update - Abrego Garcia released from jail

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday sided with the Trump administration and halted for now a lower court’s order that had kept in place temporary protections for 60,000 migrants from Central America and Nepal.

This means that the Republican administration can move toward removing an estimated 7,000 people from Nepal whose Temporary Protected Status designations expired Aug. 5. The TPS designations and legal status of 51,000 Hondurans and 3,000 Nicaraguans are set to expire Sept. 8, at which point they will become eligible for removal.




The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco granted the emergency stay pending an appeal as lead plaintiff National TPS Alliance alleges that the administration acted unlawfully in ending Temporary Protected Status designations for people from Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal.

“The district court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion to postpone, entered July 31, 2025, is stayed pending further order of this court,” wrote the judges, who are appointees of Democrat Bill Clinton and Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

Temporary Protected Status is a designation that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary, preventing migrants from being deported and allowing them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively sought to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal. It’s part of a wider effort by the administration to carry out mass deportations of immigrants.




Secretary Kristi Noem can extend Temporary Protected Status to immigrants in the U.S. if conditions in their homelands are deemed unsafe for return due to a natural disaster, political instability or other dangerous conditions.

Immigrant rights advocates say TPS holders from Nepal have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade while people from Honduras and Nicaragua have lived in the country for 26 years, after Hurricane Mitch in 1998 devastated both countries.

“The Trump administration is systematically de-documenting immigrants who have lived lawfully in this country for decades, raising U.S.-citizen children, starting businesses, and contributing to their communities,” said Jessica Bansal, attorney at the National Day Laborer Organization, in a statement.

Noem ended the programs after determining that conditions no longer warranted protections.




In a sharply written July 31 order, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in San Francisco kept the protections in place while the case proceeds. The next hearing is Nov. 18.

She said the administration ended the migrant status protections without an “objective review of the country conditions,” such as political violence in Honduras and the impact of recent hurricanes and storms in Nicaragua.

In response, Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at DHS, said, “TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades.”

The Trump administration has already terminated TPS designations for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians and thousands of people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. Some have pending lawsuits in federal courts.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Noem’s decisions are unlawful because they were predetermined by President Donald Trump’s campaign promises and motivated by racial animus.


But Drew Ensign, a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, said at a hearing Tuesday that the government suffers an ongoing irreparable harm from its “inability to carry out the programs that it has determined are warranted.”

Honduras Deputy Foreign Minister Gerardo Torres said Wednesday that the appellate decision was unfortunate. He said the government hopes to at least buy time for Hondurans with the temporary status so they can seek out another way to stay legally in the U.S.

“We’re going to wait to see what the National TPS Alliance decides, it’s possible the case could be elevated to the United States Supreme Court, but we have to wait,” he said.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end TPS designations for Venezuelans. The justices provided no rationale, which is common in emergency appeals, and did not rule on the underlying claims.

Appeals court allows Trump to end temporary protections for migrants from Central America and Nepal
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
A federal judge in Texas dealt a major blow to a Republican-led effort that seeks to require public schools to post the Ten Commandments.

Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday blocking Senate Bill 10, which would place a 16-by-20-inch poster or framed English copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill into law in June.




The judge found the law likely violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. In doing so, he sided with families of various faith backgrounds who challenged the law on the grounds that it would impose religious doctrine on students in public schools and violate parents' rights.

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

"[T]he displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State's favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school," Biery said, according to CBS News.

Ken Paxton, the MAGA Texas attorney general, has vowed to appeal.

"The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship. Texas will always defend our right to uphold the foundational principles that have built this nation, and I will absolutely be appealing this flawed decision," Paxton said in a statement.

The law was set to go into effect on Sept. 1.

Similar efforts are underway in other states as well, including Louisiana.

GOP-led Ten Commandments plan for schools dealt a major blow by Texas judge
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
The Trump administration announced this week that it would begin reviewing current and former exhibitions at Smithsonian museums to ensure they align with president’s agenda and perspective of history – a task which had already been underway and will likely expand purges of historical artifacts.




For months, the museum has been reviewing, and at times quietly removing, certain artifacts on display to comply with Trump’s March executive order, aiming to “restore truth and sanity to American history” by getting rid of “divisive narratives that distort our shared history.”

The president has indicated some of those “divisive narratives” include acknowledgment of transgender athletes and in-depth analysis of slavery.

On Tuesday, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen.”

Having anticipated the administration would begin reviewing its museums, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is a Smithsonian Institution, appeared to begin changing its displays.


In April, the National Museum of African American History and Culture sparked controversy after it announced it would return several artifacts to their donors, including a Bible carried during a civil rights protest and Harriet Tubman’s book of hymns, NBC News reported.

But the museum defended its decision-making, saying it was made independent of the White House, officials told news outlets. A spokesperson for the museum said at the time that they routinely return artifacts based on loan agreements or to rotate displays.

The Independent has asked the National Museum of African American History and Culture for comment.

However, Trump has publicly pulled federal funding from institutions that do not align with his policies and indicated he’s not afraid to continue doing so to incentivize people to follow his orders.

Prominent universities such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins have seen millions of dollars in funding revoked for not aligning with the president’s agenda. In his Tuesday Truth Social post, Trump said he has instructed his attorneys to adopt a similar “process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made.”

“This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE,” he added.



National Museum of African American History and Culture is one of eight Smithsonian museums under review by the administration. (Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
Much of his ire toward institutions stems from his disdain for diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, which he has prohibited across the federal government.

As part of the administration’s efforts to comply with the president’s agenda, federal references to historically prominent Black Americans have been minimized, and references to white Americans, regardless of controversy, have been restored.



Trump has sought to restore Confederate names and monuments after many were taken down or destroyed during or in response to racial justice protests in 2020. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a series of military bases would be renamed after controversial Confederate soldiers or generals during the Civil War.

Even on government websites, inclusive language or references to certain American heroes have been scrubbed. Earlier this year, the National Park Service faced pushback for removing mentions of Tubman and the Underground Railroad on its website. Park Service leaders said the changes were unauthorized and subsequently restored mentions to Tubman.

While the administration said this week it would review eight Smithsonian museums, all eyes are on the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is dedicated to highlighting and educating the public about African-American history and culture, and likely to be targeted.


The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as a

Trump purge of Smithsonian exhibits got underway in April and included removal of Harriet Tubman’s hymn book: report
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag during a protest is a protected form of free speech.

Under Trump’s order that's now on hold, the DOJ would review already existing cases of flag burning to see if other charges unrelated to the flag burning could be brought forward.

For example, the order reportedly directed the DOJ to prosecute protesters for crimes such as public nuisance or disorderly conduct laws, according to a report from NewsNation.

It is not clear if Trump plans to sign the executive order at a later date, or if it’s being cancelled permanently.

The Daily Mail reached out to the White House for comment.



Trump has advocated for throwing protesters in jail for up to one year for burning the U.S. flag


Trump referred to protesters who burn the flag as 'animals'


Trump cancelled a plan signing of an executive order that punishes Americans for burning the flag
Since the start of his career in politics, Trump has advocated for imposing legal penalties on protesters who destroy the American flag despite the Supreme Court’s prior ruling.

In the past, the president has called for stripping the citizenship from naturalized American citizens who burn the flag and advocated for jail time as a punishment.




Trump during the 2024 campaign season even floated the idea of introducing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning as a form of protected protest.

Amid the anti-ICE protests in LA, Trump called for throwing demonstrators in jail for a year for setting the flag on fire.

‘These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of other countries. They don't carry the American flag,’ Trump told a crowd of servicemembers at Fort Bragg.

‘They only burn it. Did you see a lot of the flags being burned?"

He added, ‘They weren't being burned by people from our country, or from people that love our country. People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year.’



It is not clear if Trump plans to sign the executive order at a later date
Trump then claimed that he’s working with lawmakers in DC to push through legislation outlawing flag burning.

‘We'll see if we can get that done. We're going to try and get that done. We're working with some of your senators.’

Trump abruptly nixes signing of executive order to punish American flag burners
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
An appeals court tossed out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump nearly a year after he challenged the ruling.

A five-judge panel in New York’s mid-level Appellate Division ruled the $355 million penalty imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron, which would have ballooned to $515 million with interest, was "excessive," and threw out the verdict, reported the Associated Press.




“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” wrote Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton in one of the opinions shaping the appeals court’s ruling.



The court was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court’s fraud finding, but dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving open the possibility for further appeals to the state’s highest Court of Appeals.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state’s behalf and accused Trump of engaging in “lying, cheating, and staggering fraud," had no immediate comment after Thursday’s decision.

Appeals court tosses massive fraud penalty against Trump
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
A federal judge ruled Thursday that Alina Habba, a longtime ally and former personal attorney of President Donald Trump, was unlawfully serving as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, rendering all official actions taken by her office since her disputed reappointment "void."




The decision marks a dramatic legal and political setback for the Trump administration and raises questions about the status of dozens of federal prosecutions in the state.

The ruling comes after months of mounting controversy over Habba’s appointment. Initially named to the position by Trump in March under a 120-day statutory authority window, Habba’s legal tenure expired in early July.



At that point, federal judges in New Jersey acted within their authority to appoint veteran prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace to succeed her.

But in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration removed Grace days later, withdrew Habba’s pending Senate nomination, and used a legal workaround to reinstall Habba as the acting U.S. Attorney — this time under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act by designating her as First Assistant.



That maneuver immediately sparked backlash, prompting legal challenges from defendants in federal criminal cases and scrutiny from lawmakers, former Justice Department officials, and constitutional scholars.

Several criminal defendants argued that Habba’s authority was illegitimate and that any prosecutions led by her office should be nullified. Members of Congress, including both Democrats and a former Republican — filed a friend-of-the-court brief citing the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, which was designed to prevent executive overreach in U.S. attorney appointments.



In his ruling, Judge Matthew Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania determined that Habba’s continued service in the role violated both the letter and spirit of federal law governing such appointments.




He wrote that Habba was “acting without lawful authority” and that all official acts carried out by her office following the expiration of her temporary term lacked legal force.

The judge’s decision casts immediate doubt on potentially hundreds of prosecutions, investigations, and legal decisions authorized by Habba and her team during the past several weeks.

Judge rules MAGA prosecutor has 'no lawful authority' and renders all her decisions 'void'
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday.

The split court lifted a judge’s order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump’s priorities.

The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was among those who wouldn't have allowed the cuts, along with the court’s three liberals. The high court did keep the Trump administration's anti-DEI directive blocked for future funding with a key vote from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, however.

President Donald Trump, from left, speaks as Cody Campbell, WWE CCO Triple H and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. listen during an event for the signing of an executive order restarting the Presidential Fitness Test in public schools, Thursday, July 31, 2025, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)© The Associated Press
The decision marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs say the decision is a “significant setback for public health,” but keeping the directive blocked means the administration can't use it to cut more studies.

Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., left, speaks at an event in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, July 30, 2025, in Washington, as President Donald Trump, looks on. (AP Photo/John McDonnell)© The Associated Press
The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be “subject to judicial second-guessing” and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can “conceal insidious racial discrimination.”

The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts.

Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push


Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn’t be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts that the administration also linked to DEI. He says they should go to federal claims court instead.

Five conservative justices agreed, and Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a short opinion in which he criticized lower-court judges for not adhering to earlier high court orders. “All these interventions should have been unnecessary,” Gorsuch wrote.

The plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, had unsuccessfully argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn’t be sent to the claims court.

They said that defunding studies midway through halts research, ruins data already collected and ultimately harms the country’s potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists’ work in the middle of their careers.




Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a lengthy dissent in which she criticized both the outcome and her colleagues' willingness to continue allowing the administration to use the court's emergency appeals process.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she wrote, referring to the fictional game in the comic strip “Calvin and Hobbes.”

In June, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts had ruled that the cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing. He later added: “Have we no shame.”

An appeals court had left Young’s ruling in place.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
President Donald Trump's administration has published the terms of the trade deal with the European Union, but some of the promises Trump claimed were coming didn't materialize after all, according to one economics expert.

University of Michigan economics and public policy professor Justin Wolfers wrote on X that after perusing the deal, he discovered Trump's promise of $600 billion being sent to the U.S. from the E.U. isn't on the list.


"The most important thing is what's not there. Trump had boasted, 'They gave me $600 billion, and that’s a gift.' But guess what? They didn't. He didn't get a penny," wrote Wolfers. "Bottom line: The final text of the EU-US trade deal delivers $5,000 less to the average American household than the handshake agreement Trump boasted of on August 5."



"I expect there will be soul-searching, an investigation, and recriminations, as the White House explores how its negotiators fell $600 billion short of the deal the president thought he had struck. Resignations seem likely, and a re-think of the entire deal-making apparatus," Wolfers added.

The deal mapped out on July 28 promised, "The EU will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028."

It explained, "The EU will invest $600 billion in the United States over the course of President Trump’s term. This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion EU companies already invest in the United States every year."

It appeared again toward the end of the July 28 plan: "The deal bolsters America’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. The EU will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028."

The Aug. 21 deal changes the language significantly, shifting from a commitment to phrases like "make new investments" and "invest," and now saying things like they're "expected to invest."

"In this context, European companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028," the document says, removing the firm commitment. "This investment reflects the European Union’s strong commitment to the transatlantic partnership and its recognition of the United States as the most secure and innovative destination for foreign investment," the new deal says.

The deal can be read here.

'Resignations seem likely': Economist predicts investigation of Trump's $600 billion fail
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
A state appeals court in New York has thrown out a multi-million dollar fraud penalty against Donald Trump and his associates, handing the president a significant financial victory in a lawsuit alleging massive fraud in his family business.

Last year, a verdict in Manhattan found that Trump and his co-defendants in his Trump Organization empire had illegally enriched themselves by defrauding banks and investors as part of a decade-long scheme to secure favorable financing terms for some of his brand-building properties.




An appeals court decision on Thursday determined that the financial verdict from New York Justice Arthur Engoron — which has ballooned to more than $515 million, with growing interest — was “excessive.”

But the ruling only applies to the financial penalties. The court upheld Engoron’s findings that the president and his business partners committed brazen fraud — falling short of the vindication that the president sought through the courts to save him.

Last year’s verdict followed a three-year investigation and lawsuit under New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused Trump and his associates of fraudulently convincing banks and lenders to give them favorable financing terms based on bogus and inflated financial statements.

After a bench trial in civil court, Trump, his companies and trust were ordered to pay the state more than $354 million. The total “disgorgement” owed back to the state among all the defendants — money that is effectively forfeited as “ill-gotten gains” — continued to grow with interest after Trump’s appeal.




On Thursday, a panel of five judges in New York’s mid-level Appellate Division said the judgment is unconstitutional.

“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,” wrote appellate Judge Peter Moulton in a lengthy, convoluted ruling that spans more than 300 pages.

Engoron’s ruling “is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture” but “the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” judges added.

The case is now expected to be appealed to the state’s highest court as James continues to seek financial penalties for what she has called Trump’s “illegal profit.”

In a statement, James said the decision supports the “well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud. “

“The court upheld the injunctive relief we won, limiting Donald Trump and the Trump Organization officers’ ability to do business in New York,” she said. “It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit.”


Trump, meanwhile, unloaded on his Truth Social account to claim “TOTAL VICTORY.”

“It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before,” he wrote. “This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely CORRECT and, even, PERFECT.”



New York Attorney General Letitia James investigated allegations of fraud in Trump’s family business for three years before a bench trial in which a judge ordered Trump and his associates to pay more than $350 in so-called ‘ill-gotten gains’ (AP)
Engoron’s ruling had pierced the heart of a decades-old narrative Trump has used to both boost his national profile and attract investments into his real estate and branding enterprise.

Trump’s successful appeal marks a rare financial win for the president, who has called the judgement a “fraud on me” and has since deployed the Department of Justice to investigate James into whether she violated his civil rights.


Engoron’s order also barred the president from holding any executive office with a New York company and from getting loans from New York banks for three years, while his adult sons are barred from executive offices with any New York company for two years.

Former executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney were also permanently barred from financially controlling any New York businesses, and faced a three-year ban from serving as an officer or director of any New York business.


Those sanctions were frozen while Trump appealed.



After a bench trial, New York Justice Arthur Engoron blasted Trump and his associates for what he called a ‘pathological lack of remorse’ in a decade-long scheme to fraudulently inflate assets in an effort to illegally enrich themselves with better financing terms for their brand-building properties (AP)


After a bench trial, New York Justice Arthur Engoron blasted Trump and his associates for what he called a ‘pathological lack of remorse’ in a decade-long scheme to fraudulently inflate assets in an effort to illegally enrich themselves with better financing terms for their brand-building properties (AP)

In his ruling, Engoron pointed to the defendants’ lack of credibility on the witness stand, their failed strategy to “blame the accountants” for the false financial statements and valuations at the center of the case, and the “evidence of deceit” used to come up with the inflated figures under scrutiny.

He pointed to a history of malfeasance within the Trump Organization, followed by the findings in the sprawling fraud case, to determine that Trump and his co-defendants are “likely to continue their fraudulent ways” without a significant judgment against them.

“Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,” he wrote in a 92-page order.


“They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin,” he added. “Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.”


New York court throws out $500M fraud ruling against Trump after blockbuster lawsuit from Letitia James
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
According to a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register, the U.S. State Department plans to launch a 12-month pilot program aimed at visitors from countries with high visa overstay rates and limited internal document security. The proposed rule would require applicants to post bonds in the amounts of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 as a condition of visa approval.

More details


DHS says it’s to ease costs from visa overstays. (Nicole Geri/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
The Department of Homeland Security says the new rule is intended to reduce the financial burden on the U.S. government when visitors violate the terms of their stay. “Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program,” the notice said.

Criteria


The bond will be returned. (Alexander Mils/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
The decision to impose a visa bond will rest with U.S. consular officers and will be based on specific criteria. These include applicants from countries with historically high overstay rates and those with insufficient vetting protocols. According to the notice, the bond will be returned to visitors after they depart the U.S. The amount will also be returned once they become naturalized citizens or in the event of their death. If the traveler overstays their visa, the bond may be forfeited and used to offset the costs of removal proceedings.

Countries affected


The list of countries has not yet been revealed. (Nils Huenerfuerst/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
While the government has not released an estimate of how many applicants could be impacted, 2023 data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection highlights several countries with high visa overstay rates including Angola, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Cabo Verde, Burkina Faso and Afghanistan.

Trump admin pushes expensive tourist visa change
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
President Donald Trump gloated in a 514-word social media post after an appeals court tossed out the massive judgment imposed on him for civil fraud, and he attacked other judges and their family members in other cases against him.

New York Judge Arthur Engoron found the president liable for fraud in September 2023 and imposed more than $500 million in penalties, accounting for interest, but an appeals court ruled Thursday the fine was "excessive," although they were split on whether the finding was justified – leaving the door open for New York Attorney General Letitia James to appeal.




"TOTAL VICTORY in the FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James Case!" Trump posted on Truth Social. "I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State. Others were afraid to do business there."



"The amount, including Interest and Penalties, was over $550 Million Dollars," he added. "It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before. This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely CORRECT and, even, PERFECT. Every single Dollar was thrown out, even the penalties imposed on us by the Corrupt Judge, one of the most overturned in History, Arthur Engoron."




Trump complained about having a bench trial throughout the case, but court records show his attorneys never requested a jury.

"I wasn’t given a Jury and, during the course of the Trial, which lasted a long time, was not given one Ruling in my favor by this Political Hack, but worse than him, if that’s possible, was Letitia James, a Corrupt and Incompetent Attorney General who only brought this Case in order to hurt me politically," Trump posted. "She is a Trump Deranged Lunatic! They made me bond the outrageous sum, which never happened before, and which cost me Millions of Dollars a month. It should have never been allowed to happen, and everyone knew it!"

"Importantly, the Vote was 5 to 0," he added. "I am so honored by Justice David Friedman’s great words of wisdom, which should be read by everyone. I would also like to thank the Court for having the Courage to make this Decision, which is already going down as one of the worst business persecutions in the History of our Country."




The president then lashed out at the judge who presided over a trial that resulted in his conviction on all 34 counts of business fraud in the Stormy Daniel hush money case and the judge who oversaw trials in defamation cases brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll, for which he was ordered to pay $88.3 million in damages.

"Sadly, there are other Cases against me that are equally disgraceful, including those headed up by Corrupt Judges, like Juan Merchan, whose daughter collected Millions of Dollars in Fees from Crooked Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, while her father shockingly REFUSED TO RECUSE himself from a vicious and corrupt trial, which is also under Appeal, one in which every Legal Pundit in New York said, 'THERE WAS NO CASE!'" Trump posted. "Even Editorial Boards said, 'DO NOT DO THIS!'"

"Judge Merchan gave me an unprecedented Gag Order, not letting me talk about him or his daughter, or the fact that the Appellate Judges thought he should not be doing the Case, but he did it anyway," Trump continued. "Many Lawyers said that his daughter and him created the Greatest Conflict of Interest they had ever seen."




"Judge Lewis Kaplan, the other remaining Case, whose wife, family, and friends attended his two trials, is as mean and nasty as anyone I have ever met," the president added. "That Case, also on Appeal, should also never have been brought, and he should be admonished for Abuse, and every other thing that can be thrown at a Corrupt Judge. He loved the publicity, and would not let us present the irrefutable evidence that we wanted to present. This Clinton appointed Judge should not be allowed to get away with this SCAM."

'Corrupt!' Trump uses big court win to launch attack on judge's daughter
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
A conservative lawyer noted on Thursday that the U.S. Attorney General may have made a major mistake in the federal takeover of Washington, D.C.'s police department.

One of the first moves Attorney General Pam Bondi made after President Donald Trump federalized the D.C. police force was to appoint the Drug Enforcement Agency's director as the chief of D.C. police. However, this move put the federal government out of compliance with the statute that allows it to take over the police force in the first place, according to conservative lawyer George Conway.




Conway discussed the takeover on The Bullwark'seponymous podcast, hosted by Jonathan V. Last.



"It was just incompetence on her part to have issued that order to begin with," Conway said.

Bondi's order also allowed D.C. lawmakers to challenge the takeover in court, Conway noted. He said the order was overbroad and "really wasn't tailored to the statute." D.C. lawmakers sued, and a federal judge has signaled that they are willing to issue a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the federal takeover.

However, Conway noted that the judge wants to see if the government and D.C. lawmakers can come to a resolution themselves first.

"It was a major misstep by the Justice Department," Conway said. "Really incompetent lawyering, I think, and just overreaching."

He also noted that the misstep could impact Trump's future plans for the D.C. police force.

"The Bondi order is so egregiously inconsistent with the statute and inconsistent with the executive order frankly, that you know there was a misstep by Bondi and she has to cave," Conway said.

Watch the entire episode below or by clicking here.

Watch the video at this link.

'Incompetence': George Conway reveals AG Bondi made a 'major misstep' on DC takeover
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia was released from jail in Tennessee on Friday so he can rejoin his family in Maryland while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges.

The Salvadoran national’s case became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on criminal charges.



Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a challenge to any deportation order.


Kilmar Abrego Garcia, third from right, leaves the Putnam County Jail, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, third from right, leaves the Putnam County Jail, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)© The Associated Press
On Friday, Abrego Garcia walked out of the Putnam County jail wearing a short-sleeved white button-down shirt and black pants and accompanied by defense attorney Rascoe Dean. They did not speak to reporters but got into a white SUV and sped off.

The release order from the Tennessee court requires Abrego Garcia to travel directly to Maryland, where he will be in home detention with his brother designated as his custodian. He is required to submit to electronic monitoring and can only leave the home for work, religious services and other approved activities.


Kilmar Abrego Garcia, fourth from right, leaves the Putnam County Jail, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, fourth from right, leaves the Putnam County Jail, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)© The Associated Press
An attorney for Abrego Garcia in his deportation case in Maryland, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said in a statement Friday his client had been “reunited with his loving family” for the first time since he was wrongfully deported to a notorious El Salvador prison in March.

“While his release brings some relief, we all know that he is far from safe,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “ICE detention or deportation to an unknown third country still threaten to tear his family apart.”



Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem slammed the decision to free Abrego Garcia.

“Activist liberal judges have attempted to obstruct our law enforcement every step of the way in removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from our country,” Noem said in a statement. She called ordering his release a “new low” by a “publicity hungry Maryland judge,” apparently referring to the judge overseeing his original deportation case rather than the Tennessee judge who ordered him freed.


Kilmar Abrego Garcia, third from left, leaves the Putnam County Jail, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, third from left, leaves the Putnam County Jail, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)© The Associated Press
“We will not stop fighting till this Salvadoran man faces justice and is OUT of our country,” Noem said.

Earlier this week, Abrego Garcia's criminal attorneys filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the smuggling case, claiming he is being prosecuted to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador.




In a statement Friday, defense attorney Sean Hecker called the charges a “vindictive attack on a man who had the courage to fight back against the Administration’s continuing assault on the rule of law.”

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges, which 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 allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

A Department of Homeland Security agent testified he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.


The Putnam County Justice Center is pictured, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)

The Putnam County Justice Center is pictured, Friday, Aug. 22, 2025, in Cookeville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Brett Carlsen)© The Associated Press
Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a “well-founded fear” of violence, according to court filings. He was required to check in yearly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement while Homeland Security issued him a work permit.


View on WatchView on Watch
Although Abrego Garcia can’t be deported to El Salvador without violating the judge’s order, Homeland Security officials have said they plan to deport him to an unnamed third country.

Travis Loller And Kristin M. Hall, The Associated Press

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is freed from Tennessee jail so he can rejoin family in Maryland to await trial
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,105
116,988
113
A Texas woman who was arrested on murder charges in 2022 for taking medication to end her pregnancy had her charges dropped after public outcry, her attorneys say in a new court filing.

Lizelle Gonzalez filed a civil complaint against the Starr County sheriff and prosecutors last year, arguing her Constitutional rights were violated when she was wrongfully arrested and charged with murder for having a medicated abortion. She was arrested on April 7, 2022, and was released on April 9, 2022, after a $500,000 bond was posted. The charges were dropped on April 11, 2022.




Texas law “clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancies,” according to the ACLU of Texas, which helped Gonzalez bring her complaint. Texas law instead targets physicians and people who help women seek or obtain abortions.

The defendants tried to have Gonzalez’s case dismissed last July, but a judge sided with Gonzalez and allowed discovery to move forward.

Now, evidence has revealed “a coordinated effort between the Starr County Sheriff’s Office and District Attorney’s Office to violate Ms. Gonzalez’s rights and exposes misconduct by government officials who think the law they are entrusted to enforce does not apply to them,” the ACLU of Texas said in an August 12 statement.

Gonzalez’s legal team argued in an August 12 filing that Starr County District Attorney Gocha Ramirez dropped the charges against her after public outcry over her arrest. This included several emails from the public “alerting them that the murder charge was unlawful” before the charges were dropped, the filing says.




Hours before Gonzalez was released from custody, Ramirez texted Starr County Sheriff Rene Fuentes saying they had “stirred up a hornets nest,” according to the filing. Ramirez also “made contemporaneous statements to friends and family, personally admitting he had wrongly charged Ms. Gonzalez with murder and worrying that he could lose his job because of it,” the lawsuit says.

One of these texts includes a message from Ramirez to his son, telling him, “I f***** up.”

“I may pay the consequences with my career but once I realized this injustice, I had to make it right,” Ramirez wrote in the message, which he sent one day before he dropped the charges against Gonzalez.

The filing also states Ramirez spoke with Gonzalez in his office after the indictment was dismissed. During that meeting, he “‘apologized a lot,’ admitting his wrongdoing to Plaintiff herself and becoming very ‘emotional,’” the filing states.



Gonzalez’s attorney Cecilia Garza argues Starr County officials “abused their power and intentionally violated Ms. Gonzalez’s fundamental rights.”

“Lizelle Gonzalez’s highly personal decision regarding her pregnancy was not, and never has been, a criminal matter — yet the Starr County district attorney, his assistant district attorneys, the Starr County Sheriff’s Office ignored the clear language of the Texas homicide statute and long standing law to wrongly charge her with murder,” Garza said in a statement.

In an August 19 filing, Ramirez’s attorneys argued he “immediately moved to dismiss the indictment and apologized when he realized Plaintiff could not be prosecuted under the Texas Penal Code because of the murder exception for mothers cause the death of their unborn children.”

“Defendant Ramirez respectfully request that the Court find he is entitled to absolute immunity for the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and dismiss them with prejudice,” the filling reads.


Gonzalez first sued Fuentes, Ramirez and Starr County Assistant District Attorney Alexandria Barrera last year. The original complaint says that Gonzalez went to the hospital in January 2022 after taking medication to induce an abortion, CBS News reports.

Shortly after she was discharged, she was taken to the hospital again by EMS after complaining of abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. Doctors then performed a cesarean section to deliver her stillborn fetus after an exam detected no fetal cardiac activity, according to the complaint reviewed by CBS News.

A nurse then reported the procedure to police over concerns it could be illegal due to a change in the law, the complaint alleges, per CBS News.

After Gonzalez’s arrest and indictment, the Texas bar investigated the district attorney for “knowingly pursuing an unlawful indictment,” the ACLU says. He was punished with a fine and a one-year fully probated suspension.


Texas is one of several U.S. states that has enacted laws banning or heavily restricting abortion since 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade, which guaranteed abortion access nationwide. Texas is one of 12 states that has banned abortion in nearly all circumstances, according to The New York Times’ abortion law tracker.

The Independent has contacted the Starr County Sheriff’s Department, the Starr County District Attorney’s office and the defendants’ attorney for comment.



DA dropped charges against woman arrested for having an abortion after public outcry
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts