Category: Politics

  • Josh Shapiro’s measles response — and its backlash — reignites COVID-19 fury

    Josh Shapiro’s measles response — and its backlash — reignites COVID-19 fury

    A contagious airborne disease spreads. The tally of cases climbs higher as a vaccine debate rages among the public and their elected officials. Politicians point fingers at each other, arguing over the release of information and the steps that some consider “draconian.”

    The measles outbreak this year represents a far different public health crisis than the COVID-19 pandemic that wreaked havoc across the nation and the rest of the world six years ago.

    But with Pennsylvania at the center of a national conversation around a disease once considered eradicated in the U.S. because of widespread vaccination, the ensuing political rhetoric on measles has a familiar ring.

    Republican critics of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s announcement last week of two measles-associated deaths in Lancaster County — the first reported in the country this year — have repeatedly evoked the COVID pandemic in their critiques.

    Shapiro, as the Democratic nominee for governor four years ago, said during his last campaign that his party got parts of its COVID response wrong, such as vaccine mandates. But he defended the party line in court because of his role as the state’s attorney general.

    Now two months before voters decide on whether to reelect him, the governor’s detractors have condemned both his handling of the measles deaths and his administration’s simultaneous push for a string of new regulations aimed at fighting infectious diseases.

    “IT’S COVID ALL OVER AGAIN — BUT WORSE!!!” State Rep. Russ Diamond, a conservative Republican from Lebanon County, wrote Sunday in a lengthy social media post that led with three fire alarm emoji. The post followed other online comments in which Diamond speculated that Shapiro was broadcasting the measles deaths to “justify the draconian” regulatory proposal.

    Treasurer Stacy Garrity, the governor’s Republican challenger this fall, has echoed those recent comments from others in her party as she seeks to close a gap in the polls. She’s leaning into a message that appears strikingly similar to the one used by State Sen. Doug Mastriano, Shapiro’s 2022 Republican opponent who lost by double digits.

    In a video on social media, Garrity said Shapiro proposed “mandates that would make draconian COVID-era restrictions blush.” His “highly staged, partisan news conference” about measles, she added, “demonstrated just how dangerous his proposed mandates could be.”

    Shapiro’s Department of Health proposed the regulations earlier this year, before the state reported its first measles-associated deaths in three decades. The 502-page proposal, according to the state, would bolster officials’ ability to manage the outbreak of diseases, including isolation protocols and the reporting of identified cases. It’s been in the works for years and does not specifically refer to the 2026 measles outbreak, though it could play a role in managing such crises.

    “People want to raise some level of panic and anxiety here,” said Ericka Hayes, the senior medical director of infection prevention at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has reviewed the proposal and is concerned about the “alarmist rhetoric” emerging around it. “But the spirit of this, and what is written in the document, as far as I’ve read, really is focused on appropriate measures for response to public health, infectious disease crises.”

    The governor’s office said the regulations were not yet final, and the governor will weigh in after public comment concludes later this month.

    “Disease outbreaks are serious, and Pennsylvania is confronting that reality right now,” Rosie Lapowsky, Shapiro’s spokesperson, said in a statement, which pointed to the reported 540 measles cases in the state.

    “The Governor’s philosophy that will guide the final regulations is that public health depends on trust, and building that trust means respecting individual rights, involving parents in decisions that affect their children, and ensuring government works closely with the people it serves,” she said.

    Shapiro also emphasized trust last week when he publicly clashed with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom he blamed for spreading vaccine misinformation, saying Pennsylvania was seeing the negative consequences in the growing outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease.

    Democrats like State Rep. Tarik Khan, a Philadelphia Democrat and nurse practitioner, have come to Shapiro’s defense. In a livestreamed conversation with other legislators who are also healthcare professionals, Khan said the governor “rightly spoke truth to power” by targeting Kennedy.

    Still, the way Shapiro took a leading role in announcing the measles-related deaths made what could have been two disconnected issues — the outbreak and the separate regulations proposal — “into a conflagration” that is giving “lots of people flashbacks to” COVID, particularly conservatives who believed there was government overreach, said Chris Nicholas, a Harrisburg-based GOP consultant.

    “We’re getting back into a situation where all the usual subjects are going to be relitigating the COVID pandemic restrictions or rules because this has given everyone an excuse to dredge it back up again,” Nicholas said. “I don’t know if the general public is ready for that. But the politicos are certainly ready for that.”

    COVID, measles, and mitigation

    The pandemic was unlike the measles outbreak in Pennsylvania in many ways.

    When the COVID-19 virus started widely spreading in early 2020, the effects and severity for different parts of the population were unknown. Public health officials scrambled to track and contain the virus. For a year, vaccines were not widely available.

    On the other hand, doctors have been writing about measles since at least the ninth century, according to the CDC. And healthcare providers have been required to report the disease to federal authorities since 1912.

    Vaccines, available since the 1960s, are required for children to start school, although Pennsylvania has some of the nation’s most lenient exemption rules. The measles, mumps, and rubella combination shot currently in use is one of the “most-studied vaccines” in part because of misinformation that has circulated about its safety over the last several decades. For example, studies have shown, over and over, that childhood vaccination is not linked to autism.

    Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has sought to upend federal vaccine policy at the helm of the country’s top health agency at a time when rising vaccine hesitancy increasingly divides Republicans and Democrats, and measles outbreaks are resurging.

    Across the country this year, 47 states have reported 2,887 confirmed cases of measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly update last Thursday.

    Pennsylvania’s Department of Health reported 540 cases as of Wednesday. The two “measles-associated deaths” — which state health officials consider as deaths where evidence of measles is present — that were identified by the state last week remained the only such deaths.

    Shapiro’s decision to withhold any identifying information about the cases his administration reported — such as the victims’ ages, or if they had other health conditions — quickly led to an information vacuum that allowed skeptics — including Kennedy — to question the deaths, independent public health experts said. Shapiro’s administration, however, maintains that state law bars the governor from sharing more information about the individual victims.

    Lancaster County Coroner Stephen Diamantoni, an elected Republican and a physician, drew wide attention for saying he did not believe measles contributed to a newborn’s death. Diamantoni said measles was noted as a significant condition “contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause” on the death certificate because the baby tested positive for measles.

    National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharaya, in a Fox News appearance on Saturday, said Shapiro was “politicizing the issue.”

    “What the governor is doing is he’s playing this out over the airwaves for political purposes just like what happened during COVID,” said Bhattacharaya, an appointee of President Donald Trump.

    The pandemic comparisons erupted as Pennsylvania Republicans began to connect the measles outbreak to the regulatory proposal, which is currently being reviewed by the state’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission. The proposal became public on Aug. 8 and is open for public comment until Sept. 21.

    The lengthy document details what the department described as “much needed amendments” to align the state with recommendations from experts like the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    The proposed changes are numerous — including expanding the list of diseases that must be reported to the state and the protocols for pulling children out of school if they contract certain illnesses.

    Instead of the current 24-hour requirement for healthcare practitioners to disclose measles cases, the cases would need to be reported “immediately by telephone” to the state.

    State House Minority Leader Jesse Topper, a Bedford County Republican, compared the regulations to “oppressive COVID-era policies” and called on Shapiro to rescind them. In a statement, he said they would allow the state to interview students in school without notifying their legal guardian.

    Garrity said in her statement Saturday that the regulations would allow the administration to “conduct warrantless searches of private property, access patients’ confidential medical records and require schools to give those officials one-on-one, private access to students.”

    She did not elaborate on which specific regulations raised those concerns when responding to a request for comment from The Inquirer. The Department of Health pushed back on Garrity’s claims as inaccurate.

    Hayes, the CHOP expert, said the regulations are a step toward “further fleshing out” long-used practices like contact tracing, which involves identifying individuals exposed to an infectious case to keep them from infecting more people. Those methods are “really important” in the context of the ongoing measles outbreak, she said, given that measles is so contagious that nine in 10 unvaccinated people will be infected if exposed, and children are especially vulnerable.

    Critics who misrepresent the state’s proposal as a way to invade people’s privacy or take their property is deeply worrying, she said.

    “They’re trying to vilify a work process for controlling infectious outbreaks that has been in place for centuries, and it’s dangerous,” Hayes said.

    COVID flashback

    Under Shapiro’s predecessor, Pennsylvania took an aggressive approach to public safety surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s moves included a requirement that children wear masks in school — a rule later struck down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — and the temporary closure of “nonessential” businesses.

    As attorney general at the time, Shapiro defended the state’s actions in court as his legal duty. In a video that has reemerged and been widely shared since his measles news conference, Shapiro appears with his son to warn the public that “yes, you can” get in trouble for having a gathering at home or in public.

    By March of 2021, just 40% of Pennsylvanians approved of Wolf’s handling of the crisis, according to a Muhlenberg College poll. Shapiro’s eventual opponent, Mastriano, in some ways became the face of the public opposition.

    But as Shapiro campaigned for governor in 2022, he began to distance himself from Wolf’s actions, saying “too many Pennsylvanians could not get the help they needed during COVID,” and government needed to be more responsive — though Republicans continued to tie them together.

    By the summer of that year, Shapiro had fully broken with fellow Democrats on mask and vaccine mandates, saying he opposed them.

    “This is an area where I think folks got it wrong,” Shapiro said of school and business shutdowns, in an August 2022 interview with the Associated Press. “And to me, that’s the approach we need to take more broadly as a public, which is to educate, empower, and respect people’s personal decisions and respect their personal freedom to make those choices.”

    Campaign messaging

    Shapiro’s campaign did not respond to questions about Garrity and others tying his measles response and regulatory proposal to the pandemic — a new messaging strategy in a race where the Republican nominee has at times struggled to find her footing.

    “It feels like this is probably just what’s going to happen for the next 60 days,” said J.J. Abbott, a Democratic consultant and former spokesperson for Wolf.

    Abbott said he believed the criticisms are likely aimed at energizing a base of Republican voters who have not shown the same enthusiasm for Garrity and other GOP candidates as they did in 2024, when Trump won Pennsylvania and Republicans swept the other statewide races.

    Garrity’s statement alludes to some of that potential energy while also contending she showed restraint by waiting for “four days for additional information before issuing a statement about Josh Shapiro’s latest political stunt, despite calls from members of my own base to attack Josh Shapiro.”

    Whether or not voters will be swayed by attacks on Shapiro’s handling of the issue is an open question.

    Shapiro already beat a candidate who ran on nearly the same message on government overreach during a health crisis. That fact, combined with the vast differences between the novel coronavirus and measles, could mean those criticisms largely fall flat with voters, Abbott said.

    “Something that comes off as anti-vaccine for measles isn’t going to be very persuasive or appealing to the vast majority of voters, because most of them are vaccinated and almost all of them get their kids vaccinated,” Abbott said.

    Nicholas, the Republican consultant, said the latest developments had resonated with many conservatives who were still concerned about government overreach during COVID.

    He also pointed to the fact that both Shapiro, during his reelection as attorney general, and Garrity, in her first campaign for treasurer, won campaigns during the pandemic in 2020 and that he wasn’t surprised both sides were bringing up familiar themes six years later.

    “Politicians love things that are familiar,” Nicholas said.

    Staff writer Aubrey Whelan contributed to this article.

    This story was updated to reflect that the governor plans to weigh in on the Department of Health’s proposed regulations once public comment concludes on Sept. 21.

  • Johnny Doc’s prison sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump, his lawyer says

    Johnny Doc’s prison sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump, his lawyer says

    Convicted former Philadelphia labor leader John Dougherty will have his six-year prison term cut short after President Donald Trump agreed to sign a commutation ending the rest of Dougherty’s sentence, according to Dougherty’s lawyer.

    George Bochetto said in an interview Thursday night he’s hopeful that Dougherty, the former city power broker known as Johnny Doc, could be freed from a federal penitentiary in Lewisburg as soon as Friday.

    Bochetto called Trump’s decision “a magnificent gesture of compassion.” He said Trump had signed the commutation Thursday afternoon.

    Records on the Office of Pardon Attorney’s website did not yet reflect a commutation approval as of Thursday night. And the White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Outgoing Pardon Attorney Ed Martin shared a news story about Dougherty’s impending release on social media and added: “Mercy granted by the Mercy President, Donald J. Trump.”

    Trump had denied Dougherty’s bid for a commutation earlier this year, according to that agency’s website. It was not immediately clear why circumstances changed this week.

    For months, Dougherty had been petitioning U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl to be released on house arrest to provide care for his gravely ill wife. But Schmehl had repeatedly denied those efforts, saying in part that Dougherty had failed to demonstrate he was the only person who could serve as an adequate caretaker.

    Prosecutors had opposed Dougherty’s request for similar reasons, and said the two years he spent behind bars of his six-year sentence was not enough time to merit release. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday night.

    A commutation will keep Dougherty’s conviction intact, but allow him to return home to his wife, Cecilia, who Bochetto said was in “a desperate situation.” Bochetto said the act of clemency would also relieve Dougherty of having to pay about $1.6 million in restitution, and that Dougherty would not be subject to any monitoring or house arrest, saying Dougherty, upon release, would be “a free man.”

    Presidents have broad authority to issue pardons and commutations in federal cases, and Trump has shown a willingness to grant them to political allies during his second term in office. But Bochetto said Trump, a Republican, was being particularly gracious in this instance by commuting the sentence of Dougherty, a longtime Democratic stalwart.

    “Our criminal justice system needs to have some compassion,” Bochetto said. “There’s absolutely no reason to keep John Dougherty housed in a country club environment facility in Lewisburg when his wife so desperately needs him.”

    Bochetto said he’d been in regular communication with White House staff members in seeking to free Dougherty, and that his arguments focused on the same issues he used in the bid to receive compassionate release from Schmehl: That Dougherty’s wife, who has long suffered from a debilitating brain injury, has seen her condition worsen significantly since her husband was imprisoned, and that he is the only person equipped to provide the care she needs.

    Dougherty’s prosecution was one of the more significant local criminal cases in recent memory. For years, Dougherty had served as the head of his politically powerful union, Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. And from that perch, he was a certified political kingmaker — an organized labor leader with connections in City Hall and Harrisburg, and a man with the ability to raise funds or impart influence on a variety of issues across the state.

    But in 2024, he was sentenced to six years in prison after being convicted in separate trials — the first in 2021, after a jury found that he had spent years bribing former Philadelphia City Councilmember Bobby Henon, the second in December 2023 over nearly $600,000 he and others embezzled from the union.

    Earlier this year, while testifying before Schmehl, Dougherty revealed just how far away he was in prison from his life as a political power player: He told the judge that nearly all of his time now revolved around his wife, including sending her dozens of letters, using all of his allotted monthly phone minutes to call her, and singing her lullabies over the phone.

    Ryan Boyer, who replaced Dougherty as chair of the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, said he was happy for Dougherty.

    “I don’t think that John should have been arrested for what he did,” Boyer said in an interview Thursday night. “It’s correcting an injustice, and he’ll be welcomed home by a lot of people in the Philadelphia building trades, as well as Philadelphia in general.”

    Boyer said he expects Dougherty will be prohibited under the terms of his release from jumping back into labor and politics right away.

    “With him having a commutation, I think there will be some prohibitions with him getting back involved with labor,” Boyer said.

    But, he added, he doesn’t expect Dougherty to stay away forever.

    “John has a sharp mind,” Boyer said. “If I know John the way I know John, he’s not going to sit on his hands.”

    City Councilmember Jimmy Harrity said in an interview Thursday night he was happy Dougherty would be able to return home to take care of his wife.

    “I’m just happy that he’s going to be able to take care of Celia. I’m just happy for his family,” Harrity said. “I never want to see anybody go to jail, but the bottom line is everybody must pay their dues back. He got in trouble, he went to jail, he did some time.”

    As for whether Dougherty’s release would have an influence on Philly politics going forward, Harrity declined to say.

    “Oh, I don’t even want to speculate on that,” he said. “I have no idea.”

    While some labor leaders cheered the news of Dougherty’s release, one was notably less enthusiastic: Mark Lynch Jr., who succeeded Dougherty as business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98.

    “We don’t spend our time focused on that,” Lynch said in a statement Thursday night, referring to Dougherty’s commutation. “Our focus is on the future of IBEW Local 98 and delivering results for our members.”

    While Lynch often appears at news conferences and Local 98 is still politically influential, he has taken a more under-the-radar approach than his predecessor.

    “Today, our members are working at essentially full employment,” Lynch said in his statement. “We have secured better health, dental and vision benefits while lowering costs to our members. We have negotiated some of the strongest wage increases in the country.”

    Another change: Lynch has lowered the amount that electricians pay into the union’s political committee. Dougherty, on the other hand, was able to build Local 98 into a political powerhouse in no small part by convincing his members to increase their contributions.

    “We are proud of the direction of the organization, and we intend to keep moving forward,” Lynch said.

  • Judge ends Lindsay Clancy trial for the day as jury foreperson says they’re deadlocked over 1 juror

    Judge ends Lindsay Clancy trial for the day as jury foreperson says they’re deadlocked over 1 juror

    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.

  • Elon Musk is throwing his cash around in Pa. again. This time, in support of three GOP lawmakers in swing districts.

    Elon Musk is throwing his cash around in Pa. again. This time, in support of three GOP lawmakers in swing districts.

    Elon Musk is back.

    The richest man in the world, who was laser-focused on delivering Pennsylvania for President Donald Trump in 2024, is wielding his wallet in the Keystone State once again to support Republicans in three swing congressional districts ahead of the midterms.

    America PAC, Musk’s super PAC, has contributed roughly $12,000 apiece in support of U.S. Reps. Ryan Mackenzie, of Lehigh; Rob Bresnahan, of Lackawanna; and Scott Perry, of York — all GOP incumbents facing tough reelection challenges, according to an independent expenditure report filed Wednesday.

    Though small potatoes in comparison, America PAC’s contributions in Pa. come roughly two years after Musk launched his intense and unprecedented efforts to mobilize voters in Pennsylvania for Trump when he spent millions of dollars, hosted a disinformation-filled town hall in Delaware County, and offered $1 million to random voters who signed a petition from his super PAC.

    Republicans lauded Musk for the energy and clout he brought to the campaign trail and it earned him a place in Trump’s inner circle at the time, leading to his turbulent tenure overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency.

    The PAC’s contributions for the congressional races went toward printing at Storytellers Group LLC, a Tennessee-based company, according to the report. He also contributed to several other competitive races across the country.

    Even though Musk is not yet deeply involved in Pennsylvania, the PAC’s spending signifies that the billionaire likely views these three congressional seats as important as both parties vie for control of the U.S. House.

    Elon Musk jumps on the stage as President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at the Butler Farm Show, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa.Evan Vucci

    America PAC and spokespersons for Mackenzie, Bresnahan, and Perry did not immediately return a request for comment.

    The PAC also has yet to make a contribution in support of U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Bucks) will also be defending his seat against Democratic challenger Bob Harvie in a swing district this November.

    The Bucks County Republican already has a massive war chest of his own, far surpassing his GOP counterparts in total fundraising.

    “I think Fitzpatrick is fairly well positioned regardless of what Mr. Musk does or does not do,” said Christopher Nicholas, a GOP consultant.

    But the three GOP incumbents benefiting from Musk’s latest spending all lagged their Democratic challengers in fundraising during the most recent quarter. And Tesla and SpaceX’s CEO’s support could help close the gap.

    Musk has become a figure of scorn for Pennsylvania Democrats, and the challengers of Mackenzie, Bresnahan, and Perry all criticized his involvement in their respective races.

    Bob Brooks, a retired firefighter and union leader who is challenging Mackenzie, seen as one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the nation, said in a statement that Musk is “spending a fortune to buy this congressional seat” in the Lehigh Valley.

    “I have a message for Elon and Ryan: Pennsylvania’s Seventh district is not for sale,” he said.

    A spokesperson for former TV news anchor Janelle Stelson, who is running in a rematch against Perry in the 10th District, said that: “Scott Perry lacks the courage to highlight Musk’s efforts to increase corruption in our government, so now Musk is rewarding Perry for his subservience.”

    And in the 8th Congressional District, Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti said: “Unlike Rob, I don’t take a dime of corporate PAC money.”

    “In Congress, I’ll answer to the people of NEPA, and no one else,” she said.

    Staff Writer Sam Janesch contributed reporting.

  • Republicans fear Trump will keep super PAC money and not spend on the midterms

    Republicans fear Trump will keep super PAC money and not spend on the midterms

    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.”

  • ICE skipped basic checks in rush for recruits, whistleblower says

    ICE skipped basic checks in rush for recruits, whistleblower says

    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 DAVIS
    FILE — 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 HOLSTON
    FILE — 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
  • Trump again appeals to Supreme Court on mail-voting restrictions with midterm elections looming

    Trump again appeals to Supreme Court on mail-voting restrictions with midterm elections looming

    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.

    The high court’s conservative majority previously allowed the president’s plan to move ahead, but they have not decided whether it is legal.

    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.

    Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

    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.

  • Trump administration pushes to remove tax exemption for private colleges with DEI policies

    Trump administration pushes to remove tax exemption for private colleges with DEI policies

    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.

  • A federal judge has blocked Trump’s second try to restrict birthright citizenship

    A federal judge has blocked Trump’s second try to restrict birthright citizenship

    A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked much of President Donald Trump’s latest effort to withhold citizenship from babies born in the United States to noncitizen parents, ruling that the Supreme Court had already settled questions reopened by an executive order Trump signed in August.

    While the decision was limited to children born after Feb. 19, 2025, including those born in the future, Judge Deborah L. Boardman wrote that the order would likely affect babies the Supreme Court had already defined as citizens. The ruling delivered a sharp rejection of the president’s renewed efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in July that a previous, more sweeping, executive order from 2025 was unconstitutional.

    “No presidential executive order can undo what the Supreme Court has done,” she wrote.

    Boardman’s order took a dim view of the Trump administration’s reasoning, which she characterized as a thinly veiled attempt to get around the Supreme Court’s decision. She wrote that the president and others named in the lawsuit “completely misread” the majority’s opinion and embraced a “distorted interpretation” of its conclusions.

    In a 35-page opinion, she described the latest order as only the most recent attempt to curtail birthright citizenship by any means that could survive legal scrutiny.

    “Since his second term in office began on January 20, 2025, the president has tried, through executive order, to upend our country’s longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship and eliminate, for large swaths of Americans, the right to citizenship by birth, a right enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote.

    Boardman described a number of ways that children covered by the lawsuit could have their citizenship rescinded, including if the Trump administration moved to label their parents members of terrorist groups or “alien enemies” under arbitrary legal determinations. She cited a pattern in which the administration has accused Venezuelan nationals of being affiliated with the criminal organization Tren de Aragua, often without evidence, in deportation proceedings.

    While she stressed that it was too soon to find that the order itself was unconstitutional, she wrote that it already appeared clear that it was unconstitutional as applied to the class of babies defined when immigration groups initially sued last year to block Trump’s first order.

    The order this year had included other measures to create novel categories of babies that could be disqualified from citizenship, including those born to parents engaged in so-called “birth tourism,” through which mothers deliberately traveled to the United States to give birth.

    It was unclear how the Trump administration planned to tag those it suspected of traveling to the United States to have their children. But Boardman noted that the executive order was broad, describing anyone who engaged in a “commercial transaction” — such as purchasing a plane ticket — as traveling to access birthright citizenship.

    The Supreme Court’s decision upholding birthright citizenship “is the law of the land,” Boardman wrote. “The President must follow it.”

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • History offers hope for the future of an independent military newspaper

    History offers hope for the future of an independent military newspaper

    On Aug. 21, the Pentagon abruptly terminated Max Lederer, Erik Slavin and Lara Korte, the publisher, editor-in-chief and Middle East correspondent for the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes.

    The Department of Defense justified the firings on the vague grounds of “insubordination,” but in a recent interview, Korte pointed to remarks that the journalists made in a July 5 CBS News segment as the cause for their termination.

    In the interview, Korte had bluntly stated, “I’m working for Stars and Stripes. Not for the Pentagon, not for any administration, not for any policymaker, I am here to cover the military community.” Her notice of termination highlighted these comments. Similarly, Slavin’s notice of termination singled out that he had pledged that a demand from the military not to publish a “perfectly accurate story” would constitute a “red line.”

    Though abrupt, the firings are simply the latest development in an intensifying battle between the Department of Defense and Stars and Stripes’ journalists, who seek to maintain the paper’s editorial independence. In January 2026, the Pentagon announced that it would reform the outlet by removing “woke distractions” and Associated Press reprints. In April, the DOD fired Jacqueline Smith, the paper’s ombudsman.

    With Lederer and Slavin removed, the administration has installed Navy Captain William Urban — a “communication professional” with no formal journalism experience — as deputy publisher.

    Collectively, the Pentagon’s recent moves have constituted an aggressive attack on the editorial integrity of Stars and Stripes; Urban’s appointment does not bode well for the newspaper’s independence. Yet, history suggests that the fight isn’t over. In the past, Stars and Stripes reporters and American troops have checked the Pentagon’s interference by drawing the public’s attention to military overreach and heightened censorship.

    Guy T. Viskniskki, a U.S. Army Officer and member of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), established Stars and Stripes during World War I. General John J. Pershing, the commanding general of the (AEF), quickly endorsed the new publication. In 1918, he issued a directive ordering that military officials abstain from interfering with the paper. This order, however, proved difficult to enforce.

    Though Congress authorized funding for the publication, it has always been housed within the DOD, giving the Pentagon the ability to interfere and exert authority over Stars and Stripes. Consequently, throughout its long history, the newspaper has intermittently struggled against military interference. The unpopularity of the Vietnam War brought frictions between the paper and the military to a breaking point.

    In the late 1960s, military officials attempted to use the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s Office of Information (M.A.C.O.I.) to pressure Stars and Stripes reporters into softening stories or shelving them entirely. When the paper ignored these “suggestions,” the relationship between the military command and Stars and Stripes journalists grew tense. One military official infamously labeled the newspaper the “Hanoi Herald” — a reference to its frequently unfavorable combat reports.

    To cut down on the unflattering coverage, the military distanced itself from the journalists; reporters were excluded from news briefings and left in the dark about visits from prominent politicians (including President Richard Nixon, who made a surprise visit to South Vietnam in July 1969).

    Events took a turn for the worse when the paper’s editor — Colonel Peter Sweers — retired and was replaced by the pro-M.A.C.O.I. Colonel William Koch. Sweers had led a team of highly educated civilian and military reporters, many of whom had professional journalism experience and were committed to preserving journalistic integrity.

    Under Koch, however, Stars and Stripes’ policies changed significantly. The new editor forced reporters to wear military uniforms, a change that identified them as enlisted men to higher-ups, thus reinforcing military hierarchies. Additionally, Koch moved the paper’s news bureau out of Saigon to a remote location, effectively removing the journalists from the center of the action, and encouraged his reporters to focus on features, not news stories. Military directives, such as the “Let’s Say It Right” policy, forced reporters to replace straightforward language with euphemisms — “Viet Cong tax collectors became extortionists and search-and-destroy missions became search-and-clear missions.”

    Yet, as the military exerted more power over Stars and Stripes, American troops began pushing back. In October 1969, Private David Dugger, a 21-year-old rifleman from Georgia, told the New York Times, “They’re just not telling it like it is.” Dugger complained that “[l]ots of times we’ve been kicked around by Charlie [the Viet Cong]. But it always comes out sounding like nothing more than a skirmish after the editors are through with it.”

    Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff

    A few months later, in April 1970, Robert Hodierne — a recently returned Army veteran and a former reporter for Stars and Stripes — published a story in the New York Times chronicling the deterioration of the newspaper’s independence. While it had once been “the one place that GIs could sometimes read about the shooting, bleeding, bombing, gassing, dying, and killing [of the war],” Hodierne wrote, the paper was no longer a reliable source of news.

    The news report quoted Pat Luminello, Stars and Stripes’ civilian bureau chief, who lamented that the military clearly wanted “a pap sheet in which they could air their views and prevent even a hint that all was not wine and roses on the war front.” When news of Hodierne’s piece reached military officials, Koch promptly terminated Luminello, ushering in a period of heightened censorship for Stars and Stripes.

    The firing ignited another round of controversy. That month, the GI-produced, underground-style magazine Grunt Free Press weighed in. In an editorial titled “Should the Troops Get All the News?” the magazine invited GIs to debate the issue. Voicing the “Yes” side, one GI posed a salient question: “If students can tell college presidents the curriculum is lousy and irrelevant, if civil rights marchers can demand more integration, then why shouldn’t a young soldier be allowed enough information to evaluate his establishment, the military?”

    The 1970 censorship episode ended inconclusively. After his firing, Luminello reached out to the House’s freedom of information subcommittee with a five-page list chronicling the military’s various attempts to censor Stars and Stripes. While the subcommittee didn’t force any changes, that didn’t deter the champions of an independent Stars and Stripes.

    Two years later, Sweers, the retired editor, proposed instituting a civilian review board to monitor and check military oversteps. “The chief editor at PS&S,” Sweers explained, “would then know his performance would be regularly examined by a group of leading professionals whose opinions would carry weight with Congress.”

    Congress didn’t immediately adopt Sweers’ recommendation, but over time, the demands of Luminello, Sweers, the troops and subsequent Stars and Stripes reporters and service members paid off. In 1991, Congress created the position of ombudsman for the newspaper. The ombudsman was tasked with monitoring the paper’s editorial independence and reporting concerns to Congress. Since the April firing of Smith, however, the position has remained vacant.

    Today, the question posed by Grunt Free Press in 1970 remains unanswered. Stars and Stripes is a military newspaper intended to give the troops access to the very rights they fight to defend — including their right to a free and independent press. Yet, recurring episodes of heightened censorship, from the Vietnam era to the present day, prove that this freedom is fragile.

    The escalating efforts seem to suggest that Stars and Stripes’ future is bleak. Yet, hope can be found by looking at the response of employees and troops who didn’t back down during the Vietnam War and subsequent periods of military censorship.

    These individuals brought the story of Pentagon interference to the public’s attention and pushed for Congress to make tangible changes to safeguard the newspaper’s independence. Although it took years of pushing, eventually these efforts resulted in the creation of the ombudsman role. It was a reminder that, when troops and journalists resist censorship, Stars and Stripes can regain its independence, even if it’s a slow process.

    Addison M. Jensen is an assistant professor of history at Montana State University. She is currently at work on a monograph titled, “News from ‘The World’: Media, Counterculture, and the American Military in Vietnam,” which uses media and popular culture to examine the experiences of American service members alongside their awareness of the stateside countercultural movements of the era.

    Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Inquirer.