Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes

Tag: Donald Trump

  • Federal judge issues order to prohibit immigration officials from detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    Federal judge issues order to prohibit immigration officials from detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    BALTIMORE — A federal judge blocked U.S. immigration authorities on Friday from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying she feared they might take him into custody again just hours after she had ordered his release from a detention center.

    The order came as Abrego Garcia appeared at a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office roughly 14 hours after he walked out of immigration detention facility in Pennsylvania.

    Kilmar Abrego Garcia is freed from immigrant detention center in Pennsylvania after judge’s order

    His lawyers had sent an urgent request to the judge, warning that ICE officials could immediately place him back into custody. Instead, Abrego Garcia exited the building after a short appointment, emerging to cheers from supporters who had gathered outside.

    Speaking briefly to the crowd, he urged others to “stand tall” against what he described as injustices carried out by the government.

    Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.

    Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.

    “For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.

    Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”

    Inside Pa.’s largest immigrant detention center: Violence, desperation, little oversight

    Abrego Garcia says he has ‘so much hope’

    “I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”

    He urged people to keep fighting.

    After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.

    When Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, announced to the crowd assembled outside that his client would walk back out the field office’s doors again, he stressed that the legal fight was not over.

    “Yesterday’s order from Judge Xinis and now the temporary restraining order this morning represent a victory of law over power,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

    The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.

    Kilmar Abrego Garcia waits with Lydia Walther-Rodriguez of Casa in Maryland, left, to enter the building for a mandatory check at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore, Friday, Dec. 12, 2025, after he was released from detention on Thursday under a judge’s order. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)

    Mistakenly deported and then returned

    Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.

    While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.

    Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, President Donald Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.

    A lawsuit to block removal from the U.S.

    The 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.

    In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.

    ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.

    He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.

    Immigration check-in

    Check-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of Trump’s second term.

    The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.

    “This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.

    Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority.

    Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.

    Charges in Tennessee

    Abrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.

    The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

    A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

  • Once opposed, A.C. wind farm has become a landmark 20 years later

    Once opposed, A.C. wind farm has become a landmark 20 years later

    Blustery winds propelled the giant blades of five turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm on a recent day. Set on a back bay island, they were once contested over fears of noise, aesthetics, and worries of threats to Shore birds.

    But two decades later, they have emerged as a spinning landmark to Atlantic City.

    The 380-foot turbines silently rotate in clear view of motorists streaming to casinos. Some visitors have even requested hotel rooms facing the structures, which are taller than the Statue of Liberty.

    The embrace of the land-based wind farm contrasts sharply with the more recently divisive battle over offshore wind projects, an effort stalled by economics and the Trump administration.

    Together, the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm turbines produce 63% of the energy for the Atlantic County Utilities Authority’s wastewater treatment plant, which serves 14 municipalities. Officials calculate the farm has saved ratepayers $8.8 million since its grand opening on Dec. 12, 2005.

    It is one of only two wind farms operating in New Jersey. The other is a much smaller farm in Bayonne.

    “This was a total home run for everybody involved,” said Richard Dovey, president of the ACUA at the time it was built. “It’s been nothing but successful, environmentally and economically … [an] inspiration for many other entities, whether they’re public or private.”

    How the wind farm came to be

    The idea for a wind farm near Atlantic City came from a worker in the energy industry who passed the idea onto Dovey in the early 2000s. With Dovey’s help, it picked up support in former Gov. Jim McGreevey’s administration.

    Dovey believed in renewable energy and thought it could power the ACUA’s regional wastewater treatment plant on City Island in Absecon Bay, about two miles from the Atlantic Ocean. He thought Atlantic City’s ample breezes from land and sea would make it an ideal location.

    Atlantic City’s ample breezes from land and sea made an ideal location for a wind farm.

    Community Energy Inc., a developer of wind power based in the Philadelphia suburbs, played a significant role in the project’s development and received a $1.7 million grant from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

    The New Jersey Sierra Club backed the project.

    Construction began in mid-2005. The project cost $12 million and included driving pilings into an island of upland surrounded by wetlands and installing intricate concrete bases to support the turbines made by GE.

    Currently, the wind farm is owned by Texas-based Leeward Energy. Leeward rents the land for the wind farm from ACUA.

    In return, ACUA has a 20-year agreement to purchase the power produced by the turbines from Leeward for 7.9 cents a kilowatt-hour, which was cheap even then. Now, the rate is about half the market rate for energy.

    It has helped ACUA keep some of the lowest sewer rates in the state.

    However, that agreement is expiring, and the two sides are in negotiations to renew a contract, which could change the rate the ACUA pays for its wind power.

    window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data[“datawrapper-height”][t]+”px”;r.style.height=d}}});

    Community concerns

    Initially, the wind farm faced resistance. Residents in the neighboring Venice Park section of Atlantic City were concerned primarily about potential noise from the turbines.

    To allay their fears, Dovey organized a bus trip that took residents to visit a wind farm in Somerset County in Pennsylvania.

    “Their major concern was noise,” Dovey, now 73, recalls. “We drove literally underneath the turbine. One neighborhood leader took one step out and said my air conditioner is louder than this; let’s go home. They thought the turbines were beautiful, even inspiring.”

    In addition, there were apprehensions regarding how the turbines would affect birds and marine life. The wind farm is just below the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, a 48,000-acre area of coastal habitat. New Jersey Audubon agreed to monitor the impact on the bird population as part of its support for the project.

    According to the ACUA, a three-year study by NJ Audubon found “a small number of bird deaths which could be attributed to collisions with turbines.” It found more fatalities were caused by raccoons, feral cats, and collisions with wires and trucks.

    People were also concerned about the visual impact, fearing they might spoil scenic views, affect property taxes, and hurt tourism. However, the wind farm has since become an iconic part of the landscape.

    The concerns were part of a broader debate at the time regarding the emerging push among some New Jersey leaders for offshore wind farms, which had faced a moratorium by the state.

    Even though the moratorium was lifted, and Gov. Phil Murphy backed a large offshore wind program that would have powered millions of homes, the debate continued. This year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to stop offshore wind, making any project in the near future unlikely.

    However, a federal judge recently ruled that Trump exceeded his authority with the order, a ruling the administration is likely to challenge. It is unclear whether renewable energy companies still have the political will for a renewed push to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of New Jersey.

    Taking advantage of wind

    The Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm is an example of how wind power can work, even if on a smaller scale. The farm is ideally located because of consistent land and ocean breezes. If winds exceed 45 mph, the turbines, each equipped with a weather station, switch off to protect the machinery. That happens only a few times a year.

    Matt DeNafo, current president of the ACUA, says the wind farm has been a “huge project” for his organization. The ACUA is operating a pilot project that would store energy captured by the turbines in a battery. A solar array on site also provides about 3% of the facility’s power.

    DeNafo said the arrangement with Leeward brought significant economic stability through the 20-year fixed rate. He said it allows the agency to offer the lowest wastewater rates in the region.

    At the same time, the ACUA does not have to pay for maintenance of the turbines, while still collecting rent from Leeward.

    If winds exceed 45 mph, the turbines, each equipped with a weather station, switch off to protect the machinery.

    “It’s really been a great partnership for us. It’s been a beacon for our organization,” DeNafo said. One casino was “getting a lot of requests for windmill-view rooms because it’s got a calming effect.”

    Harrah’s, MGM, and Borgata casino hotels all are in view of the windmills.

    Amy Menzel, a spokesperson for the ACUA, said summer tours of the wind farm and treatment plant are popular.

    “We give open house tours in the summer on Wednesdays,” Menzel said. “People can just drop in. We have a lot of curious people who are visiting the Shore. The tours are really a mix of locals and out-of-town visitors, people who just want to get a little closer and learn more.”

    Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to note that the wind farm is on an upland, not a wetland.

  • A recession seems increasingly likely in 2026, economist says

    A recession seems increasingly likely in 2026, economist says

    It’s December, which means it’s time for economists to publish their forecasts for the upcoming year. Given all the political, economic, and social concerns, the crystal ball is fuzzy.

    However, the factors that should drive growth in 2026 are fairly clear.

    Tariffs are an unknown and the greatest potential threat

    With inflation remaining stubbornly high and affordability becoming a political battleground, President Donald Trump is faced with some difficult decisions. It is hard to argue that tariffs are not paid for by consumers. Recent actions to lower tariffs on imported food products is an admission that is the case.

    So in 2026, will tariffs be reduced? And if so, how broadly?

    The likelihood is they will be lowered, but the ad hoc nature of tariff adjustments indicates the changes will not likely have much of an impact on prices. And that means inflation is likely to remain well above the Fed’s target rate of 2%.

    The effects of high and rising prices on economic activity cannot be denied. Affordability is not a hoax, at least not for the average household. Consumer confidence recently fell to some of the lowest levels recorded.

    While overall consumer spending has held up, much of the demand is coming from upper-income households. An economy can be supported for only so long by a small percentage of the population. Eventually, the companies that provide goods and services to the average household will feel the pain.

    Without a major turnabout on tariffs, inflation is likely to remain high, further depressing consumer confidence and spending.

    Immigration policy and deportations are slowing population growth

    Whatever you think of the Trump immigration and deportation strategy, there are economic implications.

    When the shutdown in immigration is combined with rising death rates and falling birth rates, the result is the U.S. population may have declined in 2025 for the first time ever.

    Also, restrictions on immigration have slowed labor force growth. When you add in the fear factor affecting both documented and undocumented workers, the negative effects on the labor supply are magnified.

    In an economy with low unemployment rates, the lack of workers puts upward pressure on wages and inflation while reducing income growth and total consumer spending.

    In addition, the labor shortage restricts business growth. Small businesses continue to report that the lack of qualified workers is their biggest problem.

    The administration’s immigration policy will likely continue to limit labor availability, slow hiring, and restrain spending, while putting upward pressure on wages and prices.

    The Federal Reserve faces a difficult choice

    The Fed is in a pickle. If it tries to fight elevated inflation by not lowering interest rates, it risks slowing the economy. If it tries to address a softening economy by reducing interest rates, it risks inflaming inflationary pressures.

    It is clear the monetary authorities would prefer to lower rates back toward trend levels. And they are likely to cut rates next year. But there is little reason to believe inflation will settle down soon, so the Fed cannot be expected to act aggressively.

    The Fed cannot fight high inflation and slowing growth at the same time, so barring a recession, expect it to act cautiously.

    The impact of AI on the economy should accelerate in 2026

    The 800-pound gorilla in the economic forecast is artificial intelligence, the next industrial revolution.

    Next year will likely be make-it-or-break-it for many companies when it comes to AI. The hundreds of billions of dollars being invested must show clear signs of being financially profitable. By this time next year, AI firms must create real value, not just stock market value.

    Previous early phases of industrial revolutions typically led to massive upheaval in the labor market. We are starting to see the outlines of what that might look like once AI becomes embedded in the economy.

    Right now, firms are not firing workers. But many have paused hiring. The next step, though, is layoffs. We could start seeing that by mid-2026.

    Ultimately, hiring should come back. It always happened in past phases of the industrial revolution. Just don’t expect to see that until 2027 or even later.

    As AI spreads thorough the economy, anticipate much slower or even negative job growth, leading to higher unemployment rates, lower consumer confidence, and slower spending.

    Upending traditional international relationships creates tremendous economic uncertainties

    The Trump administration’s desire to reframe international relationships cannot be viewed simply as a political strategy. Its economic consequences are hardly clear now but may show up in 2026.

    A rough summary of the latest national security outline points to a pullback from Europe, an expansion in the Americas, closer relations with Russia, and more competition with China.

    Again, how this plays out is anyone’s guess, but we could see Europe become a major economic competitor, China become more aggressive when it comes to trade, and Russia, well who knows what Vladimir Putin will do?

    How could this affect the U.S. economy? Consider China. It has no qualms about using its economic strength as a cudgel. Its economic war with the U.S. is likely to heat up.

    Think about soybeans. China had been the U.S.’s biggest market but has bought little this year. Instead, China is encouraging other countries to grow soybeans. U.S. soybean farmers are going bankrupt and the huge farm bailout could be needed for other segments of the economy if the economic war heats up.

    Similarly, look for Europe, which Trump wants to set afloat, to start switching its demand for American-made products to other parts of the world. The continent could become a full-throated competitor with no holds barred.

    The Trump administration’s goal of resetting international political relationships is likely to spread into a restructuring of international economic competition.

    The U.S. economy is amazingly resilient, but a number of significant issues could become major problems. How they all play out is uncertain, but given the potential negative impacts on growth, it is hard to think we can skirt a recession next year.

  • Trump seeks to cut restrictions on marijuana through planned order

    Trump seeks to cut restrictions on marijuana through planned order

    President Donald Trump is expected to push the government to dramatically loosen federal restrictions on marijuana, reducing oversight of the plant and its derivatives to the same level as some common prescription painkillers and other drugs, according to six people familiar with the discussions.

    Trump discussed the plan with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) in a Wednesday phone call from the Oval Office, said four of the people, who, like the others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The president is expected to seek to ease access to the drug through an upcoming executive order that directs federal agencies to pursue reclassification, the people said.

    The move would not legalize or decriminalize marijuana, but it would ease barriers to research and boost the bottom lines of legal businesses.

    Trump in August said he was “looking at reclassification.” He would be finishing what started under President Joe Biden’s Justice Department, which followed the recommendation of federal health officials in proposing a rule to reclassify marijuana; that proposal has stalled since Trump took office.

    “We’re looking at it. Some people like it, some people hate it,” Trump said this summer. “Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana because it does bad for the children, it does bad for the people that are older than children.”

    Trump cannot unilaterally reclassify marijuana, said Shane Pennington, a D.C. attorney who represents two pro-rescheduling companies involved in the hearing. But he can direct the Justice Department to forgo the hearing and issue the final rule, Pennington said.

    “This would be the biggest reform in federal cannabis policy since marijuana was made a Schedule I drug in the 1970s,” Pennington said.

    The president was joined on the Wednesday call with Johnson by marijuana industry executives, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief Mehmet Oz, three of the people said.

    Johnson was skeptical of the idea and gave a list of reasons, including several studies and data, to support his position against reclassifying the drug, two of the people said.

    Trump then turned the phone over to the executives gathered around his desk, who rebutted Johnson’s arguments, the people said.

    Trump ended the call appearing ready to go ahead with loosing restrictions on marijuana, the people said, though they caution the plans were not finalized and Trump could still change his mind.

    A White House official said no final decisions have been made on rescheduling of marijuana.

    The Department of Health and Human Services referred questions to the White House. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A representative from Johnson’s office declined to comment.

    Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I substance, the same classification as heroin and LSD. Federal regulations consider those drugs to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted use for medical treatment.

    Trump would move to classify marijuana as a Schedule III substance, which regulators say carry less potential for abuse and are used for certain medical treatments, but can also create risks of physical or psychological dependence.

    Other Schedule III drugs include Tylenol with codeine, as well as certain steroid and hormone treatments.

    Democrats and Republicans alike have been interested in reclassifying marijuana, with some politicians citing its potential benefit as a medical treatment and the political popularity of the widely used drug.

    Marijuana has become easier than ever to obtain, growing into an industry worth billions of dollars in the United States. Dozens of states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical marijuana programs, and 24 have approved recreational marijuana.

    The Biden administration pursued efforts to ease access to the drug, with health officials recommending reclassification to Schedule III in 2023. But health officials have said that those recommendations were slowed down by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which took months to undergo required administrative reviews and were not completed before the end of Biden’s term.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration was supposed to hold an administrative hearing on the proposal, with a judge hearing from experts on the health benefits and risks of marijuana. But the hearing has been in legal limbo since Trump took office, amid allegations from cannabis companies that the DEA was working to torpedo the measure.

  • Accused Charlie Kirk killer makes 1st in-person court appearance as judge weighs media access

    Accused Charlie Kirk killer makes 1st in-person court appearance as judge weighs media access

    PROVO, Utah — The Utah man charged with killing Charlie Kirk made his first in-person court appearance Thursday as his attorneys pushed to further limit media access in the high-profile criminal case.

    Prosecutors have charged Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of the conservative activist on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem, just a few miles north of the Provo courthouse. They plan to seek the death penalty.

    Robinson, 22, arrived amid heavy security, shackled at the waist, wrists and ankles and wearing a dress shirt, tie and slacks.

    He smiled at family members sitting in the front row of the courtroom, where his mother teared up after he entered the court. Next to her were Robinson’s brother and father, who took notes throughout the hearing.

    Early in the proceedings, state District Court Judge Tony Graf briefly stopped livestreaming of the hearing via a media pool and required the camera be moved, after Robinson’s attorneys said the stream showed the defendant’s shackles in violation of a courtroom order.

    Graf said he would terminate future broadcasts if there were further violations of the order issued in October, which bars media from showing images of Robinson in restraints or anywhere in the courtroom except sitting at the defense table.

    “This court takes this very seriously. While the court believes in openness and transparency, it needs to be balanced with the constitutional rights of all parties in this case,” Graf said.

    Graf is weighing the public’s right to know details about Robinson’s case against his attorneys’ concerns that the swarm of media attention could interfere with a fair trial.

    Robinson’s legal team and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office have asked Judge Tony Graf to ban cameras in the courtroom, but he has not yet ruled on the request.

    The defendant had previously appeared before the court via video or audio feed from jail.

    A coalition of national and local news organizations, including The Associated Press, is fighting to preserve media access in the case.

    Graf held a closed hearing on Oct. 24 in which attorneys discussed Robinson’s courtroom attire and security protocols. Under a subsequent ruling by the judge, Robinson is allowed to wear street clothes during pretrial hearings but must be physically restrained due to security concerns.

    Graf also prohibited media from filming or photographing Robinson’s restraints after his attorneys argued widespread images of him shackled and in jail clothing could prejudice future jurors.

    Several university students who witnessed Kirk’s assassination attended Thursday’s hearing.

    Zack Reese, a Utah Valley University student and “big Charlie Kirk fan,” said he had skepticism about Robinson’s arrest and came to the hearing seeking answers. Reese has family in southwestern Utah, where the Robinsons are from, and said he believes they’re a good family.

    Brigham Young University student William Brown, who said he was about 10 feet from Kirk when he was shot, said he felt overwhelmed seeing Robinson walk into the courtroom Thursday.

    “I witnessed a huge event, and my brain is still trying to make sense of it,” Brown said. “I feel like being here helps it feel more real than surreal.”

    Michael Judd, an attorney for the media coalition, has urged Graf to let the news organizations weigh in on any future requests for closed hearings or other limitations.

    The media presence at Utah hearings is already limited, with judges often designating one photographer and one videographer to document a hearing and share their images with other news organizations. Additional journalists can typically attend to listen and take notes, as can members of the public.

    Judd wrote in recent filings that an open court “safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process” while fostering public confidence in judicial proceedings. Criminal cases in the U.S. have long been open to the public, which he argued is proof that trials can be conducted fairly without restricting reporters as they work to keep the public informed.

    Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, has called for full transparency, saying, “We deserve to have cameras in there.” Her husband was an ally of President Donald Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism.

    Robinson’s legal team says his pretrial publicity reaches as far as the White House, with Trump announcing soon after Robinson’s arrest, “With a high degree of certainty, we have him,” and “I hope he gets the death penalty.”

    Defense attorney Kathy Nester has raised concern that digitally altered versions of Robinson’s initial court photo have spread widely, creating misinformation about the case. Some altered images show Robinson crying or having an outburst in court, which did not happen.

  • U.S. national park gift shops ordered to purge merchandise promoting DEI

    U.S. national park gift shops ordered to purge merchandise promoting DEI

    The Trump administration is expanding its crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion by ordering national parks to purge their gift shops of items it deems objectionable.

    The Interior Department said in a memo last month that gift shops, bookstores and concession stands have until Dec. 19 to empty their shelves of retail items that run afoul of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

    The agency said its goal is to create “neutral spaces that serve all visitors.” It’s part of a broader initiative the Trump administration has pursued over the last year to root out policies and programs it says discriminate against people based on race, gender and sexual orientation — an effort that has led some major corporations and prominent universities to roll back diversity programs.

    Conservation groups say the gift shop initiative amounts to censorship and undermines the National Park Service’s educational mission. But conservative think tanks say taxpayer-funded spaces shouldn’t be allowed to advance ideologies they say are divisive.

    Employees of the park service and groups that manage national park gift shops say it’s not clear what items will be banned. They didn’t want to speak on the record for fear of retribution.

    A debate over what’s acceptable for park gift shops

    “Our goal is to keep National Parks focused on their core mission: preserving natural and cultural resources for the benefit of all Americans,” the Interior Department said in a statement. The agency said it wants to ensure parks’ gift shops “do not promote specific viewpoints.”

    Alan Spears, the senior director for cultural resources at the National Parks Conservation Association, said removing history books and other merchandise from gift shops amounts to “silencing science and hiding history,” and does not serve the interests of park visitors.

    Other groups called the review of gift shops a waste of resources at a time of staffing shortages, maintenance backlogs and budget issues.

    Stefan Padfield, a former law professor who now works with a conservative think tank in Washington, said there is no way to defend the government’s promotion of “radical and divisive” ideologies through the sale of books and other items, though he said the challenge for the Trump administration will be in deciding what is acceptable and what isn’t.

    “Now, are there going to be instances of the correction overshooting? Are there going to be difficult line-drawing exercises in gray areas? Absolutely,” said Padfield, the executive director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

    The order is open to interpretation

    All items for sale at parks and online are supposed to be reviewed for neutrality. That includes books, T-shirts, keychains, magnets, patches and even pens.

    But the memo issued by a senior Interior Department official didn’t give any examples of items that could no longer be sold, leaving the order open to interpretation. No training sessions have been offered to park service employees.

    Some parks had already completed their reviews, finding nothing to add to the list.

    On display this week at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia were items featuring Frederick Douglass. At the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park store in Atlanta, there were various books on the Civil Rights Movement and a book for children about important Black women in U.S. history. For sale online was a metal token for the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument.

    There already is a thorough process for vendors to get merchandise into national park stores. Items are vetted for their educational value and to ensure they align with the themes of the park or historical site.

    National parks in the spotlight

    The park service in recent weeks faced criticism when it stopped offering free admission to visitors on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth, while extending the benefit to U.S. residents on Flag Day, which also happens to be Trump’s birthday next year.

    Earlier this year, the Interior Department’s ordered parks to flag signs, exhibits and other materials it said disparaged Americans. That order sparked debate about books related to Native American history and a photograph at a Georgia park that showed the scars of a formerly enslaved man.

    In one of his executive orders, Trump said the nation’s history was being unfairly recast through a negative lens. Instead, he wants to focus on the positive aspects of America’s achievements, along with the beauty and grandeur of its landscape.

    Mikah Meyer knows that beauty well after a three-year road trip to visit all 419 national park sites. He said part of the mission of his travels, which he shared on social media and in a documentary, was to illustrate that parks are welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community.

    That message aligns with his business, Outside Safe Space, which at its peak was selling stickers and pins featuring a tree with triangle-shaped, rainbow-colored branches to more than 20 associations that operated multiple park stores. His items started to be pulled from some stores after the executive orders were issued earlier this year.

    “How is banning these items supporting freedom of speech?” Meyer said.

  • Homeland Security Secretary Noem defends Trump’s hard-line immigration policies at hearing

    Homeland Security Secretary Noem defends Trump’s hard-line immigration policies at hearing

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defiantly defended the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration policies on Thursday during a House committee hearing, portraying migrants as a major threat faced by the nation that justifies a crackdown that has seen widespread arrests, deportations and a dizzying pace of restrictions on foreigners.

    Noem, who heads the agency central to President Donald Trump’s approach to immigration, received backup from Republicans on the panel but faced fierce questioning from Democrats — including many who called for her resignation over the mass deportation agenda.

    The secretary’s testimony was immediately interrupted by protesters shouting for her to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and “end deportations.” They trailed her down the halls as she left early for another engagement, chanting, “Shame on you!”

    But she vowed she “would not back down.”

    “What keeps me up at night is that we don’t necessarily know all of the people that are in this country, who they are and what their intentions are,” Noem said.

    The hearing was Noem’s first public appearance before Congress in months, testifying at the House Committee on Homeland Security on “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland,” and it quickly grew heated as she emphasized how big a role she believed immigration played in those threats. It focused heavily on the Trump administration’s immigration policies, whereas in years past the hearing has centered on issues such as cybersecurity, terrorism, China and border security.

    Rep. Bennie Thompson, the panel’s ranking Democrat, said Noem has diverted vast taxpayer resources to carry out Trump’s “extreme” immigration agenda and failed to provide basic responses as Congress conducts its oversight.

    “I call on you to resign,” the Mississippi congressman said. “Do a real service to the country.”

    Trump returned to power with what the president says is a mandate to reshape immigration in the U.S. In the months since, the number of people in immigration detention has skyrocketed; the administration has continued to remove migrants to countries they are not from; and, in the wake of an Afghan national being accused of shooting two National Guard troops, Noem’s department has dramatically stepped up checks and screening of immigrants in the U.S.

    Tough questions from Democrats

    Several Democrats repeatedly told Noem flatly that she was “lying” to them and to the public over claims they are focused on violent criminals. They presented cases of U.S. citizens being detained in immigration operations and families of American military veterans being torn apart by deportations of loved ones who have not committed serious crimes or other violations.

    “You lie with impunity,” said Rep. Delia Rodriguez (D., Ill.) who said Noem should resign or be impeached.

    Republicans largely thanked Noem for the work the department is doing to keep the country safe and urged her to carry on.

    “Deport them all,” said Rep. Andy Ogles (R., Tenn).

    Since Noem’s last Congressional appearance in May, immigration enforcement operations, especially in Los Angeles and Chicago, have become increasingly contentious, with federal agents and activists frequently clashing over her department’s tactics.

    Noem did not address the calls to resign, but she tangled with the Democratic lawmakers — interrupting some — and suggested that she and the department she leads weren’t going anywhere.

    “We will never yield. We will never waver,” she said.

    Noem, whose own family, including an infant granddaughter, was in the audience, praised the Trump administration’s efforts when it comes to immigration, saying, “We’re ending illegal immigration, returning sanity to our immigration system.”

    During the hearing, a federal judge ordered the government to free Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation to a notorious prison in El Salvador made him a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. Noem did not address the judge’s order, nor was she asked about it during the hearing.

    Noem left early, saying she was headed to a meeting of the Federal Emergency Management Agency review council. The meeting, however, was abruptly canceled with no reason given.

    Noem, department under scrutiny

    The worldwide threats hearing, usually held annually, is an opportunity for members of Congress to question the leaders of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

    FBI Director Kash Patel did not appear, but sent Michael Glasheen, operations director of the national security branch of the FBI.

    Glasheen said the nation faces “serious and evolving” threats, and pointed to so-called antifa, and Trump’s executive order designating the group as a domestic terror organization, as the “most immediate violent threat” facing the country.

    Pressed by Thompson for details — where is antifa headquartered? How many members does it have? — the FBI’s representative appeared unable to provide answers, saying it’s “fluid” and investigations are “ongoing.”

    And, notably, he did not identify immigration as among the most pressing concerns for the homeland.

    Asked about the U.S. seizure of an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, Noem linked it to the Trump administration’s antidrug campaign in the region, saying cocaine had been kept from entering the U.S. as a result.

    The hearing offered lawmakers a rare opportunity to hear directly from Noem, but many members of the panel used the bulk of their allotted time to either praise or lambast her handling of immigration enforcement.

    During one sharp exchange, the secretary levied broad criticism for the program through which the man suspected of shooting two National Guard members last month came to the United States.

    “Unfortunate accident?” Noem retorted after Thompson raised the issue. She called it a “terrorist attack.”

    The program, Operation Allies Welcome, was created by then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration after the 2021 decision to leave Afghanistan following 20 years of American intervention and billions of dollars in aid. Thompson pointed out that the Trump administration approved the asylum claim of the suspect in the National Guard attack.

    Noem’s department is under particular scrutiny because Congress in July passed legislation giving it roughly $165 billion to carry out its mass deportations agenda and secure the border. The department is getting more money to hire 10,000 more deportation officers, complete the wall between the U.S. and Mexico and increase detention and removal of foreigners from the country.

    The secretary’s appearance also comes as a federal judge is investigating whether she should face a contempt charge over flights carrying migrants to El Salvador.

  • Indiana Republicans defy Trump and reject his House redistricting push in the states

    Indiana Republicans defy Trump and reject his House redistricting push in the states

    INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana’s Republican-led Senate decisively rejected a redrawn congressional map Thursday that would have favored their party, defying months of pressure from President Donald Trump and delivering a stark setback to the White House ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    The vote was overwhelmingly against the proposed redistricting, with more Republicans opposing than supporting the measure, signaling the limits of Trump’s influence even in one of the country’s most conservative states.

    Trump has been urging Republicans nationwide to redraw their congressional maps in an unusual campaign to help the party maintain its thin majority in the House of Representatives. Although Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina went along, Indiana did not — despite cajoling and insults from the president and the possibility of primary challenges.

    “The federal government should not dictate by threat or other means what should happen in our states,” said Spencer Deery, one of the Republican senators who voted no on Thursday.

    When the proposal failed, cheers could be heard inside the chamber as well as shouts of “thank you!” The debate had been shadowed by the possibility of violence, and some lawmakers have received threats.

    The proposed map was designed to give Republicans control of all nine of Indiana’s congressional seats, up from the seven they currently hold. It would have effectively erased Indiana’s two Democrat-held districts by splitting Indianapolis among four districts that extend into rural areas, reshaping U.S. Rep. André Carson’s safe district in the city. It would’ve also eliminated the northwest Indiana district held by U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan.

    District boundaries are usually adjusted once a decade after a new census. But Trump has described redistricting as an existential issue for the party as Democrats push to regain power in Washington.

    “If Republicans will not do what is necessary to save our Country, they will eventually lose everything to the Democrats,” Trump wrote on social media the night before the vote.

    The president said anyone who voted against the plan should lose their seats. Half of Indiana senators are up for reelection next year, and the conservative organization Turning Point Action had pledged to fund campaigns against them.

    Inside the state Senate chamber, Democratic lawmakers spoke out against redistricting ahead of the vote.

    “Competition is healthy my friends,” said Sen. Fady Qaddoura. “Any political party on earth that cannot run and win based on the merits of its ideas is unworthy of governing.”

    In the hallways outside, redistricting opponents chanted “Vote no!” and “Fair maps!” while holding signs with slogans like “Losers cheat.”

    Three times over the fall Vice President JD Vance met with Republican senators — twice in Indianapolis and once in the White House — to urge their support. Trump joined a conference call with senators on Oct. 17 to make his own 15-minute pitch.

    Behind the scenes, James Blair, Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff for political affairs, was in regular touch with members, as were other groups supporting the effort such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.

    “The administration made a full-court press,” said Republican Sen. Andy Zay, who was on the phone with White House aides sometimes multiple times per week, despite his commitment as a yes vote.

    Across the country, mid-cycle redistricting so far has resulted in nine more congressional seats that Republicans believe they can win and six more congressional seats that Democrats think they can win. However, some of the new maps are facing litigation.

    In Utah, a judge imposed new districts that could allow Democrats to win a seat, saying Republican lawmakers violated voter-backed standards against gerrymandering.

    Despite Trump’s push, support for gerrymandering in Indiana’s Senate was uncertain. A dozen of the 50 senators had not publicly committed to a stance ahead of the vote.

    Republican Sen. Greg Goode signaled his displeasure with the redistricting plan before voting no. He said some of his constituents objected to seeing their county split up or paired with Indianapolis. He expressed “love” for Trump but criticized what he called “over-the-top pressure” from inside and outside the state.

    Sen. Michael Young, another Republican, said the stakes in Washington justify redistricting, as Democrats are only a few seats away from flipping control of the U.S. House in 2026. “I know this election is going to be very close,” he said.

    Republican Sen. Mike Gaskill, the redistricting legislation’s sponsor, showed Senators maps of congressional districts around the country, including several focused on Democratic-held seats in New England and Illinois. He argued other states gerrymander and Indiana Republicans should play by the same rules.

    The bill cleared its first hurdle Monday with a 6-3 Senate committee vote, although one Republican joined Democrats in opposing it and a few others signaled they might vote against the final version. The state House passed the proposal last week, with 12 Republicans siding with Democrats in opposition.

    Among them was state Rep. Ed Clere, who said state troopers responded to a hoax message claiming a pipe bomb outside his home Wednesday evening. Indiana state police said “numerous others” received threats but wouldn’t offer details about an ongoing investigation.

    In an interview, Clere said these threats were the inevitable result of Trump’s pressure campaign and a “winner-take-all mentality.”

    “Words have consequences,” Clere said.

  • Justice Department again fails to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, AP source says

    Justice Department again fails to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, AP source says

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A grand jury declined for a second time in a week to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday in another major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute the president’s political opponents.

    The repeated failures amounted to a stunning rebuke of prosecutors’ bid to resurrect a criminal case President Donald Trump pressured them to bring, and hinted at a growing public leeriness of the administration’s retribution campaign.

    A grand jury rejection is an unusual circumstance in any case, but is especially stinging for a Justice Department that has been steadfast in its determination to seek revenge against Trump foes like James and former FBI Director James Comey. On separate occasions, citizens have heard the government’s evidence against James and have come away underwhelmed, unwilling to rubber-stamp what prosecutors have attempted to portray as a clear-cut criminal case.

    A judge threw out the original indictments against James and Comey in November, ruling that the prosecutor who presented to the grand jury, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    The Justice Department asked a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., to return an indictment Thursday after a different grand jury in Norfolk last week refused to do so. The failure to secure an indictment was confirmed by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    It was not immediately clear Thursday whether prosecutors would try for a third time to seek a new indictment. A lawyer for James, who has denied any wrongdoing, said the “unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.”

    “This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. “Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”

    James, a Democrat who infuriated Trump after his first term with a lawsuit alleging that he built his business empire on lies about his wealth, was initially charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in 2020.

    During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise. Rather than using the home as a second residence, prosecutors say James rented it out to a family of three, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.

    Both the James and Comey cases were brought shortly after the administration installed Halligan, a former Trump lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney amid public calls from the president to take action against his political opponents.

    But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out the cases last month over the unconventional mechanism that the Trump administration employed to appoint Halligan. The judge dismissed them without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to try to file the charges again.

    Halligan had been named as a replacement for Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor in the office and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid Trump administration pressure to file charges against both Comey and James. He stepped aside after Trump told reporters he wanted Siebert “out.”

    James’ lawyers separately argued the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish the Trump critic who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and won a staggering judgment in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later tossed out by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.

    Comey was separately charged with lying to Congress in 2020. Another federal judge has complicated the Justice Department’s efforts to seek a new indictment against Comey, temporarily barring prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a close Comey friend and Columbia University law professor whom prosecutors see as a central player in any potential case against the former FBI director.

    Prosecutors moved Tuesday to quash that order, calling Richman’s request for the return of his files a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution.” They said the judge had overstepped her bounds by ordering Richman’s property returned to him and said the ruling had impeded their ability to proceed with a case against Comey.

  • Senators clash over Trump’s National Guard deployments as military leaders face questioning

    Senators clash over Trump’s National Guard deployments as military leaders face questioning

    WASHINGTON — Members of Congress clashed Thursday over President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard in American cities, with Republicans saying the deployments were needed to fight lawlessness while Democrats called them an extraordinary abuse of military power that violated states’ rights.

    Top military officials faced questioning over the deployments for the first time at the hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. They were pressed by Democrats over the legality of sending in troops, which in some places were done over the objections of mayors and governors, while Trump’s Republican allies offered a robust defense of the policy.

    It was the highest level of scrutiny, outside a courtroom, of Trump’s use of the National Guard in U.S. cities since the deployments began and came a day after the president faced another legal setback over efforts to send troops to support federal law enforcement, protect federal facilities and combat crime.

    “In recent years, violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated,” said Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the committee chairman. The deployments, he said, are “not only appropriate, but essential.”

    Democrats argued they are illegal and contrary to historic prohibitions about military force on U.S. soil.

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) said domestic deployments traditionally have involved responding to major floods and tornadoes, not assisting immigration agents who are detaining people in aggressive raids.

    “Trump is forcing our military men and women to make a horrible choice: uphold their loyalty to the Constitution and protect peaceful protesters, or execute questionable orders from the president,” said Duckworth, a combat veteran who served in the Illinois National Guard.

    Democrats ask military officials about illegal orders

    Democrats asked military leaders about Trump’s comments about “the enemy within” America and whether service members could be asked to follow orders that violate their oath.

    Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) said Trump’s comments about rigged elections and his rhetoric about political opponents have created a “trust deficit” and fueled suspicions about the domestic use of the military.

    She asked Charles Young III, principal deputy general counsel at the Pentagon, whether Trump could place troops at polling places during next year’s election and whether such an order would be legal.

    The idea “sends a shiver down the spine of every American, and should whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican,” Slotkin said.

    Young said he could not answer such a question without details, calling it “a hypothetical situation.” He said the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has exclusive authority to decide whether an emergency exists that could require a National Guard response.

    Slotkin was one of six Democratic lawmakers who recorded a video calling on troops to uphold the Constitution and defy “illegal orders.” In response, Trump accused the lawmakers, all military or intelligence veterans, of sedition “punishable by DEATH.”

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) pressed Young on news reports that the administration had dismissed advice from military lawyers on deploying Guard and bombing alleged drug boats in Latin America.

    “If an attorney raises concerns about the legality of military operations, do you think the appropriate response is to tell them to shut up and get out of the way?” Warren asked Young.

    Young denied those reports, saying leadership is “very attentive” to the concerns of military lawyers.

    When asked about Trump’s statements about an “invasion within” or an “enemy within,” Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. troops in North America, said, “I do not have any indications of an enemy within.”

    Republicans and Democrats see the deployments differently

    In one exchange, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) noted how former Defense Secretary Mark Esper alleged that Trump inquired about shooting protesters during the George Floyd demonstrations. She asked whether a presidential order to shoot protesters would be lawful.

    Young said he was unaware of Trump’s previous comments and that “orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances.”

    Republicans countered that Trump was within his rights — and his duty — to send in troops.

    Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana, a former Navy SEAL officer, argued during the hearing that transnational crimes present enough of a risk to national security to justify military action, including on U.S. soil.

    Sheehy claimed there are foreign powers “actively attacking this country, using illegal immigration, using transnational crime, using drugs to do so.”

    Military leaders point to training

    During questioning, military leaders highlighted the duties that National Guard units have carried out. Troops are trained for their specific missions, they said, and are prohibited from using force unless in self-defense.

    Since the deployments began, only one civilian — in California — has been detained by National Guard personnel, Guillot said. He says the troops are trained to de-escalate tense interactions with people, but do not receive any specific training on mental health episodes.

    “They can very quickly be trained to conduct any mission that we task of them,” Guillot said.

    During the hearing, senators also offered their sympathies after two West Virginia National Guard members deployed to Washington were shot just blocks from the White House in what the city’s mayor described as a targeted attack. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom died a day after the Nov. 26 shooting, and her funeral took place Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe remains in a Washington hospital.

    Hearing follows court setback for Trump

    A federal judge in California on Wednesday ruled that the administration must stop deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of the troops to the state. The judge put the decision on hold until Monday, and the White House said it plans to appeal.

    Trump called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in June following protests over immigration raids. It marked the first time in decades that a state’s National Guard was activated without a governor’s request and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy.

    Trump also had announced National Guard members would be sent to Illinois, Oregon, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Other judges have blocked or limited the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, while Guard members have not yet been sent to New Orleans.