on access to White House events. Trump has also suggested revoking broadcast licenses for networks whose coverage he dislikes.
The targets include universities, long cast by the president and his allies as bastions of left-wing radicals.
Officials froze more than $4 billion in federal grants and research funding to at least nine schools, demanding policy changes such as ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, banning transgender athletes from women’s sports and cracking down on alleged antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests. Five universities have signed agreements to restore funding. Harvard University successfully sued to block a freeze on $2.2 billion in federal aid for the school, which Trump accused of “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired” dogma. Harvard declined to comment.
The administration has described the funding freezes and other efforts to force policy changes at colleges and universities as a necessary push to reverse years of leftward drift in U.S. education. “If Reuters considers restoring merit in admissions, reclaiming women’s titles misappropriated by male athletes, enforcing civil rights laws, and preventing taxpayer dollars from funding radical DEI programs ‘retribution,’ then we’re on very different planes of reality,” said Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Education Department.
A historical parallel: Nixon’s enemies
It’s impossible to predict, of course, how far the Trump revenge campaign will go, or whether it will be affected by a recent slide in popular support. Trump has been hurt by public frustration with the high cost of living and the investigation into late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Nixon resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, in which aides to his re-election campaign broke into Democratic Party headquarters and the president himself later directed a cover-up. While in office, he kept a list of more than 500 enemies. But while Trump has conducted his retribution campaign in the open, historians note, Nixon’s enemies list was conceived as a covert tool.
John Dean, chief counsel in the Nixon White House, wrote a confidential memo in 1971 addressing “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” The planned methods included tax audits, phone-tapping, the cancellation of contracts and criminal prosecution. Yet the execution faltered: IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander refused to conduct mass audits, and most targets escaped serious punishment.
Other recent presidents, to be sure, have been accused of seeking to punish opponents, though on a smaller scale. The Obama administration pursued “aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information,” the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a 2013 report. Two IRS employees alleged they were retaliated against during the Biden administration for raising concerns about the handling of the tax-compliance investigation of Hunter Biden.
Nixon’s plotting remained a secret until the Watergate hearings exposed it, turning his enemies list into a symbol of presidential abuse. The secrecy reflected a political culture in which retaliation was whispered, not broadcast, and where institutional checks blunted many of Nixon’s ambitions.
Trump’s approach reverses that pattern, historians say. He has openly named his perceived enemies, urged prosecutions in public and framed vengeance as a campaign vow. Some say today’s “enemies list” politics are in that sense farther-reaching than Nixon’s, possibly signaling a shift toward a normalization of retribution in American political life.
Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University who has written a book on power grabs by American presidents, said Nixon was ultimately checked and forced to resign by Congress, including members of his own Republican Party. “That’s just not happening now,” he said.
A group of U.S. states filed a lawsuit on Tuesday to compel President Donald Trump’s administration to reinstate more than $3 billion in grant funding used to provide permanent housing and other services to homeless people.
The 20 mostly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., said changes the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced to its Continuum of Care program this month violate federal law and are illegally targeted at LGBTQ people and other communities that are not aligned with the Trump administration’s policy priorities, in the lawsuit in Rhode Island federal court.
The lawsuit seeks to block the funding cuts and new conditions HUD has placed on receiving the grants.
Program created in 1987
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said in a statement that communities across the country depend on the program to provide housing and other resources to their most vulnerable members.
“These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night,” James said.
The states that joined New York in the lawsuit include California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Kentucky.
“For decades, these housing programs have helped vulnerable people — families, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and LGTBQ+ Pennsylvanians — have access to safe, affordable housing,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said in a statement released Tuesday. “Now, the Trump Administration is trying to abruptly dismantle the very system Congress created to fight homelessness. Pennsylvanians depend on this funding and the Trump Administration’s decision will force people out of their homes, defund organizations doing critical work, and leave state taxpayers on the hook. I’m taking action to ensure the federal government keeps its promise — because no Pennsylvanian should be thrown back into homelessness because of political games in Washington.”
Congress created the Continuum of Care program in 1987 to provide resources for states, local governments and nonprofits to deliver support services to homeless people, with a focus on veterans, families, and people with disabilities.
The program has long been based on the “housing first” approach to combating homelessness, which prioritizes placing people into permanent housing without preconditions such as sobriety and employment. Along with housing, the grants fund childcare, job training, mental health counseling and transportation services. The Trump administration has criticized the housing-first approach, and HUD this month said it was overhauling the grant program to focus on transitional housing initiatives with work requirements and other conditions. HUD has also barred grant recipients from using the funding for activities that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, elective abortions, or “gender ideology,” or interfere with the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. Trump, a Republican, has also urged states and cities to clear out homeless encampments and direct people to substance abuse and mental health treatment facilities.
The changes could cause more than 170,000 people to lose their housing, according to the states’ lawsuit. The states claim the Trump administration cannot impose its own conditions on funds that Congress said should be distributed based solely on need. (Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Rod Nickel)
WASHINGTON — U.S. consumer confidence sagged in November as households worried about jobs and their financial situation, likely in part because of the recently ended government shutdown.
The Conference Board said on Tuesday its consumer confidence index dropped to 88.7 this month from an upwardly revised 95.5 in October.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the index edging down to 93.4 from the previously reported 94.6 in October.
“Consumers’ write-in responses pertaining to factors affecting the economy continued to be led by references to prices and inflation, tariffs and trade, and politics, with increased mentions of the federal government shutdown,” said Dana Peterson, chief economist at the Conference Board.
“Mentions of the labor market eased somewhat but still stood out among all other frequent themes not already cited. The overall tone from November write-ins was slightly more negative than in October.”
