Category: Nation & World

  • Rejecting Trump, South Korean leader says he will not send troops to Iran

    Rejecting Trump, South Korean leader says he will not send troops to Iran

    SEOUL, South Korea — President Lee Jae​ Myung of South Korea pushed back against pressure from the Trump administration Friday, declaring that his country would not deploy troops or military assets to support the U.S.-led war against Iran.

    In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has publicly taunted the South Korean leader, venting frustration over ​what he described as Seoul’s refusal to help defend the Strait of Hormuz — once the world’s main transit point for oil — while American troops remain stationed on​ ​the Korean Peninsula to shield ​South Korea from North Korea.​ On Friday, Lee ​firmly rejected any ​military involvement in the Middle East conflict.

    “There will be no deployment of troops or dispatch of military assets to​ be involved in or intervene in this war,” Lee said in a news conference.

    Instead of a combat deployment, Lee noted that Seoul is considering expanding the operational scope of a South Korean navy destroyer and its support ships stationed off the coast of Somalia for antipiracy operations. He emphasized that even if those assets move closer to the Red Sea or the Strait of Hormuz, their sole focus would be protecting South Korean ​oil tankers and other commercial vessels. They will not participate in any operations that could be interpreted as supporting the war against Iran​, he said.

    ​While Trump has not specified the exact type of assistance he expects from Seoul, he complained last month that he had asked Lee “to give us a little hand” in the conflict, reminding him of the U.S. military presence in South Korea.

    “He said, ‘No, thanks,’” Trump ​recalled. “I see. Well, why are we involved in helping you?”

    It was not the only issue that a grim-faced Lee addressed Friday. Fifteen months into his single five-year term, his approval rating has fallen to a new low of 37%, battered by troubles brewing not only at home but also by strains with South Korea’s most important ally, the United States.

    Last month, Trump unilaterally scaled down one of the United States’ annual joint military exercises with South Korea, calling the drills not only “costly” but also “totally inappropriate and hostile” toward North Korea. He said that, for as long as he had been in office, North Korea had been “unthreatening and respectful.” Trump also boasted of having a “very good relationship” with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, even as the North has become a bigger nuclear threat against the South.

    At home, South Korea’s main stock index — once lauded as a premier beneficiary of the global artificial intelligence boom — has crashed, devastating the portfolios of millions of individual investors who were encouraged by Lee’s government to buy stocks. Lee has also failed to deliver on his repeated pledges to curb rising housing costs.

    The opposition has accused him of seeking a constitutional amendment that would allow him to run for a second term, a move explicitly barred by the current constitution. His presidency also remains marred by his suspended criminal trials on charges including violating election laws and inducing perjury. The opposition has claimed that Lee was plotting a special bill to erase those charges, ​which he has insisted were fabrications orchestrated by his conservative adversary and predecessor, the impeached and ousted former President Yoon Suk Yeol.

  • Judge isn’t swayed by government’s claims that plans for an ‘anti-weaponization fund’ are dead

    Judge isn’t swayed by government’s claims that plans for an ‘anti-weaponization fund’ are dead

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge who blocked the creation of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” for compensating President Donald Trump’s political allies wasn’t swayed by a government attorney’s assurances Friday that the administration has abandoned the concept.

    U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia didn’t rule from the bench on the government’s request for her to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the fund’s formation and operation. But the judge rejected the notion that the case’s claims are moot because the Trump administration says the fund is dead and won’t go forward.

    “The issues that underlie this case are still alive and kicking, in my view,” Brinkema said.

    The fund for compensating Trump’s political allies encountered a fierce bipartisan backlash and threatened to derail Attorney General Todd Blanche’s Senate confirmation. On Aug. 2, Blanche issued a formal order terminating the fund after negotiating for weeks with two Republican senators who wanted to see the promise in writing before they endorsed his nomination.

    “The case is moot,” Justice Department attorney Andrew Block told Brinkema. “The mootness has been addressed at every stage.”

    But the judge noted that Blanche’s assurances have been undercut by the president and other administration officials. Trump, a Republican, continued to publicly express support for the fund even as Blanche insisted it was dead.

    “They contradict themselves all the time,” Brinkema said.

    The administration created the settlement fund to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The plan stoked outrage over the notion that Trump supporters who attacked police officers while storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, could be eligible for payments.

    Attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward sued in May, asking the Alexandria, Va., court to suspend the fund’s implementation temporarily and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued the government can’t divert taxpayer money to a slush fund for enriching Trump’s allies.

    Brinkema, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, agreed in June to extend an order blocking the fund until further notice from the court.

    Democracy Forward attorney Pooja Boisture told the judge on Friday that the administration will most likely move forward with the fund — “either in its current iteration or a new one” — if her order is lifted.

    The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest. Also named as plaintiffs are the government watchdog Common Cause; the city of New Haven, Conn.; and the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers.

    “This scheme is an unprecedented, unlawful, and corrupt attempt to manipulate the legal process and laws intended to prevent political interference to achieve benefits that President Trump and his political allies could not have obtained lawfully,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote.

    Justice Department attorneys argue the plaintiffs don’t have a legal basis for claims challenging a fund that “has never existed and will not exist.”

    “The time has come to stop this inquisition,” they wrote.

  • Hundreds of thousands attend Iran’s biggest government-organized rally since the war began

    Hundreds of thousands attend Iran’s biggest government-organized rally since the war began

    CAIRO — Hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallied Friday in a government-organized show of defiance after months of war, pledging their readiness to take up arms in the biggest such demonstration since the United States and Israel attacked in February.

    Iran’s government has sought to rally the people and stress national unity, even as the economy worsens under a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and new U.S. sanctions. On Friday, it claimed another attack on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway it has sought to control since the start of the war.

    Estimates varied of the number of people volunteering to receive limited military training and defend the country in an effort described as “Janfaday-e Iran,” or the “ones who sacrifice their lives for Iran.” They marched through downtown Tehran in combat uniform, carrying flags, as onlookers cheered.

    For days, state media have encouraged Iranians to join the campaign, saying training with assault rifles would begin soon. The volunteers would be an additional layer of security to the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard and the Basij militia, which has played a key role in quashing anti-government protests.

    Rally seeks to project strength under U.S. pressure

    Tehran’s Guard chief, Gen. Hassan Hassanzadeh, told the state broadcaster that over 600,000 people had registered to participate, with over 1 million expected to take part in the training. On Friday morning, the broadcaster estimated over 300,000 people were on the streets.

    The new head of the Basij, Hossein Taeb, declared in a speech as the rally began that the volunteers will be ready for “full-fledged defense” and similar rallies will take place in other cities soon.

    The new trainees will make a “nightmare” for Iran’s enemies, Taeb added, as President Masoud Pezeshkian, military commanders, and other senior officials watched the march.

    Some participants trampled flags of the U.S. and Israel. Others chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

    “I am here to tell (U.S. President Donald) Trump that we Iranians have no fear about his threats against our homeland,” said Marzieh Afaghi, 24, who attended the rally with her toddler and husband. “No one in history could invade Iran and remain there.”

    The rally was also a chance for Iran to show off military hardware. Anti-aircraft batteries were on display, while female Guard members in black headscarves sat with truck-mounted machine guns.

    Iran says it attacked another tanker in the Strait of Hormuz

    The Guard displayed drones that have been used against ships in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran’s attacks and threats have severely affected the Gulf region’s shipments of oil and natural gas to the rest of the world.

    Iran said it had attacked a Togo-flagged oil tanker, the Trend, for what it called an “illegal attempt” to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the state broadcaster reported. The U.K. Maritime Trade Operations center said a tanker was hit by a projectile, sparking a fire on board that was extinguished.

    The UKMTO in a separate update said ship transits facilitated by the U.S. military off Oman have averaged 24 a day over the past week but overall traffic remains about 90% lower than before the war.

    Iran’s new volunteers could help suppress future dissent

    Friday’s events also suggested that hard-liners like Taeb among Iran’s leadership will be more prepared to suppress any future demonstration against the theocracy.

    In January, shortly before the war, Iran saw some of its largest nationwide protests in history, which began over the struggling economy and turned to wider grievances. Activists have said a crackdown killed over 7,000 people and saw tens of thousands detained.

    In May, government officials said more than 30 million people in Iran — which has a total population of some 90 million — had volunteered via an online form or at public gatherings to lay down their lives for the theocracy. The Associated Press could not independently confirm that.

  • More U.S. troops have died amid Iran war than Pentagon has disclosed publicly

    More U.S. troops have died amid Iran war than Pentagon has disclosed publicly

    More American service members have died in the Middle East during the ongoing Iran war than the Pentagon has disclosed publicly, according to six U.S. officials familiar with the Defense Department’s internal casualty accounting data.

    Five of the officials said there have been at least 22 military fatalities — four more than what appears in the Pentagon’s public database, known as the Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS.

    A sixth official, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the figures, said 23 service members have died since Feb. 28, when the Trump administration, in concert with Israel, initiated the Iran war. Not all of the undisclosed deaths are directly tied to the conflict but have involved U.S. personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities, this person said.

    Additionally, the official said, three U.S. contractors who were based in the region have died since combat operations began.

    As of Friday, the Pentagon’s DCAS database lists 18 U.S. military fatalities, including deaths caused by hostile and nonhostile action dating to the start of the Iran conflict.

    Details surrounding the undisclosed deaths — including the service members’ identities, as well as when, how, and where they died — remain unclear. Officials familiar with the higher casualty number expressed frustration that the additional loss of life is not reflected in the Pentagon’s public casualty portal.

    The Pentagon declined to address questions about the accounting discrepancy.

    The Iran war, which polls show is deeply unpopular with the American public, has become a political liability for President Donald Trump and the Republican Party ahead of November’s midterm elections. The administration’s casualty accounting practices faced intense scrutiny earlier this year when the names of four U.S. troops who died as a result of the Iran war were briefly excluded from the Pentagon’s official tally.

    The proper accounting of military fatalities has implications beyond public transparency. Whenever a U.S. service member dies, the military conducts a line of duty investigation to determine whether the death occurred while performing official duties. Those findings affect the survivor benefits for which service members’ families are eligible.

    As of Friday, 14 fatalities are listed in the database as having occurred during Operation Epic Fury, the Trump administration’s name for the Iran war. Four others, reflected in a separate category called Overseas Operations, date to a July ceasefire between Washington and Tehran that later collapsed leading to the resumption of attacks.

    Separately, the Pentagon has said that, since February, two U.S. service members died in the Middle East while participating in missions unrelated to the Iran war. Their deaths, which occurred at bases that have been attacked by Iranian forces, are not reflected by name in the DCAS database either.

    Sgt. Devin Seibel died in Irbil, Iraq, on May 31 in a training accident, the Defense Department said in a news release. The announcement specified he was assigned to Operation Inherent Resolve, the ongoing campaign against Islamic State militants. Seibel’s name is not included among the Inherent Resolve tally in DCAS.

    Maj. Sorffly Davius suffered an unspecified medical emergency in Kuwait and died on March 6. It is unclear whether his death was tied to an Iranian attack. An announcement of Davius’ death said he deployed under Operation Spartan Shield, a mission to partner with regional militaries.

    More than 820 U.S. service members have been wounded in action since the Iran conflict began, the public casualty database says. Many have suffered traumatic brain injuries as a result of Iranian counterstrikes on U.S. bases throughout the Middle East.

    The war has taxed the military’s stocks of precision weapons, damaged U.S. bases across the Persian Gulf, and roiled global energy markets after Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for oil and fertilizer.

    According to a document reviewed by the Washington Post, U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, has estimated that the Iran war has cost about $43.6 billion through early September. The total includes $28 billion in munitions expended during the conflict but does not account for the damage to U.S. bases.

    As the Post reported last month, several top U.S. military officials have warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland.

    According to a September Reuters-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans support Trump’s approach to Iran, whereas 62% disapprove.

    On Tuesday, a record seven GOP lawmakers joined Democrats and helped pass a largely symbolic measure intended to halt the war — the latest of several war powers resolutions to advance in Congress.

    All war deaths and injuries are supposed to be publicly reported on the Pentagon’s public DCAS system, where the military accounts for personnel lost or injured in its conflicts.

    Over the summer, when the four combat deaths were temporarily excluded from the casualty database, the Trump administration reclassified renewed hostilities with Iran as Overseas Operations instead of being tied to Operation Epic Fury.

    The change, which occurred as U.S. negotiators struggled to broker a permanent peace deal with Tehran, coincided with efforts by the administration to portray the war as a success even as Iran continued to fire on American forces and continued to target shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

    Senate Democrats have pledged to investigate the Pentagon’s handling of casualty notifications if they retake the majority after the midterms.

    Reps. Pat Ryan (N.Y.), Jason Crow (Colo.) and 10 other House Democrats, all of them military veterans, on Friday said they were pursuing legislation that would prevent the Pentagon from manipulating government data on troop casualties. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) is leading a companion effort in the Senate.

    One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), moved this week to force a House vote on impeaching Hegseth over the war, alleging the defense secretary violated provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 by pursuing hostilities without congressional authorization.

  • Build columns, not Trump’s arch, D.C. official tells administration

    Build columns, not Trump’s arch, D.C. official tells administration

    President Donald Trump has insisted that a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch should be built near Arlington National Cemetery, citing long-abandoned plans to construct a monument there.

    Local officials, preservationists, and historians are now pushing an alternate idea: Abandon the arch and consider building the slender columns that were originally envisioned by architects and lawmakers a century ago.

    “We request meaningful consideration of an alternative that more accurately reflects the spirit and intent of the 1924 McKim Mead & White design and the 1925 Act of Congress,” C. Andrew Lewis, an official in Washington’s historic preservation office, wrote in a letter to the Trump administration on Wednesday and obtained by the Washington Post.

    “Specifically, we request the [National Park Service] to evaluate design concepts consisting of two columns that truly frame, rather than limit the historic view corridor.”

    The administration has been consulting with D.C.’s and Virginia’s historic preservation offices as part of a required federal preservation process before building the new structure.

    Other officials and advocates have raised the idea of erecting columns, rather than a large arch, including in a meeting last week with National Park Service officials overseeing the planned project.

    The requests represent advocates’ latest effort to delay or prevent the construction of the new arch, which has been widely opposed in Washington. It is unlikely, however, that Trump would agree to discard his plans for a large triumphal arch. The president has been attached to the idea of an arch since being privately pitched on the project and publicly announcing it last year

    “We’re the only important and major city that doesn’t have one. We don’t have a triumphal arch,” Trump said in the Oval Office in May. “So, it was meant to be built for many years.”

    The issue centers on lawmakers’ intent for Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout tucked inside Washington’s boundaries, located near the entrance to the military cemetery and managed by the National Park Service.

    The administration is pursuing a plan to begin construction as soon as November, despite objections from veterans groups, historic preservationists, and others. Opponents say the arch will overshadow the cemetery, alter pedestrians’ views of the Lincoln Memorial and other historic sites, and cause other disruptions.

    The Trump administration has acknowledged that the large arch will unavoidably harm local historic sites if built as planned.

    The administration contends that it does not need approval for the arch from Congress since lawmakers a century ago authorized the columns. In that case, advocates say, the administration should hew to the original, congressionally authorized plan.

    Historic preservationists also note that the 250-foot-tall, roughly 165-foot-wide arch that Trump wants in Memorial Circle is very different from the narrow, 166-foot-tall columns that were initially envisioned to be built about 300 feet apart.

    “In terms of size, scale, massing, and design, the proposed arch is not in any way comparable to the unbuilt columns contemplated in the 1924 design proposal,” Judy Chesser and Paul Edmondson, of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, wrote in their own letter to the Interior Department on Wednesday. The letter was shared with the Post.

    Chesser and Edmondson added that the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, which was overseeing the original project, dropped plans for the columns in 1931 amid concerns about the planned design and the proximity to a nearby airport, among other factors.

    The Interior Department, which oversees the Park Service, did not respond to questions about whether the administration would consider building columns instead of an arch. The department referred to social media posts by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that referenced the past efforts in Congress to build a monument near Memorial Circle.

    Burgum’s posts did not specifically mention columns.

    Tammy Stidham, a Park Service senior official helping oversee the arch project, said last week that the administration had not considered building columns instead of an arch.

    “Different sizes were considered of the same structure, but not different structures,” Stidham said at a meeting with preservationists and other groups, according to a recording of the meeting posted by the Park Service.

    Asked about how the arch envisioned by Trump complied with plans in 1924 to build a structure that would not interfere with the views between the cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, Stidham said the arch was a “replacement” for the original concept.

    “It is not intended to be the same structure,” Stidham said.

    One federal commission, which Trump has packed with allies, has already approved the planned arch. A second commission is expected to offer final approval as soon as Nov. 5. The Trump administration has laid out a plan to build the arch within two to three years, which they say would require 20 hours per day of construction.

    In his letter to the administration, Lewis said that Trump officials had not heeded or fully acknowledged the widespread objections to the plan.

    “Approximately 93% of the roughly 11,000 comments submitted from within the District of Columbia expressed very strong opposition to the proposal,” he wrote.

    He also said that the administration’s acknowledgment of harms from building the arch did not go far enough to capture its impact on other historic sites.

    “The arch would not merely be ‘prominently visible,’” Lewis wrote. “Instead, it would visually overwhelm the surrounding historic context.”

  • Trump says he is banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House

    Trump says he is banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that he would ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, although it was unclear how such a prohibition would be enforced or legally defended.

    The president’s abrupt proclamation, which he said was “effective immediately,” came in a post on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns.

    Journalists from those news outlets were still working as usual on the White House grounds on Friday afternoon, and there were no immediate signs that they were being evicted.

    Speaking later with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he announced a ban “because they’re fake news. You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news.” He added, “You get sick of it.”

    Asked exactly what he meant by a ban, the president replied: “A very simple ban. I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can. And if they could straighten themselves out, I’d love it.”

    Asked if his ban could survive a court challenge, Trump replied, “I don’t think that a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day.”

    CNN said in a statement that Trump’s ban would be “an illegal assault” on a “fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”

    “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government,” the network said.

    A spokesperson for MS NOW declined to comment. A spokesperson for Politico did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An inquiry to the White House Correspondents’ Association was not immediately returned.

    A prospective ban would open yet another front in Trump’s ever-expanding battles with the news media, whose output he has increasingly attempted to control using a variety of bureaucratic levers and intimidation tactics. The president has filed lawsuits and used government tools like subpoenas to target newspapers, late-night talk show hosts, corporate media conglomerates, and journalists whose reporting he dislikes.

    In his social media post on Friday, Trump warned that he might add other organizations to his prospective ban, writing, “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

    Trump expanded on his feelings at his Oval Office appearance, echoing the usual protestations about the media that he unspools at rallies, news conferences, and in interviews. “They purposely write negative news,” the president said. “And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.”

    Any prospective ban on journalists from specific news outlets would almost certainly prompt a legal challenge.

    Trump has tried to bar some news organizations from parts of the White House in the past. During his first term, he revoked a White House pass for Jim Acosta, the former CNN journalist. CNN succeeded in restoring Acosta’s press credentials in court.

    This term, Trump has attempted to bar Associated Press journalists from parts of the White House, including the Oval Office and Air Force One. The AP has sued to restore its access, but that case remains in litigation; in the meantime, AP photographers have had continued access to the Oval Office. Its print journalists have had more limited access.

    His administration has also taken command of the daily White House press pool, a small, rotating group of reporters who relay the president’s daily activities to the public. Previously, the Correspondents’ Association chose which outlets participated; now, the administration handpicks the news outlets that are included.

    Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said that the ban floated by Trump on Friday is clearly unconstitutional because it would punish news organizations for the content of their reporting.

    “If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints,” Jaffer said.

  • Clergy and others gather outside Philadelphia ICE office in aftermath of officer’s suicide

    Clergy and others gather outside Philadelphia ICE office in aftermath of officer’s suicide

    A group of clergy, political leaders, and activists gathered at the Philadelphia ICE office on Friday in the wake of a deportation officer’s suicide, condemning what they said was the agency’s destruction of lives both inside and outside its ranks.

    Speakers said they said they grieved with the family of Joseph Moore, 38, who died of a self-inflected gunshot wound while parked near the Center City headquarters, and with the families of immigrants treated wrongly and cruelly by the agency.

    Moore died Aug. 28 as he was facing dismissal, along with other new officers brought on amid a huge wave of ICE hiring, one that critics say has led to the employment of unqualified and unvetted recruits.

    “He was an ICE agent,” said state Sen. Art Haywood, a Democrat who represents parts of Philadelphia and Montgomery counties, “but he was also a human being.”

    Local ICE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Speakers called ICE a rogue agency, and called on its officers to quit their jobs.

    One man, who kept vigil outside ICE headquarters nearly every day in August, said he tried to talk to officers as they went inside, and wished he could have talked to Moore.

    Generally, said Jim Nicholson, who described himself as Quaker and non-violent, the officers he addressed were “not interested in being human, compassionate beings,” that they told him everyone they arrest is a criminal.

    “I’m a very sorry to hear an agent of ICE committed suicide. That’s a tragedy,” he said. “If the agent had come to us, to me, I would have tried to help.”

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, charged with carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass-deportation plan, has been on a hiring binge that more than doubled the size of the agency. Now ICE has begun quietly firing some of those new officers, The Washington Post reported, citing multiple officials who said officers were put on the streets without being properly vetted.

    Federal agents arrest a woman after smashing her car window and dragging her from the vehicle in Minneapolis on Jan. 13, 2026. The legality of the Trump administration’s tactics during its immigration enforcement operation, known as Metro Surge, in Minneapolis early this year was challenged by a series of federal lawsuits.DAVID GUTTENFELDER

    The Post reported on Monday how Moore, a Marines reservist who graduated from Cheltenham High School in 2006, died by suicide while parked near ICE headquarters.

    The newspaper said ICE notified Moore in late August that he would be fired, and told him to come to the Philadelphia office at Eighth and Cherry Streets. His family has disputed the suicide ruling, according to The Post.

    Philadelphia police officials said officers called to the scene tried to stop Moore from hurting himself.

    Police were summoned to the area of Eighth and Race Streets ― the ICE office is one block south ― for a report of an armed man in distress who had barricaded himself inside a vehicle, officials said.

    The officers communicated with the man and tried to de-escalate the situation, but he drew a gun and shot himself, police said. No Philadelphia officer fired a weapon, the department said.

    Police, without identifying Moore by name, said they have finished their inquiry into the death, and would provide no additional details because it involved a suicide.

    In mid-2025, ICE received massive new funding for hiring — about $30 billion, part of $76.5 billion it received through President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” The administration has said it wants to deport a million people a year, which would require a vastly larger ICE and extensive new detention capability.

    In January, ICE said an unprecedented nationwide recruitment campaign had shattered expectations, resulting in the hiring of more than 12,000 officers.

    That more than doubled the staff from 10,000 to 22,000.

    “That’s a 120% increase in our workforce,” Tricia McLaughlin, then an assistant secretary at Homeland Security, said at the time. “And that’s in just about four months.”

    Part of the lure was a promised $50,000 signing bonus.

    ICE said the majority of new hires were police and military veterans, but an investigation by The Associated Press found evidence that applicants with questionable histories were not fully vetted or were hired in spite of their pasts.

    The Post said Homeland Security would not answer questions about specific hiring decisions. It did say that some applicants received “tentative selection letters” and offers to begin working on a temporary status before being subjected to full background checks.

    The hiring happened so fast that new officers were put on the streets before being adequately vetted, multiple former officials told the Post. One ICE whistleblower urged officials to halt the expansion, saying in an August 2025 memo that the “overwhelmed” agency had hired officers without checking their fingerprints or their identities, the Post said.

    In recent months, ICE has begun quietly firing some of the recruits, the Post reported, citing three former DHS officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They said ICE has cited poor performance or red flags that should have been identified earlier.

    The Department of Homeland Security rejected those concerns.

    Relatives of an ICE officer who shot a Colombian man in Maine in July told The Associated Press he struggled with serious mental health issues since early childhood, and never should have been given a badge and gun. The revelations about the officer, David Brouillette, brought fresh attention to ICE hiring procedures.

    The Post said Moore had dreamed of a life in law enforcement since he was a teenager. But two law enforcement agencies fired him, and others rejected him. ICE hired him in the fall as a deportation officer.

    Efforts to reach Moore’s family members were unsuccessful.

    His obituary said the father of two served 20 years in the Marines as both an active member and a reservist. And that he graduated with a 4.0 grade-point average from Rosemont College, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal science.

    His funeral is scheduled for Sept. 25 at Hope Community Church in Gilbertsville, Pa.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, help is available. Contact The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988.

  • String of daring Russian plots is testing Washington’s restraint

    String of daring Russian plots is testing Washington’s restraint

    An airstrike on a train line that endangered the lives of former European leaders and CIA officers.

    Armed drones in Moldova suspected of stalking the plane of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    A clandestine effort to assemble an international network of assassins, including plans to “eliminate” a Kremlin critic in Washington.

    In a matter of weeks, Russia has been linked to a stunning series of attacks and plots that — had any one of them turned deadly — carried the potential to trigger a dangerous escalation in the war in Ukraine and the West’s broader conflict with Moscow, according to security officials and experts.

    The spate of attacks — at a moment when the Trump administration is pushing to revive peace negotiations — has put security agencies on edge, officials said, threatened travel routes that are critical to Ukraine’s ability to maintain ties with its supporters, and raised concerns that Russia once again is probing how far it can go in widening the war as it seeks to break the will of Kyiv’s backers.

    Russia’s drone strike on a train near the Ukraine-Poland border early Sunday seemed to mark a worrisome new development in Moscow’s calculations, officials said.

    The attack destroyed a locomotive on a section of track where a delegation of diplomats and former top European officials — including former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson — had passed a short while earlier after attending an annual Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv.

    Former CIA director David Petraeus and two other former agency officials were on a separate train that was evacuated minutes before the explosion, officials said.

    Former officials and experts said Moscow probably intended to send a signal of intimidation but that a minor mistake in timing or coordinates could have left dozens dead and put pressure on the United States and its allies to retaliate.

    “My assessment was that it wasn’t intended to kill Boris Johnson or David Petraeus,” said Glenn Corn, a former senior CIA official with responsibilities for operations in Russia and Eurasia who was also aboard the evacuated train. “But it was definitely premeditated and intended to send a strong message: We don’t want you coming to Ukraine. This is our sphere of influence. This is a warning.”

    An errant strike on trains carrying Johnson or Petraeus risked unleashing a “snowball effect,” Corn said, an “escalatory chain” that could test the restraint of Moscow and Washington.

    French President Emmanuel Macron warned Friday that “the Russian hybrid threat has been intensifying” in recent weeks.

    “The nature of Russian aggression, and its threats in Europe, are changing,” he told reporters after a meeting with leaders of France’s political parties, along with military and security chiefs. He cited the train strike and repeated drone incursions into European airspace, among other incidents. He said he has instructed French authorities to increase vigilance.

    The strike came just days after Zelensky said his government plane was targeted by Russian drones at an airstrip in Moldova as he was traveling to the Sept. 9 funeral of the king of Norway, a country that has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

    “In Moldova, my presidential jet was there, and that’s why they attacked Moldova,” Zelensky said in an interview with CBS. “When we went back home, again through Chisinau, they did the same.”

    Ukrainian and Moldovan officials confirmed that Russian drones had crossed into Moldovan airspace while Zelensky’s jet prepared to depart Chisinau International Airport, though officials said that one of the drones was destroyed near the border about 100 miles from the airport and that Zelensky’s plane was never in danger.

    On Tuesday, the U.S. government exposed another alleged front in Russia’s campaign against perceived external adversaries. A criminal indictment unsealed by the Justice Department accused operatives in Russian intelligence services of using encrypted communications apps to recruit assassins to kill dissidents or critics of Moscow.

    The indictment, filed in the Southern District of New York, describes communications in late August between alleged agents in Russia and an unidentified U.S. resident as part of a plot to “eliminate” or “disappear” a Russian dissident in Washington.

    The network also sought an assassin to kill a Russian dissident in Lithuania, according to the indictment, as well as other recruits to carry out terrorism attacks in the Czech Republic. At one point, according to the indictment, a Russian intelligence officer identified as Yuri Khrameev suggested killing an alleged Kremlin critic by “throwing a bottle of gasoline” or “sticking a knife” in him.

    Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov dismissed the allegations this week, saying Russia had not seen “any coherent evidence or arguments based on anything tangible.”

    Officials emphasized that Russia has been linked to assassinations, and to plots targeting alleged dissidents, in Europe for decades, and that in recent years Moscow has pursued other plots that similarly alarmed security services.

    In 2024, Russia’s GRU spy agency used operatives recruited online in a plot to place incendiary devices aboard cargo aircraft, causing parcels to catch fire in Britain, Poland, and Germany.

    The Biden administration was so alarmed by the prospect of explosions on trans-Atlantic cargo planes that CIA Director William J. Burns and national security adviser Jake Sullivan were enlisted to issue warnings to their counterparts in the Kremlin.

    It is not clear if President Donald Trump, who recently scolded Ukraine for carrying out attacks on energy targets in Russia, has taken similar steps to caution Moscow about the train strike or the potential targeting of Zelensky’s aircraft.

    European officials have repeatedly denounced Russia in recent months for drone incursions, arson attacks, and other plots attributed to Kremlin security services. German authorities last month found a drone carrying explosives near a Ukrainian cargo plane at an airport in Leipzig.

    Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned on Thursday that Russia could launch “hybrid drone and missile strikes” against NATO countries while depicting them as accidental.

    “Don’t underestimate it,” Macron said of the Leipzig incident, in remarks to the press Friday. He added, “The consequences would have been tragic. … What happened in Leipzig could happen in any European city.”

    Russia’s ability to strike trains near the Polish border or violate Moldova’s airspace has been driven by new military capabilities, including the development of powerful jet-powered drones whose speed and high-altitude trajectories overwhelm Ukraine’s air defenses and have altered the war’s dynamic, according to officials and experts.

    Russia rarely succeeded in striking moving targets including trains early in its invasion because of the technical limitations of its air force and the inexperience of its targeters, experts said. Advanced drones, combined with experience, have reduced these shortcomings. As a result, a war in which the front lines have been effectively frozen is now characterized by penetrating strikes by both sides meant to disrupt and exhaust the enemy.

    Ukraine has “been doing well at the front and it’s their best year since 2023 in terms of combat performance,” said Michael Kofman, a military analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But now “it is the rear, the infrastructure in cities, that looks increasingly precarious heading into winter.”

    With Ukraine running extremely low on interceptors and other air defenses, Russia has been bombing civilian targets including shopping centers and distribution warehouses used for food and medicine, leading to some shortages. In a diplomatic gesture, Putin agreed to halt attacks on Kyiv for 72 hours while U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner made their first visit to Kyiv since Trump’s return to the presidency.

    Ukraine’s airspace has been closed since the start of the invasion, so visiting dignitaries almost universally arrive by railroad.

    The number of attacks on trains, however, has “grown exponentially” over the past year as part of a Russian drone campaign aimed at crippling Ukraine’s economy and infrastructure, Ukrainian Railways boss Oleksandr Pertsovsky said this week. He said about 40 trains were hit in August alone, among 400 targeted since the invasion’s outset.

    In an interview, Petraeus, who was a four-star U.S. Army general before becoming CIA director under President Barack Obama, said that his recent train trip to and from Kyiv was the 11th he has made since the invasion of February 2022. Petraeus, who attended the YES conference, said he had never before been forced to evacuate a train on the overnight journey, but that his train was evacuated three times this week because of the drone threat.

    Asked whether he believed that Russia intended to kill him or other dignitaries who had attended the conference, Petraeus said, “I think that would have been unwise.”

    Doing so would be likely to bolster Western resolve in its support for Ukraine, a response that “would undermine what it is [that Russia] is trying to achieve, and they would recognize that.”

  • Iran war will make winter more expensive for some Americans

    Iran war will make winter more expensive for some Americans

    Jonathan Robidoux, a resident of Long Island, N.Y., calls his heating oil supplier every fall to have his tank filled for the coming winter. He spent $1,200 on the fuel last winter.

    This year, he will likely pay a lot more.

    The price of heating oil, a fuel that is similar to the diesel used in trucks, is up roughly 60% since Israel and the United States started attacking Iran on Feb. 28.

    The war has sent oil and fuel prices soaring, leaving Robidoux and many others facing difficult financial decisions. About 3% of U.S. households use heating oil, and most of them live in the Northeast or Alaska.

    Robidoux, who rents a home in New Hyde Park, N.Y., is trying to decide if he should buy heating oil now or wait until the weather gets colder, in the hope that prices will drop.

    “I might just buy some now, but I don’t have that much liquidity, so it’s a tough decision,” said Robidoux, 41.

    People who use natural gas or electricity to heat their homes are expected to face more modest increases in heating bills but many of them could also find it hard to make ends meet, energy experts said.

    Many Americans are heading into a “much more expensive” winter, said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which represents state officials that help dispense government aid to residents who meet certain income-based qualifications. The organization urged Congress in July to offer more financial assistance to families struggling with rising energy costs.

    “Those numbers, if you’re middle class, that’s a significant hit to your budget,” he said.

    Who will face higher costs and why?

    As with gasoline and diesel, heating oil prices can vary a lot based on where you live. The national average, which was $4.10 a gallon the week before the war, jumped 35% to $5.54 just a month later, according to weekly data from the Energy Information Administration, which will begin releasing weekly price data for heating oil in the fall.

    In New York, the average price of heating oil was $6.14 a gallon the week of Sept. 14, up from $3.70 a year earlier, according to the state’s Energy Research and Development Authority.

    More than 80% of U.S. heating oil is used in the Northeast. In the winter of 2023 to 2024, 4.79 million households used oil as their primary heating fuel, according to the EIA.

    Despite skyrocketing prices, investors are expecting them to fall. Futures contracts for heating oil delivered in December were trading at $4.61 a gallon on Thursday afternoon, compared with $5.10 a gallon for the October contract. Retail prices paid by residents are higher than those for futures contracts.

    Of course, traders have been wrong before. Oil and fuel prices dropped sharply after President Donald Trump and Iranian officials announced a tentative agreement to pause the war in June. But prices began climbing again when hostilities resumed.

    The uncertainty about what heating oil will cost in a few months is prompting many people to make anxious calls to oil suppliers like the Energy Co-op of Vermont.

    “There’s definitely been people trying to hold off that way or make plans of getting a minimum amount of gallons delivered at this point, hoping to stretch it till the next time, hoping that’ll be a little bit lower in cost,” said Rose Friedlander, the co-op’s marketing manager.

    What other options are available to stay warm?

    Many people use oil because switching to a different source of heat can be expensive or difficult.

    Natural gas is not an option in many rural and suburban areas because laying pipelines over long distances is often financially unfeasible. Some states have offered incentives to get residents to switch to electric heat pumps, which are much more energy efficient and contribute much less to climate change, but installing the devices can still cost residents thousands of dollars.

    Consider Vermont, where 35% of homes use heating oil. Of its 285,000 homes, about 80,000 have heat pumps, said Philip Picotte, a utilities economic analyst with the Vermont Department of Public Service. Around 8,000 to 10,000 heat pumps are installed in Vermont every year.

    That said, the use of heating oil has been dropping. In 2010, about 6% of Americans used it. Some states have weaned a lot residents off the fuel. Maine has decreased the number of homes that primarily rely on heating oil from 62% in 2018 to around 50% in 2025.

    One hurdle to heat pumps is that electricity rates tend to be higher and homes tend to be older in the Northeast than in other regions. That means using heat pumps may not lower heating costs unless they are paired with other home upgrades like insulation and sealing that help minimize energy use.

    Another option is propane, a fuel made from the processing of natural gas or crude oil. Around 5% of American households use it, and prices for the fuel have climbed modestly this year — in New York, they’re up about 5.7% compared with last year. But switching to propane also requires replacing home heating equipment, which can be beyond the means of many people.

    Natural gas and electricity prices are up less

    Households outside the Northeast and Alaska generally will not face as big a financial shock this winter. That’s because about 47% of U.S. homes heated with natural gas as of 2024 and the United States has plenty of it on hand, unlike Europe, where the price of that fuel has been rising sharply.

    “We’re really very well supplied for natural gas, and that’s where you see prices where they are,” said Matt Smith, director of commodity research at Kpler.

    The wholesale price of natural gas in the first week of September has actually been lower than prices in September last year, according to the EIA.

    But the price of gas delivered to homes, which also includes the cost of maintaining pipelines, has been rising. In June, the average retail price was $24.09 per thousand cubic feet, up 3.6% from a year earlier, according to the EIA.

    About 42% of U.S. homes used heat pumps or other electric heaters as of 2024, according to RMI, a research group formerly known as the Rocky Mountain Institute. These people will likely also pay somewhat more this winter. In June, the national average residential electricity rate was 18.34 cents per kilowatt-hour, up about 5% from a year earlier, though rate increases vary a lot by state and utility.

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • MIT report warns AI is causing ‘cognitive surrender.’ Universities are in a bind.

    MIT report warns AI is causing ‘cognitive surrender.’ Universities are in a bind.

    The worries that artificial intelligence is degrading education have been building for months. Students are using it for everything, including cheating, and a recent report out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said it is triggering “cognitive surrender.”

    Many university leaders are embracing AI with enthusiasm anyway.

    As AI leaders warn about the dangers of their own technology, the dissonance between the optimism of university leaders and the fears of many students and professors may increase. Professors and students are often in a bind about what they should do: Use more AI to stay relevant, or dial back to preserve learning and thinking?

    While some politicians and AI leaders are warning about possible doomsday scenarios for humanity as AI models advance, many campus leaders are focused on the existential threat the technology poses to universities.

    The committee at MIT studying AI use released a number of alarming findings, including that the technology has caused “major shifts in campus culture,” isolating students who are skipping office hours and ditching communal studying. Getting answers from a bot can create “the illusion of learning” for students who reach for AI “at the first hint of struggle,” the MIT committee wrote in its August report.

    At the same time, “the potential of these technologies to augment work across campus is immense,” the committee wrote.

    The MIT report crystallized some of the thinking in higher education about AI, but top administrators have been embroiled in debates for several years. Administrators have often been the most eager to champion AI efforts, while many faculty and students remain more skeptical.

    “I think you have to lean in, but you have to do so in a way that’s thoughtful and ethical and asks the right questions,” said Wendy Hensel, the president of the University of Hawaii, where she presented an AI strategy to regents in July. “The right answer to AI is not just ‘no.’ It can’t be. It has to be approached with curiosity and understanding of the implications.”

    The hodgepodge of policies universities have created to respond to AI often reflect the confusion about how to proceed — with some clear do’s and don’ts, but often a lot of wiggle room for faculty and students to figure it out on their own.

    Experts warn that AI harms learning

    For a motivated student, an AI chatbot can function as a sort of tutor. Chatbots can break down the steps in a math problem, surface unexpected sources for research papers, and offer feedback on writing.

    Still, a growing body of research suggests that AI use can also harm learning.

    A recent study of 26,000 Chinese secondary-school students found that AI adoption led to an 18% increase in homework scores, but a 20% decline in scores on secure exams. The implication was that rushing through homework with help from chatbots degraded the deeper learning needed to perform well when the technology was not available.

    One 2025 study out of MIT found that people who used chatbots as writing assistants struggled to remember what they had written only minutes after finishing their essay. “You basically didn’t engage any of the memory networks that would actually help you remember,” said Nataliya Kos’myna, an MIT researcher who worked on the study.

    Other research has shown that people who have greater trust in AI and rely on it more are more likely to have lower cognitive engagement.

    But AI can be hard to avoid. Chatbots are embedded within the Google Classroom suite, which is nearly ubiquitous in schools, and within many online learning systems used by universities.

    Some tools block outright cheating or plagiarism and allow professors to toggle specific AI capabilities on and off. But the most popular chatbots among students will instantly complete entire assignments, including research papers, on a student’s behalf.

    Many universities are embracing AI anyway

    Sian Leah Beilock, the president of Dartmouth College, has argued that preparing graduates to use AI is an existential requirement of institutions of higher education.

    “In a world that promises to be defined by AI, universities that fail to produce graduates who can use it productively will consign themselves to irrelevance,” she wrote recently.

    Harvard University President Alan Garber said in public remarks this month that AI-backed research is on the cusp of a boom that may drive the pace of knowledge faster than at any other time in human history. Garber has said that researchers in many fields are now unlikely to be at the leading edge of their disciplines without AI.

    Ohio State is integrating AI into every major, with the expectation that every student will be fluent in their field of study by graduation. The university has directed every department and major — from business and engineering, to English and veterinary medicine — to train students on how to use AI in their respective fields, and when not to.

    “What is OK to off-load to AI, and what is not?” Ohio State University President Ravi V. Bellamkonda said in an interview in July. “The answer to that depends on the field and depends on your stage of learning.”

    Elizabeth Kiss, the president of Union College, said universities have to educate students on both the thoughtful use of AI and on the things AI doesn’t do, such as “lead teams, push the boundaries of knowledge.”

    Still, some schools are creating boundaries

    The University of Chicago has banned AI in certain required social sciences courses, while the university’s law school banned phones, tablets, and laptops in first-year classrooms. The university is one of a handful that recently adopted new academic integrity rules.

    The law school at the University of California, Berkeley, adopted a policy forbidding the use of AI “to conceptualize, outline, draft, revise, and edit” work submitted for credit.

    Cornell University has created a disciplinary process meant to correct AI cheating while avoiding black marks on students’ records. Now, students accused of minor misuse will be allowed to accept responsibility and complete a workshop and some reflective work.

    Steve Jackson, the vice provost for academic innovation, said the program would not be used for plainly egregious misconduct. “This is a chance to sanction something, catch it, not let it go unnoted or to let it pass,” he added.

    Like many institutions, Harvard does not have a central set of AI rules. David Deming, dean of Harvard College, wrote in a note to students arriving for the fall semester that he favors more AI where “it can deepen learning,” but that the school was also looking to AI-proof some assignments.

    That would mean more in-class tests, Deming said, and fewer take-home assignments, where the temptation to cheat is powerful. He said he intends to produce a set of guidelines for AI use at the college by the end of the academic year.

    For younger students, some school districts are proceeding cautiously. This month, the nation’s largest school district, in New York City, vastly limited student AI use in grades K-8, while the second-largest district, in Los Angeles, essentially banned student use of chatbots at every grade level.

    Policing ai use is hit or miss

    Students are often navigating this landscape without clear guidance from their colleges.

    Most institutions leave it up to individual instructors — who may have little experience with AI — to set rules on how the technology is used in each class.

    It may seem clear that submitting chatbot-generated text is cheating, while using a chatbot to revise one’s own writing is allowed. But the line between those two capabilities is thin, and much AI use lies in an ethical gray zone.

    Many educators “don’t even know where to start,” said Annie Chechitelli, chief product officer at TurnItIn, a company that makes software that can detect plagiarism and track and guide AI use. “What is OK? What’s not OK?”

    Many instructors have already moved to on-paper assignments in the classroom, or locked-down computer browsers that limit AI misuse. Others report success in using AI detection software, which has recently improved in its ability to flag chatbot-written text while avoiding false positives.

    Some see AI as a crucial partner for thinking and writing and put few limits on how students use the technology. Others subscribe to the notion of “AI literacy,” assigning students to use chatbots to produce an essay or poem, for example, and then critique and try to improve the output.

    In Australia, the University of Sydney has adopted the “two-lane approach,” seen as a global model. Across disciplines, students must complete some assessments in person, under secure conditions meant to restrict AI. But other assignments must use AI, to help familiarize students with the technology that is reshaping the economy.

    “It’s almost like sex ed,” said Anita Sarma, a professor of computer science at Oregon State who has studied the impact of AI on student cognition. “They will do it anyway,” she said. “How do we teach them responsible use?”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.