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.

The post Hamtramck mayoral election decided by 6 votes, Mahmood files recount appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

The post Sheffield team says all of city’s stakeholders are helping design new mayoral administration appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

Exiled by the elite after his conviction for sexually soliciting a teenage girl and failing to rehabilitate his image as a sexual predator, an embittered Jeffrey Epstein in 2011 believed his old friend Donald Trump had escaped scrutiny.

“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” Epstein wrote to his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell that April, noting Trump had “spent hours at my house” with Virginia Giuffre, one of the most prominent women to speak out about being abused by the financier, who died by suicide in April.

The correspondence, obtained from Epstein’s estate by the House Oversight Committee, was included among more than 20,000 documents released this week that brought the men’s relationship history into greater focus. Scores of emails in the cache chart Epstein’s obsession with Trump as he spiraled into scandal and his Palm Beach neighbor ascended to the presidency.

Epstein was at a low point when he sent the missive to Maxwell after serving jail time in Florida for soliciting a 16-year-old. Two months earlier, a Manhattan judge had rejected a bid to downgrade his sex offender status, despite the well-connected wealth manager having then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., in his corner.

Giuffre had publicly spoken out about her allegations that Epstein trafficked her to powerful men for sex, sharing with the Daily Mail a now-infamous photograph of her with his friend Prince Andrew and Maxwell as apparent evidence.

Epstein’s 2011 email to Maxwell marveled that Trump, then hosting “The Apprentice” and floating a run for president had “never once been mentioned.”

“I have been thinking about that…,” Maxwell replied.

Democrats released Epstein’s 2011 message to Maxwell among a set of emails early Wednesday that appeared to suggest the president knew about the financier’s depraved lifestyle and its young victims.

Claiming that their colleagues across the aisle had engaged in a cherry-picking mission, House Republicans later published thousands of Epstein’s digital files online, revealing Giuffre’s identity in the 2011 message, which the Democrats had previously redacted. Many came to the president’s defense, arguing that it proved nothing. Giuffre, they noted, had denied that Trump had abused her or that she’d seen him abuse others in the years before her death.

The president has long denied engaging in any abuse and claimed he stopped talking to Epstein — whom he’d counted as a friend since the 1980s — in the early 2000s over a dispute related to real estate.

On Friday, following a barrage of reporting about the emails, Trump took to his social media site Truth Social to slam what he calls the “EPSTEIN HOAX.” He demanded the Justice Department investigate Epstein’s “involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, would head the probe.

Dirt on Trump

The trove of Epstein emails released this week, massive in volume and spanning 2011 to 2019, includes 1,625 references to Trump, although there is no direct communication between the two men.

Made clear throughout is that — whether or not he did — Epstein maintained he had dirt on Trump.

Messaging ahead of a presidential debate in December 2015, Epstein asked his quasi-consultant, Trump biographer Michael Wolff, with whom he spoke regularly, how Trump might best answer a potential question about their relationship.

“I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt,” Wolff responded.

“Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”

Wolff suggested it could be time to pull the trigger less than two weeks before Trump won the presidency in 2016, following the release of “Filthy Rich,” a book about Epstein’s perversions.

“There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?” Wolff wrote on Oct. 29. It’s not clear from the release whether Epstein responded.

The batch of emails released this week, made searchable online by the Courier Newsroom, is separate from the federal government’s investigative records — the so-called “Epstein files” — whose release the House of Representatives is set to vote on next week.

The trove sheds light on Epstein’s state of mind in the years before his death, and how closely he followed the president’s whereabouts, policy moves, and his own set of scandals. In countless typo-laden emails, the Brooklyn-born financier situated himself as a POTUS expert in conversations with journalists and various confidants, spoke with members of Trump’s inner circle, and sought to shape U.S. policy.

In June 2018, he asked former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland to convey a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin about his willingness to provide insight on Trump.

His correspondence with Wolff is featured throughout the records, and Epstein also frequently spoke about Trump with former New York Times reporter Landon Thomas Jr., joking about sending him a photo of Trump with girls in bikinis in his kitchen in December 2015.

Epstein communicated regularly with the often foul-mouthed former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, whom he told Trump was “borderline insane,” the emails show.

He also chatted often with Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who in August 2018 told the financier they had to discuss “a crazed jihad against u,” and that “somebody big has u in the gunsights.”

After Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws for then-President Trump in the now-notorious Stormy Daniels hush money scheme in 2018, Epstein alluded to his insider’s perspective in correspondence with Kathy Ruemmler, a former Goldman Sachs executive and Obama aide, with whom the cache shows he frequently chatted.

“You see, i know how dirty donald is,” the financier quipped. “my guess is that non-lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip.”

“The real villain”

That December, The Miami Herald published the most complete account yet of allegations Epstein had serially exploited vulnerable teenage girls. The piece laid out how Epstein had effectively gotten off with a slap on the wrist in his 2008 plea deal due to former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who Trump had tapped as his Labor Secretary.

Epstein strategized with Wolff, who believed “directly debunking” the claims wasn’t the right move.

“That’s going against virtue itself,” Wolff wrote. “What I’d like to do is game out everything, creating a structure for thinking this through. Definitely not a piecemeal response. Figure out where we want to be and where we can reasonably get and work backwards.”

Epstein replied, “im thinking what would trump do.”

“Claims are ludicrous and self-serving, media is working with the other side’s lawyers, this is all about Donald Trump,” Wolff responded.

“…all about Donald Trump, the real villain,” Epstein said.

Less than two months later, Epstein explicitly implicated Trump, mentioning Mar-a-Lago to Wolff in a partially redacted email on January 31, 2019, and writing, “trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. . of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

Epstein was apparently still focused on the president the following June, when an email outlining some of Trump’s potentially questionable financial dealings landed in his inbox. Epstein’s accountant Richard Kahn sent over “interesting findings” from financial disclosures, or what Kahn called “trumps 100 pages of nonsense.”

Within eight weeks, Epstein was dead. Officials said he’d killed himself in his lower Manhattan jail cell a month after his arrest on sweeping sex trafficking charges.

Maxwell, his longtime partner in crime, was indicted a year later for aiding the abuse for at least a decade in the 1990s and convicted at trial in December 2021. This summer, she was transferred to a cushy prison facility in Bryan, Texas, after meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, for a highly unusual sit-down.

Transcripts of the meeting showed that Epstein’s longtime right-hand revealed little new information but notably praised the president, whom she is reportedly now planning to ask for a pardon.

President Trump announced he’s withdrawing his support of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, calling his former ally a “ranting lunatic” and a “disgrace to our great Republican party” for publicly blasting his handling of various issues, including the Epstein files.

In a wild post shared on his social media platform Friday night, Trump wrote that despite accomplishing what he called “record achievements for our country” and turning the U.S. into the world’s “hottest” nation, all that “Wacky Marjorie” does is “complain, complain, complain.”

He said he would endorse a challenger against Greene “if the right person runs” in next year’s midterm elections, claiming the people of her district are similarly “fed up with her and her antics.”

The political breakup appears to be the culmination of a dispute that had been simmering for at least six months, which the president suggested began when he discouraged Greene from running for Senate or governor.

She also “told many people that she is upset” that Trump doesn’t “return her phone calls anymore,” the president said.

“With 219 congressmen/women, 53 U.S. senators, 24 Cabinet members, almost 200 countries, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can’t take a ranting lunatic’s call every day,” Trump wrote on Truth Social around 8:30 p.m. Friday.

President Trump just attacked me and lied about me. I haven’t called him at all, but I did send these text messages today. Apparently this is what sent him over the edge.

The Epstein files.

And of course he’s coming after me hard to make an example to scare all the other… pic.twitter.com/EcUzaohZZs

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) November 15, 2025

Less than an hour later, the polarizing Georgia lawmaker — and former MAGA powerhouse — fired back at Trump’s claims in a lengthy post on X, sharing a screenshot of a text message she said “sent him over the edge.”

“President Trump just attacked me and lied about me. I haven’t called him at all, but I did send these text messages today,” she wrote, posting a message in which she tells the president about the importance of “releasing the Epstein files.”

Greene was one of a handful of Republicans to sign on with House Democrats to force a vote over releasing the files related to the sex trafficking investigation into the disgraced late financier.

“It’s astonishing really how hard he’s fighting to stop the Epstein files from coming out — that he actually goes to this level,” Greene continued.

Despite being a longtime and ardent supporter of the president and the MAGA agenda, Greene said she doesn’t “worship or serve Donald Trump.”

....

Early Saturday morning, Trump doubled down on his attack, slamming “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene” as someone who has “betrayed the entire Republican party when she turned left.”

A few hours later, Greene suggested the exchange is making her fear for her life.

“I am now being contacted by private security firms with warnings for my safety as a hot bed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world,” she wrote on X. “The man I supported and helped get elected.”

“As a Republican, who overwhelmingly votes for President Trump‘s bills and agenda, his aggression against me, which also fuels the venomous nature of his radical internet trolls (many of whom are paid), this is completely shocking to everyone,” wrote Greene, who in 2019 famously stalked and confronted Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg with claims that his gun control activism was being funded by Democrats.

“The political industrial complex and the toxic violent nature of American politics must end,” she said. “Our country is worth saving and it can only be done if we pull together and save ourselves.”

Detroit has a number of famous representatives. Representatives John Dingell, labor leader Patrick McNamara, and Congressmember John Conyers. 

Charles Diggs Jr. doesn’t often make these lists. But should he? The first Black congressmember from Michigan, he worked with Martin Luther King, Jr, helped pass the Voting Rights Act, advocated for the end of apartheid in South Africa, and changed America’s foreign policy stances toward many nations in Africa.

Why don’t more people know about him? 

It’s partly because the congressmember ended his professional career in disgrace, having to retire because of a payroll kickback scheme he orchestrated.

But what should we remember about this representative who built cross-ideological and cross-political coalitions to achieve civil rights for more people in America and around the world?

Marion Orr is a professor of political science at Brown University. He spoke with Producer Sam Corey about his new book, “House of Diggs: The Rise and Fall of America’s Most Consequential Black Congressman, Charles C. Diggs Jr.”

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, YouTube, or NPR 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: She looked at the waste stream and saw a lifeline

Robyn Vincent

Read More »

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

David Leins

Read More »

The Metro: Black Midwesterners find alternative messengers for their news

Cary Junior II

Read More »

The post The Metro: Why more people don’t know about Michigan’s first Black congressmember appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

The post MichMash: State House Speaker Matt Hall wants more H.E.A.T. and less ‘pork’ appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

The post Federal government is back open, but at what cost? appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

Last week, Democrats ran across the country on alleviating the issue of affordability. 

Those people spreading the message were often young, 30-somethings. 

That was true in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani became mayor-elect. And it was true in Detroit, where Mary Sheffield won as well. The voters who brought those people to victory — particularly in the New York mayoral race and the Virginia governor’s race — were young voters. 

Amanda Litman, the co-founder and president of Run For Something, recently told a reporter that of the over 200 left candidates affiliated with her organization, nearly every one who achieved victory did it by discussing affordability, particularly housing costs. 

So, how much does the issue of “affordability” translate to more liberal and more conservative places across the country? And, how much can we understand about what young people want from what we saw last week?

Litman joined The Metro to discuss.

 

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, YouTube, or NPR 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: Detroit Narrative Agency wants Detroit’s story told the right way

Tia Graham

Read More »

The Metro: The case for a Detroit land conservancy

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Covenant House Michigan brings awareness to youth homelessness with Sleep Out Detroit

Tia Graham

Read More »

The post The Metro: Why tackling affordability issues was the winning message for candidates across the country appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

By ROB GILLIES and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE, Ontario (AP) — Top diplomats from the Group of Seven industrialized democracies are meeting Ukraine’s foreign minister on Wednesday as Ukraine tries to fend off relentless Russian aerial attacks that have brought rolling blackouts across the country ahead of winter.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will participate in a G7 session on Ukraine and defense cooperation.

Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand is hosting the meeting in southern Ontario as tensions rise between the U.S. and traditional allies like Canada over defense spending, trade and uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan in Gaza and efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he wants to order 25 Patriot air defense systems from the United States. Combined missile and drone strikes on the power grid have coincided with Ukraine’s frantic efforts to hold back a Russian battlefield push aimed at capturing the eastern stronghold of Pokrovsk.

Canada announced additional sanctions on 13 people and 11 entities, including several involved in the development and deployment of Russia’s drone program.

Britain says it will send $17 million to help patch up Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as winter approaches and Russian attacks intensify. The money will go toward repairs to power, heating and water supplies and humanitarian support for Ukrainians.

U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who made the announcement before the meeting, said Russian President Vladimir Putin “is trying to plunge Ukraine into darkness and the cold as winter approaches” but the British support will help keep the lights and heating on.

Canada recently made a similar announcement.

The two-day meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake, near the U.S. border, comes after Trump ended trade talks with Canada because the Ontario provincial government ran an anti-tariff advertisement in the U.S. that upset him. That followed a spring of acrimony, since abated, over the Republican president’s insistence that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.

Anand will have a meeting with Rubio, but she noted that a different minister leads the U.S. trade file. The U.S. president has placed greater priority on addressing his grievances with other nations’ trade policies than on collaboration with G7 allies.

The G7 comprises Canada, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Anand also invited the foreign ministers of Australia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa and Ukraine to the meeting, which began Tuesday.

Putin has tried to justify Russia’s attack on Ukraine by saying it was needed to protect civilians in eastern Ukraine — a false claim the U.S. had predicted he would make as a pretext for his invasion.