DAVOS, Switzerland — President Donald Trump insisted Wednesday that he wants to “get Greenland, including right, title and ownership,” but said he would not use force to do so while repeatedly deriding European allies and vowing that NATO should not try to block U.S. expansionism.
In an extraordinary speech at the World Economic Forum, the president said he was asking for territory that was “cold and poorly located.” He said the U.S. had effectively saved Europe during World War II and even declared of NATO: “It’s a very small ask compared to what we have given them for many, many decades.”
The implications of his remarks were nonetheless enormous, potentially rupturing an alliance that has held firm since the dawn of the Cold War and seemed among the globe’s most unshakable pacts.
NATO was founded by leading European nations, the U.S. and Canada. Its other members have been steadfast in saying Greenland is not for sale and cannot be wrested from Denmark. That means the Davos meeting could be just the beginning of a larger standoff that may eventually reshape geopolitics worldwide.
A Danish government official told The Associated Press after Trump’s speech that Copenhagen is ready to discuss U.S. security concerns in the Arctic. But the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, underscored the government’s position that “red lines”— namely Denmark’s sovereignty — must be respected.
Trump urged Denmark and the rest of NATO to stand aside, adding an ominous warning.
“We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
Despite that, he also acknowledged: “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be frankly unstoppable. But I won’t do that, OK?”
“I don’t have to use force,” he said. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
Instead, he called for opening “immediate negotiations” for the U.S. to acquire Greenland.
“This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America,” Trump said. “That’s our territory.”
Trump suggests Europe is fizzling while U.S. booms
The president has spent weeks saying that the U.S. will get control of Greenland no matter what it takes, arguing that Washington should be in charge there to counter threats in the surrounding Arctic sea by Russia and China. His Davos remarks articulated what that push for control might entail more clearly than before, however.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said he was encouraged by Trump’s comment about not using U.S. military force but called other parts of the speech “a way of thinking about territorial integrity that does not match the institutions we have.”
“Greenland is part of NATO. Denmark is part of NATO, and we can exercise our sovereignty in Greenland,” Løkke Rasmussen said.
In his remarks, Trump also argued that the U.S. is booming and its economy is strong, in sharp contrast to Europe.
“I want to see Europe go good, but it’s not heading in the right direction,” said Trump, who also noted, “We want strong allies, not seriously weakened ones.” He said of European economies, “You all follow us down, and you follow us up.”
Trump turned the Davos gathering upside-down even before he got there.
His arrival was delayed after a minor electrical problem on Air Force One forced a return to Washington to switch aircraft. As Trump’s motorcade headed down a narrow road to the speech site, onlookers — including some skiers — lined the route. Some made obscene gestures, and one held up a paper cursing the president.
Billionaires and top executives nonetheless sought seats inside the forum’s Congress Hall, which had a capacity of around 1,000, for Trump’s keynote address. When he began, it was standing room only. Attendees used headsets to listen in six languages besides English, and the reaction was mostly polite applause.
More than 60 other heads of state are attending the forum. After the speech, Trump met with the leaders of Poland, Belgium and Egypt and again repeated that the U.S. would not be invading Greenland.
“Military is not on the table. I don’t think it will be necessary,” Trump said, suggesting that the parties involved would use better judgment.
Trump said the tariffs would start at 10% next month and climb to 25% in June.
The president in a text message that circulated among European officials this week linked his aggressive stance on Greenland to last year’s decision not to award him the Nobel Peace Prize. In the message, he told Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace.”
Even before his speech, Trump’s Greenland ambitions were rankling Europe.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer vowed during his weekly questioning in the House of Commons, “Britain will not yield on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs, and that is my clear position.”
French President Emmanuel Macron, in his address to the forum, urged rejecting acceptance of “the law of the strongest.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that should Trump move forward with the tariffs, the bloc’s response “will be unflinching, united and proportional.”
The U.S. stock market, meanwhile, recovered on Wednesday from its worst day since October, as Trump’s talk of Greenland-related tariffs spooked investors.
Trump’s housing plan overshadowed
The White House had insisted Trump would focus his Davos address on how to lower housing prices in the U.S. That was part of a larger effort to bring down the cost of living, which continues to rise and threatens to become a major liability for the White House and Republicans ahead of November’s midterm elections.
Greenland instead carried the day, with Trump lashing at Denmark for being “ungrateful” for the U.S. protection of the Arctic island during the World War II. He also mistakenly referred to Iceland, mixing up that country with Greenland four times during his speech and for the fifth time since Tuesday.
When he finally did mention housing in his speech, Trump suggested he did not support a measure to encourage affordability. He said bringing down rising home prices hurts property values and makes homeowners who once felt wealthy because of the equity in their houses feel poorer.
Meanwhile, experts and economists are warning that Trump’s Greenland tariff threat could disrupt the U.S. economy if it blows up the trade truce reached last summer between the U.S. and the EU.
Promoting the ‘Board of Peace’
On Thursday, Trump plans to attend an event focused on the “Board of Peace,” meant to oversee a U.S.-brokered ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. It could possibly take on a broader mandate, potentially rivaling the United Nations. Some European nations have so far been non-committal about participating.
“You know, the United Nations should be doing this,” Trump said Wednesday of his efforts to halt the fighting in Gaza and other conflicts around the world.
Yvonne St Cyr strained her body against police barricades, crawled through a broken Senate window, and yelled “push, push, push” to fellow rioters in a tunnellike hallway where police officers suffered concussions and broken bones.
She insisted she did nothing wrong. A federal judge sentenced her to 30 months in prison and imposed $2,270 in financial penalties for her actions at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, declaring: “You have little or no respect for the law, little or no respect for our democratic systems.”
St Cyr served only half her sentence before President Donald Trump’s January 2025 pardon set her and almost 1,600 others free.
But her story doesn’t end there. St Cyr headed back to court, seeking a refund of the $2,270. “It’s my money,” the Marine Corps veteran from Idaho said in an interview with the Washington Post. “They took my money.” In August, the same judge who sentenced her reluctantly agreed, pointing to a legal quirk in her case.
“Sometimes a judge is called upon to do what the law requires, even if it may seem at odds with what justice or one’s initial instincts might warrant. This is one such occasion,” U.S. District Judge John D. Bates wrote in an opinion authorizing the first refund to a Jan. 6 defendant.
The ruling revealed an overlooked consequence of Trump’s pardon for some Jan. 6 offenders: Not only did it free them from prison but it emboldened them to demand payback from the government.
At least eight Jan. 6 defendants are pursuing refunds of the financial penalties paid as part of their sentences, according to a Post review of court records; judges agreed that St Cyr and a Maryland couple should be reimbursed, while five more are appealing denials. (St Cyr and the couple are still waiting to receive their payments, however.) Others are filing lawsuits against the government seeking millions of dollars, alleging politically tainted prosecutions and violations of their constitutional rights. Hundreds more have filed claims accusing the Justice Department, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of inflicting property damage and personal injuries, according to their lawyer.
People walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., last Jan. 6, the fifth anniversary of the Capitol attack.
The efforts are the latest chapter in an extraordinary rewriting of history by the president and his allies to bury the facts of what happened at the Capitol, sustain the false claim thatthe 2020 election was rigged, and recast the Jan. 6 offenders as victims entitled to taxpayer-funded compensation.
“Donald Trump and the DOJ want taxpayers to reimburse a violent mob for the destruction of the U.S. Capitol. The Jan. 6 nightmare continues,” said Rep. Joe Morelle (D., N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which oversees the Capitol’s security and operations.
The pro-Trump mob that ransacked the Capitol caused almost $3 million in damage, according to a 2022 estimate by the Justice Department. The losses included smashed doors and windows, defaced artwork, damaged furniture, and residue from gas agents and fire extinguishers.Defendants were sentenced to more than $1.2 million in restitution and fines, according to a tally by the Post.
But the government recovered less than $665,000 of those court-ordered payments, according to a source with firsthand knowledge who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retaliation. Sen. Alex Padilla (D., Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) are pushing legislation — backed by some law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 — to block government payouts to rioters. Without any Republican cosponsors, the legislation is not expected to proceed.
“The audacity of them to think they didn’t do anything, or to think that they’re right and then get their money back,” said former Capitol police officer Harry Dunn, who attended the sentencing of St Cyr and other Jan. 6 offenders. “It’s frustrating and it should not happen. They should have to pay more.”
‘It’s a principle thing’
Stacy Hager, a 62-year-old former warehouse supervisor, made his first trip to Washington, D.C., for the Jan. 6 rally. The lifelong Texan wasn’t that interested in politics before, but he was certain that Donald Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election.
Wearing a Trump hat and waving the Texas flag, Hager took photos and videos of himself roaming through the Capitol. He was convicted on four misdemeanor charges related to disorderly conduct and trespassing; he paid $570 in penalties and served seven months in prison, a punishment he describes as totally unjust and “a living hell.”
Hager still believes, fervently, that fraud marred the 2020 vote and that Trump won, though no new evidence has surfaced to contradict the findings of Justice Department officials, cybersecurity experts, and dozens of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Hager spent seven months in prison for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Now that he has been pardoned, he is seeking a refund of the $570 in court-ordered penalties he paid.
“You tell me why I shouldn’t be entitled to getting my money back,” Hager said. “The government took money from me for doing the right thing, for standing up for the people’s vote. That’s the reason we were there — for a free and fair election.”
About one month after Trump’s pardon in January 2025, Hager was the first of the Jan. 6 defendants to ask for his money back, court records show. “It’s a principle thing,” Hager said. Among the other defendants seeking refunds: A Utah man who forfeited almost $63,000he made from selling videos recording some of the worst violence at the Capitol. A Georgia teenager who paid $2,200 in fines after heshoved a police officer and sat in Vice President Mike Pence’s chair in the Senate chamber.
While the charges and punishments vary, the defendants seeking refunds share one legal quirk: All of them were appealing their convictions when Trump pardoned them on Jan. 20, 2025. After the pardon, courts vacated their convictions and dismissed their indictments following requests from federal prosecutors, as the Justice Department that once prosecuted the Jan. 6 defendants now takes their side.
It’s routine for a criminal defendant who has paid financial penalties to get the money back if the conviction is vacated and the case is dismissed. But the attack halting the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history pushed the criminal justice system into uncharted territory.
And now, the legal debate over whether certain Jan. 6 defendants should receive refunds is forcing courts to weigh two obscure Supreme Court decisions — 140 years apart — involving a pardoned Confederate sympathizer and a woman convicted but later acquitted of sexually assaulting her children.
Judges who have denied refunds have all referenceda case brought by John Knote, whose West Virginia property was confiscated and sold for $11,000 under a law empowering the Union to seize Confederate property. Citing President Andrew Johnson’s pardon of former Confederates on Christmas Day 1868, Knote asked the court to reimburse him $11,000. The Supreme Court ruled in 1877 that money deposited in the U.S. treasury could not be returned without an act of Congress.
People walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., last Jan. 6, the fifth anniversary of the Capitol attack. The pro-Trump mob that ransacked the Capitol caused almost $3 million in damage, according to a 2022 estimate by the Justice Department.
Jan. 6 defendants, however, are looking to a much more recent Supreme Court opinion — written by liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg — to bolster their argument that the government owes them money. In that 2017 case, Colorado resident Shannon Nelson paid about $700 in penalties before her sexual assault conviction was overturned on appeal. At a later trial, she was acquitted of the alleged crimes against her children. The high court said Nelson was now “presumed innocent” and entitled to a refund.
In approving St Cyr’s request for reimbursement, Bates referred to the Nelson case 39 times. The other D.C. District Court judge who has ruled in favor of refunds for Jan. 6 defendants, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, also cited the Nelson case in December. “When a conviction is vacated, the Government must return any payments exacted because of it,” he wrote.
Hager returned to Washington this month to gather with other Trump supporters to mark the fifth anniversary. He and other Jan. 6 defendants stay in close touch online.
“We’re like a family,” Hager said, wearing a weathered baseball cap celebrating America’s 250th birthday and a T-shirt proclaiming his love for Jesus Christ. “We have a great bond, the kind that political persecution forms.”
Had gun, would travel
Andrew Taake’s journey through the criminal justice system illustrates one of the most dramatic twists in a Jan. 6 case. He attacked police officers with bear spray and a “whiplike weapon,” according to a plea agreement he signed in 2023. Now he is suing the federal government for $2.5 million, claiming his civil rights were violated by a wrongful prosecution and mistreatment in prison.
Taake was on pretrial release on a pending charge of online solicitation of a minor when he traveled from Houston to Washington, D.C., in January 2021. He attended the “Stop the Steal” rally headlined by Trump and was among the first to breach the restricted area around the Capitol. One of the police officers who said Taake assaulted him with bear spray, Nathan Tate, filed a statement in court that said the experience left “a lifelong scar.”
“He came to the Capitol with multiple weapons,” Tate wrote. “He was not there for peaceful protest. He was there to be violent. He should not be allowed to claim victimhood today.”
Taake pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers using a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced in 2024 to 74 months in prison.
His prison time was cut short by Trump’s pardon. Two weeks later, he was taken into custody by Houston-area law enforcement on the 2016 child solicitation charge. He pleaded guilty to a second-degree felony, was sentenced to three years in prison and was ordered to register as a sex offender.
But because Taake had already served more than three years in the Jan. 6 case, he got credit for time served and did not return to prison, records show. In September, he filed a lawsuit against the federal government that tells a very different story than the plea deal.
In the suit filed in D.C. District Court, Taake claims he used the bear spray to protect a fellow protester and that another officer disfigured his hand by stomping on it. He accuses prosecutors of using false evidence and manipulating him into the plea deal. In prison, he said he was mistreated by medical staff and assaulted by other inmates. “He should be compensated for his pain and suffering because it doesn’t get much worse than that,” said Taake’s lawyer, Peter Ticktin, a longtime Trump ally.
Tate, who now who works as a social studies teacher in La Plata, Md., was shocked to hear about Taake’s lawsuit. “He can say my allegations are false but it’s documented, you can literally see what took place,” he said. “It was real for me.”
In the most far-reaching effort on behalf of Jan. 6 offenders, Missouri lawyer Mark McCloskey is trying to build support for a government-backed compensation panel, similar to the fund that has distributed billions of dollars to families of victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. McCloskey attracted national attention in 2020 when he and his wife pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters marching past their home; they pleaded guilty to firearms charges but were pardoned by the Missouri governor.
McCloskey said he has advocated for the Jan. 6 fund in four meetings with Justice Department officials, including Ed Martin, the director of a unit tasked with investigating Trump’s political opponents.
Martin, who helped plan and finance Trump’s rally that preceded the rampage through the Capitol, has said publicly that he supports “reparations” for Jan. 6 defendants.
Trump also has expressed support for government payouts. Asked about compensating Jan. 6 offenders in a March 2025 Newsmax interview, Trump said, “Well, there’s talk about that. … A lot of the people in government really like that group of people. They were patriots as far as I was concerned.”
But McCloskey is still waiting for the Justice Department to act. “We have had all positive responses but until President Trump pulls the trigger, it isn’t going to happen,” McCloskey said. “The president needs to take a position on it.”
In December, McCloskey sought to build momentum by posting a photo of himself on social media that he said showed him delivering claims to federal law enforcement agencies from about 400 Jan. 6 clients. The property damage and personal injury claims — a prerequisite to filing lawsuits against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act — describe homes ransacked during arrests, lost jobs, and broken families, McCloskey said.
The White House and the Justice Department declined to comment on McCloskey’s efforts.
Another Jan. 6-related lawsuit against the federal government comes from several leaders of the Proud Boys who were found guilty of engaging in a seditious conspiracy to keep Trump in power despite his electoral defeat. The suit seeking $100 million, filed in federal court in Florida last year, echoes Trump’s claims that the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack was illegitimate and politically motivated.
Former Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio speaks at the Jan. 6 anniversary rally this month.
The lead plaintiff, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, called for charges against Jan. 6 prosecutors when he addressed the gathering in Washington, D.C., to mark the fifth anniversary this month. “The thing I am searching for,” Tarrio said, “is retribution, retaliation.”
Since Trump returned to office one year ago, many Jan. 6 prosecutors have been fired or resigned. Hager’s prosecutor, Adam Dreher, was demoted to Superior Court last year, he said, in retaliation for his work on Jan. 6 cases. He left the department a few months ago to return to his home state of Michigan and practice law. The Justice Department declined to comment on Dreher’s record.
Dreher was an administrative law judge in Detroit on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot at the Capitol inspired him to come to Washington as a federal prosecutor, he said, just as years earlier, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack moved him to join the military.
“It made me want to be part of trying to help things get back to normal, to hold people accountable and make sure the rule of law was something we could rely on,” he said. “That all we did is being unraveled has been very difficult to watch.”
As he standsoutside the Narberth Bookshop on a frigid January afternoon, it’s clear Dana Edwards has a vision.
Imagine, he says, as he sweeps his hands toward the borough’s downtown corridor, getting off the train and stopping into a small grocery for a bite to eat before heading home on foot. Maybe you buy a gift, or an ice cream cone, or a bottle of wine.
Like anywhere, Narberth “could use a little bit of revitalization here and there,” Edwards said. But you can “see the potential.”
Edwards, 53, was sworn in as Narberth’s mayor earlier this month. The longtime financial technology officer moved there from Pittsburgh five years ago with his wife, Miranda. They have a 2-year-old son, and Edwards has two older children, 19 and 22, from his first marriage. Edwards had never run for office before, but after falling in love with the borough (and being encouraged by neighbors), he stepped into the public eye last year. He won the local Democratic Party’s endorsement, then ran unopposed in the primary and general election. This month, Edwards replaced Andrea Deutsch, who had served as Narberth’s mayor since 2017.
As the 0.5-square-mile, 4,500-person borough faces infrastructure challenges and debates over development, Edwards says he is ready to steer Narberth in the right direction through communication, thoughtful growth, and a social media presence he calls “purposely cringey and fun.”
Narberth Mayor Dana Edwards talks about the empty storefronts on Haverford Avenue on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026 in Narberth, Pa.
From San Juan to Narberth, with stops in between
Edwards grew up in San Juan, Puerto Rico. There, Edwards says, he saw power outages, infrastructure issues, and food shortages. It was a formative experience that taught him about the collective — what it means to come together in the face of persistent challenges.
He earned a degree in chemistry in 1994 from the College of Charleston in South Carolina. Though the goal was to become a doctor, Edwards was drawn to technology. He went back to school, and in 1997 earned a degree in computer science, also from the College of Charleston. Edwards has a master’s in business administration from Queens University of Charlotte in North Carolina.
Edwards has spent three decades in the world of information technology, working mostly for major banks. He was the chief technology officer of the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, then for PNC Bank. He is now the group chief technology officer for Simply Business, a London-based online insurance broker. He has lived in Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and now Narberth. He has over 18,000 followers on LinkedIn.
By his own admission, Edwards’ civic background is “a little bit light.” He has given to various causes over the years, and said he was involved in the ACLU in the early 2000s. He helped organize Narberth’s first Pride in the Park event in 2022 and said he has joined the Main Line NAACP chapter.
The corner of Haverford and North Narberth Avenues on Monday, June 2, 2025 in downtown Narberth, Pa.
Polarization happening ‘in our little town’
Edwards started thinking about running for office “when the national scene changed dramatically.”
He described beginning to sense a deep polarization both between and within America’s political parties.
“I felt like I saw it happening locally. I saw it happening in our little town,” he said.
As the mayoral race approached, neighbors began telling Edwards he had the right “thing” to run. He could build a strategic plan, lead an organization, and understand financials. At a candidate forum last year, Edwards said he originally planned to run for mayor in 2029, but decided to move his campaign up to 2025.
Edwards earned the backing of Narberth’s Democratic committee people last April, beating out attorney Rebecca Starr in a heated endorsement process.
During a March 2025 meeting, local Democrats squabbled over whether or not to endorse a candidate, citing “animosity” in the race (candidates are discouraged from running as Democrats if they do not receive the endorsement of the local committee). The committee ultimately voted to make an endorsement, which went to Edwards.
“I think [in] any good race, at some point, you have to have more than one candidate. Because otherwise, people are just getting selected, not elected,” Edwards said, referencing the endorsement process. “I do think that she would be a great candidate also, and I hope she runs again.”
Edwards believes the community has largely moved on from any division that colored the primary. Really, he added, it’s more important to get people talking about the issues the mayor can solve — streets, garbage pickup, infrastructure.
“I’m just really focused on Narberth,” he said.
The SEPTA train station on the Paoli/Thorndale Line on Monday, June 2, 2025 in Narberth, Pa.
There are two extremes, Edwards says. On one end, the borough could leave everything as it is. The buildings might fall apart, but they would be the same buildings that everyone knows and loves. On the other end, there is rapid growth, like bringing a Walmart Supercenter to Haverford Avenue.
“It’s that thing in the middle that we’re looking for,” he said — a “hometown feel” with “community-oriented” businesses.
Edwards is eager to get the 230 Haverford Ave. development across the finish line. The long-awaited project plans to bring 25 new apartment units and ground-floor retail to Narberth’s commercial core. The project, helmed by local real estate developer Tim Rubin, has been in the works for over five years, but faced pandemic-era setbacks that have left a number of vacant storefronts downtown.
Edwards plans to write a regular newsletter, hold town halls, and host coffee chats. He hopes to put together an unofficial advisory group to bring together people, and opinions, from across the small borough.
Edwards believes “the DNA of Narberth is alive and kicking,” from the Dickens Festival to the Narberth Outsiders baseball team. To keep it alive, though, the borough needs to bring business in and remind people why they love to live, shop, and work in Narberth.
“It’s all about relationships and commerce,” he said. “[That] is going to be what brings us together.”
This suburban content is produced with support from the Leslie Miller and Richard Worley Foundation and The Lenfest Institute for Journalism. Editorial content is created independently of the project donors. Gifts to support The Inquirer’s high-impact journalism can be made at inquirer.com/donate. A list of Lenfest Institute donors can be found at lenfestinstitute.org/supporters.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s plane, Air Force One, returned to Joint Base Andrews about an hour after departing for Switzerland on Tuesday evening.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the decision to return was made after takeoff when the crew aboard Air Force One identified “a minor electrical issue” and, out of an abundance of caution, decided to turn around.
A reporter on board said the lights in the press cabin of the aircraft went out briefly after takeoff, but no explanation was immediately offered. About half an hour into the flight reporters were told the plane would be turning around.
Trump will board another aircraft and continue on with his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos.
The two planes currently used as Air Force One have been flying for nearly four decades. Boeing has been working on replacements, but the program has faced a series of delays. The planes are heavily modified with survivability capabilities for the president for a range of contingencies, including radiation shielding and antimissile technology. They also include a variety of communications systems to allow the president to remain in contact with the military and issue orders from anywhere in the world.
Last year, the ruling family of Qatar gifted Trump a luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet to be added into the Air Force One fleet, a move that faced great scrutiny. That plane is currently being retrofitted to meet security requirements.
Leavitt joked to reporters on Air Force One Tuesday night that a Qatari jet was sounding “much better” right now.
Last February, an Air Force plane carrying Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Germany had to return to Washington because of a mechanical issue. In October, a military plane carrying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had to make an emergency landing in United Kingdom due to a crack in the windshield.
Lindsey Halligan, a Trump administration lawyer who was named head of a key U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia last year with instructions to seek criminal charges against President Donald Trump’s perceived political adversaries, left her post at the Justice Department on Tuesday.
Halligan’s departure followed a pair of extraordinary moves by two federal judges who issued court orders hours earlier saying they intended to replace Halligan at the helm of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia and threatening disciplinary sanctions for any government lawyer who continued to refer to her as U.S. attorney in legal filings.
The separate actions by Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck and Judge David J. Novak, who were nominated by President Barack Obama and Trump, respectively, signaled a breaking point for the federal bench in the Eastern District of Virginia months after Halligan was disqualified from serving as U.S. attorney in the high-profile office.
The orders intensified a battle playing out nationwide between the executive and judicial branches over how the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys can be appointed for temporary terms without Senate confirmation. And they had posed obstacles for Halligan — who had no prosecutorial experience before she was installed in the job — as she attempted to carry out Trump’s directions to levy criminal charges against two of his perceived political foes: former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Halligan, in a statement, accused the district’s federal judges of a campaign to pressure her to leave after the court ruling declaring her appointment was invalid. She said that effort had diverted “time and resources from public safety responsibilities.”
It was unclear Tuesday night who would be in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office. The Justice Department this month dismissed the first assistant U.S. attorney, Robert K. McBride, who would have automatically assumed the top job under federal law. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Halligan is the third Trump-appointed U.S. attorney pick to leave their post in the face of a growing body of court rulings that have deemed their appointments illegal.
Alina Habba, a former Trump lawyer he picked to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey, resigned last month after a monthslong legal battle over whether she was lawfully serving in that role.
While the Justice Department continues to appeal the decision, Habba stepped down and moved to another role in the Justice Department.
Julianne Murray, another contested pick, resigned her post as U.S. attorney in Delaware days afterward. Before her appointment, she had served as the state’s Republican Party chairwoman.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised Halligan for her service in a statement Tuesday.
“While we will feel her absence keenly, we are confident that she will continue to serve her country in other ways,” Bondi said. “The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided. We are living in a time when a democratically elected President’s ability to staff key law enforcement positions faces serious obstacles.”
Several judges had suggested for weeks that Halligan should resign and sharply questioned her continued use of the U.S. attorney title after an out-of-district judge, Cameron McGowan Currie, ruled in late November that the Trump administration had used an unlawful maneuver to install Halligan.
On Tuesday, Lauck directed the court’s clerk to publish the U.S. attorney job posting in local newspapers, asking anyone interested to apply by Feb. 10. “The position of United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia is vacant,” reads a public notice posted on the court’s website Tuesday.
Lauck’s order marked an escalation, signaling active efforts by the judges to appoint the district’s top federal prosecutor under a federal law that gives them the power to do so after an interim U.S. attorney has been in office for 120 days. It was followed hours later with another order from Novak, who raised the threat of disciplinary action for anyone who described Halligan as the U.S. attorney in legal filings.
“No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders,” Novak wrote. “In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end.”
The Trump administration has appealed Currie’s ruling, but it never requested a stay, so the ruling disqualifying Halligan remained in effect. Nonetheless, she continued to represent herself as the U.S. attorney in court filings.
This month, Novak ordered Halligan to explain why she continued to use the title, suggesting she may be making false or misleading statements. The Justice Department responded defiantly to that order last week, arguing that Currie’s ruling was not binding and that Novak had no authority to strike Halligan’s name from the signature block of Justice Department court filings.
The response, which accused Novak of making “rudimentary” legal errors and missing “elementary” legal principles, was written in a derisive tone unusual for a government lawyer addressing a federal judge.
Novak said in response that Halligan’s rhetoric was beneath the court’s dignity and more suitable for cable news. He said Halligan’s continued use of the U.S. attorney title after Currie’s ruling was an affront to the legal system.
“The Court cannot tolerate such obstinance, because doing so would undermine the very essence of the Rule of Law,” he wrote in Tuesday’s order. “If the Court were to allow Ms. Halligan and the Department of Justice to pick and choose which orders that they will follow, the same would have to be true for other litigants and our system of justice would crumble.”
Halligan’s nomination for a full term as U.S. attorney is pending in the Senate, and it was unclear Tuesday whether the White House also intended to withdraw it. Even if they don’t, the nomination is unlikely to move forward because it lacks support from Virginia’s two senators — Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, both Democrats — who have emphasized that the Eastern District of Virginia handles a complex portfolio of cases dealing with national security, leaks of classified information, and international terrorism.
In disqualifying Halligan last fall, Currie ruled that Halligan was never legally appointed to the position of interim U.S. attorney because the Trump administration had already named someone to that role — Halligan’s predecessor, Erik S. Siebert, who served a full 120-day term, from January to May 2025. The district judges then unanimously extended Siebert in the role at the Justice Department’s request, Novak wrote in his order.
But Siebert was forced out in September after declining to seek charges against Comey and James. Career prosecutors had recommended against pursuing the two cases because of insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Trump then named Halligan, who promptly secured indictments against Comey, on allegations that he made false statements to Congress, and James, who was accused of mortgage fraud. Currie tossed both indictments after finding that Halligan was unlawfully appointed.
Halligan’s 120-day appointment concluded Tuesday.
Justice Department lawyers maintain that the statute allows for back-to-back interim appointments. But in addition to Currie, at least five other federal judges have rejected that argument while ruling on challenges to other Trump U.S. attorney appointees. In each case, the judges have said that if the attorney general could legally name a string of interim appointees, there would be no need for an administration to put a nominee up for a Senate vote.
Judges across the country have been cautious in exercising their authority to name replacements for the president’s picks. When New Jersey’s federal judges named a veteran federal prosecutor to replace Habba last summer, the Justice Department fired their pick within hours and undertook a series of legal maneuvers aimed at keeping Habba in the role.
Delaware’s chief federal judge began soliciting applications this fall to replace Murray in Delaware. But Murray resigned her post in December before a potential standoff with the administration could come to a head.
Judges in other districts have refused to reappoint Trump’s interim U.S. attorney picks but declined to choose replacements. The chief federal judge in Seattle issued an order last week soliciting applications to potentially appoint a new acting U.S. attorney there, when the interim appointment of Trump’s current pick expires next month.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump‘s pledge to provoke a sweeping tariff fight with Europe to get his way in taking control of Greenland has left many of America’s closest allies warning of a rupture with Washington capable of shattering the NATO alliance that had once seemed unshakable.
The European Union’s top official on Tuesday called Trump’s planned new tariffs over Greenland a “mistake” and questioned Trump’s trustworthiness. French President Emmanuel Macron said the EU could retaliate by deploying one of its most powerful economic tools, known colloquially as a trade “bazooka.”
The rising tensions concerning Greenland, and threats of a deepening trade war between the U.S. and Europe, caused global investors to shudder Tuesday, as stocks on Wall Street slumped.
Trump prides himself on ratcheting up pressure to try to negotiate through a position of strength. He was leaving Tuesday — the anniversary of his inauguration — for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a venue that offers Trump the chance to defuse tensions as quickly as he stirred them up.
But European leaders — digging in and vowing to defend Denmark and its control over semiautonomous Greenland — may be seeking just as hard to meet an extraordinary moment with a show of their fierce resolve.
That could hurt the chances of Trump finding a quick way to turn around the crisis. Greenland’s leader insisted on respect for its territorial integrity and said recognition of international law is “not a game.”
Trump made an unusual appearance in the White House briefing room and spoke at length while stocks fell. Asked how far he’d be willing to go to acquire Greenland, Trump said only, “You’ll find out.” He also mistakenly referred to Greenland as Iceland at one point.
Still, the president predicted there could be a deal in the making with allies. “I think that we will work something out where NATO is going to be very happy, and where we’re going to be very happy,” he said, without providing specifics.
Trump said he’d been encouraged that NATO had increased military spending, but he also belittled the alliance, saying other members may not protect Washington’s interests. The president suggested NATO members expect the U.S. to come to their rescue but “I just really do question whether or not they’ll come to ours.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pushed back against Trump’s announcement that, starting February, a 10% import tax will be imposed on goods from eight European nations that have rallied around Denmark. Greenland is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member.
“The European Union and the United States have agreed to a trade deal last July,” von der Leyen said in Davos. “And in politics as in business — a deal is a deal. And when friends shake hands, it must mean something.”
“We consider the people of the United States not just our allies, but our friends. And plunging us into a downward spiral would only aid the very adversaries we are both so committed to keeping out of the strategic landscape,” she added.
She vowed that the EU’s response “will be unflinching, united and proportional.”
Taking firmer stances defied the approach that many European leaders have offered since Trump returned to office. It had mostly entailed saying nice things about the president to try to stay in his good graces, while working furiously through other avenues to find compromise.
Trump says the U.S. needs Greenland to deter possible threats from China and Russia. But his continued insistence in recent weeks that anything short of the U.S. owning Greenland is unacceptable is testing the limits of the softer strategy.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said “the worst may still be ahead of us.” Speaking to parliament, she said “we have never sought conflict. We have consistently sought cooperation.”
‘Not a game’
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a news conference in the island’s capital, Nuuk, that “we need to have respect for international law and territorial integrity.” He said those principles should unite Western democratic countries, and said he was grateful for support from EU allies.
“International law, it’s not a game,” he said. “We have been a close and loyal ally to the United States, to NATO, through many, many, many years. We can do lots more in that framework. We are willing to cooperate much more, but of course in mutual respect, and if we cannot see that, it will be very difficult to have a good and reliable partnership.”
Trump’s threats have sparked outrage and a flurry of diplomatic activity across Europe, as leaders consider possible countermeasures, including retaliatory tariffs and the first-ever use of the European Union’s anti-coercion instrument.
Unofficially known as the “trade bazooka,” the anti-coercion instrument could sanction individuals or institutions found to be putting undue pressure on the EU. The EU has two other major economic tools it could use to pressure Washington: new tariffs, or a suspension of the U.S.-EU trade deal.
Macron warned in Davos that the additional tariffs could force the EU to use its anti-coercion mechanism for the first time against the United States.
“Can you imagine that?” he said, arguing that allied countries should be focusing instead on bringing peace to Ukraine. “This is crazy.”
In general, he said, the mechanism “is a powerful instrument and we should not hesitate to deploy it in today’s tough environment.”
Trump earlier posted a text message from Macron in which the French president suggested a meeting of members of the Group of Seven industrialized democracies in Paris after the Davos gathering. An official close to Macron, who spoke anonymously in line with the French presidency’s customary practices, confirmed the message shared by Trump is genuine.
In his latest threat of tariffs, Trump indicated that the import taxes would be retaliation for last week’s deployment of symbolic numbers of troops from the European countries to Greenland — though he also suggested that he was using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate with Denmark.
‘In the midst of a rupture’
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose country is a founding NATO member, warned of global fissures beyond Greenland, suggesting it was an “illusion” and “fiction” that there remains a rules-based international order.
“Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” Carney said during a speech in Davos.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said at Davos that Europe cannot be a “miserable slave’ to Trump.”
Others encouraged NATO leaders to stand up to Trump. Speaking on the sidelines of Davos, California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed Europe’s response to Trump’s tariff threats as “pathetic” and “embarrassing,” and urged continental leaders to unite and stand up to the United States.
“It’s time to stand tall and firm, have a backbone,” Newsom, a Democrat, told reporters.
Greenland’s European backers have also looked at establishing a more permanent military presence to help guarantee security in the Arctic region, a key demand of the United States, Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson said.
In Moscow, meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov strongly denied any intention by Russia and China to threaten Greenland, while also describing Greenland as a “colonial gain” for Denmark.
Trump was asked Tuesday what would happen to his tariff threats related to Greenland if the Supreme Court rules against his ability to impose import tariffs as part of a case it is considering.
“Well, I’ll have to use something else,” Trump said. “We have other alternatives.” He didn’t respond when asked about using force.
President Donald Trump marked his first year back in office by presiding over a meandering, nearly two-hour-long press briefing to recount his accomplishments, repeating many false claims he made throughout 2025.
Among the topics about which he continued to spread falsehoods were the 2020 election, foreign policy, the economy, and energy.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
2020 election
TRUMP, referencing former President Joe Biden: “… a man that didn’t win the election, by the way, it’s a rigged election. Everybody knows that now.
THE FACTS: This is a blatant falsehood that has been disproven many times over — the 2020 election was not stolen. Biden earned 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232. He also won over 7 million more popular votes than Trump.
But Trump has been persistent in claiming that he won the 2020 race since its completion, even after he earned a second term in 2024, and has continued to claim the lead-up to the 2026 midterms.
Biden’s Electoral College victory was nearly the same margin that Trump had in 2016 when he beat Hillary Clinton 227 to 306 (304 after two electors defected). Biden triumphed by prevailing in key states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia.
Allegations from Trump of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department. In 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, told the AP that no proof of widespread voter fraud had been uncovered. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” he said at the time.
International conflicts
TRUMP: “You have to understand, I settled eight wars.”
THE FACTS: This statistic, which Trump frequently cites as one of his accomplishments, is highly exaggerated. Although he has helped mediate relations among many nations, his impact isn’t as clear-cut as he makes it seem.
The conflicts Trump counts among those that he has solved are between Israel and Hamas, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, Rwanda and Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Cambodia and Thailand.
There is far more work that remains before any declaration of an end to the war in Gaza and although Trump is credited with ending the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, this can be seen as a temporary respite from an ongoing cold war. Fresh fighting broke out last month between Cambodia and Thailand, and between Congolese forces and Rwanda-backed rebels.
The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a deal aimed at ending a decades-long conflict at the White House in August. But the leaders have yet to sign a peace treaty and parliaments have yet to ratify it. After the April killing of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir pushed India and Pakistan closer to war than they had been in years, a ceasefire was reached. Trump claimed that the U.S. brokered the ceasefire and Pakistan thanked him, while India denied his claims.
Friction between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is best described as heightened tensions, not war. There has been no threat of war between Serbia and Kosovo during Trump’s second term, nor has he made any significant contribution to improving relations in his first year back in the White House.
The economy
TRUMP: “We inherited, remember this — inflation was at a historic high. We had never had inflation like that. They say 48 years. But whether it’s 48 years or ever, we had the highest inflation, in my opinion, that we’ve ever had.”
THE FACTS: This is false. Biden-era inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022, a consequence of supply chain interruptions, potentially excessive amounts of government aid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine driving up food and energy costs.
But Americans have known even worse and more sustained inflation than that. For example, higher than 13% in 1980 during an extended period of price pain. And by some estimates, inflation approached 20% during World War I.
Inflation had been falling during the first few months of Trump’s presidency, but it picked back up after the president announced his tariffs in April. It was at 2.7% as of December 2025.
Energy policy
TRUMP: “I say clean, beautiful coal. I never say the word coal, it has to be preceded by the words clean, beautiful coal.”
THE FACTS: The production of coal is cleaner now than it has been historically, but that doesn’t mean it’s clean.
Trump, however, continually omits this crucial context.
Planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from the coal industry have decreased over the past 30 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And yet United Nations-backed research has found that coal production worldwide still needs to be reduced sharply to address climate change.
Along with carbon dioxide, burning coal emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to acid rain, smog and respiratory illnesses, according to the EIA.
Coal once provided more than half of U.S. energy production. Today, coal accounts for about 15% of U.S. electricity production.
California wildfires
TRUMP, discussing approvals for reconstruction after the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires: “… the 20,000 houses or more that burned down in Los Angeles because they didn’t have the water, they didn’t allow the water to come down from the Pacific Northwest. They routed the water into the Pacific Ocean … They didn’t want to do it. They want to protect the tiny little fish.”
THE FACTS: Trump again tried to blame the fact that some Los Angeles fire hydrants ran dry during last year’s wildfires on the state’s water policies that aim to protect endangered species, including a tiny fish known as the Delta smelt. Local officials say the hydrant outages occurred because the municipal system was not designed to deal with such a massive disaster.
Trump later ordered water released from two dams in California’s Central Valley agricultural hub, but the water never went to Los Angeles, instead going to a dry lake basin more than 100 miles away.
Most of California’s water comes from the north, where it melts from mountain snow and runs into rivers that connect to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. From there, much of it is sent farther south to farmers and cities like Los Angeles through two large pumping and canal systems. One is run by the federal government and the other by the state. Contrary to Trump’s claim, no water supply from the Pacific Northwest connects to California’s system.
The Pentagon plans to cut its participation in a range of NATO advisory groups, the latest sign of the Trump administration’s drive to scale back the U.S. military presence in Europe, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter.
The impending move affects about 200 military personnel and will mostly diminish U.S. involvement in the alliance’s 30 Centers of Excellence, which seek to train NATO forces on key elements of warfare such as naval combat, these people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail the U.S. administration’s plans.
Rather than withdraw all at once, the Pentagon intends not to replace personnel as their postings end, a process that could take years, according to one U.S. official familiar with the matter. U.S. participation in the centers isn’t ending altogether, two officials noted.
The move has been under consideration for months, according to two U.S. officials, one of whom said it is unrelated to President Donald Trump’s escalating threats to seize the Danish territory of Greenland. Trump’s provocations have drawn widespread condemnation from European leaders and many lawmakers in Congress, who fear the president risks causing irreparable and unnecessary damage to the NATO alliance.
Spokespeople for the Pentagon and nor NATO did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Under Trump, the U.S. military has pulled back from Europe as the administration presses allies there to take greater control of the continent’s collective defense. Last year, for instance, the Pentagon abruptly announced it would withdraw a brigade of troops from Romania and cut security aid programs to the three Baltic nations that border Russia, whose yearslong invasion of Ukraine has spurred fears of a direct conflict between NATO and the Kremlin.
Under pressure from the Trump administration, the alliance agreed last summer to surge defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next 10 years, including 1.5% dedicated to infrastructure and other civilian projects.
Lawmakers — including some key Republicans — objected to the administration’s moves in Europe and are working to fund the impacted security assistance programs despite the Pentagon’s directives.
Members of Congress also have passed legislation that requires the Pentagon to consult with them before making any major reductions to U.S. military posture in Europe. The law specifies that requirement would apply only if the overall U.S. force posture in Europe were to fall below 76,000. It stands at roughly 80,000 now.
While the personnel eventually being withdrawn amount to a small share of troops the United States stations in Europe, some current and former officials said the U.S. pullout could have an outsize impact on the alliance by reducing valuable American military expertise.
“We have a lot of operational experience that some of our personnel contribute to these centers,” said Lauren Speranza, a senior Pentagon official during the Biden administration. “There would be a bit of a brain drain that would come with pulling U.S. personnel out.”
A coalition of building trades unions will lend the Philadelphia Housing Authority $50 million out of its pension fund to help finance the redevelopment of Brith Sholom House, a dilapidated senior apartment complex in West Philadelphia.
Mayor Cherelle L. Parker and her longtime political ally Ryan N. Boyer, the business manager of the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, announced the arrangement Tuesday and framed it as a first-of-its-kind approach to expanding the city’s affordable housing stock.
Under the terms of the deal, PHA will repay the building trades over 15 years at a 4.5% interest rate. PHA President and CEO Kelvin Jeremiah called it a good deal for taxpayers as banks and traditional financing institutions are lending at higher rates.
The city is guaranteeing the loan.Parker said the outcome will be 336 units of affordable housing for seniors on fixed incomes. Members of the building trades unions will perform the work at the site.
“This isn’t an investment for the building trades,” Boyer said. “It’s a down payment on our city’s future.”
Boyer, one of the most powerful nonelected political figures in the state, has been a longtime ally to Parker and much of City Council. The trades unions poured millions into Parker’s run for mayor in 2023 and have remained largely in lockstep with her. Boyer led the mayor’s transition team and has been a key voice on her signature housing plan, which stands to generate thousands of construction jobs.
The trades’ $50 million investment comes in addition to the $99.6 million that the housing authority is spending on a gut rehabilitation of the Wynnefield apartment complex, bringing the total cost of the project to $150 million.
A protestor carries a sign to protest the living conditions at Brith Sholom House apartments, in Philadelphia, on Friday, April 12, 2024.
Jeremiah said he has been “shocked and dismayed” by the conditions at Brith Sholom, which was so neglected under its previous owners that tenants were forced to move out.
Work will begin late this year and is expected to take about 20 months to complete, Jeremiah said, meaning tenants may not be able to move back in until 2028. He had previously estimated a timeline that would have allowed residents to return this year.
Brith Sholom fell into disrepair under its previous owners, the New Jersey-based Puretz family. A 2024 Inquirer investigation found that members of the family became one of the nation’s largest affordable housing purveyors by buying up old buildings, saddling them with debt, and then defaulting on loans.
At Brith Sholom, the Puretz family profited while defaulting on a $36 million mortgage and amassing dozens of code violations. Residents — who organized to save their homes — complained of deteriorating infrastructure, threats of utility shutoffs, squatters, and severe pest infestations.
In a bid to preserve the building and reuse it in part as subsidized housing, PHA acquired Brith Sholom House in August 2024 for $24 million.
In addition to the price of the acquisition, Jeremiah estimated in 2024 that the cost of rehabilitating the building would be an additional $30 million to $40 million. PHA said then that the remaining 111 elderly residents in the 360-unit building would be able to remain in place.
Three months later, Jeremiah informed the tenants that Brith Sholom was in such ragged shape that they would have to be moved out to repair the building. Some units were so badly damaged that PHA could not fix them.
Following the acquisition of Brith Sholom, PHA has embarked on an ambitious $6.3 billion, 10-year plan that includes the purchase of 4,000 other privately held apartments. In the face of a glut of market-rate multifamily properties, many developers have struggled to charge the rents they need to pay back their loans — and the housing authority has been able to purchase buildings from such companies across the city.
City Council President Kenyatta Johnson speaks during a news conference about the plan to redevelop Brith Sholom. At right is Mayor Cherelle L. Parker.
Parker also said the investment at Brith Sholom is part of her signature housing initiative, called Housing Opportunities Made Easy, or H.O.M.E. The mayor — who has promised to build, redevelop, and preserve more than 30,000 units of housing — is in the midst of continued negotiations with City Council over H.O.M.E.’s first-year budget.
Council in December gave initial approval to changes to legislation related to Parker’s housing initiative, which set income eligibility thresholds for two housing programs funded by H.O.M.E.’s bond proceeds. Parker wanted a higher threshold so middle-class residents could access the programs, while Council’s version aims to prioritize poorer Philadelphians.
Council could take a final vote on the related legislation as early as Thursday, when lawmakers return to session following their winter break.
Throughout the contentious process, Parker has said her administration is committed to affordable housing for lower-income Philadelphians. The collaboration with PHA to remake Brith Sholom, she said, is part of that effort.
“It’s not just for one particular constituency,” Parker said Tuesday about her overarching housing plan. “I’m personally on a mission to save Philly rowhomes. We’re trying to address our housing crisis and doing it for Philadelphians from all walks of life.”
Parker was joined at the news conference Tuesday by Council President Kenyatta Johnson, despite the two being at odds over the H.O.M.E. legislation in recent months. Johnson praised the mayor’s leadership and said the financing arrangement for Brith Sholom is remedying a “miscarriage of justice.”
“This is the type of work that helps those most in need,” Johnson said, “which is our seniors, who deserve to live out the twilight of their lives in dignity.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that sharply restricts where people can carry firearms — a case that may offer a strong indication of how far the justices will go in theirpush to loosen restrictions on guns.
Hawaii’s law bans people from carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless they have the owner’s consent. The court’s conservatives sharply questioned an attorney defending Hawaii’s law, suggesting it unduly burdened a constitutional right to bear arms.
The decision will reverberate beyond Hawaii because four other states, including California and New York, have enacted similar lawsin response to a landmark 2022 ruling by the high court that made it easier to challenge gun limits.
The default rule in most states is that gun owners can carry firearms onto private property open to the public until they have been told otherwise. The Hawaii law flipped the rule.Property owners generally have the right to restrict guns on land closed to the public.
“You are relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told Neal Katyal, an attorney for Hawaii.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the First Amendment permitted a political candidate to walk up to someone’s door to campaign, and he questioned why Hawaii could place limits on another constitutional right in the same context. He said gun rights are often disfavored.
“You say it’s different for the Second Amendment,” Roberts said to Katyal. “What exactly is the distinction?”
The court’s three liberal justices all indicated they thought Hawaii’s law probably passed constitutional muster. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that Hawaii had long had some of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws and cited polling that indicates the restriction on public carry is popular.
“Nothing about Hawaii’s customs, tradition or culture creates an expectation that the general public carries guns wherever they go, correct?” Sotomayor said.
A trio of gun owners with concealed-carry permits and a gun rights group challenged the Hawaii law, which was enacted in 2023. The Trump administration is backing the gun owners.
The law also bans the carrying of firearms in 15 sensitive locations, including bars, parks, restaurants that serve alcohol and youth centers. The legality of those restrictions is not at issue in the Supreme Court case.
The petitioners argue Hawaii’s law violates the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen,which found that “the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry.”
That ruling held that any restriction on firearms must have precedent rooted in American history. The decision has sparked thousands of challenges to gun-control laws across the country, resultingin rulings that have relaxed restrictions on high-capacity magazines, age limits for firearms purchases and other rules. The decision has also created some confusion among judges about how to conduct the historical analysis.
The Supreme Court clarified the Bruen decision last term in a case in which it held that states could bar people with domestic violence restraining orders from obtaining guns. The court found modern gun restrictions need not have a “historical twin” but rather a “historical analogue.”
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh questioned whether Hawaii’s law was based on precedents deeply rooted in American history. “There’s no sufficient history,” he said. “Case closed.”
The court has largely expanded gun rights since the Bruen ruling, but not in all cases. In one ruling, the justices struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire hundreds of rounds a minute. In a major case last term, the justices upheld Biden-era restrictions on ghost guns.
In Hawaii’s case,a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the statelaw in 2023, but a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the state last year. The appeals court cited historical laws from New Jersey and Louisiana that were “dead ringers” for Hawaii’s statute as it upheld the state law.
The ruling created a split among appeals courts because a Second Circuit panel struck down a similar New York law.
Alan A. Beck, an attorney for the gun owners and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, said the Ninth Circuit ruling illegally constrains their rights since Hawaii’s law essentially outlaws public carry in much of the state. He also said the historical precedents that the appeals court relied on were outliers that should be discounted.
“There’s a clear body of evidence this law was passed to undermine Bruen and the Second Amendment,” Beck said.
Katyal countered that the state’s law had precedent in anti-poaching laws and — controversially during arguments — a Louisiana “Black Code” statute aimed at preventing African Americans from possessing firearms.
“There is no constitutional right that every invitation to enter property is a right to bear arms,” Katyal said.
The case is not the only Second Amendment challenge the justices will hear this term.
The court will also decide the constitutionality of a federal law that bans habitual drug users from possessing firearms. Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, was convicted of violating the law in 2024. Biden later pardoned him.
The Trump administration, which usually supports gun rights, urged the high court to uphold that ban.
“By disqualifying only habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief
