WASHINGTON — Billionaire investor Leon Black refused to appear for a sworn deposition before Congress on Thursday and instead sued the House Oversight Committee, asking a federal court to block subpoenas issued as part of its investigation into disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The House Oversight Committee served Black with two subpoenas during a closed-door voluntary interview in June after lawmakers said he refused to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements. One subpoena demanded Black produce nondisclosure agreements and other documents, while the other compelled him to return for a deposition before the committee.
Black’s lawsuit argues the subpoenas exceed the committee’s authority by seeking private information unrelated to Epstein or any legitimate legislative purpose. It asks a federal judge to declare the subpoenas invalid and prevent the committee from enforcing them.
“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility,” Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, said in a statement. “This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black.”
Top Oversight lawmakers threaten to hold Black in contempt
The top Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the committee both criticized Black’s lawsuit and said they planned to discuss later Thursday whether they would hold him in contempt of Congress.
“This is unacceptable. We’re very disappointed,” said House Oversight Chair James Comer. “Of all the powerful billionaires and political people we’ve brought in for interview and depositions, this is the first time anyone’s filed suit.”
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, called the lawsuit “laughable” and that Black is “trying to slow the process down of getting us the information.”
“Today, the process of contempt has to begin,” Garcia said.
Being held in contempt opens up a witness to criminal prosecution. If the House approves a contempt resolution against Black, it would fall to the Justice Department to decide whether to bring charges against him.
Black paid Epstein over $150 million during their yearslong relationship
Black is the co-founder and former chief executive of the private equity firm Apollo Global Management. He stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein.
Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their yearslong relationship.
A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning, and other related services.”
Black is among a number of influential figures to appear in the investigation into Epstein and the web of wealth and influence around him. Other figures to have appeared for the investigation include former Democratic President Bill Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.
Black is mentioned repeatedly in files that the Justice Department has released related to the Epstein investigation. He also appears in a collection of birthday messages sent to Epstein that were released by the House committee last year, including a poem attributed to Black that refers to “Blond, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically.”
Before the June 26 appearance before the committee, Black maintained that he was not aware of Epstein’s “nefarious activity” until 2019 and that he paid Epstein for legitimate purposes, in part due to his “unrivaled network of relationships” with influential figures.
PLYMOUTH, Mass. — The deadlocked jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial went home without a verdict Thursday in a dramatic sixth day of deliberations. Her defense lawyer told the judge that the panel’s foreperson said in a note that a single juror won’t follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt and was holding up a verdict.
The jury will return Friday to see if they can reach a decision on whether the Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children.
Before sending the jury home on Thursday, the judge refused the defense’s request to remove one of the jurors following heated discussions among the parties.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, doesn’t deny strangling her children in the basement of their home in 2023 before trying to take her own life. Her attorney argues that postpartum psychosis led to her actions, while prosecutors say she knew what she was doing when she killed Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.
Clancy’s livestreamed trial has generated intense interest, with reporters and spectators packing the courtroom. The case has also sparked deep public divisions over her culpability and the issues around maternal mental health after childbirth.
Lindsay Clancy trial takes a dramatic turn
Judge William Sullivan, after receiving the jury’s note, brought in each juror individually and questioned them in private. The judge then reread his instructions on reasonable doubt before sending them back to continue deliberating on a verdict.
That prompted an angry objection from Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, who demanded that one juror be removed. Sullivan declined. This was the first time the jury indicated possible tension or acrimony in the deliberation room.
Throughout the trial, Clancy has received letters of support “from all over the world,” defense attorney Kevin Reddington said Thursday. “It’s just amazing. She reads them all.”
Lindsay Clancy’s jury twice said they were at an impasse
Sullivan explained to the courtroom on Wednesday that jurors were again at an impasse — a sign there’s a growing chance of a hung jury and the trial ending without a resolution.
Sullivan told the jurors not to abandon their own convictions just to reach a verdict, but urged them to seriously consider opposing views and reassess their positions if appropriate.
No one knows, he said, that another jury would be “more intelligent, more impartial or more competent to decide it than you are.”
Lindsay Clancy could go on trial again
If the jury ultimately can’t agree on a verdict, the judge could declare a mistrial. Prosecutors would then have to decide whether to put Clancy on trial again, drop the charges, or try to negotiate a plea deal with her lawyer.
If the jury decides Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions, it could convict her of either murder or manslaughter. If she is acquitted, a judge could still order her confined to a mental health facility if an evaluation determines that she poses a danger to the public.
The evidence against Lindsay Clancy
Jurors have heard testimony from relatives and doctors about how Clancy’s mental health declined in the months before the killings and how her treatment included several medications and a short stay in a psychiatric hospital.
Medical experts hired by the prosecution and the defense reached sharply different conclusions about her psychiatric state when she killed the children.
Patrick Clancy has said in interviews that he forgives his now ex-wife, whom he views as ill rather than evil.
Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands in their home’s basement, then jumped from a second-floor window. She remains paralyzed from the waist down. Her lawyers say she heard a voice telling her to kill the children so she could end her own life.
The prosecution argues she deliberately sent her then-husband on errands to get him out of the house, and prosecutors have questioned the seriousness of her suicide attempt.
With early voting about to begin in competitive midterm races, President Donald Trump has kept most of his super PAC money on the sidelines, causing Republican leaders to conclude that it’s too late to fully deploy the cash in the midterms and that he intends to hold on to much of it for his own purposes.
Trump’s political advisers have been assuring anxious allies that MAGA Inc., the president’s super PAC that had more than $400 million on hand as of July 31, will come to the rescue during the peak campaign season after Labor Day. But Republicans are increasingly skeptical and suspicious that Trump — who must personally approve the spending — has other ideas.
The president has not revealed his plans, and his political advisers consistently say they will not share them with reporters. Some people around Trump have concluded that he has little interest in spending the bulk of his super PAC funds on this year’s midterm races, according to a person with knowledge of internal conversations.
Theories about what Trump wants to do with the money cover a broad range of possibilities, including protecting his political influence in the next presidential race by passing on the money to his chosen successor, and saving up for legal fees, postpresidential travel, events, and pet projects, such as his library. Trump’s Miami library is projected to cost at least $1 billion, the most expensive presidential library construction to date.
The person with knowledge of internal discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about those conversations, said Trump and his team believe their ability to rake in massive donations will take a hit after the midterm elections, giving the president an incentive to keep hold of the money he has raised so far.
Fundraising accounts associated with the president — such as his super PAC and funds for his inauguration, White House ballroom and Freedom 250 events — have been inundated with donations from companies looking to get in Trump’s good graces, a dynamic that is likely to change as he becomes a lame duck.
Some donors have started holding back on giving more money to the super PAC while it sits on earlier contributions, according to people familiar with the matter who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.
Trump’s reticence surrounding how he will use MAGA Inc. money has caused particular worry for Republicans in this fall’s elections.
GOP candidates and officials still avoid criticizing the president on the record. Privately, however, some operatives have complained that MAGA Inc. has already missed valuable opportunities to lock in airtime at lower advance rates and define candidates before attitudes harden.
Allies have also criticized Trump’s preference for promoting his own record, arguing that super PACs are most effective at attacking opponents, as MAGA Inc. did in 2022.
The nonprofit arm of Trump’s political operation, Securing American Greatness, premiered its first midterm ads on Wednesday, spending just under $1 million, according to the tracking firm AdImpact. The ads, set to air nationwide, feature video clips of Trump talking about tax breaks in his domestic spending legislation and lower prices for eggs and prescription drugs. One spot uses Trump’s friend Dana White, the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
“Like, they think he’s popular or something,” a Republican ad maker scoffed when shown the videos. “He’s not.”
Multiple public and private polls show Trump’s approval rating mired in the mid-30s, at or near historic lows for a president facing a midterm election.
The ads adhere to Trump’s instruction to advisers to promote his record, and the super PAC could take a different approach with future ad buys, people familiar with the discussions said.
A large lead in available cash has been one of the few bright spots for Republicans in this election cycle, because many of the swing constituencies that helped Trump win back the White House have drifted away amid disappointment with persistent inflation and the Iran war. Leaving a large portion of MAGA Inc.’s money on the sidelines threatens to neutralize that advantage, as individual Democratic campaigns outraise their GOP counterparts.
“I worry about that, for sure,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R, S.D.) told his home state’s CBS affiliate about the possibility of losing the Republican majority in the upper chamber. “I’m a realist, and I just think you — I don’t ever try and sugarcoat things. I think it’s a competitive environment right now.”
While some Republicans have given up on waiting for the MAGA Inc. cavalry, Democrats continue to warn that they expect Trump’s super PAC and Elon Musk’s political outfit to outgun them.
“All of that takes the advantage that Democrats have in terms of individual small-dollar donors, and it really will just swamp it,” said Rep. Chris Pappas (D, N.H.), who is running for an open Senate seat in a tight race against Republican former senator John E. Sununu.
“We are going to get outspent in this race,” he said.
Musk’s super PAC, which spent more than $260 million to back Trump and other Republicans in 2024, just reported $800,000 in midterm spending on GOP candidates, federal campaign filings show. The PAC also started advertising online in the battleground Senate races in Texas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Maine, according to Meta’s disclosures of political ads on Facebook and Instagram. A spokesman declined to comment.
With the availability of broadcast airtime dwindling, MAGA Inc. may spend more heavily on ads placed on digital streaming services, according to three people familiar with the plans. Those people said streaming services can be more cost-effective for targeting younger and less-frequent voters, like those who helped Trump in 2024, a constituency that Republicans will need to mobilize again this fall.
The PAC is also likely to pay for events and get-out-the-vote operations, one of the people said.
Skeptics of MAGA Inc.’s promises point to Trump’s history of viewing money that he raised as his own and resisting using it to help others. So far this year, the super PAC has spent less than $900,000 supporting Sen. Darline Graham (R, S.C.) in her primary and less than $20,000 sending text messages for Rep. Clay Fuller (R, Ga.), according to federal campaign finance disclosures.
“I’m not affected by the election,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday while discussing the Iran war. “I’m not running. But my party is running, and I’m going to help my party.”
At an event in the Rose Garden with congressional Republicans, Trump on Wednesday night previewed what he described as nonstop travel in the last 30 days before the elections, including a trip to Alaska to stump for Sen. Dan Sullivan (R), but he made no mention of super PAC spending.
“We’re going to be helping you, and I’ll be going around and doing a lot of speeches,” he said. “We’re going to take that little, that final 30 days. You don’t want to go too much before then because people forget.”
In the wake of a hiring surge last summer, an official in charge of evaluating new recruits to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a dire warning.
The Trump administration, he wrote in a memo, was cutting corners, violating the law, and fast-tracking unqualified, “improperly vetted” candidates into ICE’s ranks, part of a dangerous move that exposed the agency — and its law enforcement operations — to “grave national security risks.”
Citing an “unprecedented lowering of standards,” the career ICE official said that “systemic breakdowns” had allowed applicants to receive job offers before they had passed basic fingerprint, identity, or credit checks in a preliminary vetting process. Political appointees had unjustly skirted background investigations and received national security eligibility.
The official, a unit chief who directly oversaw more than 100 employees who evaluated thousands of ICE applicants, was so troubled by what he saw that he outlined these concerns not to his superiors, but in a formal whistleblower complaint to the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security.
In the complaint, he asked for an independent, outside investigation into the matter. He was later interviewed twice by officials with the inspector general’s office and his concerns have become part of an ongoing audit into vetting practices.
The complaint, which has not been previously reported, underscores the rising worries about the suitability — as well as the tactics — of scores of agents who have been rapidly deployed across the country within the past year. It also outlines the extent to which ICE weakened its standards, and points to dissension among the upper reaches of the agency as it was pressed last year to carry out President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
The whistleblower, a 17-year ICE veteran who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his claims, said the agency had cut corners in its rush to fill the ranks.
“We chose as an agency to be more convenient rather than thorough,” he said, describing the agency’s decision to reduce scrutiny of recruits in order to expedite hires. “By doing so, there was a potential to put lives at risk and to jeopardize national security.”
The whistleblower complaint was obtained via a public records request. The concerns within it broadly mirror those made by other current and former ICE employees who said that the agency had abandoned best practices as it rapidly scaled up. An ICE lawyer who worked at the agency’s training center resigned earlier this year and went public as a whistleblower, citing concerns about a “deficient, defective, and broken” training program.
In response to questions, an ICE spokesperson said in a statement that the agency “diligently applies the proper personnel vetting regulations, including guidelines for national security, and evaluates all available information for every applicant based on these factors.”
The agency declined to comment about the whistleblower, who retired from the agency in July, or his complaint.
The scrutiny of ICE’s hiring practices has intensified in recent weeks, spurred in part by the fatal shooting of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian immigrant, in Biddeford, Maine, on July 13.
The two ex-wives of ICE agent David Brouillette, one of whom identified him as the person who fired the fatal shots, have accused him in interviews and court records of being abusive. In a filing for a protection order in December 2019, one ex-wife wrote that he had broken her door down, destroyed her belongings, and dumped her clothes over a bridge.
The women also have said Brouillette, a former military serviceman and Veterans Affairs police officer who was hired amid the recruiting surge last year, had post-traumatic stress disorder related to his deployment in Afghanistan. A local official in Maine told The Portland Press Herald that Brouillette sought jobs with the Hallowell Police Department in 2024 but was denied because there were “too many red flags.” Brouillette could not be reached for comment.
After the shooting, Tom Homan, the White House border czar, said the DHS investigation into the episode will include whether the agent was properly vetted before being hired.
A White House spokesperson referred questions to DHS.
A rush to recruit
The concerns in the August 2025 whistleblower complaint exposed shortcuts in the agency’s preliminary vetting process. No credit checks. Fingerprints unconfirmed. Final job offers absent preliminary vetting.
Before the surge, a recruitment team made documents available to a unit within ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility for each new hire, including fingerprints and a security form with extensive questions. The vetting team would then initiate a preliminary check, running each applicant’s name through law enforcement databases and searching for criminal violations or other major red flags. Some recruits would be sent for a polygraph test if concerns arose.
These recruits then underwent a full background check, conducted by outside contractors, to determine whether the candidate was trustworthy enough to have access to sensitive computer systems, federal facilities, and classified information. It wasn’t unusual for this to occur while recruits were in training.
The preliminary vetting process, which took seven to 10 days, was upended last summer. The vetters were told to make determinations on recruits without having the full security form, fingerprints or any polygraph testing, according to the former unit chief and a former federal official familiar with the process who was granted anonymity to speak freely about it.
That meant new hires were heading to training without having their identities, criminal histories, and other basic information checked and verified, the unit chief said.
The agency also sped up its training program, cutting it from roughly 10 weeks to six. This resulted in agents reporting to their full-time positions while their full background checks were pending.
Meanwhile, recruits with prior law enforcement experience were able to take online courses rather than complete on-site training. They faced even less scrutiny in their background checks.
In July, the agency said, it increased the length of its training program for academy classes, and it instructed past graduates to attend additional training.
Ryan Schwank, the former ICE lawyer who worked at the agency’s training center, testified before Congress this year that new recruits appeared unfit for service.
“We were concerned about ICE recruiting a loose cannon or somebody who was just mentally unfit for the role,” Schwank said in a recent interview. “We knew that kind of person would get through. But the thing that I think kept some of the other instructors up at night was the possibility of organized crime getting access to the agency or penetrating the agency.”
Schwank, who taught recruits during the surge, said that’s exactly what happened. Last fall, several students were removed from the academy in Georgia in the middle of training because officials determined that they were all linked to a criminal gang. Schwank began work at the training academy last September and left the agency in February.
In a statement, an ICE spokesperson said, “ICE has received NO credible evidence that any of its trainees were linked to a common criminal gang.”
In the interview, Schwank said it was rare for students to fail out of the academy before the surge, but that about half of his students flunked out after the hiring push. This was after the academy made its tests open book and no longer failed students who made fatal errors during enforcement simulations.
By this spring, hundreds of new recruits hired amid the surge had already been removed from the force, according to the former federal official who was granted anonymity.
The hiring surge was set in motion in part by the passage of Trump’s domestic policy bill last summer. Congress allocated $30 billion in new money for ICE to hire 10,000 new ICE agents, more than doubling the number of deportation officers.
Concerns about political appointees
The unit chief who filed the whistleblower complaint said he chose to alert the DHS Office of Inspector General because ICE leadership had created these issues and he thought an outside, independent investigation was necessary.
In addition to the vetting concerns, he also mentioned in the complaint that Trump administration political allies had received favorable treatment and obtained security clearances even though troubling information about them had surfaced in background checks. He cited Corey Lewandowski, a former top adviser to DHS.
The concerns about Lewandowski had been outlined in a memo written last year by the DHS head of security and was viewed by the whistleblower, who told the Times that a higher-up had asked him to vet Lewandowski for an ICE credential. The red flags in the memo included allegations that Lewandowski had been paid years earlier for work by a Chinese government agency, according to the whistleblower and a report last year in the Daily Mail. That allegation has not been substantiated outside of that memo.
In a statement, Lewandowski denied he was ever vetted by ICE. He said he had “never worked for the Chinese Communist Party – Full Stop.”
In a follow-up statement, a spokesperson for Lewandowski said any suggestion that he “received favorable treatment in connection with his security clearance is categorically false.”
Ten days after the unit chief filed his whistleblower complaint — and a few days after the Daily Mail article published — a lawyer from the department’s Office of General Counsel reached out to him. This lawyer, who was not from the inspector general’s office, asked to meet the whistleblower at an agency field office in Texas, separate from where he typically worked.
The whistleblower believed he was being interviewed about his security worries, but a different focus of the inquiry became apparent: Had the unit chief talked to the news media about his concerns?
The lawyer grilled him over four hours and seized his laptop, according to the former unit chief and his lawyer. The full contents of the meeting, they said, are protected under a nondisclosure agreement, a common practice for internal investigations.
“My client was of the belief this investigation by the agency’s attorneys was in good faith to vet his disclosure,” said Kevin Owen, a lawyer for the whistleblower. “Instead they threatened him and put him on leave.”
It remains unclear how DHS officials came to target the unit chief.
The agency said it couldn’t comment on personnel matters with people no longer there.
The former unit chief said the inspector general’s office first reached out to interview him in February, about six months after the complaint was filed. Investigators interviewed him again in April for an audit into vetting, he said.
In a statement, the office said it had to delay some of its work due to government furloughs. The office in April opened an audit into the process for giving out security clearances to political appointees.
The inspector general’s office said it couldn’t comment on its investigations, but the agency noted that it did not reveal the name of the whistleblower to anyone outside of its office.
Meanwhile, the whistleblower remained on leave for 10 months for what DHS said were “allegations of serious misconduct,” the unit chief and Owen said.
The alleged misconduct went unspecified, they said, and he was eventually reinstated with no punishment or finding of wrongdoing. He retired immediately after, in July.
He said DHS officials had never told him specifics for why he was on leave for such a long time.
In an effort to learn more, he submitted a records request to ICE for documents related to his case.
The former unit chief said the stress of the investigation weighed heavily on his mental health. He checked himself into a treatment program that lasted several months.
The man, a longtime Republican who voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024, said he grew disillusioned with the agency as it acted in haste to fulfill the president’s immigration enforcement mandate. He said he has always supported ICE’s mission, but was troubled by the way the agency was taking shortcuts in vetting recruits.
“It’s a betrayal of the public trust and everybody’s trust,” he said.
FILE — Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on patrol at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on March 23, 2026. Amid pressure to hire people quickly, ICE leaders sped up the process, eliminating some of the more thorough checks in place. (Jamie Kelter Davis/The New York Times)JAMIE KELTER DAVISFILE — Ryan Schwank, a former ICE lawyer who worked at the agency’s training center, in Washington on Feb. 23, 2026. In an interview, Schwank said about half of his students flunked out of the academy after the ICE hiring surge. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)KENNY HOLSTONFILE — An impromptu memorial to Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, who was fatally shot by a federal immigration agent, in Biddeford, Maine, on July 14, 2026. The scrutiny of ICE’s hiring practices has intensified in recent weeks, spurred in part by the fatal shooting of Durán Guerrero. (Christopher Capozziello/The New York Times)CHRISTOPHER CAPOZZIELLO
BOSTON — The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to reject an order by a federal judge that halts it from implementing a new rule regulating mail ballots, hours after being unable to tell that judge whether the computer system that would govern the entire project was operational yet.
The administration filed its appeal the afternoon before mail ballots were scheduled to be sent out by North Carolina, which on Friday kicks off a wave of states shipping ballots out for the rapidly approaching midterm election. Its appeal was part of a flurry of last-minute litigation as the federal government struggles to implement President Donald Trump’s restrictions on mail ballots before the midterm elections in November, and came even as legal wrangling over President Donald Trump’s executive order continued in lower courts.
Under Trump’s executive order, the U.S. Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots from states that do not follow a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal that was apparently still inactive Thursday.
During a hearing in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani repeatedly questioned Department of Justice attorney Michael Velchik about whether the Postal Service could actually implement Trump’s plan from an executive order he issued last spring. The key piece is the online portal, which would track tens of millions of mail ballots. States would be required to upload their list of mail voters to the portal to have ballots delivered, and if the data there didn’t match what was on the envelopes, the ballots would not be sent.
Unclear if key system has been set up
“I don’t even have a declaration from the Postal Service: ‘This is how it will work.’ I don’t have it. I have nothing,” Talwani said, adding later that it felt like the government was running an “experiment” to see if the system would work in the upcoming election.
“As you sit here today, you can’t tell me the government has a program ready to go?” Talwani asked.
Velchik repeated that the Postal Service would “fully implement the rule” that it published last month, triggering the latest round of litigation. He argued the main issue is whether Talwani has the legal power to stop it.
“The $64,000 question is, is this authorized by the statute?” Velchik said.
Talwani is considering whether to extend her temporary order barring the Postal Service from requiring use of the system through Sept. 10. The first state to send out all its mail ballots, North Carolina, is scheduled to begin shipping them out Friday, with other states quickly following.
Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump’s executive order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.
But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani’s order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump’s order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.
They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated by the Constitution to the states and, in some cases, to Congress.
Tangled legal fight goes up to election deadlines
They won an initial victory with Talwani’s 14-day restraining order. In a sign of the pressures on the administration, its lawyers already appealed that order to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, but they added the Supreme Court appeal Thursday and urged the top justices to act quickly.
Election officials say there’s simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.
Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.
The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal.
“While the States have primary authority to regulate the manner of elections, they cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service’s rulemaking authority, conferred by Congress, to regulate envelope design and addressee information,” Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, wrote in the appeal.
No red states have said they’ll use system
Still, the hearing before Talwani focused more on practicalities — especially that the portal was still not active, while most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.
Velchik told the judge that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system, but the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so. None of the 12 states that intervened in the lawsuit to argue the Trump administration has the right to require the program have announced that they have voluntarily opted into it.
Talwani scolded Missouri Solicitor General Lou Capozzi for arguing on behalf of the project.
“You want the voters in your states to be disenfranchised,” Talwani said. “I don’t understand the interest.”
Capozzi said that was misinformation: “There is no risk that people would be disenfranchised.”
A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters. But if a single one’s bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is proposing a new rule that would strip private schools and colleges of their tax-exempt status if they provide targeted help to students based on their race, a significant escalation in the White House’s campaign to eradicate diversity programs directed at Black, Hispanic and other minority students.
The Treasury Department proposed the change Thursday in a new regulation that, if made final, would kick in after May 2027. The rule is broadly aimed at ending any policies or programs that help students because of their race, and it specifically says such benefits in admissions, scholarships, and facilities “would be incompatible” with the rule.
It’s the latest attempt by the Trump administration to pressure schools and colleges to weed out diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that had become common before President Donald Trump returned to the White House with a promise to end them. Trump officials have used Civil Rights-era laws to unwind the policies, saying they discriminate against white and Asian American students.
Higher education leaders criticized the proposal.
“The administration’s latest rules changes are its most blatant attack to keep working class Americans and people of color from accessing higher education and a better life,” Mike Gavin, Alliance for Higher Education president and CEO, said in a statement. “By claiming that efforts to increase fair opportunity for all students are discriminatory, the administration is trying to gaslight the American people into believing that up is down and black is white.”
Thousands of colleges could be affected
Scores of universities have shut down or rebranded their DEI offices and ended scholarships and clubs designed for minority students under pressure from the White House. In a statement announcing the proposal, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that even policies that are no longer under the banner of DEI could be targeted.
“Schools rebranding race-based preferences as equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing does not change their discriminatory nature,” Bessent said.
The Treasury Department and IRS estimate that up to 18,000 private schools, colleges, and other education institutions could be affected by the proposal.
America’s private universities have been exempt from many taxes for more than a century because they provide a public good. The benefit saves many universities millions of dollars every year.
Trump has seen the tax-exempt status as a lever to pull in his pressure campaign against colleges that he describes as hotbeds of “wokeness.” He threatened to cut the benefit for Harvard University last year during his battle with the nation’s oldest college. In a response, Harvard officials said there was no legal basis for doing so and argued it would force cuts to financial aid and crucial medical research.
In the 1970s, a college lost tax-exempt status over a ban on interracial dating
It’s incredibly rare for the federal government to go after a college’s tax-exempt status, but there’s one notable precedent. Bob Jones University, a small Christian school in South Carolina, lost the benefit in the 1970s over a ban on interracial dating and marriage on campus. The Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s decision to deny the school its exemption. The school has since ended the ban and regained tax-exempt status in 2017.
Laws forbid the IRS from targeting individuals and organizations for ideological reasons, and federal officials are not allowed to direct IRS investigations.
To maintain nonprofit status, which allows donations to be tax-deductible, organizations must follow IRS rules on lobbying, political campaign activity, and annual reporting requirements, as well as other obligations.
The Trump administration describes the new proposal as a move toward restoring merit in the nation’s education systems.
Marjorie Hass, president of the Council of Independent Colleges, said the change would most likely impact donations, which are often earmarked for scholarships.
The uncertainty around the proposal also will create challenges for schools, said Tim Powers, a vice president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.
“Our institutions are committed to complying with applicable civil rights laws and maintaining safe and supportive campuses free from discrimination,” Powers said. “However, the proposed rule may create new compliance burdens and legal uncertainties for institutions of higher education that are already operating in line with existing nondiscrimination rules.”
The Justice Department has separately opened investigations into several medical schools that it accuses of favoring Black and Hispanic students in admissions. Trump officials say any such favoritism violates Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that forbids discrimination in education and was created to fight segregation and its impact.
A statement from IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said private schools that promote discriminatory practices will no longer be exempt from taxes.
“Today’s proposed regulations put institutions on notice and schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination should expect to lose that status,” he said.
Three members of Congress renewed their criticism of FanDuel Sportsbook on Thursday, accusing the company’s leaders of providing “misleading and incomplete” responses to a recent inquiry about the VIP services and rewards that it offers to customers.
In a letter to FanDuel chief executive officer Christian Genetski, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) and U.S. Reps. Paul D. Tonko (D., N.Y.) and Valerie P. Foushee (D., N.C.) wrote that they “remain unconvinced that FanDuel is making an active effort to protect bettors from harmful gambling and instead appears to be promoting addiction.”
The lawmakers had initially sent letters on Aug. 10 to FanDuel, Major League Baseball, and the Major League Baseball Players Association, and demanded that each make policy changes following an Inquirer story about a personal video greeting from Phillies star Bryce Harper that a FanDuel VIP manager sent in 2024 to a bettor who had a gambling addiction.
In response, the MLBPA said last week it would support banning players from doing promotional work for sportsbook VIP programs in the union’s next collective bargaining agreement.
The lawmakers had called on FanDuel to eliminate its VIP rewards and disclose information about those services, including whether the company had sent videos of other athletes to VIP bettors, or offered promotions to gamblers who experienced losing streaks and attempted to cut back on wagering.
In an Aug. 14 response, FanDuel wrote that it is “committed to being a transparent and cooperative partner” but did not directly respond to many of the lawmakers’ questions.
The company said it spent $158 million on responsible gaming in 2025, and that it extensively reviews customers’ betting history before offering them VIP status.
Though professional sports leagues were once deeply opposed to legalizing sports betting, leagues and many franchises have now entered into lucrative partnerships with gambling entities.Elizabeth Robertson / Staff Photographer
“Sports wagering is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States,” wrote Cory Fox, a FanDuel senior vice president, “and FanDuel operates a licensed online sportsbook in 26 U.S. jurisdictions.”
The lawmakers seized on this point, writing that FanDuel also has a prediction market, FanDuel Predicts, “which undermines the integrity of — if not bypasses — those very regulations.”
A FanDuel spokesperson said he was looking into the matter Thursday morning, but did not respond to follow up requests for comment.
Prediction markets allow customers to wager on a range of subjects: sports, politics, Hollywood award shows, the weather. They’re regulated by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which thus far has enforced few limitations on companies like Kalshi and Polymarket.
Critics — including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who works as a strategic adviser to the American Gaming Association — contend that prediction markets are running illegal sports betting operations. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport earlier this week petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether states should have the authority to regulate the markets.
In their latest message to FanDuel, the lawmakers described the company’s “VIP perks, constant push notifications, and personalized promotions” as exploitative, and demanded the company provide a written response to eight questions by Sept. 17.
Sportsbook VIP rewards and push notifications are a central thread in a lawsuit that the nonprofit Public Health Advocacy Institute filed in March in Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia against FanDuel, DraftKings, the NFL, and the data company Genius Sports on behalf Montgomery County resident Terry Thompson and Delaware County resident Christopher Sage, VIP bettors who each developed ruinous gambling addictions.
FanDuel, DraftKings, the NFL, and Genius Sports have each sought to have the case dismissed.
Thompson, who received the 21-second video of Harper, lost more than $1.8 million on sports bets, and planned to die by suicide earlier this year, rather than reveal to his family the scope of his losses.
Harper has said that he recorded the message through the video service Cameo, but didn’t know that Thompson had an addiction, or that FanDuel intended to use it as a VIP reward.
The Inquirer will continue to report on issues related to the growth of gambling addiction — among teens and adults — across Pennsylvania. If you, or someone you know, wants to speak with a reporter, please contact David Gambacorta or William Bender at dgambacorta@inquirer.com and wbender@inquirer.com
NEW YORK — Gloria Steinem, the celebrated author and activist who became one of the most visible symbols and potent voices of the U.S. women’s movement and a fierce advocate for feminist causes throughout her life, has died. She was 92.
With her trademark streaked hair parted down the middle and large aviator glasses, Ms. Steinem, a co-founder of Ms. Magazine, was a hugely recognizable presence wherever she went. And she went everywhere: Much of her life as an advocate was spent on the road, speaking at college campuses and community centers, at rallies and marches.
She died Wednesday at her home in New York City, according to her and her foundation’s social media pages.
“Gloria’s greatest gift was her ability to listen to others, to make others feel seen and heard,” the posts said. “Her words, actions, and example gave people permission to be their truest selves. Gloria lived true to her independent spirit, always with curiosity and a great sense of humor.”
Ms. Steinem enjoyed writing and spending time in the community in recent years, the posts said. She also hosted talking circles for hundreds of people in her home. She died just before a planned memoir was to be released this fall.
“You can’t do it on the phone or on the web,” she told The Associated Press in a 2015 interview. “You have to be there with all five senses. It should be obvious that people can’t empathize with each other unless we’re in the same room.”
Ms. Steinem changed her career path after a start as a journalist
Ms. Steinem at an Equal Rights Amendment rally outside the White House on July 4, 1981.Scott Applewhite
She began her career as a journalist, notably one who reported, in 1963, on degrading conditions in Hugh Hefner’s Playboy empire, an undercover assignment she came to later regret. She credits a meeting six years later, where women spoke out boldly in favor of abortion rights, with changing her career path.
“That speak-out was the beginning of activism for me,” Ms. Steinem, who had undergone a secret illegal abortion herself at age 22, told the AP in an email in 2022, reflecting on the reversal of Roe v Wade. “Either our control over our own bodies is equal, regardless of sex or race, or we’re not living in a democracy.”
Though she soon became a known activist, those who watched Ms. Steinem denounce discrimination for so many years likely never suspected that she’d had to overcome a deep fear of public speaking. She would have simply stuck to writing, she said, if only editors at the time had been willing to let her write about the women’s movement.
But they weren’t interested, she told the AP in 2015. “So I ended up going out and speaking, which was my nightmare,” she said. “I mean, I was terrified. But I’m grateful, even though I still get scared even now.”
Ms. Steinem’s visibility endured throughout her life
Ms. Steinem claps as she walks on the stage during an International Women’s Day event in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in 2023.Kamran Jebreili
Time hardly slowed Ms. Steinem down; well into her 80s she was traveling the globe and speaking out on issues of importance to her. These included everything from genital mutilation to Korean reconciliation, but it was equality for women that took precedence. “Being a feminist means that you see the world as whole instead of half,” she once said. “It shouldn’t need a name, and one day it won’t.”
As the years went on, Ms. Steinem’s visibility endured. At 83, she sat in the front row of her first fashion show, guest of designer Prabal Gurung. A few days after her 85th birthday, she was leading a women’s “talking circle” at an off-Broadway play celebrating her life, where one by one, women in the audience — many fighting tears — rose to thank her and tell their own stories of discrimination. In 2020, her life was the subject of a feature film, The Glorias, A Life on The Road, based on her 2015 memoir and starring Julianne Moore.
And at 91, she collaborated on a picture book with Liberian peace activist and Nobel laureate Leymah Gbowee aimed at inspiring young people to change the world. Rise, Girl, Rise: Our Sister-Friend Journey. Together for All was published in February.
The constant visibility came with a price; even into her older years, Ms. Steinem expressed frustration that despite her accomplishments, she was often described as beautiful or glamorous (A 1992 Vanity Fair profile even noted her “spectacular racehorse legs.”) It was a label she said unfairly detracted from her message.
“Nobody ever called me beautiful until I was publicly a feminist, and that was in my mid-30s,” she told AP in a 2011 interview. “It was clear that label was being assigned to me. The most hurtful part is that you work very hard, and people say it’s because of your looks.”
Ms. Steinem dealt with hostility from many directions
Of course, Ms. Steinem also had to deal with hostility. Sometimes it came from surprising places. Appearing on Larry King’s talk show on CNN in 1990, she was visibly stunned when a female caller greeted her cheerfully, then told her to “rot in hell” because she had ruined “the beautiful American family.”
But by then, she noted, at least people were taking feminists seriously. That wasn’t the case in 1972 when she co-founded Ms. Magazine and many commentators — especially male — dismissed it as ridiculous, predicting an early demise. (The magazine continues to this day, published by the Feminist Majority Foundation.)
Among Ms. Steinem’s detractors was President Richard Nixon, who was caught on an Oval Office tape ridiculing both her and the “Ms.” title. The ridicule was mutual: In a 1972 National Press Club speech, Ms. Steinem called Nixon “the most sexually insecure chief of state since Napoleon.”
It was just one example of Ms. Steinem’s trademark wit. Before she married at 66, she often explained her singlehood by saying “I can’t mate in captivity.” Laughter, she wrote, was “the only free emotion — the only one that can’t be compelled.”
In 2013, Ms. Steinem was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama. “Because of her work across America and around the world, more women are afforded the respect and opportunities that they deserve,” he said, “but she also changed how women thought about themselves.”
Ms. Steinem ‘read everything I could get my hands on’ growing up
Gloria Marie Steinem was born on March 25, 1934, in Toledo, Ohio. Her father was a traveling antique salesperson; she spent her early years on the road with her parents, not attending regular school. “I just read everything I could get my hands on,” she told an audience at Manhattan’s 92Y in 2026. “Which was frequently completely unsuitable … just everything and anything. I also was in love with the movies — my idea of heaven was a movie and a malted.”
In 1944 her parents divorced, and 10-year-old Gloria was left to take care of her mother. a once-promising journalist who struggled to combine her work with running a household, and eventually suffered a nervous breakdown.
As a young girl she excelled at tap dancing — it was even going to be her “ticket out of Toledo,” she said. Although she remained a good dancer, that particular career didn’t materialize. She attended Smith College in the ’50s, a time when, she has said, women were being educated to be mothers and wives.
But marriage was not on Ms. Steinem’s mind. “I was engaged to a very nice man. It wasn’t his fault, but I just didn’t want to get married,” she told her 2026 audience. Instead, she took advantage of a modest fellowship to travel to India. After that, Ms. Steinem headed to Manhattan, where she couldn’t rent her own apartment because, she said, landlords avoided single women, assuming “if you could earn enough, you must be a hooker.”
The aspiring journalist wanted to write about politics. But editors gave her assignments on food, fashion, and, in what she jokingly called “the low point of my life,” an article about textured stockings. Even more demoralizing was her experience with an editor who, she said, gave her a choice one day: Spend the afternoon in a hotel with him, or mail his letters on the way out.
She chose to mail the letters. “There was no word for sexual harassment then,” she has said. “It was just life.”
But one assignment in 1963 sounded compelling: posing as a Playboy Bunny, for an exposé in the now-defunct Show magazine. Ms. Steinem went through the audition process, assuming she’d be weeded out. But she was given her bunny costume — “so tight, it would give a man a cleavage,” she joked — and worked in the job for about a month.
“I could not have made a bigger mistake,” she told the AP in 2011. “It was personally and professionally a disaster. In the short term, it was much harder to get assignments, and in the long term it’s been used to ridicule me.”
Ms. Steinem’s writing became more political in her 30s
Ms. Steinem was in her 30s when she joined the editorial board of New York magazine, and her writing became more political. In 1969, she went to cover an abortion rights hearing. She had never told anyone about her illegal abortion at 22, in London. That was the moment, she has said, that triggered her career as a women’s rights activist. “I don’t think I had ever felt part of a group before,” she said in a 1970 TV interview.
Ms. Steinem founded the National Women’s Political Caucus in 1971 along with Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug. The latter became a dear lifelong friend — “the woman I wished I had had as a mother,” she said at Abzug’s funeral.
Unlike Abzug, Ms. Steinem was naturally reserved, not comfortable in front of a crowd. Gradually, with her early speaking partner Dorothy Pitman Hughes, a Black feminist and child welfare advocate, she found her footing. The two formed a powerful partnership at a time when feminism was viewed as largely a white, middle-class movement. In an iconic photo, the two raise their right arms together in the Black Power salute.
As she grew more famous, Ms. Steinem drew attention not just for her work but for a glamorous Manhattan life. Asked once about her streaked hair and aviator glasses, she explained that the hair was inspired by Holly Golightly, the free-spirited character played by Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The glasses? They were “more about hiding,” she said.
When reaction was hostile, Ms. Steinem would try to reason that it was a step above ridicule. But sometimes it stung, like a snarky Esquire profile in the early ’70s, so hurtful that she cried, and colleagues called a news conference to defend her.
Ms. Steinem co-founded Ms. Magazine and stayed with it as an adviser
(From left) Tennis star Billie Jean King, astronaut Sally Ride, and Ms. Steinem at a reception hosted by the Girls Club of America and Ms. Magazine to honor Ride in 1983.ASSOCIATED PRESS
Then came Ms. Magazine in 1972, a magazine by women, for women. “I was so obsessed with the fear that it would fail and be a disgrace to the movement,” Ms. Steinem, age 37 when it launched, told the AP in 2011. And opponents hoped that would happen. TV newsman Harry Reasoner, an especially tart critic, later apologized on air. Ms. Steinem continued with Ms. until it was bought in 2001 by the Feminist Majority Foundation, and remained an adviser.
By 1977, numerous gains had been made for women, including Roe in 1973. But the Equal Rights Amendment, which had passed the House and Senate in 1972 but needed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, remained elusive. The issue was front and center at the 1977 National Women’s Conference, convened on a congressional mandate to examine women’s rights.
“If they want us to become the radicals that they fear we are, just let them stop the ERA and we will become those radicals,” Ms. Steinem said there.
Among groups Ms. Steinem co-founded were the Women’s Action Alliance, which was active through the 1990s; the Women’s Media Center in 2004, the Voters for Choice political action committee in 1977, and the Ms. Foundation for Women. She also helped establish the Take Our Daughters to Work Day.
Ms. Steinem never had her own children, and said she never regretted it. “No, not for a millisecond,” she told the AP, describing an incident in which she was afraid to answer that question in front of a group of women in India, fearing they wouldn’t like the answer. “But they applauded,” she said. “It’s important that some of us not have children, to show that we have a choice.”
In 2000, Ms. Steinem she did something she’d never planned to: She got married, at 66, to British activist and businessman David Bale, whom she met at a fundraiser (Bale was the father of actor Christian Bale.)
“I thought, ‘I haven’t changed, marriage had changed,’” Ms. Steinem said. “David and I wanted to be together, we loved each other. He needed a green card.” They married at a Cherokee ceremony in Oklahoma. Several years later, he became ill with brain lymphoma, and Ms. Steinem cared for him until his death in 2003.
Ms. Steinem said she had few regrets in life, but did miss being present when her father died. She received word that he’d been in a serious car accident, but did not respond in time, and he died alone. “I had taken care of my mom as a child, and I feared I’d never come back,” she explained. She was also sorry that she didn’t become closer to her mother. “I was so fearful of becoming her,” she said in an HBO documentary, Gloria: In Her Own Words.
Ms. Steinem’s books included ‘A Life on the Road’
Ms. Steinem’s books included the 2015 road memoir A Life on the Road — but she wryly noted at the time that she’d actually never learned to drive. It would have taken away, she said, from her ability to converse with her hosts, who would pick her up from airports or train stations. And, she noted, she always loved to chat with taxi drivers.
On Jan. 21, 2017, when hundreds of thousands of women gathered in Washington in their pink “pussy hats” for the historic Women’s March, it surprised nobody that the keynote speaker, and the most rousing, was Ms. Steinem.
“We are linked,” she told the crowd. “And this is a day that will change us forever because we are together.”
For many women, Ms. Steinem was the galvanizing voice that day. She would go on to advocate fiercely. But, though many saw her as a singular figure in history, she often liked to say that if she hadn’t come along, someone else would have accomplished the same things.
By the same token, she said, it was less important that younger people listen to her, and more important that they listen to themselves.
“The primary thing is not that they know who I am,” she said, “but that they know who THEY are.”
WARSAW, Poland — Russia will close German cultural centers on its territory, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Thursday in a retaliatory measure reflecting the deepening tensions between Moscow and European countries that are helping Ukraine resist the Kremlin’s 4 ½-year-old invasion.
Lavrov’s announcement came after Berlin blamed Moscow for an attempted drone attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport on Aug. 4. The explosives-laden drone was found near a Ukrainian plane at the airport, a major international freight hub used for providing support to Ukraine. The drone was later defused.
Earlier Thursday in Munich, several incendiary devices were thrown at a construction site near a building where several companies, including from the defense sector, are located, the Bavarian State Criminal Police Office said. There was a brief fire that caused no significant damage, police said, adding they suspect the target was one of the companies in the area.
Two Bulgarian nationals were arrested, police said, but their suspected involvement was not confirmed.
Western officials have repeatedly accused Moscow of conducting a campaign of sabotage and disruption in their countries with the aim of undermining support for Ukraine and destabilizing European nations, something Russia denies.
Germany says it has become a “daily target” of the Kremlin’s hybrid campaign.
It said Wednesday it was closing both the Russian Consulate in Bonn and the Russian House cultural center in the German capital.
Lavrov countered that cultural centers belonging to Germany’s Goethe-Institut would be closed in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg, adding that any other response would show a lack of “self-respect” on Russia’s part.
He told an economic forum in the far east city of Vladivostok that Germany “could not have failed to understand” that closing the center in Berlin would “signify the end of their cultural presence in Russia.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Berlin wants to distract from its own failings and dissatisfaction among voters. Any proof being offered “has been planted,” Putin said.
Europe increasingly views itself as facing what it calls hybrid attacks by Russia, marked by cyberwarfare and disinformation as well as a conventional military threat. Each side accuses the other of state terrorism.
The tension has continued for months and grown into a major foreign and defense policy challenge for countries in the European Union.
Putin is testing the West with tactics that fall “just below the threshold of war” and is determined to “harass NATO members,” the head of Britain’s MI6 spy agency said last year.
European countries seek to counter Russia’s threat
Following Germany’s claims, Poland, Denmark, Finland, the U.K., the Czech Republic, and Lithuania have summoned Russian diplomats stationed in their countries.
In Norway, authorities on Wednesday seized a Russian vessel in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard at the request of Ukraine’s state-owned Naftogaz energy group.
A Norwegian court ordered the seizure as part of efforts by Naftogaz to recover a $4.22 billion arbitration award stemming from Russia’s 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea and its seizure of Ukrainian energy assets, including gas fields and pipelines. After Moscow refused to pay the 2023 award, Naftogaz petitioned national courts for orders to seize Russian commercial assets.
Putin on Thursday compared it to “state terrorism,” and Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned Norway’s ambassador to Moscow, Heidi Olufsen, to protest the seizure of the vessel, which it said belongs to the state weather and environmental monitoring agency.
It carried workers, scientists, and cargo to Russian settlements on one of the islands in Svalbard, the ministry said, adding that Moscow “will seek to lift the vessel’s arrest.”
In Finland, meanwhile, more than 2,000 people took part Thursday in the biggest civil defense exercise in Europe since the end of World War II. Among the threats envisioned were missile strikes from neighboring Russia.
EU weighs how to respond further
EU ministers on Wednesday weighed how best to respond to the attempted drone attack but struggled to find new ways to meet the challenge without resorting to military means.
The EU has slapped almost two dozen packages of sanctions on Russia over the war, targeting over 3,000 officials, oligarchs, and entities including banks, energy companies, and drone makers.
One senior EU official said the bloc’s anti-terrorism procedures could be put to effective use.
“If we list individuals as terrorists, we can deploy a range of instruments to actually target those individuals and to track them, all their activities, and people associated with those individuals,” EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Bartjan Wegter said.
He told The Associated Press that EU methods for combating terrorist financing and money laundering, as well as boosting the resilience of infrastructure like airports, could be put to good use.
“It is a very worrying development,” Wegter said of the failed Leipzig drone attack. But he noted that “it is not new what we’re seeing.”
Both Russia and Iran have used hybrid warfare methods before, he said.
“They’re actually deploying terrorist tactics” that are meant to “destabilize our society,” Wegter added.
Denmark sounds alarm about Russian sabotage plans
Danish security services are warning that Russian acts of sabotage against the country’s defense industry may be imminent.
Intelligence services have seen signs of specific planning by Russia to conduct sabotage operations in Denmark, Emil Græsholm, head of counterintelligence at the national security and intelligence service PET, told the Berlingske newspaper.
The targets are primarily companies in the defense industry and especially those associated with delivering military components to Ukraine, he said.
Russian Ambassador Vladimir Barbin said PET has not presented any concrete evidence that Moscow was preparing sabotage acts in Denmark. He said Græsholm’s comments were actually an acknowledgement of Denmark’s involvement in Ukraine.
The transformation of Danish territory into a production and logistics base for the Ukrainian military posed a security risk to Denmark, he added.
Italy’s Defense Minister Guido Crosetto told AP on Wednesday that the German airport incident was “a very serious act that could have very grave consequences.”
But he said the threats aren’t discouraging Italy from further helping Kyiv as Rome weighs whether to send SAMP/T air defense batteries. As in other Western countries, limited weapons production capacity is hampering efforts to supply more to Ukraine, he said.
WASHINGTON — A plan by the Environmental Protection Agency could make it harder for the public to learn about and comment on proposed AI data centers that have sparked backlash in communities across the United States and transformed the midterm election landscape.
The EPA proposal would eliminate a federal requirement that states notify the public and seek comment before issuing air pollution permits for data centers and other industrial facilities. States could still offer opportunities for public comment, but the EPA would no longer mandate them as a condition for states to grant permits.
Critics say the move could thwart local residents from learning about proposed data centers or making their voices heard before projects are approved and construction begins. The move comes during a widespread backlash as tech giants build hundreds of massive server warehouses to fuel artificial intelligence and cloud computing.
“By eliminating the long-standing federal requirement for public notice, this proposal continues efforts by the Trump administration to turn its back on the fundamental EPA principle of transparency,” said Mike Koerber, a former deputy director of EPA’s air quality office.
If made final, the plan could create “an unlevel playing field where citizens in one state are kept completely in the dark about new data centers and heavy industrial emissions in their backyards, while neighboring states maintain oversight,” he said.
Under the EPA plan, states with weak or no requirements for public comment could speed permits for data centers, power plants and other pollution sources without consulting the public or even informing communities where the facilities are located, Koerber and other critics said.
Communities deserve a chance to weigh in, advocates say
“Data centers and other industrial sources should not be able to get their air pollution permits in secret,” said Keri Powell, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, an advocacy organization that leads a coalition of nearly 200 environmental, health and community groups that filed comments with the EPA opposing the plan. “Communities deserve a chance to weigh in” before potentially harmful projects are approved.
An EPA spokesperson called that a false narrative.
“In our proposal we are saying that states get to pick how they want their permitting process to go for minor sources” of air pollution, spokesperson Carolyn Holran said.
The EPA proposal does not specifically identify data centers, she said, noting that the plan also would apply to laundromats, car repair shops and even landfills and steel mills that are considered “minor” pollution sources under the federal Clean Air Act.
The proposal does not demand that states make particular changes to their programs, nor does it alter federal emission standards or weaken environmental protections, Holran said. “Rather, the proposal simply aligns the national program with the Clean Air Act language to ensure that states are in the lead regarding their programs.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has made U.S. leadership in AI a top agency priority, said in a statement that the plan is aimed at “cutting unnecessary and burdensome red tape, unleashing American energy and advancing cooperative federalism” with states. The EPA is expected to make the rule final next year.
President Donald Trump continues to stick up for data centers, even as politicians from both parties criticize them and many communities try to block them. Trump said on social media this week that U.S. communities that don’t have data centers will “end up being backwards and poor.”
Trump says data centers are crucial in the AI race against China
Trump has acknowledged that data centers need “a little public relations help” and has pushed tech companies to generate their own electricity to shield consumers from higher utility bills. The Republican president calls data centers critical to winning the AI race against China.
Environmental groups and other critics say the EPA proposal ignores the reality that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, don’t require public notice or hearings beyond those set by federal agencies. The federal plan would leave many communities in the dark before data centers show up in their backyards, they said.
“It’s beyond cruel for Trump’s EPA to silence front-line communities who bear the brunt of unhealthy air,” said Brandon Jones-Cobb, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group.
The EPA “has already turned its back on science, cut enforcement against industrial polluters and eliminated life-saving air pollution measures,” he said. “Now it wants to shut the public out of decisions to build or expand facilities that expose communities to dangerous air pollution, including data centers.”
Powell, whose organization focuses on six Southern states from Virginia to Alabama, said many states “only do what is required by federal law” when it comes to public notice of land-use projects and other environmental concerns.
“We rely on a minimum federal requirement to ensure we have environmental protections and a voice,’’ she said in an interview, calling regulation of data centers a crucial issue in a region where the energy-hungry behemoths are proliferating. Virginia and Georgia are both among states with the highest concentration of current and proposed data centers.
Americans worry data centers could cause pollution, job losses
Besides powering AI and cloud computing, data centers are often sources of nitrogen oxide, which helps form ozone, as well as carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. Local communities also have expressed concerns about excessive water use and noise from data centers. Many Americans worry that AI could increase economic disparities and cause widespread job losses.
Data center advocates stress that local taxes paid by the centers can help fund public schools, reducing the financial burden on homeowners.
Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, said even if data centers ultimately are approved, “every community should be able to participate robustly in governmental decisions that can pollute our air.’’
Rolling back the EPA rule “pulls a dark cloud, filled with soot and toxic chemicals, over communities’ right to know what polluting facilities are planned in their community,” she said.