update - Trump folds, will fund SNAP after judges' rebuke
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Trump gushes over Bari Weiss and payoff—but CBS viewers didn’t see it
Donald Trump spent a significant portion of his lengthy “60 Minutes” interview boasting that the program “paid me a lotta money” and heaping praise on new CBS News leadership, describing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss as a “great person” and David Ellison’s purchase of the network as “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time.”
However, viewers who watched the president’s sit-down on Sunday night’s broadcast didn’t see any of that, as it was edited out of the telecast and only included when the network shared the entire transcript and extended interview online.
One CBS News insider, who spoke to The Independent, said not including Trump’s comments about the settlement and network leadership during the telecast was “f***ing reckless,” since it was obvious that many viewers would want to see him address the lawsuit, at the very least.
“Why would you subject yourself to this type of criticism? Just put it in, because it’s the first thing that I was looking for,” the insider added.
“And actually ‘60 Minutes’ paid me a lotta money,” Trump declared in an unaired portion of the interview, which was published online. He also informed interviewer, Norah O’Donnell, that “you don't have to put this on” because he didn’t “wanna embarrass” her.
Trump then said that CBS News has a “great, new leader” who is “leading your whole enterprise,” referring to Weiss – whom he made a point of saying he didn't personally know.
“I don't know her, but I hear she's a great person,” he declared, without saying Weiss’ name. “But ‘60 Minutes’ was forced to pay me a lot of money because they took her answer out that was so bad, it was election-changing, two nights before the election. And they put a new answer in. And they paid me a lot of money for that. You can't have fake news. You've gotta have legit news. And I think that it's happening.”
Though “60 Minutes” did not air that portion, O’Donnell referenced the lawsuit at the top of the broadcast, adding that the network did not apologize as part of the settlement.
The Independent has contacted CBS News for comment.
The president sued CBS News last year over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election. Despite what the president claimed, that interview aired a month before the election, not two days prior.
Though legal experts called the $20 billion lawsuit frivolous and CBS News’ own attorneys denounced it as “without merit,” the network’s parent company Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the complaint. Amid settlement discussions, “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens resigned, suggesting that corporate interference had deprived him of editorial independence.
The settlement occurred as Paramount was looking to finalize its $8.4 billion merger with Ellison’s Skydance Media, which was approved by the Trump administration shortly after the president was paid.
Elsewhere in his sit-down with O’Donnell, which ran for nearly 90 minutes but aired for only 28 minutes on “60 Minutes”, the president lauded both Weiss and Ellison, whose father is Oracle founder and close Trump ally Larry Ellison.
“I see good things happening in the news. I really do,” he cheerfully proclaimed. “And I think one of the best things to happen is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.”
Donald Trump being interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. The president sued CBS News last year over a ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election (60 Minutes / X)
The irony, of course, is part of the agreement that CBS reached with Trump was that “60 Minutes” would publish the unedited transcripts of any interviews with presidents and presidential candidates – which is precisely what occurred in Trump’s interview with O’Donnell. And it has only opened up the network, and its leadership, to fresh scrutiny over what it decided to excise from the televised portion of the interview.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for instance, wondered if he “should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged ‘60 Minutes’ interview,” adding that the lawsuit would “use the exact same language Trump lodged against Vice President Harris.”
Marc Elias, a Democratic election litigation attorney who appeared on “60 Minutes” a few months ago to discuss Trump’s attacks on law firms, noted that the network “chose not to air” the president’s comments praising Weiss and Ellison while boasting about his settlement. “It probably explains much of what they did decide to air,” he added.
“Perfect. ‘60 Minutes’ edited out an important part of its Trump interview in which he boasts about extracting millions from its parent company on an utterly meritless claim . . . that ‘60 Minutes’ selectively edited its Kamala Harris interview,” journalist, Radley Balko, also observed.
The much-anticipated Sunday night sit-down was conducted a year after the president filed his lawsuit against the network over the Harris interview and five years after his last “60 Minutes” appearance. Unlike his contentious 2020 interview with Lesley Stahl, which featured several blowups, Trump’s conversation with O’Donnell showed him largely at ease – though there were tense moments.
“It showed he sensed he was sitting down with a friendly news organization. That was the tone that he seemed to convey. Not them, but him,” CNN anchor Audie Cornish pointed out Monday morning.
“The last time Trump appeared on ‘60 Minutes,’ in Oct. 2020, he did walk away after being annoyed by questions from Lesley Stahl,” TheWrap’s Michael Calderone wrote. “But on this occasion, Trump stuck around, and given his gushing about the new regime at CBS News, it seems likely he’ll be willing to return.”
Mediaite’s Colby Hall, meanwhile, stated that “Trump acted like management” when he told O’Donnell during the unedited interview that the network didn’t have to use some of his answers in the final edit.
Donald Trump called Bari Weiss a “great person” and said that David Ellison’s purchase of Paramount was “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.” (Paramount)
O’Donnell, who has been aggressively lobbying Weiss to regain her perch atop “CBS Evening News”, received plaudits from some media analysts for her interview with the president. CNN’s Brian Stelter, for instance, wrote that “it was not exactly a cushy interview” and her “questions generated lots of news.”
CBS staffers, who spoke with The Independent, noted that “Trump is literally taking a victory lap” after the sit-down, pointing to the White House’s press release touting the president’s “powerhouse interview” that revealed the “remarkable successes” of his administration.
One network reporter said that it felt like CBS News had “lost control journalistically and become a PR tool” in the wake of the interview. Still, they asserted that they also would not have aired Trump praising network leadership and bragging about his “60 Minutes” payoff.
“The president already behaves like a schoolyard bully,” the reporter said. “I wouldn’t have included him gloating over how he took the network’s lunch money and installed a puppet regime over CBS News.”
The Trump interview comes amid a tumultuous time at CBS News, which is not only coming to terms with a perceived rightward shift editorially but has also seen crippling layoffs decimate much of its news operation.
As part of Paramount’s first round of cuts under the new Ellison regime, the network canceled two streaming programs, gutted its Saturday morning news show, eliminated its race and culture unit and lost roughly 100 staffers – including eight on-air personalities, all of whom are female.
Days before the Trump administration approved the Paramount merger, Skydance had promised the FCC that the new company would get rid of all diversity programs and initiatives.
Since taking over the company, Ellison has made sweeping changes to the CBS newsroom that have sparked criticism that he’s currying favor with Trump.
Besides hiring the “anti-woke” Weiss, and purchasing her center-right digital outlet The Free Press, Ellison has installed a former Trump appointee and right-wing think tank leader as ombudsman to root out “complaints of bias” at CBS News. The network has also revamped its editing guidelines for its Sunday show, “Face the Nation”, following complaints from the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly lavished praise on Ellison and his father following the merger. “I think the news is getting better. They‘re learning that they have no credibility,” he exclaimed in August. “CBS was just sold to a great person that I know very well… A great man. He actually just bought CBS. And I think he‘s going to do the right thing with it.”
Donald Trump spent a significant portion of his lengthy “60 Minutes” interview boasting that the program “paid me a lotta money” and heaping praise on new CBS News leadership, describing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss as a “great person” and David Ellison’s purchase of the network as “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time.”
However, viewers who watched the president’s sit-down on Sunday night’s broadcast didn’t see any of that, as it was edited out of the telecast and only included when the network shared the entire transcript and extended interview online.
One CBS News insider, who spoke to The Independent, said not including Trump’s comments about the settlement and network leadership during the telecast was “f***ing reckless,” since it was obvious that many viewers would want to see him address the lawsuit, at the very least.
“Why would you subject yourself to this type of criticism? Just put it in, because it’s the first thing that I was looking for,” the insider added.
“And actually ‘60 Minutes’ paid me a lotta money,” Trump declared in an unaired portion of the interview, which was published online. He also informed interviewer, Norah O’Donnell, that “you don't have to put this on” because he didn’t “wanna embarrass” her.
Trump then said that CBS News has a “great, new leader” who is “leading your whole enterprise,” referring to Weiss – whom he made a point of saying he didn't personally know.
“I don't know her, but I hear she's a great person,” he declared, without saying Weiss’ name. “But ‘60 Minutes’ was forced to pay me a lot of money because they took her answer out that was so bad, it was election-changing, two nights before the election. And they put a new answer in. And they paid me a lot of money for that. You can't have fake news. You've gotta have legit news. And I think that it's happening.”
Though “60 Minutes” did not air that portion, O’Donnell referenced the lawsuit at the top of the broadcast, adding that the network did not apologize as part of the settlement.
The Independent has contacted CBS News for comment.
The president sued CBS News last year over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election. Despite what the president claimed, that interview aired a month before the election, not two days prior.
Though legal experts called the $20 billion lawsuit frivolous and CBS News’ own attorneys denounced it as “without merit,” the network’s parent company Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the complaint. Amid settlement discussions, “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens resigned, suggesting that corporate interference had deprived him of editorial independence.
The settlement occurred as Paramount was looking to finalize its $8.4 billion merger with Ellison’s Skydance Media, which was approved by the Trump administration shortly after the president was paid.
Elsewhere in his sit-down with O’Donnell, which ran for nearly 90 minutes but aired for only 28 minutes on “60 Minutes”, the president lauded both Weiss and Ellison, whose father is Oracle founder and close Trump ally Larry Ellison.
“I see good things happening in the news. I really do,” he cheerfully proclaimed. “And I think one of the best things to happen is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.”
Donald Trump being interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. The president sued CBS News last year over a ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election (60 Minutes / X)
The irony, of course, is part of the agreement that CBS reached with Trump was that “60 Minutes” would publish the unedited transcripts of any interviews with presidents and presidential candidates – which is precisely what occurred in Trump’s interview with O’Donnell. And it has only opened up the network, and its leadership, to fresh scrutiny over what it decided to excise from the televised portion of the interview.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for instance, wondered if he “should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged ‘60 Minutes’ interview,” adding that the lawsuit would “use the exact same language Trump lodged against Vice President Harris.”
Marc Elias, a Democratic election litigation attorney who appeared on “60 Minutes” a few months ago to discuss Trump’s attacks on law firms, noted that the network “chose not to air” the president’s comments praising Weiss and Ellison while boasting about his settlement. “It probably explains much of what they did decide to air,” he added.
“Perfect. ‘60 Minutes’ edited out an important part of its Trump interview in which he boasts about extracting millions from its parent company on an utterly meritless claim . . . that ‘60 Minutes’ selectively edited its Kamala Harris interview,” journalist, Radley Balko, also observed.
The much-anticipated Sunday night sit-down was conducted a year after the president filed his lawsuit against the network over the Harris interview and five years after his last “60 Minutes” appearance. Unlike his contentious 2020 interview with Lesley Stahl, which featured several blowups, Trump’s conversation with O’Donnell showed him largely at ease – though there were tense moments.
“It showed he sensed he was sitting down with a friendly news organization. That was the tone that he seemed to convey. Not them, but him,” CNN anchor Audie Cornish pointed out Monday morning.
“The last time Trump appeared on ‘60 Minutes,’ in Oct. 2020, he did walk away after being annoyed by questions from Lesley Stahl,” TheWrap’s Michael Calderone wrote. “But on this occasion, Trump stuck around, and given his gushing about the new regime at CBS News, it seems likely he’ll be willing to return.”
Mediaite’s Colby Hall, meanwhile, stated that “Trump acted like management” when he told O’Donnell during the unedited interview that the network didn’t have to use some of his answers in the final edit.
Donald Trump called Bari Weiss a “great person” and said that David Ellison’s purchase of Paramount was “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.” (Paramount)
O’Donnell, who has been aggressively lobbying Weiss to regain her perch atop “CBS Evening News”, received plaudits from some media analysts for her interview with the president. CNN’s Brian Stelter, for instance, wrote that “it was not exactly a cushy interview” and her “questions generated lots of news.”
CBS staffers, who spoke with The Independent, noted that “Trump is literally taking a victory lap” after the sit-down, pointing to the White House’s press release touting the president’s “powerhouse interview” that revealed the “remarkable successes” of his administration.
One network reporter said that it felt like CBS News had “lost control journalistically and become a PR tool” in the wake of the interview. Still, they asserted that they also would not have aired Trump praising network leadership and bragging about his “60 Minutes” payoff.
“The president already behaves like a schoolyard bully,” the reporter said. “I wouldn’t have included him gloating over how he took the network’s lunch money and installed a puppet regime over CBS News.”
The Trump interview comes amid a tumultuous time at CBS News, which is not only coming to terms with a perceived rightward shift editorially but has also seen crippling layoffs decimate much of its news operation.
As part of Paramount’s first round of cuts under the new Ellison regime, the network canceled two streaming programs, gutted its Saturday morning news show, eliminated its race and culture unit and lost roughly 100 staffers – including eight on-air personalities, all of whom are female.
Days before the Trump administration approved the Paramount merger, Skydance had promised the FCC that the new company would get rid of all diversity programs and initiatives.
Since taking over the company, Ellison has made sweeping changes to the CBS newsroom that have sparked criticism that he’s currying favor with Trump.
Besides hiring the “anti-woke” Weiss, and purchasing her center-right digital outlet The Free Press, Ellison has installed a former Trump appointee and right-wing think tank leader as ombudsman to root out “complaints of bias” at CBS News. The network has also revamped its editing guidelines for its Sunday show, “Face the Nation”, following complaints from the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly lavished praise on Ellison and his father following the merger. “I think the news is getting better. They‘re learning that they have no credibility,” he exclaimed in August. “CBS was just sold to a great person that I know very well… A great man. He actually just bought CBS. And I think he‘s going to do the right thing with it.”
Fear of Trump 'pain cave' forces major companies to duck Supreme Court challenge: CNN
Major companies are sitting out the court challenge to President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs despite it causing them immense pain — instead leaving the fight to a group of small businesses, according to a report.
That group, including a family-owned toymaker in Illinois and a New York-based wine importer, have challenged the tariffs all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday. But their larger competitors have stayed on the sidelines because of fear of how Trump will react, reported CNN.
“I was shocked that those with much more power and money did not step up,” said Victor Owen Schwartz, the founder of V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits company that's one of the lead plaintiffs in the challenge. “So when I was afforded the opportunity to speak for small American business, I took it.”
Trump claims a 1970s-era emergency law grants him the authority to "regulate importation" during emergencies, although tariffs aren't specifically mentioned, but the small businesses challenging him complained the on-and-off tariffs are driving up costs and uncertainty.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
“It’s an asphyxiating tax,” said Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, another lead plaintiff. “I’m not targeting Mr. Trump because I’m not a politician. I’m a taxpayer who’s been hit with an unlawful tax.”
The Trump administration has argued the International Emergency Economic Powers Act covers tariffs, even if the words isn't explicitly mentioned, and has warned that losing the Supreme Court case would have “catastrophic consequences."
“Plaintiffs would unwind trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars, as President Trump has leveraged the IEEPA tariffs into negotiated framework deals with major trading partners – including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and now China – that address underlying causes of the declared emergencies,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued last week before the Supreme Court.
Major companies frequently take sides in Supreme Court cases by filing friend-of-court briefs, but the Trump administration's retribution campaign against critics has seemingly silenced them on the tariff issue that affects many of them, CNN reported.
“The federal government has immense leverage and immense power and can upend your business with a tweet or a tax investigation,” said Georgetown Law professor Gregory Shaffer. “I think there’s a sense that companies wanted to be more careful with this administration.”
It's not clear who's funding the tariff challenge, but a leader of the group involved with the case, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, told CNN that it's funded by “individuals and groups that support our mission."
“There are a lot of calculations going on,” said Gregory Husisian, a trade lawyer who represents large importers for the Foley & Lardner law firm. "What do you really gain by being the person who sticks your neck out?”
Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of the women’s outdoor apparel company Wild Rye, agreed bigger companies were afraid of retaliation, pointing out that Walmart and other retailers were hit with blowback from Trump when they threatened tariff-related price increases.
“That was a clear signal that anyone who wants to speak out against this is going to be in the pain cave,” said Abel, who joined an amicus brief with other small businesses opposed to the tariffs.
Major companies are sitting out the court challenge to President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs despite it causing them immense pain — instead leaving the fight to a group of small businesses, according to a report.
That group, including a family-owned toymaker in Illinois and a New York-based wine importer, have challenged the tariffs all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday. But their larger competitors have stayed on the sidelines because of fear of how Trump will react, reported CNN.
“I was shocked that those with much more power and money did not step up,” said Victor Owen Schwartz, the founder of V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits company that's one of the lead plaintiffs in the challenge. “So when I was afforded the opportunity to speak for small American business, I took it.”
Trump claims a 1970s-era emergency law grants him the authority to "regulate importation" during emergencies, although tariffs aren't specifically mentioned, but the small businesses challenging him complained the on-and-off tariffs are driving up costs and uncertainty.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
“It’s an asphyxiating tax,” said Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, another lead plaintiff. “I’m not targeting Mr. Trump because I’m not a politician. I’m a taxpayer who’s been hit with an unlawful tax.”
The Trump administration has argued the International Emergency Economic Powers Act covers tariffs, even if the words isn't explicitly mentioned, and has warned that losing the Supreme Court case would have “catastrophic consequences."
“Plaintiffs would unwind trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars, as President Trump has leveraged the IEEPA tariffs into negotiated framework deals with major trading partners – including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and now China – that address underlying causes of the declared emergencies,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued last week before the Supreme Court.
Major companies frequently take sides in Supreme Court cases by filing friend-of-court briefs, but the Trump administration's retribution campaign against critics has seemingly silenced them on the tariff issue that affects many of them, CNN reported.
“The federal government has immense leverage and immense power and can upend your business with a tweet or a tax investigation,” said Georgetown Law professor Gregory Shaffer. “I think there’s a sense that companies wanted to be more careful with this administration.”
It's not clear who's funding the tariff challenge, but a leader of the group involved with the case, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, told CNN that it's funded by “individuals and groups that support our mission."
“There are a lot of calculations going on,” said Gregory Husisian, a trade lawyer who represents large importers for the Foley & Lardner law firm. "What do you really gain by being the person who sticks your neck out?”
Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of the women’s outdoor apparel company Wild Rye, agreed bigger companies were afraid of retaliation, pointing out that Walmart and other retailers were hit with blowback from Trump when they threatened tariff-related price increases.
“That was a clear signal that anyone who wants to speak out against this is going to be in the pain cave,” said Abel, who joined an amicus brief with other small businesses opposed to the tariffs.
Courts order ICE not to deport man who spent 43 years in prison before murder case overturned
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Two separate courts have ordered immigration officials not to deport a Pennsylvania man who spent four decades in prison before his murder conviction was overturned.
Subramanyam Vedam, 64, is currently detained at a short-term holding center in Alexandria, Louisiana, that’s equipped with an airstrip for deportations. Vedam, a legal permanent resident known as “Subu,” was transferred there from central Pennsylvania last week, relatives said.
Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam walks outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa, on Feb. 6, 2025, during a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
An immigration judge stayed his deportation on Thursday until the Bureau of Immigration Appeals decides whether to review his case. That could take several months. Vedam's lawyers also got a stay the same day in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, but said that case may be on hold given the immigration court ruling.
Tejaswini Rao chats with party guests while Subramanyam and Saraswathi Vedam embrace during their parents' wedding anniversary party at State College, Pa., in August 1981. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
Vedam came to the U.S. legally from India as an infant and grew up in State College, where his father taught at Penn State. He was serving a life sentence in a friend's 1980 death before his conviction was overturned this year.
He was released from state prison on Oct. 3, only to be taken straight into immigration custody.
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to deport Vedam over his no contest plea to charges of LSD delivery, filed when he was about 20. His lawyers argue that the four decades he wrongly spent in prison, where he earned degrees and tutored fellow inmates, should outweigh the drug case.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Monday that the reversal in the murder case does not negate the drug conviction.
A photograph of Saraswathi, 6, and Subramanyam, 2, Vedam posing for a photo in their State College, Pa., home in 1963. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
“Having a single conviction vacated will not stop ICE’s enforcement of the federal immigration law," Tricia McLaughlin," Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said in an email.
Vedam's sister said Monday that the family is relieved “that two different judges have agreed that Subu’s deportation is unwarranted while his effort to re-open his immigration case is still pending."
“We’re also hopeful that Board of Immigration Appeals will ultimately agree that Subu’s deportation would represent another untenable injustice,” Saraswathi Vedam said, "inflicted on a man who not only endured 43 years in a maximum-security prison for a crime he didn’t commit, but has also lived in the U.S. since he was 9-months-old.”
Supporters of Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam demonstrate outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa,, on Feb. 7, 2025, after a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
Maryclaire Dale, The Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Two separate courts have ordered immigration officials not to deport a Pennsylvania man who spent four decades in prison before his murder conviction was overturned.
Subramanyam Vedam, 64, is currently detained at a short-term holding center in Alexandria, Louisiana, that’s equipped with an airstrip for deportations. Vedam, a legal permanent resident known as “Subu,” was transferred there from central Pennsylvania last week, relatives said.
Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam walks outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa, on Feb. 6, 2025, during a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
An immigration judge stayed his deportation on Thursday until the Bureau of Immigration Appeals decides whether to review his case. That could take several months. Vedam's lawyers also got a stay the same day in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, but said that case may be on hold given the immigration court ruling.
Tejaswini Rao chats with party guests while Subramanyam and Saraswathi Vedam embrace during their parents' wedding anniversary party at State College, Pa., in August 1981. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
Vedam came to the U.S. legally from India as an infant and grew up in State College, where his father taught at Penn State. He was serving a life sentence in a friend's 1980 death before his conviction was overturned this year.
He was released from state prison on Oct. 3, only to be taken straight into immigration custody.
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to deport Vedam over his no contest plea to charges of LSD delivery, filed when he was about 20. His lawyers argue that the four decades he wrongly spent in prison, where he earned degrees and tutored fellow inmates, should outweigh the drug case.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Monday that the reversal in the murder case does not negate the drug conviction.
A photograph of Saraswathi, 6, and Subramanyam, 2, Vedam posing for a photo in their State College, Pa., home in 1963. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
“Having a single conviction vacated will not stop ICE’s enforcement of the federal immigration law," Tricia McLaughlin," Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said in an email.
Vedam's sister said Monday that the family is relieved “that two different judges have agreed that Subu’s deportation is unwarranted while his effort to re-open his immigration case is still pending."
“We’re also hopeful that Board of Immigration Appeals will ultimately agree that Subu’s deportation would represent another untenable injustice,” Saraswathi Vedam said, "inflicted on a man who not only endured 43 years in a maximum-security prison for a crime he didn’t commit, but has also lived in the U.S. since he was 9-months-old.”
Supporters of Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam demonstrate outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa,, on Feb. 7, 2025, after a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
Maryclaire Dale, The Associated Press
The Trump administration caved on pulling Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding Monday and will partially fund the program after two judges ruled that the administration is required to fund it.
The administration is dipping into the SNAP contingency fund — about $4.5 billion — to cover about half of the benefits for November, CNN reported. It's unclear when people will receive these funds.
In two separate rulings Friday made just minutes apart, a federal judge in Rhode Island said in an emergency hearing that the Trump administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture must release close to $6 billion amid the ongoing government shutdown. A judge in Boston said the administration was required to fund the program.
The Rhode Island judge said the funding must be distributed "in a timely fashion," and the administration must deliver an update by noon on Monday.
The close to $6 billion will not cover all the expenses for the program, it costs about $9 billion per month, and the judge said that the agency will have to agree to look to supplement additional funding so Americans relying on the program will get the funds.
Trump backs down on pulling SNAP funding
The administration is dipping into the SNAP contingency fund — about $4.5 billion — to cover about half of the benefits for November, CNN reported. It's unclear when people will receive these funds.
In two separate rulings Friday made just minutes apart, a federal judge in Rhode Island said in an emergency hearing that the Trump administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture must release close to $6 billion amid the ongoing government shutdown. A judge in Boston said the administration was required to fund the program.
The Rhode Island judge said the funding must be distributed "in a timely fashion," and the administration must deliver an update by noon on Monday.
The close to $6 billion will not cover all the expenses for the program, it costs about $9 billion per month, and the judge said that the agency will have to agree to look to supplement additional funding so Americans relying on the program will get the funds.
Trump backs down on pulling SNAP funding
Trump judge smacks down lawsuit from MAGA lawmakers panicking over CA redistricting
A U.S. District Court judge appointed by President Donald Trump dismissed a lawsuit from two Republican lawmakers seeking to stop redistricting efforts in California.
In the lawsuit filed earlier this month, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX) called for an injunction on using new California district maps in the 2026 midterm elections.
The lawsuit argued that California's redistricting was not legitimate because it was a response to President Donald Trump's desire for Texas to create more Republican seats by gerrymandering in that state.
"If the House of Representatives flips to a Democrat majority due to California's unlawful districting, Plaintiff will lose his subcommittee chairmanships. This loss of a position is a concrete personal interest, for not only will Plaintiff lose investigative authority, but the Republican staff on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee will be reduced as the minority staff is smaller than the majority staff," the lawsuit stated. "If California illegitimately flips seats, Republican members from Texas like Plaintiff will lose committee chairmanships and legislative influence, diluting the representation and policy voice Texas's voters currently enjoy."
In his ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk concluded that neither congressman faced sufficient harm to bring the lawsuit.
Kacsmaryk noted that lawmakers "may not sue in their representative capacity when the asserted harm amounts only to 'a loss of political power, not loss of any private right.'"
The judge also found that "having one's district politically gerrymandered does not constitute a justiciable injury."
A U.S. District Court judge appointed by President Donald Trump dismissed a lawsuit from two Republican lawmakers seeking to stop redistricting efforts in California.
In the lawsuit filed earlier this month, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX) called for an injunction on using new California district maps in the 2026 midterm elections.
The lawsuit argued that California's redistricting was not legitimate because it was a response to President Donald Trump's desire for Texas to create more Republican seats by gerrymandering in that state.
"If the House of Representatives flips to a Democrat majority due to California's unlawful districting, Plaintiff will lose his subcommittee chairmanships. This loss of a position is a concrete personal interest, for not only will Plaintiff lose investigative authority, but the Republican staff on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee will be reduced as the minority staff is smaller than the majority staff," the lawsuit stated. "If California illegitimately flips seats, Republican members from Texas like Plaintiff will lose committee chairmanships and legislative influence, diluting the representation and policy voice Texas's voters currently enjoy."
In his ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk concluded that neither congressman faced sufficient harm to bring the lawsuit.
Kacsmaryk noted that lawmakers "may not sue in their representative capacity when the asserted harm amounts only to 'a loss of political power, not loss of any private right.'"
The judge also found that "having one's district politically gerrymandered does not constitute a justiciable injury."
