The Trump administration on Monday abruptly withdrew a controversial policy aimed at reshaping a multi-billion-dollar anti-homelessness grant program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as the proposed changes drew lawsuits from over a dozen states and localities as well as homeless-serving organizations.

In a court filing Monday afternoon, officials wrote they withdrew guidance documents pertaining to the new policy in order to assess the issues raised by Plaintiffs in their suits and to fashion a revised [plan]. A new notice on the programs website says the agency still intends to exercise this discretion and make changes to the program, and that officials expect to share the updated policy well in advance of the deadline for obligation of available Fiscal Year 2025 funds.

As Scripps News reported in November, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner is pushing a significant overhaul of the Continuum of Care program, which provides government grants to localities and aid organizations that combat homelessness via housing support, mental health and job training services.

Among the proposed changes to the nearly $4 billion program was a significantly lowered cap on how much funding could go towards long-term housing support; whereas previous funding years limited spending on long-term housing programs to 90% of grant receipts, Turners changes limited it to just 30%.

Prior to us getting here in the Biden administration, there were no strings attached to almost $4 billion of taxpayer funding, Turner argued in an interview with Scripps News last month. There was no accountability, and so we have to change that.

In a statement to Scripps News Monday evening, a HUD spokesperson said the agency "fully stands by the fundamental reforms" to the program and will "reissue [the guidance document] as quickly as possible with technical corrections."

"The Department remains fully committed to make long overdue reforms to its homelessness assistance programs," the spokesperson added.

EARLIER THIS YEAR | Trump admin announces billion-dollar changes to a program that helps people out of homelessness

Housing advocates and groups that work to address homelessness, meanwhile, have spoken out forcefully against the proposed changes.

The proposed changes represent a reckless and illegal leap backwards for homeless response in the United States, Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said in a statement. There is no doubt that it will cause homelessness to rise across this nation.

The proposed changes are a destructive departure from decades of homelessness policy and will put an estimated 170,000 people into homelessness, echoed Renee M. Willis, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. These actions will destabilize communities across the country.

Willis and Olivas groups were among the coalition of local governments and nonprofits that sued to try to block the policy in early December, following over a dozen, predominately Democratically-led states that filed a separate lawsuit in late November.

HUD has adopted new policies that threaten to cancel thousands of existing projects, require providers to fundamentally reshape their programs on an impossible timeline, and essentially guarantee that tens of thousands of formerly homeless individuals and families will be evicted back into homelessness, the states allege in their complaint. HUD is now holding these funds and the people they help hostage.

Asked about the organizations criticisms and officials lawsuits at the time, a HUD spokesperson declined to comment, pointing Scripps News to Turners public remarks.

During a previously-scheduled hearing in the states lawsuit on Monday afternoon, attorneys on both sides sparred about the proposed changes, and well as the recent withdrawal of the policy documents.

The plaintiffs contend that withdrawing the policy as the Trump administration did violates the law, similar to their argument that the way they announced it was unlawful. They signaled that they intend to move forward with their challenge to the policy on both substantive and procedural grounds.

Presiding Judge Mary S. McElroy ordered the government to produce information about how and why the policy was rescinded by Dec. 15, overturning the Justice Departments requests for a delay until the new year, and scheduled a follow-up hearing for the 19

th

.

A federal judge dismissed the cases against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, stating that the prosecutor behind the indictments had not been lawfully appointed to her position.

Comey was charged with lying to Congress and obstruction of a criminal proceeding related to his 2020 testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election. He pleaded not guilty.

Separately, James was accused of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution regarding a home she owned in Virginia. She had pleaded not guilty.

RELATED STORY | New York AG Letitia James pleads not guilty in mortgage fraud case

"I am heartened by todays victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country," James said in a statement after her case was dismissed. "I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day."

Her attorney, Abbe David Lowell, said in a statement, "The courts order acknowledges whats been clear about this case from the beginning. The President went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused. This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged. We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available."

In a video statement posted to social media, Comey said he was "grateful" for the outcome, adding that some people lost their jobs for refusing to be part of the "travesty."

"I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again, and my attitude is going to be the same. I'm innocent. I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary, the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant," said Comey.

Both Comey and James have maintained that they never did any wrongdoing, and have accused the indictments of being "politically motivated."

James said the Trump administration was "weaponizing" the justice system as a "tool of revenge." She has sued President Trump and his administration several times.

Following Comey's indictment in September, President Donald Trump told the press, "It's about justice, really. It's not about revenge."

Last week, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, was in the hot seat when a U.S. district judge questioned whether or not proper steps were taken in filing one of the two counts.

"Let me be clear that the second indictment, the operative indictment in this case that Mr. Comey faces, is a document that was never shown to the entire grand jury or presented in the grand jury room; is that correct?" the judge asked the federal prosecutors on Wednesday.

"Standing here in front of you, Your Honor, yes, that is my understanding," replied Tyler Lemons, the assistant U.S. Attorney leading Comeys prosecution.

RELATED STORY | Federal prosecutors reverse course, now say Comey case reached a grand jury

The next day, the federal prosecutors backtracked. Halligan put out a new statement that said the grand jury approved a two-count indictment against Comey after it rejected one of the original three counts initially brought by the Justice Department.

The latest filing in Comey's case described the cause of the confusion as a "clerical inconsistency."

Nevertheless, a judge tossed out the indictments on Monday, stating Halligan had no lawful authority to present them in the first place.

Halligan, President Trump's former personal attorney, replaced the previous U.S. attorney after they reportedly expressed concerns about bringing the charges.

The Justice Department does have the option to re-file the indictments.

RELATED STORY | US attorney under pressure to charge Letitia James in mortgage fraud case has resigned

White House Spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, "The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed, and this will not be the final word on this matter."

The office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment on the dismissal.

A federal judge will soon decide whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the undocumented man living in Maryland whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador by the Trump administration earlier this year thrust him to the center of President Trumps immigration crackdown, can go free, or if the government should be allowed to deport him to the West African nation of Liberia instead.

During a nearly four-hour long hearing at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis sparred with Department of Justice officials over a host of complicated legal questions, among them the reasons for his proposed deportation to Liberia, whether she had jurisdiction to make such determinations and whether Abrego Garcia can even be removed from the U.S. in the first place.

Though Xinis didnt issue her ruling from the bench, she signaled significant dissatisfaction with the governments approach to the case, hinting that she might find that officials lacked the ability to remove him from the country altogether.

PAST REPORTING | Kilmar Abrego Garcia moved to a Pennsylvania detention facility

In the meantime, Abrego Garcia remains in federal custody, with the government barred from removing him from U.S. jurisdiction.

Habeus corpus and a missing removal order

Thursdays hearing centered on Abrego Garcias habeas corpus petition, the legal mechanism by which individuals can argue federal detention violates the law. Abrego Garcias attorneys contend that their client's rights to due process have been violated, not only by his wrongful deportation to El Salvador, which the government admitted occurred in error and in violation of a previous judges order, but also by his subsequent detention after he was returned to the U.S.

Abrego Garcias legal team argues hes faced retaliatory treatment, and at the very least is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to weigh in on whether he can be deported and to where.

Officials with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, conversely, argue theyve complied with all due process requirements, going so far as to suggest Abrego Garcia is entitled to minimal such protections as a noncitizen, contrary to most contemporary case law on the topic. Moreover, the government says the question of whether and where Abrego Garcia can be deported isnt to be decided in federal court in Maryland, but instead through the immigration court process, whose officials have said Abrego Garcia can no longer challenge such issues as his time to do so is long past.

Complicating matters further is the fact that that the government has been unable to produce, and indeed has tacitly admitted the lack of existence of, Abrego Garcias final order of removal. That legal document, issued by an immigration judge, serves as a de facto permission slip for federal authorities to deport someone in the country illegally.

Originally from El Salvador, Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. without proper documentation in 2011. In 2019, after a lengthy legal process in the immigration court system, Abrego Garcias request for asylum was denied by an immigration judge. But he was issued an order of withholding of removal, a document that prevents his deportation to his home country because officials believed he faced a likelihood of torture or violence should he return there.

That was the order violated by his March deportation to El Salvador, prompting the start of Abrego Garcias legal saga. It required several orders from Xinis, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court for the government to effectuate his return to the U.S.

But the immigration judge in 2019 appeared to have erred in issuing such a withholding order without a removal order itself. Justice Department attorneys argue the removal order is implied by the withholding order, though Abrego Garcias lawyers highlighted several previous cases where courts up to and including the Supreme Court specifically found that a removal order was needed to initiate deportation proceedings.

Xinis appeared to agree with Abrego Garcias team.

You cant fake it till you make it, she said of the removal order. Youve got to have it.

Should Xinis find Abrego Garcia formally lacks a removal order, he's likely to be released from custody and the government would have to restart deportation proceedings from scratch, granting him yet another chance to claim asylum and navigate the long and bureaucratic immigration process.

Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, Liberia or Costa Rica

Even if the judge does find that the government can rely on the existing withholding order to effectuate Abrego Garcias deportation, he may still have other claims to relief.

Immediately upon Abrego Garcias return to the U.S. from El Salvador, he was charged with human smuggling and conspiracy charges in Tennessee, allegations he denies. He remained in custody in Tennessee until ordered released by the judge overseeing that case in August and returned to Maryland.

Just days later, however, Abrego Garcia was re-arrested by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers while appearing at a routine parole check-in appointment in Baltimore.

President Trump is not going to allow this illegal alien, who is an MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator, to terrorize American citizens any longer, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a statement at the time.

That started the process by which the government began to try to identify a safe third country to which Abrego Garcia could be removed, one other than El Salvador.

Over the past four months, DHS officials have proposed at least four such nations, all of them in Africa, as countries that might accept Abrego Garcia. Among the initial options were Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, though news reports about poor treatment of immigrants or statements from political leaders within those nations noting their refusal to accept Abrego Garcia subsequently removed them from consideration

Now, the government has designated the West African nation of Liberia as the location for his removal, should the courts allow it.

Abrego Garcia does not speak the language of any such nation and has no ties to Africa of any kind.

In August, it was revealed that the government offered to deport Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, a Spanish-speaking, Latin American nation, but only if he agreed to plead guilty to the human smuggling charges he faces in Tennessee.

He refused, and ever since the government has not included Costa Rica as an option for his removal.

Before Thursdays hearing, Xinis ordered the government to produce a witness who could testify on behalf of DHS about the process by which the agency was determining where to send Abrego Garcia.

But during the hearing, that witness, John Cant, acting assistant director of the enforcement and removal options within ICE, was unable to answer any specific questions about those negotiations, suggesting the State Department was the agency taking the lead.

Cant, whos been in his role only for just 17 days and maintained he had no specific subject matter expertise over Abrego Garcias case, pointed to testimony he was given by a State Department lawyer indicating the Liberian government had given the U.S. assurances not to torture Abrego Garcia or send him to El Salvador, at least temporarily.

How long those temporary assurances would last remains unclear; no government official could say.

Meanwhile, Abrego Garcias team pointed to a promise from the Costa Rican government promising to accept Abrego Garcia and grant him asylum. Abrego Garcia maintains that he would accept deportation to Costa Rica right now, should the government agree.

But DOJ officials in Thursdays hearing indicated that was no longer an option; the offer from Costa Rica to accept Abrego Garcia was non-binding, DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign said, and sending him there would now require further negotiation and likely additional commitments by the United States.

What those commitments might be, no official could state, much to the judges chagrin.

Cant said nothing, Xinis noted following his testimony, and I just want the underlying information.

On the governments inability to answer those questions, It's so odd, and that's really being polite, she remarked.

Xinis noted that if she is to grant Abrego Garcias habeus petition and order him released, shes hesitant to dissolve her injunction blocking his deportation to another country given the many shifting statements from the government. Both Abrego Garcias team and the DOJ lawyers agreed to host further talks about how to approach that question, should the judge rule in Abrego Garcias favor.

Xinis cautioned during the hearing that it was not going to be a quick decision for her to reach, but promised the court would do our best.

These are weighty issues, she noted.

After the hearing, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego Garcias attorneys, said he was "hopeful" the judge would at least order his client released from detention.

What comes after that, I guess well just have to see, he conceded.

Asked by Scripps News what it meant to represent a client whose name has become synonymous with the Trump administrations immigration enforcement agenda, Sandoval-Moshenberg highlighted that such a role was never one Abrego Garcia sought.

This is not something that Mr. Abrego Garcia chose, right? He didn't choose to become an activist. He didn't choose to become the face of, you know, a movement, he said. This case has always been about the government trying to prove that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, and judges in black robes have nothing to say about it.

Due process applies to all, Sandoval-Moshenberg added. That's been the legal principle that were trying to vindicate.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator, is preparing to request a commutation of her 20-year prison sentence from President Donald Trump, according to a whistleblower who contacted House Democrats.

The whistleblower told House Democrats that Maxwell is preparing the request through a series of emails with the subject line "Commutation Application."

The same whistleblower also alleges Maxwell is receiving preferential treatment while incarcerated. The alleged special treatment includes customized meals, after-hours exercise time and playing with a puppy.

RELATED STORY | Supreme Court rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of sex trafficking conviction

Rep. Jamie Raskin sent a letter to President Trump, demanding he reject Maxwell's request for commutation.

Raskin is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. He's also requested that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche be made available for a public hearing to discuss the situation.

The White House says President Trump has not thought about pardoning Maxwell.

Maxwell was convicted in 2021 on federal charges related to her role in Epstein's sex trafficking operation. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022.

This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.

After a stinging loss in 2024 and close to a year of near-powerlessness in Washington, many Democrats are heading into Tuesdays elections with something they havent felt in some time: hope.

Buoyed by polling showing President Donald Trumps approval rating underwater and Democrats more trusted to address key issues, many expect Democratic candidates to come out ahead in most if not all of the key races facing voters on Tuesday, among them the New Jersey and Virginia governors races, New York City mayoral race, Pennsylvania judicial elections and California Proposition 50, which authorizes mid-decade redistricting in that state.

Democrats should come out winning all five of these contests, said J. Miles Coleman, a longtime election researcher who serves as associate editor of Sabatos Crystal Ball, the University of Virginia Center for Politics nonpartisan newsletter. I think if they don't, that would catch my attention.

Because Tuesdays races represent the first general election of Trumps second term, voices on both sides of the aisle are already trying to draw conclusions about what the election results might mean for the long term. Campaign strategists and media politicos will be watching election margins and specific county results closely, eager to discern trends about voters attitudes and behaviors heading into next years crucial midterm elections.

To be sure, every election reflects a unique time and place, and some experts cautioned not to read too much into any one race too much.

I never take away much from these despite/because of all of D.C. overrating them, Doug Heye, a Republican political strategist who worked in the George W. Bush administration, told Scripps News. Only three off-off year elections since the 1960s saw one party take both [Virginia] and [New Jersey], then go on to sweep the following midterms: 1993, 2005, and 2009. Since 1976, the party that loses the White House has won the Virginia governors race every time but once.

No grand conclusions to draw, Heye noted.

Still, which candidates over- and under-perform will surely impact party leaders approach to subsequent races. As such, Scripps News spoke with political strategists and experts of all political stripes to hear what they expect to glean from Tuesdays contests.

Will Democratic successes drive Republican moderation?

Both Republican and Democratic strategists expect Democrats to win the governors mansions in Virginia and New Jersey, and most think voters will approve Californias controversial redistricting measure, too.

But how big a win they earn and whether those expected victories should be attributed to growing Democratic enthusiasm or merely the dynamics of the local races remains an open question.

"I expect Dems to win in New Jersey, Virginia and the California redistricting. But thats because Democrats usually win there, said Heye. [Virginias Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail] Spanberger is a good candidate, [GOP nominee Winsome Earle] Sears is not."

Simon Rosenberg, a prominent Democratic strategist and media commentator, argued the national environment significantly favors Democrats currently.

Trump is failing politically. He's unpopular. His agenda is even more unpopular than he is, Rosenberg told Scripps News. Between 60 and 70% of the country is not on board most of [Republicans'] agenda. And the Republican candidates in 2026 have to run on that agenda, not on Trump. And that agenda is much more unpopular than he is.

To that end, experts on both sides of the aisle pointed to Democratic candidates strong messaging about the economy and affordability. Whereas 53 percent of voters in key swing states said they believed Trump was better poised than then-Vice President Kamala Harris to address economic issues in the 2024 presidential race, according to exit polls, voters perceptions of Trumps handling of the economy since he assumed office have soured significantly, with more than six-in-ten voters now saying his policies have worsened economic conditions.

Strategists pointed to the fact that Trump, though vocal on social media, has been far less active campaigning for Republican candidates this cycle than he has been previously. The president never formally endorsed Earle-Sears, nor campaigned in person for New Jersey Republican gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli.

Moreover, though the Republican National Committee invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into key races, according to RNC officials, Trumps personal SuperPAC didnt appear to invest in any races in 2025, FCC records show.

Some strategists argue this represents a tacit acknowledgement by the White House and Republican leaders of the presidents unpopularity.

Trump is in a weakened place, and it's getting harder for [Republicans] to ignore the failures of his government and his escalating unpopularity and his increasingly erratic behavior in the White House, Rosenberg argued.

[Republicans] are going to have to find some way to kind of break from Donald Trump at least a little more in [next years] general election, echoed Miles Coleman.

Asked what Tuesdays elections might signal about voters perceptions of Trumps job in office, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt demurred.

I'm not at liberty to talk about the election results, and I certainly won't get ahead of them, she told reporters Tuesday. I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals that may or may not happen tonight. We'll have to watch and see. I'm sure you'll hear directly from the President tomorrow.

Should the elections go as expected, Rosenberg predicted Republican officeholders might become more emboldened to break from the president.

My general view about all this is that [Republicans] thing is weaker and more broken than the conventional wisdom, and that perhaps the election could crystallize all this a little bit more for the national discourse, he said. If the election comes out the way it looks right now, and Trump is perceived to be in a weakened state, will there be an effort in the next few months to for Republicans to course-correct on some of the more most unpopular and damaging things to give them a better chance of being competitive in the elections next year?

Can Democrats find winning messages and messengers? 

Though national polling shows voters souring on Trump, opinions about Democrats arent much better.

Just 29 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party, a recent CNN/SSRI poll found, with 55 percent viewing the Party unfavorably the worst numbers for Democrats in at least 20 years.

Should Spanberger, Democratic New Jersey gubernatorial nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill and New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani each win in their respective races, will they be looked to as the future of the Democratic movement?

Already, Republicans are working to elevate Mamdani a Democratic socialist whos been highly critical of party establishment as a foil representing all Democrats. Trump has referred to him as communist and threatened to cut off federal funding to New York should he win, while Republicans throughout the country have referenced his campaign and platform in their own messaging.

Spanberger and Sherrill, conversely, are seen as more moderate candidates. Both were first elected in the 2018 Democratic wave that saw suburban women push Democrats to victory, and both have relied on their national security backgrounds to bolster their credentials.

If all three win, which direction should the Democratic Party go? Like most questions in politics, it depends on who you ask.

If Spanberger and Sherrill overperform in their races but Mamdani narrowly ekes out a win, that might be a sign for Democrats to stick to a moderate type of lane, Miles Coleman argued. Conversely, if Mamdani surges while the other candidates narrowly win, that might signal Democratic voters eagerness for more progressive policies.

Even still, framing the question as moderate versus progressive is not entirely accurate, experts said. Though Spanberger and Sherrill might not identify as Democratic socialists, theyve still staked out fairly liberal policy positions; shes not [former U.S. Sen.] Joe Manchin, Coleman said of Spanberger.

Moreover, some expect Tuesdays elections to break less on ideological lines than on voters perceptions of Democratic candidates electability and willingness to stand up to Trump. In that sense, there might be lessons to be gleaned from all the candidates.

You talk to a lot of mainstream Democrats, and they'll at least say, Okay, well, I don't agree with all of Mamdanis policy prescriptions, but he is right to be talking about affordability. Or, I admire that he's going to run around every street campaigning, and I admire his energy, Coleman said.

I think there are some things like that that, you know, the more kind of moderate Democratic campaigns could learn from.

Others, meanwhile, cautioned against leaning too hard into Tuesdays election results.

I remember when [New York City Mayor] Eric Adams was the future of the party, and [former mayor Bill] De Blasio before that, Heye remarked. There is a constant in our politics and media to immediately set narratives in stone, whether theyre true or not."

One thing everyone agreed on? The Democratic brand needs a victory, and Tuesdays elections were likely to deliver it in one way or another.

Democrats need a win, Rosenberg said. Just winning is going to be really important. And I think that, whatever flavor of Democrat you are, you're going to have something to point to as something that you're excited about if the wins come the way we think they will.