By SAM McNEIL

BRUSSELS (AP) — Money is as central to Europe’s vital support of Ukraine as ammunition and intelligence. Yet, the bloc’s most viable funding mechanism involves seizing billions of dollars worth of Russian assets that U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed taking over.

The first draft of Trump’s 28-point peace plan called for an investment scheme for Ukraine’s reconstruction controlled by the U.S. but financed by $100 billion in frozen Russian assets matched by another $100 billion from the European Union — with 50% of profits sent back to Washington.

The plan surprised Europeans, who have spent years fiercely debating the fate of Russia’s frozen fortune.

Those funds are central to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plan to both maintain pressure on Russia and increase support for Ukraine as mysterious drone incursions and sabotage operations rattle European capitals.

“I cannot see any scenario in which the European taxpayers alone will pay the bill,” she said Wednesday in Strasbourg, France to applause from lawmakers in the European Parliament.

The 27-nation EU has sent Ukraine almost $197 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly four years ago. While there’s no consensus on how to provide more aid, there’s near unanimity on seizing the Russian assets to cover the estimated $153 billion for Ukraine’s budget and military needs for 2026 and 2027.

The Commission has proposed paying that bill with joint debt taken on by the EU and grants by individual nations, but its main source is the $225 billion assets frozen at Euroclear, a Brussels-based financial institution.

That is, if the Trump administration doesn’t get them first.

Perks of the deal

Trump’s brash negotiating style left many in Europe suspecting he wants a quick deal that forces Europeans to make it work and pay for it. All while the U.S. profits.

Analysts say the proposal was essentially a U.S. attempt to snatch these assets, coming as Brussels and Washington relaunch trade negotiations over tariffs.

Agathe Demarais, a senior fellow at the Berlin-based European Council on Foreign Relations, said the proposal was akin to a “signing bonus” for a peace deal heavily slanted towards Russia.

Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre, called the U.S. takeover of the assets “outrageous,” but suggested it might also be acceptable to Europeans “if that is ultimately the price to pay for a good deal.”

After intense discussions between the U.S., Germany, France, the United Kingdom and representatives from the European Commission, the investment scheme was removed from the new draft peace plan. Russia has already signaled its total rejection of the new draft.

The assets frozen in Belgium

A quick seizure of Russia’s frozen assets by the EU would not only secure Ukraine’s defense budget, but also empower Brussels at the negotiation table, Demarais said.

“If the EU rushes to seize Russia’s central bank assets before Washington grabs them, the bloc may be able to drastically curb Trump’s interest in a bad deal,” she said.

The European Commission has proposed taking direct ownership of the assets. Under von der Leyen’s leadership, it could then issue a loan to Ukraine, which would be repaid only if Moscow provides war reparations to Kyiv.

The bulk of these assets are held in a clearinghouse called Euroclear in Belgium. However, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has refused to approve their use as collateral for a massive loan for Ukraine, citing fears that Russia would retaliate against Belgian interests.

“We are a small country, and retaliation could be very hard,” De Wever said in October.

Yet the Belgian position on thawing the assets was influenced by an impasse in local politics over deep federal debt. After months of domestic political wrangling ended last week in a deal, politicians from Riga to Lisbon started hoping that De Wever would be able to lift his objections to seizing Russian assets.

Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said after the Brussels meeting on Wednesday that “the clock is ticking” and that seizing the assets was “the only realistic financing option that would make a real difference and one that would be most fair to taxpayers” in Europe.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat said Wednesday there is now broad EU support for Belgium.

“It would send the strongest message to Moscow that it cannot wait us out, and we need to make this decision fast,” said Kallas.

On Dec. 18, De Wever will join the other EU national leaders for a summit in Brussels over, among other subjects, seizing the Russian assets.

Associated Press writers Geir Moulson and Kirsten Grieshaber contributed from Berlin.

By MICHAEL R. SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) — As the Justice Department gets ready to release its files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell, a court battle over sealed documents in Maxwell’s criminal case is offering clues about what could be in those files.

Government lawyers asked a judge on Wednesday to allow the release of a wide range of records from Maxwell’s case, including search warrants, financial records, survivor interview notes, electronic device data and material from earlier Epstein investigations in Florida.

Those records, among others, are subject to secrecy orders that the Justice Department wants lifted as it works to comply with a new law mandating the public release of Epstein and Maxwell investigative materials.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump last week.

The Justice Department submitted the list a day after U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in New York ordered the government to specify what materials it plans to publicly release from Maxwell’s case.

The government said it is conferring with survivors and their lawyers and that it will redact records to ensure protection of survivors’ identities and prevent the dissemination of sexualized images.

“In summary, the Government is in the process of identifying potentially responsive materials” that are required to be disclosed under the law, “categorizing them and processing them for review,” the department said.

The four-page filing bears the names of the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Jay Clayton, along with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Also Wednesday, a judge weighing a similar request for materials from Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking case gave the department until Monday 1 to provide detailed descriptions the records it wants made public. U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said he will review the material in private before deciding.

In August, Berman and Engelmayer denied the department’s requests to unseal grand jury transcripts and other material from Epstein and Maxwell’s cases, ruling that such disclosures are rarely, if ever, allowed.

The department asked the judges this week to reconsider, arguing in court filings that the new law requires the government to “publish the grand jury and discovery materials” from the cases. The law requires the release of Epstein-related files in a searchable format by Dec. 19.

Epstein was a millionaire money manager known for socializing with celebrities, politicians and other powerful men. He killed himself in jail a month after his 2019 arrest. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking for luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. She is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

In initial filings Monday, the Justice Department characterized the material it wants unsealed in broad terms, describing it as “grand jury transcripts and exhibits.” Engelmayer ordered the government to file a letter describing the materials “in sufficient detail to meaningfully inform victims” what it plans to make public.

Engelmayer did not preside over Maxwell’s trial, but was assigned to the case after the trial judge, Alison J. Nathan, was elevated to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tens of thousands of pages of records pertaining to Epstein and Maxwell have already been released over the years, including through civil lawsuits, public disclosures and Freedom of Information Act requests.

In its filing Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 18 categories of material that it is seeking to release from Maxwell’s case, including reports, photographs, videos and other materials from police in Palm Beach, Florida, and the U.S. attorney’s office there, both of which investigated Epstein in the mid-2000s.

Last year, a Florida judge ordered the release of about 150 pages of transcripts from a state grand jury that investigated Epstein in 2006. Last week, citing the new law, the Justice Department moved to unseal transcripts from a federal grand jury that also investigated Epstein.

That investigation ended in 2008 with a then-secret arrangement that allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges by pleading guilty to a state prostitution charge. He served 13 months in a jail work-release program. The request to unseal the transcripts is pending.

By HOLLY RAMER

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A Massachusetts woman who was once engaged to the brother of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt remains in ICE custody two weeks after being arrested on her way to pick up the son she shares with her former fiancé.

Bruna Ferreira, 33, was driving to her son’s school in New Hampshire on Nov. 12 when she was pulled over in Revere, Massachusetts, her attorney, Todd Pomerleau, said Wednesday.

“She wasn’t told why she was detained,” he said. “She was bounced from Massachusetts, to New Hampshire, to Vermont, to Louisiana on this unconstitutional merry-go-round.”

Pomerleau said Ferreira’s 11-year-old son lives with her former fiancé, Michael Leavitt, in New Hampshire, but they have shared custody and maintained a co-parenting relationship for many years since their engagement broke off.

“She was detained for no reason at all. She’s not dangerous. She’s not a flight risk. She’s not a criminal illegal alien,” he said. “She’s a business owner who pays taxes and has a child who was wondering where mommy was after school two weeks ago.”

Michael Leavitt did not respond to a message sent to his workplace. The White House press secretary declined comment. Karoline Leavitt grew up in New Hampshire, and made an unsuccessful run for Congress from the state in 2022 before becoming Trump’s spokesperson for his 2024 campaign and later joining him at the White House.

Pomerleau said his client was 2 or 3 when she and her family came to the U.S. from Brazil, and she later enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Obama-era policy that shields immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He said she was in the process of applying for a green card.

The Department of Homeland Security said Ferreira entered the U.S. on a tourist visa that required her to leave in 1999. A department spokesperson said Ferreira had a previous arrest for battery, an allegation her attorney denied.

An online search of court cases in several Massachusetts locations where she has lived found no record of such a charge.

“They’re claiming she has some type of criminal record we’ve seen nowhere. Show us the proof,” Pomerleau said. “She would’ve been deported years ago if that was true. And yet, here she is in the middle of this immigration imbroglio.”

A DHS spokesperson confirmed Ferreira is being held in Louisiana.

President Donald Trump’s efforts to broadly reshape immigration policy have included changing the approach to DACA recipients. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin recently issued a statement saying that people “who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not automatically protected from deportations. DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country.”

By MARK SHERMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t immediately allow the Trump administration to fire the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, instead delaying a decision until after they rule in two other high-profile firing cases.

The justices’ Wednesday order leaves in effect for now lower court rulings that held that the official, Shira Perlmutter, could not be unilaterally fired.

The case is the latest that relates to Trump’s authority to install his own people at the head of federal agencies. The Supreme Court has largely allowed Trump to fire officials, even as court challenges proceed.

Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have allowed Perlmutter to be fired as her lawsuit proceeds. The court majority, though, decided to wait to make a decision until after they rule in two other lawsuits over Trump firings.

Arguments are set for December in the first case, over the removal of Rebecca Slaughter as a member of the Federal Trade Commission.

And in January the court will hear the case of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, who remains in her job despite Trump’s attempt to fire her.

Rulings are expected weeks or months after the court hears arguments.

Perlmutter’s case concerns an office that is within the Library of Congress. She is the register of copyrights and also advises Congress on copyright issues.

Despite the ties to Congress, the register “wields executive power” in regulating copyrights, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court.

Perlmutter claims Trump fired her in May because he disapproved of advice she gave to Congress in a report related to artificial intelligence. Perlmutter had received an email from the White House notifying her that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately,” her office said.

A divided appellate panel ruled that Perlmutter could keep her job while the case moves forward.

Perlmutter’s attorneys have argued that she is a renowned copyright expert. She has served as register of copyrights since then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her to the job in October 2020.

Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to replace Hayden at the Library of Congress. The White House fired Hayden amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a “woke” agenda.

By LAURIE KELLMAN, SAM McNEIL and AAMER MADHANI

LONDON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s efforts to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war closely mirrors the tactics he used to end two years of fighting between Israel and Hamas: bold terms that favor one side, deadlines for the combatants and vague outlines for what comes next. The details — enforcing the terms, guaranteeing security, who pays for rebuilding — matter less.

“You know what the deadline is to me? When it’s over.” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Tuesday.

The formula has worked so far in the tense Middle East, though its long-term viability remains in question. Trump got his moment to claim credit for “peace” in the region from the podium of the Israeli parliament. Even there, he made clear that next on his priority list was resolving the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II.

“Maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza,” U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff told Yuri Ushakov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy adviser in a phone call the day after Trump’s speech, on Oct. 14. A recording of that call leaked to Bloomberg News.

They did just that, issuing a 28-point plan heavily tilted toward Russia’s interests that set off alarms in Europe, which had not been consulted. Trump insisted Ukraine had until Nov. 27 — Thanksgiving in the U.S. — to accept it.

But by Tuesday, Trump had eased off the hard deadline. It seemed clear, even to Trump, that the Israel-Gaza model doesn’t fully apply in Russia and Ukraine as long as Putin refuses to be flattered, pushed or otherwise moved to take the first step of a ceasefire, as Israel and Hamas consented for different reasons on Oct. 9. Making the point, Putin launched waves of bombings on Ukraine Tuesday and Wednesday even as American negotiators renewed Trump’s push to end the war.

“I thought (a Russia-Ukraine deal) would have been an easier one, but I think we’re making progress,” Trump said during the annual White House turkey pardon to mark the Thanksgiving holiday. Hours later, he told reporters that the 28-point plan actually “was not a plan, just a concept.”

The president’s goal may not be a formal, long-lasting peace treaty, one expert said.

“Trump’s approach emphasizes the proclamation of a ceasefire, not its observance,” Mariia Zolkina, a political analyst at the Kyiv-based Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, wrote on Liga.net, a Ukrainian news outlet, adding: “Donald Trump is not interested in whether the ceasefire will be sustainable.”

Trump’s approach toward ‘peace’ bears similarities to the tactics and style he used in the Israel-Gaza talks

Fresh off the Gaza deal and coveting the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump named his next priority before he’d even left the Israeli Knesset.

“If you don’t mind, Steve, let’s focus on Russia first, All right?” Trump said, turning to Witkoff.

Where the Gaza ceasefire agreement had 20 points, the Russia-Ukraine proposal would start with 28 items and include more detail on who would pay for reconstruction. They envision “peace” boards headed by the president to lead and administer the aftermath. Both lack detail on incentives for complying and enforcement. And both depend on a ceasefire.

Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre think tank, said the proposals for Gaza and Ukraine show a kind of “naivete by believing that by intervening at that level, by imposing your will on something like this, that you will reach some form of long-term conclusion.”

He said both proposals reflect Trump’s political and personal self-interest.

“In the end, the focus is solely on what Trump thinks he will get out of this in terms of reputation and money,” Zuleeg said.

Each Trump administration plan to end the wars heavily favor one side.

The Trump plan for Gaza leans to Israeli terms. It makes disarming Hamas a central condition for any progress in rebuilding the devastated territory. It also lays out no strict timetable for a full Israeli troop withdrawal, making it conditional on deployment of an international security force.

For Russia and Ukraine, Witkoff looked to open peace plan talks with terms skewing toward Russia. He quietly hosted Kirill Dmitriev, a close ally of Putin’s, for talks in south Florida to help launch the plan that opened talks in Geneva, according to a senior administration official and a U.S. official familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The White House insists that the plan was U.S.-authored with input from both the Ukrainians and Russians.

But that’s where the similarities end. The differences are buy-in — and Putin

The draft that was formally presented to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy decidedly favored the Russians, with no European input. In contrast, the Gaza ceasefire talks got buy-in from Egypt, Qatari, Jordanian, Saudi and other regional powers.

The 28-point Russia-Ukraine plan called for Ukraine to give up land in the industrial Donbas region that the Russians currently don’t control and dramatically shrink the size of its military. It also effectively gave Russia oversight of both NATO and EU expansion. The draft has narrowed by a few points since it was first presented, and Trump is sending his envoys on a bit of shuttle diplomacy to “sell it,” as he said. He said Witkoff will visit Moscow next week — perhaps joined by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was also involved in the Gaza plan. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will meet with the Ukranians.

European leaders worried that Trump is leaving them out of high-level discussions and vulnerable to Russian aggression.

“He appears perfectly ready to sacrifice Ukraine’s security and Europe’s in the process,” Hannah Neumann, a German member of the European Parliament, said of Trump on Tuesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resisted Trump’s pressure to agree to a ceasefire, for a time. But Putin refuses to concede anything on Ukraine.

He’s appeared to be considering the matter, notably when Trump rolled out a red carpet for the Russian leader at a summer summit in Alaska — an old front line of the Cold War. Trump left without an agreement from Putin to end the bloodshed. The Russian leader walked off with long-sought recognition on the world stage.

To the horror of Ukraine and the vexation of Trump, Putin has stood firm.

As the envoys flew home from Geneva last week without any agreement, the White House scrambled to explain. One U.S. official argued that the 28-page plan, which calls on Ukraine to cede the Donbas region and bar Ukraine from joining NATO, represents considerable concessions from Putin because he would be agreeing to give up on his claim, once and for all, that all of Ukraine should be part of Russia.

Putin, the official noted, has long grumbled that the West doesn’t respect Russia’s position in the global world order. The official added that the Trump White House in its approach is not affirming Putin’s position but trying to reflect the Russian perspective is given its due in the emerging peace plan.

It’s not for the administration to judge Putin’s positions, the official said, but it does have “to understand them if we want to get to a deal.”

McNeil reported from Brussels and Madhani from Washington. Associated Press writer Lee Keath in Cairo contributed.

Eric Anderson spent nearly nine years behind bars for a robbery he did not commit. His conviction hinged on a single witness who insisted he was the perpetrator — a claim Wayne County officials now acknowledge was unreliable.

A new, multi-agency report — produced by prosecutors, public defenders, Detroit police, judges, and justice-system advocates — dissects how that failure unfolded and why safeguards didn’t catch it sooner.

Mistakes by public institutions aren’t rare. What matters is whether those institutions examine the causes with honesty and act to prevent them from recurring. This report tries to do exactly that. So what lessons emerged? And what would it actually take to ensure no one in Wayne County is wrongfully convicted again?

Valerie Newman, Deputy Chief and Director of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit, dug into those questions — and the deeper structural issues they reveal.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Trusted, accurate, up-to-date.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today »

More stories from The Metro

The Metro: The difficulties Michigan hospitals and their patients face as premiums rise

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Why some Detroiters are missing out on a key opportunity to build wealth

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: How to improve the care we provide Black pregnant mothers

Sam Corey

Read More »

The post The Metro: What it will take to prevent another wrongful conviction in Wayne County appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

In America, we have a lot of very big problems, including climate change, income and wealth inequality and hyper partisanship.

How should we tackle these problems? 

Paul Fleming is an associate professor of public health at the University of Michigan. He believes we need to focus more on preventing problems from occurring in the first place.

It’s that mindset, detailed in his book, “Imagine Doing Better,” that he hopes will help us get to the root of the problems we seek to resolve before they turn into crises.

WDET’s Sam Corey spoke with Professor Fleming. They began by talking about why policy is important to focus on at all.

 

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Trusted, accurate, up-to-date.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today »

More stories from The Metro

The Metro: Early detection for Alzheimer’s is possible with new blood tests

David Leins

Read More »

The Metro: Why some Detroiters are missing out on a key opportunity to build wealth

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Financial challenges at Detroit’s workforce agency

Jack Filbrandt

Read More »

The post The Metro: The power of preventing problems instead of responding to them appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

Home ownership is considered to be a critical piece of the American Dream.

Wealth is often passed down from generation to generation through homes. But, in Detroit, there are many properties that have not been properly passed down from parent to child or relative. Why? And, how can that be changed?

Detroit Future City is working with several foundations and the City of Detroit to offer a solution. 

WDET’s Sam Corey spoke with Shari Williams, the Director of Equitable Neighborhood Planning for Detroit Future City, to learn more.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Support local journalism.

WDET strives to cover what’s happening in your community. As a public media institution, we maintain our ability to explore the music and culture of our region through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Give now »

More stories from The Metro

The Metro: She looked at the waste stream and saw a lifeline

Robyn Vincent

Read More »

The Metro: Why some Detroiters are missing out on a key opportunity to build wealth

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Detroit Narrative Agency wants Detroit’s story told the right way

Tia Graham

Read More »

The post The Metro: Why some Detroiters are missing out on a key opportunity to build wealth appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press

BANGKOK (AP) — Rights groups on Tuesday slammed the Trump administration’s decision to end protected status for Myanmar citizens due to the country’s “notable progress in governance and stability,” even though it remains mired in a bloody civil war and the head of its military regime faces possible U.N. war crimes charges.

In her announcement Monday ending temporary protection from deportation for citizens of Myanmar, also known as Burma, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cited the military’s plans for “free and fair elections” in December and “successful ceasefire agreements” as among the reasons for her decision.

“The situation in Burma has improved enough that it is safe for Burmese citizens to return home,” she said in a statement.

The military under Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing seized power from democratically-elected Aung San Suu Kyi in 2021 and is seeking to add a sheen of international legitimacy to its government with the upcoming elections. But with Suu Kyi in prison and her party banned, most outside observers have denounced the elections as a sham.

“Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem is treating those people just like her family’s dog that she famously shot down in cold blood because it misbehaved — if her order is carried out, she will literally be sending them back to prisons, brutal torture, and death in Myanmar,” Phil Robertson, the director of Asia Human Rights and Labor Advocates, said in a statement.

“Secretary Noem is seriously deluded if she thinks the upcoming elections in Myanmar will be even remotely free and fair, and she is just making things up when she claims non-existent ceasefires proclaimed by Myanmar’s military junta will result in political progress.”

The military takeover sparked a national uprising with fierce fighting in many parts of the country, and pro-democracy groups and other forces have taken over large swaths of territory.

The military government has stepped up activity ahead of the election to retake areas controlled by opposition forces, with airstrikes killing scores of civilians.

In its fight, the military has been accused of the indiscriminate use of landmines, the targeting of schools, hospitals and places of worship in its attacks, and the use of civilians as human shields.

An arrest warrant was also requested last year for Min Aung Hlaing by International Criminal Court prosecutors accusing him of crimes against humanity for the persecution of the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority before he seized power.

The shadow National Unity Government, or NUG, established by elected lawmakers who were barred from taking their seats after the military took power in 2021, said it was saddened by Homeland Security’s decision.

NUG spokesperson Nay Phone Latt said the military is conducting forced conscription, attacking civilians on a daily basis, and that the elections were excluding any real opposition and would not be accepted by anybody.

“The reasons given for revoking TPS do not reflect the reality in Myanmar,” Nay Phone Latt told The Associated Press.

In her statement, Noem said her decision to remove the “TPS” protection was made in consultation with the State Department, though its latest report on human rights in Myanmar cites “credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention.”

And the State Department’s latest travel guidance for Americans is to avoid the country completely.

“Do not travel to Burma due to armed conflict, the potential for civil unrest, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, poor health infrastructure, land mines and unexploded ordnance, crime, and wrongful detentions,” the guidance reads.

According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, more than 30,000 people have been arrested for political reasons since the military seized power, and 7,488 have been killed.

Still, Homeland Security said that “the secretary determined that, overall, country conditions have improved to the point where Burmese citizens can return home in safety,” while adding that allowing them to remain temporarily in the U.S. is “contrary to the national interest.”

John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said that “extensive reporting on Myanmar contradicts almost every assertion” in the Homeland Security statement.

The decision could affect as many as 4,000 people, he said.

“Homeland Security’s misstatements in revoking TPS for people from Myanmar are so egregious that it is hard to imagine who would believe them,” he said in a statement.

“Perhaps no one was expected to.”

By Robbie Sequeira, Stateline.org

When six Southern public university systems this summer formed a new accreditation agency, the move shook the national evaluation model that higher education has relied on for decades.

The news wasn’t unexpected: It arrived a few months after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April overhauling the nation’s accreditation system by, among other things, barring accreditors from using college diversity mandates. It also came after U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in May made it easier for universities to switch accreditors.

The accreditation process, often bureaucratic, cumbersome and time consuming, is critical to the survival of institutions of higher education. Colleges and their individual departments must undergo outside reviews — usually every few years — to prove that they meet certain educational and financial standards. If a school is not accredited, its students cannot receive federal aid such as Pell grants and student loans.

Some accreditation agencies acknowledge the process needs to evolve. But critics say the Trump administration is reshaping accreditation for political reasons, and risks undermining the legitimacy of the degrees colleges and universities award to students.

Trump said during his campaign that he would wield college accreditation as a “secret weapon” to root out DEI and other “woke” ideas from higher education. He has made good on that pledge.

Over the summer, for example, the administration sent letters to the accreditors of both Columbia and Harvard universities, alleging that the schools had violated federal civil rights law, and thus their accreditation rules, by failing to prevent the harassment of Jewish students after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel.

The administration’s antipathy toward DEI has prompted some accreditors to remove diversity requirements. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, for instance, removed diversity and inclusion language from its guiding principles earlier this year. Under White House pressure, the American Bar Association this year suspended enforcement of its DEI standards for its accreditation of law schools and has extended that suspension into next year.

But state legislatures laid the groundwork for public university accreditation changes even before Trump returned to the White House.

In 2022, Florida enacted a law requiring the state’s public institutions to switch accreditors every cycle — usually every few years — forcing them to move away from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, known as SACSCOC.

North Carolina followed suit in 2023, with a law prohibiting the 16 universities within the University of North Carolina system and the state’s community colleges from receiving accreditation from the same agency for consecutive cycles.

Then, the consortium of six Southern university systems this summer launched its new accreditation agency, called the Commission for Public Higher Education. The participating states include Florida and North Carolina, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a news release that the commission will “break the ideological stronghold” that other accreditation agencies have on higher education. Speaking at Florida Atlantic University, he said the new organization will “upend the monopoly of the woke accreditation cartels.”

“We care about student achievement; we care about measurable outcomes; we care about efficiency; we care about pursuing truth; we care about preparing our students to be citizens of our republic,” DeSantis said.

Jan Friis, senior vice president for government affairs at the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which represents accrediting agencies, said the century-old system is in the midst of its most significant changes since the federal government tied accreditation to student aid after World War II.

“If the student picks a school that’s not accredited by a recognized accreditor, they can’t spend any federal aid there,” Friis said. “Accreditation has become the ‘good housekeeping seal of approval.’”

What’s next for the new accreditor

Dan Harrison, who is leading the startup phase of the Commission for Public Higher Education, described accreditation as “the plumbing of the whole higher ed infrastructure.”

“It’s not dramatic. It’s not meant to be partisan. But it’s critical to how schools function,” said Harrison, who is the University of North Carolina System’s vice president for academic affairs.

Though the founding schools of the new commission are all in the South, Harrison said, he expects accreditation to shift away from the long-standing geography-based model. In the past, universities in the South were accredited by SACSCOC simply because of location. In the future, he said, public universities across the country might instead be grouped together because they share similar governance structures, funding constraints and oversight.

“In 2025, if you were designing accreditation from scratch, you wouldn’t build it around geography,” Harrison said. “Public universities have more in common with each other across states than they do with private or for-profit institutions in their own backyard.”

The Commission for Public Higher Education opened with an initial cohort capped at 10 institutions within the first six states. Harrison said that based on the interest, the group could have accepted 15 to 20.

“I thought we’d be at six or seven. We reached 10 quickly and across a wider range of institutions than expected,” he said. “We already have an applicant outside the founding systems. That’s well ahead of where I thought we would be.”

That early interest, he said, reflects frustration among public institutions around finances. In particular, public universities are mandated to undergo audits from the state, but also feel burdened by audits required by accreditors.

“Public universities already undergo multiple audits and state budget oversight,” he said. “Then accreditation requires them to do the same work again. It feels like reinventing the wheel and it pulls faculty and staff away from teaching and research.”

Harrison estimates it will take five to seven years for the new accreditor to be fully up and running, and that institutions will need to maintain dual accreditation to avoid risking Pell Grants and federal loans.

The commission is busy assembling peer review teams made up primarily of current and former public university leaders such as governing board members, system chancellors, provosts, chief financial officers, deans and faculty. In contrast to regional accreditors, which typically draw reviewers from both public and private institutions, the new commission is prioritizing reviewers from public universities.

“Ultimately, we want to be a true nationwide accreditor,” Harrison said. “Not a regional one. Not a partisan one. Just one that is organized around sector and peer expertise.”

While the creation of a public university accreditor is new, the concept of sector-specific accreditation exists in other parts of higher education, including for two-year colleges.

Mac Powell, president of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, said that tailoring accreditation to a sector can make the peer-review model more meaningful, because reviewers can identify with similar challenges. He said reviewers have been moving away from measuring resources and bureaucratic compliance toward assessing what students actually get out of their education.

“The big shift was moving from counting inputs to asking, ‘Did students actually learn what we said they would learn?’” said Powell, whose organization accredits 138 colleges across Arizona, California, New York and the Pacific.

The most important metric all accreditation models should value is how they transition their students into the workforce, he said.

“Every accreditor today is paying much more attention to retention, persistence, transfer, career outcomes and return on investment,” Powell said. “It’s becoming less about how many books are in the library and more about whether students can find a pathway to the middle class.”

The institution evolves

Stephen Pruitt is in his first year as the president of SACSCOC, the accreditation organization that the half-dozen Southern state university systems just left. Pruitt, a Georgia native, jokes that his “Southern accent and front-porch style” has helped him break down the importance of accreditation to just about anyone.

In simple terms, he said, accreditation is the system that makes college degrees real. But he feels he has to clarify a misconception about the role of accreditation agencies like SACSCOC.

“There’s this myth that I’m sitting in Atlanta deciding if institutions are good or not,” he said. “That’s not how American accreditation works. Your peers evaluate you. People who do the same work you do.”

At the same time, Pruitt isn’t dismissing the concerns that prompted states such as Florida and North Carolina to explore alternatives to SACSCOC. According to Pruitt, institutions have long raised concerns about slow turnaround times, redundant paperwork and standards that have not always adapted quickly to the evolving landscape in higher education.

“Some of the frustration is real. Institutions want less redundancy and more responsiveness. Competition isn’t something we’re afraid of,” he said. “We’re doing a full audit of our processes. We have to be more contemporary. Faster approvals, more flexibility, more transparency. Accreditation shouldn’t just be the stick. It should be the carrot too.”

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Months after federal officials demanded voter data from Colorado and several other states, Secretary of State Jena Griswold and several peers are trying to determine what exactly the Trump administration is doing with the data.

“As Secretaries of State and chief election officials of our respective states, we write to express our immense concern with recent reporting that the Department of Justice has shared voter data with the Department of Homeland Security, and to seek clarity on whether DOJ and DHS actively misled election officials regarding the uses of voter data,” Griswold and nine other secretaries of state wrote in a letter sent Tuesday morning.

It was addressed to Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general, and Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary.

Bondi’s Justice Department sent letters to Colorado and other states in the spring asking for voter rolls and, in some cases, it has sought more detailed data, including partial social security numbers and birth dates.

The state officials’ new letter asks Bondi and Noem whether the voter rolls were shared with Noem’s department, which has served as the tip of the spear in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, or any others. The secretaries of state who signed on are all Democrats.

Colorado provided some of the information requested by the Justice Department as required by law, Griswold said in an interview Monday. Other states, particularly those tasked with turning over more extensive voter data, refused; six of them have since been sued by the federal government.

Griswold said federal officials had provided shifting answers on whether the Homeland Security Department had been given access to the data that had been turned over to the DOJ, including from Colorado.

Heather Honey, the agency’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, told the secretaries of state in September that DHS hadn’t received or asked for the data, according to the secretaries’ letter. But the next day, the agency confirmed to Stateline that it was collaborating with the Justice Department to “scrub aliens from voter rolls.”

Six weeks later, on Halloween, the agency posted an administrative update indicating it was expanding a tool — used previously to ensure federal benefits don’t go to immigrants without proper legal status — to check voting rolls.

“We would like the attorney general and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to explain what they’re doing collecting mass voter data on American voters,” Griswold said. “It also looks like the DOJ or DHS misled secretaries of state.”

Attempts to reach both federal departments for comment Tuesday were not successful.

Griswold said some of her staff members also had a brief conversation with officials from the Justice Department’s criminal division earlier this summer. The federal officials asked if Colorado election officials had a way to report election crimes to the state attorney general, Griswold’s office said. State officials replied that they did, and the conversation ended.

The state officials request a response from Bondi and Noem by Dec. 1.

In addition to Colorado, the secretaries of state from California, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Maine, Vermont, Oregon and Washington also signed the letter.

By Max Bryan, mbryan@detroitnews.com

Amid increased immigration enforcement across the country, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald urged students, teachers and families not to interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — but to also know their rights if agents show up at a school or detain parents.

McDonald said in a Friday news release that interfering with ICE or other law enforcement “increases the risk for everyone.” The county prosecutor said ICE agents may enter public areas in schools without restriction, but must present either a judicial warrant or permission from the school to enter private areas like classrooms or offices.

McDonald’s statement follows news on Wednesday that ICE agents pursued purported gang members who had fled on foot near a Clarkston Community elementary school, Oakland County Sheriff’s Public Information Officer Steve Huber said Friday. The district issued a shelter-in-place order, sheriff’s deputies provided additional security to the school and assisted the search, Huber said.

The search and shelter-in-place order lasted for about an hour, according to district officials.

In preparation for a possible ICE presence, McDonald said schools should require visitors to sign in, make sure security cameras work, follow student privacy protections and have a communication plan. She also said faculty and staff should treat ICE agents like they would any visitor who’s not a parent or guardian and educate the staff on how to identify a judicial warrant.

The prosecutor also said parents and caregivers should remember their right not to answer any questions about immigration or birthplace, make sure the school has correct emergency contact information, ask their schools if they have an ICE preparedness plan and make a family plan if a parent is detained while their children are at school.

“As ICE raids have happened across our country, many community members, including our students, parents, and teachers, have experienced understandable anxiety and fear. Schools should be places where kids feel safe, and worrying that a teacher, child, or classmate could be detained can impact a student’s health and well-being. Working together, there are steps schools and families can take to keep kids safe, informed, and protected,” McDonald said in a statement.

School superintendents across Michigan vowed in January that they would keep their students and school buildings safe and instructed staff on proper procedures as the Trump administration increased its immigration enforcement efforts nationwide.

ICE officials said in September their agents do not “raid” schools, but could enter a school if an undocumented immigrant with a felony record were to flee into a school.

By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, JOSH BOAK and JAKE OFFENHARTZ

The two had called each other “fascist” and “communist,” but when President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani faced reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, they were just two iconoclastic New York politicians who were all smiles.

The much-anticipated face-to-face showed how the politicians’ shared love of New York City — and no doubt some political calculus — could paper over months of insults. Both men used a plainspoken, wry approach tailor-made for the age of social media to make their points, and each left the meeting with something he needed.

Here are some takeaways from the appearance.

Republicans lose their punching bag — at least for now

Trump’s party had been queueing up a 2026 campaign warning that the Democratic Party is getting taken over by people like Mamdani, a 34-year-old Muslim and self-described democratic socialist who may not play as well west of the Hudson River. But Trump swatted all that down.

“The better he does, the happier I am,” Trump, a native New Yorker, said of Mamdani.

Trump denied a charge by Elise Stefanik, the Republican candidate for New York governor and one of his political allies, that Mamdani, a longtime critic of Israel, is a “jihadist,” saying, “I just met with a man who’s a very rational person” and adding that they both wanted peace in the Middle East.

Trump said he’d happily live in Mamdani’s New York, countering conservative suggestions that rich New Yorkers should flee the city. He praised Mamdani’s decision to keep New York’s police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, noting she was a friend of the president’s daughter Ivanka. And he demurred when asked about Mamdani’s democratic socialism, saying instead that the two had many similar ideas. He noted — and Mamdani emphasized repeatedly — that they’d both run for office on affordability.

It was an inconvenient defense of democratic socialism on the very day that House Republicans muscled through a resolution condemning socialism with the express intent of embarassing their rivals over the mayor-elect. Trump even threw in some praise of another Republican punching bag, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also a democratic socialist.

“Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought,” Trump said. He added proudly that Mamdani was wowed by a painting of iconic Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt — yet another GOP bugbear — in the Oval Office.

Trump, struggling amid mounting dissatisfaction in his first year back in office, may see an advantage in lashing his star to that of the latest avatar of affordability.

Of course, both Trump and Mamdani are experts at the 21st century art of political brawling and Trump is notoriously mercurial, so the detente may be short-lived. But it’s notable while it’s here.

Mamdani’s visit lets Trump talk about affordability

For the past few weeks, Trump has struggled to address voters’ concerns about inflation, suggesting that prices are already down and any claims otherwise are a “con job by the Democrats.” But Mamdani stomped his competition in the mayoral election by focusing relentlessly on the cost of rent, groceries and other basic needs — a successful strategy that White House officials noticed as they think about next year’s midterms.

The president leaned into that message in their White House meeting, saying he sees his efforts as complementary. He said that just like Mamdani, he too wants to build more housing. The president didn’t lay out any new policies as he repeated his claims that inflation has dropped under his watch.

“Anything I do is going to be good for New York if I can get prices down,” Trump said. “The new word is affordability. Another word is just groceries. You know, it’s sort of an old-fashioned word, but it’s very accurate. And they’re coming down. They’re coming down.”

The challenge for Trump is whether voters trust that he’s genuinely addressing inflation. The consumer price index has jumped to an annual rate of 3% compared to 2.3% in April, when the president rolled out his “Liberation Day” import taxes.

A confidence boost for Mamdani — with implications for his agenda

Throughout his campaign, Mamdani’s opponents claimed his far-left politics and relative inexperience would make him an easy target for Trump. Friday’s meeting will likely quiet those concerns — at least for now. Trump seemed thoroughly impressed with Mamdani, describing him as “a very rational man” who “wants to see New York be great again.”

“We had some interesting conversations and some of his ideas are the same that I have,” Trump added.

For his part, Mamdani struck a delicate balance: flattering Trump in broad terms, while avoiding sensitive subjects or concessions that could enrage his base. He noted repeatedly that many of his own voters were former Democrats who switched over to Trump in the previous election — a line the president seemed to like.

The backing of the president could help the mayor-elect avoid a National Guard deployment in New York, which Trump previously threatened as a likely outcome of his election victory. Trump also indicated that federal funding cuts could be off the table — a move that would give Mamdani a much better shot at achieving his ambitious agenda, which requires raising revenue for programs like universal free childcare.

“I want him to do a great job and will help him do a great job,” Trump said.

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan pushed by President Donald Trump likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.

The court’s conservative majority has blocked similar lower court rulings because they have come too close to elections.

The order came about an hour after the state called on the high court to intervene to avoid confusion as congressional primary elections approach in March. The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The order was signed by Alito because he is the justice who handles emergency appeals from Texas.

Texas redrew its congressional map in the summer as part of Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle. The new redistricting map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 Tuesday that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

If that ruling eventually holds, Texas could be forced to hold elections next year using the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 based on the 2020 census.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court is separately considering a case from Louisiana which could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s not entirely clear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

By JACK DURA

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Abortion is again illegal in North Dakota after the state’s Supreme Court on Friday couldn’t muster the required majority to uphold a judge’s ruling that struck down the state’s ban last year.

The law makes it a felony crime for anyone to perform an abortion, though it specifically protects patients from prosecution. Doctors could be prosecuted and penalized by as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Three justices agreed that the ban is unconstitutionally vague under the state constitution. The other two justices said the law is not unconstitutional.

The state constitution requires at least four of the five justices to agree for a law to be found unconstitutional, a high bar. Not enough members of the court joined together to affirm the lower court ruling.

In his opinion, Justice Jerod Tufte said the natural rights guaranteed by the state constitution in 1889 do not extend to abortion rights. He also said the law “provides adequate and fair warning to those attempting to comply.”

North Dakota Republican Attorney Drew Wrigley welcomed the ruling, saying, “The Supreme Court has upheld this important pro-life legislation, enacted by the people’s Legislature. The Attorney General’s office has the solemn responsibility of defending the laws of North Dakota, and today those laws have been upheld.”

Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, who introduced the 2023 legislation that became the law banning abortion, said she is “thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake.”

Attorneys for the challengers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ruling means access to abortion in North Dakota will be outlawed. Even after a judge had earlier struck down the ban last year, the only scenarios for a patient to obtain an abortion in North Dakota had been for life- or health-preserving reasons in a hospital.

The only abortion provider relocated in 2022 from Fargo to nearby Moorhead, Minnesota.

Justice Daniel Crothers, one of the three judges to vote against the ban, wrote that the district court decision wasn’t wrong.

“The vagueness in the law relates to when an abortion can be performed to preserve the life and health of the mother,” Crothers wrote. “After striking this invalid provision, the remaining portions of the law would be inoperable.”

North Dakota’s newly confirmed ban prohibits the performance of an abortion as a felony crime. The only exceptions are for rape or incest in the first six weeks — before many women know they are pregnant — and to prevent the mother’s death or a “serious health risk” to her.

North Dakota joins 12 other states enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Another four bar it at or around six weeks gestational age.

Judge Bruce Romanick had struck down the ban the state Legislature passed in 2023, less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to the state-level bans, largely turning the abortion battle to state courts and legislatures.

The Red River Women’s Clinic — the formerly sole abortion clinic in North Dakota — and several physicians challenged the law. The state appealed the 2024 ruling that overturned the ban.

The judge and the Supreme Court each denied requests by the state to keep the abortion ban in effect during the appeal. Those decisions allowed patients with pregnancy complications to seek care without fear of delay because of the law, Center for Reproductive Rights Staff Attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh previously said.

By MATT BROWN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to end the deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s capital. But the ruling is unlikely to be the final word by the courts, the president or local leaders in the contentious duel over the federal district.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb put her order on hold for 21 days to allow the Trump administration time to either remove the troops or appeal the decision. The ruling marks another flashpoint in the months-long legal battle between local leaders and the president over longstanding norms about whether troops can support law enforcement activities on American streets.

Trump issued an emergency order in the capital in August, federalizing the local police force and sending in National Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia. The order expired a month later but the troops remained.

The soldiers have patrolled Washington’s neighborhoods, monuments, train stations, and high-traffic streets. They have set up checkpoints on highways and supported federal agents in raids that have arrested hundreds of people, often for immigration-related infractions. They’ve also been assigned to pick up trash, guard sports events, conventions and concerts and have been seen taking selfies with tourists and residents alike.

The White House has said Trump’s deployment was legal and vowed to appeal the ruling.

Here’s what to know about the National Guard deployment in the nation’s capital.

The judge ruled the deployment was unlawful

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the lawsuit against the administration that led to Cobb’s ruling.

Cobb ruled that Trump’s troop deployment violated the governance of the capital for a variety of reasons, including that the president had taken powers that officially resided in Congress; that the federal district’s autonomy from other states had been violated; and that Trump had moved to make the troop deployment a possibly permanent fixture of the city.

“At its core, Congress has given the District rights to govern itself. Those rights are infringed upon when defendants approve, in excess of their statutory authority, the deployment of National Guard troops to the District,” Cobb wrote.

The judge also added that D.C. “suffers a distinct injury from the presence of out-of-state National Guard units” because “the Constitution placed the District exclusively under Congress’s authority to prevent individual states from exerting any influence over the nation’s capital.”

Cobb added that repeated extensions of the troop deployment by the National Guard into next year “could be read to suggest that the use of the (D.C. National Guard) for crime deterrence and public safety missions in the District may become longstanding, if not permanent.”

Troops won’t necessarily leave the capital following the ruling

The Trump administration has three weeks to appeal the decision and White House officials have already vowed to oppose it. Troops remained stationed around the city on Friday after the ruling came down.

Before the ruling, states with contingents in the capital had indicated their missions would wrap up around the end of November unless ordered otherwise by the administration. According to formal orders reviewed by The Associated Press, the Washington D.C. National Guard will be deployed to the nation’s capital through the end of February. One court document indicated that the contingent could stay into next summer.

Deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon and Chicago have each faced court challenges with divergent rulings. The administration has had to scale back its operations in Chicago and Portland while it appeals in both cases.

The White House stands by the deployment

The White House says the Guard’s presence in the capital is a central part of what it calls successful crime-fighting efforts. It dismissed the ruling as wrongly decided.

“President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. “This lawsuit is nothing more than another attempt — at the detriment of DC residents — to undermine the President’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in DC.”

That stands in contrast to what local D.C. leaders say.

Schwalb, the District’s attorney general, praised the judge’s decision and argued that the arrangement the president had sought for the city would weaken democratic principles.

“From the beginning, we made clear that the U.S. military should not be policing American citizens on American soil,” Schwalb said in a statement. “Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, where the President can disregard states’ independence and deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants, with no check on his military power.”

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has tried to strike a balance between working with some federal authorities and the opposition of some of her voters, has not publicly commented about the ruling.

States across the country have watched D.C.’s legal case play out

The case could have legal implications for Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to other cities across the country. Dozens of states had joined the case, with their support for each side split along party lines.

The District of Columbia has always had a unique relationship with the federal government. But the legal dispute in D.C. raises some similar questions over the president’s power to deploy troops to aid in domestic law enforcement activities and whether the National Guard can be mobilized indefinitely without the consent of local leaders.

Prior to the D.C. deployment, Trump in June mobilized National Guard troops in Los Angeles as some in the city protested against immigration enforcement activities. Since deploying troops to Washington, Trump has also dispatched National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland and Charlotte, with more cities expected to see deployments in the future.

The mostly Democratic governors and mayors who lead the cities and states in the administration’s crosshairs broadly oppose the deployments. Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, in a November interview with the AP, warned of the “militarization of our American cities.” Pritzker and other Democratic governors have been among the most intense legal opponents to Trump’s troop deployments and federal agent surges nationwide.

Some Republican leaders have welcomed federal law enforcement intervention into their states and lent state resources and agents.

Yet some of Trump’s allies have expressed concern. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, chair of the Republican Governors Association, warned that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops without a state’s consent “sets a very dangerous precedent.”

By Claudia Boyd-Barrett, KFF Health News

In July, federal immigration agents took Milagro Solis-Portillo to Glendale Memorial Hospital just outside Los Angeles after she suffered a medical emergency while being detained. They didn’t leave.

For two weeks, Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractors sat guard in the hospital lobby 24 hours a day, working in shifts to monitor her movements, her attorney Ming Tanigawa-Lau said.

ICE later transferred the Salvadoran woman to Anaheim Global Medical Center, against her doctor’s orders and without explanation, her attorney said. There, Tanigawa-Lau said, ICE agents were allowed to stay in Solis-Portillo’s hospital room round-the-clock, listening to what should have been private conversations with providers. Solis-Portillo told her attorney that agents pressured her to say she was well enough to leave the hospital, telling her she wouldn’t be able to speak to her family or her attorney until she complied.

“She described it to me as feeling like she was being tortured,” Tanigawa-Lau said.

Legal experts say ICE agents can be in public areas of a hospital, such as a lobby, and can accompany already-detained patients as they receive care, illustrating the scope of federal authority. Detained patients, however, have rights and can try to advocate for themselves or seek legal recourse.

Earlier this year, California set aside $25 million to fund legal services for immigrants, and some local jurisdictions — including Orange County, Long Beach, and San Francisco— have put money toward legal aid efforts. The California Department of Social Services lists some legal defense nonprofits that have received funds.

Sophia Genovese, a supervising attorney and clinical teaching fellow at Georgetown Law, said law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, can guard and even restrain a person in their custody who is receiving health care, but they must follow constitutional and health privacy laws regardless of the person’s immigration status. Under those laws, patients can ask to speak with medical providers in private and to seek and speak confidentially with legal counsel, she said.

“ICE should be stationed outside of the room or outside of earshot during any communication between the patient and their doctor or medical provider,” Genovese said, adding that the same applies to a patient’s communication with lawyers. “That’s what they’re supposed to do.”

ICE guidelines

When it comes to communication and visits, ICE’s standards state that detainees should have access to a phone and be able to receive visits from family and friends, “within security and operational constraints.” However, these guidelines are not enforceable, Genovese said.

If immigration agents arrest someone without a warrant, they must tell them why they’ve been detained and generally can’t hold them for more than 48 hours without making a custody determination. A federal judge recently granted a temporary restraining order in a case in which a man named Bayron Rovidio Marin was monitored by immigration agents in a Los Angeles hospital for 37 days without being charged and was registered under a pseudonym.

In the past, perceived violations by agents could be reported to ICE leadership at local field offices, to the agency’s headquarters, or to an oversight body, Genovese said. But earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security cut staffing at ombudsman offices that investigate civil rights complaints, saying they “obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles.”

The assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, Tricia McLaughlin, said that agents arrested Marin for being in the country illegally and that he admitted his lack of legal status to ICE agents. She said agents took him to the hospital after he injured his leg while trying to evade federal officers during a raid. She said officers did not prevent him from seeing his family or from using the phone.

“All detainees have access to phones they can use to contact their families and lawyers,” she said.

McLaughlin said the temporary restraining order was issued by an “activist” judge. She did not address questions about staffing cuts at the ombudsman offices.

DHS also said Solis-Portillo was in the country illegally. The department said she had been removed from the United States twice and arrested for the crimes of false identification, theft, and burglary.

“ICE takes its commitment to promoting safe, secure, humane environments for those in our custody very seriously,” McLaughlin said. “It is a long-standing practice to provide comprehensive medical care from the moment an alien enters ICE custody. This includes access to medical appointments and 24-hour emergency care.”

Protections in California

Anaheim Global Medical Center did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Dignity Health, which operates Glendale Memorial Hospital, said it “cannot legally restrict law enforcement or security personnel from being present in public areas which include the hospital lobby/waiting area.”

California enacted a law in September that prohibits medical establishments from allowing federal agents without a valid search warrant or court order into private areas, including places where patients receive treatment or discuss health matters. But many of the most high-profile news reports of immigration agents at health care facilities have involved detained patients brought in for care.

Erika Frank, vice president of legal counsel for the California Hospital Association, said hospitals have always had law enforcement, including federal agents, bring in people they’ve detained who need medical attention.

Hospitals will defer to law enforcement on whether a patient needs to be monitored at all times, according to association spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea. If law enforcement officers overhear medical information about a patient while they’re in the hospital, it doesn’t constitute a patient-privacy violation, she added.

“This is no different, legally, from a patient or visitor overhearing information about another patient in a nearby bed or emergency department bay,” Emerson-Shea said in a statement.

She didn’t address whether patients can demand privacy with providers and attorneys, and she said hospitals don’t tell family and friends about the detained patient’s location, for safety reasons.

Sandy Reding, who is president of the California Nurses Association and visited the Glendale facility when Solis-Portillo was there, said nurses and patients were frightened to see masked immigration agents in the hospital’s lobby. She said she saw them sitting behind a registration desk where they could hear people discuss private health information.

“Hospitals used to be a sanctuary place, and now they’re not,” she said. “And it seems like ICE has just been running rampant.”

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote Nov. 18 on a proposal to provide more protections for detainees at county-operated health facilities. These include limiting the ability of immigration officials to hide patients’ identities, allowing patients to consent to the release of information to family members and legal counsel, and directing staff to insist immigration agents leave the room at times to protect patient privacy. The county would also defend employees who try to uphold its policies.

Solis-Portillo’s lawyer, Tanigawa-Lau, said her client ultimately decided to self-deport to El Salvador rather than fight her case, because she felt she couldn’t get the medical care she needed in ICE custody.

“Even though Milagro’s case is really terrible, I’m glad that there’s more awareness now about this issue,” Tanigawa-Lau said.

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Jonathan Shorman, Stateline.org

A day after President Donald Trump took office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a new directive to its agents: Arrests at courthouses, restricted under the Biden administration, were again permissible.

In Connecticut, a group of observers who keep watch on ICE activity in and around Stamford Superior Court have since witnessed a series of arrests. In one high-profile case in August, federal agents pursued two men into a bathroom.

“Is it an activity you want to be interfering with, people fulfilling their duty when they’re called to court and going to court? For me, it’s insanity,” said David Michel, a Democratic former state representative in Connecticut who helps observe courthouse activity.

Fueled by the Stamford uproar, Connecticut lawmakers last week approved restrictions on civil arrests and mask-wearing by federal law enforcement at state courthouses. And on Monday, a federal judge tossed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that had sought to block similar restrictions in New York.

They are the latest examples of a growing number of Democratic states, and some judges, pushing back against ICE arrests in and around state courthouses. State lawmakers and other officials worry the raids risk keeping people from testifying in criminal trials, fighting evictions or seeking restraining orders against domestic abusers.

The courthouse arrests mark an intensifying clash between the Trump administration and Democratic states that pits federal authority against state sovereignty. Sitting at the core of the fight are questions about how much power states have to control what happens in their own courts and the physical grounds they sit on.

In Illinois, lawmakers approved a ban on civil immigration arrests at courthouses in October. In Rhode Island, lawmakers plan to again push for a ban after an earlier measure didn’t advance in March. Connecticut lawmakers were codifying limits imposed by the state Supreme Court chief justice in September. Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to sign the bill.

States that are clamping down on ICE continue to allow the agency to make criminal arrests, as opposed to noncriminal civil arrests. Many people arrested and subsequently deported are taken on noncriminal, administrative warrants. As of Sept. 21, 71.5% of ICE detainees had no criminal convictions, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research organization.

Some states, such as New York, already have limits on immigration enforcement in courthouses that date back to the first Trump administration, when ICE agents also engaged in courthouse arrests. New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, in place since 2020, prohibits civil arrests of people at state and local courthouses without a judicial warrant. The law also applies to people traveling to and from court, extending protections beyond courthouse grounds.

“One of the cornerstones of our democracy is open access to the courts. When that access is denied or chilled, all of us are made less safe and less free,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director at Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based group that works to provide legal support to immigrants, people of color and low-income individuals.

But in addition to challenging the New York law, the Justice Department is prosecuting a Wisconsin state judge, alleging she illegally helped a migrant avoid ICE agents.

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to Stateline. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Some Republican lawmakers oppose efforts to limit ICE arrests in and near courthouses, arguing state officials should stay out of the way of federal law enforcement. The Ohio Senate in June passed a bill that would prohibit public officials from interfering in immigration arrests or prohibiting cooperation with ICE; the move came after judges in Franklin County, which includes Columbus, imposed restrictions on civil arrests in courthouses.

“The United States is a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of law and order. To have a civilized society, laws must be respected, this includes immigration laws,” Ohio Republican state Sen. Kristina Roegner, the bill’s sponsor, said in a news release at the time.

Roegner didn’t respond to Stateline’s interview request. The legislation remains in a House committee.

Knowing where a target will be

Courthouses offer an attractive location for ICE to make immigration arrests, according to both ICE and advocates for migrants.

Court records and hearing schedules often indicate who is expected in the building on any given day. Administrative warrants don’t allow ICE to enter private homes without permission, but the same protections don’t apply in public areas, such as courthouses. And many people have a strong incentive to show up for court, knowing that warrants can potentially be issued for their arrest if they don’t.

“So in some respects, it’s easy pickings,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.

In June, ICE arrested Pablo Grave de la Cruz at Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal in Cranston. A 36-year-old Rhode Island resident, he had come from Guatemala illegally as a teenager.

“They pulled up on him like he was a murderer or a rapist,” friend Brittany Donohue told the Rhode Island Current, which chronicled de la Cruz’s case. “He was leaving traffic court.”

An immigration judge has since granted de la Cruz permission to self-deport.

McLaughlin, the Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in her statement that allowing law enforcement to make arrests “of criminal illegal aliens in courthouses is common sense” — conserving law enforcement resources because officers know where a target will be. The department said the practice is safer for officers and the community, noting that individuals have gone through courthouse security.

Still, ICE’s directive on courthouse arrests sets some limits on the agency’s activity.

Agents “should, to the extent practicable” conduct civil immigration arrests in non-public areas of the courthouse and avoid public entrances. Actions should be taken “discreetly” to minimize disruption to court proceedings, and agents should generally avoid areas wholly dedicated to non-criminal proceedings, such as family court, the directive says.

Crucially, the directive says ICE can conduct civil immigration arrests “where such action is not precluded by laws imposed by the jurisdiction.” In other words, the agency’s guidance directs agents to respect state and local bans on noncriminal arrests.

Trump administration court actions

But the Trump administration has also gone to court to try to overcome state-level restrictions.

The Justice Department sued in June over New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, arguing that it “purposefully shields dangerous aliens” from lawful detention. The department says the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, under which federal law supersedes state law.

New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James argued the state law doesn’t conflict with federal law and sought the lawsuit’s dismissal.

U.S. District Court Judge Mae D’Agostino, an appointee of President Barack Obama, on Monday granted James’ motion. The judge wrote that the “entire purpose” of the lawsuit was to allow the federal government to commandeer New York’s resources — such as court schedules and court security screening measures — to aid immigration enforcement, even though states cannot generally be required to help the federal government enforce federal law.

“Compelling New York to allow federal immigration authorities to reap the benefits of the work of state employees is no different than permitting the federal government to commandeer state officials directly in furtherance of federal objectives,” the judge wrote.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The department is also prosecuting Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who prosecutors allege helped a person living in the country illegally avoid ICE agents in April inside a Milwaukee courthouse by letting him exit a courtroom through a side door. (Agents apprehended the individual near the courthouse.) A federal grand jury indicted Dugan on a count of concealing an individual and a count of obstructing a proceeding.

In court documents, Dugan’s lawyers have called the prosecution “virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.”

Dugan has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for December.

Lawmakers seek ‘order’ in courthouses

Rhode Island Democratic state Sen. Meghan Kallman is championing legislation that would generally ban civil arrests at courthouses. The measure received a hearing, but a legislative committee recommended further study.

Kallman hopes the bill will go further next year. The sense of urgency has intensified, she said, and more people now understand the consequences of what is happening.

“In order to create a system of law that is functioning and that encourages trust, we have to make those [courthouse] spaces safe,” she said.

Back in Connecticut, Democratic state Rep. Steven Stafstrom said his day job as a commercial litigator brings him into courthouses across the state weekly. Based on his conversations with court staff, other lawyers and senior administration within the judicial branch, he said “there’s a genuine fear, not just for safety, but for disruptions of orderly court processes in our courthouses.”

Some Connecticut Republicans have questioned whether a law that only pertains to civil arrests would prove effective. State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, noted during floor debate that entering the United States without permission is a criminal offense — a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a felony for repeat offenders. Because of that, he suggested the measure wouldn’t stop many courthouse arrests.

“The advocates think they’re getting no arrests in courthouses, but they’ve been sold a bill of goods,” he said.

Stafstrom, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said in response that he believed the legislation protects many people who are in the country illegally because that crime is often not prosecuted.

“All we’re asking is for ICE to recognize the need for order in our courthouses,” Stafstrom said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post Working Families Party seeks to bring authenticity to the Democrats appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.