Category: National Politics

  • ‘He loved Philadelphia, and Philadelphia loved him’: Jesse Jackson in Philadelphia through the years

    ‘He loved Philadelphia, and Philadelphia loved him’: Jesse Jackson in Philadelphia through the years

    The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, a civil rights icon and a regular presence in Philadelphia who energized Black voters both locally and nationally for more than five decades, died Tuesday at his home in Chicago following a prolonged battle with a rare neurological disorder. He was 84.

    “Jesse Jackson will be remembered in Philadelphia as a civil rights hero, and a leader in terms of independent Black politics nationwide,” said former Councilmember W. Wilson Goode Jr., the son of Philly’s first Black mayor, W. Wilson Goode Sr. “He loved Philadelphia, and Philadelphia loved him.”

    A native of Greenville, S.C., Rev. Jackson initially rose to prominence in the mid-1960s, when he joined the 1965 voting rights march that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. In the years following King’s assassination in 1968, Rev. Jackson largely came to be considered his successor.

    Rev. Jackson would go on to become a prominent Black political and cultural leader in his own right, with his lengthy time in the public eye including presidential runs in 1984 and 1988. His visits to Philadelphia date back to the 1970s, and run the gamut from time in town supporting his own presidential campaigns — though neither of which were successful in the ‘80s — to appearances at the Democratic National Convention in 2016.

    The Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, acknowledges the cheers of delegates as he walks to the podium to deliver remarks on the third night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 27, 2016.
    Hillary Clinton supporters and the Rev. Jesse Jackson (right) on the fourth day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center on July 28, 2016.
    The Rev. Jesse Jackson visits Baltimore’s turbulent intersection of West North Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue on April 28, 2015.

    Across that time, Rev. Jackson served as a sort of rallying figure for Black Philadelphians at large, who largely supported his candidacy during his presidential runs, despite him failing to secure the Democratic nomination statewide. Still, his impact for Black voters both in Philadelphia and nationally remains everlasting.

    “That was the Rosetta stone to everything Jackson was trying to achieve,” said former Daily News scribe Gene Seymour, nephew of legendary People Paper columnist Chuck Stone. “We aren’t to be ignored or dismissed or cast aside — we matter.”

    In that sense, Goode Jr. said, Rev. Jackson will remain a political icon who inspired the nationalization of Black political empowerment.

    “Jesse Jackson is also a cultural icon in terms of telling people to be proud of being Black, and telling themselves, ‘I am somebody,’” Goode Jr. said, referencing Rev. Jackson’s famed refrain. “That is something that was indelible in the soul of Black people across the nation and world, and in Philadelphia here as well.”

    The Rev. Jesse Jackson visits the turbulent intersection of West North Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore on April 28, 2015.
    The Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Occupy Philadelphia protesters on Nov. 13, 2011. He told them to “never surrender.”
    The Rev Jesse Jackson at Joe Frazier’s funeral at Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church on Cheltenham Avenue in Philadelphia on Nov. 14, 2011.
    The Rev. Jesse Jackson (center) visits the Interfaith tent, donated by Quakers, to talk to the Rev. Peter Friedrich (left) and (from right) Phillip Hall, Hollister Knowlton, and Joyce Moore in 2011.

    Though Philadelphia’s Black community generally was supportive of and receptive to Rev. Jackson’s messaging historically, Seymour said, he maintained something of a complicated relationship with the city’s prominent politicians. Wilson Goode Sr., for example, officially supported Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis for president in the 1980s. At least in 1988, Seymour said, Rev. Jackson likely had “the people’s hearts,” despite lacking the official nomination.

    Wilson Goode Sr. was not immediately available for comment.

    “His presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 reshaped American politics,” said the Rev. Gregory Edwards, of the Philly-based POWER Interfaith, in a statement. “Those campaigns widened the political imagination of this country and helped cultivate a generation of Black elected leaders.”

    Rev. Jackson’s relationship with Goode Sr. was somewhat complicated following the 1985 MOVE bombing, which brought the civil rights leader to tour the ruins of the 6200 block of Osage Avenue in its aftermath. Rev. Jackson urged a congressional investigation into the incident, which he called “excessive force,” but avoided criticizing Goode directly in subsequent meetings. Goode, meanwhile, said that the city would cooperate with any groups investigating the incident, The Inquirer reported at the time.

    “He was not happy with what happened in ‘85 with MOVE,” Seymour said.

    The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson speaks during during funeral services for civil rights activist C. Delores Tucker at Deliverance Evangelistic Church on Oct. 21, 2005. Seated in front row behind him, left to right are Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation; Marion Barry, former mayor of Washington, and Philadelphia Mayor John Street.
    Rev. Jackson is projected live on a large screen monitor (camera operator in foreground) as he participates in a panel discussion laying out a legal and political strategy for fulfilling Brown v. the Board of Education, at the annual NAACP meeting on July. 14, 2004 at the Convention Center.
    Her family stands by as husband (partially hidden) William T. Tucker covers the body of civil rights activist C. Delores Tucker in her casket at the beginning of funeral service at Deliverance Evangelistic Church on Oct. 21, 2005. At right is the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow Coalition/PUSH, who later delivered the eulogy. Seated in rear at right is former Vice President Al Gore.
    AIDS quilt panels flank the podium as the Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks at an African American AIDS conference at the Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel on Feb. 28, 2005.

    Still, Rev. Jackson often served as a defender of Philadelphia’s famed Black figures. In 2011, for example, Rev. Jackson spoke at the funeral of legendary world heavyweight boxing champion Joe Frazier, who had long competed with the fictional Rocky Balboa for recognition. As Jackson put it at the time, Frazier was the “real champion,” not the “Italian Stallion.”

    The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has a sleeping bag draped around his shoulders, is talking and praying with Occupy Philadelphia demonstrators: Brad Wilson (from left); the Rev. Bill Golderer, pastor of Broad Street Ministry; and Donna Jones, pastor of the Cookman Baptist Initiative.

    “If you were of importance as a Black person in America during the time [Jackson] was in the public eye,” Seymour said, “he was there to speak on your behalf.”

    Goode Jr.’s most prominent memory of Rev. Jackson, meanwhile, dates back to the mid-1980s, when he was a student at the University of Pennsylvania. At the time, he said, Rev. Jackson attended a National Black Student Union conference following an invitation from its organizers, Goode Jr. included. It was, Goode Jr. said, an inspiration.

    “It meant a lot to us,” Goode Jr. said. “Not just Black leaders at Penn, but across the nation, who were gathered there.”

    Striking Red Cross worker Lenny Lerro takes a picture of himself with the Rev. Jesse Jackson as they walk the picket line in 2011 on Spring Garden Street in Philadelphia.
    Rev. Jesse Jackson visits with folks at Occupy Philadelphia, just outside City Hall on Nov. 20, 2011.
    The Rev. Jesse Jackson visits with folks at Occupy Philadelphia, just outside City Hall on Nov. 20, 2011.
    U.S. Rep. John Lewis (second from left) is presented with the Civil Rights Champion Award in 2013 by (from left) the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Marc Morial, president of the Urban League.
  • DHS spokeswoman who became a face of Trump deportation campaign steps down

    DHS spokeswoman who became a face of Trump deportation campaign steps down

    The Department of Homeland Security’s top spokesperson is leaving the Trump administration, officials said Tuesday, a departure that comes amid falling public approval ratings for the president’s mass deportation agenda.

    Tricia McLaughlin, whose regular Fox News appearances made her a face of the administration’s hard-line immigration agenda, is leaving just over a year into Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem’s tenure leading the agency. The move comes after DHS and the White House have scrambled to tamp down public outrage over the killings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis last month.

    McLaughlin informed colleagues Tuesday of her departure. She had begun planning to leave in December but extended her stay to help the administration deal with the fallout of the fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, according to people briefed on her exit. Politico first reported on McLaughlin’s departure.

    Confirming McLaughlin’s decision in a post on X on Tuesday, Noem cited her “exceptional dedication, tenacity, and professionalism” and said she “has played an instrumental role in advancing our mission to secure the homeland and keep Americans safe.”

    In a statement, McLaughlin thanked Noem and President Donald Trump, saying she is “immensely proud of the team we built and the historic accomplishments achieved by this Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.”

    McLaughlin said she will be replaced by her deputy, Lauren Bis, and DHS’s public affairs team is adding Katie Zacharia, a Fox News contributor.

    Noem’s chief spokeswoman built a reputation as a fierce defender of the administration’s handling of immigration and of the secretary’s leadership, frequently sparring with reporters on social media and appearing on cable news programs. But her forceful pronouncements have drawn criticism from Democrats and immigrant rights groups, who point to incidents in which statements she made were later contradicted in court or in video footage recorded by witnesses.

    McLaughlin joined other administration officials in quickly declaring that Good had committed “an act of domestic terrorism” before she was shot to death by an immigration officer. McLaughlin also said a Venezuelan immigrant had “mercilessly beat” a federal law enforcement officer in Minneapolis. The charges against that man were dropped after the U.S. attorney in Minneapolis said that “newly discovered evidence” was “materially inconsistent with the allegations” the officers had made.

    In those and other incidents, McLaughlin quickly made statements supporting actions by officers before investigations had transpired — something that Democrats and some Republicans have also criticized Noem for doing.

    Christopher Parente, an attorney for Marimar Martinez, a U.S. citizen shot multiple times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago in the fall, asked a federal judge for permission to release body-camera footage and other evidence that he said was necessary to demonstrate that McLaughlin and other senior administration officials had falsely accused Martinez of being a domestic terrorist and of doxing federal agents.

    Martinez was indicted on federal charges of assault and attempted murder of a federal employee with a deadly or dangerous weapon after the shooting. But a federal judge dismissed the case in November after prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois requested that the charges be dropped. Prosecutors didn’t state a reason for the dismissal, although attorneys for the defendant criticized the weakness of the government’s case from the start.

    Under McLaughlin, critics say, the DHS public affairs office has produced a skewed view of immigration enforcement. Officials have refused to publish detailed reports of how many immigrants have been arrested and deported. The agency’s messaging has mainly publicized the arrests of immigrants who commit crimes, even though public records show that a majority of migrants who have been detained do not have criminal records.

    “We are pleased with this resignation,” Parente told the Washington Post when asked about McLaughlin’s departure. “Unless Pinocchio is applying for the position, we believe her replacement will be a great improvement and hopefully work to start repairing the credibility of DHS.”

    Critics said that DHS’s public affairs office has refused to publish detailed reports of how many immigrants have been arrested and deported. The agency’s messaging has mainly publicized the arrests of immigrants who commit crimes, even though public records show that a majority of migrants who have been detained do not have criminal records.

    McLaughlin also has repeatedly attacked federal judges who have ruled against the administration, calling them “unhinged,” “deranged” and “disgusting and immoral.” In some cases, she has accused judges of endangering immigration agents or the public through their rulings.

    David Lapan, a DHS spokesman in Trump’s first administration, said he hopes McLaughlin’s replacement “stays away from the belligerent, attacking approach that she took.”

    “The mis- and disinformation that comes out hurts the trust and credibility of the organization, and they can’t afford to have that continue,” Lapan said.

    But McLaughlin’s combative approach won public praise from Trump last month.

    “Great job by wonderful TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN, DHS Assistant Secretary, on the Sean Hannity Show,” Trump posted on social media. “Many Illegals from around our Nation charged with serious crimes this week. Tricia really knows her ‘STUFF!’”

    Democrats have criticized DHS’s posts on social media for disparaging immigrants and posting paintings that depict scenes of a predominantly White America. One post featured an ICE recruitment promotion that stated, “We’ll Have Our Home Again,” a phrase that has been associated with a song embraced by white nationalists.

    McLaughlin defended that promotion, telling the Post in a statement last month: “The fact that people would like to cherry pick something of white nationalism with the same title to make a connection to DHS law enforcement is disgusting.”

    McLaughlin was still posting on X on Tuesday — disputing an NBC News report of growing tensions between DHS leadership and Coast Guard officials over Noem’s use of the military branch’s resources, which she oversees. The Post has also reported on the strained relationship between DHS and the Coast Guard, including Noem’s decision to spend $200 million on new Coast Guard jets for use by senior DHS officials and her move into military housing typically reserved for the Coast Guard commandant.

    Before her tenure at DHS, McLaughlin was a senior adviser and communications director for Vivek Ramaswamy’s 2024 presidential campaign. She joins other senior DHS officials who have left the department in recent weeks, including Madison Sheahan, who last month stepped down from her role as Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deputy director to mount a campaign against Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in Ohio.

  • Stephen Colbert says CBS blocked interview with Texas Democrat over FCC concerns

    Stephen Colbert says CBS blocked interview with Texas Democrat over FCC concerns

    CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert rebuked his own network Monday night, claiming that lawyers for parent company Paramount Skydance prohibited him from airing an interview with Texas State Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, over concerns it would violate the Federal Communications Commission’s equal time rule.

    “You know who is not one of my guests tonight?” Colbert asked his audience. “That’s Texas state representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

    In response, the studio audience booed.

    “Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on,” Colbert continued. “And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.” A representative for Paramount Skydance did not respond to a request for comment.

    Colbert launched into a segment about the FCC’s equal time rule, which requires broadcasters to provide equal opportunity to political candidates. News and talk show interviews have traditionally been exempt from the mandate. But in January, the FCC, issued a public notice saying that daytime and nighttime talk shows would have to apply for a exemptions to the equal time rule for each of their programs.

    “Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption,” the FCC’s notice read.

    At the time, Anna M. Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democrat, called the notice “misleading” and said nothing has changed about the FCC’s requirements.

    In a statement Tuesday, Gomez wrote that CBS’s decision is an example of “corporate capitulation in the face of this Administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech” and said that the FCC has “no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes.”

    “CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing,” she said.

    In a statement Tuesday afternoon, CBS defended itself and pushed back against Colbert’s account.

    “THE LATE SHOW was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico,” a spokesperson for the network said in a statement. “The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. THE LATE SHOW decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options.”

    Colbert is already on his way out of CBS, set to depart the network in May when his show goes off the air. CBS announced over the summer that it is canceling The Late Show, the long-running talk show once hosted by David Letterman, which it claimed is “purely a financial decision.”

    Led by Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC in President Donald Trump’s second term has remade itself as a speech enforcer tackling perceived liberal bias in the media industry. Carr’s speech agenda has been marked by investigations of media companies and threats to take action against broadcasters that do not follow rarely enforced FCC rules. He has frequently invoked a little-used “news distortion” policy as justification, a practice condemned by a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and commissioners in a November letter.

    Following on-air comments in September by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing, Carr suggested on a podcast that the agency could take action against the network and its parent company Disney, which owns broadcast licenses across the country.

    “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr told conservative podcast host Benny Johnson about Kimmel. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Carr drew bipartisan criticism for his role in the episode, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) likening him to a cinema mafioso. ABC suspended Kimmel for several days in September.

    Last summer the FCC approved an $8 billion deal for David Ellison’s Skydance to buy CBS parent company Paramount after a series of concessions. Skydance pledged to conduct a review of CBS’s programming and agreed to refrain from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. It also appointed an ombudsman with Republican Party ties to handle claims of bias.

    In July, CBS also settled a lawsuit from Trump, who claimed that a 60 Minutes interview with political rival Kamala Harris was “deceitful” in its editing. Colbert claimed the $16 million settlement was a “big, fat bribe.” The network canceled The Late Show three days later.

    Colbert’s criticism also comes amid another corporate pursuit for Paramount Skydance.

    The company is trying to persuade Warner Bros. Discovery to accept its hostile bid to buy the company rather than sell to Netflix. It’s unclear whether the FCC would have a role in such a deal, even if Paramount is involved, because no broadcast spectrum licenses would be changing hands. Still, any deal of this size would need government approval, probably from Trump’s Justice Department, where antitrust chief Gail Slater just resigned.

    In December, Trump has said he would be “involved” in vetting the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal, which has massive implications for Hollywood, movie theaters and streaming. More recently, Trump backtracked, saying he is “not involved” in the deal.

    Talarico, 36, has been a member of the Texas House of Representatives since 2018 and more recently has been a rising star in the Democratic Party. He is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, which is holding its primary contests on March 3.

    Though Colbert’s interview with Talarico didn’t broadcast over the airwaves, it was made available on YouTube.

    “This is the party that ran against cancel culture,” Talarico told Colbert. “Now they’re trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture — the kind that comes from the top.”

  • Trump picks his White House assistant for panel reviewing ballroom

    Trump picks his White House assistant for panel reviewing ballroom

    When Congress created the Commission of Fine Arts more than a century ago, its members were intended to be “well-qualified judges of the fine arts” who would review and advise on major design projects in the nation’s capital, lawmakers wrote. The initial slate of commissioners included Daniel Burnham and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., architects and urban planners who designed much of Washington.

    Now, the 116-year-old commission is set to include its newest, youngest member: Chamberlain Harris, a 26-year-old White House aide and a longtime executive assistant for President Donald Trump, who is slated to be sworn in at the panel’s next public meeting on Thursday.

    Trump’s selection of Harris — who was known as the “receptionist of the United States” during the president’s first term and has no notable arts expertise — comes amid the president’s push to install allies on the arts commission and another panel, the National Capital Planning Commission. Both commissions are reviewing Trump’s planned White House ballroom and are expected to review his other Washington-area construction projects, such as his desired 250-foot triumphal arch.

    Trump has said he hopes to complete the projects as quickly as possible, despite complaints about their size, design, and potential impact on Washington. A historical preservation group has sued the administration over the ballroom project, saying that Trump should have consulted with the federal review panels before tearing down the White House’s East Wing annex and beginning construction on his planned 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom.

    A federal judge weighing whether to halt the ballroom project in December had instructed the White House to go through the commissions before beginning construction.

    Asked about Harris’s qualifications to serve on the fine arts commission, the White House on Tuesday touted her as a “loyal, trusted, and highly respected adviser” to the president.

    “She understands the President’s vision and appreciation of the arts like very few others, and brings a unique perspective that will serve the Commission well,” Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement. “She will be a tremendous asset to the Commission of Fine Arts and continue to honorably serve our country well.”

    Harris, who holds the title of deputy director of Oval Office operations, received a bachelor’s degree in political science in 2019 from the University at Albany, SUNY, with minors in communications and economics, according to an archived copy of her resumé on LinkedIn. She continued working for Trump as an executive assistant when he was out of office.

    Harris was one of seven fine arts commissioners Trump appointed during a 19-day spree in January. The president had left the commission empty for months after firing all six members in October but raced to restock the panel ahead of the agency’s January meeting when the ballroom project was first added to the agenda.

    Former fine arts commissioners said they could not recall a commissioner in the panel’s history with as little prior arts experience as Harris. Several former commissioners also noted that Trump has installed multiple appointees with minimal arts and urban planning expertise on both panels set to review his construction projects remaking Washington.

    “It’s disastrous,” said Alex Krieger, an architect and professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, who was chosen for the commission in 2012 by President Barack Obama and served a second term in the first Trump administration. “Some of these people just have no qualifications to evaluate matters of design, architecture, or urban planning.”

    Past commissioners have included Billie Tsien, an architect currently working on Obama’s library, and Perry Guillot, a landscape architect who redesigned the White House Rose Garden during Trump’s first term.

    Witold Rybczynski, an architect who was chosen for the Commission of Fine Arts by President George W. Bush and served a second term under Obama, wrote in an email that President Joe Biden also reshaped the panel by firing Trump appointees before their terms had concluded. He also noted that past presidents installed some political appointees and lesser-known experts to the panel, too.

    “The degree of expertise … has varied,” Rybczynski wrote in an email. He is the Martin and Margy Meyerson Professor Emeritus of Urbanism at the University of Pennsylvania.

    The fine arts commission on Thursday is slated to review the latest ballroom designs and may vote to advance the project. The White House has said it hopes to win formal approval from both review panels by March and begin aboveground construction of the ballroom as early as April.

  • New subpoenas issued in inquiry on response to 2016 Russian election interference, AP sources say

    New subpoenas issued in inquiry on response to 2016 Russian election interference, AP sources say

    WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has issued new subpoenas in a Florida-based investigation into perceived adversaries of President Donald Trump and the U.S. government response to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

    An initial wave of subpoenas in November asked recipients for documents related to the preparation of a U.S. intelligence community assessment that detailed a sweeping, multiprong effort by Moscow to help Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

    Though the first subpoenas requested documents from the months surrounding the January 2017 publication of the Obama administration intelligence assessment, the latest subpoenas seek any records from the years since then, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press to discuss a nonpublic demand from investigators.

    The Justice Department declined to comment Tuesday.

    The subpoenas reflect continued investigative activity in one of several criminal inquiries the Justice Department has undertaken into Trump’s political opponents. An array of former intelligence and law enforcement officials have received subpoenas in the investigation. Lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan, who helped oversee the drafting of the assessment and who has been called “crooked as hell” by Trump, have said they have been informed he is a target but have not been told of any “legally justifiable basis for undertaking this investigation.”

    The intelligence community assessment, published in the final days of the Obama administration, found that Russia had developed a “clear preference” for Trump in the 2016 election and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an influence campaign with goals of undermining confidence in American democracy and harming Clinton’s chance for victory.

    That conclusion, and a related investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the election, have long been among the Republican president’s chief grievances and he has vowed retribution against the government officials involved in the inquiries. Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by the Trump administration Justice Department last year on false statement and obstruction charges, but the case was later dismissed.

    Multiple government reports, including bipartisan congressional reviews and a criminal investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller, have found that Russia interfered in Trump’s favor through a hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails as well as a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and swaying American public opinion. Mueller’s report found that the Trump campaign actively welcomed the Russian help, but it did not establish that Russian operatives and Trump or his associates conspired to tip the election in his favor.

    The Trump administration has freshly scrutinized the intelligence community assessment in part because a classified version of it incorporated in its annex a summary of the “Steele dossier,” a compilation of Democratic-funded opposition research that was assembled by former British spy Christopher Steele and was later turned over to the FBI. That research into Trump’s potential links to Russia included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip, and Trump has long held up its weaknesses in an effort to discredit the entire Russia investigation.

    A declassified CIA tradecraft review ordered by current Director John Ratcliffe and released last July faults Brennan’s oversight of the assessment.

    The review does not challenge the conclusion of Russian election interference but chides Brennan for the fact that the classified version referenced the Steele dossier.

    Brennan testified to Congress, and also wrote in his memoir, that he was opposed to citing the dossier in the intelligence assessment since neither its substance nor sources had been validated, and he has said the dossier did not inform the judgments of the assessment. He maintains the FBI pushed for its inclusion.

    The new CIA review seeks to cast Brennan’s views in a different light, asserting that he “showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness” and brushed aside concerns over the dossier because he believed it conformed “with existing theories.” It quotes him, without context, as having stated in writing that “my bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.”

    In a letter last December addressed to the chief judge of the Southern District of Florida, where the investigation is based, Brennan’s lawyers challenged the underpinnings of the investigation, questioning what basis prosecutors had for opening the inquiry in Florida and saying they had received no clarity from prosecutors about what potential crimes were even being investigated.

    “While it is mystifying how the prosecutors could possibly believe there is any legally justifiable basis for undertaking this investigation, they have done nothing to explain that mystery,” the lawyers said.

  • Mitch McConnell is taking a beating in the race to replace him

    Mitch McConnell is taking a beating in the race to replace him

    One Republican candidate to succeed Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced himself with an ad that shows a cardboard cutout of the longtime Senate majority leader in the trash.

    Allies for a rival hit back with ads that noted the first candidate gave McConnell money.

    And Daniel Cameron, the former Kentucky attorney general once considered a McConnell protégé, is now keeping his distance.

    “I’m my own man,” Cameron said in an interview, later suggesting McConnell donors prefer one of his opponents.

    The Senate primary to replace 83-year-old McConnell shows how profoundly the GOP base in his home state has soured on one of the most powerful and significant political figures in Kentucky history. McConnell drew low approval ratings for years but fended off challengers by flexing his raw clout and ability to deliver for his state.

    While he at times expressed frustration or anger with President Donald Trump, McConnell used his political muscle to cement much of the president’s first-term legacy, including a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court that has helped pave the way for an even more disruptive second term.

    But many in the MAGA movement still view him as the embodiment of the GOP establishment that sought to hold Trump back. Three former interns for McConnell have distanced themselves while running to succeed him, pitching themselves as “America First” Republicans in Trump’s mold.

    Cameron says voters don’t want a candidate who is “just bashing an old man” — a rebuke of his opponent Nate Morris, a businessman backed by national MAGA stars whose vociferous attacks on McConnell have alienated some Republicans in the state. Many operatives argued his initial assault went too far.

    Still, it’s clear that ambitious Republicans have diverged from the towering conservative figure, who is set to retire next year after four decades in Congress.

    “This is a fight for the future of the Republican Party … Donald Trump’s Republican Party,” said Morris, a friend of Vice President JD Vance, in an interview. “And certainly, if you’re with Mitch McConnell, you’re not part of that future.”

    Terry Carmack, McConnell’s chief of staff, said the senator has secured more than $65 billion in extra federal funding for Kentucky over his career — for military bases, hospitals, law enforcement and more — and added that the state “deserves a Senator who will fill those shoes.”

    “As Kentucky’s longest-serving Senator and the nation’s longest-serving Senate leader, Senator McConnell’s job stayed the same: ensuring Kentucky always punched above its weight,” Carmack said in a statement.

    The primary is effectively a three-way race between Morris, Cameron and Rep. Andy Barr, who touts that he was the Kentucky chairman of Trump’s 2024 campaign. Whoever wins the May 19 GOP contest is likely to represent the solidly red state.

    The fact that all three have ties to McConnell reflects how much in Kentucky GOP politics traces back to the senator. The state Republican Party headquarters bears his name, and he has helped many other GOP officeholders over the years.

    “I challenge anybody who takes this seat to do what he’s done,” said Frank Amaro, the GOP vice chair for Kentucky’s 1st Congressional District.

    The campaign jabs at McConnell have been frustrating to many who have worked with him over the years and say he deserves respect, pointing to his hardball tactics that pushed the courts nationwide to the right and the money he has steered toward Kentucky. The state got nearly $2.6 billion in extra federal funding this fiscal year, according to McConnell’s office.

    “You don’t have to like someone for them to be your go-to to deliver results,” said Iris Wilbur Glick, a former political director for McConnell who called candidates’ positioning on the senator “very disappointing.”

    But many Republicans are critical — especially of his relationship with Trump. Trump has repeatedly attacked him. McConnell held Trump “practically and morally responsible” for the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, though his vote against impeachment helped enable Trump’s comeback.

    After Trump won in 2024 and McConnell stepped down as majority leader, he opposed some of Trump’s most controversial Cabinet picks — casting the only GOP vote against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services.

    A December Economist-YouGov poll found that 21 percent of Republicans nationally had a favorable view of McConnell, while 55 percent had an unfavorable view. In interviews, Kentucky voters often knew little about the Senate race or the candidates — but knew they didn’t like McConnell.

    “I want him out of there,” said Julie Jackson, a 56-year-old Republican.

    Cameron, who once worked as McConnell’s legal counsel and rose in politics with his mentorship, launched his Senate campaign last year with an attempt to separate himself. Days after announcing, he put out a video rebuking McConnell for opposing Trump’s Cabinet picks.

    “What we saw from Mitch McConnell in voting against Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK was just flat-out wrong,” Cameron said in the video. “You should expect a senator from Kentucky to vote for those nominees to advance the America First agenda.”

    A year later, one of Cameron’s biggest challenges is raising money — a struggle some Republicans in the state attribute in part to his break with McConnell.

    “Daniel Cameron relied heavily on his connections to McConnell-world in his previous races for fundraising, and that’s simply not an avenue that’s available to him for this race, and it shows in his fundraising reports,” said Tres Watson, a Republican strategist in Kentucky.

    Cameron notes that some McConnell donors have backed Barr — who leads the pack on fundraising. Attack ads on Barr from a group affiliated with the conservative Club for Growth featured old footage of Barr calling McConnell a “mentor.”

    Barr has kept his distance from McConnell, too, however, tying himself to Trump.

    “Thank you for giving me a chance to work with this president to make America great again,” he said to close his speech at recent GOP dinner. His team declined an interview request.

    Trump has stayed out of the Senate race and often avoids weighing in on primaries absent a personal grudge or clear polling leader. But prominent Trump allies have lined up behind Morris, the businessman and friend of Vance. Morris said the vice president called him last year encouraging him to jump into the Senate race, saying that “we’re going to need somebody in that seat that’s not going to stab our president in the back.” Vance allies work on Morris’s campaign and a supportive super PAC.

    Charlie Kirk, the late conservative activist, endorsed Morris before he was killed in September. Morris “is not going to be beholden to the McConnell machine,” said Andrew Kolvet, a spokesman for Kirk’s group Turning Point, who called McConnell a “relic.”

    Elon Musk, the billionaire tech CEO who has become a major force in GOP politics, rocked the primary by putting $10 million behind Morris this year after a meeting where he came away impressed in part by Morris’s anti-McConnell message, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

    “[McConnell] has had a stranglehold on Kentucky for 40 years, and it is not the easiest thing to challenge the McConnell mafia right here in the Bluegrass State,” Morris said last month on the podcast of Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. — where he also launched his campaign. “But we’ve done it and we’ve gone straight for the jugular of Mitch and his cronies.”

    The message hasn’t always gone over well. Morris was roundly booed last year at an annual Kentucky political picnic where the former garbage company CEO declared he would “trash Mitch McConnell’s legacy.”

    “A lot has changed in politics, but you still have to introduce yourself, and he started out just attacking people,” said Adam Koenig, a former GOP state lawmaker.

    Morris dialed back his attacks at a recent event in northern Kentucky, mentioning McConnell only in passing. But he made his antipathy clear.

    “We cannot go back to what we’ve had the last 40 years,” he said.

  • Another partial government shutdown has started. Why is this one different? Here’s what we know.

    Another partial government shutdown has started. Why is this one different? Here’s what we know.

    Another partial government shutdown began Saturday, with lawmakers at an impasse. But this one is different.

    With congressional Democrats refusing to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the last of that agency’s funding has run out.

    It all stems from party-line disagreements surrounding ICE and immigration enforcement.

    When a funding lapse triggered a partial government shutdown on Jan. 31, Congress made a compromise: It approved spending bills for all agencies, except for DHS.

    DHS received two weeks of funding to give Congress more time to negotiate Immigration and Customs Enforcement changes, a push Senate Democrats have repeatedly made after federal immigration and border agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis last month.

    Now those two weeks are up and Congress is still in a standoff. Democrats want to see more guardrails regarding how ICE agents identify themselves, barring them from wearing masks, and requiring name badges. But Republicans say those practices would add too much risk to the job.

    Since all other government agencies have already been funded, DHS is the only one affected by the shutdown.

    Here’s what that means.

    What’s a partial government shutdown?

    A partial government shutdown happens when Congress has funded only certain federal agencies, leaving others in limbo. Some parts of the government close while others keep operating.

    In this case, it comes down to who has funding and who doesn’t. DHS is the only agency without approved funding. The agency’s fiscal year ends Sept. 30, meaning it currently stands without funding for seven months or until Congress reaches an agreement.

    When did government funding expire?

    Funding for DHS expired Friday at midnight. A shutdown began Saturday at 12:01 a.m. after Congress and President Donald Trump’s administration failed to reach an agreement.

    What changes with the partial shutdown?

    Not much in the eyes of the general public, according to CNN.

    Nearly all DHS workers remain on the job, but many won’t get paid until the shutdown ends.

    But DHS officials who testified before a House panel on Wednesday warned that a funding disruption could mean delays to states seeking reimbursements for disaster relief costs, delays in cybersecurity response, and missed paychecks for agents who screen bags at airports, which could lead to unplanned absences and longer wait times.

    DHS is home to agencies including the Transportation Security Aadministration, Coast Guard, and Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are all affected.

    What have Pennsylvania politicians said?

    Sen. John Fetterman (D., Pa.) said he “absolutely” expected a shutdown. He broke with most Senate Democrats, voting to approve funding and avoid a shutdown in a measure that failed, and arguing that delaying funding DHS won’t impact ICE since the agency has received separate funding.

    Earlier this month, some members of the Pennsylvania delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, including Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Brendan Boyle, Madeleine Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, Dwight Evans, and Summer Lee, penned a letter to Fetterman and Sen. Dave McCormick (R., Pa.) asking them to vote against passing the spending bill unless ICE reform is secured. (Both senators voted in favor, but it failed.)

    Houlahan, a Democrat from Chester County, criticized ICE last week and emphasized a need for immigration reform.

    “We are a nation of immigrants, but ICE is clearly not reform. ICE is undertrained. ICE is vastly, vastly overfunded,” she said. “They have a budget that is larger than many countries’ entire defense budgets.”

    Where does Congress stand right now?

    The House had already done its part and approved funding. The chamber is in recess until Feb. 17. But Senate Democrats are pushing back on its approval without immigration reforms. That leaves the Senate with few options if it cannot pass the current measures.

    The Senate adjourned Thursday for a Presidents’ Day recess after a motion to advance DHS funding failed 52-47, mostly along party lines. Democrats also blocked an attempt to extend funding for another two weeks.

    Lawmakers left town, some traveling to the Munich Security Conference in Germany, others to meetings nationwide and overseas.

    The chambers are not scheduled to return until Feb. 23, though that could change if a deal is reached in the meantime. But senators on each side say bipartisanship during an election year seems unlikely.

    So in short: We could be here for a while.

  • Josh Shapiro tells Kristi Noem he’ll ‘aggressively pursue every option’ to block new ICE detention centers in Pa., in letter to DHS

    Josh Shapiro tells Kristi Noem he’ll ‘aggressively pursue every option’ to block new ICE detention centers in Pa., in letter to DHS

    Gov. Josh Shapiro implored Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem this week to reconsider converting warehouses in Berks and Schuylkill counties into mass immigration detention centers, citing “real harms” to the communities.

    In a Thursday letter to Noem obtained by The Inquirer, Shapiro questioned the legality of the facilities, which the governor said could hold up to 9,000 people in total.

    Hinting at a possible lawsuit, Shapiro said if DHS goes through with converting the sites, his administration will “aggressively pursue every option to prevent these facilities from opening and needlessly harming the good people of Pennsylvania.”

    As part of President Donald Trump’s expanding deportation agenda, the federal government has started purchasing warehouses across the country to flip into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers. ICE is planning to spend $38.3 billion turning warehouses into detention centers, The Washington Post reported.

    So far, two have been bought in Pennsylvania — a nearly 520,000-square-foot facility in Upper Bern Township and another in Tremont Township, where the purchase has drawn the ire of concerned residents.

    Shapiro slammed the department’s escalating immigration enforcement strategy, saying that ICE and other federal immigration agents “resort to unnecessary and excessive force, leading to innocent people being injured or tragically killed.”

    “Your Department’s record is reason enough to oppose your plan to use warehouses in Schuylkill and Berks Counties as detention centers,” Shapiro wrote, adding that the warehouses would also negatively impact residents’ health and safety, deplete tax revenue, and put extra stress on local communities and emergency response.

    Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary for public affairs, confirmed ICE’s purchase of these two warehouses and the department’s plans to use them as detention facilities in a statement to The Inquirer Friday.

    She said that the sites will “undergo community impact studies and a rigorous due diligence process to make sure there is no hardship on local utilities or infrastructure prior to purchase” and that the facilities would create economic benefits, including bringing more than 11,000 jobs to the two Pennsylvania communities in total.

    “Thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill, ICE has new funding to expand detention space to keep these criminals off American streets before they are removed for good from our communities,” McLaughlin said.

    At an unrelated event last week, the Democratic governor blasted the agency’s “secretive” purchase of the Berks County warehouse, saying he was not alerted of the decision ahead of time.

    At the time, Shapiro said the state was exploring “what legal options we may have to stop” the ICE purchase but said those options were slim.

    Shapiro has become more forceful in his opposition to federal immigration enforcement activities in recent weeks, especially since federal agents fatally shot Alex Pretti in Minneapolis last month.

    He’s said the Trump administration’s strategies in American cities make communities less safe, violate constitutional rights, and erode trust in law enforcement.

    Shapiro, who is seen as a likely contender for the White House in 2028, is up for reelection this year. His likely November opponent is Treasurer Stacy Garrity, a Trump-endorsed Republican who has urged cooperation with ICE.

    In his letter to Noem, Shapiro said that DHS has not engaged local leaders to discuss the warehouse purchases and that both Democratic and Republican state and local officials have objected to the department’s “plans to interfere with our communities because of the chaos and harm your actions will bring.”

    Some of Shapiro’s cabinet secretaries also penned an additional letter to Noem where they stressed that the facilities would be detrimental to the communities’ environment and public health and safety.

    “The stress each facility will place on local infrastructure will, among other things, jeopardize Pennsylvanians’ access to safe water, deplete resources and infrastructure needed for emergencies, and overextend already strained emergency response personnel,” wrote Pennsylvania Health Secretary Debra L. Bogen, Fire Commissioner Thomas Cook, Emergency Management Director Randy Padfield, Environmental Protection Secretary Jessica Shirley, and Labor Secretary Nancy A. Walker.

    In addition to the warehouses, DHS is also leasing new office space throughout the country, including in the Philadelphia area. The department said back-office staff, including lawyers and analysts, will be moving into a building in Berwyn, and the department will also share space with the Department of Motor Vehicles at Eighth and Arch Streets in Center City, WIRED reported.

    Despite the governor’s vocal opposition to Trump’s enforcement strategies, Pennsylvania still cooperates with ICE. Shapiro’s administration honors some ICE detainers in state prisons and provides ICE with access to state databases that include personal identifying information for immigrants.

    Immigrant rights groups have for months called on Shapiro to take more decisive action against federal immigration enforcement in Pennsylvania and end all cooperation with the agency.

    Staff writer Gillian McGoldrick contributed reporting.

  • Justice Department sues Harvard for data as it investigates how race factors into admissions

    Justice Department sues Harvard for data as it investigates how race factors into admissions

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is suing Harvard University, saying it has refused to provide admissions records that the Justice Department demanded to ensure the Ivy League school stopped using affirmative action in admissions.

    In a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Massachusetts, the Justice Department said Harvard has “thwarted” efforts to investigate potential discrimination. It accused Harvard of refusing to comply with a federal investigation and asked a judge to order the university to turn over the records.

    Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department’s Civil Rights Division, said Harvard’s refusal is a red flag. “If Harvard has stopped discriminating, it should happily share the data necessary to prove it,” Dhillon said in a statement.

    A statement from Harvard said the university has been responding to the government’s requests. It said Harvard is in compliance with the Supreme Court decision barring affirmative action in admissions.

    “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach,” the university said.

    The suit is the latest salvo in President Donald Trump’s standoff with Harvard, which has faced billions of dollars in funding cuts and other sanctions after it rejected a list of demands from the administration last year.

    Trump officials have said they’re taking action against Harvard over allegations of anti-Jewish bias on campus. Harvard officials say they’re facing unconstitutional retaliation for refusing to adopt the administration’s ideological views. The administration is appealing a judge’s orders that sided with Harvard in two lawsuits.

    The Justice Department opened a compliance review into Harvard’s admissions practices last April on the same day the White House issued a series of sweeping demands aligned with Trump’s priorities. The agency told Harvard to hand over five years of admissions data for undergraduate applicants along with Harvard’s medical and law schools.

    It asked for a trove of data including applicants’ grades, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities and admissions outcomes, along with their race and ethnicity. It asked for the data by April 25, 2025. The lawsuit said Harvard has not provided that data.

    Justice Department officials said they need the data to determine whether Harvard has continued considering applicants’ race in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court barred affirmative action in admissions in 2023 after lawsuits challenged it at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

    Trump officials have accused colleges of continuing the practice, which the administration says discriminates against white and Asian American students.

    The White House is separately pressing universities across the U.S. to providing similar data to determine whether they have continued to factor race into admissions decisions. The Education Department plans to collect more detailed admissions data from colleges after Trump signed an action suggesting schools were ignoring the Supreme Court decision.

    Trump’s dispute with Harvard had appeared to be winding down last summer after the president repeatedly said they were finalizing a deal to restore Harvard’s federal funding. The deal never materialized, and Trump rekindled the conflict this month when he said Harvard must pay $1 billion as part of any deal, double what he previously demanded.

  • DOJ’s targeting of Trump critics ramps up with attempt to indict lawmakers

    DOJ’s targeting of Trump critics ramps up with attempt to indict lawmakers

    The Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute President Donald Trump’s critics entered a new phase this week, when federal prosecutors failed to indict six Democratic lawmakers who recorded a video reminding military service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders.

    Department lawyers, under pressure from the president, previously targeted several of Trump’s most outspoken foes, including former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Both faced since-dismissed charges last year over alleged conduct unrelated to their political views.

    But the case federal prosecutors put before a grand jury Tuesday — seeking to charge Sens. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.), Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) and four others over their 90-second video message — marked the first time the department has directly sought to classify critical speech from prominent Trump detractors as a crime.

    The other lawmakers who participated in the video included Reps. Jason Crow, a former Army ranger from Colorado, and Maggie Goodlander, a Navy veteran from New Hampshire, as well as Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force officer, and Chris Deluzio, a former Navy officer, both from Pennsylvania.

    Grand jurors roundly rejected the effort, the Washington Post reported. But legal observers and the lawmakers at the center of the probe have argued in the days since that the panel’s decision is almost beside the point.

    Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) speak during a news conference Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

    “This is not a good news story,” Kelly, a retired Navy captain and astronaut, told reporters during a news conference this week. “This is a story about how Donald Trump and his cronies are trying to break our system to silence anyone who lawfully speaks out against them.”

    The attempt to charge the lawmakers represents an evolution of the campaign that began last year with cases against James and Comey, said Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth College.

    “Prosecuting people for speech criticizing the president is in some ways even more dangerous,” Nyhan said, “especially given these are legislators acting in their public role and especially given that they were calling for the military and national security state to follow the law.”

    Still, some Trump allies in Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), defended the administration’s efforts. He told reporters that Slotkin, Kelly, and the others “probably should be indicted.”

    “Any time you’re obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it’s a very serious thing, and it probably is a crime,” he said.

    The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the lawmakers began after the video organized by Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, was posted online in November. In it, she and the others, all of whom served in the military or with intelligence agencies, reminded service members of their duty, spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to resist unlawful directives.

    “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers said. “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

    The video did not single out any specific Trump administration policies. But Slotkin and Kelly, both of whom serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, have sharply criticized the president for military strikes he authorized on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean and his decision to deploy the National Guard to cities run by Democratic officials.

    Their video drew an immediate reaction from Trump, who demanded on social media that the lawmakers face prosecution for sedition and suggested they should even, perhaps, be punished with execution.

    “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Trump wrote in one social media post soon after the video was posted. He said in another: “IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME.”

    Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force officer and a Democrat who represents Chester County, was one of six lawmakers targeted over a 90-second video message.

    The messages echoed another Trump post from last year in which he, in a missive addressed to “Pam,” an apparent reference to Attorney General Pam Bondi, insisted the Justice Department move swiftly to prosecute Comey, James, and others.

    “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he wrote then, adding, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

    Within months, James was indicted on counts of mortgage fraud, while Comey was charged with lying to Congress. Both denied the accusations and their cases were later dismissed by a federal judge over technical issues with the appointment of the prosecutor who had charged them.

    Slotkin, Kelly, and the other lawmakers have maintained they did nothing wrong — even as top administration officials have accused them of using the video to encourage service members to take actions tantamount to mutiny.

    Earlier this month, four of the lawmakers in the video disclosed that they had been approached by FBI agents and declined to give voluntary interviews to prosecutors.

    “It was clearly, when our lawyers sat down with them, just about checking a box and doing what the president wanted them to do,” Slotkin said Wednesday. “Their heart wasn’t even in it.”

    It is not clear whether the FBI took other steps to investigate. But on Tuesday, prosecutors under the supervision of D.C.’s U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host and staunch Trump ally, presented a case against the lawmakers to the grand jury.

    Two political appointees led that presentation, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sealed court proceedings.

    The prosecutors — Steven Vandervelden, a former colleague of Pirro’s in the district attorney’s office in Westchester, New York, and Carlton Davis, a former staffer for House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R., Ky.) — sought to charge the lawmakers with a felony crime that makes it illegal to “interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States,” the people said.

    But when it came time to vote, none of the grand jurors agreed there was sufficient probable cause to charge any of the lawmakers with a crime, one of the people familiar said.

    Spokespeople for the Justice Department and for Pirro have declined to comment on the matter in the days since. Amid that silence, the effort has drawn an impassioned response from Capitol Hill.

    “The fact that they failed to incarcerate a United States senator should not obviate our outrage,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D., Hawaii) said during a heated session Wednesday in which Democratic senators implored their Republican colleagues to openly condemn the Justice Department’s actions. Senate Democrats held a special caucus meeting Thursday morning to further discuss the situation.

    “They tried to incarcerate two of us,” Schatz said. “I am not entirely sure the United States Senate can survive this if we do not have Republicans standing up.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis (North Carolina) has emerged as one of the few Republicans to publicly rebuke the department. He described the failed attempt to prosecute as exactly the type of weaponization of the justice system that the Trump administration has said it is fighting against.

    “Political lawfare is not normal, not acceptable, and needs to stop,” Tillis wrote in a post to X.

    At their news conference Wednesday, Kelly told reporters that he and Slotkin learned about the attempt to indict them Tuesday through media reports.

    “If things had gone a different way, we’d be preparing for arrest,” Slotkin said.

    Since then, lawyers for several of the targeted lawmakers have sent letters to Pirro and Bondi seeking assurances that the investigation is over and that prosecutors will not seek to indict them again. They’ve also instructed the department to retain all records of the investigation threatening potential legal action for violating the lawmakers’ free-speech rights.

    In a separate suit filed by Kelly, a federal judge Thursday halted Defense Department efforts to formally censure the senator over his video remarks, saying the effort to do so “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”

    “The intimidation was the point — to get other people beyond us to think twice about speaking out,” Slotkin said Wednesday. “But the real question is if the president can do this to us — sitting senators — who else can he do it to?”